GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO JOINT SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE REPORT
REPRESENTATIONS FROM LONDON FIRST AND
LONDON FIRST CENTRE
1 JULY 2004
INTRODUCTION
London First is the business lobby group for London,
set up in 1992 to improve and promote London through business
leadership. Our interest in gaming deregulation is to ensure that
the opportunities for investment, employment and regeneration
in London are maximised whilst ensuring continued protection of
the vulnerable and guarding against proliferation. Our over-riding
interest is what is best for London and to ensure that London
benefits from the potential opportunities that an enhanced casino
market can offer. We do not favour one location(s) over others,
we want to see a successful casino market and enhanced leisure
offer.
Our sister company London First Centre (LFC) is the
inward investment agency for London which provides a free and
confidential consultancy service to companies considering London
as a business location. A not-for-profit partnership between the
private and public sectors, LFC works with business and government
to provide a focused inward investment service, which helps to:
maintain London's position as a world city; contribute to wealth
and job creation in the capital; and deliver London's economic
development strategy. Its roles are to: promote London internationally
as Europe's leading location for business; assist businesses world-wide
on all aspects of setting up an operation in London; and embed
overseas investors into London's existing business networks.
This representation is made on behalf of London First
and London First Centre. We have confined our comments to the
matters relating to casino development and have not repeated the
points raised in the LFC submission to the earlier session of
the JSC.
BACKGROUND
The Government's response to the Committee's report
is helpful, but the policy framework, especially with respect
to planning, remains unclear, as is the inter-relationship between
the planning and licensing regimes. If companies are to invest
in significant developments they need greater clarity and it is
important that there is not duplication of controls between regimes.
Critical to implementation will also be confirmation of the tax
regime. We urge the Government to clarify this as soon as possible.
To our knowledge the Government has yet to publish anything on
this.
We believe that the changes the Government is proposing
through its response will reduce the risk of proliferation and
will help in minimising problem gambling and in protecting the
vulnerable.
PLANNING
Resolution of the planning approach is critical to
implementing deregulation. The position remains unclear, in particular
regarding:
· The
role of Regional Planning Bodies
· Local
authority veto on casino development (inter-relationship of planning
and licensing)
· Resolution
of any conflict between local authorities and RPBs
· The
Use Classes Order
· Ancillary
Uses
· The
role of planning policy guidance
· The
role of the Gaming Commission
The role of Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs)
We welcome clarification on the role of RPBs in setting
regional strategy for casinos. We note that in the absence of
a policy framework the Secretary Of State will seek to call in
applications.
London is currently the only region with a Regional
Spatial Strategy but this does not include specific policy on
major leisure developments. Leisure is referred to with respect
to some of the Opportunity Areas/sub regions:
· West
London sub-region Policy 5D.1 (page 257) includes as a strategic
priority to "realise the potential of Wembley as a nationally
and internationally significant sports, leisure and business location."
· Wembley
Opportunity Area (para 5.103 page 261) - the reasoned justification
describes Wembley as a "nationally important Opportunity
Area for leisure-related development."
· Policy
5B.1 on central London includes the priority to "promote
and protect the vital mix of culture, government, leisure and
commerce…."
· Para
5.35 (page 235) states that "strategically important leisure
and housing provision is anticipated at Battersea".
· In east
London the reasoned justification relating to Greenwich Peninsula
(para 5.79 page 251) refers to the development of the Dome as
a "leisure destination".
In the absence of specific existing policy, and as
it will take some years before new policies which address the
opportunities for casino development are published, we suggest
that the Government encourages RPBs to prepare a criteria based
interim policy which will be a material consideration, will give
greater certainty within the planning system and should reduce
the requirement for call in.
We would like clarification on the role of RPBs on
large casinos. It is unclear from the Government report and annex
whether RPBs will only be involved in regional casinos (5,000m2
+) or whether they will be involved in large casinos as implied
in the conclusion (point 28, "new large casinos will be located
in the most appropriate places in terms of their tourism and regenerative
potential.")
If a company is to undertake significant investment
in a regional casino (including planning gain contributions),
there will need to be some assurance that this will not be undermined
by the development of several large casinos nearby. There therefore
needs to be a mechanism to ensure that local policy complements
regional policy. Regional policy on large casinos would therefore
aid this.
Regional Spatial Strategy is a new phenomenon introduced
by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which received
royal assent on 13 May and those provisions are not yet operative.
It is going to take some years for new Regional Spatial Strategies,
incorporating policies addressing casino development, to be published.
Meanwhile, existing Regional Planning Guidance, which does not
contain specific policies on casino development, will continue
to apply. It is for this reason we urge the publication of early
interim guidance by the RPBs.
