Examination of Witnesses (Questions 79
- 99)
TUESDAY 6 JULY 2004
MR TIM
HILL, MS
ELEANOR YOUNG
AND MR
GREIG CHALMERS
Mr Greig Chalmers, Gambling
Bill Manager, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, further
examined.
Q79 Chairman: Good morning, everyone.
Can I begin by welcoming Tim Hill, the Director of Planning, Transport
and Sustainability at the North West Regional Assembly, and Eleanor
Young, Policy Adviser to the Mayor of London, Greater London Authority.
You are very welcome and we are grateful for your attendance at
such relatively short notice. Can I ask you to note that today's
evidence hearings are being filmed, which is why there is not
quite so much room in the gallery as we normally enjoy; also that
Greig Chalmers, the head of the Bill team from DCMS, is present
at the meeting should we need him to clarify anything. A transcript
of the meeting will be produced and placed on the internet before
the end of the week, and a full declaration of interests of Members
of the Committee has been made and is available for the public,
should you wish to see it. Can I also, in case I forget later,
make a general point that it is not necessary for every witness
to answer every question. We have no less than 19 witnesses appearing
before us today and I am not quite sure how we are going to fit
them all in. Can I ask you all, please, to speak up as these rooms
do not have particularly good acoustics but they do, nonetheless,
make mobile phones sound louder than ever if they go off, so please
make sure they are switched off. Can I begin by asking you both
whether the Government's proposals now provide you with sufficient
clarity on the role of regional planning bodies in the development
of regional cases?
Ms Young: We sent written evidence
yesterday, and I am not sure if the Committee has that?
Q80 Chairman: Yes.
Ms Young: I think they provide
some clarity on the role in so far as regional planning bodies
have been asked to prepare regional strategies, but I would just
draw attention to paragraphs 2.2-2.6 in the evidence we submitted
which set out the issues that we think need further clarification.
The first is in relation to whether or not regional casino developments
are referable to the Mayor for development control purposes under
the Mayor of London Order. They might be because of their size
but it would be slightly perverse if we were able to do a strategy
but not able then to have development control over that, so I
think that needs further consideration.
Q81 Chairman: But you are uniquely
placed here, are you not?
Ms Young: We are, although I think
the Government's Regional Assemblies Bill proposes to give similar
powers to regional bodies if they are elected by their regions.
We are in a slightly different position from other regions in
that the Mayor does have strategic planning powers in London,
so we think that is one issue that needs clarification. The other
is on the role of the Use Class under which casinos are described,
which is the General Leisure Assembly Use Class D2, and we think
that needs to be clarified further. Again, that is in our evidence.
Mr Hill: As far as we are concerned,
and I am not speaking obviously for all of the other English regions
but certainly in terms of the north west, it provides clarity
on the role but, again, I think we have some concerns about some
of the details of how we are going to fulfil that role. However
providing a framework within a spatial framework for the region
for regional casinos is broadly similar to the sort of role we
expect for other forms of development and the development of the
spatial strategy, so there are not any problems about the role—in
fact, we would certainly welcome that.
Q82 Chairman: So you think, from
what you are saying, that the proposed role in this very narrow
area fits well with regional planning bodies' other responsibilities?
Mr Hill: Yes, I think so.
Ms Young: Definitely, yes.
Mr Hill: Just to pick up the point
about development control, as I understand it the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act will allow for regulations to be laid
which enable regional planning bodies outside London to act as
statutory consultees on regionally significant planning applications,
so clearly that is something we would want to explore in relation
to regional casinos. At the moment we have written to all local
planning authorities asking them if they would notify us as a
matter of courtesy of any application that they receive.
Q83 Chairman: How engaged do you
think RPBs are generally with the issue of regional casinos? You
are both here because we sensed that you had each got some grasp
of this already, but would we be right in thinking that many other
regional planning bodies, which are only embryonic anyway at the
moment, have not got much of a grasp on this?
Mr Hill: I know certainly of others
because there was a flurry of e-mails last week about this hearing.
They all noted I was attending so I think they could breathe a
sigh of relief, but I know others have been giving it some thought
and are discussing it with local authorities. It is worth pointing
out that although regional planning bodies are certainly embryonic
we have all been through one round of RPG so, if you like, the
networks and relationships with other planning authorities are
there. So while this is a new issue I do not think it is going
to take assemblies and planning bodies by surprise perhaps, but
I think it will vary depending on the level of interest there
is in the regions.
Q84 Chairman: Ms Young, in your memorandum
you say that at the moment the Mayor effectively has a strategic
role and it has to be approved by him if a development is at least
30,000 square metres in the city of London. In other words, if
a proposed development exceeded 30,000 metres it automatically
must go to him and if he says "No" it is no, and it
is 20,000 square metres in the rest of Central London so that
would include Westminster presumably.
