Appeal 6005647

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for use of ground floor as an adult gaming centre (sui generis); no external alterations at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2504/25, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by Chongie Entertainment Ltd against the Council of the London Borough of Harrow. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The description of development in the above banner heading has been taken from the Council’s decision notice as this accurately and concisely describes the proposed development.

The decision notice cites policies contained within the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan, 2013. However, during the determination of this appeal, the London Borough of Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041, 2026 (LP) has been adopted and thus has superseded the policies contained within the Development Management Policies Local Plan. I have been provided with the relevant policies and have determined this appeal accordingly.

The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring properties with particular regard to noise and general disturbance.

The appeal site relates to [site address] which is located within Harrow town centre. It comprises a four-storey building with residential units on the upper floors and commercial on the ground floor. It previously contained a single storey building in use as a betting shop fronting onto [address], but the building was demolished and redeveloped. I understand that the ground floor is currently unfinished internally.

To the rear of the site is a service lane which connects to [address]. On the eastern side of the service lane is [address], a large part 6 and part 7 storey building in residential use. There are flats located at upper levels within the adjacent buildings, with commercial at ground floor as well. On the opposite side of [address] are mainly commercial properties.

The proposed development seeks planning permission for an adult gaming centre (use class sui generis) on the ground floor. The appellant has proposed a 24-hour use. Given that the proposed use would operate 24-hours and would be in close proximity to residential properties, potential impacts from noise and disturbance must be considered.

As set out, the site previously contained a single storey building which had been in use as a betting shop. Permission for a change of use to an adult gaming centre under ref: P/0593/22, was also allowed on appeal1. The current appeal effectively seeks to re-establish that previously granted use for an adult gaming centre (sui generis) on the ground floor of the redeveloped site.

Whilst the previous permission allowed on appeal is no longer valid and thus non determinative, as the building to which it was attached was demolished and the site redeveloped, the Inspector did consider noise and disturbance and considered that the proposal would not give rise to an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance. The Inspector also concluded that residents living in a commercial area might reasonably expect to experience some noise and disturbance because of evening and nighttime activities. The Inspector explained that there is no convincing evidence to indicate that it would be necessary or reasonable to prevent a 24-hour opening to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties due to noise and general disturbance. The Planning Inspectorate has already therefore given consideration to the appropriateness of an adult gaming centre at this location and considered it to be acceptable.

I appreciate that site circumstances have indeed materially changed since the previous appeal decision (a new building has been constructed which now includes flats above the proposed adult gaming centre). The relationship between the ground floor use and the residential properties above is therefore different and must be considered in its current and physical context. That said, a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) has been submitted along with a number of other documents intended to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in undue levels of noise and disturbance. The key areas of the NIA are: noise transfer through the party floor separating the ground floor adult gaming centre from the first-floor residential use directly above; noise breakout from the façade of the premises to the residential windows directly above; and, noise associated with customers outside the venue as they arrive/depart and smoke outside. 1 APP/M5450/W/22/3310290

The NIA concludes that predicted levels of direct noise transfer via the party floor separating the ground floor adult gaming centre from the first-floor flat would be expected to be well within the set criteria, ensuring that the amenity of the occupants of the first-floor flats would not be compromised due to direct noise transfer. Predicted levels of noise breakout to the external environment via the front façade of the adult gaming centre, up to first floor level, and in through an open window in the winter garden, and wide open French doors on the flat bedroom itself, would be sufficiently low as to ensure that the amenity of the occupants of the first-floor flat would not be compromised due to noise breakout. Noise associated with customers outside the adult gaming centre would be sufficiently below the average ambient noise level such that speech would be non-intrusive to the first-floor flat. It is noted that the potential for speech occurring outside of the building is already present with respect to pedestrians passing by the site. With regards to customers arriving and/or leaving the site, it takes 12 seconds (at an average walking pace) to reach a position 20 metres from the establishment, and therefore, the duration of potential impact is objectively considered to be very low. The impact of customer noise outside of the building would, therefore, be insignificant. Based on the findings of this assessment, it was concluded that noise associated with the 24-hour use of the site as an adult gaming centre would not result in a change in the quality of life of nearby residents.

