Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

The Licensing Committee has granted permission for a premises licence for Betfred (next to the Post Office). One slender hope remains in the form of a possible refusal from the Planning Inspectorate for planning permission, whose decision is still awaited, but with the licence now granted, the scales are tipped further against us.

What all this means, which of course we already knew, is that it is impossible to prevent an unlimited number of betting shops opening in our community.




Tags for Forum Posts: 513 Green Lanes, betting shops, gambling, green lanes

Views: 1185

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Dear David,
'Nobody really wants the faceless, soulless mini-Las Vegas that the current law allows for -'

Forgive my fading memory - but did this exponential growth occur under the no-such-thing-as-society Thatcher regime?

Just wondering,
OAE
Stumbled across this the other day, not just Harringay and Hackney then ...

"But, with an astonishing 23 different gambling venues, including 11 bookies and a number of amusement arcades in Kilburn High Road, already, residents are afraid that their high street is turning into a makeshift casino."
And how's this interesting piece from Tristram Hunt in The Guardian for an indictment of a ruinous policy.

It really does make one appreciate what a terrible piece of legislation this was. The relaxed attitude to fixing it is maddening.

Mr Lammy I'd ask you instead of petitioning me to undo what you and your government have done that you make an election commitment to clear up the mess. Convince us how will you clear up this very damaging legislation.
Yes, its gone too far now and needs a change in legislation. Its going on all over the country. There has to be a shift in policy to stop all our high streets becoming betting centres with gangs of men hanging around them. Real shops. Real jobs. This is what we need.
Agree Ruth. It does need a change in the leglislaton: but not fiddling with some Act unrelated to the Act which is the source of the problem. I hope that Office of David Lammy MP is reading the excellent link put up by Hugh to the Guardian article (above).
So, digging around a bit more, I've caught up with progress on the most promising channel for relief.

Under the new Sustainable Communities Act, councils can apply for new powers. Last summer Hackney Council made an application to give councils more powers to control what happens on local high streets.

A post on the Local Government Association's website last week seems to be telling us that this proposal has been short-listed and is to be submitted as a recommendation to the Government.

Looking through the publication of all the proposals to be submitted, I thought there seems to be a few interesting things in there. So I've added another post on it.

And by way of a postscript, Clive Carter has just alerted me to a letter from the indefatigable Mario Petrou which was published in the Journal this week.
You have of course alerted us to this in the past Hugh, back in November. 3rd post on the discussion. You highlighted efforts by the Green Party to use the Sustainable Communities Act to allow residents & councils to have greater control over their streets and neigbourhoods. It's good to hear that the Local Government Association still have it shortlisted as a priority for pressing for government action.

It is disappointing to realise that progress appears to be less than snail pace though. I remember Councillor Canver being asked regarding Haringey Council's opinion on this approach, but she appeared to dismiss it as a non-starter.

I've often asked myself why the lack of enthusiasm from LBH, could this in any way be linked with Haringey Council's new Gambling Policy for 2010-2013, which was accepted, passed and adopted at full council shortly before Christmas, last December by the majority party (Labour).

Under the heading for Casinos, the policy states:

THERE IS NO RESOLUTION TO PROHIBIT CASINOS IN THE BOROUGH AT PRESENT. THE LICENSING AUTHORITY IS AWARE IT HAS THE POWER TO DO SO UNDER SECTION 166 OF THE GAMBLING ACT 2005

You will probably not be surprised to hear that Hackney council is enlightened enough to have a NO CASINO POLICY!
Attachments:
What I seemed to believe on my last post was that each borough needed to make an application under the SC Act. My current understanding is that, if accepted, Hackney's application will give rise to powers that will be available for all councils.
Peter, thanks for highlighting Haringey's approach to Casinos, in contrast to other Boroughs. This shifty council claims that there is no need to put and pass a 'No Casino' resolution, because they say, there is little chance of a casino (in the short term) and there is a limited number of casino licences (for the time being). The apparent practical-expediency approach may cover more suspect motives. There are two points to be made here:

First it is hard to overlook that senior Counclllor H. Lister has long lobbied for a casino in the Borough which would go into our Charitable Trust, Alexandra Palace. Cllr. Lister chaired a meeting of the Full Licencing Committee that approved a permanent gambling Premises Licence in part of Alexandra Palace. This Licence is currently limited to the annual Darts Championship, but the precedent has been set. No one else on that Committee said a word and Cllr. Lister ran roughshod over the 6 (six) approved Objectors.

He disregarded the points of a experienced lawyer amongst the Objectors and refused to Minute a key point being made – such was the determination to approve the council's own gambling Application: Alexandra Palace Trading Ltd. is 100% controlled by the council (just another of the continuous conflicts-of-interest up on the hill).

Second, the council ignore any need to set the tone (as other Boroughs have) and take some kind of a stand against the spread of gambling. It is suspicious that they see no need to do this, in spite of the unlikeliood of a casino licence in the short term. To coin a phrase, the council is hedging its bets. I had thought that the Labour Party had more moral fibre than this. It shows how far they have come, or gone. It's a managerial approach, devoid of morality.

Haringey speaks with a forked tongue on gambling.
Forked tongues indeed, as with many issues around communities. They need to say no to a casino but also no to the proliferation of betting shops which create an atmosphere of gambling not only in one dedicated place but all over the place. They need to be proportionate to other types of shops on the high street. But seems the high streets are all doomed with the spread of large retail centres, out of town shopping centres. Personally, I hate such places and dont drive anyway. The high streets are left to go to hell on a handcart.
Worth looking at the publication I link to in my other post from last night Ruth.
thanks Hugh for this and to everyone else who found related links and discussions. Sustainable communities... now that is a good idea! Seems like the government has been busy wrecking communities. Let's hope the general election sees these issues becoming more of a priority.
No one will get my vote (please take note mr Lammy!) if they dont offer real help for communities who want and need the 'old' things on the high streets like post offices (so many have been shut) banks, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers etc...

RSS

Advertising

© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service