Agenda item
Proposed introduction of greater gambling protections and controls
The Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) is proposing, and consulting upon, the introduction of gambling protections and controls, including the creation of a separate planning use class containing betting shops. This report explains the limitations of the council’s current planning and licencing powers to control the spread of betting shops, and the implications of the proposed controls for Brent. It goes on to recommend the council support the DCMS proposal.
Minutes:
Stephen Weeks (Head of Planning, Regeneration and Growth) presented the report and explained that proposals for greater gambling protections and controls arose from a wider concern about the future of shopping areas. Members heard that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) was consulting on the proposals that included the creation of a separate planning use class containing betting shops. Presently, betting shops fell within A2 use class, meaning any premises with this permission could be converted to a betting shop without requiring planning permission. Under the new proposals, any new betting shop would require separate planning permission for such use.
Stephen Weeks advised that there had been a significant increase in particular amongst smaller betting operators in the borough and their tendency to cluster was affecting the vitality of town centres. Whilst it was not so evident that the number of betting shops amongst the three largest betting operators was increasing, they tended to want to extend their existing premises or find a larger building in order to be able to offer more services. Stephen Weeks drew members’ attention to the council’s proposed response to the DCMS consultation in appendix A of the report and advised that although the council agreed with DCMS’s proposals, it felt there should be further changes and that a separate use class for payday loan shops and pawnbrokers should be introduced as these also could have a similar negative impact on shopping areas. Stephen Weeks added that such businesses also tended to cluster and threaten the vitality of the area.
During members’ discussion, clarification was sought with regard to the role of planning legislation and licensing legislation in regulating gambling premises and whether the Gambling Act 2005 only required operators to prove they were fit to operate and not take into consideration the surroundings. It was queried how a separate class use for payday loan shops and pawnbrokers could be introduced and could any action be taken to reduce the number of existing betting operators in the borough. Another member enquired whether under previous legislation, it was the responsibility of the gambling operator to prove there was demand and had the subsequent relaxation in gambling regulation been the main cause for the explosion in the number of betting premises. He felt that the increase of betting premises in town centres and other shopping areas was detrimental and was responsible for taking money out of Brent’s economy as the costs to those who gambled reduced their spending power to purchase other items or services. He commented that although the proposed new legislation would help reduce the number of new gambling premises, he queried whether it could be used to reduce the number of betting premises already in existence, except possibly in situations where the existing betting operator wished to transfer to new premises. He indicated his support in respect of a separate use class for pawnbrokers and payday loan shops and agreed that such businesses often clustered, as well as betting shops. He also enquired whether smaller gambling operators would challenge the new proposals under competition law.
In respect of small betting shop operators, a member enquired whether there would be exceptions in allowing new premises in shopping areas where there were a lack of businesses. He also suggested that rather than allowing GP practices and accountants in primarily residential areas, these should be encouraged to move into vacant retail properties. Clarification was sought with regard to the policy for smaller shopping precincts and of the powers the council currently had in relation to betting premises and what they would be if the proposed legislation came into force. In relation to pawnbrokers and payday loan shops, a member asked if planning legislation could take into account social responsibility factors. It was commented that particular attention should be given to the approach where high roads came under Brent and a neighbouring local authority and working jointly with them would be desirable. It was also asked whether the council’s response to the DCMS consultation required Cabinet approval.
In reply to the issues raised, Stephen Weeks confirmed that under the Gambling Act 2005, applicants were only required to prove they were fit and proper to operate and did not need to prove there was a demand for betting. Members noted that the Gambling Act 2005 and planning legislation were two separate regulatory pieces of legislation and one did not necessarily prejudice the other. Stephen Weeks felt that the relaxation of legislation had contributed to the increase in betting shops. Members noted that under previous legislation, the applicant had been required to provide evidence of demand anddemonstrate what other businesses were in the locality. Stephen Weeks clarified that the new legislation could not be used to reduce the number of existing betting shops, however would primarily be used in restricting the growth of new betting premises or the expansion of existing ones. Members heard that the council could use its discretion in using the policy, including in such situations where a small gambling operator had applied for a use in a shopping area otherwise lacking in businesses and the premises in question was derelict or in a poor condition. He added that the proposals would impact most on smaller operators as this was the main group seeking to obtain new premises. Similarly, although it was difficult to ascertain as to whether there was a saturation of pawnbrokers and payday loan shops in the borough, there was evidently a need to restrict their future growth because of their impact in shopping areas. Stephen Weeks advised that if the proposals allowed the council to include a separate class use for pawnbrokers and payday loan shops, the council could then write its own policy to define the use and set out terms on which it would be applied, such as restricting such a use in certain areas, particularly if there were already a number of premises of this type there.
Stephen Weeks informed members that a more relaxed approach was taken with regard to premises being used as GP practices and other community uses in residential areas. However, he stated developing a policy to encourage such uses in commercial areas where there were vacant properties could be considered. Members heard that in core shopping areas, A1 use was more strictly controlled unless a high level of vacancies could be demonstrated. More flexibility was afforded in smaller or fringe shopping areas and A1 uses such as newsagents, for example, would be a desirable use in such areas. A more relaxed approach to places of worship and for community use was also taken in fringe areas, whilst A2 uses were more likely to be refused. Stephen Weeks felt that it would be difficult for the DCMS’s proposals to be challenged under competition law as there were a number of gambling operators in the country. In relation to pawnbrokers and payday loan shops, Stephen Weeks advised that an increase in these type of properties would be a valid planning consideration rather than any perceived effects on the community. He informed members that the council did consult and coordinate with neighbouring London boroughs regarding gambling applications, including where they shared High Streets, although it was not yet at the stage where boroughs were developing similar policies. Stephen Weeks confirmed that the council’s response to DCMS’s proposals would not be required to be put before the Cabinet and the Planning Committee’s endorsement would be the council’s formal response on the matter.
The Chair requested that this item be reported back to the committee following the outcome of the DCMS consultation notifying members of any changes to the original proposals.
RESOLVED:-
that the proposed draft response to the DCMS consultation on greater gambling protections and controls in Appendix A of the report which supports the proposed creation of a separate use class for betting shops, and highlights to the DCMS the need for a separate class for pawnbrokers and pay day loan shops, given that they present similar issues to that of betting shops, be noted.
Supporting documents: