Appeal 6006331

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are: - The effect of the proposed change of use on the vitality and viability of the Primary Shopping Area; - Whether the proposal would accord with the development plan in terms of promoting healthy, inclusive communities; - The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area.

The appeal site is a ground floor unit on [name], a commerical street in the centre of Doncaster. I am told the premises was last occupied in December 2024 as a retail shop, since when it has been vacant.

The site lies within the Primary Shopping Area as defined by Policy 23 of the Doncaster Local Plan (September 2021) (the DLP). This is the priority location for new and existing shopping facilities, with support for main town centre uses set out under Part 1 of the policy. Part 3 relates to specific uses, including amusement arcades, and sets criteria to be met in terms of marketing of the premises, footfall generation and avoidance of clustering effects of similar uses.

The proposal is described as a ‘bingo and tanning salon.’ The submitted plans indicate that the bingo use would occupy the majority of the floorspace, with the much smaller tanning salon located to the rear. It is the appellant’s case that the bingo element is a main town centre use, as the Framework definition includes ‘bingo halls.’ The Council considers the use more akin to an amusement arcade or adult gaming centre (AGC), which are not specifically listed as main town centre uses under the Framework. Both elements of the use are regarded by the main parties as falling outside of any defined use class and thus are sui generis in planning terms, as is the proposal as a whole.

The appellant’s evidence is that the proposed use would operate in a similar manner to traditional bingo halls, where social gathering and the playing of the game are the main attractions, rather than gambling to win money. However, a key difference is that the bingo games would operate on electronic machines rather than having an in-person caller. These machines are said to differ from solo-play terminals typically seen in casinos or amusement arcades. The appellant advances the credentials of having a bingo facility in an accessible town centre location versus the suburban locations of many larger modern bingo halls, as well as the ability to control noise from the electronic machines and the benefits of online connectivity for players to interact.

The appellant’s evidence stresses that a bingo use differs from an AGC, but there is limited information as to the nature of the machines used for playing bingo and whether other forms of gaming can take place on them. The submitted plans do not detail the actual layout proposed in terms of the number or type of machines. The Council also points to the prominent use of the words ‘casino’ and ‘gaming’ on the proposed shopfront visuals. Notably, the premises licence held for the site allows for up to 20% of the floorspace to be allocated to higher stake machines, albeit the appellant states that no such machines would be installed, with those that are having a maximum stake of £2. An interested party further points to the similarity of the Gambling Commission rules for bingo licensed premises and AGCs in terms of the number and type of gaming machines permitted.

I accept that the proposed use would include bingo, but it is also evident, having regard to the permissible extent of general gaming machines under the above definitions and the terms of the premises licence, that other types of gaming would also be possible as part of the use. I also have no details of the proposed opening hours of the venue or how bingo games would be scheduled. This and the much smaller size of the unit distinguishes it from traditional bingo halls which occupy sizeable venues designed to host large numbers of patrons to organised events at set times of the day.

Drawing matters together, I find that the proposed use would have some characteristics akin to an AGC or an amusement arcade, even if not wholly in such use or so described by the appellant. Consequently, and whilst I accept that the proposal would be a form of leisure or entertainment within the broad Framework definition of main town centre uses, I concur with the Council that the criteria of Policy 23, Part 3 relating to amusement arcades should apply to the proposal.

In reaching a view, I have noted an appeal decision nearby from 20201 where an AGC and amusement centre with bingo was found not to fall within the ambit of then draft Policy 24 (now adopted Policy 23). I note that the draft version of the policy at the time did not list amusement arcades as one of the uses to which the criteria of Part 3 applied. In that respect, the policy context has materially changed, and I have considered the proposal on its own merits and with regard to the wording of the adopted policy of the development plan. 1 Appeal Ref: APP/F4410/W/20/3250246

[name] is a dedicated shopping thoroughfare in the centre of Doncaster, linking [address] and [address]. I saw that some larger units on the northern side, including the former Marks and Spencer store, are now occupied by temporary retail uses, and from my observations appeared underutilised spaces. There was also one other vacant unit. However, the area was active at the time of my visit, with a good number of pedestrians and most units actively trading. There is an AGC two doors from the appeal site at No 24 and a bookmakers across the street at No 16a.

Policy 23, Part 1 supports uses to which pedestrians may be expected to visit in the course of a shopping, leisure, entertainment or tourist trip, subject to certain criteria. Part 3 sets further criteria for certain uses, including amusement arcades.

Criterion 1(A) requires the retention of an active shop frontage and window display. The proposed visuals show vinyl displays covering both shop windows. These strident visuals are designed to attract the attention of passers-by, but they would conversely obscure the interior of the premises, creating a closed off and uninviting appearance. I note reference to vinyls being a requirement of the premises license, but I saw other gaming venues in the area, including those at 24 [name] and 37-39 [name], have windows which are not wholly obscured and appear more consistent with others in the streetscene. As such, I am not persuaded that the proposed appearance is necessary, and the lack of an active shopfront display would be contrary to this criterion.

Criterion 1(B) requires proposals to be compatible with existing uses and Part 3(B) requires the new use to generate footfall within the shopping frontage. The appellant’s evidence identifies that Class E uses make up 88.18% of the uses on [name], having regard to both sides of the street. The proposal would reduce this to 86.05%. In terms of retail shop (those formerly Class A), the existing mix is 67.74%, which would reduce to 64.52%. In these respects, [name] retains a high proportion of Class E uses which are suitable for town centre locations, and retail alone accounts for some two-thirds of the uses. The proposal would result in the loss of one retail unit, but I accept that the street would remain predominantly in retail use and overwhelmingly in town centre use.

However, there is little evidence to suggest that the proposal would draw footfall to the primary shopping area or create linked trips. It would add a broadly similar offering to that at No 24, and as a leisure use, patrons would be likely to visit it as a destination and would not generate significant linked trips to surrounding retail establishments during the day. Evening opening hours may provide some linked trips to nearby restaurants, bars and takeaways, but the expected level of this is unsubstantiated. As such, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would be compatible with surrounding uses as required by Part 1(B) or generate footfall to the centre as required by Part 3(B).

Part 3(A) requires that the property is vacant and has been marketed unsuccessfully for at least one year and the rent value has been set at a realistic rate. At the point the application was made, the site had been vacant for around four months, which is insufficient time to have conducted the marketing exercise. Whilst more than 12 months have since passed, I have no evidence before me to show that the site has continued to be marketed during that time. Indeed, there is no evidence of any marketing exercise carried out in the four months before the application was made. Therefore, the proposal fails to meet criterion 3(A).

Finally, criterion 3(C) requires that there is no clustering or cumulative impact resulting from an overconcentration of the specified uses in an area, which includes amusement arcades. Clustering is defined as where more than 10% of units in the parade are any combination of betting shops, amusement arcades, pay day loan units and/or pawnbrokers. The Council identifies fifteen units in the parade, which I understand to be those between Nos 21 and 37. The proposed use would result in two amusement uses within the parade, amounting to a concentration of 13.33%, above the 10% threshold of Part 3(C).

The proposed use would create up to 7 full-time equivalent jobs, but I have little evidence as to the overall level of investment proposed. This aside, any business which occupied the site would generate some investment and employment. As such, this is a matter of limited weight in my considerations.

I also recognise that the proposal would bring a vacant unit back into use. However, I observed low vacancy rates during my visit and the site is in a central location within the PSA. Consequently, it is reasonable to consider that there would be some interest in the premises from a retail or other town centre use that would provide similar or greater benefits to the vitality of the centre. I accept that removing a vacant building from the street scene would still be of some benefit, but in the circumstances this is a factor attracting only limited weight.

Consequently, on this issue, the evidence before me indicates that the proposal would not complement or enhance the function of the PSA as it would have limited potential for linked trips; it would fail to provide an active frontage and it would create a clustering of gambling-related uses. Therefore, I conclude that the proposed use would harm the vitality and viability of the PSA, in conflict with the requirements of Policy 23 of the DLP.

Policy 50 of the DLP seeks to promote strong, vibrant and healthy communities by ensuring a high quality environment is provided with local services to support health, social and cultural wellbeing. The Council further highlights its strategy for improving wellbeing through, among other things, reducing inequalities, safeguarding vulnerable people, and tackling deprivation.

It also has produced a [name] (2025) which identifies high levels of deprivation in Doncaster and increased risk in these areas of people suffering from the harms of gambling, due to the prevalence of gambling venues in deprived areas. The evidence goes on to highlight risks from locating such venues close to sensitive locations where at-risk people visit, such as job centres, moneylenders and mental health support services. Reference is also made to the increased propensity for electronic bingo to encourage increased frequency of play and spending.

