Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill Memoranda



JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT GAMBLING BILL: MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE -

THE MAYOR OF LONDON

1.  Introduction

1.1  This memorandum is submitted on behalf of the Mayor of London. Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Mayor has a range of specific powers and duties, and a general power to do anything that will promote economic and social development, and environmental improvement, in London. Among the Mayor's functions are:

·  The preparation of strategies, plans and policies for London covering transport, land use planning, culture, ambient noise, air quality, waste management, biodiversity and economic development. The Mayor has also chosen to develop a range of other policy initiatives, covering tourism, children and young people, childcare, energy, alcohol and drugs, rough sleepers, domestic violence and poverty.

·  Setting the annual budgets for the Greater London Authority itself, and its four functional bodies: the Metropolitan Police (which provides policing in the capital under the oversight of the Metropolitan Police Authority), Transport for London, the London Development Agency and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.

The subject matter of the draft Gambling Bill touches on many of the issues covered by Mayoral strategies, and growth or changes in gambling will have implications for each of the GLA functional bodies.

1.2  The Joint Committee's report on the draft Gambling Bill was comprehensive, and many of its recommendations are to be welcomed. This memorandum deals specifically with the issues raised by recommendations 79, 80, 81, 83, 84 and 85 in the Joint Committee's first report, and the Government's response to them. It is informed by research that has been carried out by my office, and by GLA Economics, into the likely demand for casino gambling in London following deregulation, including a series of discussions with operators.

1.3  Our work on this issue has benefited from the opportunity provided by the existence of the GLA Group (which brings together regional planning, transport, policing and the regional development agency for London). We have been able to base our policy-making on a comprehensive view of the economic, land use and social implications of deregulation of the casino market. I believe our experience shows the need for involvement of all agencies with an interest in the issue in the preparation of regional strategies.

2.  Recommendation 79: Separate definition of "resort casino"

2.1  This recommendation is welcome. In all discussions of the likely effect of legislative change on the casino market it has become clear that there is a class of casinos bigger in scale than the "large" category referred to in the draft Bill Because of their scale, and the mixture of uses they will typically include, these are likely to have quantitatively and qualitatively different effects. I therefore support the proposed category of "regional" casinos. I also welcome the recognition of the importance of establishing a regional planning strategy to provide an indicative locational framework; this could set out criteria against which casino proposals can be assessed and provide guidance to potential developers about the kind of place where they might be appropriate.

2.2  If this kind of framework is to be effective, it must be backed with the appropriate powers at regional level to ensure its implementation. In London, I have the power to consider planning applications of potential strategic importance and, where granting planning permission would be contrary to the London Plan (my spatial development strategy) or be otherwise contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London, I can direct the borough council concerned to refuse consent. The classes of applications to which this power applies are set out in regulations[1]. At present, regional casinos would not automatically stand to be referred to me for consideration (they might if certain other conditions - such as a departure from the development plan for the borough concerned - apply) unless the proposed total floorspace exceeded 30,000 square metres in the City of London, 20,000 square metres in the rest of central London or 15,000 square metres outside central London. It would seem perverse to require a regional body to prepare a locational strategy for casinos that are admittedly of regional significance, but at the same time not to confer the powers that are needed to ensure this strategy is applied by local planning authorities. I would urge, therefore, that the relevant regulations should be amended to make it clear that applications for planning permission for all regional casinos are of potential strategic importance, over which I should have jurisdiction.

2.3  A related issue arises from the Government's suggestion that as a matter of planning law[2], casinos will continue to be covered by the general "assembly and leisure" use class (D2), which will also include cinemas, music and concert halls, dance, sports halls, swimming baths, skating rinks, gymnasiums, other indoor sports and leisure uses and bingo halls. This will mean that the owner of any premises currently used for these purposes and which are of the requisite size would be able to use them as a casino without the need for planning permission. Although there would still need to be an application for a premises license from the local borough council, I would have no formal means to influence this. I could, of course, make representations to the council committee deciding the license application, but it is hard to see the logic on the one hand of requiring preparation of a strategic plan and on the other reducing my effectiveness in trying to make sure it is not undermined by making me rely on a process where I would be in the same position as a local residents' association in objecting to a license. A licensing process is not an ideal forum in which to deal with spatial planning issues in any event - that is the role of the planning process.

2.4  Although my primary concern is ensuring that regional policies can be developed and enforced effectively, I think that the kind of casinos (even those smaller than the "regional" level) that are likely to be seen following deregulation will be quite different from those that exist now, particularly in terms of size. They are likely to have a greater impact on the localities in which they will be sited, than either the kind of casinos seen already in some parts of the country, or the other types of leisure uses covered by Use Class D2. Their impact is also likely to be different in kind - a casino, for example, has quite different patterns of use through the day, with more patrons arriving at and leaving from premises late at night or very early in the morning than would usually be the case for cinemas, bingo halls or sports facilities. I think it is extremely important that the kind of issues examined through the usual development control planning process ought to be assessed by local communities and their representatives in respect of all proposed casinos.

2.5  I share the concern of the Joint Committee and the Government that it is important that there is not a proliferation of small casinos. This is important for social policy and policing reasons as well as planning ones. Preventing this will be extremely difficult ultimately unless casinos are placed in a use class of their own, as a "sui generis" use. This will enable proper consideration of all casino proposals through the planning process, which is surely the ultimate objective of suggesting there should be a regional policy framework.

3. Recommendation 80 - policies for casinos of regional importance

3.1  Our consideration of likely level of demand in London suggests it is impossible to consider the largest casinos in isolation from smaller ones. The viability of regional casinos is likely to depend critically on the number and location of "large" casinos in particular, and if the regional planning strategies are to be coherent, they will have to address the issue as a whole and, indeed, take account of other forms of leisure development. My London Plan contains policies covering preferred location of leisure development of all kinds, and seeking to arbitrarily limit coverage to particular kinds of casinos would undermine these. It is of course true that the level of detail required at regional level is likely to be greater in the case of "regional" casinos, however.

3.2  I agree with the Government's proposals that Category A gaming machines should be confined to "regional" casinos, and that this will make some contribution to minimising the risk of problem gambling.

4. Recommendations 81, 82 and 83 - resort casinos and regeneration benefits

4.1  I agree with these recommendations, and subject to the points made above I broadly welcome the Government's proposed response.

4.2  I agree that casino proposals (and not only those for "regional" ones) should be subject to the same requirements as any other form of development of its nature and size to provide regeneration benefits, whether through use of the planning obligations framework or otherwise. How this is done, and the kind and extent of benefit sought should be left for each region and local authority to decide for themselves within the priorities set by regional and local strategies and plans and the precise circumstances of each proposed development.

4.3  I believe that regeneration should be considered in the round. In addition to securing benefits through the section 106 route (covering questions like housing, transport and improvement of the public realm), I expect there will be discussions about job training and recruitment initiatives to ensure the maximum benefit for local deprived communities. I would also be looking for agreement of transport plans to maximise use of sustainable means of transport by casino staff and patrons. Many of these issues will be raised by casino developments of any size, and there should be no arbitrary restriction to their application solely to "regional" casinos. The planning obligation system is enshrined in planning law and practice for all types of development, subject to satisfying tests of relevance and proportionality.

4.4  As important as these benefits will be carrying out development in ways that support the objectives of the London Plan to ensure the city's scarce land resources are used to best effect - seeing casinos as part of mixed-use schemes (including residential elements), with higher development densities.

4.5  Regional and local planning bodies are well-used to discussing ways of maximising regeneration benefit of proposals with developers, and each will have policies regarding the priority to be given to particular issues. It is probably unlikely that this process will be unduly hindered by uncertainty about definitions.

5. Recommendation 84 - regional spatial and economic strategies

5.1  I agree with the Committee about the need to ensure plans for "regional" casinos should be considered in line with regional spatial and economic strategies. I have suggested earlier steps that need to be taken to ensure this happens effectively.

6. Recommendation 85 - regional responsibility for planning for "regional casinos"

6.1  As I have said earlier, I agree with the Committee's recommendation to the extent that in London, applications for "regional" casinos should be among the types of planning applications that have to be referred to me for consideration. This is the minimum that will be required to ensure the effectiveness of regional-level planning for casinos.


1   The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 (SI 2000 No. 1493) Back

2   The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (SI 1987 No.764)

 Back


 
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 7 July 2004