Appeal 6005111

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from Class E (former bank) to an adult gaming centre ([name]) at [site address] , Catford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/141246, 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 919-EX-001 Rev 02, 919-PL-101 REV 5, Site Plan - Rev 02 and Site Location Plan.

The appellant has submitted additional documents with the appeal, including a Health Impact Assessment and license1 relating to the proposed development. Established case law requires consideration of whether or not such material introduces a substantial difference or a fundamental change to the proposal, and whether its admission would result in procedural unfairness. In this case, the additional documents are intended to respond to the Council’s reason for refusal and do not materially alter the nature of the proposed development. The Council has also had the opportunity to comment on the additional material. I am therefore satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by taking it into account.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the vitality and viability of Catford town centre, with particular regard to public health. 1 issued under Section 164 of the Gambling Act 2005.

The appeal site at [site address] (Nos 164-166) comprises a vacant part one- and three-storey building, with the ground floor last in use as a bank. It occupies a prominent position at the junction of Rushey Green and [name], the latter forming a pedestrianised shopping area. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of ground floor commercial uses, including retail, food and drink and service uses. The proposed development seeks to change the use of the ground floor of Nos 164-166 from a bank2 to an adult gaming centre3 (ADC). The appellant’s application form states that it would operate on a 24-hour basis and would create twelve full time jobs.

Policy EC12 of the Lewisham Local Plan (2025) (LLP) seeks to support and reinforce the borough’s town centre network and hierarchy. Nos 164-166 are located within [name], which accommodates a high proportion of comparison retail alongside a range of uses such as offices, civil functions, culture, leisure, entertainment and services. The site also lies within the designated Primary Shopping Area (PSA), an area of focus for town centre activity.

Policy LCA3 of the LLP requires development in [name] to deliver a complementary mix of main town centre uses, with retail concentrated within the PSA. Specifically in relation to PSAs, Policy EC14 of the LLP supports uses that would not result in a harmful overconcentration of similar uses. Policy EC17 resists development that would result in a harmful overconcentration of hot food takeaways, betting offices, casinos, bingo halls, payday loan shops, pawnbrokers, nightclubs, dancehalls and drinking establishments.

An ADC is not explicitly listed by Policy EC17 of the LPP or identified in the Framework as a main town centre use. However, it shares characteristics with the betting uses referenced in Policy EC17 and with leisure and entertainment uses identified in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

Policy EC17 of the LPP states that any harmful overconcentration of uses will be assessed on the basis of the number of similar uses within a 400-metre radius. The Council identifies five betting-related units within this radius, albeit not all AGCs, and contends this equates to 2.8% of units within [name], above the UK average of 0.99% cited in a recent appeal decision4. However, the underlying evidence behind these figures has not been provided and I am not aware of a defined policy threshold that defines overconcentration. Accordingly, whether or not the proposed development would result in a harmful overconcentration is a matter of planning judgement.

A previous appeal for an ADC at 95 Rushey Green5 was allowed, although the evidence before me indicates that permission has not been implemented. In that case, the Inspector found that gambling uses were relatively well spaced throughout Catford and did not represent an overconcentration of such uses within the town 2 Class E(c)(i) Financial services of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended). 3 Sui generis. 4 Appeal ref: APP/W4705/W/24/3358277. 5 Appeal ref: APP/C5690/W/22/3304891. centre as a whole. This aligns with my own observations, and there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that circumstances have materially changed such that the proposed development would now lead to a harmful overconcentration of similar uses.

The former bank falls within Class E, which includes a range of commercial, business and service uses, including retail. Although a bank may not in itself constitute a retail use, the introduction of a sui generis AGC would not align with the aims of policy to encourage Class E(a) retail uses within these areas.

The proposed development would not therefore automatically contribute to the retail function of the PSA. In such circumstances, Policy EC14 of the LLP requires a Shopping Area Impact Assessment to be submitted, to demonstrate that the development would support the retail function of the PSA and avoid unacceptable adverse impacts. Although no document expressly titled as such has been submitted, the appellant’s supporting documents nevertheless considers the proposed development’s impact on the shopping area.

The ground floor of Nos 164-166 has been vacant since around June 2021. Given the increased competition from online retail and services, it is reasonable to acknowledge that the unit may not return to a bank or similar Class E use. Its purpose-built façade does not provide a traditional active shopfront and does not readily lend itself to typical retail occupation. In this context, bringing a vacant unit into an active town centre use would be likely to support vitality and viability in accordance with Policy EC14 C a), and align with the centre’s role in accommodating leisure and entertainment and other main town centre uses.