Ms Young: Yes.
Q85 Chairman: Or 15,000 square metres
outside Central London, so that would presumably include Hammersmith
& Fulham?
Ms Young: We would have to refer
to the Order which would set that up. Central London does involve
more boroughs than Westminster and I think it is the central core
of boroughs, and Outer London, so Hammersmith & Fulham might
well be included in Central London.
Q86 Chairman: But these thresholds
are significantly greater than the proposed threshold for a regional
casino in the Government's response to our first report, so are
you asking that you should have these limits in respect of regional
casinos reduced generally, or should the threshold for regional
casinos be higher, or is it a bit of both?
Ms Young: No, I do not think it
is a question of changing the threshold for regional casinos.
This is an example of the sort of thresholds that are in the Order.
It includes a number of thresholds, some around height, some around
number of housing units, some around amounts of floor space, and
the ones we have quoted are on the floor space. I think the Order
could be amended just to make it clear that casinos falling within
the threshold of regional casinos should be referable to the Mayor
as another point in the Order. There are some other changes that
could be made to the Order but that is not really relevant to
this Committee or considerations here. It is a matter for ODPM
really.
Q87 Chairman: And from the casino
developments which you know are being considered within London,
do you have a view on the threshold that the Government has proposed
for regional casinos as to whether it is the right one?
Ms Young: I think we are quite
happy with it. We welcome the change in definition. Our view is
that if these casinos come forward as part of larger mixed use
schemes they will inevitably come before the Mayor, but if they
come as a separate element of a scheme then there is a risk that
they will not and therefore we will not be able to get involved
in assessing whether they are of interest of good strategic planning
in London, which is the test we use to assess all the applications
that are referable to us. It is quite important we have enough
safeguards because obviously we are responsible for the London
Plan, and I think regional planning bodies are in a good position
because they have that regional planning role to have either a
criteria-based or locational-based strategy around casinos, or
a mixture of the two. But I think it is very important that RPBs
can implement those strategies.
Q88 Tony Wright: My question is really
in three parts. We are talking about the location of casinos.
Are you aware of any plans already under way for regional casinos
in your two areas, and what factors would you be taking into account
when considering their locations? Finally, and just as importantly,
is the question of consultation. How will local people have their
say in what they consider should or should not happen in their
respective areas?
Mr Hill: We are aware that there
are plans afoot, if you like, for a number of regional casinos.
We probably do not know all that is going on because some discussions
are at early stages but, for example, you have received some evidence
from St Helen's, and Manchester and Blackpool are here. Liverpool
are taking a slightly more distant approach of trying to develop
supplementary guidance about casinos in Liverpool itself. However
there is a planning application that is currently being submitted
which we assume will fall within the definition of regional casino
in Salford so yes, there is a lot of interest. In terms of location
factors, this is where it starts to get quite tricky. I do not
know whether you will come on to this in more detail or whether
you want me to discuss it but in the memorandum I put forward
we said there are a number of concerns about the way in which
the annex is set out. PPS6 or PPG6 are fairly clear; casinos are
covered by the policy in PPS6 and therefore by a sequential test,
and there is no distinction there between large, small or regional
casinos. The starting expectation therefore would be that they
would be in town or city centre locations of appropriate order
of magnitude for a regional facility, but there are some elements
of the annex in the Government's response which could be taken
to contradict that. It talks, for example, about regional planning
bodies being able to identify these as inward investment locations.
In the north west we do not use the term "inward investments".
There is a broad consensus that we do not want to define regional
significance in terms of inward investment for employment locations,
but the principle remains. It could be treated as a large regional
employment site. Equally, are town and city centres necessarily
the areas where the maximum of regional regeneration benefits
could be achieved?
Chairman: We will come on to that but
I think what lies behind Mr Wright's question is the question
"Where?", rather than it being site specific. You have
mentioned four or five different places in the north west.
Q89 Baroness Golding: How will you
deal with competing claims for casinos in different areas within
your region, then?
Mr Hill: We have had discussions
with the Development Agency and Government Office and we are looking
to do some joint work on the identification of the framework as
a fairly early piece of work, as an interim and as part of the
process of developing our regional spatial strategy, Quite clearly
the appropriate way in which this should be considered and in
which the competing claims of different towns and cities can be
considered is through the regional spatial strategy process, and
the examination of the spatial development framework and the examination
of the role of the different towns and city centres and locations
within the region, and an examination of the criteria which might
apply.
Q90 Baroness Golding: And how much
work and consultation has gone on with regard to that?
Mr Hill: We are just starting.
In fact, we are going to launch I think the week after next our
regional spatial strategy review preparation process. Ministers
have asked us to do that within about a year but as part of that
we are looking to do some fairly widespread consultation on a
range of issues, and regional casino locations will be one, so
we will be consulting not only local authorities but a range of
stakeholders on that.
