Drive-thru restaurant at Land North Of Town Street, Stanningley, Pudsey

What local people said

There were 56 supporting and 57 opposing comments, with support for jobs and regeneration and objections about traffic, health, litter, noise and safety.

“March 2025. A total of 113 comments have been received in response to the application, 56 letters in support, and 57 objecting. Comments in Support: 26.The following points have been raised in support of the application: • Will be good for the community by creating new jobs and having this area utilised rather than vacant. • Proposal would regenerate the local area. • Would mean people do not have to travel elsewhere. • Would tidy up an unsightly site.”

“27.The following points have been raised in objection to the application: • Increase in traffic and congestion; • Would be a hazard to cyclists; • Lack of parking; • Proposal would encourage increased car usage; • The access road is too narrow; • Impact on school buses; • Impact due to Uber Easts / Just Eat delivery drivers; • Impact on local environment; • Housing would be a better use of the land or greenspace; • Need more affordable housing; • Don’t need another unhealthy fast food…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Ward Members opposed the application, Councillor Ritchie addressed the Panel, and the applicant’s representatives answered questions about transport, litter, employment and operations.

What members discussed

Members discussed health, nearby fast-food outlets, traffic and queuing, the crossing, trees, litter, delivery bikes and the nearby school and housing.

“Members raised concern regarding there being other fast-food outlets / retail stores being nearby selling what is deemed as ‘unhealthy food’. It was noted that the location of the development is not within a concentration or cluster as per paragraphs 97 (a) and (b) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policy HFT2 of the Hot Food Takeaway Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and there is no evidence to suggest there are specific health, pollution or…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The Panel deferred approval to the Chief Planning Officer, subject to local employment measures and monitoring the litter-picking area so it could be extended if needed.

“In summarising, the Group Manager (Area Planning) proposed an alternative motion in that the application is deferred to the Chief Planning Officer for approval, subject to a Unilateral agreement / condition being met to secure local employment initiatives, as well as an additional condition to extend the litter picking zone.”

Minutes