Forum topic: Spreading to our high street - a nasty rash?

I strongly object to this project. This is a large space in the High Street and will dominate the area . The idea that a den to encourage more gambling when the area already has several betting shops is ridiculous. Such poor decision making by the councillors. They should be encouraging family friendly businesses and better amenities. Surely there are better and healthier ways to regenerate Palmers Green? I wonder if one of the local newspapers could initiate and lead on a campaign with residents. Will our local councillors and MP campaign against this development and support a widespread consultation as soon as possible.

I think this is a very worrying development. Our shopping street is normally a busy shopping centre. People of all ages from our community use it every day, and with the various nearby transport links, lots of young people pass along it too. Tempting people into gambling businesses such as this, which would possibly attract a different group of people from those drawn already to the existing betting shops, would be detrimental to the wellbeing of our community, and to the wellbeing of the individuals concerned. I strongly oppose it and would urge the councillors to review and reverse this decision.

How on earth has the council allowed this to get through. As I've seen it was badly advertised, I would suspect intentionally and this is not welcomed. After all the issues around Paddy Power and the dealers hanging out there also the reduction in bookmakers on the high street, those left will have reduced usage on their machines, the council officials deem it appropriate to pass an unwanted and unwarranted business like this dealing misery.
Please don't tell me "at least its another shop in use" The only people benefiting is the landlord and Merkur Slots (just the sort of name we want advertised on the High St). I disspear of this council.

And the approving report includes being based on, “proposals which foster a diversified evening economy”. So it’s 3am and you can now use slot machines and then wander across the north circular to PG south side to buy your aubergine at a 24hr grocer, hence capturing both geographic and functional diversity. Result!
Perhaps the intent is it becoming a flagship for PG’s regeneration? …”to stimulate the night time economy….”. My recollection is of several high street outlets seeking to “stimulate the evening economy” in their own way, inevitably being subject to police reports, council fines or closing down for one reason or another, often the other.
… “in keeping with the character of the surrounding area….”, that’s the surrounding area with no 24hr economy. Curious.
Surely not the regeneration start so many have worked for and hoped for.

The petition sup and running to press the council to reopen the consultation
Please sign and share

http://www.change.org/stopPGmerkurslots

This development is a terrible idea. PG will drop further from being a secondary shopping centre. We have a multi de of betting shops already. We know that slot machines are highly addictive and that there are restrictions on them in betting shops. This premises started life as a cinema, Tesco’s were there for many years and then a fashion outlet. Who on the council approved this? The council should be concerned about the forthcoming local elections if this goes ahead. Let’s have a more imaginative solution that is good for the community not one that destroys it.

Dear Ms Rose,

I wanted to give you a fuller response on the above issue.

I note and share your concerns about the proposed gambling premises.

I have taken up the issue with officers and I am trying to explore whether it is at all possible to get a review of the decision. I have a meeting planned with officers early next week.

In many respects, however, the Council’s hands are tied by the Gambling Act. There was a similar issue in Edmonton, but, again the law seems to be in favour of the gambling establishments.

Neither the licensing nor the planning framework provides Councils with very effective powers to limit the number of gambling premises in their areas, and many betting shops have been long established some time ago.

The fact that the premises were formerly a William Hill betting shop means there was no need for planning permission. The licence is granted under the Gambling Act. The licensing regime, in particular, legally requires Councils ‘to aim to permit’ gambling premises, and so is a fundamental obstacle to objections.

The licensing and planning team have tried to exercise as much control as possible of betting shops within the constraints of the legislation. Just about 15 years ago there were 80 licensed betting shops in the borough, there are now 75.

The Gambling Act has limited grounds to refuse a betting shop licence. They can be refused if they do not meet the licensing objectives – these are:

preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,
ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and
protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

There is no ability under the Act to control the concentration (or clustering) of gambling premises. But, the Council has its statement of principles to try to control the impact of these premises, such as the impact on children, vulnerable persons and socio-economic indicators. Conditions have been developed to protect children and problem gambling.

I have seen the petition circulating from change.org and I would be more than happy to sign it if it were directed at the person who could change the law on gambling – ie. Oliver Dowden MP, Secretary of State. The Leader of Enfield Council, just like the Leader of any other Council, is not able to interfere in planning or licensing decisions – it is against local government legislation for any member of the executive to do so.

Best wishes,

Cllr Mary Maguire
Palmers Green Ward