Ms Young: I will deal firstly
with the last question. In terms of competing claims in London
I think the situation is slightly different. We are aware of the
number of embryonic proposals for casinos but the competing claims
we are facing are more operators vying with each other for locations.
We met with the ALG, the Association of London Government which
represents London boroughs, a couple of weeks ago and we agreed
with them that we would sit down with the local planning authorities
and the licensing side of the local authorities as well this autumn
and start to evaluate which local authorities want a casino, because
in London some will not want a casino. There are a number of locations
within London that might be suitable, and I would support the
evidence from Tim that town centre locations with obviously a
sequential approach in terms of planning policy are the first
locations you would look at. There may be issues around size which
would lead you to edge of centre locations. Also, within London,
because we have our London Plan in place, we have identified a
number of what we call Opportunity Areas—some of which are
town centres, some of which are areas where there is large amount
of brownfield land that is able to be developed—that are
either well connected by public transport or where we have identified
the need to improve public transport as part of a development
proposal, and it is those sort of areas where the land is, basically—because
in London we have not got banks of land that is spare and lying
around—that is the sort of locations. What we would do is
try to assess which boroughs are supportive of promoting a casino
in their area and then look for locations within those boroughs
which fitted with our regional strategy, and there are a number.
So I do think there is scope within London to be a bit mindful
of trying to respond to the boroughs that want the casinos and
the boroughs that do not.
Q91 Chairman: One borough has a lot
of casinos already, Westminster. Do you have any view within the
Mayor's office as to the competitive threat to existing casinos
from development of a regional casino?
Ms Young: We have done some market
research and that is very nearly finalised as a report for publication
but we have not published it yet. The emerging picture, however,
is that the casinos that exist in Westminster are not on the scale
that we are discussing here in terms of regional or even large
casinos. Now, there obviously is an issue about proliferation
of smaller casinos if the law goes ahead. They could be under
threat but they are located in the West End which is a particularly
attractive location for international tourism and leisure, and
they have that unique selling point, if you like, so I do not
think they are any more under threat from the small casinos around
London then, say, the shops in Oxford Street are from shopping
centres around London, because a lot of their clientele are foreign
visitors, etc, and therefore they are going to continue to fulfil
that role. I do not think it is very likely that Westminster is
going to want to promote a large or a regional casino in its boundaries
so I think it is unlikely that they will be under threat, but
we will continue to look into that.
Q92 Jeff Ennis: A number of sporting
related organisations, and I am thinking primarily of football
clubs and rugby league clubs, have expressed interest in incorporating
a casino within their sphere of influence, shall we say. Do you
think it is possible for a regional casino to form such a linkage
with a sporting club, either in London or the regions, or is that
on a much more small scale?
Ms Young: It could be.
Mr Hill: I think we are aware
of several councils. The application I referred to in Salford
is linked to the redevelopment of a rugby league club there. I
think Eleanor has raised the point about mixed use development
and the extent to which casinos are, in effect, the banker. It
is the topical thing to provide as an anchor for your project
of redeveloping a club or whatever. It is highly likely that there
are going to be sites either from the redevelopment of existing
grounds or the development of new grounds, probably in out-of-centre
locations, where there is going to be a desire to have regional
scale casinos as part of that development. Whether those are the
right places to put them is something that Government can provide
advice on in the context of its views about whether they should
be in town centres or not.
Q93 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Is
it possible that there could be a regional casino located just
outside your own region which would affect the viability of the
regional casinos you have designated as the main targets for expansion
within your region? We asked a moment ago about the plans for
casinos in football grounds and I know, because we have received
a presentation, that there is a promoter who would like to develop
a regional casino at Watford, for example, which is outside Greater
London, but if that were to happen it would presumably have remarkable
implications for the viability of a regional casino, certainly
on the north side of London.
Ms Young: That is an issue about
the market, is it not? There are a number of locations even within
London that might be suitable for a casino, and the market research
I have referred to earlier which, I am sorry, is not available
today but will be soon, identifies that we might have between
one or five regional casinos—
Q94 Chairman: In London.
Ms Young:—but if you add
in large casinos it could be up to 15. This is a very rough estimate;
one and five is a large difference in planning terms. In planning
you cannot say, "This is a location for a casino and therefore
a casino will happen there"; you have to take a sensible
approach to facilitating development in response to the market.
It may be that if, say, Watford was a location for a casino and
they got up and running before somewhere like Wembley where there
is talk about a casino in the plans, then it may have implications
for viability at Wembley, but that is a question as much for the
developers, who would be proposing to put a casino either at Watford
or Wembley, to consider as much as for local planning. Our research
suggests, and you can only rely on forecasts to an extent, you
cannot totally predict the future, but we would not think that
there are going to be a lot of these large regional casinos, and
like any other use the market will have an influence over how
many there are and where they go.
