Forum Topic

Hush Hush

Hey, we have a really popular artisan bakery on the High Road. Hounslow Council - shut it down.One of the spurious reasons is that it is less than 400m from a primary school. I give you Subway which is much closer.

Carl Wynne ● 2267d35 Comments

The grotesque incompetence and indeed what seems to be a vendetta against Chiswick by remote and unaccountable LBH officials is astonishing.I would encourage all sensible residents to follow the front page plea of the owner of Marmalade and complete the traffic consultation and call for the immediate end of the closure of TGT. Lets try and save our shops.

Paul Green ● 2267d

It's also next door to Gail's. Scandalous decision!

Robert Fish ● 2267d

The restrictions on cafes near schools was introduced by the government in their efforts to tackle obesity. It doesn't apply retrospectively. The council planners have no choice but to implement the law as it stands.

Francis Rowe ● 2266d

Before you all go into an anti-LBH tirade the fact is that the emerging London Plan includes a policy that seeks to prevent all new hot food takeaways within 400 metres walking distance of schools, be it primary or secondary schools.Most London authorities have identical policies within their adopted local plans (Lambeth and Richmond are extremely 'difficult' on such matters for instance), and as the consultant for one of the big fast food outlets the very first thing I look at when they come to me with a prospective site is how close the nearest school is.Absurd as it sounds, in planning terms Subway is the same use as a retail shop due to the very low level of cooking that takes places at the premises - there are numerous planning appeals relating to that. Plus of course Subway haven't just opened, and the regional policy position (as set out within the London Plan) is very clear regarding new hot food takeaways close to existing schools.The agents for this particular application are one of the big boys and they know what the London Plan policy says, they even briefly acknowledge it within their planning statement.  And I suspect they deliberately kept that reference brief because there's absolutely no doubt that the nearest school is less than 400 metres away (it's less than 290 metres).Stressing that it is a fundamental principle of planning law that the identity of the applicant isn't a material consideration, this application has to be treated in the same way it would be treated as if McDonalds, KFC or Burger King were the applicant, because the use proposed by the application is identical.There are arguments in support of the proposal and I don't think it's a lost cause, but that's for the applicant and their 'big boy' consultants to sort out !.

Adam Beamish ● 2266d

Every now and then the law is an ass!

Jennifer Selig ● 2266d

Indeed Francis, it's the A5 hot food takeaway element of the application which is the problem, and as submitted the application (which proposes a mixed restaurant and hot food takeaway use) contradicts emerging London Plan policy E9.Gails isn't a hot food takeaway.I've little doubt that if this application had been submitted by the likes of McD's, KFC or such like, there would be a similar front page article about how 100+ residents (and I'm not exaggerating because I'm involved in so many projects involving A5 uses) are up in arms because a fast food establish wants to open up within walking distance of their childrens school, in direct conflict with the regional development plan.You can't have it both ways.

Adam Beamish ● 2266d

Sorry Adam, I think you can, and the law and planning regulations should be able to differentiate between those selling fairly unhealthy food and those selling a broader range of healthier options. I have no particular axe to grind and dont visit any of these shops. But to lump fast food outlets and this new venture together makes no sense.

Paul Green ● 2266d

But Paul, the applicants have applied to operate a mixed restaurant and hot food takeaway (their choice, they didn't have to apply for that), and as I say the identity of the applicant isn't a material planning consideration.So it is what it is, the legislation has been this way for decades and I've no doubt the applicants knew this from the outset. 

Adam Beamish ● 2266d

How do they measure distance to school? I make 5 guys which is a new establishment and which serves takeaway to be less than 400 metres away from Belmont if that is the school in question.5 guys obviously do hot food takeaway,  so why is this bakery disadvantaged? Perhaps its because its a new licence whereas 5 guys is occupying the American eatery before it but still surely a common sense approach should be taken.

Matthew Swain ● 2266d

I see Hush Hush as a more desirable addition than 5 Guys, but the former involves a change of use, the latter no change.

