The government needs to carefully consider its plans for the very largest casinos, argues John Greenway MP

As debate on the government’s proposed gambling reforms has gathered pace, there has been growing concern from within the gambling industry as well as parliament that the planned relaxation of casino licensing could lead to the proliferation of new casinos dominated by high prize slot machines with a consequent increase in problem gambling.

At the same time a number of local authorities have recognised the potential of major casino developments incorporating hotels, restaurants, shops and leisure facilities to regenerate run down seaside resorts such as Blackpool or to compliment the redevelopment of city areas.

The pre-legislative scrutiny process has made a major contribution towards balancing these apparently conflicting outcomes. We have now seen the government’s response to the report we published in July and it is possible to begin forming an overall picture of what the casino industry may look like post deregulation.

There are currently around 125 casinos in Britain, about one third of which are in central London. The rest are located in permitted areas, mostly cities or seaside towns as prescribed in legislation. The new legislation will abolish both the member’s club and permitted area requirements, and new casinos will also have the opportunity to offer many more slot machines.

Following publication of the joint scrutiny committee’s first report in April, ministers now accept that there will be three categories of new casino - small, large and regional - with each category differentiated by size and a mix of tables and slot machines.

The focus of attention for the committee’s second report was regional casinos, a term meant to signify that such casinos will by their size and scale be regionally significant.
It’s intended that they will require the support of regional planning bodies and regional development agencies. It is expected that these regional casinos will be entertainment complexes which offer gambling alongside a range of the leisure facilities such as theatres, health and fitness clubs and swimming pools as well as restaurants and bars.

The committee concluded that this concept was not adequately captured by the current classification and suggested that the term “leisure destination casino” would more accurately convey the nature of such developments.

We also felt that the size requirements the government had in mind of 5,000 sq. metres should be increased to 7,500 sq. metres. The increased space would be dedicated to a non-gambling area of at least 4,000 sq. metres to ensure that such developments included substantial leisure and entertainment facilities. None of the potential developers of such facilities who gave evidence to the committee thought the increased size would be a problem for what they had in mind.

More importantly, the committee took the view that the extra investment required to create such large facilities would be likely to limit the number of leisure destination or regional casinos to somewhere around 20 to 25.

The government intends that unlike the rest of the casino industry these regional casinos should be able to offer American-style slot machines with unlimited stakes and prizes, described in the legislation as Category A machines. While we expressed some surprise that the existing casino industry would now be denied the opportunity of such machines, even in small numbers, we nevertheless welcomed the government’s acceptance of our earlier recommendation for a maximum number of slot machines of 1,250 in a single location.

These physical limits are likely to be enshrined in the legislative framework with broad definitions on the face of the bill and more specific details in regulations or statutory instruments.

Although local authorities will be responsible for issuing premises licences and for securing regeneration benefits the committee felt there was a serious lack of policy coherence on the issue of planning guidance and a lack of clarity as to how the potential for regeneration benefits could be maximised.

Regional casinos are meant to conform to regional spatial strategies which outside London do not yet exist, and may not do so for some time. On the other hand, many local authorities are already in advanced negotiations with casino operators on a number of major casino developments, each of which could only be licensed as regional casinos.

In a number of cases the location already has the appropriate D2 planning use categorisation or outline planning consent within the local plan to redevelop run down areas. The potential for conflict between local authorities and regional planning bodies is all too obvious.

The committee also felt that the potential for conversion of existing D2 use premises would undermine the ability of a local authority to secure major planning gains and regeneration benefits from regional casino developments. The committee felt that while there may be a case for a single class use for all casinos, the arguments in favour of a stand alone approach for regional casinos were even more compelling. This would prevent new casino development through the back door and strengthen the hand of the local authority as well as the regional bodies in securing regeneration benefits and ensuring these really large casino based leisure complexes conformed to regional planning strategies.

There is a critical need for some joined-up government and for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Local Government Association and regional bodies get together with the casino industry to reach a workable solution.

There are similar problems with planning guidance. The committee expressed grave concern that the requirements for town centre location and mixed use developments, including residential use, were not entirely appropriate for very large casinos. Such evidence as exists in problem gambling among casino players suggests that ease of access should be avoided and that problem gambling is less likely if players need to make a special journey to a casino destination.

The committee felt strongly that the DCMS policy objective of protecting the vulnerable should take precedence and planning guidance should be more flexible to void casino development in unsuitable locations.

It will be vital for ministers to be able to demonstrate that concerns about proliferation and the need to secure real regeneration gains for local communities where casinos are to be sited have been properly addressed. Provided these outstanding issues relating to regional casinos can be satisfactorily concluded there is no reason for anyone to stand in the way of the bill’s progress.

John Greenway is Conservative MP for Ryedale and chairman of the joint committee on the draft Gambling Bill.

Click here for more articles in this series.