Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340
- 359)
THURSDAY 8 JULY 2004
RT HON
KEITH HILL,
MR MIKE
ASH, MRS
VICTORIA THOMSON
AND MR
GREIG CHALMERS
Q340 Chairman: I am compelled to
ask you if you think it is a suitable location for a regional
casino in London.
Keith Hill: And I am compelled
to reply "no comment".
Q341 Chairman: Bearing in mind the
exchange we have just had about the problems of location and easy
access, will you bear in mind the location of housing developments
associated with casino development so that they are not literally
sitting one on top of the other?
Keith Hill: It is a central aspect
of our sustainable communityies commitment which is to aid the
encouragement and development of mixed use communities. We do
not see any point in simply putting up new bricks and mortar in
a locality. We want to see essential services and we want to see
jobs in localities. So housing, economic development, essential
public service infrastructure all go together.
Q342 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville:
I am not seeking a response from the Minister, but I am going
to read out two sentences from the evidence which was submitted
to us by Professor Sir Peter Hall who we are seeing later this
morning. "However, in all cases national strategy should
specify that regional casinos are a quite special and separate
class, operating on a continuous 24/7 basis, and with consequent
traffic and noise impacts, which makes them quite unsuitable for
introduction into mixed-use developments in dense urban areas
in or near the centre of large cities. The experience of the Sydney
Casino, forming a centrepiece of the Pyrmont district adjacent
to Darling Harbour on the fringe of the city's central business
district, is instructive because it has engendered ongoing conflicts
with the local community." I seek no response.
Keith Hill: But allow me merely
to say that those sorts of environmental impacts are absolutely
legitimate considerations for local authorities when they come
to consider such applications. The only thing I will add is that
obviously in general terms, as you know having represented a London
constituency, we are moving increasingly to a 24-hour economy
in these matters, but it has to be properly policed.
Q343 Viscount Falkland: Minister,
if regional spatial strategies which may incorporate favoured
locations for casinos are not available for some time after the
Gambling Bill gets Royal Assent, could the Government's proposed
system for locating regional casinos not be invalidated by planning
permissions granted in the meantime, bearing in mind that already
there are in excess of 20 publicly announced proposals for regional
sized casinos?
Keith Hill: No.
Q344 Chairman: Why?
Keith Hill: There are mechanisms
for ensuring that the planning system can continue to function
as policy evolves and regeneration issues, Chairman, will be material
in any planning decisions on regional casinos coming forward ahead
of the regional spatial strategies.
Q345 Lord Donoughue of Ashton: I
think you may have already touched on this point. How will your
proposals ensure that there are not large developments in neighbouring
regions which might affect each other's business viability?
Keith Hill: You are right, my
Lord, we have touched on this, but let me just say again that
we believe and expect and it is part of the process that neighbouring
regional planning bodies will be commenting on each other's draft
regional spatial strategy proposals, if necessary at the examination
in public stage. So there is a clear mechanism for that kind of
input. Quite frankly, we would expect rival casino operators to
be pointing this out to the local planning authority or inspector,
as appropriate, in determining the application, but let me quote
PPG6, the town centre planning guidance, "It is not the role
of the planning system to restrict competition, preserve existing
commercial interest or to prevent innovation."
Q346 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: In
the joint response to our earlier report you posed the question
as to how RPBs will revise their regional strategies to take account
of regional casinos and the answer in paragraph 20 is that they
"may wish" to revise those. Should you not make them
do that?
Keith Hill: It is for individual
regions to review their planning policy as they see fit, either
to address new issues of importance, of which regional casinos
may be one, or to reflect the outcome of their continuing monitoring
activities. Under the new planning system they can review regional
spatial strategies as soon as they like and it will be a faster
process than previously. Having said that, the First Secretary
has some reserve powers to direct the revision of regional spatial
strategies but we would expect to use these sparingly.
Q347 Chairman: The Gambling Commission
will be required under the Bill to give guidance to local authorities
about the granting of premises licences and there will be premises
licences for regional casinos, so there will be national guidance
from the Gambling Commission to all local authorities about the
licensing of regional casinos. Why not give national guidance
to regional planning bodies about where to locate regional casinos
because the two things could then work in parallel? This may be
something you might like to think about, Minister.
Keith Hill: I would be happy to
write to you about that because there are a number of genuinely
complicated issues here and I think it would probably be more
helpful if I were to spell these out in the most precise fashion
possible.
Q348 Chairman: But it is one of the
ways that you could be absolutely sure that your short, sharp
answer to my earlier intervention could actually be delivered.
Keith Hill: Having made the commitment
to offer you a specific and detailed response, I do not want to
go into it. I have already referred to the way in which guidance
with regard to town centres and transport will affect locational
issues.
Q349 Mr Wright: Minister, Planning
Policy Statement 11 requires the regional spatial strategies "to
establish the locational criteria appropriate to regionally or
sub-regionally significant leisure uses". What factors would
you expect the regional planning bodies to consider when deciding
on the locational criteria? Could you just explain what is included
in the definition of "regionally significant"?
Keith Hill: That term, Mr Wright,
is drawn from already existing and wider regional planning policy,
and it is applied to a wide range of development types, for example,
housing and retail. The second joint statement which has been
referred to does offer some guidance as to how regional planning
bodies might wish to interpret it in respect of casinos, and in
this respect there is more guidance offered on definition for
casinos than for other types of development it has to be said.
The guidance ought to be regarded as a benchmark; in other words,
this is planning providing a framework to guide decision-making
rather than detailed definitions, as certainly can be seen in
the licensing aspects of the Gambling Bill. It is for the regional
spatial strategies to make the judgment in the context of their
own regions, but they already do this, as Mike Ash has indicated,
in relation to such developments, for example, as airports, air-fields.
