Another betting shop planned on Lordship Lane please help

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on March 5, 2014 at 9:58

Katie:

I had thought—thanks to the power of the last government's Gambling Act to assist and practically impose, premises applications—that you'd be able to mount only a token protest. However, it appears that this Application probably does involve a change of use.

IMO, you should fight, and fight to win.

It seems absurd, but betting shops are classed under financial and professional services (A2):
...

Planning Usage
==========

Use Class A4

Drinking Establishments

A4 is use as a public house, wine-bar or other drinking establishment

Use Class A2

Financial And Professional Services

A2 is use for the provision of:

(a) financial services, or
(b) professional services (other than health or medical services), or
(c) any other services (including use as a betting office) which it is appropriate to provide in a shopping area, where the services are provided principally to visiting members of the public.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BlaiseGV on March 7, 2014 at 12:05

Unfortunately, no planning permission is required to change from A4 to A2, see here halfway down:

https://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/changeo...

So unlikely to stop it from happening unless the original use is anything other than A3-5. I sat through the hearing for one in Hackney a while back and it was waved through despite widespread opposition. I believe bookies target ex-food and drink locations for this very reason.

The case above of a music shop change of use was successful mainly because it involved a B classification premise being moved over to an A classification, which requires planning permission and hence has a chance to be challenged successfully.  

The only possible route would be to push for bookies to be classed as Casinos (sui generis) which would entail a class change and thus planning permission but I expect this will be successfully challenged by their legal counsel based on case history.

PS: just spotted this additional section:

"Buildings with A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2 uses will be permitted to change use for a single period of up two years to A1, A2, A3 and B1 uses."

So in the case of the music shop, the council still had a way to approve the change of use to A2 despite opposition on a 1-yr basis. I find, again from experience in Hackney, they do this as a trial period ie. encourage residents to log complaints during that period so the change of use can be challenged. Which obviously in a high-rental area such as a high street where people tend to bail out rather than stick it out and fight, results in ongoing unchallenged disruption.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lydia R on April 7, 2014 at 6:17

"The only possible route would be to push for bookies to be classed as Casinos (sui generis) which would entail a class change and thus planning permission ..."

I suspect that idea might require a change in national rather than local law but it is very logical since those places have developed a lot of gambling machines which they did not previously have.  We are always sending petitions to the Council--why not to the MPs as well?

Locally, the Council could have a policy that all changes of use for shops are under Article 4. So unless a premises already has A2 use then the Council can turn it down. It shouldn't be difficult to do. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rachella on March 6, 2014 at 15:57

Thanks, I've signed, too.  I agree with Laura. Please put this on noelparknet.com, too. You'll find an increasingly engaged audience from the area there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Katie Tucker on March 6, 2014 at 15:59

thanks both am signing up now so i can post it there too! and Clive keep the insight coming. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on March 7, 2014 at 13:28

Katie, the petition is good, I signed and fowarded.

However, you (and hopefully your neighbours) may yet need to object in a more formal way. The council, whose hands are tied over licencing, may resist any change in Use Permission under Planning. PP might then Appeal to a Planning Inspector. There's experience of this already. Do PM me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Racheal Leigh on March 7, 2014 at 12:11

thanks - I have signed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Racheal Leigh on March 7, 2014 at 16:10

ps - will post on Bowes Bounds too. Need more signatures. This is an important issue! Oh, and there it is already! excellent.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0te44xt8weo3l on March 7, 2014 at 18:37

Hi! How can I find out more and help to protest against this?
Speaking to the licensing dept it sounds as though their hands are fairly tied, even if residents protest. Does the council not have a duty to protect residents under the Human Rights Act (Protection of Property, or as a last resort, as a woman Protection from degrading behaviour)? As a lordship lane resident it is the last thing we need.... Thankyou for putting up the posters. I've also written to the Met police to see if they have any crime statistics regarding gambling premises in haringey, albeit a very long shot.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Katie Tucker on March 7, 2014 at 20:25

Thanks Kat

I think the only grounds we might have is the change of use - as Pippa said the pub was not exactly the highlight of that stretch of shops either but better than another betting shop. A councillor came round to our house this week and was very much against it too - she was going to see what she could do. Thanks for looking into the Met stats every little bit helps.

I need to look at the legal grounds against it this weekend and have had some very useful insight from people on this forum as there is little wriggle room under current legislation.

I would like to go around the local shops this weekend and get their views, give them something to put up in their window maybe, ask them to sign the petition - even the existing betting shops are surely against another rival? what do you think?

I am unclear as to whether one formal objection against it with sound legal grounds is enough for them to think twice or whether it is quantity that is needed.

I would appreciate any help - so if you find anything else please post here.

Thanks again

Katie

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0te44xt8weo3l on March 10, 2014 at 8:36

Thanks.... the Licensing dept referred to a Newham judgement (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/l...) which makes it unlikely that they would win an objection case - unless it can be proved that granting the license would not be “reasonably consistent” with the objective of preventing crime and disorder in the area.

If you need any help let me know- I plan to research before writing with objections. Observing as a LL resident, it seems that the William Hill on LL attracts far more groups of men than the Ladbrokes - I've no idea what the cause of the difference is.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0te44xt8weo3l on March 10, 2014 at 8:52

Although- an appeal in Liverpool in Feb 2014 ruled in the favour of the council's rejection of license, on the basis that a book keepers would have “detracted from the appearance of the premises as individual buildings and not replace or replicate original features”.

The Noel Park estate was built with a focus on 'clean living'- although this is not on Noel Park it is right on the border, and there has been a pub in this premises since at least 1881.

Here's the Government's current policy on Betting Shops.https://www.gov.uk/government/news/betting-shops

Has anyone managed to raise a response from Lynn Featherstone?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page