Regulatory mechanisms to create healthier environments: planning appeals and hot food takeaways in England.

IF 3.5 4区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Perspectives in Public Health Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-12 DOI:10.1177/17579139231187492
C L O'Malley, A A Lake, H J Moore, N Gray, C Bradford, C Petrokofsky, A Papadaki, S Spence, S Lloyd, M Chang, T G Townshend
{"title":"Regulatory mechanisms to create healthier environments: planning appeals and hot food takeaways in England.","authors":"C L O'Malley, A A Lake, H J Moore, N Gray, C Bradford, C Petrokofsky, A Papadaki, S Spence, S Lloyd, M Chang, T G Townshend","doi":"10.1177/17579139231187492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To explore existing regulatory mechanisms to restrict hot food takeaway (HFT) outlets through further understanding processes at local and national levels.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Planning Appeals Portal was utilised to identify recent HFT appeal cases across England between December 2016 and March 2020. Eight case study sites were identified using a purposive sampling technique and interviews carried out with 12 professionals involved in planning and health to explore perceptions of and including factors that may impact on the HFT appeal process. Additionally, documents applicable to each case were analysed and a survey completed by seven Local Authority (LA) health professionals. To confirm findings, interpretation meetings were conducted with participants and a wider group of planning and public health professionals, including a representative from the Planning Inspectorate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight case study sites were identified, and 12 interviews conducted. Participants perceived that LAs would be better able to work on HFT appeal cases if professionals had a good understanding of the planning process/the application of local planning policy and supplementary planning documents; adequate time and capacity to deal with appeals cases; access to accurate, robust, and up to date information; support and commitment from elected members and senior management; good lines of communication with local groups/communities interested in the appeal; information and resources that are accessible and easy to interpret across professional groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Communication across professional groups appeared to be a key factor in successfully defending decisions. Understanding the impact of takeaway outlets on health and communities in the long term was also important. To create a more robust appeals case and facilitate responsiveness, professionals involved in an appeal should know where to locate current records and statistical data. The enthusiasm of staff and support from senior management/elected officials will play a significant role in driving these agendas forward.</p>","PeriodicalId":47256,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Public Health","volume":" ","pages":"313-323"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10683341/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives in Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17579139231187492","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: To explore existing regulatory mechanisms to restrict hot food takeaway (HFT) outlets through further understanding processes at local and national levels.

Methods: The Planning Appeals Portal was utilised to identify recent HFT appeal cases across England between December 2016 and March 2020. Eight case study sites were identified using a purposive sampling technique and interviews carried out with 12 professionals involved in planning and health to explore perceptions of and including factors that may impact on the HFT appeal process. Additionally, documents applicable to each case were analysed and a survey completed by seven Local Authority (LA) health professionals. To confirm findings, interpretation meetings were conducted with participants and a wider group of planning and public health professionals, including a representative from the Planning Inspectorate.

Results: Eight case study sites were identified, and 12 interviews conducted. Participants perceived that LAs would be better able to work on HFT appeal cases if professionals had a good understanding of the planning process/the application of local planning policy and supplementary planning documents; adequate time and capacity to deal with appeals cases; access to accurate, robust, and up to date information; support and commitment from elected members and senior management; good lines of communication with local groups/communities interested in the appeal; information and resources that are accessible and easy to interpret across professional groups.

Conclusions: Communication across professional groups appeared to be a key factor in successfully defending decisions. Understanding the impact of takeaway outlets on health and communities in the long term was also important. To create a more robust appeals case and facilitate responsiveness, professionals involved in an appeal should know where to locate current records and statistical data. The enthusiasm of staff and support from senior management/elected officials will play a significant role in driving these agendas forward.

创造更健康环境的监管机制:英格兰的规划呼吁和热食外卖。
目的:通过进一步了解地方和国家层面的流程,探索现有的限制热食外卖(HFT)门店的监管机制。方法:利用规划上诉门户网站确定2016年12月至2020年3月期间英格兰各地最近的高频交易上诉案件。采用有目的抽样技术确定了8个案例研究地点,并与参与规划和卫生的12名专业人员进行了访谈,以探讨对可能影响高频交易申诉程序的因素的看法并包括这些因素。此外,对适用于每个病例的文件进行了分析,并由7名地方当局卫生专业人员完成了一项调查。为了确认调查结果,与与会者和更广泛的规划和公共卫生专业人员,包括规划监察局的一名代表举行了解释会议。结果:确定了8个案例研究地点,进行了12次访谈。与会者认为,如果专业人士对规划程序/本地规划政策和补充规划文件的应用有充分的了解,那么安联就能更好地处理高频交易上诉案件;有足够的时间和能力处理上诉案件;获得准确、可靠和最新的信息;当选成员和高级管理人员的支持和承诺;与对呼吁有兴趣的本地团体/社区保持良好的沟通渠道;信息和资源是可访问的,并且易于跨专业团体解释。结论:专业团体之间的沟通似乎是成功捍卫决策的关键因素。了解外卖店对健康和社区的长期影响也很重要。为了创建一个更有力的申诉案例并促进响应,参与申诉的专业人员应该知道在哪里找到当前记录和统计数据。工作人员的热情和高级管理人员/民选官员的支持将在推动这些议程方面发挥重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Perspectives in Public Health
Perspectives in Public Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
1.70%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Perspectives in Public Health is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal. It is practice orientated and features current topics and opinions; news and views on current health issues; case studies; book reviews; letters to the Editor; as well as updates on the Society"s work. The journal also commissions articles for themed issues and publishes original peer-reviewed articles. Perspectives in Public Health"s primary aim is to be an invaluable resource for the Society"s members, who are health-promoting professionals from many disciplines, including environmental health, health protection, health and safety, food safety and nutrition, building and engineering, primary care, academia and government.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信