"Better" Gambling Licence Application Hearing Cancelled at Short Notice Again

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 1, 2008 at 12:43

Hugh, I think this may be a bit unfair on the councillor who made the error.

And before you think, "As a Labour councillor, he would say that, wouldn't he," let me add that I think it was a LibDem councillor; who seems to have made an honest and understandable mistake by signing a petition against the application before the hearing.

This may seem illogical. Aren't councillors elected to represent the views of their local community? The answer is: not when we hear a Planning or Licensing application.

The point being that Planning and Licensing hearings are quasi-judicial, with councillors' decisions open to appeal and legal review. (With a chance of costs awarded against the council - in other words, taxpayers money wasted.)

At the hearing, councillors will listen carefully to professional advice; and to representations by the applicant and objectors. We are required to treat each and every application on its facts - taking into account the relevant policies and law.

This means that if we have already come to a personal decision we should not sit on that hearing. Emphatically not, if we have expressed our view publicly - eg in print, or when we met local residents.

The test is what a reasonable observer would think. So while I'm absolutely certain - as a fairminded person - that I would make an impartial decision about a betting shop application, what about my known views? I'm on the public record - in the council chamber, in the Observer, and on my pages on Flickr, being highly critical about the proliferation of betting shops. So not just the Betting companies, but a reasonable observer might consider me prejudiced.

With Betting Shops, though the rhetoric may be about devolved local decision-making, in fact the balance has tipped well towards the companies. Local councillors are in an invidious position. Speak up passionately for the views of local residents and you can't sit on the hearing. Strictly follow the law, and it may look like you're backing the bookies.

But the basic problem is not about the local hearings. It's the fact that grounds for turning down new gambling premises are even narrower than before. The companies have a lot of money and can afford good lawyers and to appeal any decision. I'm not dismissing local campaigns. They can and will deter some applications and may slow others down. But the real target for campaigning should be MPs and the Government. The law needs amending.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 1, 2008 at 14:32

Thanks for the contribution Alan. I think you and I identify different mistakes. I'm not at all clear that the councillor made a mistake in signing the petition. Is that verboten? You will know better than I. But it is my understanding that a number of councillors quite properly made representations on behalf of their residents against the licence being granted. It would be improper for any of these councillors to be on the committee. I completely understand on occasions like this certain councillors have to recuse themselves from being party to certain decisions. But there are enough councillors to go round without having to rely on those individuals representing the interests of their residents.

What I consider to have been the mistake was the end to end process of selecting and agreeing the committee’s composition. I hold no one person to account for this. In as far as I understand how we reached the point we did, there are a number of points at which the situation could have been remedied involving several people. You will know better than I whether we should be holding individuals to account or an organisational culture that permitted this. Personally I am not holding a single councillor to account.

We all make mistakes. My view about mistakes is that you learn from them and move on. Whether that means that we pretend they never happened is a different matter. People who represent us or work on our behalf do need to be accountable for their actions. When mistakes are made, they should be admitted and, unless unremittingly repeated, forgiven. Mistakes should not be the harbingers of a witch hunt or of political haymaking, but nor should they be swept under the carpet. They should be used as a catalyst for change.

In this spirit I did not name or otherwise identify any individual. What I did was to bring to the attention of my fellow residents, without rancour, a short series of mistakes committed in our name, about an issue that impacts on our area, and our lives.

In so far as the law is concerned, I wholeheartedly concur. In this case it is an ass. It needs reforming. My personal involvement with the handling of the recent betting licence applications has been that councillors of all political persuasions as well as officers of the Executive have professionally interpreted the law. Thus far, that interpretation happens to coincide with my interests. So much the better. We now jointly face the scrutiny of the judiciary.

I agree that the real focus for a change in this ill-considered law needs to be the legislative and executive at Westminster.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 1, 2008 at 15:45

That's fine. As long as residents realise that councillors who sit on these hearings aren't being crass or dismissive about people's views, simply because they won't discuss particular cases, nor take a public position in advance. Also that someone may be genuinely sypathetic to what objectors are saying, while still having to agree an application on the evidence as presented.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on February 1, 2008 at 21:30

So it has to be a Haringey councilor sitting for Haringey issues? It would be so much easier if you could have someone from another borough surely. The only reason I could think a councillor would be neutral is if they had no axe to grind either way which is very unlikely. You are either listening to your constituency or eagerly awaiting the opening of a new betting shop at which you have not been refused credit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on February 3, 2008 at 12:12

Alan is right that it is a particularly difficult situation councillors are put in about licensing or planning decisions. I work in planning in another borough and elected members have to show that they have not pre-judged the case before reading the officer's report and seeing or hearing representations for or against. If the particular councillor who had signed the petition had been party to the decison and the application had been thrown out, the applicant would have been quite justified in appealing on the grounds that there were not given a fair hearing as the councillor had quite clearly made up their mind in advance of the meeting.

I oppose the application but understand that, for a number of councillors, they are restricted in what support they can give to local residents.

John's point seems a fair way forward on the face of it but I think it is important that decisions are made by local councillors who understand local issues and are ultimately accountable at the ballot box.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 3, 2008 at 12:41

Just to get facts straight. My original post spoke about an objection being lodged, not signing a petition.

I have checked the evidence pack from Haringey and have confirmed that the councillor involved did not sign the petition. Like the majority of ward councillors for Harringay and St Ann's they submitted a letter on behalf of their residents. My understanding is that this was brought to the Council's attention by the councillor, but I am not completely clear on this.

For me that's not a difficult position. They did the right thing. The issue was how the system then handled appointments to the sub-committe hearing the matter.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 3, 2008 at 13:49

Thanks Hugh. Can I apologise for misleading people by getting it wrong about the petition.

But as I see it, there are two ways of "doing the right thing". One is to speak-up or write publicly on behalf of residents. Another is to say nothing in advance and sit on the hearing as a local person who makes a fair judgement - on the facts as presented at the hearing.

I can appreciate Michael's suggestion for outsiders with "no axe to grind" to make the decisions. Ironically that's the system we had before - the magistrates did it.

• ▶ Reply