Moreover, while not a retail use, it would be a type of use which would still attract footfall to the town centre, with staff and customers likely to generate linked trips to other shops and services, supporting those businesses and contributing positively to the vitality and viability of the town centre. This would be consistent with the aims of Policy EC14 C b) - c) to provide an appropriate main town centre use at the ground floor level that would attract visitors and generate footfall. Moreover, based on my observations and the evidence before me including the appellant’s Noise Assessment (NA), there is no substantive indication that local amenity would be unreasonably harmed in line with Policy EC14 d).

The Framework requires planning decisions to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which enable and support healthy lives. The Council raises concern regarding the potential social and public health impacts of gambling uses, including implications for health inequalities, referring to Public Health England research6. In response, the appellant has submitted a Health Impact Assessment (HIA), as required by Policy DM6 of the LPP.

While the proposed AGC could be regarded as a leisure activity, it is also a form of gambling, and the potential negative effects of gambling are a serious matter. However, the gambling industry is strictly regulated outside of the planning regime7 6 Gambling-related harms evidence review (2021). 7 Including through the Gambling Act 2005. to ensure that operators meet certain standards to regulate such concerns, and a gaming licence is required, and has been submitted, by the appellant.

Catford is identified as an area with some of the highest levels of deprivation in the country, and some of the local population may be more vulnerable to gambling related harm, such as personal bankruptcy. Nevertheless, there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that such harm would translate to reduced spending in the town centre to an extent that would materially undermine the vitality and viability of the PSA and wider centre. The level of deprivation does not therefore lead me to a different conclusion in respect of the effect of the proposed development on vitality and viability of Catford town centre.

While it is recognised that an overconcentration of ADCs has the potential to adversely affect the vitality and viability of a town centre, in this case a harmful effect upon the town centre has not been demonstrated. The proposed development would also align with the aims of the Framework insofar as it states that main town centre uses should be located in town centres and recognises the need for town centres to grow and diversify in a way that can respond to changes in the retail and leisure industries.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable effect on the vitality and viability of Catford town centre, with particular regard to public health. In this regard it would comply with Policy E9 of The London Plan (2021) (TLP) and Policies DM6, EC11, EC12, EC14, EC17 and LCA3 of the LLP for the aforementioned reasons, including the requirement to ensure development proposals maintain and enhance town centre vitality and viability and to ensure that town centres function as vibrant places of daytime, evening and night-time activities.

The site is located close to the [name] listed building known as Catford Broadway8. Its significance derives from its historic and architectural interest, notably as a curved building constructed as a concert hall and offices. In accordance with my duty under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, special regard must be had to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. As the proposed development relates solely to a change of use, its setting would be preserved and no harm to its significance would arise.

The Council has found the proposed development to be acceptable in all other respects, including in relation to its effect on the character of the building, archaeology, transport and living conditions. 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 has been9 or would need to be subject to a separate application for advertisement consent and/or planning permission.

I recognise the strength of local concern, including preferences for a community use, aspirations for town centre regeneration and vision for a diverse mix of 8 List entry: 1253065. 9 Council ref: DC/25/141247. independent retail and cultural uses. Concerns have also been raised regarding the potential impacts on investment and the perception that the proposed development could lead to normalisation of gambling, increased drug use and harm to the area’s image. However, I am required to determine the proposed development on its planning merits and there is no substantive evidence before me to support these concerns. [name] have considered all representations, these concerns do not alter my overall conclusions on the main issue.

Various conditions have been suggested by the Council in the event the appeal is allowed. I have considered these against the tests 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. I have omitted drawings relating to advertisements, as these would be subject to separate advertisement consent.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions on opening hours and security. However, in the absence of identified harm, including from the Council’s environmental health team, and given its town centre location, such conditions would not be reasonable or necessary. In any event matters of opening hours and premises management, including security and measures to address anti-social behaviour, would in any event be addressed through separate licencing requirements.

The conditions recommended by Transport for London in relation to cycle parking, disabled parking, construction and servicing are noted. However, they have not been requested by the Council. The proposal is for a change of use of an existing commercial building in a location well served by public transport, with no alteration to access arrangements. On the evidence before me, such conditions would not be reasonable or necessary.

Planning law requires applications for planning permission to 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 and the Framework, and there are no considerations that outweigh that conclusion. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.