North West Regional Assembly
(NWRA) is pleased to submit the following statement to the
Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill (Regional Casinos)
1.0 Overview
1.1 The Assembly believes that the
Joint Committee's First Report, and the Government Response thereto,
have between them provided considerably improved clarity on many
of the issues relating to the licensing of, and planning for,
gambling uses and in particular casinos. There appears to be an
emerging and relatively widely-held view that the First Report
and Government Response have appropriately recognised and dealt
with legitimate concerns about proliferation and the extension
of problem gambling arising as a result.
1.2 The Assembly has a number of
concerns remaining, however, about the extent to which the Government
Response and its Annex provide a clear framework for the development
of regional and local policy approaches to casino development,
and their implementation in practical terms. These include:
· whether
regional casinos are in all cases likely to be regionally significant;
· the
criteria for developing regional spatial policy for regional casinos,
in particular the extent to which tourism, regeneration and town
centre benefits can be realised together, weighted and differentiated;
· whether
at all or any scales of development policy could be effectively
overriden because of use class rights;
· the
interim position pending approval of Regional Spatial Strategies
which explicitly deal with regionally-significant casino locations;
· the
relationship between planning and licensing regimes.
2.0 Current situation in NW England
2.1 The potential for new casino
developments has excited considerable interest amongst operators,
developers and local authorities in the North West, and the Joint
Committee will be aware of several instances from submitted evidence.
2.2 The Assembly has been following
this debate for about a year, and officers have held discussions
with local authorities and with operators. The Assembly's Policy
Committee met in February in Blackpool to consider a presentation
by Blackpool Borough Council and its partners on its regeneration
master plan, which includes proposals for a cluster of resort-style
casinos.
2.3 NWRA, GONW and North West Development
Agency (NWDA) have regular meetings and the regional casinos issue
has been the subject of correspondence and meetings over the last
few weeks and days; the aim is to identify a collective approach
to evidence and the development of a spatial framework. The three
agencies have agreed that the Assembly will prepare a brief for
a short, desk-based market assessment as one element of a wider
study exploring the roles of settlements and centres in the region,
responding to draft PPS6. For reasons outlined below, we believe
that such a study is a necessary precursor to the development
of robust and defensible policy given the situation in the region.
2.4 Published RPG13 contains a number
of policies which would provide a basis for the consideration
of major leisure or similar proposals. These include the identification
of a set of sustainable development principles; a spatial framework
which sets out the key regional centres and other regionally significant
towns and cities; designation of a number of Regeneration Priority
Areas; and policy on town centre development. However, this general
approach will need to be refined to give more specific guidance
for regional casino developments.
3.0 Regional Planning Bodies
and their roles
3.1 NWRA meets regularly with the
other English RPBs and the Greater London Assembly (GLA) to discuss
issues of joint interest and concern. Increasingly the regions
are collaborating on a range of technical studies and sharing
best practice. The RPBs have a good working relationship with
ODPM and the Government Offices; we also meet with other government
departments and with Ministers.
3.2 NWRA has welcomed the greater
emphasis being placed on planning at the regional scale through
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and is actively
developing its new statutory roles - in preparing RSS, in monitoring
its implementation, in providing advice on general conformity
of development plans and, in due course, becoming a statutory
consultee on regionally significant planning applications. We
are making use of additional Planning Delivery Grant resources
in doing so. A meeting is being arranged with all strategic planning
authorities to consider the implications of the Act.
3.3 All regions are in the process
of preparing the first full round of RSS, although all are at
different stages. In the North of England, the Planning Minister
has recently requested all three regions to prepare drafts for
submission by Summer 2005; in the North West this will be a challenging
timescale but we are discussing how it might be achieved with
GONW.
4.0 Policy Drivers for regional
casinos
4.1 The Government Response and
Annex provide a number of pointers to the policy framework and
outcomes that the government wishes to see govern the location
and development of regional casinos. Its strategy is based upon
the direction of regional casinos to the "most suitable"
areas. The key drivers appear to be:
· regeneration
benefits;
· tourism
development; and
· supporting
town and city centres
4.2 But advice is set out in very
general terms, with little to explain or differentiate between
benefits, or to indicate how these three factors can be considered
together, weighted or prioritised in coming to decisions about
the most appropriate locations.
4.3 For example, the Government
Response refers to regional casinos offering a "destination
gambling opportunity" distinct from "smaller casinos
in high street locations"; yet the Annex notes that emerging
PPS6 offers more detail. The thrust of that PPS is to restate
the government's policy that retail and leisure uses attracting
large volumes of people should be located by preference in town
centres. This is reinforced by guidance in PPG13. Developments
such as the MEN Arena and Printworks, both in the heart of Manchester
City Council, demonstrate how major leisure uses can be successfully
accommodated in busy centres, incorporating high quality design
and making full use of good public transport networks.
4.4 Draft PPS6 notes the importance
of developing regional hierarchies of centres, through the preparation
of RSS. As identified above, this is an area of technical development
recognised by NWRA. However, neither draft PPS6 nor PPG6 offer
advice in themselves on how to compare the competing claims of
different centres outside the consideration of impact.
