Memorandum from Paradign Services (DGB
6)
1. The Gambling Review Body stated the central
dilemma they faced was to balance the exercise of individual freedoms
against societal responsibilities to protect vulnerable individuals
on the one hand and general social concerns about excess on the
other.
2. Their proposals moved towards allowing
greater exercise of consumer choice, and in recommendations 36
and 38 they advocated the abolition of permitted areas and the
demand criterion for casinos. The Government in A safe bet
for success agreed with both recommendations, and for casino
operating licences both prohibitions are removed by clause 71(4)(a)
and (b) of the Draft Gambling Bill. In the Explanatory Notes the
department says: "This abolishes the position before the
draft Bill where casinos could only operate in "permitted
areas" laid down by law, and where account had to be taken
of anticipated local demand in deciding whether to allow a casino
to commence business".
3. However, this part of the Bill merely
requires the Gambling Commission not to have regard to either
the demand for facilities or the place where they will be operated
in determining the granting of an operating licence. And it is
far from clear how these two much-heralded policy changes map
into the determination of premises licences.
4. Indeed, the Review Body itself retreated
slightly from earlier advice by saying at recommendation 44—
We recommend that .... each application for a
(premises) licence should be considered on its own merits. The
authority should have regard to the existing gambling provision
but that should not by itself be a valid reason for refusal.
The Government's response was that all premises
licences should be subject to national criteria and guidance from
the Commission.
5. Part eight of the Bill deals with premises
licences. Clause 125 says in determining applications for premises
licences the authority must grant if the proposal—
— accords with codes of practice and
guidance issued by the Commission,
— is reasonably consistent with the
licensing objectives, and
— is in accordance with the authority's
three-year licensing policy.
In joined-up local governments, it should seem
that gambling licensing polices designed under this Bill will
be congruent with local development plans and spatial strategies
devised by the regional planning bodies.
6. The Joint Statement issued earlier this
year anticipated that regional planning bodies would set out "planning
policies for leisure developments of regional significance, including
the largest casinos, which identify suitable locations within
the region". And ODPM is currently consulting on regional
planning policy (PPS 11; October 2003), aiming to give more weight
to regional planning guidance by replacing it with statutory regional
spatial strategy (RSS), to which local development plans would
have to conform. The RSS would be based over a 15-year time scale,
and identify spatial accommodation for regional and sub-regional
objectives.
7. The Bill distinguishes between only two
types of casino—large[1]
and small. A large casino has a gaming floor of 10,000 square
feet, and if it has 40 tables available for play, may have unlimited
gaming machines. Consider then a possible example of a large casino
complex. It has no hotel. Suppose on site there are restaurants,
the casino (incorporating gaming, machines, bingo, and betting,
as well as its own restaurants and entertainment), and a cinema.
The casino, say, has 40 tables and 500 slot machines. Such a complex
to be viable would have to have about 4,000 visitors per day and
up to 2,000 available parking spaces.
8. Under PPG6, planners would require the
applicant to demonstrate the need for the complex, show that the
application was in conformity with the local development plan,
and then make a sequential search for sites—starting first
with the town centre (see ODPM parliamentary statement of 10 April
2003). If the complex was deemed to be of sub-regional significance
it would have to conform to the RSS.
9. Since the RSS first identifies the need
for substantial leisure facilities and then determines some broad
appropriate locations for them, it appears that for large casinos
policy has regressed pre Budd. Notwithstanding the licensing objectives
of the draft Gambling Bill, it is incumbent on us to believe that
regionally-permitted areas and the demand criterion have both
been reincorporated into Government policy.
10. It would be helpful if the joint committee
could shed some light on the matter.
December 2003
1 Resort casinos are simply large casinos; it is likely
that all large casinos will require regional approval. Back
| 
