The two obvious things would be coal and oil, but because they form from biogenic sources, it is hard to envisage a planet that harbours life without any fossil fuel deposits.
One could suggest that due to the various circumstances, the fossil fuels would not be readily available in Europe, delaying their exploitation. However, the European powers were colonising the world before that, with oil being found in the Middle East and coal being found just about everywhere (for example in Australia, a British colony).
One of the reasons for fossil fuels to not be adopted could be political conservatism or environmental instead. Some of us may recognise this quote attributed to Napoleon (although of questionable authenticity):
You would make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her decks? I pray you excuse me. I have no time to listen to such nonsense.
The leaders could simply think it is not a good idea, delaying adoption of this technology by centuries. Alternatively, the early industrial revolution was extremely polluting. People could just object to it because no one wants to have a coal-fired plant next to their house.
This could be paralleled to modern times - some people are reluctant to adopt wind and solar and increase adoption of nuclear, because of political conservatism. People are just happy with the way things are and don't want to adopt new things. Having a few leaders in key countries that have this mind set would delay the industrial revolution.
For example, gold was a major contributor to scientific advancement. Rutherford developed his model of the atom by playing with gold foils.
It is also possible to get rid of some of the commonly used metals such as iron or aluminium, but as iron is essential for life, and aluminium is one of the most abundant elements in the solar system and on Earth, it is hard to envisage how Earth as we know it would function without them.
As to chemistry, an easy way to delay technological advancement to let's say early 20th century (albeit after the industrial revolution) is to get rid of all the noble metals. Gold, platinum, palladium, etc. Being noble metals, they are not essential for life. Life could very well evolve without them.
The fact that we even have noble metals is pretty much an accident. All of them were supposed to go to the Earth's core, but a geo-astronomical event called the late veneer (see last part of my answer here) added more of them to the crust and mantle. If this event would never have happened, the development of electronics would very much slow down and stop at a very primitive level (late 19th century).