Planning application · Kensington And Chelsea
PP/25/05608.
177-179 Earl's Court Road, London, SW5 9RE
Full / Other Planning at 177-179 Earl's Court Road, London, SW5 9RE, received 15 Sep 2025 — refused on 20 Apr 2026 (delegated, Ben Brockey).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKensington And Chelsea profile →
Refused
Outcome
20 Apr 2026
31 wks
Decision time
23 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
453
Documents
200 linked
12
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Kensington And Chelsea planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Change of use of the ground and basement floors of the building from financial services (Use Class E) to Bingo facility and Adult Gaming Centre (AGC) (Sui Generis) with the provision of residential units (Use Class C3) to the first and second floors along with upgrade works to the shopfront at ground floor level
Reference
PP/25/05608
Type
Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
None recorded
Case officer
Postcode
SW5 9RE
Ward
Council
Received
15 Sep 2025
Target date
10 Nov 2025
Decision date
20 Apr 2026
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Decided
Reference
PP/25/05608
Type
Planning Permission
Show all 14 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
None recorded
Case officer
Postcode
SW5 9RE
Ward
Council
Received
15 Sep 2025
Target date
10 Nov 2025
Decision date
20 Apr 2026
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Decided
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
453 documents on the council file; the first 200 are listed here.
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 20 Apr 2026, delegated decision by Ben Brockey — 31 weeks from submission (23 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
15 Sep 2025
Application received
10 Nov 2025
Statutory target date
20 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Ben Brockey
15 Sep 2025
Application received
10 Nov 2025
Statutory target date
20 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Ben Brockey
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed shopfront would create an inactive frontage that would fail to
provide active frontages and ensure that the new use is fully integrated into the
town centre, nor would it support footfall within the centre, failing to accord with
policy TC3 of the Local Plan 2024.
2
The proposed inactive frontage would fail to have a positive visual impact on the
appearance of the building or streetscene, failing to accord with policy CD14 of
the Local Plan 2024.
3
The proposed change of use would create a larger and visually more prominent
presence of gambling use on the terrace of retail units, a use identified as
increasing the risk of anti-social behaviour and having a potentially adverse
impact on the vitality of the town centre, its character, the lives of those who live
nearby and on vulnerable people living in and visiting the area, failing to accord
with policy TC3 of the Local Plan 2024.
4
The proposal fails to adequately demonstrate, through the lack of a suitably
robust management plan, that potential anti-social behaviour and disturbances to
neighbouring occupants would be monitored, mitigated and managed should they
occur, failing to accord with policy CD9 of the Local Plan 2024.
5
The provision of another sui generis gambling use on the terrace of commercial
units would result in a proliferation of uses that are identified in the Local Plan as
having a potentially harmful anti-social impact on the area. Failure to secure a
land swap S106 agreement to ensure the existing unit at 169 Earl’s Court Road is
first changed and implemented to a Class E use fails to accord with policies TC2
and TC3 of the Local Plan 2024.
6
The creation of three new residential units, without restricting residents ability to
apply for parking permits would result in the exacerbation of on-street parking
pressure in the borough. Failure to enter into a legal agreement to ensure
permit-free obligations for new homes fails to accord with policy TR8 of the Local
Plan 2024.
1
The proposed shopfront would create an inactive frontage that would fail to
provide active frontages and ensure that the new use is fully integrated into the
town centre, nor would it support footfall within the centre, failing to accord with
policy TC3 of the Local Plan 2024.
2
The proposed inactive frontage would fail to have a positive visual impact on the
appearance of the building or streetscene, failing to accord with policy CD14 of
the Local Plan 2024.
3
The proposed change of use would create a larger and visually more prominent
presence of gambling use on the terrace of retail units, a use identified as
increasing the risk of anti-social behaviour and having a potentially adverse
impact on the vitality of the town centre, its character, the lives of those who live
nearby and on vulnerable people living in and visiting the area, failing to accord
with policy TC3 of the Local Plan 2024.
Show all 6 rows
4
The proposal fails to adequately demonstrate, through the lack of a suitably
robust management plan, that potential anti-social behaviour and disturbances to
neighbouring occupants would be monitored, mitigated and managed should they
occur, failing to accord with policy CD9 of the Local Plan 2024.
5
The provision of another sui generis gambling use on the terrace of commercial
units would result in a proliferation of uses that are identified in the Local Plan as
having a potentially harmful anti-social impact on the area. Failure to secure a
land swap S106 agreement to ensure the existing unit at 169 Earl’s Court Road is
first changed and implemented to a Class E use fails to accord with policies TC2
and TC3 of the Local Plan 2024.
6
The creation of three new residential units, without restricting residents ability to
apply for parking permits would result in the exacerbation of on-street parking
pressure in the borough. Failure to enter into a legal agreement to ensure
permit-free obligations for new homes fails to accord with policy TR8 of the Local
Plan 2024.
Policies cited
TC3CD14CD9TC2TR8
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
12
In support
0
Total comments
12
Objections
12
In support
0
Total comments
12
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
No agent recorded
Applied without an agent, or agent not recorded.
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
No agent recorded
Applied without an agent, or agent not recorded.
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.