Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

The following just released from the Council:

Haringey Council welcomed a government Inspector's dismissal of an appeal by Paddy Power Bookmakers to overturn a council planning decision.

Haringey planners had refused Paddy Power planning permission for a change of use, enabling a retail unit to be turned into another betting shop at 261 High Road, Tottenham N15. The site occupies a prominent location on the corner of the High Road and West Green Road and currently operates as a music store.

At the appeal, the Inspector agreed with Haringey Council, saying such a change of use would cause unacceptable harm to the vitality and viability of the shopping centre and the preservation and enhancement of the conservation area.

The Inspector said the proposal would be in conflict with the councils planning policies as laid out in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

He said they: "..would have an adverse effect on the vitality, viability and predominantly retail function of the centre due to the loss of a retail use in a prominent location."

He also said that satellite dishes and air conditioning units would be detrimental to the Tottenham High Road Conservation Area, again, conflicting with council policy.

The council is already lobbying for legislation to prevent clusters of betting shops taking over high streets.

In Haringey, rows of betting shops are emerging in shopping centres, reducing the retail mix available and threatening the sustainability and diversity of these centres.

Cllr Nilgun Canver, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, said:

"This result strengthens our arguments about the challenges posed by the clustering of betting shops within the borough. It will add strength to any proposed planning policy that recognises the value of having attractive shopping centres that provide a diverse retail mix, contributing to sustainable and stable communities.

The Inspector also dismissed an application for costs against the council by Paddy Power.

Good decision, but makes me wonder why a simillar Harringay appeal failed.

Tags for Forum Posts: betting shops, gambling

Views: 191

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Another poor paddy victimised - makes me wonder why we stick around this ungrateful city.
Good news. There's a related programme scheduled to be broadcast on Monday: BBC1, 19:30 PM, Inside Out.
Any idea what swung it for this one, Clive?
I think there was a strong case to deny PP their request for a change of use. It's important that everyone understand that this decision was made and was able to be made, on planning grounds and is relatively rare.

Normally the powerful gambling industry go after sites that are zoned financial (former banks etc.) so there is no change of use involved. Here, the site is a popular, long-time music shop, that would involve a change of use.

The council had already awarded PP a gambling premises licence, which they are all but obliged to do under the pernicious Gambling Act (2005).

The opposition to the PP move was ably led by Douglas Williams of the Find Your Voice group. I made my own submission to the Planning Inspector which focused on the prominence of the location: conveying an impression of tackiness at a prime site, opposite the Seven Sisters Tube station, on a corner site by two important roads.

Thanks for posting the good news, Hugh.
THE Planning Inspectorate's Decisions (attached)
Paragraph 13 is both interesting and dismaying - especially the last sentence. This law needs amending. (Thanks, Clive, for taking the trouble to add these links.)
"There is no evidence before me that the betting shop use would lead to noise, disturbance, anti-social behaviour or crime. The impact of gambling on vulnerable people is not a consideration which is material to a decision under the Planning Acts."
I too found these comments irritating, but its important to remember that the decision was made strictly on planning grounds. The council had already awarded Paddy Power a gambling premises license, as they are all but obliged to, under the Gambling Act (2005).

The phenomena mentioned could be considered by a local authority licensing committee. But thanks to the overall thrust of the Gambling Act, there are virtually no (currently) lawful grounds that would enable a gambling premises licence Application to be refused.

The [avoidance of] impact on vulnerable people (and children) is an object of the Gambling Act but, like the other objects, it is all but useless to Objectors in actual practice.

When I made a submission to the Planning Inspector, I concentrated on the impact and prominence of the site and fortunately, the Inspector agreed.

On Monday night at 19:30, BBC1 screens "Inside Out". The High Street – Betting Shops

A 2' 29" video clip can be viewed here.

As I see it Will, the betting shop clustering especially in poorer areas has been caused wholly by the Gambling Act (2005). What we now see on the High Street is the symptom of this legislation, which is highly permissive compared with what went before.

First, the Act *mandated* no control on the number of betting shops: this was something that was to be determined solely be the level of market demand (the demand test). Courts councils & communities would have practically no say. The Act directs liscengin authorities to "aim to permit" new gambling premises licence applications. Despite gambling's addictive aspects, the Act pretends that this is simply another form of commerce to be treated the same as if it were a greengrocers. Most betting shops now have more in common with casinos because of FOB-Ts

Second, the Act permits up to 4 (four) Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOB-Ts) per licensing gambling premises. At first, the Bill was going to leave this uncontrolled as well. "These machines have been described as the crack cocaine of gambling. Just these four machines, about the size and shape of an oven with overhead grill, provide each betting shop with about half of its profits. Since there is a limit of four per shop, the incentive is to open new premises, even a short distance away, even though a whole new set of overheads is incurred. These machines are highly profitable and designed to suck money out of poorer communities.

Thus, we have an "industry" with abnormal levels of demand, comparable to narcotics, which can always pay top dollar for premises that come on the market in prime locations. Old Hackney Town Hall, and corner sites such as the former Burger King in Wood Green and the attempt on Body Music. I don't yet know what is happening to the Body Music premises, but it has been suggested that the would-be gambling operations would have been able to pay an annual rent of £36,000 – unable to be matched by any other kind of business in the area. I do not believe that rent controls are the answer, which has been suggested by some; gambling is not the kind of normal retail store as the Act and industry pretends.

The proliferation is changing the character or our High Streets. It would be a mistake to compare betting shops with normal regular business, struggling or not, on any level.



© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service