- Decision
- allowed, 14 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: S Burch
- Authority
- Croydon (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6010189
- Application reference
- 26/00641/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use of vacant ground-floor Class E unit (former bank) to 24-hour adult gaming centre (sui generis)
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- P3
- Development plan policies
- Croydon Local Plan 2018 DM4.2, DM10, DM23, London Plan 2021 D13, D14
- Main issues
- living conditions noise at night
Summary
Change of use of a vacant former bank in Norbury District Centre to a 24-hour adult gaming centre (Merkur Slots). Croydon refused permission on night-time noise from the opening hours alone. The appeal was allowed: a site-specific noise impact assessment and an operational management plan showed that the flats above and nearby residents would not be harmed, and the council could not say what difference closing at 1am would make.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework: "I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework in my decision" (DL ¶4). No specific Framework policy is applied in the reasoning.
- Noise: PASS. "The Council has not however demonstrated what material difference there would be in terms of noise or disturbance impacts between the premises operating until 1:00am and operating beyond its suggested 1:00am closing time … The fact that there are relatively few 24-hour premises in the area does not, in itself, demonstrate that a 24-hour operation would give rise to unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance" (DL ¶24).
- Loss of a retail unit. "I am satisfied that a genuine and robust marketing exercise was undertaken. I therefore attach significant weight to their professional opinion regarding the limited prospect of securing a retail occupier" (DL ¶29). The operator's footfall evidence gave "some support" (DL ¶30).
Planning balance
This was a development-plan decision. There was compliance on noise, and the council itself accepted the frontage conflict given the marketing. The PSED and Article 9 were considered, and objections about nearby places of worship and schools did not change the outcome (DL ¶44 onward).
What made the difference
The evidence. Compare Ruislip (PINS-6011516, dismissed four days later on the same kind of 24-hour gaming use): here there was a site-specific noise impact assessment with a night-time baseline, an agreed internal noise criterion (NR20), a management plan secured by condition, no objection from environmental health, and existing late-night premises nearby. Ruislip had none of these.
Transferable points
- A refusal of 24-hour opening fails if the council cannot show what harm the extra hours after its preferred closing time would cause (DL ¶24).
- A site-specific noise impact assessment with a 2–3am survey, plus a management plan secured by condition, can carry a 24/7 use above flats in a district centre (DL ¶10-27).
- More than 18 months of credible Class E marketing justified losing a frontage unit (DL ¶29).
- This decision only nominally engages the 2026 Framework. Its value is as a factual contrast with PINS-6011516.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DM23 (Croydon LP) / D13, D14 (London Plan) | accord | site-specific NIA (NR20 internal criterion, 2-3am external baseline survey, BS8233, WHO 60 dBA smoking area) plus operational management plan; council did not show a material difference between 1am and 24-hour closing (DL 10-27) | |
| DM4.2 (Croydon LP) | conflict | limited | loss of retail unit in Secondary Retail Frontage; outweighed because unit marketed for Class E for over 18 months without success, and the AGC generates footfall (DL 28-32) |
| P3 | pass | Framework consulted on (DL 4) but the decision rests on development plan noise policies; no Framework policy cited expressly |
Key facts
- District Centre, Secondary Retail Frontage; flats above the unit; several late-night premises nearby open to 2-3am
- 24/7 operation; noise impact assessment used measurements from 10 of the operator's venues and a 2-3am baseline survey at the site
- Council's own Pollution Control Officer had no objection subject to the NIA mitigation
- Marketed for Class E use for more than 18 months with no retail taker
- PTAL 5
Related decisions
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.