Agenda item

Variation of Condition Documents

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There were two public speakers on the item: an objector, and the applicant’s representative.

The objector addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       The appeal decision that permitted Admiral’s adult gaming centre subject to this application carries significant weight as the planning inspectors who made the decision were operating at the highest level of government. Paragraph 16 reads: “Residents of town centres could therefore reasonably anticipate a level of activity and noise at night normally associated with town centre uses. By the same token, nearby residents in this case could also reasonably expect controls to be imposed on a use such as this so that their amenities are not unacceptably harmed”. The inspector imposed the current hours in order to protect the amenities of residents and therefore Admiral’s proposal for an unrestricted gambling use is unreasonable and expressly against the inspector’s judgment.

-       Admiral is seeking to justify its 24-hour proposal through the introduction of a noise impact assessment that had not been included in the original application or the appeal. However, a noise impact assessment was submitted by a third party during the appeal. It comprehensively considered 24-hour gambling and came to the conclusion that the impact of noise from the proposal presents a high risk. Paragraph 22 of the inspector’s decision says: “I have taken into account all other matters raised in the representations”. This would have included the noise impact assessment that formed part of the appeal and would have informed the decision that restricted opening hours were necessary. The new noise impact assessment does not amount to new evidence other than the inclusion of noise data from the now operating unit. The methodology behind the new assessment is inadequate as it only carried out surveys between 11pm and 2am over a Monday and Tuesday, far outside Admiral’s peak trading gambling hours.

-       Whilst the officer’s report makes references to other 24-hour commercial units operating in the town centre, it is a fundamental principal of planning decisions that each application has to be assessed on its own merits.

-       The conditions suggested by the appellant are unacceptable since they are unlikely to be effective in protecting residents immediately in the early hours of the morning. Restrictions of opening hours are likely to be more effective, as recognised by the inspector.

-       The 24-hour gambling operation of Admiral’s adult gaming centre was comprehensively considered as part of the appeal and it is not right for the local planning authority to go against the inspector’s decision to impose restrictive opening hours. It would also be contrary to the Cheltenham Plan policy SL1 and Joint Core Strategy (JCS) policy SD14.

-       Numerous public objections have been submitted on the basis of noise, including an objection from the MP. Strongly urge the committee to refuse the application.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       Luxury Leisure is the market leading operator of adult gaming centres in the UK with over 280 premises. The vast majority of these premises are in defined retail locations, very often with residential dwellings directly above the adult gaming centre premises and which operate 24-hours a day.

-       The principle of an adult gaming centre use is already established and two other adult gaming centres already operate 24-hours a day in the immediate vicinity, as well as other late-night uses.

-       The hours of use were restricted because at that time a noise impact assessment was not submitted and the inspector copied hours of use permitted at an Admiral site in Ipswich. Since then, noise conditions have been discharged, and the Ipswich site has been granted 24-hour consent with the Suffolk constabulary confirming that there has been no crime or antisocial behaviour associated with adult gaming centre use in Ipswich town centre.

-       The application site has been operating successfully since 2 December 2024 without incident. The site managers have a good relationship with local police and doors are locked at 9pm, with customers individually allowed in after camera review. Additional security was employed during the Cheltenham Festival and no incidents occurred.

-       No objections to the proposal have been received from environmental health officers or the Gloucestershire constabulary. The crime prevention officer has reviewed the proposal in detail and has confirmed that there have been no crimes or incident reports associated with the premises.

-       The proposal for 24-hour use fully complies with the National Planning Policy Framework, and the adopted local plan policies SD2, SD4 and SD14.

-       As a licensing authority Cheltenham Borough Council granted a 24-hour operating licence on the 5 August 2024 where the four licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm were considered in detail. At that time a local risk assessment was also considered by the council to identify any local risks. There is no crime or antisocial behaviour associated with the extended hours of use.

-       It is well established that the planning system should not duplicate other statutory regulatory controls or be used to sidestep or circumvent the requirements of the licensing regime.

-       There is no harmful noise impact or loss of amenity. The submitted noise impact assessment confirms that 24-hour trading is not an inherently noisy activity through trading noise breakout or in relation to the comings and goings of customers. There are no adverse impacts and there is no evidence of any antisocial behaviour being exacerbated by such users.

-       The applicant has extensive social responsibility procedures that are and will continue to be implemented at the premises. These include a 21 person headquarter team that looks after security and compliance with at least three members being ex-military and police. A strict Think 25 policy is operated and is regularly independently tested. The company invests heavily in staff training and all staff complete conflict management training. The company participates in nationwide self-exclusion schemes. A minimum of two staff are always on duty. Alcohol is not served or consumed at any adult gaming centre premises and those under the influence of alcohol cannot enter the premises. There are stringent policies to remove and refuse those who appear intoxicated through either alcohol or drugs. These procedures form part of the licensed conditions and code of practice.

-       All stores are fitted with extensive CCTV and are equipped with the latest HD cameras and digital recording equipment. CCTV can be viewed and reviewed remotely by key managers and security staff and is monitored live with two-way audio communication with staff inside the premises.

