Agenda item

Grant of a Gambling Premises Licence - Merkur Slots, 235 Albert Road, Plymouth PL2 1AH

The Director of Public Health will submit a report in relation to the grant of a gambling premises licence – Merkur Slots, 235 Albert Road, Plymouth, PL2 1AH.

Minutes:

The Committee –

 

(a)

considered the report from the Director of Public Health;

 

 

(b)

noted that there had been no representations made by Devon and Cornwall Police, or any other Responsible Authorities;

 

 

(c)

considered the in-depth written representations and policy document provide by the applicant and heard summary representations from the applicant and their Solicitor as follows -

 

 

 

?

Ladbrokes previously operated the premises and the intention was to replace the betting shop business with a bingo premises licence; the company operated 90 similar businesses across the country and one in Plymouth;

 

 

 

 

?

there had been a betting shop operation at the location for 20 years;

 

 

 

 

?

bingo was a softer form of gambling and the customer profile was different to that of a betting shop;

 

 

 

 

?

customer congregation outside of this type of business was lower and it was policy to ensure that this was actively managed; the company had 163 licensed premises across the country with no problems in other venues;

 

 

 

 

?

bingo had to be provided on the site as a condition of the licence, so would not become a slot machine only business;

 

 

 

 

?

there was no net increase in the number of gambling premises in the area;

 

 

 

 

?

consultation with the Police team took place as part of the application and the Police were not aware of any problems with the premises; no objections had been received by Police, Environmental Health or Child Protection;

 

 

 

 

?

the Gambling Act was a permissive regime and the applicant was aware that all promotions must be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives; the policy documents provided showed that the company’s controls go beyond what was required to satisfy the licensing objectives;

 

 

 

 

?

the premises would be operating as an adult only venue no under 18’s allowed; operate Challenge 25 property with procedures, training, records that accompany that policy;

 

 

 

 

?

the company had a social responsibility policy dealing with customer behaviour, social responsibility; large volume of resources provided towards compliance in the form of an audit team which reviewed all venue to maintain standards; this regular assessment would identify any potential incidents which would be reported to senior management for action;

 

 

 

 

?

the representation from the resident was one of nuisance, this was not a licensing objective under the Gambling Act, however the applicant would manage the impact upon the local community and promote all reasonable steps to keep impact to a minimum, although it was rare for problems outside the premises in the applicant’s experience;

 

 

 

 

?

the applicant confirmed that marketing and advertising agreed with the Gambling Commission codes of policy with regard to venues; window displays reduced the line of sight from the street to the gambling and barriers within the premises comply with the Council’s own policy;

 

 

 

 

?

there was a safe play app that customers could use to monitor their own behaviour and self-regulate; the applicant’s staff undertook comprehensive training with a key focus on customer interactions and player harm; where customers have requested exclusion, this was monitored so that the customer can be informed of any breach; this information was shared with the team of auditors and if venues were not complying, suitable training would be undertaken; the company also offered gamble aware and detailed of gamble support agencies; records were kept where customers had been given this advice and if customers returned, they were interviewed to ask if they had taken advice;

(d)

considered the written representations from interested parties as follows -

 

INTERESTED PARTY

LICENSING AUTHORITY’S RESPONSE

1.    Lives directly above the premises.  Shop front was previously a Ladbrokes betting shop constant hub of people outside the premises smoking which prevented interested party from having any windows open due to smell.

 

2.    Cars parked outside on pavement and noise from people leaving and entering until the late evening was disturbing.  As a premises that has slot machines, fear is that the same pattern will occur.

 

3.    There is already a slot machine shop within a mile of this proposed business.  ~We live in what is supposed to be a regeneration area, cleaning up this area should be a priority.  It will not as far as the interested party can see benefit the local area/economy in any way.

 

 

Point 1 and 2

 

These were representations about nuisance, which were not a licensing objective under the Gambling Act.

