The Licensing Sub-Committee of Kensington and Chelsea Council met on Wednesday, 15 July 2026, to determine an application for an Adult Gaming Centre premises licence for Silver Time Amusements at 177-179 Earl's Court Road. The committee refused the application for an adjournment sought by objectors, and subsequently refused the premises licence application itself.

Application for an Adult Gaming Centre Premises Licence for Silver Time Amusements

Silver Time Amusements applied for a premises licence to operate an Adult Gaming Centre at 177-179 Earl's Court Road, London SW5 9RE. The applicant intended to close their existing premises at 169 Earl's Court Road should this application be granted. The proposed premises would operate 24 hours a day, with gaming machines located on the ground floor.

The application was met with significant opposition, with 346 representations objecting to the proposal. These objections came from local residents, residents' associations, and local councillors, including Joe Powell MP. The primary concerns raised by objectors centred on the potential for increased crime and disorder, the risk of harm to children and vulnerable persons, the negative impact on the character of the area, and the over-concentration of gambling premises in Earl's Court.

Application for Adjournment

Councillor James Ortiz, representing the Al-Ghana ward, applied for an adjournment of the hearing. The grounds for this request were:

• Businesses on Hogarth Road did not have their objections acknowledged or registered by the licensing department.
• Objectors who had submitted valid objections within the statutory timeframe had not been registered or included in the bundle, with a cyber attack cited as a potential reason for administrative errors.
• The online licensing portal remained inaccessible, limiting participation and engagement.

Councillor Ortiz requested a postponement until September to allow for a comprehensive investigation into missing objections, for the licensing portal to be restored, and for full engagement with residents and stakeholders. Councillors Linda Wade, Abdullahi Noor, and Councillor Beckett, speaking on behalf of Joe Powell MP, supported the application for adjournment, echoing concerns about due process and fair engagement.

The licensing officers confirmed that all representations submitted within the statutory timeline had been included in the papers. They acknowledged an administrative error had led to one representation being missed, but stated this was the only known instance. They also confirmed that all objectors who submitted representations had received notice of the hearing.

Mr. Andrew Woods, solicitor for Silver Time, stated that the applicant did not wish for the hearing to proceed if due process had not been correctly completed. He noted that the applicant had fulfilled their statutory notification requirements.

The panel retired to consider the adjournment application and subsequently refused it. The reasons for refusal included:

• Confirmation from the licensing team that all representations submitted within the statutory timeline had been included.
• The licensing team's explanation that objections from Hogarth Road businesses had been included under individual names, not business names.
• Confirmation that statutory consultation had been carried out via site notices and newspaper advertisements.
• The committee being satisfied that it had sufficient evidence to reach a decision, given the significant number of objections.
• The public interest in the expeditious disposal of the case.

Applicant's Case

Mr. Andrew Woods, solicitor for Silver Time, presented the applicant's case. He highlighted that Silver Time had operated at 169 Earl's Court Road for ten years without any complaints related to the Gambling Act. He stated that the proposed premises at 177-179 Earl's Court Road would offer better facilities and that the existing premises would close if the application was granted. Mr. Woods agreed to all ten proposed conditions, including the voluntary condition of having an SIA door staff member on the front door at all times the premises is open. He refuted allegations of underage use of their existing facility, stating that age verification checks are operated. He also noted that planning permission had been refused but that this was a separate regime and should not be relevant to the licensing application.

Objectors' Case

Numerous objectors, including ward councillors, residents' associations, and local residents, presented their cases. Key themes included:

• Over-concentration of gambling premises: Earl's Court already has a high density of gambling venues, and this application would exacerbate that.
• Prominent and visible location: The site opposite Earl's Court station is highly visible and would act as constant advertising for gambling, particularly to children and vulnerable people.
• Impact on vulnerable individuals: The area has a high concentration of supported housing, hostels, and addiction services, making it unsuitable for a 24-hour gambling venue that could exploit these individuals.
• Crime and anti-social behaviour: Concerns were raised about increased loitering, late-night disturbances, drug use, and crime, particularly given the lack of police presence after 11 pm and the existence of a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) in the area.
• Impact on children and young people: The visibility of the premises and the normalisation of gambling were highlighted as risks to children and young people.
• Undermining regeneration efforts: The application was seen as contrary to the council's plans to regenerate Earl's Court Road and attract more family-friendly businesses.
• Lack of community engagement: Some objectors felt that Silver Time had not adequately consulted with local residents and associations.
• Enforceability of closure of existing premises: Concerns were raised about ensuring the existing premises would genuinely close.

Conditions Discussion

The panel discussed potential conditions that could be attached to the licence if it were to be granted. Mr. Woods confirmed the applicant's willingness to accept all ten conditions, including a condition for a direct telephone number to be available at the premises for public contact and a commitment to six-monthly meetings with local residents. The panel also discussed a point raised by Mr. Stephens regarding the need for a change of use in planning terms for the existing premises before the new licence could be effective, which was noted for further consideration.

Decision

The panel retired to make its decision. Upon returning, the Chair, Councillor Greg Hammond, announced that the application for the premises licence was refused. The detailed reasons for this decision would be published in writing.

The meeting was then adjourned.