Betting shops, payday lenders and the sui generis trap

A betting shop has no use class. Neither does a pay day loan shop. Both were taken out of the old Class A2 by an amendment to the Use Classes Order in 2015 and left sui generis, meaning a class of their own, and the 2020 reforms that created Class E did nothing to bring them back in. The betting shop use class question therefore has a short answer: there isn't one, and that is the whole problem.

Sui generis status means every change into the use needs planning permission, however small the physical works. A vacant Class E shop cannot become a betting office by taking the keys and putting up a sign.

Why these uses were separated out

The 2015 amendment removed betting offices and pay day loan shops from Class A2, which until then had covered financial and professional services and allowed movement between a bank, an estate agent and a bookmaker without an application.

The policy reason was concentration. Authorities argued that clusters of betting shops and high cost credit outlets were changing the character of secondary shopping streets, and that the old class gave them no control. Making the uses sui generis handed that control back.

In September 2020 the wider reform revoked Classes A1, A2, A3 and B1 and created Class E, which merges shops, financial services, restaurants, offices, light industry, gyms, nurseries and clinics into one flexible class. Betting shops stayed outside it. So did hot food takeaways, drinking establishments, cinemas and live music venues.

The practical consequence is a two tier high street. Inside Class E, occupiers can change use freely. Outside it, every move is an application. Our note on moving within Class E and the evidence to keep covers the flexible side of that line.

Getting in, and getting back out

Changing from any Class E use to a betting office or a pay day loan shop requires planning permission. There is no route around it, and carrying out the change without permission is a breach that the authority can enforce against.

Coming back the other way has at times been permitted development. Part 3 of the GPDO has included rights allowing a change from a betting office or pay day loan shop to a retail or Class E use, and those classes were renumbered when Class E was introduced. Read the current consolidated text of Part 3 before relying on any route back, because this is an area that has been amended repeatedly.

That asymmetry matters commercially. A landlord who lets to a bookmaker is converting a flexible Class E unit into a specific consent, and the value of the flexibility is lost until the use reverts. If the tenant leaves, the unit may need an application or a prior approval to be let to anything else, depending on the current position.

Note: a lawful development certificate under section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is the only formal way to confirm that a proposed change is lawful, and on a unit with a complicated history it is worth the fee.

The policies you will be judged against

Most adopted local plans include a town centre policy that controls non retail uses in defined frontages, and many add a specific policy for betting offices and high cost credit shops. The recurring tests are proportion, clustering, vitality and amenity.

Proportion policies cap the percentage of units in a frontage that may be in non retail use, counted by unit or by frontage length. Clustering policies restrict a new betting shop within a stated distance of an existing one. Some plans add sensitive receptor policies, restricting new gambling premises near schools, youth facilities or addiction treatment services.

Read the policy wording carefully, because the counting method decides the outcome. A frontage with 20 units where four are already non retail may pass a 25 per cent test and fail a 20 per cent one, and whether a vacant unit counts as retail or as vacant changes the arithmetic.

Building the evidence, or challenging it

Applications of this kind turn on evidence rather than on argument, and both sides frequently rely on assertion.

If you are applying, survey the frontage yourself. Record every unit, its occupier, its use class or sui generis status, and whether it is trading, on a plan and in a schedule with photographs and a survey date. Set that against the policy test and state the result plainly. Add footfall and vacancy context from the council's own town centre monitoring report if it publishes one.

If you are objecting, the same survey is your strongest document. Officers rely on monitoring data that can be two years old, and a current survey showing that the threshold has already been crossed carries real weight.

What neither side should do is assert social harm without evidence. Gambling harm is a real public health concern and it is regulated through the Gambling Act 2005 licensing regime, where the licensing authority applies its own tests and the licensing objectives. Planning and licensing are separate consents with separate tests, and a planning inspector will not treat licensing objections as planning objections.

Shopfronts, glazing and signage

Conditions on this type of consent are predictable, and most of them are about the frontage.

Authorities resist fully obscured or filmed glazing, because a blanked out window deadens the street and conflicts with active frontage policies. Expect a condition requiring a stated proportion of clear glazing, or requiring any manifestation to be restricted to a band.

Solid external roller shutters are usually resisted for the same reason, with open lattice shutters behind the glass line offered as the compromise. Internally illuminated fascia signs and projecting signs need advertisement consent in their own right, which is a separate application with its own rules, and illuminated signage on a listed building or in a conservation area is treated more strictly again.

Hours conditions are common, and they matter more than applicants expect. A licensing regime may permit long hours while a planning condition restricts them, and the more restrictive of the two governs.

Routes back to a Class E use

Where a betting shop unit is being brought back into general use, there are three routes worth checking in order.

First, whether a permitted development right currently applies under Part 3 of the GPDO, in which case a prior approval or notification may be all that is needed. Second, a full planning application for change of use, which is straightforward where policy supports retail and hospitality in that frontage. Third, a mixed use proposal, which is sometimes the better answer on a deep unit where the front is retail and the rear becomes something else.

A planning statement for any of these should lead with the frontage survey and the policy test, then deal with amenity, servicing and hours. The units that fail are the ones where the applicant described the fit out and never engaged with the town centre policy. The same logic applies to the boundary between a restaurant and a takeaway, which we set out in where the line falls between a hot food takeaway and a restaurant.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.

You can draft the planning statement and supporting documents for a change of use from the full report index. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.