Appeal 6002244

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use of ground floor from vacant bank to form a bingo hall at [site address] , Surrey [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01064/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos TQRQM25209093214858, 67HSt/BH/FUL/25/01, 67HSt/BH/FUL/25/03 [name] and 67HSt/BH/FUL/25/04 [name].

The cycle storage spaces shown on drawing no 67HSt/BH/FUL/25/04 [name] shall be provided prior to the first use of the development hereby permitted and retained thereafter.

An application for costs was made by Sunni-ed Limited against the decision of Spelthorne Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The Council has an emerging local plan1 (the emerging plan) which has been the subject of examination. However, at the time of writing this decision, the timeline for adopting the emerging plan has been delayed due to the need for further consultation on a particular housing site. Even so, the evidence before me indicates that adoption could be soon. The Framework advises that local planning authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the stage of preparation of the emerging plan, the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the Framework. 1 Spelthorne Borough Council Pre-Submission Spelthorne Local Plan 2022-2037 (2022)

Accordingly, given its advanced stage of preparation, policies of the emerging plan are capable of carrying weight. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the adopted development plan which comprises the [name] and Policies Development Plan Document (2009) (CS) and had regard to the emerging policies as relevant.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development:  on the vitality and viability of [site address] town centre; and  on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site lies within the primary shopping area of the town centre. [address] is a pedestrianised street characterised predominantly by retail uses, alongside restaurants, banks and other commercial uses. The appeal building is a vacant three-storey building that was last used as a bank. The proposal seeks a change of use of the ground floor of [site address] (No 67) from a bank2 to a bingo hall3.

Policy TC2 of the CS states that within primary shopping areas, uses other than retail within Class A14, will not be permitted where this would lead to a net loss of retail floorspace. The policy also addresses the loss of retail units in secondary shopping centres, however those provisions are not directly applicable to the proposal given the site’s location within a primary shopping area. The justification to the policy explains that its intention is to maintain the dominance of retailing in the shopping frontage in order to support the town’s primary retail role. Even so, in this case, there would be no direct conflict with Policy TC2 given that the proposal would not result in the loss of former Class A1 retail floorspace.

While Policy TC2 of the CS pre-dates the amendment to the Use Classes Order in 20205, it remains broadly consistent with paragraph 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as it requires planning policies to define town centres and primary shopping areas, make clear the range of uses permitted in such locations and support the role that town centres play at the heart of local communities by taking a positive approach to their growth, management and adaptation. Nevertheless, Policy TC2 is more restrictive when compared to the policies of the Framework. As such, this reduces the weight I attribute to it.

The policies of the Framework’s glossary define town centres, including primary shopping areas, as areas predominantly occupied by main town centre uses. Bingo halls fall within this definition, and the Framework supports such uses in town centre locations, as well as stating that town centres should be allowed to grow and diversify in a way that can respond to changes in the retail and leisure industries. 2 Class E(c)(i) Financial services of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended). 3 Sui generis 4 Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987. 5 Town and Country Planning ([name]) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020.

It is acknowledged that the former bank now falls within Class E, which encompasses a range of commercial, business and service uses, including retail uses. Policy EC2 of the emerging plan identifies [site address] as both a primary and preferred location for main town centre uses. In respect of [name], the policy states that development will be permitted where it improves the quality and mix of uses within Class E to enhance the role of the centre and its vitality and viability and to a scale which complements the local character.

The introduction of a sui generis bingo hall use would not in itself improve the quality and mix of uses within Class E, given that it sits outside that use class. However, given the building is currently vacant, the proposal would not undermine the policy’s aims either. No 67’s purpose-built bank façade does not contain a traditional active shopfront, meaning that it does not readily lend itself to a typical retail use. In this context, bringing a vacant building into an active town centre use would likely support the vitality and viability of the centre.

Given the increased competition from online retail and services, it is also realistic to acknowledge that No 67 may not return to a bank or similar Class E use. I have not been made aware of any legislative or policy requirements to market the existing unit as a Class E use. The proposed bingo hall would introduce a leisure use which would generate footfall and activity at times when the centre might otherwise be quieter. Moreover, users of the proposed bingo hall would be likely to generate linked trips and contribute to spin-off trade, supporting other shops and commercial premises within the vicinity. It would therefore represent a beneficial re-use of a currently under-utilised town centre unit. Retail provision along [address] would remain extensive, and the proposed use would not undermine the existing mix of uses or the retail function or character of the primary shopping area.

