Plans for a controversial gambling arcade next to Earl’s Court station have been blocked following protests from residents including Bianca Jagger.
Silvertime Amusements Limited had hoped to move its current operation on the busy west London road to a bigger venue on the same street.
The new venue would have 14 more gambling machines and take up a larger site of a former Lloyds bank opposite the Tube station.
However, the firm’s change of use application was refused at a Kensington and Chelsea Planning Sub-Committee on April 16.
Ward Councillors Hamish Adourian and Linda Wade both opposed the application. Cllr Adourian slammed Silvertime’s plans to move their arcade to a bigger location as “appalling.”
Addressing the applicant, Cllr Adourian said: “It isn’t worth it. Cut your losses, sell-up and move on. Perhaps there are other places that will welcome your machines. Not in Earl’s Court.”
More than 300 letters of objection were received as part of the planning consultation. There were no letters in support of Silvertime’s application.
A protest against the application was held outside Earl’s Court Tube station last week, which included Bianca Jagger.
Ms Jagger, a human rights advocate who was married to Rolling Stones rock icon Mick Jagger from 1971 to 1978, said she has concerns for “the well-being of children in the area”.
She said that “30 per cent of children between the ages of 11 and 17 are already engaged in online gaming. We have a serious issue throughout the country of these gaming companies targeting the vulnerable and we need to do everything to stop this being approved.
She added: “I appeal to the council to stand up to these gaming companies and say no to gaming and taking advantage of the most vulnerable sections of society."
Francesco Zebellini, Chair of the Earl’s Court Society, said: “Increasing gambling activity means attracting more people, including inevitably young and vulnerable individuals. And the larger space and higher capacity will make it easier to accommodate them and not protect them as it should be.”
A spokesperson for the adult amusement company previously told the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme that the plans are a “straightforward” application to relocate its long-standing venue at 169 Earl’s Court Road. Gaming machines would also be located solely on the ground floor of the proposed premises.
At the Planning Sub-Committee, concerns were raised over a lack of legal provision to ensure that the new premises, at 177-179, did not start trading before the old premises, at 169, closed as a gambling arcade.
Legal Counsel for the applicant, Andrew Woods, ensured that the applicant would cease trading at 169 before trading at the new venue. He added that a change of use for 169 had already been approved.
He said: “My clients have traded at 169 for 20 years. There are a large number of objections to this application. My clients have had no issues at 169 at all. No issues raised to them by the police , the licensing department or indeed any members of the public on how 169 operates.”
Mr Wood also welcomed the Sub-Committee to add a clause to the planning application to ensure the new premises does not start trading before the old venue has ceased trading.
Further concerns about the venue’s impact on Earl’s Court Road were outlined in a report to the Planning Sub-Committee. These included potential to increase inactive shop frontage and lack of a “suitably robust management plan.”
The plans would also have created three new homes in the borough. However, council officers raised concerns as there was no requirement for these to be car-permit free.
