New planning powers for councils against betting shops

More than four years since my first post about betting shops on this blog, and finally I read some vaguely good news about changes to planning powers. While the detail has still to be revealed, media reports suggest that planning law will be changed so that betting shops are classified separately to other 'financial' services, and local authorities will be given more power to refuse new betting shops where clustering is a concern.

Even four years ago Deptford High Street had six betting shops, but the subject of my post was the imminent loss of the Deptford Arms pub to Paddy Power. Within a very short time Paddy Power also took over the John Evelyn pub on Evelyn Street and turned that into another branch, presumably for those people incapable of staggering to any of the other three betting shops on the Evelyn triangle.

When the Halifax closed down its branch on Deptford High Street within weeks of Paddy Power's latest licence being granted, I predicted what would happen next; it was only due to a condition imposed when the previous planning application was granted that the planners were able to reject Betfred's attempts to open a branch in the empty unit. They had to reject it twice - Betfred was so determined to have its own branch on a street with so many that despite the first application being rejected, and the decision upheld by the Planning Inspectorate, they submitted a second application which was also rejected by the council and the Planning Inspectorate.

Since then things have gone rather quiet - cynically I suspect it's nothing to do with the success of our campaign, rather the fact that there's been a dearth of shop units with suitable business classifications for the betting shops to target.

As it stands at the moment, betting shops come in the same business classification as banks, building societies and other financial services, so if a bank closes down, the betting shop does not need to apply for any 'change of use' permission to use the same shop unit. Likewise if a pub closes, betting shops can move into those premises at the drop of a hat.

From what I'm reading, betting shops will be given a separate use class and hence will have to apply to convert old banks, pubs etc into new betting shops. And if councils are able to use the argument of 'clustering' of betting shops as a reason to reject an application, so much the better.

Any change to the law can't come soon enough - the Harp of Erin at the bottom of the high street has been closed for some time now, and many locals fear that we will be seeing it reopen as a betting shop before too long.

National petition for a reclassification of betting shops

The charity Gambling Reform & Society Perception (GRASP) and Southwark councillor Rowenna Davis have set up a petition asking Eric Pickles to propose a new planning class for betting shops.

Regular readers of my blog will be familiar with the arguments about planning classification, and how this is exacerbating the proliferation of betting shops, in particular on high streets where banks and pubs are closing or vulnerable.

The online petition, which you can find here, has a brief explanation - or you can read my previous posts which are tagged 'betting shops' for more background.

Ultimately a change in the law is the key to giving local people and councils more say in what happens to their high streets. Without this, we will find ourselves fighting more and more such cases, with nothing but the vagaries and historical quirks of the planning system for help.

Betfred - the final push?

It's fairly likely that you are now bored of reading about Betfred's attempt to open a new betting shop on the high street; to be honest, I am bored of writing about it. But I'm not going to stop.

Deptford High Street is seemingly irresistible to bookmakers; we already have seven betting shops on this street and three others within a few minutes' walk; Betfred must be gutted it's not getting a slice of the action and will do whatever it can to get the former Halifax premises opened as a bookmakers. Once the fixed-odds betting terminals are up and running, they'll be coining it in just like Paddy Power, Ladbrokes, William Hill (x2), Betterbet, Coral and McDonnells.

With its initial planning application for change of use turned down first by the council, and then on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate, Betfred proceeded to submit a second planning application which was again turned down by the council.

Naturally Betfred also appealed against this decision, and the Planning Inspectorate is now considering the case for a second time.

I am objecting to this application because I feel we already have more than enough betting shops; not only does it reduce the diversity of the businesses on the high street, but this clustering encourages anti-social behaviour, street drinking and fights in a small, concentrated area, putting people off using the street at night and making them fear for their personal safety.

If you objected to the original application, you will have been sent details of the appeal, which the inspectorate intends to deal with 'by an exchange of written statements'. Now is the time - and your last chance - to reinforce or add to your original objection, if appropriate.

Details of the written appeals procedure can be found here and more information about the process here.

If you have not already objected, you can still make a representation to the inspector by writing in triplicate to:

Ms Vicky Williams
The Planning Inspectorate
3/14 Eagle Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN

The deadline for objections is 17 February 2012 and you should quote reference APP/C5690/A/11/2168006/NWF.

You can also comment online here by scrolling down to the bottom and clicking on 'comment on this case' (with thanks to the Blackheath Bugle for making me aware of this).