The NIA has been reviewed by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer and was deemed to be acceptable. Based on the evidence before me, I have no compelling reason to disagree. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not result in undue impacts on the amenities of residential properties and thus would be acceptable in this regard.

In terms of general disturbance matters, there is no compelling evidence before me that the proposed use would unduly increase levels of general disturbance or antisocial behaviour at this site. To this end, I have also considered the witness statement from overnight observations carried out which did not raise any specific concerns in this regard. I have attached a condition relating to Secure by [name] in the interests of creating safer and more sustainable communities and to safeguard amenity by reducing the risk of crime and the fear of crime. Further, the [name] has reviewed the development and has raised no concerns.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbouring properties with particular regard to noise and general disturbance. It would therefore comply with Policies D1 and D3 of the London Plan, 2021 and Policy GR1 of the LP. Such policies together, amongst other matters, explain that proposals should ensure amenity for existing, future, and neighbouring occupiers would be safeguarded.

On the opposite side of [address] are mainly commercial properties, including the [name] listed bank building ([address]), as well as several locally listed buildings. The Council explain that the proposal does not include any external alterations. As such, the physical character of the property and the local area, including the listed and locally listed buildings, would not be affected. Given the nature of the works, I do not raise any particular concern with regard to the setting of the above-mentioned buildings.

I note third party concerns relating to the principle of the use, social impacts from gambling etc and character and values of the town whereby the use is said to discourage family-orientated development in the future. However, the proposal is considered suitable for the town centre where such uses are appropriate for its context. Activities should also cater to sectors of the community other than families. Due to the lack of external alterations, the physical character of the property would not be affected. There is also no compelling evidence that the proposed use would result in harmful social impacts. It would also be the subject of the licensing regime, and I do not raise any particular concern in this regard.

I am mindful that the site has historically been used as a betting shop and as part of the redevelopment proposals, I understand a condition was applied which restricts the ground floor use to class A1 or A2 or A3 or betting shop. Further and whilst not determinative, it is noted that the site was subject to a permission for the same use as proposed under a previously allowed appeal. Ultimately, I find that the proposed use is one which is acceptable in this location. Given the circumstances and background, the planning policy team have not objected to the proposal, and I have no compelling reason to come to a different finding on this.

Although it is acknowledged that there are other existing casinos/adult gaming centres within the town centre with similar hours, there is no policy basis for restricting the proposal on the basis that other similar development exists nearby.

I have reviewed the Council’s suggested planning conditions within their original officer’s report including the standard time for commencement of development which I have applied. I also agree that a plans/documents condition is necessary in the interests of certainty. I do not find it necessary however to condition the covering letter dated 26 September 2025, Planning Statement dated September 2025 or the witness statement with appendices dated August 2025. This is because of the nature of their contents which do not need to be conditioned. I have therefore omitted these documents.

A condition relating to a Secured by [name] is necessary in the interests of creating safer and more sustainable communities and to safeguard amenity by reducing the risk of crime and the fear of crime. To this end, I have noted the appellant’s suggested change relating to the timescale to meet the requirements for this condition due to the process required to enable certification. I find the suggested change to be reasonable and necessary and have amended this condition accordingly.

A condition relating to refuse and waste bins is also necessary to enhance the appearance of the development and safeguard the character and appearance of the area and avoid nuisance to occupiers and other users.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to the development plan as a whole, the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Save where varied by other planning conditions comprising this planning permission or unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, the development hereby permitted shall be completed and retained in accordance with the following documents and plans: Drawing no. PL01 [name]; Drawing titled “Security, [name]”; Noise Impact Assessment Report [ref: 22285.NIA-RPT.01 [name], dated 10th September 2025]; Operational Management Plan [dated May 2025]; Chongie Entertainment Ltd Advertising and Media Policy; Chongie Entertainment Ltd Complaints Procedure; Chongie Entertainment Ltd Crime and Anti Money Laundering Policy; Chongie Entertainment Ltd Responsible Gaming Code.

Within the first three months of occupation of the development, the applicant shall apply for a Secured by [name] which shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority, or justification shall be submitted where the accreditation requirements cannot be met. Secure by design measures shall be implemented where practical and the development shall be retained in accordance with the approved details.

The refuse and waste bins shall be stored at all times, other than on collection days, within the designated refuse storage areas as shown on the approved plans. End of schedule