24-hour adult gaming centre at 218 High Street, Cheltenham

The site

The site is a former retail unit in the Core Commercial Area, Central Shopping Area and Central Conservation Area.

“DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL 1.1 The application site relates to 218 High Street, a retail unit that was formally occupied by Shoe Zone, now occupied by Admiral Casino. The site lies within Cheltenham’s Core Commercial Area and the Central Shopping Area and is within the Central Conservation Area (Old Town Character Area).”

Officer report

Earlier permission and conditions

An appeal granted the adult gaming centre subject to restricted hours, while the required acoustic assessment was later discharged.

“The condition relevant to this application was condition 4 which imposed restricted opening hours of between 0900 – 0000 on weekdays and Saturdays and 1000- 2200 on Sundays. In addition, condition 3 required the submission of an acoustic assessment, which was later discharged under planning reference: 24/00760/DISCON. The applicant is now seeking consent to vary condition 4 of the permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers found no unacceptable effects on neighbouring amenity, public safety or town-centre vitality and recommended removing the restricted-hours condition.

“With regards to the proposed change in opening hours, the relevant considerations include impact on neighbouring amenity, public safety and impact on the viability and vitality of the town centre. Impact on neighbouring amenity 6.4 In the original application for the change of use of the site in 2024, the applicant sought a 24-hour use.”

“The applicant has responded to this particular point, stating that a specific incident referred to cannot have occurred in their premise, as this is suggested to have taken place at 1:30am, at which time they are not currently open. The applicant also states that there is no record of a police report for this particular incident.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

Environmental health found no adverse noise effect, while the crime prevention officer initially sought more information about security and risks.

“Environmental Health - 12th August 2025 The applicant has provided a robust noise survey to examine any potential effect from 24 hr opening on nearby property, due to noise from the internal areas, external air conditioning units, and customers arriving and leaving. The assessment indicates that there will be no adverse effect on nearby noise-sensitive properties.”

“Various licensed premises from the surrounding area have been mentioned to set a precedent for opening hours, yet the application doesn't include any provisions to increase security or offer and information to ensure a safe environment and how they aim to prevent opportunities of crime, ASB or disorder.”

Officer report

Objections and concerns

Twenty-three objections raised concerns about safety, vulnerable people, noise, disturbance and the town centre’s character during late hours.

“Letters have been sent to 16 neighbouring land users, a site notice has been displayed and an advert published in the Gloucestershire Echo. In response, 23 letters of objection have been received. The concerns raised have been summarised but are not limited to the following:”

“Public safety concerns, including fear of crime and anti-social behaviour • Risk to vulnerable individuals and their wellbeing • Impact on neighbouring amenity – noise and disturbance • Impact on the character of the town centre particularly during late evening and early morning hours.”

Officer report

What speakers said

An objector opposed unrestricted hours, while the applicant’s representative cited security measures, licensing, the noise assessment and the absence of incidents.

Committee discussion

Members discussed the noise evidence, gambling and town-centre effects, nearby 24-hour premises, residents, licensing and the limits on refusing the application.

“In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that: - The material difference between the current committee decision and that made by the appeal inspector is that the applicant had not submitted a noise assessment at that time as part of the package of the application.”

“- The Chair advised that moral indices are not an appropriate basis when dealing with planning applications. - A Member noted that on the basis of gambling and noise this application could be said to go against section 8 of the NPPF which says that decisions should promote healthy and safe communities. However, the Chair’s advice was noted. - A Member noted that as ward member for the area he is aware there are a good few residents in the vicinity.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted on the officer recommendation to permit the application, with four votes for, two against and three abstentions.

“The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit the application.”

Minutes