Forum topic: Gambling arcade opposition gathers momentum

Reply from Bambos Charalambous MP

Thank you for contacting me to raise your concerns about the permission granted to Cashino Gaming Ltd, trading as Merkur Slots, to open a 24 hour Adult Gaming Centre at 292/292a Green Lanes, London N13 5TWhttps://www.google.com/maps/search/292%2F292a+Green+Lanes,+London+N13+5TW?entry=gmail&source=g. Since you wrote to me last week I have been contacted by a large number of local residents.

As you are aware, applications were submitted on 27 November 2020, with the deadline for representations being 27 December 2020. I understand that a Bingo Premises Licence was obtained on 4 January 2021 and Planning Application granted on 29 January 2021.

I am appalled by this development and agree that a 24 hour Adult Gaming Centre arcade would be a very unwelcome addition to the night time economy of Palmers Green and would have a negative impact on efforts to improve and regenerate the high street in Palmers Green.

The Local Authority is restricted by law in its ability to limit the number of gambling premises and the type of representation which it can take into account when determining an application. The Gambling Act limits the Local Authority to specific grounds to refuse a licence, which are that the establishment does not:

• prevent gambling from being a source of crime or disorder;
• ensure that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way;
• protect children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

Licensing Process

However I note your specific about the process by which the Bingo Premises Licence was obtained and whether the notifications, specifically the notice on the premises and in the Enfield Independent, were adequate and comply with the legal requirements of the Gambling Act.

I have therefore raised these points with Enfield Council asking for their response on:

1. Exactly what the requirements are for notices on premises and in newspapers and can it be confirmed whether these two limited forms of notification are considered to be adequate and compliant with the requirements of the Gambling Act?
2. Whether the decisions made in relation to these premises be reviewed by Officers in the light of the concerns about the adequacy of the notification to the public?
3. Whether there is any formal process by which local residents can challenge the process which resulted in these decisions having been reached?
4. What activities a Bingo Premises Licence permits a business to undertake?
5. Whether there are any outstanding applications in relation to these premises?
6. In relation to the consultation conducted by Enfield Council can you please urgently provide more details on the extent of the consultation including whether:

• • neighbouring local businesses were consulted;
  • those living near and opposite these premises, including in flats above commercial premises in Green Lanes, and who would be impacted by a 24 hour arcade were consulted?
  • business groups, local community groups or residents associations were notified?
  • the views of the police were sought given that a 24 hour arcade may reasonably be considered as a potential source of anti social behaviour and disturbance

I must however stress that the legal restrictions placed on Local Authorities will ultimately restrict what action they can take. I have therefore raised further issues with the Government.

Covid 19 Restrictions

Another serious issue with this application is that it was made in a period that London was subject to additional Covid 19 restrictions and it is likely that very few local residents or neighbouring businesses would have been aware of this application. Indeed as only one representation was received by the deadline, this does seem to have been the case. Since local residents were made aware of the approval last week I have received a large number of emails and I note that a petition has had in just four days over 2,500 signatories objecting to this development, which indicates the level of concern in the local community.

I have raised concerns with Oliver Dowden MP, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about the adequacy of the usual notification requirements during a period of Covid 19 restrictions. I have expressed my concern that the exceptional circumstances should not facilitate an application which is clearly unwelcomed by many and in relation to which many local residents do wish to make representations. The normal notification methods, even if they were compliant with the regulations do not appear to be adequate as a means of notifying the public when access to the high street is limited and the circulation of a small local newspaper even more restricted.

I have asked the Secretary of State for his views on whether the normal methods of advertising a notice for an Adult Gaming Centre premises licence are effective during a period of Covid 19 restrictions.

Concentration of Gambling Premises

Concern has also been raised that four betting shops are already in close proximity to the proposed Adult Gaming Centre, resulting in a concentration of gambling premises in the local high street. Local Authorities have limited capacity to control the number of betting shops on the high street. Indeed the Gambling Commission’s guidance to Local Authorities makes it clear that there is an “aim to permit” and the Local Authority “should not comment on whether there is demand for gambling premises”.

In July 2020 a House of Lords Committee report on gambling harm noted that the “liberalisation of the regulation of gambling has led to an increased presence of gambling services on the high street” with the gambling industry driving that demand. One recommendation, which I would support, was to increase regulatory powers of Local Authorities to limit the growth of gambling premises in an area, including on the basis of objections from the local community and considerations of the character of the locality. This would be in line with the process for licensing premises for alcohol sale. At a time when local high streets are facing huge challenges and the local community are keen to see their local economy thrive, enhancing the powers of Local Authorities to make decisions based on local needs is urgent.

In December the Government in December 2020 stated that they would seek the views of licensing and local authorities on changes they would like to see to their powers. I have asked the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to confirm me whether this consultation has commenced. If it has not, I have asked for the timetable for the consultation including when Government will report on the findings.

I will update you on the response of the Local Authority and the Secretary of State as soon as I am able and thank you for your help in bringing this to my attention.

Reply from Cllr Mary Maguire (Palmers Green ward)

I, too, am concerned about the number of gambling establishments on our high streets. 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:

1. preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,
2. ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and
3. 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.

Reply from Cllr Dinah Barry (Winchmore Hill ward)

I have discussed with my colleague. He makes the following points and is happy to discuss with you over the phone:

• The application would have been sent to councillors and to the police.
• The application is for a gaming licence which is the same whether it’s bingo or slot machines.
• The police, the Licensing Authority, and the councillors did not raise any objections.
• The bases for objections to such an application would be Crime and Disorder (and possibly harm to Children). Those objections would need to be based on evidence and with a new application there can be none. It would therefore have bn hard to refuse the application.
• If there was something glaringly wrong in the application the police would have objected.
• He thinks that a close reading of the licence will show that they do not intend to operate 24/7 (even if they are licenced for those hours) and that suitable measures will be given to prevent crime.
• A Judicial review is unlikely to be successful. The small advertisements and the timing are unlikely to be considered sufficient reason for overturning the decision. This is an experienced company so they are likely to have followed a process they have used before. There is no legal requirement for the size of the press advert. The one in the window must be A4 or larger.
• It was a betting shop before so Planning would have gone through easily because no change of use is involved.

Next steps:

• Look closely at the licence to check that there are measures given to prevent crime and disorder.
• Gather evidence of any problems caused and/or any failure of the measures promised, once it opens – allow at least six months before asking for a licence review. Be sure you have good evidence, a failed review will make a second review more difficult.
• The police will also be monitoring so should be ahead of you!
• PG residents could complain to the PG councillors that they should have drawn their attention to the application (they may have done so but only informed residents who gave GDPR permissions).

There may have been no chance of a successful objection to the application but the Leader of the Council promised a revival of PG High Street and this is not what you expected.