Be aware that any comments you submit will be made available to all parties, including the appellant (Done Brothers/aka Betfred).

Please pass this on to as many people as you can and urge their support; it will make a huge difference if the inspector gets an indication of the strength of feeling of the local community and will only take a few minutes of your time.

Betfred application turned down for a second time

While it's by no means the end of the saga, it's good to get news just before Christmas that Betfred's second application to open a betting shop on Deptford High Street has been turned down by Lewisham Council.

The previous application to open a betting shop in the former Halifax bank property was turned down earlier this year, after the planning inspectorate ruled that the change of use was allowed, but specifically excluded betting shops from this reclassification.

Betfred since submitted another application for change of use to allow a betting shop, arguing that the inspector's decision was unfair. With the application refused by the council, they will no doubt appeal again, so watch this space.

Betfred loses planning appeal

Thanks to Bill on Deptford Misc for tipping me off to the fact that the planning inspector published his decision on this case yesterday.

If you remember, the problem for Betfred was that the original planning permission only allowed a building society to occupy the former Halifax premises. Betfred had to make a planning application to widen the type of businesses allowed to occupy the premises so that it would include all so-called 'financial services' that form part of class A2 use today (banks, betting shops, pawnbrokers etc).

Although in fact Betfred's appeal to widen the planning usage class has been 'allowed', the planning inspector has placed a condition that this should EXCLUDE betting shops.

Ironically he disagreed with those of us who argued that it would undermine the vitality and viability of Deptford High Street (since it did not involve the loss of a retail unit) but was spectacularly damning of the impact it would have on the levels of crime and anti-social behaviour on the street.

It's particularly interesting that the anecdotal evidence was given significant weight by the inspector, and that although he noted the police records were not detailed, they were also important.

"It is true the information provided is anecdotal rather than “formal” with exact
details of dates and incidents. However, the frequency of the views expressed
paint a clear picture of the nature of the problems experienced with betting
offices in Deptford High Street."

"There is a strong body of evidence from local residents and shopkeepers that
the existing betting offices in the Core Area give rise to anti-social behaviour,
crime and disturbance. Representations refer to feelings of being intimidated
and threatened by groups of people ‘hanging around’ outside other betting
offices. There is a persistent thread of concerns about associated drinking,
drug taking and begging as well as reports of verbal abuse, fighting and
shouting. As far as many of those living and working locally are concerned
there is a clear link between these happenings and the existing betting offices."

"The evidence of the Police is also instructive. Both the Sergeant for the New
Cross Safer Neighbourhood Team and the Licensing Officer oppose the
proposal. The position ‘on the ground’ is confirmed by the Police in terms of
complaints about existing premises and of harassment, alarm and distress
caused to the public by beggars, drinkers and drug users. The Sergeant
believes that another such venue would add to crime in the area."

"Drawing things together the evidence shows that betting offices in the area are
associated with crime but whether this is abnormally serious has not been
established. More persuasive are the accounts of people familiar with the area
about disorder associated with existing premises. In general terms there is no
reason to suppose that those visiting betting offices would be more likely to
commit a crime or to behave in an anti-social manner than anyone else.
However, for whatever reason, the evidence that premises in Deptford High
Street act as a ‘magnet’ for miscreants is compelling."

"...an additional premises would simply add to problems and should not be supported."

In his conclusions the inspector said: "It would be likely to give rise to anti-social behaviour and disturbance to local residents and users of the town centre. There is also a risk of an increase in crime. As a result use of the High Street would become less safe and pleasant."

This is excellent news for Deptford High Street, but I hope that this decision will also set a precedent for other areas which are experiencing similar levels of crime and disorder related to proliferation of betting shops. It seems to me that it should also have some resonance for the decision-making process relating to licensing of betting shops - where potential impact on crime and disorder are supposed to be considered.

The full details are on the planning inspectorate website here - click on 'decision' and you will be taken to a page where you can download the decision letter.

Living Streets campaign; make your views on betting shops known

Living Streets is billed as 'the national charity that stands up for pedestrians' but its latest campaign 'The local joke' is intended to address an issue that would probably be billed more appropriately as standing for local shoppers, residents, businesses, sustainable communities and so on.

I was delighted to come across this campaign, which includes a template letter that you can send to Eric Pickles, secretary of state for communities, who is apparently reviewing the planning rules for change of use in buildings such as pubs, banks and building societies.

