Forum topic: PG Action team leading fight to block new gambling venue

Planning permission has been refused though no doubt there will be an appeal.

The decision letter, dated 26 July, is as follows;

ENFIELD COUNCIL, as the Local Planning Authority, give you notice that the application, as
described above, is REFUSED for the following reason(s):-

01. The development proposal, by virtue of its nature and siting, would lead to a clustering,
intensification and over-concentration of betting and gambling uses in the immediate area, failing to make the best use of the land. This clustering would be detrimental to the vitality, viability and character of the town centre in this location. The proposal is also likely to exacerbate existing issues such as crime, anti-social behaviour, and social disadvantage in this area, which would be harmful to the health and wellbeing of residents and to community cohesion. Given this, the proposal is contrary to policies GG1, GG2, GG3, SD6, D3 and D8 of the London Plan (2021), to policies CP9, CP17 and CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010), to policies DMD33 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document (2014), and to the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

02. The proposal results in a loss of Use Class E floorspace in the Palmers Green District Centre and detracts from the shopping role of the street, does not provide a public service, does not propose an active frontage, fails to demonstrate a local need and introduces an adverse impact on the locality with the potential of increased crime and anti-social behaviour. As such, the proposal is contrary to SD6 and SD8 of the London Plan (2021), CP17 of the Core Strategy (2010) and DMD27 of the Development Management (2014).

03. The proposed hours of operation introduce a night-time use where there is presently no
diversity of night-time activity, resulting in a sole, isolated night-time use that attracts crime and anti-social behaviour, leading to an impact on safety and perception of safety, contrary to Policy HC6 of the London Plan (2021) and Core Policy 11 and Core Policy 17 of the Core Strategy (2010).

04. The proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the non-designated heritage asset contrary to paragraph 203 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023; Policy HC1 of the London Plan 2021; Policy 40, 41, and 44 of the DMD 2014; and Policy 31 of the Core Strategy 2010.

05. The proposal fails to provide adequate cycle and refuse storage provision and is therefore
contrary to Policies T5, T7 of the London Plan (2021), CP 24 and CP25 of the Core Strategy (2010), DMD45 DMD47 and DMD48 of the Development Management Document (2014) and the NPPF (2023)