The ‘clustering’ assessment above is confined by the policy wording to the individual parade in which the appeal site is located, but within a small radius are several other gambling venues, including two bookmakers on [address], one being directly opposite the site. [name] and bookmakers are located on [address] and [name].

The appellant points to the granting of the premises licence as evidence that health and well-being are suitably addressed. The proposed nature of the bingo use as a collaborative, social experience is also highlighted. I acknowledge that bingo is a traditional and popular form of entertainment, but whilst the appellant has stressed the comparisons with traditional bingo, the evidence also highlights differences, including the prevalence of electronic machines, faster pace of play, other gaming machines and, due to the town centre location, the proximity of other gaming venues. Given this evidence, I am not persuaded that the proposal is a ‘lesser’ gambling use compared to that permitted on [name].

There is also a lack of clarity as to the opening hours of the proposed use, but indications that it would benefit the night time economy suggests late night or even 24-hour opening which would extend the potential for more and longer visits, including late into the night beyond the operating hours of traditional bingo halls.

I accept that national and local planning policies do not prohibit gambling uses. They are separately regulated by government, and the business would be subject to these regulatory controls outside of the planning system. However, the relevant policy in this case seeks to address broader trends in Doncaster related to health and well-being. The Council’s evidence highlights higher than average levels of poverty, deprivation and the associated increase in risk in gambling-related harm where gambling venues are located in deprived areas. The appellant’s evidence does not address these local circumstances. I accept that a premises licence has been granted, but this has not been put before me, and in any event it is assessed on the basis of different legislation.

Moreover, Policy 50 sets out that the Council will require that proposed changes of use will be assessed against the Health Impact Assessment Screening Tool and, when determined if required, the developer will demonstrate they have undertaken, and responded to the findings of, a Health Impact Assessment (HIA). The appellant argues that a HIA was not required by the Council; however the policy wording is that the Council will require use of the screening tool and determine whether an HIA is required, which I understand to mean it is the applicant who should undertake this task. I have no evidence this was undertaken, which adds to my concern that the proposal has not adequately considered the potential impact of the change of use on community health and well-being.

Overall, the proposal would add to the concentration of gambling uses in the town centre and the evidence before me does not substantively demonstrate that this would not increase the risk of gambling-related harm to the local community. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with Policy 50 of the DLP.

The appeal site lies within the [address] Conservation Area (the HSCA), which is centred on the historic [address] now forming [address]. [name] is one of a number of smaller streets of medieval origin leading from [address] where smaller retailers predominate. [name] also leads toward the adjacent [address] Conservation Area, of which the [name]* [name]/[name] is the focal point. The appeal building is Edwardian in character, remodelled in 1909 when in use as a hotel. As elsewhere on [name], the ground floor has a modern shopfront. No physical alterations are proposed to the external parts of the building, though new fascia and projecting signage is indicated.

However, as referred to above, the proposal would include vinyl panelling covering the entire window display. The absence of an active window display, and the strident nature of the vinyl display would significantly detract from the appearance of the building and its contribution to the commercial streetscene of [name].

Consequently, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the HSCA, contrary to Policies 37, 41, 42 and 46 of the DLP, which together require that development does not detract from the heritage significance of a conservation area; that it employs principles of good urban design; that it is well integrated with the built, natural and historic environment and respects, and where appropriate enhances, the character and setting of existing street frontages in terms of active frontage, with signage which is not overly prominent or dominant.

Having regard to the Framework, the development in this case would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset. In this circumstance, the Framework requires that the less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits.

There would be acknowledged benefits from the re-use of the premises in terms of generating employment and removing a vacant unit. However, as already set out, these are matters attracting limited weight in the proposal’s favour. I find that these benefits, taken together, would not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the heritage significance of the HSCA, to which I afford great weight. As such, the Framework indicates that this provides a clear reason for refusing the proposal, and this is a significant material consideration in the overall planning balance.

In reaching a view on the main issues, I have had regard to several allowed appeal decisions2 referred to me by the appellant. These decisions relate to different local authorities with different policy contexts and material considerations, including the existing use of the premises and the mix of uses in the area. Ultimately, I do not regard these decisions as directly comparable to the appeal before me, and therefore they attract limited weight in my determination of the appeal, which I have considered on its own merits.

For the reasons given, the proposal would conflict with the development plan, taken as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.