Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1800
- 1819)
TUESDAY 2 MARCH 2004
YVETTE COOPER
MP, MRS VICTORIA
THOMSON AND
MR ELLIOT
GRANT
Q1800 Chairman: The figures are based
on the kind of numbers of additional casinos which the industry
thinks the licensing proposals might generate. That is your free
market?
Yvette Cooper: As I have said,
we do not have any independent figures, any separate figures,
that the Department has put together in terms of what the figures
might be.
Q1801 Mr Banks: Could I pick up that
point again because it goes back to the original question I asked
if any economic impact assessments had been made. Has any attempt
been made, for example, to look at the economic developments in
other countries from large-scale casino developments within the
Department?
Yvette Cooper: I am not aware
of any.
Mrs Thomson: No. I do not know
whether the DCMS has any information either?
Mr Grant: We are certainly aware
of casino developments in a number of other countries, some of
which you and colleagues have visited. Our circumstances here
are different from a number of those other places.
Q1802 Chairman: The kind of casinos that
Mr Grant refers to are casinos where the casino itself is just
a small part of a major leisure development; but what is clear
to us is that these developments occur more or less through planning
gain. In other words, "If you want your casino you have got
to build this theatre, or this leisure centre or these restaurants,
or a combination of all three". Have you given any thought
to that kind of approach?
Yvette Cooper: Yes, we already
have a system in place for the section 106 agreements which allows
for planning gain to take place, especially where land is designated
for the first time for particular use and has not been before,
so you are shifting the designation of land, and there can be
very considerable windfalls as a result to the owners of the land.
It is very standard practice to have section 106 agreements which
do exactly the kind of thing you are talking about, and would
require investment in affordable housing, perhaps, or new community
facilities and things like that as part of the agreement for getting
planning permission on a particular site. We are amending that
process, as part of the Planning Bill, to make it more flexible.
Certainly the same principles to capture planning gains still
apply.
Q1803 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Minister,
because of the implications for taxation on decisions which investors
are gong to have to make, in the conversations which have been
occurring between you at the ODPM and the DCMS, have Customs &
Excise also been involved?
Yvette Cooper: On specific decisions
about planning?
Q1804 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Inevitably,
in terms of the decision which investors have to make, there is
a read-across between planning and taxation. All I am seeking
to find out is whether in fact the agreement across government
is actually going to be multilateral or simply bilateral?
Yvette Cooper: Certainly any discussions
that we have around the planning system, around things like the
section 106 agreements and the changes that have taken place in
the Planning Bill to make that more flexible, those sorts of issues
around planning gain certainly involve the Treasury and other
departments as well. On specific issues that are purely about
planning, as distinct from any taxation or gain issues, obviously
you would expect ODPM and DCMS to concentrate on and to discuss.
Certainly, as you can imagine, the Treasury would not allow any
other departments to discuss tax in their absence.
Chairman: I was about to say that the
next four questions I have allocated to colleagues you have, in
large measure, touched on but there are some specific issues in
each of them that we do need to address.
Q1805 Lord Wade of Chorlton: I would
like you to define specifically what you mean when you talk about
"regional significance"?
Yvette Cooper: It is probably
not possible for me to go any further at this stage than I have
already done. You would imagine developments that have regional
significance would be those which might draw their customers from
across the region, from a wide area, that would involve significant
numbers of people travelling to go to the location, that would
be creating jobs which had regional significance. You might expect
a lot of people to be travelling to work there, that might have
knock-on benefits, or knock-on problems or consequences that go
far wider. People from Castleford will go to Meadowhall shopping,
even though it is 45 minutes or so to get there. It is easy to
see there is a regional significance from a development like that.
It is easy to see the kinds of things that are obviously of regional
significance. It is also easy to describe things which are obviously
not of regional significance. A small casino in Castleford that
only had people going there from Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley
would not have regional significance. Where I think we are not
yet ready to make a decision is exactly where that line should
be drawn between the two, because we do not want to get it wrong.
We are having some quite considerable discussions at the moment
about exactly where that line should be drawn.
