Appeal 6006527

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the site would be a suitable location for the proposed [name].

The appeal relates to Nos [address], a three-storey building which is currently vacant but is understood to have been last in use as a bank at ground floor. The appeal building is located within a busy, urban, mixed use area where business premises line [address] and some of the side streets at street level, with residential uses above. Additionally, immediately to the south of the site is the [name] for Girls. The concentration commercial premises and range of uses in this area indicates a wide ranging day to night-time economy and is reflective of the area’s designation as the City Fringe Activity Area, Watney Market District Centre and Watney Market Primary Shopping Area.

The appeal scheme proposes the change of use of the building from a vacant bank to a bingo hall. Policy D.TC5 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 (THLP) relates to proposals for food, drink, entertainment and the night-time economy and details the Council’s approach to various uses. I note that Policy D.TC5 was written prior to the changes to the Use Class Order in 2020 and was adopted prior to the most recent National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) being published. I also note the policy does not explicitly list all Main Town Centre Uses (MTCU) defined in the Framework. However, these factors do not mean the policy should automatically be regarded as out of date.

Policy D.TC5 adopts a positive and hierarchical approach to the economic growth of leisure and entertainment activities in a way that seeks to promote a sustainable mix of uses that reflects the distinctive characteristics of different area designations. This is consistent with paragraph 90 of the Framework. This policy also requires consideration of the effects of certain types of uses on schools and sensitive community, cultural or social facilities which is consistent with Chapter 8 of the Framework which aims to achieve inclusive and safe places which do not undermine quality of life, and social and cultural wellbeing. Policy D.TC5 is therefore consistent with the Framework and thus is afforded full weight.

Part 4 of the policy refers to new betting offices/shops, amusement centres, casinos and lap-dancing clubs. This policy states that such uses will be resisted where a) there is an over concentration of such uses which could give rise to negative cumulative social impacts, b) the site is in close proximity to a school or sensitive community, cultural or social facilities, and c) the proposal would detrimentally impact the amenity and character of the area. Part 5 of Policy D.TC5 refers to the development of entertainment venues within the D2 or sui generis use classes not referenced by the policy.

The appeal scheme proposes a bingo hall which is not listed under Part 4 of Policy D.TC5. The bingo hall would be licensed under the Gambling Act (2005), and the Council considers this use would generate the same type of activity as an adult gaming centre (AGC), for which a proposal was recently dismissed at appeal1 against Part 4 of this policy. However, Part 5 refers to entertainment venues within the D2 or sui generis use classes and prior to the changes to the Use Class Order in 2020, a bingo hall was regarded as a D2 use. Therefore, both Parts 4 and 5 of this policy refer to uses that could include gambling. As a bingo hall previously fell within a use listed under Part 5, which is not the case for an AGC, this appeal scheme is not directly comparable to the scheme that was before the previous inspector in this respect. Accordingly, and on this basis, I consider it most appropriate to assess the appeal against Part 5.

Part 5 of Policy D.TC5 sets out that such uses will be directed to the [name], [name], [name] and the other town centres where they are compatible with other uses within the town centre. There is no dispute between the parties that a bingo hall is a MTCU, and the appeal site is within a town centre. Accordingly, and irrespective of whether interested parties have objected to the scheme or not, it remains necessary to consider whether the bingo hall use would be compatible with other uses within the town centre.

In this respect, the proximity of the appeal site to sensitive educational, community, cultural or social facilities is a relevant consideration. The Council have raised concerns in relation to the Mosque ([name]) on [address] and the [name] for Girls to the rear of the site. The previous Inspector noted that the [name] is visually and spatially separated from the appeal site, being further to the south-west and located within a parade of shops and other commercial businesses within [address]. Accordingly, they concluded that there would not be any material or adverse impact on the users of the Mosque from the introduction of an AGC at the appeal site given their separate and respective locations. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to come to a different conclusion in respect of the proposed bingo hall which has very similar gambling characteristics and would be similarly well separated from the Mosque.

To the rear of the site is the [name] for Girls. While the school has not submitted any comments in relation to this appeal scheme, I note the recent appeal 1 decision refers in detail to the school’s concerns regarding the proximity of gambling activities and the effects this could have on school pupils which are reiterated by the Council. Such concerns refer to the need to protect young people from being harmed or exploited by gambling and preventing exposure at an impressionable age. Reference is also made to the majority of students at the school being of a Muslim background and how gambling activities are contrary to Islamic beliefs.

The appeal site is situated in close proximity to this school and its main access off [address]. Pupils entering and exiting the school from this main entrance would therefore experience the bingo hall as one of the nearby commercial premises on this side of the road. I agree with the previous Inspector that the proposed use would inevitably have a noticeable presence in the vicinity of the school entrance with its reasonably long footway frontage and, in all likelihood, advertising, even if this were to require separate advertising consent. The bingo hall and associated gambling activities would therefore be perceptible and prominent to school pupils.

I note that the bingo hall would be a regulated activity that would be licensed and subject to various requirements and conditions. This would prohibit access to anyone under the age of 18 and with appropriate management plans in place, there is no substantive evidence that this use would lead to anti-social behaviour or crime. However, separately to the licensing regime, the planning system operates to seek to ensure uses are approved in appropriate locations which, in accordance with chapter 8 of the Framework, includes consideration of the effects on local communities.

The previous inspector concluded that given the proximity to the school entrance where most pupils have a Muslim background, an AGC which includes gambling activities would not be a sensitive or appropriate use of the appeal building. They also concluded that there would be a real prospect that its presence could undermine the well-being of the pupils and their families in the way envisaged by the school. This runs contrary to chapter 8 of the Framework which promotes healthy, inclusive and safe places and implies support for inclusive planning that respects diverse cultural and religious needs. A bingo hall has broadly similar gambling characteristics to an AGC and based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to come to an alternative conclusion on the effects such a use could have on school pupils and their families, and the conflict that would arise with the Framework in this regard. A bingo hall within the appeal building would therefore be incompatible with other uses in the immediate area.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal site would not be a suitable location for the proposed [name]. This conflicts with Policy D.TC5 of the THLP insofar as it seeks to guide leisure and entertainment venues to locations where they would be compatible with other uses within the town centre. It also conflicts with the aims of chapter 8 of the Framework for the reasons set out above.

The appeal scheme proposes a bingo hall which both parties accept is a use generally considered to be suitable for a main town centre. The scheme would also bring a vacant unit back into use and thus would support the vitality of the area. There would also be some temporary and ongoing economic benefits arising from the scheme during the conversion, operation of the business and additional employment opportunities. However, there is no substantive evidence before me that such benefits could not be realised by a town centre use that would be more appropriate in proximity to a school or that the proposed use could be delivered in an alternative building or location within this district centre. In both instances, this would avoid the harm that has been identified.

On this basis and given the modest scale of the development, the associated benefits of the appeal scheme attract limited weight and do not outweigh the substantial weight to be afforded to the harm and subsequent policy conflict I have identified in respect of the site being an inappropriate location for the proposed use.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.