Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Superb News: Kinleigh Folkard Hayward listen to community and stay their hand on betting shop - Thank you KfH
An update about the struggle over the Coliseum building. About half an hour ago I received the following email from KfH:
Dear Hugh,
Further to the discussions regarding our site in Harringay, I have an update for you which I am sure will please you.
As we have said previously, we have been trying to find a tenant for the premises for almost a year and have received only one acceptable offer.
However, we have listened to the concerns voiced by local residents and traders and have decided to put the assignment to the betting shop operator on hold while we re-explore other options.
We are very happy to work with the local community to find a mutually satisfactory solution but we cannot hold these empty premises indefinitely and do need to eliminate our liabilities for the rent and rates, which are approaching £85,000 per annum.
We look forward to further discussions.
Kind regards,
Kaylene
Kaylene Smith
PR Manager
Kaylene just told me over the phone, "We're really keen to work with the community. So we've decided to put things on hold for a few months. With all the interest, we hope that we'll now have better luck finding an alternative tenant"
Kaylene also mentioned that this mail has been copied to David Lammy. Many thanks to David who has supported our campaign. As I wrote yesterday he spoke recently with the KfH MD to underline the strength of feeling made clear on HoL. He also asked members of his email list to voice their support and mail in to KfH, all of which has helped convince KfH to review their decision, I'm quite sure.
Superb. Thank you KfH.
Tags for Forum Posts: betting, gambling, kfh, kinleigh folkard hayward
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Rory Bergin on
-
Well Done Hugh!
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
This is good news but I see it more of as a longer stay of execution.
- The commercial pressure to assign this lease has not abated.
- The kind of lessee with the most ability to pay the top price desired, is likely to remain a betting shop: Tipico or some other.
It is quite clear that only collective action stayed the hand of Kinleigh, as this new willingness to discuss represents a volte face on 24 hours ago.
This avoidance of defeat (rather than conclusive victory) affords only a breathing space for the residents and others to help try to find an alternative that lets Kinleigh off the hook in the longer term.
If a suitable lessee is not found in the next couple of months or so, the residents, and the local community, could return to the situation of 24 hours ago. No one has more "at stake" than those living in the Coliseum. Celebration - and any taking of credit - could be premature.
-
Permalink Reply by Protheroe O'Shea on
-
Well done residents. Well done hugh. Well done hol. Lets not fight amongst ourselves. Thats what they want. :)
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Harvey on
-
Totally agree Clive that the war is not won on this one, not by a long shot. You're right to point people to the wider issue of legislation that needs to change in order to really start to impact on the blight of betting shops taking residence in our neighbourhood.
What I would say, however, is that this is a victory well worth celebrating, so it would be a shame to pour cold water on celebrating this good news, whatever challenges continue to lie ahead on this one. It is a great result, and demonstrates that local people can make a difference when they work together effectively. From this small victory may well grow success in campaigns to effect legislative change.... That will need people to build on this success and keep momentum.
One step at a time though... Onwards and upwards!
Well done to all involved.
-
Permalink Reply by Abi on
-
It may not be a complete victory (yet) but isn't it often helpful (and I don't only mean cathartic although it's that too) to register a strong objection, just to ensure that there is at least a recognition that similar decisions will be met with opposition in future?
-
Permalink Reply by Albert Ross on
-
Fantastic news! Well done, now lets try and get some more of the parasites out!!
-
Permalink Reply by Sapphireblue on
-
It is good news, but I note that KFH's letter says that they will delay their decision 'for a few months'. No reason to be wild with joy yet then. This needs us all to keep our eye on the ball. Great that the power of collective protest can have a positive result!
-
-
No reason to be wild with joy yet
I agree, Sapphireblue. It is barely a result, let alone a victory.
After Dunkirk, Churchill made his most famous speech on June 4, 1940. Amongst much else of the Dunkirk evacuation, he said
We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory.
The annual rent (and rates?) for the Coliseum A1+A2 premises are about £85,000. If the lease were assigned, this would be a commitment for perhaps 10 years. We are in a recession. The lessee would be committing to, give or take, £850,000 over this period. How many businesses would be prepared to do that, here and now? Sadly, I can think of one.
