News

Council leader calls for more local powers as PG gambling licence refusal overturned

Share share on facebook share on twitter share on Bluesky Article Print View

A gambling venue operator has won an appeal against a decision by Enfield Council to block conversion of the former Lloyds Bank premises in Palmers Green into a 24-hour slot-machine gaming centre. A few days after this decision was published, it was revealed that the leader of Enfield Council was one of a number of politicians from across the country who recently called for reforms that would make it easier for local authorities to refuse gambling licences

Following the inspector's ruling, conversion of the former Lloyds bank premises in Green Lanes into a gambling venue will go aheadAs reported on the Enfield Dispatch website, council leader Ergin Erbil was a signatory of a letter sent last week calling on the government to urgently reform gambling laws that "fail to protect communities from harm”. The letter has been endorsed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Gambling Reform. Its demands include new powers for councils to refuse gambling licences and an update to the categorisation of gambling premises.

Also referring to the politicians' letter to the culture secretary, the ITV news website reports concerns that for some individuals B3 slot machines, found in adult gaming centres, act as a gateway to more addictive forms of gambling. The ITV report quotes gambling campaigner Will Prochaska as saying: "All of the council services that are stretched - things like homelessness services, the police, and mental health services - are now having to pick up the pieces of this industry making profit from their residents."

This latest call for legislative reform comes soon after the weakness of councils' current powers regarding controlling gambling was highlighted at a local level when an inspector appointed by the culture secretary overturned Enfield Council's earlier refusal of an application to convert the former Lloyds Bank premises at 369-371 Green Lanes into a Palace Amusements adult gaming centre (AGC). Like the nearby Merkur Slots gaming centre, which attracted much public opposition when it opened in 2021, the new addition to Palmers Green's high street is due to operate round the clock.

After receiving a petition signed by more than a thousand residents, the council decided in July last year to refuse planning permission on the basis that it “would lead to a clustering, intensification and over-concentration of betting and gambling uses in the immediate area” which “would be detrimental to the vitality, viability and character of the town centre”.

After the firm behind Palace Amusements lodged an appeal, a hearing was held in February, at which submissions were made by representatives of Palmers Green Action Team and Green Lanes Business Association; by Karl Brown, chair of the Palmers Green Ward Panel; and by Palmers Green councillor Doug Taylor. who all argued in opposition to the application.

In his ruling upholding the appeal, dated 26th March, the Inspector concludes that the Palmers Green District Centre is "healthy"; that after the opening of the Palace Amusements branch "gambling uses would still form only a modest part of the District Centre’s makeup";  and that "the effects of the proposal upon the health and vitality of the District Centre would be acceptable with no over-concentration of gambling uses in the area taking place." The cluster of gambling premises in Green Lanes - comprising Ladbrokes, Paddy Power, Merkur Slots and now Palace Amusements - would "not be unacceptably high". One factor that led the Inspector to this conclusion was that "there would be an even split of betting shops and AGCs, and thereby some diversity of the type of gambling uses".

Commenting on the Inspector's decision, Cara McDonagh from Palmers Green Action Team said:

"At the planning appeal hearing, representatives from Palmers Green Business Association, Palmers Green Action Team, Palmers Green Ward Panel and Cllr Doug Taylor spoke passionately on behalf of residents and businesses, highlighting concerns about crime, anti-social behaviour and the wider impacts of gambling. Yet, despite the strength of community opposition, the uncomfortable truth became clear: the council lacks real power. Expensive legal teams working for these businesses can exploit planning loopholes and use dubious ‘market research’ to justify their claims, all while ignoring the voices of the people who actually live here.

"It’s a frustrating and disheartening situation after all the work that local residents have done by submitting objections, first to the licence application and later to the appeal.  

"We should not give up and will continue to support and champion the businesses that serve our community’s needs. Palmers Green will continue fighting to create a thriving, diverse, and profitable local economy that benefits everyone."

Links

Erbil joins call for gambling law reforms (Enfield Dispatch 4 April 2025)

Councils and mayors urge government to give them power to block betting and slot machine shops (ITV News website 3 April 2025)

Decision by Planning Inspectorate in favour of East Kent Leasing Ltd

PG Action team leading fight to block new gambling venue (Palmers Green Community 19 June 2024 + ensuing forum discussion)

Log in to comment
Posts in discussion: Council leader calls for more local powers as PG gambling licence refusal overturned
Basil Clarke posted a reply
#7345
06 Apr 2025 23:53
If this is an issue that interests you, I recommend reading the Inspector's ruling in full - it's not too long and uses normal language.

The section on Community Cohesion makes interesting reading, starting at Para 21.

Para 23 in particular caught my eye, with its mention of "the area's susceptibility toward certain types of crime" and the conflicting statements about whether or not crime is rising in PG.

Although it did not raise a formal objection to the planning application, the consultation response of the Metropolitan Police did set out a serious concern that crime and disorder could be attracted to the site’s vicinity. However, the concerns expressed are very broadly outlined, and the reasons for them appear linked to the area’s susceptibility toward certain types of crime. District and town centre locations with their concentration of businesses and activities can quite typically suffer from higher crime rates. A particular link between the characteristics of the proposed use and criminal activities is not outlined in the consultation response.


In Para 24 the Inspector writes that he has "no reason to conclude that the premises would not be well-run, deploy robust management measures to assist in tackling problematic behaviours nor that it has been designed without thorough regard to crime and anti-social behaviour prevention".

Perhaps the Inspector was not aware of a recent Guardian report about a Merkur Slots branch in Stockport, which I dare say had also satisfied regulators prior to the incident that it had robust management measures in place:

Wendy Hughes, then 64, lost nearly £2,000 in the Stockport branch of Merkur Slots UK over the course of two spells lasting 16 hours in November 2023, months after she was diagnosed with lung cancer.

Staff at the branch, which has a 24-hour licence, knew she was going out to fetch more money from the cash machine as her losses piled up.


My view is that these businesses, whose sole object is to part people from their money, have no place in a country where so many people are desperate to find money to survive from day to day. I'm pleased to see the calls for action from our council leader and local politicians across the country. But I'm afraid that, like the last lot, our current government will yield to the blandishments of big money. I trust our local MP Bambos Charalambous will do his best to prove me wrong - after all, he was among the people who objected to the new gaming centre in the first place. (If you're puzzled why the link goes to a headline referring to Bambos as "former MP", it's because the article was published after parliament had been dissolved ahead of last year's election, so at the time no-one was an MP.)
PGC Webmaster posted a reply
#7346
08 Apr 2025 00:12


Read more about the reversal of the Palace Amusement decision on the Enfield Dispatch website .`

My earlier report (above) gave the wrong name for the Palmers Green Action Team spokesperson. As reported by the Dispatch, it should have been Cara McDonagh (error now corrected).
 
Neil Littman posted a reply
#7349
10 Apr 2025 10:27
I saw a post on a social media platform where somebody commented that it was better to have a business like this on the high street rather than an empty shop. I don't agree with that view as these places are not just about taking money off customers who want to gamble but are also safe havens for dealing drugs and have been doing so for many years. There are 'casinos' and gambling venues like this in Fore St that are open almost 24/7 and don't think those are times when most of the public are going to use them. I think the inspectors who grant these licences are naive at best and completely unaware of what goes on or turn a blind eye because the local councils want to make money from the business rents that are generated. The concern I have, is that by allowing these places to operate it will simply make the issues worse and provide a place for criminality to go on in plain sight. The other question is at what point will public opinion sway the decision making process by the inspectors. If a couple of thousand signatures by local residents doesn't work than what will?
Neil Littman posted a reply
#7350
10 Apr 2025 11:37
Also think worth reading this piece which shows that the council's hands may be tied by current legislation when trying to prevent places like this opening. https://enfielddispatch.co.uk/erbil-joins-call-for-gambling-law-reforms/
Karl Brown posted a reply
#7351
10 Apr 2025 11:43
Picking up from Neil’s post, it was very clearly explained to the Inspector by representatives of the PG Action Team and of our Business Association that the choice was not one of an Adult Gaming Centre or a void, but instead such is the vitality of our town centre that demand for premises is intense and it was  near certain that an alternate user would come through. The PGAT gave real life examples of waiting tenants while the chair of the business association highlighted his own difficulties in securing premises such was the competitive demand. The social media post Neil referenced to the contrary would thus seem to have no real-life credibility.  

 We should also acknowledge that Enfield council are not one of those councils that Neil suggests may be willing supporters of such outlets in order to secure rents. Our council declined the application and fought the subsequent appeal along with our own PG councilors and a core of community groups.  If more could have been done then I would suggest it would have been many objections to the appeal being made to the Inspector (rather than a petition which he will not see) combined with a healthy turnout at any such hearings so the Inspector is clear where the wider community stands. Numbers really do count.
0