Mr Hill: From our perspective,
there are a couple of points which I think are positive. Firstly,
on this issue about location across boundaries of regions highlights
the importance of a regional spatial strategy, a plan-led approach
to considering location, and one of the reasons is that we are
enjoined to consult each other on our regional spatial strategies.
I am assuming Watford is in the south east as opposed to the east
of England but in these areas where there could be potential knock-on
effects across borders, regional planning bodies are used to working
with each other particularly on things like growth area studies
and we are collaborating more and more on a range of technical
work, so we are used to working with each other, and we are consulting
each other on regional spatial strategy issues.
Q95 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Would
it not make better sense for there to be a national strategy so
you are told by Government, "We feel within the north west
or in Greater London it is appropriate to have X regional casinos
and Y large ones and Z local ones, and we would like you to pay
particular attention to resort regeneration"? Would that
not make your job easier, and produce a more satisfactory outcome?
Ms Young: I would make a couple
of points. Firstly, Watford is in the east of England but in London,
the south east and the east we have an inter regional planning
forum to discuss issues that cross borders like transport, waste,
housing, and so casino strategies would be picked up there and
we do have an obligation to consult each other on our regional
strategies and make sure they are complementary. You could argue
that a national strategy would help but Government has not been
willing to provide a national spatial strategy and has made it
clear that they do not intend to provide a national spatial strategy,
and therefore I would question why casinos particularly should
need a national spatial guideline. They are only one form of development
and we deal with a lot of different forms of development, and
I would question why they particularly need a spatial strategy,
given that there is not a spatial strategy for any other thing
except transport.
Q96 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: But
that is what this Committee is looking at. That is why it might
make sense for casinos?
Ms Young: Yes, but I would put
that in the context of the fact that the Government does not wish
to provide a national spatial strategy per se, so I would
question that.
Mr Hill: I think from our point
of view clearly a national strategy for the location of casinos,
if it said "These are the towns in the north west where we
would want to see casinos", would undoubtedly make our job
easier by removing us from the equation, and probably local authorities
as well. I question whether that is desirable and I am fairly
clear we do not think it is. There are tensions and sensitivities
about trying to frame the location, but what we will end up with
is something we have, as best we can, tried to agree within the
region and which is responding to the particular needs of the
north west.
Ms Young: I wanted to return to
the question which was asked earlier which was about how much
say local people will have in the location of casinos. The further
you remove that and set a national strategy the less influence
local authorities and local people have, because regional bodies
cannot prepare a regional strategy in a vacuum without consulting
the local authorities and the districts within their regions,
so there is that side as well which is quite important.
Q97 Chairman: I take it you have
picked up on the fact that in the overall framework, for licensing
of gambling premises generally though, there would be an opportunity
for local people to appeal against the granting of an operating
licence? That could throw a real spanner in the works of regional
strategy if, with your preferred location for one or two casinos
in Central London, people locally said "We do not want them".
Have you given thought as to how you would sort that out?
Ms Young: I think one of the issues
is that local people are involved in the consultation process
during the planning process, and I come back to the earlier point
about the Use Class and why it is important that they have a Use
Class that means they do have to apply for planning permission,
because then as part of the normal planning process you consider
the impacts, you consider the regeneration benefits and the planning
obligations that would go with that application, and there is
an opportunity for local people to be engaged in that process
as well as the licensing process. I would anticipate that the
planning process would deal with a lot of the issues around whether
the location is suitable which should help clarify some of those
issues before you get to the licensing process.
Q98 Lord Walpole: Do you envisage
most regional casino developments being located in town centres?
What is the town centre in London? I do not think you can answer
that—perhaps you should answer it—but I do not know
whether you think that some of the existing casinos in this borough
and so on will still have a greater turnover than a regional a
little bit further out. The turnover of some of these casinos
in Central London is very high.
Ms Young: I cannot answer the
question on how much turnover a regional casino will have compared
to a casino in Westminster: I would have to look that one up.
In terms of the town centres in London there is an identified
network of town centres which is set out in the London Plan. The
West End is an international scale centre; the next class down
is metropolitan, which is a million square feet of retail plus
a lot of other different functions, not just retail, and then
there is major, district and neighbourhood. I think there are
five classes down the scale, and the sequential approach would
seek to locate the biggest development in the biggest town centres,
and then the edges, and then smaller developments in their relevant
size. So it is town centre, and then on the edges, and then out
of town.
Q99 Lord Walpole: But you certainly
were not thinking of a greenfield site?
Ms Young: We do not think of a
greenfield site for development anywhere in London for any purposes.
| 
