Agenda item

            The Director of Planning and Building Control presented the details of the application to the Committee.

 

She outlined that an existing amusement arcade, Players, on the ground floor of 22 Shaftesbury Square, had been operated by the applicant company since 2018.  The amusement permit for it was renewed on 1st June, 2025.

 

The applicant company now wished to extend the existing amusement arcade into the rear ground floor of the neighbouring unit at 23 Shaftesbury Square, which had been vacant for some years, but had recently been provided with a shop frontage sign for ‘Great Expectations, Regenerating Great Victoria Street’.

 

As there was no mechanism within the Order to allow for a variation of an existing Amusement Permit to cater for the extension of an existing premises, an application had to be made for the Grant or Provisional Grant of an Amusement Permit for the proposed extended amusement arcade.

 

            The Members were advised that the applicant had requested to operate the proposed premises 7 days per week, Monday to Sunday, 00:00 to 24:00hrs. The applicant had confirmed that the requested hours were those that the current premises operated.  The application was for a total of 69 gaming machines, giving an increase of 15 machines over the existing arcade; all of which were to pay out a maximum all cash prize of £500 in accordance with the Gaming (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order (NI) 2025 which came into force on 29th January, 2025. Admission to the arcade was restricted to persons aged 18 or over.

 

            In regards to health and safety, officers from the Service had met with the applicant to discuss the application and status of the premises. The applicant had confirmed that a Building Regulations application would be made to the Service for building work that would be required to create the new arcade layout.  The Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service had been consulted and it had confirmed that it had no objections to the application.

 

The PSNI had been consulted and had confirmed that it had no objections to the application.  No objections had been received as a result of the public notices placed in the three local newspapers.

 

            The Director outlined that planning permission for a change of use of the ground floor of 23 Shaftesbury Square, to an amusement arcade, was granted on 20th April, 2023.

 

            The Amusement Permit application involved the extension of the existing amusement arcade into the rear half of the adjoining property, with the front portion being retained as a retail unit.

 

            The proposal therefore constituted a partial implementation of the related planning permission which allowed for the entire unit to be converted into an amusement arcade, which the Planning Service had confirmed was lawful from a planning perspective.

 

            In an important Court of Appeal decision in June 1999, it was confirmed that the Council, in determining applications for Amusement Permits, may take into account planning considerations but should be slow to differ from the views of the Planning Authority.  The Court had also confirmed that the Council could take into account matters such as location, structure, character and impact on neighbours and the surrounding area.

 

The Committee was advised that, in considering the application for the Provisional Grant or Grant of an Amusement Permit, it should have regard to the Order and to the Council’s Amusement Permit Policy, as follows:

 

a)    The fitness of the applicant to hold a Permit having regard to her character, reputation and financial standing, and

 

b)    The fitness of any other person by whom the business is to be carried on under the Permit would be managed, or for whose benefit that business would be carried on,

 

c)    In considering the fitness of a body corporate to hold an amusement permit, the Council shall also have regard to the character, reputation and financial standing of the directors of the body corporate and any other persons who have executive control of it and who have a financial interest in it, as if the permit were, or were proposed to be, held by them jointly

 

d)    Representation, if any, from the sub-divisional commander of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in whose sub-division the premises are situated, and

 

e)    Representation, if any, as a result of the public notices of advertisement.

 

            The Director also highlighted that the Council’s Amusement Permit Policy had been ratified on 1st May, 2013. The policy outlined those matters which may be taken into account in determining any amusement permit application and indicated that each application must be assessed on its own merits.

 

All applications for the grant of an amusement permit were assessed against the Amusement Permit Policy.  The key objectives of the policy were to:-

 

1.    Promote the retail vibrancy and regeneration of Belfast;

2.     Enhance the tourism and cultural appeal of Belfast by protecting its image and built heritage;

3.     Support and safeguard residential communities in Belfast;

4.     Protect children and vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling;

5.     Respect the need to prevent gambling from being a source of crime and disorder.

 

                  The Committee was advised that there were five criteria set out in the Policy which should typically be considered when assessing the suitability of a location for an amusement arcade.

 

a)    Impact on the retail and viability of Belfast City

b)    Cumulative build-up of amusement arcades in a particular location

c)     Impact on the image and profile of Belfast

d)    Proximity to residential use; and

e)    Proximity to schools, youth centres, and residential institutions for vulnerable people.

In considering criterion b, the cumulative build-up of amusement arcades in a particular location, in addition to the existing arcade at no. 22 Shaftesbury Square, which the application sought to extend, there was another property on the commercial frontage assigned to amusement arcade use, Oasis at 14 Shaftesbury Square and 1-7 Donegall Road. Furthermore, there were two other amusement arcades operating nearby within approximately 200m walking distance of the application premises, namely, Onassis Amusements, Second floor, 25-41 Botanic Avenue, and Playland, 24-28 Bradbury Place.

The Director explained that, in the desire to promote retailing and regeneration in the City Centre, as per the first key objective of the Amusement Permit Policy, the Council was keen to avoid a clustering of Amusement Centres at any given location. One means by which to avoid clustering was a permit policy restriction on ground floor extensions/mergers of existing establishments into adjoining units.