Please visit the website and make your views known. It's a good idea to personalise the template letter with your own comments, perhaps bringing in the Deptford experience, to make it more forceful.

What's more, tell all your friends.

Meanwhile, as Sue has posted over on Crosswhatfields blog, we have also seen some action by our MP on this issue at last, with Joan proposing legislation to create a separate planning use class for betting shops and enable local councils to consider demand when a new betting shop applies to open.

Betting shops update

Sue on Crosswhatfields blog has posted an update on efforts to seek greater powers for local councils who want to prevent proliferation of betting shops.

Unfortunately it's not good news, however it does underline the efforts being made by some local MPs to try and tackle this.

Betfred appeal against refusal of planning permission

Unsurprisingly Betfred (or should I say Done Brothers) has appealed against Lewisham Council's refusal to grant planning permission to open a betting shop in the former Halifax premises on Deptford High Street.

If you are new to this blog, you can find out more about the background to this case here and here which will probably answer any questions you might have (eg why does Lewisham Council allow so many betting shops, is there really sufficient demand for such competition, what can I do etc).

The Blackheath Bugle has helpfully posted a copy of the letter about the appeal that objectors should have received, which gives information about the grounds for the appeal, where to send any additional information you may wish the inspector to consider, and the fact that both parties have agreed for the case to be dealt with by an exchange of written statements, rather than a hearing. All objections that were submitted to the original application will be forwarded to the inspector for consideration. If you wish to add to this, please send your objection to:

Mrs Ruth Howell
The Planning Inspectorate
3/14 Eagle Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN

by Thursday 9 June. Written comments must be sent in triplicate quoting reference APP/C5690/A/11/2151228/NWF.

Alternatively you can send objections by email to teamp6@pins.gsi.gov.uk.

Any comments you write on this appeal will be copied by the Planning Inspectorate and forwarded to all parties to the appeal including Done Brothers.

If you own a property nearby and you want the Inspector to see the appeal from your property, you should tell the Planning Inspectorate when you write to them and they will tell you the date and time of the visit. You will not be able to discuss the case, but you can point out the relevant facts and features.

Over on Crosswhatfields blog Sue has news that Joan Ruddock seems to have woken up to the issue. Better late than never (my words not hers).

She says: "We have been contacted by Joan Ruddock's office to let us know that David Lammy MP is tabling an Amendment to the Localism Bill as it relates to Planning Consent for Betting Offices, and this bill in back in the Commons on Tuesday/Wednesday this coming week and could be called anytime.

The idea of the amendment is to give more powers to local authorities to refuse planning permission to betting shops (as one way of combating the loopholes in the present Gambling Act). There is absolutely no guarantee that the amendment will be called for debate, but if it is, Ms Ruddock would like to speak about the experience on Deptford High Street."

Sue's post includes additional information and links to relevant research and reports which are worth reading if you are seeking more background information to help you compose an objection or if you simply want to understand the issues more fully.

Betfred and planning law

Many Deptford residents will have been delighted to hear the news yesterday that Betfred's application for a change of use for the former Halifax premises has been rejected by Lewisham's planning officer.

If you remember from previous posts, the former planning consent for the shop allowed it to be classified as A2 use only if it was occupied by a building society. Betfred had to apply for a variation to this change of use, so that its classification would apply to all A2 uses (banks, building societies, financial services and betting shops).

The official reasons for the rejection were:

1) The proposed variation of Condition (2) to allow use of the premises for unrestricted A2: Financial and Professional Services, for use as a betting shop would continue the proliferation of an over concentration of betting office uses in the vicinity within a designated core shopping frontage, beyond an acceptable level, detracting from the range of retail services available within the defined District Town Centre, adversely affecting the diversity of uses and the vitality and viability of the area, contrary to Policy STC 4 Major and District Centres - Core Shopping Areas of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy CSP6 of the Submission Core Strategy.

2) The proposed variation of Condition (2) to allow use of the premises for unrestricted A2: Financial and Professional Services, for use as a betting shop, would have the potential to cause harm in terms of anti-social behaviour, crime and disturbance to neighbouring residents and other users of the town centre, contrary to the requirements of Policy STC 4 Major and District Centres - Core Shopping Areas in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2004) and Policy CSP6 of the Submission Core Strategy.

