A proposed expansion of an adult gaming centre on Wembley High Road will be considered at a licensing hearing after Brent Council accepted objections from two Green Party councillors as valid representations.
Silvertime Amusements Limited has applied to extend its existing premises at 446 High Road into the neighbouring unit at 8 Park Lane, a former dry-cleaning shop. The proposal would bring the two adjoining addresses together as one expanded adult gaming centre. No decision has yet been made on whether the application should be granted, and a date for the hearing has not been announced.
The representations were submitted by Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam and Najib Warsame, who represent Wembley Park. Their objections have been accepted despite the councillors not representing Wembley Hill, the ward where the premises are located. That distinction matters: the case will proceed because their submissions were treated as valid representations, not because they hold a ward mandate in the area.
The concerns raised include crime and disorder, gambling-related harm, the concentration of gambling premises and the proximity of the proposed site to schools, nurseries and community facilities. Nearby schools identified in the debate include Park Lane Primary, Ark Elvin and St Joseph’s. The application is therefore being considered not only as a change to a shopfront, but in relation to the potential effects of an expanded gambling venue in a busy neighbourhood used by families and young people.
Consultation deadline overlapped with system maintenance
The application’s representation deadline was 30 September, while the council’s online licensing application system was scheduled to be unavailable for maintenance from 11 September until 1 October. The timing created an obvious difficulty for residents who wanted to inspect the application material during the final part of the consultation period.
The outage did not remove every route for taking part. The council’s guidance instructed people wishing to comment during the maintenance period to submit representations by email. Comments had to be in writing by the advertised date and were expected to relate to at least one licensing objective, including preventing crime and disorder, public safety, preventing public nuisance or protecting children from harm.
That alternative is important, but it does not answer every access concern. A resident may be able to send a comment without being able to review the papers needed to understand the application fully. The Green Party called for the consultation period to be extended so local people would not lose an opportunity to scrutinise the proposal because of the maintenance schedule. No extension has been confirmed in the information available, and the original deadline has passed.
The case also highlights the difference between access to a submission channel and access to the evidence on which a representation can be based. Written comments can be most useful when residents can see the proposed layout, operating arrangements and supporting risk material. Whether the outage prevented particular residents from examining those documents, or whether they used the email route instead, has not been established.
Hearing will decide the licence application
A hearing gives the applicant and those who have made valid representations an opportunity to address the licensing authority before a decision is reached. The objections do not establish that the application will be refused. Nor does acceptance of a representation amount to a finding that the proposed centre would cause harm. Those questions remain for the decision-makers to assess against the relevant licensing objectives and evidence.
For people living, working or studying near the High Road and Park Lane junction, the immediate next step is the hearing. Its date and any further instructions for participants have yet to be announced. The council will then need to decide whether to grant the requested licence, refuse it or impose conditions, subject to the application and the material considered at the hearing.
The two issues now sit alongside one another: whether the adjoining unit can be added to the existing gaming centre, and whether the public had a fair practical chance to understand the proposal before representations closed. The hearing will determine the licensing application; the concern about access remains a separate test of how effectively residents could take part during a period of system maintenance.