Robert Fish ● 2266d

All madness. Planning is an arid science in my opinion . I am extremely cynical . All silly rules that the average person cannot comprehend. Too many vested interests in local councils  . Given the state of CHR its amazing that anyone is brave enough to take on this unit for whatever use. LBH would have a commercial ratepayer . Anyway Mr B knows i dont like planners so i best up shut. I thought our Rulers were going to change planning  .

John Martin ● 2266d

Agreed Matthew re. common sense, but its for the applicants to robustly set out their arguments.I'm not going to say anything more about such arguments because I'm not the one instructed by the applicant, and I'm not going to be charitable and post free advice on here which a competitor might use.  Next time the applicant might come to me first ;-)Five Guys will (and I am speculating) argue that their level of takeaway trade is ancillary to the primary use of the premises as a restaurant, and hence the lawful use of their premises remains unchanged from restaurant.  Plus at the present time there is a 12 month permitted development right in place (due to covid) to use a premises in lawful use as a restaurant or public house to trade as a hot food takeaway - that right expires in March 2021 after which planning permission will again be need for a restaurant to offer a takeaway facility which is more than 'ancillary' to the primary use.But in this particular case by their own application the applicants have acknowledged that their proposed hot food takeaway use is more than ancillary.

Adam Beamish ● 2266d

As most people gain weight during lockdown it cannot be takeaways causing children to be obese.

Janice Evans ● 2266d

There are many take away fast food shops opposite Kew House School, most notably a fried chicken place called "What the Cluck" which is quite literally across the road and visible from the school windows. Why is this allowed yet a shop like Hush Hush selling healthy food and completely invisible from Belmont School is not? Personally I would be ecstatic if I had children at Belmont and they bought take away from Hush Hush!

Chris Blackwell ● 2266d

Also somebody mentioned Subway being closer to Belmont than Hush Hush but Greggs is even closer.

Chris Blackwell ● 2266d

I'm not going to go through what the Planning Use Class of every different premises is but Greggs are not, in planning terms, an A5 hot food takeaway.  They trade under A1 (retail) on the basis that there is very limited cooking done on the premises (solely reheating) and the level of sales relating to hot food purchases is ancillary to the sale of cold food (sandwiches etc.) for consumption off the premises, with the latter falling within A1 Use Class.'What The Cluck' at 7 Stilehall Parade has been there for years (under another name), long before Kew House School came along.

Adam Beamish ● 2266d

Read the thread.

Anne England ● 2266d

My point is I find it ridiculous that a shop selling healthy food that realistically children are never going to buy is lumped into the same category as Greggs, Subway and What the Cluck. Does nobody at Hounslow have any common sense? Surely we should be encouraging new enterprises at this time not shutting them down on a technicality?

Chris Blackwell ● 2266d

"Does nobody at Hounslow have any common sense?"Probably not, but as Adam has been pointing out, they nevertheless have to follow the rules, which don't discriminate between what you call "healthy food" and what you would presumably classify as 'unhealthy food'.

Richard Greenhough ● 2266d

Indeed, I wish people would read my posts thoroughly.LBH do not have a local planning policy relating to the proximity of new hot food takeaways to existing schools.  Many local authorities in London do, e.g. Lambeth and Richmond.  So if this application was in those Boroughs it would be treated precisely the same.Despite LBH not having a local policy, the development plan includes the London Plan, which has already been through independent examination and found to be 'sound', the only obstacle preventing its adoption being the thorny issue of housing supply.  So LBH is duty bound to give significant weight to the London Plan and its policies, with Policy E9 explicitly stating that applications involving the introduction of a new hot food takeaway within 400 metres of an existing primary or secondary school should not be approved.The applicants have decided that either now or in the future, they want to trade as a mixed use comprising both a restaurant and hot food takeaway.  Under planning law the application has to be determined on the basis of the use being applied for, not upon the particular character or identity of the end user.Hence in this case it's unfair to have a pop at LBH.  The applicant knew, or should have known (given it has a major planning consultancy acting on its behalf) what the risks were when submitting this application.

