Plans for a tenth gambling venue in Cheltenham have won at appeal.

A Government inspector has reversed the council’s decision over plans for an adult gaming centre at the former ShoeZone.

The planning offical said there was no evidence it would create problems with antisocial behaviour and moral objections were not relevant.

Luxury Leisure can now go ahead with installing up to 60 slot machines in the empty building at 218 High Street. They will be allowed to run until 9am to midnight during the week and 10am to 10pm at weekends.

Numerous business leaders, town bosses and residents had campaigned against the plans .

The Brewery Quarter, Cheltenham Chamber of Commerce, St James Action Group, MP Alex Chalk, borough councillor Max Wilkinson and the Minster church all spoke out against the proposals.

A campaign which included 80 letters of objection was launched with the council asked to reject the plans as gambling centres are a “blight on the lives of people” which lead to “deprivation in society”.

They said there was no need for another one in the Regency town, especially at a time of economic crisis.

Council officers agreed and threw out the application in May 2023 saying it would harm the vitality and appearance of the town centre and cause an unacceptable impact on residents due to noise.

Luxury Leisure fought back and appealed the decision.

It is part of gambling giant Novomatic UK Ltd, which runs almost a quarter of the adult gaming centres (AGCs) across the UK, with 245 sites operating under the Admiral brand.

To appease objections it said it would reduce the opening hours of the centre with doors closing at 2am on three days of the week, 4am on three other weekdays and 10 pm on Sundays.

Cheltenham Borough Council said it was concerned about a “proliferation of similar uses related to gambling” in the town centre.

In its appeal case it said there are already nine similar venues nearby- three of which are in the High Street.

The council said adding another would “diminish the essential retail character and vitality” of the area.

It also said the four months the unit was marketed for was not long enough to attract retail interest.

The Planning Inspector disagreed and said the gaming centre “would not materially impinge upon the centre’s retail character, its attractiveness or vitality”.

Their decision letter dated February 13 said: “Concerns have been raised about the potential for anti-social behaviour attributed to the proposed use, but there is no firm evidence before me that this would prove to be the case in practice based on the operation of other such venues.”

The Inspector said while the moral objections were noted they were not considered relevant to planning decisions.