-       Luxury Leisure are part of the walk safe space network providing safe places for women and vulnerable people using the walk safe app to seek refuge when in need.

-       Adult gaming centres are low stake venues where the emphasis is on providing fun in a safe, friendly and social environment and the majority of customers are regulars who visit for the social engagement as much as to play games.

-       As the largest agency operator in the UK, the Gambling Commission expects Luxury Leisure to have the highest standards, the company has never had a licence revoked and is a socially responsible national multiple operator with an excellent covenant.

-       The objector’s comments relate to the previous appeal which has been decided. The information provided in the current noise assessment has been reviewed in detail by environmental health officers and they have confirmed that there is no noise impact over a 24-hour period of trading.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       The material difference between the current committee decision and that made by the appeal inspector is that the applicant had not submitted a noise assessment at that time as part of the package of the application. The inspector’s decision to restrict hours and grant the application was under the condition that a noise assessment be submitted to the council for the environmental health team to review and agree the noise implications within those hours. The new application is supported by a revised noise impact assessment that supports 24-hour use. Environmental health reviewed this assessment and have raised no objection. Without this supporting information the officer’s recommendation would have been different as there would not have been evidence to go against the appeal inspector’s decision.

-       The committee should not feel obliged to grant the application based on precedence as each planning application is considered on its own merits. The report references other 24-hour use premises in the vicinity for the committee to note rather than as a determining factor. The committee’s decision will also not set a precedent for the future.

-       The exact number of residential properties is not known but there are residents living in the same building, so they are close. Currently no noise complaints have been received in relation to the adult gaming centre. The only report has been in relation to a fire/intruder alarm being activated by accident, rather than in response to the use or users.

-       The officer was not able to confirm whether the noise assessment was carried out on a Monday and Tuesday night. He noted in the past environmental health have requested additional assessments to be carried out if they feel they do not have sufficient or representative data. In this case they were satisfied with the assessment provided and raised no objections to the application.

-       The most recent application for an adult gaming centre the committee have reviewed was for this premises in 2023. The officer is not aware of any other applications coming to the committee. The two existing 24-hour use premises were approved in approximately 2007 and 2012 and are not believed to have come to the planning committee.

-       It is difficult to comment on how many 24-hour use premises are in Cheltenham, but there are other business types open in the early hours of the morning.

-       It is not possible for the committee to introduce a condition that would put a time limit on their approval, as this would need to be justified based on a planning reason. Where temporary applications have been granted in the past, such as the ice rink, these have been submitted as temporary applications. The introduction of a trial period would instead be for operational reasons. There is also no way for the council to rescind a planning application that has been granted if issues emerge. However, if there are complaints these can be reviewed by the licensing committee at the end of the license period or can be brought back to a licensing panel if serious issues arise.

The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were made:

-       One Member stressed that their experience of Cheltenham and relatives experience with gambling establishments gave them a strong case to object to the application on both noise and economic vitality concerns. The ludicrous methodology used for the noise assessment was highlighted but due to environmental health’s lack of objection it was noted that a refusal on noise grounds would likely lose at appeal. Concern was raised about the impact on the economic vitality of the town and the applicant’s representative’s statement that people would go to these establishments at midnight for social occasions was challenged. The longer hours were to enable the company to profit more from people’s addictions. Gambling shops take away from the economic vitality of the town, sucking in money and sapping business from the town centre. The Member argued that there was a strong case to be made against the application from the overriding principles of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

-       The Chair advised that moral indices are not an appropriate basis when dealing with planning applications.

-       A Member noted that on the basis of gambling and noise this application could be said to go against section 8 of the NPPF which says that decisions should promote healthy and safe communities. However, the Chair’s advice was noted.

-       A Member noted that as ward member for the area he is aware there are a good few residents in the vicinity. He highlighted that none of these residents have complained about the 24-hour adult gaming centre a few doors down the road from these premises, including those living closer to that establishment. He also noted that the town centre is generally a lot quieter than it has been in the past. It is difficult to object on the 24-hour basis because of the existence of a similar premises in such close vicinity and because the gambling establishment already exists on the site, so he will support the application reluctantly.

-       It was noted that if noise issues do arise then these can be reviewed through the licensing process.

-       One Member stated that they would abstain due to the impact on Cheltenham, which they felt the proposed premises did not represent. It was highlighted that Cheltenham was very different to Ipswich, and is a beautiful town with culture at the heart of the town centre. They also highlighted that the need for ex-police and military staff challenged the statement that intoxicated people were not permitted in the venue.

The Senior Planning Officer advised Members that they need to be mindful in identifying harm to the viability and vitality of the centre as it would have to be evidenced to be as the result of the extended opening hours. Use of the building as an adult gaming centre has already been approved and the appeals inspector has stated that this is not an inappropriate use within the town. Refusal would need to be specifically relating to the hours rather than the use.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit the application.

For: 4

Against: 2

Abstain: 3

Voted to permit the application.