Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill Memoranda


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


 
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