Annex 1: Letter from the Rt Hon Keith
Hill MP, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister
I was pleased to have the opportunity to give evidence
to the Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill on 8 July. As
we discussed, there were a number of additional points which I
offered to clarify in writing: these are set out below.
NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE FOR CASINO DEVELOPMENT
The Joint Committee noted that the Gambling Commission
would be providing national guidance to local authorities on the
issue of premises licences, and suggested that the planning issues
associated with casino development could also be addressed in
national guidance to Regional Planning Bodies.
It must be noted that a comprehensive policy framework
already exists in respect of regional casino development, and
that Regional Planning Bodies are familiar with it.
PPG6 - Town Centres and Retail Developments, and
its emerging successor PPS6 -Planning for Town Centres, are relevant
to casino development, as is PPG13 - Transport. Together, they
direct casinos towards the most central and accessible locations
(where locations outside town centres are being considered, proposals
must satisfy some additional policy tests).
PPG 11 - Regional Planning, and its emerging successor,
PPSI 1, provide guidance on the way in which regional planning
policy is to be developed. Of direct relevance to regional casino
proposals, they require regional planning policy to establish
the locational criteria appropriate to regionally or sub-regionally
significant leisure uses, or to the location of major new inward
investment sites, and permit the 'broad location' of such sites
to be identified.
The two Joint DCMS/ODPM Statements are also relevant.
The first explained that the Government wished to see the identification
of broad locations for regionally-significant casinos in regional
planning policy, on the grounds that such developments are likely
to provide a major contribution to regeneration1 tourism and economic
development. The second clarified the way in which existing planning
policy, and proposed Gambling policy, may be used as guidance
for those regional planning bodies considering the development
of casino-specific policy. It stated that regional planning bodies
may make use of the licensing definition of a 'regional' casino,
as they see fit, in drawing up planning policy for their region,
and in defining the scale of casino development for which broad
locations should be identified in the regional spatial strategy.
The Government is keen to avoid issuing too many
statements of policy, preferring to let Regional Planning Bodies
operate in response to the circumstances of their regions within
a general framework. There is already more guidance offered on
casino-specific matters than there is for other types of development.
That said, there may be scope to clarify and develop
the policy in respect of casinos in the emerging PPS6 - Planning
for Town Centres, and also to make reference to casinos in the
Good Practice Guidance to accompany PPS6, and we will be looking
into how best to take this forward. I would not like to commit
to any further casino-specific statements, however, until the
need for it has been explored further. This issue will be raised
at the meeting with Regional Planning Bodies that my Officials
are attending this week, and I should be in a position to confirm
the Government's stance on this point when we respond to your
recommendations.
PARAGRAPH 28 OF THE SECOND JOINT STATEMENT
I agreed to confirm in writing that the reference
in paragraph 28 of the second Joint Statement to 'large' casinos
was in fact an error, The reference was intended to be to the
'largest' casinos, i.e, 'regional' casinos, and the reference
should therefore read as follows:
'The combination of existing planning policies and
proposed arrangements for gambling can combine to ensure that
New regional casinos will be located in the most appropriate places
in terms of their tourism and regenerative potential, and will
contribute to the mitigation of the impacts associated with their
development."
I join DCMS in apologising for this mistake.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'REGIONAL' AND 'LARGE' CASINOS
The Joint Committee asked me to clarify the distinction
between small and large casinos. The detailed distinction between
'small', 'large' and 'regional' casinos is of course made in the
emerging licensing proposals. Very little distinction is drawn
between these three categories in planning terms, except in relation
to 'regional' proposals, where, as already stated, regional planning
bodies may use the licensing definition of a 'regional' casino
to define the scale of casino development for which broad locations
should be identified in the regional spatial strategy.
Within the planning (rather than licensing) system,
much is common to all three categories of casino. Where planning
permission is needed for casino development planning applications
must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, whatever the
size of the casino in question. In all cases, they will be determined
by reference to the policies in the development plan, and to any
other material considerations (these material considerations include
national policy, as set out in PPGs and PPSs, and the two Joint
Statements, as well as circumstances specific to each individual
case).
Additional planning issues are raised in respect
of regional casinos:
- specific reference to the location
of regional casinos may be made in regional planning policy, as
set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for a region. This
RSS is part of the development plan, meaning that decisions on
planning applications must be made in accordance with it, and
that it should be reflected in more detailed local planning policy;
and
- by virtue of their size, proposals for regional
casinos which constitute 'departures' from the development plan
are more likely to need to be notified to the First Secretary
of State, enabling him to check general compliance with development
plan policies, and to consider whether an application should be
'called in' for his own determination.
