Betting shops, payday lenders and amusement arcades

Betting offices, pay day loan shops and amusement arcades share one planning characteristic that shapes every application: none of them sits in a use class. They are sui generis, meaning each is a use of its own, so there is no permitted change into any of them from anything. Whatever the unit was before, a full planning application is required, and that application is decided on the planning merits with no fallback position to rely on.

The reverse direction is much easier, which tells you something about how national policy views these uses. Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order 2015 allows a betting office, a pay day loan shop or a hot food takeaway to change to a Class E use, and in defined circumstances to residential use with prior approval. The rights run out of these uses, not into them.

Why these uses sit outside the use classes

Betting offices and pay day loan shops were in Class A2, financial and professional services, until April 2015. The amendment that year took both out of the use classes and made them sui generis, following concern about clustering on high streets. Amusement arcades and amusement centres have been sui generis for much longer, alongside casinos, nightclubs, hot food takeaways, launderettes, petrol filling stations, scrap yards, theatres and taxi businesses.

The September 2020 amendment that created Class E did not change any of this. Class E swept up shops, financial and professional services to visiting members of the public, restaurants and cafés, offices, light industry, clinics, nurseries, gyms and indoor sport. The sui generis list was left alone, and betting offices, pay day loan shops and amusement arcades remain outside it.

One consequence is often missed in practice. If a betting office moves into a former bank under a permission granted years ago, and later leaves, the lawful use of the unit is a betting office, not Class E, unless the permission said otherwise. The next occupier inherits the sui generis use and may well be able to move to Class E under permitted development, which is a benefit, but anyone wanting to reinstate a betting use after a Class E occupier has been in place needs a fresh permission.

No permitted change into them

Spell this out on the application, because it frames the whole decision. There is no deemed consent, no prior approval route and no fallback to a less harmful use. The authority is deciding a change of use application on its merits against the development plan.

Because there is no fallback, the usual argument that "the alternative use would be worse" is unavailable. That removes a line of reasoning applicants often lean on in town centre cases.

A Lawful Development Certificate for an existing use under section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is worth considering where the unit has been vacant and the planning history is unclear. Establishing the lawful use before you buy or lease is far less painful than arguing about it after a fit-out.

Local plan policies restricting clustering

Most authorities with a town centre under pressure have adopted a policy on these uses, and the pattern is consistent enough to plan for. The three mechanisms are a numerical cap, a proximity rule and a frontage percentage.

A numerical cap limits the number of a given use within a defined centre or a defined frontage, for example no more than a stated number of betting offices in a primary shopping frontage. A proximity rule refuses a new unit within a stated distance of an existing one of the same type, or within a stated distance of a school, a youth facility or an addiction support service. A frontage percentage limits the combined share of non-retail or sui generis uses along a defined frontage, measured by unit count or by metres of frontage.

Read the policy wording carefully, because the measurement method decides the case. A policy that counts units treats a 300 m² unit the same as a 60 m² one. A policy that measures frontage metres does not. And a policy that applies to a "primary shopping frontage" only bites if the unit is in one, which is a question the authority's own policies map answers.

Where the policy sets a cap and the cap is already met, the application is being asked to justify an exception. That is a real but narrow argument, usually resting on the characteristics of the specific unit, the vacancy history and the absence of the harm the policy was written to prevent.

Health and wellbeing arguments

Gambling-related harm has become a material consideration in these decisions, and authorities raise it through health and wellbeing policies in the local plan, sometimes supported by a joint strategic needs assessment or a public health position statement.

The arguments that carry weight in practice relate to location rather than to the use in the abstract: proximity to schools, colleges and youth provision, proximity to support services for addiction, location in an area of high deprivation where the authority has adopted a specific position, and cumulative concentration, where several similar premises already operate within a short walk.

Where the authority has a policy and an evidence base, an applicant is better off engaging with it than denying it. The responses that land are a design and management package, meaning no gaming machines visible from the street, no window vinyls or screens, staffing levels and supervision arrangements, defined opening hours, and participation in local schemes where they exist. A Health Impact Assessment is sometimes requested for larger proposals and some authorities have their own threshold for one.

For the applicant, the honest position is that harm arguments are hard to rebut with evidence and easier to address with mitigation. Plan on that basis.

Shopfront and frontage policy

The physical appearance of these units is a frequent refusal reason in its own right, independent of the use.

Three features generate most objections. Obscured or screened glazing, which removes active frontage and creates a dead stretch of street. Internally lit fascia and projecting box signs, particularly in conservation areas. And external security shutters, which most shopfront design guides resist in favour of perforated internal shutters behind the glass line.

Treat the frontage as the part of the application you can win. A design that keeps clear glazing to a stated proportion of the shopfront, uses a traditional fascia depth with individually mounted letters, retains stall risers and pilasters where they survive, and puts shutters behind the glass, removes a whole category of objection. Signage is a separate application for advertisement consent, so do not assume the planning permission covers it.

Licensing as a separate regime

Each of these uses has its own regulatory consent, and none of them substitutes for planning permission.

Betting offices and amusement arcades need a premises licence from the licensing authority under the Gambling Act 2005, together with operating and personal licences from the Gambling Commission. The licensing objectives are different from the planning tests, and the licensing authority is required to aim to permit where the application accords with the objectives, which is a different starting point from a planning decision.

High-cost short-term credit is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, which controls the lending activity rather than the premises.

Two practical consequences. A premises licence granted does not authorise a use without planning permission, and a planning permission does not authorise unlicensed gambling. And the two processes can produce different hours, in which case the more restrictive one governs. Apply for both in parallel and keep the hours consistent between them.

Evidence for and against an application

The documents that make the difference on these applications are short and specific rather than long.

A Planning Statement should address the named local plan policy on the use, the vacancy history of the unit with dates, the measurement that the policy requires (unit count or frontage metres) worked through for the actual frontage, and the mitigation package. If the policy sets a cap, say where the proposal sits against it and why an exception is justified.

A short Transport Statement covers trip generation compared with the previous lawful use and parking demand, which for a betting office in a town centre is usually low and is worth stating rather than leaving the consultee to assume.

Where the proposal involves food or plant, the environmental documents follow, but for most of these applications the technical content is limited to a Ventilation/Extraction Statement only where a food or drink element is included. The report index sets out which types apply.

What the authority will weigh against you is the policy itself, any cumulative evidence, and representations from the local community and the ward councillors, which on these applications tend to be numerous. Objections carry more weight where they engage the policy test rather than object to gambling generally. Related use class traps worth checking before you commit include splitting a commercial unit into two and varying an opening hours condition.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.