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
| 