However, the Committee was satisfied with the response given by the applicant that in their experience of their other premises customer congregation outside of this type of business was lower than the previous establishment and it was the applicant’s policy to ensure that this was something that was actively managed to adapt to local conditions.

 

Point 3

The number of gambling premises (or demand for such) in an area was not something that the Committee can consider under the Gambling Act.

However, as outlined above the Committee was satisfied that the premises would be able to adapt to local conditions and operate closely with the Police to be able to address any issues that may arise.

INTERESTED PARTY

 

Concerned that this application is not really for a Bingo club but rather a Slot Machine Arcade.  The applicant’s website clearly shows this is the main focus of their business.  Many of their arcades operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week.  Evidence of this can found on their website.

 

Bingo premises have by their nature to be large properties to accommodate seating for bingo and facilities for eating and drinking together with a limited area for slot machines.  The application premises are small with an internal area of around 88 square metres

This is an Amusement Arcade being disguised as a bingo premises to make it appear more acceptable.

 

This was not a relevant representation.  The applicant had applied for a Bingo premises licence.

 

The Committee was satisfied that the premises would be operated to the required compliance requirements for a Bingo Premises.

 

The Committee was also satisfied with the applicant’s explanation as to how the bingo gaming would be operated in this size of premises

The premises do not have planning permission for the proposed use.

 

This was not a relevant consideration for the Committee.

The UTC colleague is situated extremely close to the application site.  Whilst the proposed slot machines are not permitted to be used by children it would be a temptation for youngsters walking past daily going to and from school.

 

The applicant had satisfied the Committee that they would operate these premises as adult only with no under 18’s allowed and that they have Challenge 25 procedures/ and reporting policies in place to control.

Established policies indicate Amusement Centres should not be permitted close to premises frequently used by young people.  Protecting young people are grounds for refusing the application.  This is an area of great concern to the Gambling Commission.

 

This was not a relevant representation as this was not an application for an Amusement Centre.

We operate an Adult Gaming Centre some 500 metres to the East of the application site.  This has been in our ownership for 35 years and is an established part of the local community.  There is another locally owned Adult Gaming Centre some 500 metres to the West of the application site

Slot machine gaming is therefore already well catered for in this area.

 

This was not a relevant representation under the Gambling Act.  The Committee cannot consider demand or location of other premises in the area.

The surrounding area is largely consisted of social housing with low income and a high unemployment level.  As a local operator we are used to working in this environment and voluntarily restrict hours and the numbers of high roller £500 jackpot machines.

The Committee cannot consider demand or location of other gambling premises when considering this application.  However, the Committee was satisfied that the applicant had complied with the Gambling Act Code of Conduct and Guidance in the production of their operating procedures and the controls they outlined to promote responsible gambling.

 

This National operator would merely seek to extract maximum income from the local community and run.

 

This was not a relevant representation.

The proposed premises are adjacent to the main entrance to Latitude 52.  This comprises of a high-rise block of 101 apartments.  In addition surrounding housing in Albert Road is of medium to high rise apartment blocks

Any evening/night use of this property will give rise to noise and disturbance for residents above in Latitude 52 and other residents in nearby blocks.

These were representations about nuisance, which were not a licensing objective under the Gambling Act.

However, the Committee was satisfied with the response given by the applicant that in their experience of their other premises customer congregation outside of this type of business was lower than the previous establishment and it was the applicant’s policy to ensure that this was something that was actively managed to adapt to local conditions.

 

There is at present no night time economy in the immediate area, simply high density housing provision

This was not a relevant representation under the Gambling Act.  The Committee cannot consider demand or location of other premises in the area.

 

 

In considering all of the above, the Committee considered that the applicant had demonstrated that the premises would be operated –

 

?

in accordance with the Gambling Commission Guidance under s.24 of the Gambling Act;

 

 

?

in accordance with the Gambling Commission Guidance under s.25 of the Gambling Act;

 

 

?

would be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives;

 

 

?

in accordance with the Council’s own statement of licensing policy.

 

The Committee therefore agreed to grant the application.

 

Supporting documents: