Agenda item

The Director of Planning and Building Control provided the Committee with the details of the application from EZE Gaming Ltd., for the provisional grant of an Amusement Permit at 51 Rosemary Street. The applicant had expressed that they wished to relocate its existing amusement arcade from 13 North Street to the new location. The Director explained that the existing amusement arcade in North Street had been operational for over 20 years and that the applicant had advised that those premises would close if the new permit, for 51 Rosemary Street, was granted.

The proposed amusement arcade would house 48 gaming machines and the arcade currently operated by the applicant at North Street was licensed for the same number of machines, although on previous renewal inspections there were, in fact, fewer gaming machines.

The proposed opening hours of the amusement arcade were as follows:

·         Monday to Saturday (8.00am - Midnight) and

·         Sunday (12 Noon – 11.00pm)

The Committee was advised that planning permission for the change of use from retail to an amusement arcade was granted on 4th October, 2024, for the site in question.  The Director pointed out, however, that the planning approval for the site was not dependent on the relocation of the amusement arcade and was not subject to an agreement under Section 76 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011.

The Committee was advised that the First Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church, located near the proposed site, had objected to the application, citing concerns about the amusement arcade being an unsuitable neighbour and its potential negative impact on the Church’s activities and the areas historical significance.

The Members were advised that a meeting between the applicant and the Church representatives had been held but no resolution had been reached.

The Council’s Amusement Permit Policy, ratified in 2013, outlined criteria for assessing applications.  The Policy generally presumed against granting new amusement permits in the Retail Core of Belfast City Centre unless part of a major retail-led development or upper-storey development.

The Director outlined that the application had been evaluated against five criteria in the Amusement Permit Policy:

·         Retail vibrancy: The site was in the Retail Core, where new amusement arcades were discouraged. However, the applicant had argued that the relocation was necessary for city centre regeneration;

·         Cumulative build-up: There were other amusement arcades nearby, but none in the same commercial block;

·         Impact on Belfast’s image: The site was near historic and listed buildings, including the First Presbyterian Church, but it was not considered to detract significantly from the area’s tourism appeal;

·         Proximity to residential areas: The site was not adjacent to residential properties.

·         Proximity to schools and vulnerable groups: No schools, youth centres or residential institutions for vulnerable people were located within 200 metres of the site.

The Director explained that the Committee was required to decide whether to grant or refuse the application based on the applicant’s fitness to hold the permit, the suitability of the premises, and any representations.

She explained that the objector wished to rely upon their written submission and was not in attendance to address the Committee.

The Chairperson welcomed the applicant, Mr. S. Stranaghan, and his solicitor, Ms. M. Conway, to the meeting.  Ms. Conway reminded the Committee that the application was intended to be a relocation of existing arcade premises which were currently operated by the company at 13 North Street, which was a short walk from the application site. The applicant had requested a new lease from its landlord in North Street but was refused on redevelopment grounds. There was no gaming proposed as part of the redevelopment scheme. 

She reminded the Committee that it would be familiar with the redevelopment on North Street, having approved an amusement permit for Oasis Gaming at 73 North Street, which had had to relocate from 19 North Street.  The objectors in their submission had sought to distinguish the current application from the Oasis application, on the basis that the planning permission for 73 North Street included a Section 76 Agreement, which created a binding obligation on the applicant to cease trading from the original location.  She confirmed that the applicant in this case was also tied to contractual arrangements which would require them to vacate the premises at North Street.  If the Committee was minded to grant the permit, the applicant would confirm its undertaking to serve the requisite notice under the agreement for surrender which the Council’s legal department held, on approval of the permit and expiry of the challenge period.  The applicant confirmed his willingness to surrender the lease for the North Street premises upon approval of the new permit. 

The Members were advised that the applicant intended to spend over £200,000 in carrying out improvement works to the unit, creating an improvement to the streetscape and character of the area, thereby contributing to the retail vitality and viability of the city centre. 

The Church, and the objector in this application, had co-existed as a neighbour with other users not dissimilar to the applicant and it was situated close to the Three C’s Social Club.  In response to the Church’s statement regarding sensitive users who attended the Church, she pointed to the fact that there was no vehicular access on Royal Avenue and therefore pedestrian access to the church was more likely to occur from Bridge Street and High Street.  She added that the proposal would not result in a cumulative buildup of arcades in the area, given the requirement to cease trading from the premises in North Street.

The Chairperson then welcomed Dr. T. Quinn, Planning Consultant, to the meeting.  He outlined that, in terms of whether the application was acceptable in principle, it was within the primary retail core where there was a presumption against allowing additional amusement arcades.  He outlined, however, that the applicant had maintained that the arcade would be moving from its existing premises to the application site within the retail core and, therefore, it could be considered acceptable.  He confirmed that the location could be considered appropriate as there were no schools, youth centres or places for vulnerable people within 200metres.  In respect of any potential impact on the image and profile of Belfast, he outlined that the Church, as a listed building, could be considered a tourism asset.  He stated that it sat several properties away from the application site, with a separation distance of approximately 20-25 metres, and that he did not feel that it would unduly harm visitors to the Church.  He stated that it was not ideal that the premises would be visible from Royal Avenue, opposite Castle Court. 

In summary he stated that the relocation of the premises, including the applicant’s commitment to surrender the lease at North Street and the landlord’s refusal to renew it, amounted to fairly strong evidence that the premises in North Street would close if the permit for Rosemary Street was granted.  In addition, he reminded the Committee of a similar application in 2022, where it had granted an amusement arcade to relocate from North Street close to Royal Avenue for the same reasons and, in some respects, it could be considered as precedent.

A Member stated that it was frustrating that the Policy did not specify what quantified over-proliferation.  He also stated that it was well known that people who struggled with addiction attended churches for help and that he felt that the application at that site was regrettable.

            The Director of Planning and Building Control reminded the Committee that it had considered a revised Amusement Permit Policy in April 2025, and that it was subject to consultation, however, the current Policy remained in place until a revised Policy was agreed.

            A further Member stated that he took assurance from the applicant and his solicitor that the North Street permit would be surrendered if the Committee was to grant the Permit for the current application.

            Two further Members expressed concerns in regards to the nearby Church being a heritage asset and that they did not feel comfortable granting the application.

Proposal

Moved by Councillor Carson

Seconded by Councillor McCann

     That the Committee agrees to the provisional granting of an Amusement Permit for 51 Rosemary Street to Twilight Zone, with delegated authority given to the Director of Planning and Building Control, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to issue the permit once all necessary technical requirements relating to health, safety, welfare and amenity have been completed to the satisfaction of the Building Control Service.

On a vote on the proposal, nine Members voted for it and eight against and it was accordingly declared carried.