Afternoon:
10°c
They're the new face of London's neighbourhood high streets: the garish plastic window sheets that stop people looking inside bookmakers.
I see it in Tottenham. But in just over five years, London has gained 350 new gambling establishments, from bookmakers to adult gaming centres and bingo halls. Hackney alone boasts 69 such premises — even its old town hall is now a Coral — and Islington 82, out of more than 2,000 in the capital as a whole.
The pattern is clear: the gambling industry is targeting deprived areas, saturating them with more outlets. Mare Street, in Hackney, now has eight such establishments; Green Lanes Parade, in Haringey, had its ninth application approved last Thursday — all within 350 metres of each other.
Now residents are saying enough is enough. The concentration of so much gambling in one area can change the character of a neighbourhood and send all the wrong messages to young people.
In Haringey alone, in the past two years, there have been almost 750 public-order offences related to gambling premises — more than one a day. It cannot be right, either, that police time is wasted on such avoidable, petty crime.
Worse, this is a barely concealed attempt by the industry to profit from poverty. How else can you explain why Newham has more than three times as many gambling establishments as Richmond? Just as credit card companies lend money to the poor at extortionate rates of interest, the predatory approach of the gambling industry is more than a little cynical.
Gambling establishments can move into buildings once occupied by banks and estate agents without the need for any planning permission: they can request a gaming licence that councils are directed to “aim to permit”. So in the downturn, when Londoners most need financial advice, they instead find a virtual roulette wheel.
Government officials have now acknowledged the problem and are encouraging councils to make better use of current legislation. But it is clear to me that the law needs to be tightened to address the failings of the 2005 Gambling Act.
As the Bill went through Parliament, attention was focused on super-casinos and internet gambling. What no one spotted were the loopholes making it easier for betting shops to saturate high streets and town centres.
The response of the industry will be that this is all about personal choice. But I don't want to ban betting or betting shops. We all enjoy a flutter on the Grand National or a bet on football. What is in question is whether communities can take ownership of their own high streets. People should be able to make collective choices about how their areas look and feel.
So first, gambling establishments should no longer be allowed to apply for space under the same pretences as any other financial service. Secondly, local authorities must be able to control the number and influence their location. Councils can already decide that there are too many bars and pubs in a particular area: why shouldn't the same be true of betting shops?
As we come out of the recession, we have to ensure that London's local high streets are economically vibrant and as diverse. Nobody really wants the faceless, soulless, mini-Las Vegas that the current law allows for — and we should reject it.
David Lammy is MP for Tottenham.
Reader views (4)
David Lammy's diagnosis of the problem is correct, but he has not been forthcoming about its cause.
The defects in the Gambling Act 2005 are not a loophole which appeared by accident, but are so clear that they must have been the result of deliberate policy.
Section 153 (read with Section 24) requires licensing authorities (whether they want to or not) to permit the use of premises for gambling unless they think it would endanger vulnerable persons or promote crime and disorder.
Section 153 also says, "In determining whether to grant a premises licence a licensing authority may not have regard to the expected demand for the facilities which it is proposed to provide."
Guidance from the Gambling Commission is similarly cavalier. Paragraph 5.16 says, "Local authorities should note that in the case of gambling premises licences, disorder is intended to mean activity that is more serious and disruptive than mere nuisance."
When the Act was implemented in 2006 David Lammy was a minister in the relevant department, yet he did not stop its implementation. In February 2009 he said at a public meeting that he would press for a change in the law, yet nothing has happened since and the number of premises has continued to grow.
The government could have amended to Section 153 to add "but a licensing authority may take into account any overprovision of such facilities which it may consider to exist" but it hasn't yet done so.
- David Schmitz, Lib Dem Prospective Parliamentary Candidate For Tottenham, London, 26/02/2010 15:36
Report abuse
You are correct Mark, David Lammy was before the Injustice Minister.
In my experience from dealing with 4 London based constituency Member's of Parliament only one was of value. The other 3 would have been shown the door if I was their employer.
- Dennis Blandford, London, 26/02/2010 06:47
Report abuse
I expect the gambling places are there because the local and diverse residents use them. And they do offer a very diverse range of ‘designs’. They are no worse than much of what has been inflicted on the streetscape: off road parking schemes, dirty looking restaurants, take away joints (with the added smell they bring), globalised brands, and bossy signs on the pavement, the road and on spikes along the roads. Generally, people have made no comment on the planning applications that were made regarding these, and even if they did, they are usually overruled. In any case, are the general man and woman in the street or even the local councillor or the developer qualified to understand what the result will be visually? Looking at what has been done in so many places, to private and public spaces, I doubt it very much. What we want are local high streets that reflect the sense of place and heritage of an area and defer in their architecture and landscaping to that.
- Helen, norwich, 25/02/2010 15:01
Report abuse
I reader this with interest. Wasn't Mr Lammy one of the minsters in charge of the department responsible for introducing the 2005 Gambling Act? Wasn't he one of those that rushed it through? He is now crying foul, complaining that the situation is unacceptable. He should have spent more time studying this bill and its implications. He is now trying to make an issue out of it just before an election. Shows the quality of this MP.
- Mark, London, 25/02/2010 14:30
Report abuse