Adam Beamish ● 2266d

Two points.Just how "healthy" is the food at Hush Hush? (genuine question)I've not been in, but as well as advertising "salads", they also promote their pies, pastries and quiches etc - none of which sound very "healthy" to me (lots of sugar, fat, eggs and cheese etc).And their photo on the front page has a tray piled high with croissants and pains au chocolat. I can only assume they use butter to make these, as "non-dairy vegetable-based spread" really doesn't cut it if you call yourself an "Artisan Baker"!Meanwhile, if their Lattes and Cappucino's are similar to other coffee shops, esp in cup size, then I just hope they print the calorie count on their menu - a lot of people whould be in for a shock if they knew just how "cal-horrific" such drinks often are.Anyhow, while I like that sort of stuff as much as the next person, it is only as an occasional treat, for "healthy" it ain't!Oh and the other point - thank goodness for Adam Beamish: he has both the expertise to know what he's talking about, and the patience to keep repeating it for those who don't!

Richard Cathcart ● 2266d

I popped into Hush Hush earlier and was told that even if the change of use wasn't granted they could still continue operating because the food can be prepared off site which the current class of usage allows them to do.

Felicity Caborn ● 2266d

So they have to add delivery costs to their prices, and will be adding to the traffic congestion and air pollution (I assume they don't use an electric delivery vehicle) close to the school ? Sounds like the planning rules are really not achieving anything useful here.

Richard Greenhough ● 2266d

Hmm, it's unlikely to be that simple.  After all the Cafe Nero at 192 CHR doesn't trade under either the current A1 or A3 Use Classes, but as a sui generis use comprising elements of both A1 and A3 (following the findings of an Inspector back in the early noughties when some of the Chiswick folk were kicking up about the amount of coffee shops on the High Road).It'll boil down to a matter of fact and degree, but I doubt (including having regard to the imminent changes to the Use Classes Order) that Hush Hush's activity will fall within solely either A1 (retail) or A3 (restaurant) usage.But only they know how they'll operate !.

Adam Beamish ● 2266d

Sadly there is so much twaddle. I had a ridiculous battle with LBE where they lost hands down and it cost them 20k in my costs[ they had to pay] but they did not care as they thought they could bully us into submission . They had allowed us to use our premises in writing residentially and then issued an enforcement notice. Fortunately their incompetence manifested itself in their arrogance but would they apologise. No . Thats the problem . I always remember their very dim legal in house lady was terribly worried as the clock reached 5pm and we were still debating . Says it all . Salary pension inept

John Martin ● 2266d

But it's like any profession John, there's good planners and there's poor planners.  In my experience there's much more of a 'hiding place' for poor planners at local authorities, but at the same time there's some extremely good planners at local authorities who are happy working in the public sector for their entire careers.  And by the same token I've come across consultants dealing with both planning and other disciplines within the private sector and I'm baffled why anyone would use them.10 years was enough for me in the public sector (for various reasons, including having to work with some idiots), and I wouldn't return for all the money in the world, but each to their own.  Furthermore, arguably without that first 10 years of my planning career being spent in the public sector I wouldn't be where I am today.I frequently get costs awarded against local authorities at appeal  on behalf of clients and part of me despairs at why Councils behave like they do sometimes, and based on my experience it usually happens when Officers, wherever their position in the hierarchy, are unable to admit they've made a fundamental error - so I entirely concur with you in that regard.Just going back to Hush Hush, I've heard from someone in the know late this afternoon that the applicant for the restaurant and takeaway application isn't actually the current operator, which does rather fit because I couldn't work out why an artisan bakery would be applying to operate a hot food takeaway.Although the comments which had been added this afternoon from Hush Hush within the front page article don't make that clear !.But that is perfectly 'normal' behaviour - although as I say the identity of the intended end operator isn't a material planning consideration, clients will sometimes insist that I apply for a hot food takeaway use in the name of the landlord or even my own company name, to avoid the scenario whereby the local residents come out in force because the applicant is one of the major fast food retailers.

Adam Beamish ● 2266d

Felicity, not sure that is a good thing, how is hygiene check if its cook elsewhere.

Janice Evans ● 2265d

I've been asked about a quote from me that the council supplied for the article on this case. I'm happy to clarify that planning enforcement officers are simply doing their job in ensuring that the current and planned activities at the premises are in line with the approved use class. If they are then there's no reason why the current business would need to close or cease to operate. Officers will be in touch with the business to provide advice on this matter.