Q1806 Lord Wade of Chorlton: Following
on from a point Lord Brooke made, when you talk about regeneration
and how you would have specific programmes, surely if you imposed
costs on an investor which were going to involve improvements
for economic benefits generally then that is just like taxing
him to make a contribution for the benefit of others. Surely that
is an issue that needs to be cross-discussed with the Treasury,
because that is something which has gone into the general pot
and not for the benefit of the investor alone? Surely you must
find a way of levelling out those issues within your discussions
and across departments?
Yvette Cooper: I am sorry if I
was not clear about that. We have in place already a system of
106 agreements; this is a longstanding arrangement which allows
for planning gain to be captured effectively by the local authority
to ensure that a school is built for a big housing development
and that kind of thing. 106 is a standard arrangement which has
been in place for a long, long time. We have been involved in
discussions with the Treasury about reforming 106 agreements,
which is what we are in the process of doing as part of the Planning
Bill. You are right that anything which involves changes to the
106 agreements clearly is likely to involve the Treasury, and
other departments, in discussions about changes to that system.
The continued application of the existing system, however, would
not necessarily involve discussions with the Treasury or with
other departments, because it is simply the application of an
existing system—unless there were new consequences that
were thrown up by it that suddenly our Department wished to raise.
Where there are other planning issues which do not necessarily
have Treasury consequences, do not necessarily have financial
consequences and so on, then we would not necessarily be discussing
all of those details with the Treasury.
Q1807 Mr Wright: In terms of the regions,
has there been any assessment made in terms of how many would
actually apply for these large casinos; has there been any indication
given to you?
Yvette Cooper: No. We do think
this is actually a matter for each regional planning body; that
we should not be imposing that from the centre. I think that is
not something I could give you an indication of at this stage.
Q1808 Mr Wright: In terms of that, surely
the Department will be giving guidance in relation to that, because
I can well imagine we have already heard from one or two developments
around the country that we are already looking towards a casino—indeed
you have one today in terms of Castleford. Surely there should
be some form of guidance? I could well imagine from my perspective
as a seaside Member of Parliament from a deprived area where the
regeneration benefits could be significant. My RDA may well determine
that, because it is a deprived area and a seaside resort, they
should be one of those areas. The market forces will probably
determine it is not going to be the case. The RDA may put forward
a proposal that there are going to be subsidies in that perspective.
What is the view of the Department?
Yvette Cooper: We would not expect
to take a view directly ourselves. What we would expect is for
the regional planning body to take a view. You would expect your
regional planning body, in drawing up the spatial strategy, to
work very closely with the Regional Development Agency; and it
may well be they come to the conclusion that your particular area
is exactly the right area and that is where development of a casino
resort and the major developments should be concentrated, and
that is what they want to build into their regional spatial strategy.
That would then mean that it would be a strong support for developers
who wanted to put forward a planning application for that area.
If developers put forward a planning application for a different
area that was not indicated in the regional spatial strategy and,
as a result, in the local development plans, then they would have
far more difficulty because it would be a departure from the local
plan; and anything which is a departure from the local plan has
to have very good reasons to be accepted and has to go through
the planning process and so on.
Q1809 Mr Wright: Do you accept that this
is an opportunity for regeneration for many areas?
Yvette Cooper: I think it probably
is. I think it does have considerable regeneration potential;
and that is why we think regional spatial strategies do need to
take account of regeneration when deciding what the appropriate
location should be. We think that is best done at the regional
level, rather than us from the centre saying, "Great Yarmouth
should be the priority in this region, and other areas should
be the priorities in different regions".
Q1810 Mr Wright: If the RDA from any
area was to come forward with a suggestion that would gain support
from the ODPM?
Yvette Cooper: No, it would need
to go to the regional planning body. It would be for the RDA and
the regional planning body and other stakeholders in the area
to come to a decision about what the appropriate location would
be. We would certainly encourage them to consider regeneration
as part of that; but we would not directly support one particular
location over another in discussions at the regional planning
body level.
Q1811 Mr Wright: You would have no objection,
if it were an Objective Two area, for regional subsidies to be
offered for development?
Yvette Cooper: Obviously, yes,
as long as things are covered by the rules and so long as they
are things that meet the criteria. That would be a matter for
either the RDA or whatever other body had the decision-making
power and funding to do so.
