Adult gaming centre at 44 The Parade, Swindon

The site and surroundings

The unit is a prominent two-storey corner property in the town centre, within primary shopping frontages and near other commercial and gambling uses.

“The application site comprises a relatively large, purpose-built ‘retail’/Class E, two storey unit located prominently on the corner of The Parade and Bridge Street in Swindon Town Centre. The unit has display windows facing both The Parade and Bridge Street, although with customer access only from The Parade.”

“The Parade – both sides – is defined in the Swindon Borough Local Plan (SBLP) as Primary Shopping Frontage. Nearby Bridge Street is also Primary Shopping Frontage on its west side; and so is Regent Street (west side only near to the site) and Canal Walk (both sides). The Parade, Canal Street and Regent Street are typical town centre streets with day-time busy, commercial characters.”

Officer report

Relevant site history

A 2010 permission covered the frontage block, and the site’s lawful use now falls within Class E.

“Planning permission was granted for the whole frontage block (nos. 2 to 44, The Parade), which includes the application site, in 2010 (ref. S/09/0400). The permission is not subject to any use- restricting conditions, meaning that the lawful use of the site now falls within Class E (‘commercial, business & service’) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposed use would fail to provide an appropriately active frontage in the heart of the retail core.

“Although the proposal complies with the mathematical ‘test’ for assessing non-retail/[Class E] uses in Prime Shopping Frontages as set out in SBLP Policy EC3, in view of the sites specific location in Swindon’s retail core it fails against the qualitative expectation set out in Swindon Central Area Action Plan Policy CAAP13 for new development to provide active frontages at ground level in the main streets and spaces.”

“An adult gaming centre would fail to provide appropriately active frontages at ground floor level in a principal space/street at the heart of the Swindon Town Centre retail core where the main focus is expected to be shopping activity. This would detract from the attractiveness and functionality of the area as the main focus for shopping activity, contrary to Policy CAAP13 of the Swindon Central Area…”

Officer report

Consultees and residents

Public Health, the parish council and other representations raised concerns about gambling concentration, health, retail loss, town-centre vitality and safety.

“Contrary to Local Plan Policy EC3; loss of a retail unit; less than 75% retail in frontage; erosion of active retail frontages and weakening of the retail character and overall commercial vitality of the area; no resulting town centre enhancement – minimal linked-trip activity, limited daytime engagement, low footfall • Contrary to NPPF para 90; not contributing to a suitable mix of uses; undermines retail provision • The Parade is Primary Retail Frontage and a key…”

“Town centre really needs shops, cafes and social spaces; use would be harmful to vitality, viability and vibrancy of the town centre • Loss of jobs in other businesses in Bridge Street, including other gambling arcades; little job benefit from the proposal • Adult gaming centres often have darkened windows and bright signs – these would harm the look/atmosphere of The Parade • Potential adverse effect on community well-being and safety • Precedent for further non-retail, sui…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent, an objector and a parish councillor addressed the committee about the proposal and its effects.

What members debated

Supporters cited investment, marketing difficulties and a proposed active frontage, while objectors challenged the retail and regeneration impacts; officers maintained it would not be active.

“No viable interest in the premises has been identified since it was vacated by Topshop in 2020. • A temporary trader currently occupies the premises, with no incentive to invest in local staff or the premises itself. • If planning permission were to be granted, the applicant would be investing £650,000 in the premises.”

“The application site has a large, proposed frontage that would be visually dominant within the town centre. • The proposal does not promote the viability and regeneration of the retail offering within the town centre. • The site was previously utilised for retail purposes for a significant period of time, so it is hard to accept that no such use could be viable again.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillors voted in favour of refusal, apart from one councillor who had left before the proposal was made.

“Councillor Neil Hopkins proposed that planning permission be refused, in line with recommendation set out in the Case Officer’s report. Councillor Matthew Vallender seconded the proposal.”

“All Councillors were in favour of the proposal to refuse planning permission, with the exception of Councillor Matthew Courtliff, who had left the room during the Members only debate and prior to a proposal to determine the application being made.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused in line with the officer recommendation because the proposal would not provide the required active frontage.

“Resolved – That planning permission be refused, in line with the recommendations set out in the Case Officer’s report. 67.”

Minutes