Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives, as specified within the main committee report together with an additional condition to restrict noise generating equipment and noise from the site to not exceed 10dB when measured from the nearest noise sensitive property.

PROPOSAL

Change of use of basement and ground floor from vacant bank to bingo hall with

alteration to front elevation at ground floor level.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)  The conditions and informatives as specified within the main committee report.

Parag Dhanani (Career Grade Planning Officer) introduced the planning application committee report, detailing the proposal for the change of use of basement and ground floor from vacant bank to bingo hall with alteration to front elevation at ground floor level.

Attention was drawn to the fact that since the publication of the committee report, a further objection to the proposed development had been raised which corresponded to those already received and addressed within the ‘Consultations’ section of the

committee report. The recommendation remained to grant consent subject to the conditions and informatives as outlined within the main committee report.

The Chair thanked Parag Dhanani for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then Liam Upson (who had registered to speak as an objector) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

• Liam Upson began by expressing gratitude for the opportunity to address the Planning Committee and represented residents who had submitted significant opposition to the plans to convert the former Lloyds Bank into a Bingo Hall.

• Reference was made to Dawn Butler, MP for Brent East, who had highlighted in Parliament that gambling facilities in Brent were more accessible than banks, supermarkets, and schools. The permit was to replace a former bank, with another bank having closed in Willesden Green this month.

• The objector noted that gambling-related harms costed Brent Council an estimated £14.3 million annually. It was argued that granting planning permission was a short-term measure with long-term harmful ramifications. It was believed that the permit was being provisionally granted due to weak licensing powers and a loophole in the law that did not consider a bingo hall in the same way as a bookmaker. The Leader of the Council had written to the culture secretary to raise concerns about the weak council powers to reject premise licences.

• Liam Upson pointed out that there was a large bingo hall in Cricklewood, less than half a mile away, which had applied to become an adult gaming centre and was approved. Additionally, there were numerous betting shops and adult gaming centres in close proximity to the site.

• It was felt that, despite the officer’s comments, there was strong evidence linking high densities of gambling establishments to increased social problems, including financial hardship and addiction, which could lead to crime and anti-social behaviour, thereby increasing costs for the Council. It was emphasised that this decision came at a time of growing concern about safety in the area.

• Regarding the consultation process, the objector noted that neighbourhood letters were not received, and many residents had reported a lack of information. It was felt that the officer’s comments did not sufficiently address the expected noise and general disturbance late in the evening on the high street, especially with a pub situated next door.

• It was suggested that the vacant bank presented an opportunity to attract businesses that would better serve and diversify the area, such as community centres, retail spaces, cafés, or cultural venues. It was believed that the proposed site would have a detrimental impact on the high street, situated in a conservation area where local community members took tremendous pride.

• In concluding the response, Liam Upson expressed that approval of the planning application would contravene the views and fears submitted by community residents and oppose the views expressed by Ward Councillor Choudry and the local MP, who represented their constituency members.

The Chair thanked Liam Upson for addressing the Committee. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then moved on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask the officers any remaining questions or points of clarity in relation to the application, with the following being noted:

• As an initial query, members inquired whether there would be a valid reason to object to the planning application due to the number of other gaming facilities and gambling areas within the vicinity. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) explained that the planning application presented was for a bingo hall, as outlined in the committee report. It was stated that a bingo hall was considered an appropriate town centre use according to national policy, the London Plan, and local policy. It was noted that there were no policies within the local plan that addressed the overconcentration of bingo premises. Reference was made to planning policy BE5, which sought to protect against the overconcentration of potentially harmful uses in Brent’s town centres. This policy specifically concerned betting shops, adult gaming centres, pawnbrokers, takeaways, and shisha cafes. The proposed planning application did not fall within these uses, and therefore, there were no planning policies addressing overconcentration in this context. As a point of fact, David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) added that, according to the Gambling Act, bingo was classified differently from adult gaming centres. It was further explained that the law distinguished between traditional bingo halls and bingo machines, all of which were classified under bingo uses and establishments, whereas adult gaming centres were classified separately. Additionally, planning policy BE5 did not impose any restrictions on bingo halls or bingo facilities. It was emphasised that these legal distinctions and planning policies should frame the discussions and decisions made by the Committee.

• Members raised questions around the impact of the Willesden Conservation Area on the planning application, to which Parag Dhanani (Career Grade Planning Officer) explained that the use of the building was not the primary concern with regard to the conservation area. The focus was on preserving the building fabric. It was noted that some external alterations had been proposed to the shop frontage, predominantly involving glazing panels for windows and doors. These alterations were considered not to have an adverse impact on the conservation area's built fabric.

• Members cited paragraph 4 of the committee report, which noted that limited ancillary uses could take place within the floor area, and inquired what number of bingo machines would constitute a significant use and how the Council could enforce change of uses. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) clarified that a bingo hall use was classified as sui generis, meaning it did not fall within a specific use class and did not have permitted development rights to change to another use without planning permission. To use the premises as an adult gaming centre would require planning permission. It was further explained that determining whether there was a material change of use involved assessing the facts and degree of the situation. There was no set number of bingo machines that would result in a change of use or mixed use. Should planning permission be granted, it would be on the basis of the premises operating as a bingo hall. Any complaints would be investigated by the Planning Enforcement Team to establish if a material change of use had occurred. From a legal perspective, Susan Boucher (Planning Lawyer) conveyed that the term "bingo hall" was recognised in the use classes order and had been classified as sui generis since 2022. Where a bingo hall use was granted and the premises subsequently became a different use or a mixed use, this could constitute a material change of use, which would be a breach of planning control and subject to enforcement action. The Committee were required to determine the planning application based on the facts provided by officers and the land use perspective. David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) further emphasised that the only consideration was the use of the premises as a bingo establishment. Any minor ancillary uses must not materially change the use of the premises. It was reiterated that enforcement action could be taken if the premises were not used as a bingo hall, as consented. Members were also reminded of the distinction between planning and licensing functions, which were governed by separate procedural and policy frameworks.  Under planning rules, if permission was granted the premises could be used for that purpose. However, under licensing, which has more immediate powers, as a granted licence could also be revoked.

• Members questioned whether the proposed planning application had come to the Planning Committee due to the number of objections received. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) confirmed that the planning application had indeed come to the Planning Committee because of the number of objections. It was explained that if any planning application met the threshold to come to a planning committee, it would be referred to the Committee for determination. Otherwise, it would be handled under delegated authority. It was emphasised that any planning application would be considered in line with the development plan and planning policies.

• Members noted with interest that no issues of principle could be taken in this case due to planning law. It was noted that the application was under the sui generis category, which required consideration solely on that basis. It was acknowledged that there were principle issues around gambling, as pointed out by the objector, and that bingo was considered a form of gambling. However, it was recognised that the planning application could not be rejected on that basis at this time and needed to be based on planning reasons for refusal. It was inquired whether, if the planning application were granted and subsequently found to be in contravention, it would come back to the Planning Committee or be referred to Licensing for consideration. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) advised that if there was a contravention in planning and a change of use occurred, a new planning application would need to be submitted for the alternative use. This application would go through the Planning Committee if it met the relevant threshold, such as receiving 8 or more objections and recommended for approval. It was further noted that any breach of planning would be investigated by the enforcement team, who had the authority to serve enforcement notices.

• Members inquired about the final objection received in the committee report regarding a similar previously considered application around the change of use of a bingo hall to a gaming centre. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) explained that a material change in use would require planning permission and would need to be assessed accordingly. It was noted that licensing issues fell outside the scope of planning control.

• Concerns were raised around anti-social behaviour and the operating hours of the bingo hall, with members keen to seek details on whether it was possible to impose a planning condition to restrict the closing time, which was currently later than other similar centres. In response, Parag Dhanani (Career Grade Planning Officer) detailed that the closing time had already been restricted as a planning condition, with operating hours from Monday to Friday set at 8am. to 11pm, and from 9am to 11pm on Saturdays, Sundays, bank holidays, and public holidays.  Following up, members suggested aligning the closing time for this planning application with that of bookmakers, which typically closed at 10 pm. In response, David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) highlighted that an 11pm closing time was common in areas with proximity to residential dwellings. It was noted that noise levels were more manageable within premises when doors and windows were closed, but more challenging outside. The Committee heard that the 11pm threshold was a common standard, marking the transition from daytime to nighttime noise levels. It was asserted that 11pm was an appropriate closing time for premises within a town centre. Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager) further added that the proposed site did not have residential units above it, making it less sensitive compared to other locations. It was additionally noted that the proposed site was in a town centre with significant surrounding activity.

• Related questions were raised around whether officers had considered a 10pm closing time and then opted for 11 pm as the standard, or if the 11pm closing time was applied by default. In response, Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager) informed that that the decision on closing times took into account the building's activity and the absence of sensitive uses above it. It was noted that the use would be managed under licensing restrictions and by on-site staff. The nature of the activity differed from that of public houses, which generated more noise. It was highlighted that the surrounding area included cafes, restaurants, and other places with similar operating hours, making the additional hour of operation unlikely to cause significant harm or changes to the character of the area. Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) further noted that the applicant had initially proposed operating hours up to 12:30am and 1:00 am. However, officers had recommended alternative hours after considering the context of the area and local amenities. Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager) further elaborated on the necessity of planning conditions to mitigate significant impacts on the surrounding area. It was emphasised that these planning conditions were essential to prevent noise disturbance and manage the comings and goings of individuals, particularly at certain times of the day when such activities could be harmful. It was clarified that restrictions were imposed based solely on the impacts assessed in planning terms.

• The Chair enumerated several advantages of the proposed planning application, such as the employment opportunities it would generate and the skills development associated with the planned electronic workshop area in the basement designated for repairs. However, the Chair expressed concerns that the committee report implied the venue might primarily function as an electronic bingo establishment, yet there were no stipulations confirming this. Observations from existing bingo venues indicated that the use of amplified sound for calling numbers could potentially lead to noise disturbances. The Chair additionally articulated concerns that the committee report lacked details on anticipated sound levels, the quantity of bingo machines, and the amplification sequence. Furthermore, there were no provisions for sound barrier defense mechanisms to mitigate noise escape. The Chair sought clarification on whether these noise levels had been considered and discussed, and if not, requested that the appropriate planning conditions be applied. In response, Parag Dhanani (Career Grade Planning Officer) confirmed that a planning condition could be added to ensure that noise levels did not exceed 10 decibels (dB). David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) concurred and noted that the additional planning condition could be attached as part of the planning approval process without requiring assurances from the applicants.

As there were no further questions from members the Chair then moved on to the vote.

DECISION

The Committee RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to:

(1)  The conditions and informatives, as specified within the main committee report together with an additional condition to restrict noise generating equipment and noise from the site to not exceed 10dB when measured from the nearest noise sensitive property.

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: For 4; Against 2; Abstention 1).