The process for ensuring that policies in the Regional
Strategy, e.g. the location of regional casinos, are reflected
in local policy is unclear. This is exacerbated outside London
where the two tiers of plans will be developed in tandem.
Local Development Documents have to be in "general
conformity" with the RSS and the test is whether the policy
if not in general conformity would cause "significant harm"
to the implementation of the RSS. Would a local development document
be deemed not to be in general conformity with the regional strategy
if the policy on casino locations is not compliant?
This situation is complicated by the local authority
veto on casinos through licensing:
Local authority veto on casino development and
resolution of any conflict between local authorities and RPBs
[Point 33 page 13] Local authorities, through their
licensing policies, will be able to determine that their areas
are not suitable for casinos. Any such decisions potentially raise
Human Rights issues and may be open to challenge.
The basis and process for the local authority making
such a decision is unclear as is the resolution of the matter
if the area is identified as being suitable for casino development
by the RPB. If a local authority is to have such a negative policy
it needs to be subject to rigorous consultation and review.
The inter-relationship between planning and licensing
needs to be clearer and stronger. Does a negative licensing policy
imply that the Local Development Document will have a similar
negative policy? This would be exceptional in planning. If that
is not the case, what if a proposal is compliant with respect
to planning policy but is contrary to licensing?
We therefore do not consider it appropriate that
local authorities should have such a power of making a blanket
negative direction. More appropriate would be a criteria based
licensing policy, complementing but not overlapping with a similar
planning policy, which may in effect inhibit opportunities to
develop casinos.
The Use Classes Order
The Government response makes no mention of the Use
Class within which casinos fall, currently D2. We consider this
issue to be an important part of the Government being able to
manage the transition to the new regime, to guard against proliferation
and to maximise benefits through planning gain. The Use Class
for casinos should therefore be made Sui Generis.
Without a change the Government risks not being able
to fully benefit from deregulation. Major investment could be
deterred by a proliferation of smaller facilities which have been
established under the existing Use Class. Currently cinemas, sports
halls, swimming baths, health and fitness clubs, skating rinks,
other indoor sports arena and leisure uses and bingo halls could
all become casinos without requiring planning permission for a
change of use. The Use Class Order is currently undergoing a process
of review which gives the Government the opportunity of making
a change.
Ancillary Uses
Paragraph two of the joint statement refers to other
leisure facilities in regional casinos as being "ancillary".
In strict planning terms this would imply that they are in the
same planning unit. More appropriate would be the term "mixed"
leisure facilities.
The role of planning policy guidance
We do not consider that planning policy guidance
notes/draft planning policy statements 6 and 11 give sufficient
guidance to local authorities/Regional Planning Bodies on casino
development in drafting development plan policy and determining
applications.
Draft PPS6 does not give sufficient guidance as its
primary focus is town centres and retail. The development of major
casinos is a new phenomon to this country and few local authorities
have any experience of dealing with such applications and therefore
need considerable guidance.
Whilst we acknowledge that planning policy is town
centre first, through the sequential test, the Government itself
recognises that regional casinos are unlikely to be in town centre
locations. [On page 30 the rationale for restricting Category
A machines to regional casinos is on the basis that they will
not be located in smaller casinos on the high street where there
is greater access.]
Draft PPS6 requires that local planning authorities
assess the "need for further town centre uses" [Para
1.5]. As stated above, at the regional level, these casinos are
not town centre uses. Part of the deregulation process is to remove
the "demand test". Replacing it with a "need"
test is highly subjective and unnecessary. More appropriate would
be an assessment of capacity.
We urge the Government to consider publishing a new
PPS to address specifically major leisure/casino development.
This could provide broad guidance on the issues Regional Planning
Bodies and local authorities should take into account when establishing
strategies and assessing applications. This could advise on best
practice and draw on experience of other jurisdictions in maximising
the benefits of casino developments and minimising adverse impacts.
We believe that this type of development is sufficiently novel
and unique to warrant specific treatment.
If the Government does not choose to do this substantial
revisions are required to PPS6.
The role of the Gaming Commission
Paragraph 3 of the joint statement suggests that
the Gaming Commission will advise licensing authorities on the
nature of facilities in the non-gaming area. We question whether
it is appropriate for the Gaming Commission to undertake this
task and whether they will have the relevant expertise. This may
also conflict with land use policy in the Local Development Document.
We therefore suggest that this proposal is removed.
For further information contact:
Judith Salomon
Director of Property and Planning
jsalomon@london-first.co.uk
7665 1584
| 