Previous efforts to achieve discussion failed. The stay of execution could well be just a tactical move by KFH to spike the current risk of reputational damage - not through a sense of altruism. If the same proposal comes back in three months' time, KFH may bank on there being less excitement about it.
I know that I could be thought of as Eeyore rather than Tigger, but if I were a betting man, I would put money on these premises still ending up with a wretched betting shop.
I will be celebrating the "superb" "brilliant" "excellent" "fantastic" news, if and when I hear the Gambling Act (2005) is disemboweled.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Clive, I don't see anyone proclaiming a victory here, but it is good news. I recognise that your primary interest is on legislative change. As you know, that's an aim I'm very much in sympathy with. However, for many of us who live in Harringay, the immediate future of this one building is the issue of primary concern right now.
In that light, yesterday's news was very good news indeed. We have reason to be grateful to KfH. We are now afforded a barely hoped for window of opportunity to forge a collaboration between residents, traders, lessee, landlord, Council, MP and GLA to find a high quality solution. If all contribute creatively, I very much believe that it will be possible to find a solution where we're all winners.
Last week you told me that "focusing on KFH is a questionable use of time and effort" and that you "reckon the chances of KFH helping out are zero or close to zero". The fat lady has as yet only been given the script. Events may prove you to be right, but in the meantime, I think we have to take KfH's action in good faith. For my part, I will continue to focus on what I see as the most likely route to find the best solution for the neighbourhood.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
What a shame then that David Lammy's attempts to undo the damage done by the Gambling Act were defeated in the Commons by a vote that split along party lines
221 Labour MPs voted for Lammy’s amendment that fulfilled a 2010 Manifesto pledge to empower communities to control betting shop numbers. 315 Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs voted against the amendment, including local MP Lynne Featherstone.
Source: DavidLammy.co.uk
While his government may have allowed the cuckoo to grow in the nest, one cannot deny that he has seen the damage this is doing and is trying to push it out. Too late, you may say but nevertheless, he is working on this and his amendment to the Localism Bill that gave councils new powers to control the number of betting shops on their high streets was thrown out by a Coalition government. Opportunity wasted for party political reasons.
This leaves residents no recourse but to appeal to the better nature of businesses where we can to not lease to betting shops, but the free market is the free market and although most businesses have a sense of social responsibility usually built into their business plan it will not outweigh the making of money.
How sad that the government of Lib Dems and Conservatives undermined legislative attempts to right the wrongs of the previous administration's flirting with the gambling industry. Isn't it time Lynne Featherstone defended Wood Green High Street in the same way as David Lammy is seeking to work for Green Lanes and Tottenham High Road? After all, her party are now in power...
-
-
Thanks for this post. Lynn Featherstone voted against the bill?? Im shocked. The whip system in government is a disgrace as i cant believe she or other Lib dems would have voted agaisnt this bill in a free vote. Im writing to her today about this!
Meanwhile as you say we can only use people power to try and convince businesses to do the right thing.
-
-
Liz, I'm not familiar with the details of the proposed amendment to the Localism Bill. But I understand that, as you say, the effect was to give new power to councils [with the intention] to control the number of betting shops. This was meant to limit betting shop 'clustering'. But I suspect this was either a sop, or not thought through, or a conscience-salving measure.
The Gambling Act has trumped, and will continue to trump, all challenges to premises licence applications, due to its wording. And equally important, due to the Act's intention as expressed in law. Gambling was to be treated no different to other forms of commerce, and like them, subject only to the laws of supply and demand (and disregarding the addictive or obsessive-compulsive character of FOBTs).
Only the market test was to apply - and no one could oppose on the basis of anyone's assertion (including mine) that there are too many betting shops. It is this thesis that is close to the heart of this reprehensible Act.
The reach of the Gambling Act has been tested more than once in Court. Local authorities are mandated to aim to permit new premises applications. How is that to be interpreted? Courts already have.
Anti-clustering "powers" would have had two effects: No practical change but increased fee income for lawyers arguing about the extent of the new "powers". There would be endless debate ... until the key offending clauses in the Gambling Act are repealed.
The Gambling Act was not sought by the public, but lobbied for by the "industry". Political parties cannot be relied on to fix this problem, it must be pushed for by the public affected.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