4.5 At the same time, the Annex
refers in paragraph 19 to the possibility of regional casinos
being defined, as the RPB sees fit, as regionally significant
inward investment proposals. Again, it is the Assembly's intention
to review the existing approach to regional investment sites as
part of the preparation of RSS. NWDA has identified 25 such sites,
although not for casino or other leisure uses. Few of these are
well-related to retail and leisure cores, and a specific set of
criteria applies to their identification. The Government Response
and Annex do not make clear whether definition in this way would
serve to override the application of the sequential test, and
indeed this is not necessarily an approach that the Assembly would
advocate.
4.6 The conclusion to the Annex
(para. 28) asserts that "new large casinos will be located
in the most appropriate places in terms of their tourism and regenerative
potential"; yet again, these may or may not coincide with
town or city centres. In Greater Manchester, for example, the
highest priority for regeneration lies within East Manchester.
Large parts of West Cumbria are classed as regeneration priorities
and are very well-located in relation to a major tourist draw,
the Lake District; these places are seeking to develop their tourism
offer. How would proposals here be judged against tourism and
regeneration benefits?
4.7 The examples of economic development
and regeneration benefits set out in the Government response are
straightforward but limited. They do not, for example, mention
urban design quality or the reclamation of derelict land. In relation
to tourism, it is clear that the Government is unlikely to require
that regional casinos are associated with hotel development, noting
that this may happen if hotels "are not available in the
area". This seems to exclude the possibility of regional
casinos being exclusively conceived as resort-style developments,
but also ignores the potential for additional, higher quality
hotel development to support tourism development in existing tourist
areas.
4.8 NWRA would suggest that in order
to consider the extent to which tourism and regenerative benefits
might accrue from regional casino development in a particular
location, the following should apply:
· proposals
for the physical remaking of a place, with improvements to both
built and open environment supported by high quality design, in
line with an expressed vision, framework or master plan;
· the
provision of opportunities for economic activity which will directly
assist a local community which demonstrates high levels of multiple
deprivation, unemployment, economic or social exclusion or low
skill levels;
· the
provision of opportunities for communities to exchange goods,
services, information or experiences, and places for them to do
so;
· facilities
to extend, improve or replace existing tourism facilities, both
accommodation and destinations, as part of a strategic approach
to tourism development within an area.
4.9 In policy terms, suitably high-order
town or city centre locations would be expected unless sites were
not available to support the minimum customer area of 5,000 sq.
m. together with other operational requirements. A sequential
approach would apply within and around the identified priority
locations.
4.10 The Assembly would expect to
use the principles set out above, subject to any further clarification
from government, as the basis for its discussions with GONW, NWDA,
local planning authorities and wider stakeholders. It may well
be the case that other considerations will also apply; one suggestion
has been the extent to which alternatives to regional casino development
could reasonably be expected to come forward to underpin town
centres, regeneration proposals, or tourism development. A further
consideration will be those instances where a regional casino
is proposed as, in effect, the anchor for a mixed use development,
perhaps in an out-of-centre location. Would this fail a sequential
approach?
4.11 However, as set out above,
a critical consideration will be the assessment of likely market
demand. In the absence of any study, it is difficult to anticipate
how differentiated the regional framework will need to be, and
whether the aspirations of local authorities in the region can
be met in full. Estimates appear to vary from 2 or 3 regional
casinos in the region, through to 3 or 4 in Greater Manchester
alone.
5.0 Use Classes Order
5.1 Setting out a framework for
regional casinos in RSS will be meaningless if operators can find
locations outside preferred locations which avoid the need for
planning permission. If the local authority does not wish to veto
casino development (assuming that the mechanism allows it to do
so in such a case), and the licensing tests are met, there will
be no role for the planning system at all in these cases. The
consequence could be to undermine the government's intentions
and the fruition of schemes in preferred locations which meet
broader strategic objectives. The Assembly does not have evidence
on this point but would urge that the possibility of such a situation
arising is given attention; given the relatively low floorspace
requirements of a regional casino, it is eminently possible that
an existing collection of leisure uses within adjoining buildings
could change to such a use. The likelihood is greater for large
or small casinos, and here the key question is whether a casino
use is sufficiently different in planning terms to warrant specific
controls.
6.0 Non-Gambling floorspace
6.1 The Annex refers in para. 3
to a range of on-site uses which could be appropriate as part
of the non-gambling area requirement. However, two of these -
sporting facilities and cinemas - would be unlikely to be well-related
to the customers of the casino; it is more likely that they would
be brought forward by developers as a more general part of a mixed
use scheme. It would seem sensible to clarify this part of the
Annex to ensure that non-gambling uses contained within the definition
of the casino itself are those which would be ancillary to the
gambling use. This would not prevent other uses being put forward
separately.
7.0 The interim position
7.1 The Assembly is concerned that,
by the time a regional casino framework can be devised, considered
at a public examination and approved by the First Secretary of
State, planning permissions might well have been granted for several
schemes currently under preparation across the region. These might
or might not accord with the provisions of any framework, but
in any event it would serve to force regional planning into a
reactive rather than strategic activity.
7.2 The Government's position appears
to be that call in is possible, although is a last resort; but
that in most cases it is restricted to circumstances where there
is a departure from a local plan. This may not, in fact, be the
case for a number of proposals, and the Assembly urges that Government
takes a pro-active stance, to protect its own national policy
position. NWRA has written to GONW suggesting that any applications
should be called in, preferably for some form of comparative assessment,
and is again discussing the implications with GONW and NWDA.
| 
