Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill First Report


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.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 22 July 2004