Mr Meale: Minister, can you clarify how
new large casinos will be dealt with under the planning process?
Will they be included in regional spatial strategies?
Q350 Chairman: There is some ambiguity
on this in the memorandum, your joint memorandum, where in paragraph
28, "Conclusion", there are four subparagraphs, on page
51, it says, "New large casinos will be located in the most
appropriate place in terms of their tourism and regenerative potential
and will contribute to the mitigation of the impact associated
with their development." A number of witnesses are confused
as to whether the word "large" refers to large casinos
or whether really what you meant were the new regional casinos?
Keith Hill: Inspiration has winged
its way to me, and I can assure the Committee that by "large"
we mean regional, but perhaps I ought to offer a more detailed
explanation, given the fact that there is evidently this confusion
and the more detailed explanation, if the Committee will forgive
me, is obviously an important issue to you. Do you want me to
write to you on that as well?
Q351 Chairman: That would be helpful.
Keith Hill: I am aware we are
under time constraints. Can you just assume I have will write
to you in response to all of this?
Q352 Mr Meale: When you do write,
would you clarify whether there are going to be any differences
between the regional, regional casinos and larger casinos?
Keith Hill: Yes, I will do. Absolutely.
Q353 Chairman: Mr Chalmers wants
to make a point, and I think it would be helpful if he does?
Mr Chalmers: Just to say that
I think the appearance of the word "large" is an error.
It ought to have said "regional", and that is our fault,
for which I apologise.
Q354 Chairman: That is fine. That,
therefore, means presumably, that a large casino would be entirely
within the local authority's gift in terms of granting applying
of consent, because it is not a regional casino. The structure
that you have put forward to us is that regional casinos have
to have regional planning body support; they have to conform with
regional spatial strategies whereas all the other casino developments
are up to the local authorities to decide. You may still call
the application in for other reasons, the substantive reason which
you have given us, but it is outside the regional planning body's
remit.
Keith Hill: Mr Chairman, as you
can see, there has been a flurry of consultation while you have
been speaking, and the answer to your observation is, yes, you
are right.
Chairman: Thank you. Lord Faulkner, you
were going to ask about UFA.
Q355 Lord Faulkner of Worcester:
I am sorry, I was overwhelmed by the speed of that answer. We
have heard evidence that there is a risk that existing premises
classified under D2 use class could be converted to regional casinos
without the need for planning permission. How would your department
intend to deal with that?
Keith Hill: It is true, my Lord,
that moves within the D2 use class do not themselves need planning
permission, but let me assure the Committee that our minds are
certainly not closed on the issue of changing the use class position
in respect of casinos, and we are happy to look at that issue
in the light of any evidence presented to the Committee.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: A number
of our witnesses have suggested that casinos should be categorised
as sui generis?
Q356 Chairman: Including the Mayor
of London.
Keith Hill: Well, there you go,
my mate, Ken. As the Minister for London, as the reincarnated
and recycled Minister for London, it is a lot easier dealing with
him now than it was before the last general election. Let me say
on that issue that we are certainly willing to consider categorising
casinos as sui generis, and if a change is to be pursued
the route to consider would be along those lines, but I have to
say that if there were such a proposal for change, it would, of
course, be first subject to consultation and regulatory impact
assessment.
Chairman: That is very clear. Let us
just talk about regeneration benefits. Lord Mancroft.
Q357 Lord Mancroft: Minister, are
planning gains through the fixed tariff and requirements to contribute
to regeneration the same thing or are they separate and distinct
financial obligations which will be imposed on the developers
of the regional casinos?
Keith Hill: Thank you for raising
this issue. I fear on this one I do need to offer a fairly detailed
response, because I fear there may be a slight misunderstanding.
Q358 Chairman: I think there is,
I agree.
Keith Hill: In relation to this
issue of a fixed tariff. So let me briefly offer some background
and some clarification of terms, first of all about current and
emerging policy. It is important to distinguish between current
policy and emerging policy. The Government has, it is true, recently
announced that we are reviewing policy on planning obligations,
including consideration of what we call an optional planning charge
but what I think here is referred to by yourselves as a fixed
tariff. But our current policy, which is set out in Circular 1/97,
remains very much in force and that is what I am talking about
today and what will certainly be in operation, we think, for the
foreseeable future. Secondly, on the issue of regeneration, the
regeneration benefits described in the joint statements were not
intended to denote sums extracted from casinos for additional
services or facilities. Additional contributions may not be sought
through the planning system from casino developers except in relation
to section 106 agreements or planning obligations. Let me say
that of course there are voluntary mechanisms for contributions
to be made outside the scope of the planning system, but most,
we think, are unlikely to relate to casino development. If it
would be helpful, I can provide the Committee with some written
evidence on this point, but let me say that a more general interpretation
of "regeneration benefits" was intended in the joint
statement, meaning the broad brush benefits we have talked about
already in my response to Mr Meal created by the direction of
development to areas in need of it.
Q359 Chairman: Yes, but Manchester
City Council, I think, described on Tuesday this, or agreed with
this proposition: that if a new casino is built on the east Manchester
site next to the City of Manchester stadium where the Commonwealth
Games were held, and this has been a project, as I am sure you
are aware, as Planning Minister, which has been on the stocks
for a long time. It would involve massive provision of sports
facilities, shops, restaurants, bars as well as a casino. That
in itself contributes to regeneration, but the developers will
also clearly have to contribute other planning gain. What they
volunteer on top of what is required is, of course, a matter for
them, but you are confirming that there is a difference?
Keith Hill: Yes, absolutely, I
think your summary is absolutely right.
| 