Katherine Dunne ● 2265d

Yes Councillor but I think you're missing the point - from what I've been told the current occupiers are not the applicants for the current planning application which proposes a mixed use comprising a restaurant and hot food takeaway.Indeed, the supporting planning statement confirms that it is the owner of the premises who is applying for mixed A3/A5 use.  What one individual/company applies for and how a current occupier is using the same premises are 2 wholly different things.It certainly doesn't appear that the use currently taking place at the premises is a mixed use comprising a restaurant and hot food takeaway.

Adam Beamish ● 2265d

"It certainly doesn't appear that the use currently taking place at the premises is a mixed use comprising a restaurant and hot food takeaway."Agreed, I haven't suggested it is.

Katherine Dunne ● 2265d

Didn't you say "This particular premises is currently the subject of scrutiny by our planning enforcement team who will be in touch with the relevant parties when they have made their decision" ?!Planning Enforcement can't enforce or investigate what might happen in the future, so the mere fact the Enforcement Team is supposedly "scrutinising" the premises means they have to be investigating the existing use.Bizarre in the extreme...what did I say about how I wouldn't return to the public sector for all the money in the world ?!.

Adam Beamish ● 2265d

The point, though, is that your comment in the article implies an unauthorised change of use when there isn't one.  The current occupant is trading exactly as allowed in this shop - an A1 trader in A1 premises.  There is a separate application, unconnected with the current occupant, to change the premises to A3 and that is down for refusal.  Neither of those positions deserves criticism or investigation.  No-one is in breach of regulations. A new arrival on Chiswick High Road - trading legally - has been incorrectly drawn into a muddle that should never have occurred.  The language you used "unauthorised change of use", "subject to a planning enforcement investigation" "the subject of scrutiny" "we take breaches very seriously" "very strong record in addressing them" and other comments are wrongly placed.  There is no change of use.  There is no breach. This denigration of a new and legitimately trading business does not benefit our community.  I asked if you could alter your comments to reflect the facts but you said you would not.  You have posted here but the article remains as is - incorrect and affecting a business that is trading legally. Meanwhile, I hope no-one will be put off from buying from Hush Hush Chefs.  I bought a delicious spinach and feta in filo pastry pie plus two excellent salads on Saturday - enough for two suppers or (as it worked out for me) three lunches. Your purchase will support a pop-up trader - trading legally - who is testing the Chiswick market.  It's a valuable-to-us use of empty premises and I'll be back to buy more.

Joanna Biddolph ● 2265d

Sounds like the Labour councillor for Syon is unfamiliar with what is going on on Chiswick High Road, just as her colleague Hanif Khan of Hanworth Park seems to have little knowledge of the impact his road closures in Chiswick are having or are likely to have.

Richard Greenhough ● 2265d

Adam, I have found your explanations on here to be helpful. I hope other have too. As you say yourself, "The applicants have decided that either now or in the future, they want to trade as a mixed use comprising both a restaurant and hot food takeaway."Regardless of the applicants, in such circumstances it obviously makes sense to scrutinise the current and intended use so ensure that it is in line with the decision by planning officers.

Katherine Dunne ● 2265d

Katherine, I'm sorry but the current use of the premises has no relevance whatsoever to the proposed use.When I wrote my various posts yesterday I wasn't aware precisely who the applicant was - I then got a call from someone 'in the know' late yesterday clarifying that the applicant isn't the current occupiers, and I then shared that clarification on here.It is a total waste of Council resources (and given my background I am well placed to know how stretched the planning enforcement resources of Councils are) to ask the Planning Enforcement Team to investigate the current use.It is utterly and completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is the determination of a planning application proposed mixed A3/A5 use of the premises.Suffice to say if I was, perish the thought, still working in local government I'd be telling you that I wsan't going to waste my team's resources on something that is nothing to do with them" - which ironically was precisely the reason I walked out of the public sector.Perhaps you can ask the powers that be at LBH to approach me to provide planning training in Members ?!.

Adam Beamish ● 2265d