Plans to turn a vacant shop in Hanwell into a 24-hour gambling venue have been rejected after Ealing Council successfully defended its decision at appeal.

Pure Gaming Limited had applied to change the ground-floor commercial unit at 153–155 Uxbridge Road into a 24-hour bingo hall featuring adult gaming machines, with entry restricted to people aged 18 and over.

The council refused planning permission over concerns about the impact on Hanwell town centre, nearby residents and the character of the area. The company appealed the decision to the Planning Inspectorate, but on 28 July the appeal was dismissed, backing the council's stance.

The planning inspector said there was insufficient evidence that the proposal would provide the type of business or attractive frontage expected in such a prominent town centre location, close to Hanwell's landmark clock tower.

The inspector also noted that flats are located above the premises, but no noise assessment had been submitted to demonstrate how residents would be protected from disturbance.

The decision highlighted concerns that a venue operating 24 hours a day could result in customers arriving, leaving or gathering outside during the night and early morning, when background noise levels are typically much lower. Police concerns about existing crime and antisocial behaviour in the area were also taken into account.

Although the development could have brought a vacant unit back into use and created 14 jobs, the inspector concluded that the potential harm to the town centre and nearby residents outweighed those benefits.

Councillor Monica Hamidi, Ealing Council's cabinet member for good growth, said: "This is an important decision for Hanwell and for residents who raised concerns about the impact of a 24-hour gambling venue in this location.

advertisement

"We want our town centres to be lively, welcoming and successful, but new business proposals must also protect people's quality of life and contribute positively to the local area. The inspector's decision supports the council's view that this proposal did not meet that test."