Restaurant alterations at The Woodlands, 217 Wrotham Road, Gravesend

The site and surroundings

The site was in a largely residential area, near a public park and two schools, with no physical or amenity impact expected on neighbours.

“The site was in a largely residential area, with a public park located to the south and in the close proximity of two schools. • Alterations would allow for the relocation of the entrance to the main façade of the building and the rear extension would include a rear entrance to accommodate deliveries. • The proposed design was considered acceptable in terms of design and the was no physical or amenity impact on neighbouring properties.”

Minutes

What officers recommended

Officers recommended delegated refusal because the proposal would add takeaway use near schools and lacked information needed to assess bats.

“The Local Planning Authority consider that the proposed operational development would result in a material change of use from an E(b) restaurant to a mixed-use E(b) restaurant and sui generis takeaway. This would be within walking distance of schools and other locations where young people congregate, it does not promote healthy eating and would exacerbate existing high levels of obesity within the area.”

“There is insufficient information submitted within the application to determine the presence of bats within the site. In the absence of this information, the proposal fails to fully assess the impact on protected wildlife species, contrary to Policy CS12 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. _________________________________________________________________________”

Officer report

What people said

Speakers opposed the application because takeaway food could undermine school health plans and raise concerns about obesity, safety and delivery vehicles.

“St George’s School promoted health eating for students in line with government guidance and was conscious of the childhood obesity crisis. There was concern that the close proximity of MacDonald would counteract the school’s healthy eating plan.”

“Planning Committee 1.07.2026 4 • At least 59% of St George’s students walked to school and would take 2.5 minutes to walk from the school to the site. • Safeguarding of students was of great concern with the potential for increased anti- social behaviour and potential of unlicenced vehicles providing delivery services that could pose a safety risk to students.”

Minutes

Who spoke

Three speakers opposed the application, while ward councillors and other non-board council members also addressed the committee.

Members’ concerns

Members were concerned about the health impact on young people and significant littering, and asked for stronger reasons.

“The Committee discussed the application further in which Members highlighted concerns in regard to the health impact of the proposal to young people in the local vicinity and the significant issue of littering. The Committee asked that the recommendation be strengthened to incorporate their concerns.”

Minutes

The committee decision

The committee authorised delegated refusal in consultation with the Chair, citing unhealthy eating and obesity, littering, traffic and highways, and missing bat information.

“RESOLVED that the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE planning permission in consultation with the Chair, to encompass the reasons of refusal considered by Planning Committee, which include: • The proposal would be contrary to paragraph 97 a) of the National Planning Policy Framework. • Obesity/Unhealthy heating • Littering • Traffic/Highways • Insufficient information submitted within the application to determine the presence of bats within the site…”

Minutes