Manchester gaming centre appeal allows 24-hour opening

A Manchester gaming centre appeal has secured permission for a 24-hour adult gaming centre in the city’s George Street Conservation Area, after an Inspector rejected the Council’s proposed 11pm closing limit. The decision, dated 8th October 2026, followed a two-day hearing and detailed evidence about noise, heritage, crime and the existing lawful Class E use.

Inspector R Major allowed the change of use at 58 to 60 Portland Street from Class E to sui generis adult gaming centre, with new entrances and replacement air-conditioning equipment. The Inspector found that safeguards on acoustic insulation, plant, security and premises management were proportionate responses to the identified impacts.

The decision does not establish that every 24-hour gambling venue is acceptable. It shows how the weight of site-specific evidence, genuine fallback uses and properly secured mitigation can distinguish one urban-centre proposal from another.

What the Manchester gaming centre appeal allowed

The application, Manchester reference 144471/FO/2025, was promoted by Luxury Leisure. It proposed an adult gaming centre occupying the ground floor of a building on Portland Street and replacing ten existing air-conditioning units with two new units at the rear on Reyner Street. External works would include new doors.

The appeal was determined under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The hearing took place on 15th and 16th September 2026. The Inspector also visited the surroundings at different times, including early in the morning, to understand the character of the city-centre streets and activity near the building.

Three issues drove the decision: heritage and visual appearance; noise affecting neighbouring homes; and crime or antisocial behaviour associated with late-night activity. The nearby residential accommodation included apartments for people aged over 55, which required particular attention when considering disturbance.

Historic setting and conservation area changes

The premises are in the George Street Conservation Area, and the Inspector considered duties concerning both the conservation area and the settings of nearby Grade II listed buildings. The building itself was treated as a non-designated heritage asset.

The frontage had altered over time. Evidence at the hearing showed that the present corner entrance was not original, and the replacement design did not cause the heritage harm alleged. The Inspector concluded that the proposed glazing and door proportions would be at least compatible with the historic commercial character.

At the rear, the existing ten air-conditioning units already formed part of an intensely serviced, utilitarian street scene. Replacing them with two units would reduce visual clutter. Conditions would require prior agreement of external materials and removal of the obsolete units before the replacements were fitted.

These findings were specific to the existing physical baseline. The appeal did not establish that large mechanical plant installations are generally unobjectionable in conservation areas.

Noise evidence and the Class E fallback

The noise evidence was contested. The appellant relied on measurements from another gaming centre, background surveys and predicted reductions in sound transmission through the building. The Council questioned how closely the comparison venue matched the proposed use and whether the assumptions about the rear elevation were adequately evidenced.

The Inspector did not accept every assumption uncritically. Nevertheless, the analysis indicated that noise from the machines and customers inside the premises could be controlled. A planning condition requires an approved acoustic treatment scheme, with further controls over plant noise and deliveries.

An important element was the lawful fallback. The existing premises had no planning restriction on hours of operation and could be used for various Class E purposes on a 24-hour basis without further permission. The Inspector considered that more than a purely theoretical possibility in this established commercial location.

The fallback did not automatically establish that the adult gaming centre was acceptable. It provided a comparison: the proposed sui generis use could be conditioned for sound insulation and management, whereas some Class E alternatives might lawfully operate overnight without those specific new controls. The Inspector gave that comparison limited favourable weight on the noise issue.

The decision also recognised the context of Portland Street, with late-night businesses, bus services and existing pedestrian movements. Predicted nighttime visits to the gaming centre were relatively low, and there was insufficient evidence that their noise would stand out materially against existing activity.

Police evidence and public safety assessed

Public safety was a substantial part of the hearing. Greater Manchester Police’s crime impact statement identified an area with elevated crime figures typical of a busy city centre but did not raise a fundamental crime-prevention objection to reusing the vacant unit. A separate neighbourhood policing team expressed concern about violence, intimidation, theft and increasing footfall overnight.

The Inspector recognised the policing team’s experience and the seriousness of those concerns. However, the evidence did not establish a sufficiently clear connection between this particular use and a material increase in crime or antisocial behaviour. In particular, there was no specific substantiated evidence linking a comparable adult gaming centre operated nearby to the crimes reported in its neighbourhood.

Management commitments included trained door staff at night, controlled entry, CCTV, policies on intoxicated customers and arrangements for dispersal and smoking outside. A condition requires a premises management strategy, and another secures the recommendations from the crime impact statement.

The Inspector also addressed the Council’s reference to women and girls as groups especially vulnerable to crime and fear of crime under the revised Framework. The decision acknowledged that concern in principle but found no evidence that the proposed use would uniquely create the asserted additional risk.

Why a different Manchester appeal did not dictate this result

The Council referred to a refused attempt to extend the opening hours of a McDonald’s at Piccadilly. That location had different crime evidence and different potential customer behaviours. The Inspector considered the comparison but gave it limited weight because the relevant circumstances were not shown to be sufficiently alike.

Likewise, examples of allowed adult gaming centre appeals elsewhere were not treated as determinative. This was a judgement on the Portland Street proposal and the quality of the evidence before the decision-maker. It is a reminder that appeal decisions can illustrate reasoning but do not substitute for a current, site-specific impact assessment.

No 11pm limit, but ten conditions remain

Manchester City Council proposed an hours condition restricting opening to 10am to 11pm. The appellant sought continuous operation. Having found the proposed 24-hour use acceptable at this location, the Inspector did not impose the hours restriction.

The permission remains subject to ten conditions. They regulate approved plans, deliveries, acoustic treatment, plant noise, refuse storage, materials, removal of the older air-conditioning units, crime impact measures and premises management. These controls are central to the approval and cannot be ignored when assessing whether the proposal is comparable to other sites.

Practitioners should distinguish between hours of operation and associated activities. A premises may be allowed to trade throughout the night while still facing tighter controls on deliveries, servicing, equipment noise and customer management.

What this decision means for change of use

The result is relevant to agents handling transitions from Class E to sui generis uses, particularly where a conservation area, residential neighbours and nighttime operation overlap. Useful evidence will include a realistic comparison with existing lawful uses, measured noise data, a precise management strategy and a clear analysis of what police evidence demonstrates about the proposed activity rather than an area in general.

Government policy has since been revised in the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework. Readers may also wish to consult Planning Geek’s Class E use guidance and sui generis explanation, while checking that the permitted-use position and any relevant local Article 4 controls apply to the actual premises.

Appeal source

The decision is appeal 6011214 for 58 to 60 Portland Street, Manchester, dated 8th October 2026. The Planning Inspectorate case page provides the official case reference. This is an Inspector’s decision on its individual merits, not a High Court precedent.