It should be noted, though, that regional planning
bodies are left with an element of flexibility in determining
the scale of casino development to be addressed in regional planning
policy. Within the particular circumstances of their region, they
may choose not to regard a 'regional' (in licensing terms) casino
proposal as sufficiently significant to warrant specific provision
in the Regional Spatial Strategy; alternatively, they may regard
a 'large' (in licensing terms) proposal as 'regionally significant'.
Broadly speaking, however, we anticipate that regional
planning bodies will make use of the provisions in the second
Joint Statement to use the licensing definition of 'regional'
as relevant for planning purposes.
FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OUTSIDE THE PLANNING SYSTEM
As I explained on 8 July, local planning authorities
may enter into legal agreements ("section 106" agreements)
with developers when considering applications for planning approval:
these are also known as planning obligations. Guidance on the
use and scope of planning obligations is set out in Planning Circular
1197, but, broadly speaking, planning obligations are intended
to mitigate the impacts of a development. They may enhance the
quality of development and enable proposals to go ahead which
might otherwise be refused.
There are also a number of voluntary mechanisms for
financial contributions which are outside the scope of the planning
system, by which developers or businesses can make contributions
to the local community. These are limited in their use, and most
are unlikely to relate to casino development, but I will outline
some of the most relevant below.
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS (BIDS)
BIDs allow local authorities and businesses to work
together to put in place small-scale projects to improve their
local area. The intention to introduce BIDs in England was announced
in 2001 in the White Paper Strong Leadership - Quality Public
Services. In the main they are concerned with safety and security,
cleanliness and marketing, and may cover projects such as installation
of CCTV security systems, regular street cleaning and event marketing.
ODPM is supporting the Association of Town Centre
Management in establishing 22 BID pilot schemes in England and
Wales. The Local Government Act 2003 (which received Royal Assent
in September) sets out the statutory framework for BIDs. ODPM
has consulted on the draft regulations that will prescribe the
arrangements for setting up and maintaining a BID, and aims to
lay these before Parliament shortly. Whilst legislation was needed
to implement the BlDs scheme, there were already many good examples
of councils and businesses already working together to deliver
benefits to their areas, including those run by the Central London
Partnership under their Circle Initiative Scheme.
STRATEGIC LAND END INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACTS
In areas of significant changes in land use, such
as urban regeneration projects or growth areas, fragmented land
ownership may lead to conflicts of interest between landowners
and difficulties in bringing forward the necessary infrastructure
to facilitate development. There may be a role for the public
sector to help develop contracts to link delivery of infrastructure
directly to contributions from landowners and developers. A local
delivery vehicle (such as English Partnerships or an Urban Development
Corporation) could broker a voluntary deal between landowners
and various infrastructure providers (Highways Agency, SRA, utilities).
Developers and landowners would benefit from better-serviced development
land coming forward more quickly. The public sector providers
would get a higher level of contribution from the private sector,
allowing them to accelerate provision.
LAND POOLING
A variation of Strategic Land and Infrastructure
Contracts is directed land pooling. This has received some attention
from central government but has not yet been demonstrated as a
practical proposition under current legislation. In this model
a public sector agency with master planning responsibility and
compulsory purchase powers, draws up land pooling plans for the
area to be developed. It offers landowners the opportunity of
a share in the land pool as an alternative to compulsory purchase.
The agency uses money it would have expended on compulsory purchase
to enhance infrastructure and community facility provision and
is able to bring development (and increased land value) forward
more swiftly. There may also be scope for the agency to take a
stake in the land pool over and above any it might receive by
virtue of an existing land holding. Such a stake would reflect
the additional investment made by the agency. Private land owners
might find this arrangement suitable if the land value increases
arrive sooner and in larger measure as a result of the agency's
involvement. Realised gains from the agency's stake could then
be re-invested in further regeneration.
Those wishing to pursue any of the above vehicles
should contact the relevant local authority or local delivery
vehicle in the first instance.
I hope that this additional information addresses
some of the Joint Committee's concerns. I will of course be happy
to answer any further questions that you may have, but, in the
meantime, I look forward to receiving the Committee's report on
22 July.
| 