Q1812 Mr Page: If I can follow on from
that line of questioning, we have had certain casino operators
coming to us and some have said "It is a free market; don't
worry, we can take it all on", and then we have had others
that have indicated that if they are going to be asked for a huge
commitment for regeneration in that area they are going to want
some time protection. If the RDA gives that time protection, will
that be legal?
Yvette Cooper: What sort of time
protection do you mean?
Q1813 Mr Page: Time protection against
putting another casino in the catchment area, because these catchment
areas are large.
Yvette Cooper: I always hesitate
to give legal advice, not being a lawyer. The issue for the regional
planning body—
Mr Page: I accept that. Do you think
you could let us know in writing what that position is? It is,
I think, quite significant.
Q1814 Chairman: They said they want a
competitive edge, which could be an exclusion zone for a casino
of a similar size, or it could be that they would have access
to rather more slot machines than other casinos would have, and
so on. It would mean that a major regional development could be
completely railroaded at the last minute because a casino opens
somewhere else within that catchment area over which the regional
development and regional planning bodies have no control.
Yvette Cooper: If a new planning
application comes forward for an area that has not been indicated
by the regional planning body, which has not been indicated within
the Regional Spatial Strategy and is not in the local development
plans, then it would count as a departure from the Local Plan.
If it is a departure from the Local Plan then it has to, basically,
jump over a whole series of additional hurdles and it is much
more difficult to get planning permission; they would have to
demonstrate that this is of the appropriate circumstances to be
a departure from the Local Plan, and it is much more difficult
for them to do so. So, actually the regional planning bodies and
some of the local authorities do have some considerable control
over where those sorts of developments should take place, and
would have an impact in terms of preventing other local developments
from taking place in inappropriate locations. That would be the
way the system worked. However, it is possible for departures
from Local Plans to be agreed, and if they can prove that they
have a strong case and there are particular circumstances that
should apply, and so on, then yes, it is possible for a plan to
be given the go-ahead. You asked a specific legal question there,
and if I can I will send you exactly what the legal position is.
Chairman: We would be very interested
to see it. Your answer leads directly to Lord Falkland's next
question.
Q1815 Viscount Falkland: I think we can
all agree, can we not, that gambling and public perceptions of
all that that activity involves is an issue which generates strong
opinions. How will regional planning bodies, in your view, work
with local authorities to ensure that local opinion is taken into
account?
Yvette Cooper: We are reinforcing
part of the planning Bill to strengthen the opportunities for
local community views and concerns to be taken into account at
the early stage. There is a classic problem at the moment where
the local community only ever really recognises the planning system
exists when there is, suddenly, a big problem and a particular
development that they really do not want to go ahead, and so they
get involved at the level of opposing a particular planning application.
That planning application may be completely appropriate given
the designation of the land in the Local Development Plan. Actually,
the real root of the local community's concern is that they do
not like the designation in the Local Development Plan, and they
only remember what a Local Development Plan is when this sudden
proposal comes along. So the answer to that actually should be
to make the process of deciding what should be in the Local Plan
the bit that the community can actually get involved with, that
it is accessible and that it really gives the local community
the chance to participate. So we would expect there to be community
involvement both at the regional level and at the local level.
Obviously, it is something that is currently more difficult at
the regional level because it is at that further distance. At
the community level we have said there needs to be a statement
of community involvement that would actually set out how the local
community are going to be involved, and it will not simply be
a small number of community activists who know what is going on;
the local authorities will have to make an effort to involve a
wide range of different groups and individuals within the local
community. Remember, when you are talking about locations for
things like casinos, it is not simply what is the big regional
question, like should it be in Castleford or Scarborough or Blackpool
or wherever; it is also actually at the very local level: does
that mean it is at the end of this street with all these houses
on, or does this mean it is near the motorway junction, or does
it mean it is in the town centre—those sorts of much more
local questions, which you would also expect the local community
to have a say in at the early stage when deciding what the designation
of the land should be rather than simply only getting a chance
to participate at the very late stage when an application has
gone in.