Betfred is bound to appeal this decision, which will be referred to the Planning Inspectorate; we sincerely hope the inspectorate will back up the council's reasoning.

Some people are asking why this defence has not been used before to prevent the situation on Deptford High Street getting so bad. The answer, certainly in the case of the last two establishments (Paddy Power shops in the former Deptford Arms and John Evelyn pubs) lies with planning law.

Most properties in the UK have a planning classification, defined by the local authority, which governs what kind of business, if any, can be carried out on the premises. These range from A1 (shops, post offices, travel agents, hairdressers etc) through businesses, pubs, industrial uses, institutions and so on.

If you buy a shop and want to change it into a takeaway, for example, you have to make a planning application for a change of use from A1 to A3.

In the past, anyone wanting to change a pub into a betting shop would also have had to apply for change of use. However amendments to the planning laws in 2005 not only created a new classification for drinking establishments, A4, they also permitted change of use from this classification to A3, A2 or A1 without the need for planning permission.

Since Paddy Power did not need to apply, there was no formal process or opportunity for local residents to object and also it seems no mechanism by which the council could prevent the betting shops opening.

During the time I've lived in Deptford (about six years) two other betting shops have opened; Macdonnell and Better. Whether or not these shops had to apply for change of use, I don't know, and I suspect the interest in such matters was not as critical or widespread then, with fewer betting shops on the high street, as it is now.

It would be interesting to know what powers, if any, Lewisham's planning authority would have should Barclay's Bank move out and Betfred decide to open a betting shop there, assuming the premises has full A2 classification.

Even if the planning inspectorate backs Lewisham's decision, don't expect this issue to go away. I'm sure even now Betfred's on the prowl - along with every other bookmaking firm - for new premises, whether failing pubs or building societies that are bailing out - in and around the south east of London.

Residents of Blackheath, Greenwich, Woolwich, Lewisham, Catford, Peckham and Elephant & Castle (Walworth) might want to keep an eye out, what with seven handily-classified ex-Nationwide premises about to become available.

Betfred planning permission update

Sue has done the legwork on this so I won't steal her thunder...suffice to say you can read the latest news over on Crosswhatfields blog.

Make sure you are sitting down.

Betfred update

'Oh no, not more betting shop stuff' I hear you groan.'Haven't you flogged that particular horse to death with no hope of success in the light of the current licensing laws?'

Well you're right on one count - the licensing laws are of little use to communities trying to protect the viability and diversity of local shopping streets.

Despite vocal opposition, a massive petition and a dozen individual letters of objection, Betfred's application for a gambling licence for the former Halifax building was passed by Lewisham Council's licensing committee. Objectors are offered the right to appeal but in truth there is little point.

'So why are you harping on about it?' I hear you say. 'Put it behind you and get back to moaning about the architectural quality of local developments!'

All in good time my friends. Meanwhile, gather round and listen carefully.

Back in 1974 when the Halifax first moved into 93-95 Deptford High Street, planning permission was granted for the premises to be classified as A2 (bank/building society) use. However this was conditional upon the unit being occupied by a building society. In order for Betfred to be able to occupy the premises, Lewisham's planning department must grant a variation to the classification.

In considering whether to grant this application, the planning department must take note of national and local planning policy. In particular this means Lewisham Council's Unitary Development Plan as well as various national planning policies relating to sustainable development, for one thing.

Chapter 8 of Lewisham's Unitary Development Plan, which basically sets out the guidelines for planning officers to follow when deciding planning applications, classifies Deptford High Street as a 'district town centre' - just one step down from the importance of Catford and Lewisham as major town centres. The south end of it, including the former Halifax building, numbers 93-95, forms the 'core shopping area'.

According to the UDP "The Council will seek to maintain, and where necessary improve, the function, character, vitality and viability of the established shopping hierarchy .... by sustaining and encouraging through a balance of development, regeneration and conservation a diversity of uses appropriate to their function and location and retaining and enhancing each Centre as a focus for retail activity."

The UDP explains the council's reasoning for wanting to restrict non-retail use; "The Major and District Shopping Centres are the largest established concentrations of retail activity in the Borough. Although a wide range of town centre uses are located in them shopping is considered to be their primary function. Hence a change of use to another function, even another service use, must be carefully monitored and controlled. The preservation of the primary retail function within Core Areas is a major planning objective as this is considered the best way to protect the character and role of the Centres."

The national planning guidelines, which Betfred's planning supporting statement helpfully refers to in great detail, are similarly clear on the question of sustainable development, but also require 'that the impact of development on the social fabric of communities is considered and taken into account'; and direct planning authorities to remember that 'a diversity of uses in centres makes an important contribution to their vitality and viability' and to 'take measures to conserve, and where appropriate, enhance, the established character and diversity of their town centres'.

Betfred's argument in favour of its application is almost entirely based on the fact that it will create employment, and 'contribute to the local economy' which is questionnable. It's not unreasonable to surmise that what it contributes to the local economy in salaries will be far less than what it takes back out in the course of its business.

Almost laughably, Betfred also suggests that its application meets the requirement for a diversity of uses. Being rather lost for words here, I'm not even going to attempt to rebuff that one.

Anyway, that's where you lot come in.

Assuming you agree that maintaining diversity (of uses, not just a range of betting shops) and a strong retail function is vital to the continuation of Deptford as a shopping centre, please consider objecting to this application.

The deadline for objections is Wednesday 2 March.

If you do not want to write your own objection letter, there are new petitions being passed around and held at local shops that you can sign. But it's worth remembering that however many people sign a petition - whether 2 or 2,000 - it will be counted as a single objection.

If you really want your objection to count, send a letter.

It's best to write it in your own words, or again, if duplicates are received, the committee may count them as a single objection. However, a group of local campaigners have drafted a sample letter which you can use as the basis for your own objection, which notes some of the salient points you should highlight.

1. include your name and address to prove that you are an 'interested party' - you don't have to live or work on the High Street, if you live locally and shop there your views are still relevant. The planning department will need your contact details to advise you of any hearings or committee meetings where decisions will be taken.

2. include the application reference number DC/11/76362/X

3. say that you live on/have a business on/shop on the high street, and you object strongly to this application

4. tell them why;

- it will undermine the retail function of the shopping area and is contrary to the policies of the council's Unitary Development Plan which relate to Deptford, which is classified as a district shopping centre

- another betting shop will not add to the diversity of businesses on the High Street - in fact it will reduce it by duplicating the type of business that already exists at five other premises in the core shopping area

- there is no evidence to suggest that the premises would be left empty for very long, should the variation not be granted

5. if you want to refer to the specific policies, there is further detail below. But it's not necessary to make your objection valid.

Within the UDP, Deptford High Street is classified as a District Town Centre, and the unit in question, 93-95 Deptford High Street, falls within the core area of this classification.

I draw your attention in particular to policies STC1 and STC4 in the UDP:

STC1
The council will seek to maintain, and where necessary improve, the function, character, vitality and viability of the established shopping hierarchy … by sustaining and encouraging through a balance of development, regeneration and conservation a diversity of uses appropriate to their function and location and retaining and enhancing each centre as a focus for retail activity.

STC 4 major and district centres - core shopping areas
Within the core shopping areas….the council will strongly resist any change of use involving the loss at ground floor level of Class A1 shops. The following factors will be taken into account when considering exceptions:
(a) whether the proposal harms the overwhelming retail appearance of the shopping frontage, with an over-concentration of non-retail uses (normally 3 non A1 uses together and 70% maintained in A1 use);
(b) whether the proposal will generate a significant number of pedestrian visits; and
(c) whether the proposal uses vacant units (having regard both to their number within the shopping centre as a whole and the core area and the length of time they have been vacant).

The basis for these policies includes the following reasoning:
- The major and district shopping centres are the largest established concentrations of retail activity in the borough. Although a wide range of town centre uses are located in them shopping is considered to be their primary function. Hence a change of use to another function, even another service use, must be carefully monitored and controlled. The preservation of the primary retail function within core areas is a major planning objective as this is considered the best way to protect the character and role of the centres.

The core area of Deptford Town Centre, as defined in the UDP, already has five betting shops – if this application was granted, the total would be six. Moreover, the non-core area of Deptford Town Centre contains a further two betting shops, and the Evelyn Triangle shopping area, which is classified as a local shopping parade and is within half a mile of the core area, contains an additional three betting shops.

Send your objection by email to planning@lewisham.gov.uk or by mail to the planning officer Russell Penn, at the Planning Department, Town Hall, Catford, London SE6 4RU. You can also comment online here.

As a footnote, it's worth remembering that Haringey Council recently won a case against Paddy Power on a similar basis - although they were applying for a change of use, rather than a variation. The case went to appeal and was dismissed by the inspector. Paddy Power's application for costs was also rejected.

And if you needed a further word of encouragement, Paddy Power's applications to make changes to the outside of the former Deptford Arms and to put up new signs have also been refused, both by the council's planning officers, and dismissed at appeal. The changes have already been made of course, so we await with interest to see what happens next.

Sustainability of Deptford High Street

Tomorrow night Lewisham's licensing committee will consider the application by Betfred for a licence to open a betting shop on Deptford High Street, in the premises of the former Halifax.

If granted, it will be the eighth betting shop on the High Street, five of which are clustered over the space of a few hundred metres.

There are three more betting shops on the Evelyn Triangle, making 11 in total within a few minutes' walk of our town centre. Many people believe we do not need this many bookies; that the ones we already have attract enough disorder and petty crime, and that diversity and sustainability are central to the survival of our high street as a viable shopping district.

Ten people took the time and trouble to write personal objections to the application, and almost 700 have signed a petition against it. But all this strength of feeling and community cohesion will potentially be disregarded.

Although companies such as Betfred and Paddy Power make obvious targets, being the most recent arrivals in our neighbourhood, demonising them is not the answer. We need to look more closely at the law and its implications to try and understand why betting shops are the ones with the upper hand in this situation, and to try and work out how best we could direct our efforts to have this situation reversed.

Unfortunately it seems that initial attempts by Green Party representatives over in Ladywell to have these concerns addressed through the Sustainable Communities Act have been rebuffed somewhat. Sue reports on how the government thinks that local authorities already have sufficient powers to prevent clustering of betting shops, and is going to help them to apply these powers. If that's really the case, then get a bloody move on, I say!

The other Sue over on Crosswhatfields has written about her attempts to find out why none of the statutory authorities seems to have objected to this licence application, given the extent of petty crime, anti-social behaviour and general disorder that swirls around the existing premises. Except it's not the right kind of disorder, she found out in a rather Kafka-esque telephone call with the local Met licensing officer.

The posts might be long, and they do get a bit sweary in the middle, but they are well worth reading to get some idea of the extent to which the law really is an ass. You will feel the pain and understand the reasons for the ranting, and will probably feel like doing the same yourself when you've read them.

Petition against proliferation of betting shops

The 2005 Gambling Act gives local authorities very limited powers to refuse Gambling Licenses and Planning Permission to large betting chains. When councils and local communities try to prevent new betting shops opening, companies appeal at great cost to the local authority – at a time when cuts to their funding make this impossible. The industry is prepared to bankrupt councils to get an even greater hold on our high streets.

Bookmakers are currently targeting the poorer areas in our cities and towns. In some cases there are as many as 12 or 13 in one street. In mad competition with each other, they bid for any freeholds available in the certain knowledge they will be granted licenses. Often they are clustered together and are the cause of antisocial behaviour and theft, making parts of a street a no-go area. They take advantage of people in desperate financial circumstances and are encouraging gambling addiction in those who can least afford it, threatening the futures of our communities' children.

We are calling on the government to change the Act and give local communities a greater say over their high streets. There should be a separate planning class for betting shops to give councils and residents the power to determine their location and overall numbers. Presently councils cannot deny an application on the basis of the number already open in their area.

This isn't anti-betting, it's about communities being able to have a say about their environments.

We, the undersigned, call on Parliament to amend the Gambling Act 2005, to give local authorities greater powers to refuse Gambling Licenses and Planning Permission to betting companies.

We demand a separate planning class for betting shops that gives councils and residents the power to determine their location and overall numbers.

Sign it here.

Betting shops update

Sue over on Crosswhatfields blog has posted an excellent analysis of the current situation with licensing of betting shops and the difficulties faced by councils in turning down such applications.

An older post on the same blog details how you can object to the application by Betfred to open another betting shop on the High Street.

Betfred application for Deptford High Street

Happy new year? It doesn't look like it; Crosswhatfields has news that Betfred has put in an application for a betting shop licence for the former Halifax premises on Deptford High Street.

This depressing news was almost inevitable - as a former bank there's no change in use involved so barely a tick in the box is required from the licensing committee in order to provide us with our tenth eleventh betting shop.(updated thanks anon in the comments who can clearly count better than me!)

Please read the two posts on Crosswhatfields and consider writing to the council to object. However I do feel that this issue needs a wider campaign; stronger powers for councils have been mooted but may come too late for Deptford. Suggestions welcome either in the comments box or email me at the address in the sidebar.

Paddy Power licence granted

Depressingly predictably the council's licensing committee this week granted a gaming licence for the John Evelyn pub for Paddy Power.

Despite the very vocal objections of local businesses and residents, as well as the blatant over-saturation of Deptford by such establishments, the council found no grounds on which to reject the application.

With the Halifax due to vacate its premises in the next couple of weeks, I shudder at the thought of the possibilities this raises.

South London Press picks up on John Evelyn story

The South London Press has got a good story on the closure of the John Evelyn pub in its latest edition.

It highlights the fact that the pub is owned by Admiral Taverns, although no-one from the company was available to comment when the story went to press.

Anyone who wishes to make Admiral Taverns aware of the impact their decision to hand the pub over to Paddy Power (presumably on a lease, although this is not clear from the story) will have on our local community can do so on the company's website here.

Unfortunately it seems the company has been in trouble for some time, and last year was partly taken over by Lloyds Bank.

Deptford Arms planning issues rumble on

With Deptford at risk of losing another community pub to the gambling industry, it is interesting to hear that planning issues relating to the conversion of the Deptford Arms by Paddy Power have still not been resolved. My previous post (and the additional comments) explain some of the background to the various planning applications that have been submitted and refused.

The current situation is that the revised planning application - which was refused by the council - has now also gone to appeal and is awaiting a decision. Naturally Paddy Power didn't wait to get permission before making the changes - presumably they are confident of winning the appeal, or have some compromise in mind to appease the planners if necessary.

The main intention of the council's planners in refusing the application is that since the building is in a conservation area, any changes to it should be in keeping with its original use - in plain terms, it should still look like a pub so that the original character and frontages of the street can be preserved even if there is a change in use. Paddy Powers' appeal focusses on its claim that these changes are vital to preserving the building. Next time you are passing the building, I invite you to glance up at the crumbling plaster above the windows and the tree growing out of the wall of the upper storey, and make up your own mind about these claims.

To view the documents go to this page and use the case reference 2135043 to search the site, then follow the links. I tried to put in a direct link but it seems they've changed the site address and it's no longer possible to do so.

The John Evelyn pub: another Paddy Power?

Reader Chris has alerted me to the depressing news that Paddy Power is attempting to open another betting shop in Deptford - in one of our last-remaining community pubs. 

According to Chris, the pub closed its doors a couple of weeks ago, with the notice in the window shown below:
 

But only a few days later a notice of application for a gambling licence appeared in the window - on behalf of none other than friend-of-the-neighbourhood Paddy Power.

Chris is understandably already upset about the closure of the pub, but says that local shopkeepers and businesses are also worried about the knock-on effect the loss of business from the pub customers and the opening of a THIRD betting shop in this small area will have.

"We (local residents and the shopkeepers on the Evelyn Triangle) have written a petition letter and our deadline to get as many in to the council is, I believe 9th October."

Residents wanting to voice their concerns about this application should either visit the Post Office in the Evelyn triangle and hand in their letter to Jay, or send it direct to the council by 9th October at the latest.

A suggested text has been helpfully supplied by Chris:

London Borough of Lewisham
Planning Department
Town Hall
Catford
London SE6 4RU

Sender's Name & Address





ON BEHALF OF THE EVELYN TRIANGLE TRADERS AND TRADER’S ASSOCIATION
AND THE LOCAL COMMUNITY


Dear Sir

I the undersigned am concerned about the change of business application and gaming licence application by Paddy Power Enterprises regarding the premises known as the John Evelyn Pub at 299 Evelyn Street Deptford SE8 and we are appealing to Lewisham Council to turn down this application.

There are already 2 betting shops in the Triangle and another 7 within a ten minute walk. 

We feel that the removal of the public house and the facilities it provided as a large community hub, which included not only a meeting place for funerals, weddings, anniversaries etc, but was used by a wide range of the local community as a place to unwind and catch up on local news and gossip.  It provided a safe haven to many of our local senior citizens who would congregate there daily where they could communicate and also be provided with a nourishing meal.  Unfortunately many of our older neighbours will now no longer have a place to socialise should the premises be granted a licence and be turned into a betting shop. 

Another big concern is that in an area with a large amount of the population being in the low to middle income group, that they will be tempted to improve their situation by gambling monies that they can ill afford, made all the more tempting with yet another gambling opportunity opening up within a stone’s throw of the other two. There is further concern about the temptation to minors of having more options to gamble.

The John Evelyn is also the main local vantage point for the annual London Marathon and over the years has raised many thousands of pounds for charity.  It was also used as the main hub by the local Fire Brigade for their annual charity bus pull. 

The loss of revenue to the local traders is already noticeable and if this downward trend was to continue it could result in other businesses having to close further eroding the very strong sense of community that has been built up around the Triangle over the years.

Yours faithfully


(your signature)

Concerned readers should also lobby our three local Labour councillors to raise these issues with the licensing committee.

You can do so by emailing Sam, Crada and Joseph direct via this page on the Lewisham Council website, or raising it with them at their regular surgeries. According to the web page, they will be holding a surgery this Saturday between 11-12am in the Albany - so if you are intending to visit the town centre consultation it might be a good opportunity to raise this issue at the same time.

Incidentally, if you want to know what 'benefits' the gambling industry as a whole suggests it can bring to the area, you might want to read this rather glib commentary piece on Sportsbook Reviews. Or you might not; be warned it is likely to raise your blood pressure.

Deptford Arms/Paddy Power

When the Geezer came home last night with a tip-off that the Deptford Arms pub was slated to become a betting shop, I initially thought he was trying an early April fool joke on me.

However after a bit of digging I was shocked to discover that it was true. Earlier this month Lewisham's licensing committee granted bookmaker Paddy Power a licence to operate a betting shop at 52 Deptford High Street, otherwise known as the Deptford Arms.

In case you are not familiar with the High Street betting shops, let me give you a quick tour:










FOUR out of the High Street's SIX existing betting shops are clustered in the south end, within a couple of hundred yards of each other and all on the same side of the street. In the middle of this little cluster is the Deptford Arms, one of the High Street's remaining pubs and not a bad little boozer. Just the spot for a new branch of Paddy Power, our council licensing committee seems to think.

But to be fair to the council, they do face ongoing difficulties in controlling the number of betting shops that can open in any particular area. They are not allowed to turn down a licence application simply because there are already several similar businesses nearby - in the same way that they couldn't stop another greengrocer or butcher shop from opening. The passing of the Gambling Act in 2005, which moved the responsibility for licensing from the courts to the local councils, also restricted the grounds on which applications could be rejected.

It was not long before councils were becoming concerned about a proliferation of betting shops, many of them in very deprived areas. In fact Lewisham Council was the lead authority on a proposal that has been shortlisted by the Local Government Association and submitted to central government as a suggested addition/amendment to the Sustainable Communities Act.

This proposes that councils should have the power to cap the number of bookmakers in a certain area, and also gives them the power to turn down applications on the basis of over-saturation.

The same problems have frequently been highlighted by Green councillor Sue Luxton in her ward in Ladywell.

Meanwhile Paddy Power has also had to apply for planning permission for "The installation of new shopfronts and a roller shutter to the front and side of Deptford Arms, 52 Deptford High Street SE8, together with alterations to the elevations and the installation of air conditioning units and satellite dishes to the rear" as well as "The display of internally illuminated fascia and projecting signs to the front and side elevations of Deptford Arms, 52 Deptford High Street SE8".

I understand that although no final decision has been published yet, the council planning inspector has decided to reject Paddy Power's application to put lurid green facades all over the building. Although the building itself is not listed individually, it does come within the section of the High Street that is listed. I don't know the reasons that will be given for the application to be rejected; unfortunately I suspect this won't be the last we hear of it.

At this stage I would like to pose a couple of questions of my own; if anyone can answer them feel free to do so in the comments or email me if you are too shy.

- why were no objections to the application received from the local councillors in New Cross ward? (according to the News Shopper one of the ward's councillors seems to be shirking other duties too). Their objections might not have made any difference but surely they should be taking an interest?

- why is the pub closing? I don't believe the building has been sold and it seems to do relatively good business, so why the change? For the last couple of years the management seems to have made a big effort to improve the place, and as well as championing live music, introduced an art gallery in the basement and hosted plays/poetry/literary events. If the Deptford Arms goes, the High Street will be left with just one solitary pub - yes, the White Swan! (Be afraid, be very afraid!)