Appeal 6005514

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of the [site address] and basement from retail (Class E) to [name] ([name]) at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/04421, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 3429(B)02, 3429(B)03, 3429(C)01 rev A.

The operating hours of the premises shall be 24 hours on any day for a limited period of 12 months from the date of this approval. After this date, the use shall not be carried out other than between 08:00 hours and 23:30 hours Sunday to Thursday and 08:00 hours and 00:00 on Friday and Saturday.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. This is the subject of a separate

Planning permission was granted in 20221 for change of use of the [site address] and basement of [site address] from retail to an adult gaming centre. [name] 3 of that permission sought to limit the operating hours of the approved use in the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

The appeal seeks the removal of condition No 3 to allow 24-hour operation of the adult gaming centre. The Council refused planning permission in this case as it considers that removing the condition would create a harmful cumulative impact through increased comings and goings throughout the night and increased noise disturbance, to the detriment of the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

The appeal is accompanied by an addendum2 to the [name] Assessment3 submitted with the original application. The addendum does not alter the appeal proposal, and the parties in the appeal have had an opportunity to comment on its contents through the appeal process. Consideration of this document would thus not give rise to procedural unfairness and so I have had regard to it in my decision.

The main issue is therefore the effect of extending the operating hours of the premises on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

This part of [address] is a busy thoroughfare typically composed of three and four storey terraced buildings that are primarily occupied by commercial uses at [site address] with flats above. The appeal site comprises the [site address] and basement level of a mid-terrace building at [site address] . It is currently in use as an adult gaming centre and sits between a bookmaker on one side and a pizzeria on the other. The upper floors of the building comprise residential flats.

That there are other 24-hour operations and late night premises in the area is not disputed between the main parties. The Council however considers that the concentration of such uses here would result in cumulative harm to the living conditions of residents.

The proposal is supported by a Noise Impact Assessment, and subsequently an addendum to this, both of which conclude that the noise impact of the proposed extended operating hours will result in no discernible loss of amenity to the occupants of the adjacent and nearby residences.

Based on similar venues elsewhere and the experience of the appellant’s noise consultant, the number of customers anticipated at night is between two and ten per hour, moving towards the lower end of this range as the night progresses. In the context of the existing noise environment and commercial nature of the street, the level of additional activity and noise generated as a result of the proposed extended operating hours is unlikely to be significant.

While several interested parties state they have complained to the operator and Council on occasion, the Council’s Licensing Team indicates that it had received no formal complaints regarding any gambling premises on [address] at the 1 Council Ref PP/21/06375 2 P25-175-M01v2, [name] – [name], Hepworth Acoustics Ltd, 25 November 2025 3 P25-175-R01, Extended Operating Hours Noise Assessment, Hepworth Acoustics Ltd, Version 1, 2 June 2025 time of the application. Moreover, the Council’s Environmental Health Team also confirmed it had no objections to the removal of condition No 3.

While concerns have also been raised regarding additional lighting through the night, given the urban context this is unlikely to have any significant impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Nevertheless, I recognise the legitimate concerns raised by interested parties and the Council regarding the potential for additional noise and disturbance to arise, over and above that identified in the evidence. Accordingly, in this instance, I consider it appropriate that a temporary 24/7 trading period of 12 months be granted as suggested by both main parties. This will enable the actual effects of the extension to the trading hours to be reviewed at the end of this period, in line with the Planning Practice Guidance4.

The variation of condition No 3 as suggested would not have an unduly harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. The variation would be in accordance with Policies CD9 and GB8 of the New Local Plan Review July 2024 (the Local Plan). These policies, among other provisions, seek to ensure that noise and vibration does not create unacceptable impact on local residential amenity including neighbouring properties, and that all development ensures good living conditions for the occupants of existing and neighbouring buildings, including by requiring that the reasonable enjoyment of the use of buildings, gardens and other spaces is not harmed due to increases in noise, disturbance or vibration.

I have not identified any conflict with Policies TC3 and TC4 of the Local Plan. These policies, among other provisions, seek to ensure that there is not a proliferation of betting shops, payday loan stores, pawn brokers, amusement arcades and hot food takeaways within higher order town centres, and support the diversification of the borough’s evening offer. Notably, neither policy featured in the Council’s reason for refusal.

The appeal site adjoins the [address] Village Conservation Area (CA) to the rear and sits on the opposite side of the road to the [address] CA. In so far as it relates to this appeal, the significance of the CAs is derived from their historic origins, traditional architecture and composition. Visually, the proposal includes no physical changes to the building and so would have no material impact on the setting of the CAs. It would also remain consistent with the character of [address] as a busy thoroughfare. Notably, the Council did not identify any harm to the setting of the CAs from the proposed change to operating hours, and the evidence does not lead me to a different conclusion.

Paragraph 96 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that planning decisions should aim to achieve places which are safe and accessible, so that crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion. Interested parties have raised concerns regarding the potential for increased crime and antisocial behaviour as a result of the proposed extended operating hours. 4 Paragraph: 014 [name]: 21a-[phone]

While these concerns are acknowledged, the level of additional customers through the night would be relatively modest, and there is no substantiated evidence to indicate that extending the operating hours of the existing business would increase antisocial behaviour and crime. That there is another adult gaming centre on the same road would not represent any significant clustering of such uses.

Moreover, the Council’s licensing team highlighted that the [name] recorded no crimes related to this or other such gambling premises in the area, and the Council did not explicitly cite this as a reason for refusal. Likewise, the proposal would not give rise to highway safety issues or significant litter given the relatively modest uplift in additional customers.

Interested parties have raised various other concerns, including regarding the acceptability of the principle of the use and the social impact of gambling, whether there is any need or justification for it, compliance with the gambling licence, the impact on property values and whether other uses would be more beneficial. However, these matters are beyond the scope of this appeal, which is concerned with planning regulation of an existing lawful use.

Concerns have also been raised in respect of the proposal setting a precedent for other establishments; however, each case must be considered on its own merits based on the relevant planning policies at the time, and the site-specific circumstances and surrounding context.

Subject to the identified conditions, the development adheres to the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations that would outweigh this finding. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal succeeds.