The proposed use would operate on a 24-hour basis and would exclude family groups including those under the age of eighteen. Even so, it is unlikely to discourage families from visiting the [address] and many town centre uses similarly cater predominantly for adults, including nightclubs and casinos, and such activity is not unusual within a town centre environment.

I conclude that the proposed development would not result in harm to the vitality and viability of [site address] town centre having regard to Policy TC2 of the CS and to other material considerations including the policies of the Framework and Policy EC2 of the emerging plan for the aforementioned reasons.

No 67 is located on a busy high street within the town centre, where there is an abundance of late night activity in the immediate area, including restaurants and a casino further along [address] which, on the evidence before me, can operate on a 24-hour basis. There are a number of residential dwellings nearby, including but not limited to [address] and flats above units along [address]. Even so, the predominance of retail and commercial units in the vicinity is undoubtedly influential on the existing levels of noise and disturbance experienced by residential occupiers.

The 24-hour operation of the proposed bingo hall would generate additional activity, which would most likely be experienced at night when the majority of other retail and commercial premises are closed. The proposed bingo hall would incorporate a lobby area which means that patrons are unlikely to need to queue outdoors. While no noise survey has been submitted with the application, noise from patrons entering or leaving the premises would be unlikely to materially alter the acoustic character or noise levels in the area. Moreover, the Council’s Environmental Health Department has raised no objection to the proposal, either in relation to noise likely to emanate from inside or outside of No 67, and I find no compelling reason to reach a different view in this regard.

Concerns have been raised regarding the perceived risk of crime and anti-social behaviour. However, there is no compelling evidence before me to demonstrate that a bingo hall would contribute to increased crime or disorder in the area, including littering, loitering or outdoor drinking. Furthermore, the [name] team has not raised an objection to the proposal.

I conclude that the proposed development should not result in undue harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance. In this regard, it would comply with Policy EN11 of the CS which seeks to minimise the adverse impact of noise. Moreover, there would be no conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework which seeks a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

My attention has been drawn to the negative social and public health impacts of gambling uses, including its normalisation and effect on vulnerable persons. While bingo is primarily a leisure pursuit, it is also a form of gambling and the negative effects of gambling are a serious matter. The gambling industry is strictly regulated outside of the planning regime6 to ensure that operators meet certain standards to regulate such concerns, and a gaming licence would be required by the operator. This may include measures such as a door supervisor. I recognise the strength of local concern, including their preference for a different use for the building and concern that a gambling venue could be detrimental to the image of the town. However, I am obliged to consider the proposal before me. The evidence indicates the premises would not serve alcohol, but even if it did, this would also be subject to separate licensing requirements. As such, while I take the representations received seriously, the concerns raised do not alter my overall conclusions in respect of the main issues.

The Council has found the proposal acceptable in all other respects, including in relation to the appeal site’s locally listed status, location within the Staines Historic Core Town Area of [name] or parking and highways. Having considered the proposal and visited the site, I have no reason to find otherwise. No external alterations are proposed and any future signage or shopfront alterations would need to be subject to a separate application for advertisement consent and/or planning permission.

Whilst the case officer recommended approval of the application, the Council is not bound by the recommendation of its officers. I have determined the appeal based on the plans and evidence before me having regard to the requirements of the development plan and other material planning considerations. 6 For instance, the Gambling Act 2005.

Various conditions have been suggested by the Council in the event the appeal is allowed. I have considered these against the tests set out in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard time condition (1), I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans (2) in the interests of certainty.

The Council recommended a condition requiring a scheme for cycle parking to be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. However, these spaces are shown on the approved plans (2) condition. As such, a condition (3) requiring the provision and retention of cycle parking is reasonable in the interests of sustainable travel.

The appellant has also indicated within their evidence that they would be willing to accept planning conditions in relation to noise insultation and management of the premises, for example a door supervisor.

I have considered carefully whether or not any additional conditions should be imposed in relation to acoustic insulation measures, opening hours and management of the premises. However, in the absence of any identified harm in respect of these matters, such conditions would not be reasonable or necessary. Furthermore, matters relating to opening hours and management of the bingo hall would be the subject of separate licencing requirements.

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposed development would accord with the development plan when considered as a whole and the policies of the Framework. It would not be outweighed by other considerations including the policies of the emerging plan. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.