Q1816 Viscount Falkland: We have learnt,
particularly on our travels to France recently, that casino developments
originate in the community; so that the same moral problems and
things are discussed but they decide that a casino could be a
useful part of their community and in generating interest and
profit in tourism and culture, and so forth. So it is, as you
would expect in France, a logical way to progress from the local
demand for it and then very strict regulation as to the bids to
provide that casino, and so on. Has there been any thought along
the logical lines of that kind? It appears that we are, at the
moment, not knowing where things begin, where decisions are taken
or, indeed, what views there are in the local community about
either large casinos or small casinos.
Yvette Cooper: Actually, the new
approach to the planning system should allow you to do exactly
that kind of thing; it should allow for local communities to get
involved, not simply in objecting to a local casino but, also,
in arguing for one. For example, in Castleford, arguing, "We
need a new casino because that is the only way to get ourselves
a new stadium for the Castleford Tigers rugby team"—that
kind of proposal. So that is something which might come forward
very much from the local community as a proposal. If you have
effective community involvement at the stage of actually developing
the Local Plan in the first place, then that is exactly the opportunity
for community proposals for or against particular ideas to come
forward.
Q1817 Chairman: If you have identified
a piece of land in your Local Plan as potentially a place where
you could have a casino, who is going to decide who gets the planning
consent and gets the opportunity to develop it? Are you not actually
making out an argument in favour of some kind of bidding process?
The local authority decides, "This piece of land is fine
for a casino. We can build a new rugby stadium while we are at
it. Now we are going to invite tenders from various developers
to actually put forward this proposal". That is completely
different to the approach which the Government, from the Department
of Culture, Media and Sport point of view, sees as the way that
this Bill will work, where casino operators will say "We
would like a casino here, because there is a free market for casinos
now, and this is where we want to build one".
Yvette Cooper: No, I think what
you are proposing is two extremes, whereas the actual position
is that the way in which the planning system already works would
also involve a lot of opportunity for stakeholders, including
the industry, to make representations in the first place. I think
we need to separate again the local issues and the regional level
issue. If, for example, in your Local Plan you decide that you
would not designate this as an area specifically for a casino,
but you would designate it for leisure, or you would designate
it appropriate for particular uses, under the new categories that
are already set out in the planning system, then the question
of who got planning permission would depend on who owns the land,
who bought the land, who put in the planning application and who
was given planning permission first—in exactly the same
way as if a local authority designates a particular area for employment
or a local authority designates a particular area for retail.
Whether it is Asda or Tesco or Sainsburys that comes forward and
develops that particular area for a new supermarket, which may
also be linked to some other development, or whether it is a stadium
or whatever else (a Section 106 thing), will depend on the normal
competitive process that takes place in terms of who owns the
land, who gets there first, who decides where the other shops
are in the area and whether or not they can make it work. So exactly
the same kind of thing would apply. When you are talking at the
regional level in terms of where the appropriate locations should
be, and so on, actually the industry would expect the casino industry
to be one of the main stakeholders putting in representations
about what size of site they expected to have, how many sites
they expected to have, and so on. It would also be an inevitable
part of the competitive process as to who got there first, who
owned the land, who put forward the planning application and who
got the go-ahead.
Q1818 Jeff Ennis: How should competing
casino applications from localities within the same region be
decided, for example, between Manchester and Liverpool? What criteria
should be used to judge different applications and who should
have the final say?
Yvette Cooper: Basically the regional
planning body, again, decides, "Do we think that we ought
to have two casino resorts developed, one in Manchester and one
in Liverpool?" Or, "Do we think no, we actually only
need one, given the kind of representations that we have had from
the industry about the size of the market, and it should be located
in Liverpool because we think, at the regional planning body,
there are regeneration benefits there, or Manchester because it
fits with other transport issues?" It would be a matter for
the regional planning body to decide, and I think it is right
that the regional planning body should decide. The criteria they
will need to use will obviously have to include issues around
regeneration but they will also need to take account of a wide
range of other issues, and all the normal issues they would take
into account as part of the planning system as well. It should
be for them to decide, not for the Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister.
Q1819 Jeff Ennis: That would be in liaison
with the RDAs?
Yvette Cooper: Yes. The RDAs would
be one of the central stakeholders, but also local authorities
and other stakeholders will be involved as well.
| 