The application sought a permit for the rear half of the adjoining property and proposed to retain the front half as a retail unit. While that technically constituted a partial merger, and therefore contrary to that aspect of the permit policy, consideration must be given to the fact that the extension of the amusement arcade would not affect the street frontage. In so doing, it would contribute to the maintenance of an active street frontage at ground floor level on that part of Shaftesbury Square.

However, the Committee was advised that it might wish to consider that there might be an issue in relation to the cumulative build-up of arcades and an increase in the number of gaming machines at the location which might impact upon the character and amenity of the area.

 

The Director reminded the Committee that it had refused an application, from a different applicant, to extend the amusement permit for the premises at 22 Shaftesbury Square into the adjoining vacant building at its meeting on 21st September, 2016. She explained that it was refused on the basis that the application failed to comply with two of the five criteria set out within the Council’s Amusement Permit Policy in terms of criteria (b) the cumulative build-up of amusement arcades in a particular location and (c) the impact of the arcade upon the image and profile of Belfast.

 

However, the current application was different in that it was proposed to extend only to the rear of the adjoining unit for use as an amusement arcade.  Accordingly, it might be considered to comply with all the permit policy criteria with the possible exception of the cumulative build-up of amusement arcades in a particular location. The Committee might wish to consider whether there was an issue in relation to the cumulative build-up of arcades and increase in the number of gaming machines at the location, which might impact upon the character and amenity of the area.

 

The Committee was reminded that the Council could not impose a restriction on the number of gaming machines under amusement permit legislation.

The Committee was reminded also that, on 19th October, 2022, it had approved the Provisional Grant of an Amusement Permit for the nearby Playland, 24-28 Bradbury Place, for the extension of the existing ground floor amusement arcade into the front of the premises to incorporate what was a small coffee shop area.

The Director informed the Committee that, should it be minded to refuse the application for the Provisional Grant of an Amusement Permit, it was required to advise the applicant of its intention to do so and that it must afford the applicant the opportunity to make representations at a specified Licensing Committee meeting on the matter before making a final determination on the application.

 

She explained that, should the Committee be minded to grant the permit provisionally, it was requested to consider delegating authority to her, in consultation with the City Solicitor to issue the permit once all necessary technical requirements relating to health, safety, welfare and amenity were completed to the satisfaction of the Building Control Service.

The Chairperson welcomed Mr. R. Daly, Barrister for the applicant, Mr. S. Nicholson, Architect, and Ms. L. McGivern, Applicant, to the meeting.

Mr. Daly advised the Committee that the application was for a small rear extension to the existing premises, expanding into what was essentially derelict property, only increasing the number of gaming machines by 15 (from 49 to 64).  He stated that there would be no change to the street frontage and that the application sought to improve the space and access routes, improve already complaint fire safety, health and safety, LED lighting and modernise the premises in line with modern industry standards.  He stated that there was precedent in that the Committee had previously approved a similar rear extension application that went next door for an Oasis gaming centre in Wellington Place and an approval for extension taking in a coffee shop to front of Playland in Bradbury Place.

In response to a Member’s question regarding the proposed new layout, Mr. Nicholson confirmed that, as part of the extension plans, the current access to the rear yard for the retained shop unit would be lost.

In response to a further query regarding the plans, officers confirmed that it was not a requirement under an amusement permit that the office within an amusement centre must have to have sight of all the gaming machines within the premises.

 

A further Member asked what protections were in place for those who were using the amusement arcade, including if they were prohibited from continuing and what services, if any, they were directed to if they required assistance with gambling addiction.  Mr. Daly stated that the applicant took gambling addiction very seriously and that staff were trained and provided leaflets and website information to any such customers.  Ms. McGivern, applicant, added that she was very conscious of responsible gambling and that they displayed posters within the premises clearly signposting people towards the gambling charity, GamCare.  She added that they offered a self-exclusion policy, whereby a customer could request to be excluded from gambling at the business for a set length of time.

In response to a Member’s question as to how many gaming shops were deemed to be too many in one location, the Director explained that that was a question for the Committee to consider, and that the proposed additional gaming machines represented a 4% increase on the total number within the amusement arcades in the vicinity shown on the map within the Committee pack.

A Member stated that he was concerned that there was a proliferation of amusement arcades within the area.

            Moved by Councillor Smyth,

            Seconded by Alderman McCullough,

           

      That the Committee agrees that it is minded to refuse the application for the Provisional Grant of an Amusement Permit, on the grounds of cumulative build-up of amusement arcades and increase in the number of gaming machines in a particular location, impacting on the character and amenity of the area.

 

            On a vote, nine Members voted for the proposal and nine against.  As there was an equality of votes, the Chairperson exercised his second and casting vote for the proposal and it was accordingly declared carried.

 

Therefore, the applicant would be afforded the opportunity to make representations on the matter, at a specified Licensing Committee meeting, before the Committee would make its final determination on the application.