Chair of Licensing and Regulatory Committee
Minutes:
Councillor Guthrie introduced the report and informed Council that in 2018, a Councillor requested that full Council consider a “No Casino” resolution”.
Full Council requested that Licensing and Regulatory Committee provide a full evidence base for full Council to be able to make a full deliberation on.
Licensing and Regulatory Committee met on 16th August 2021 and recommended that full Council determine whether to adopt a “No Casino” resolution” based on the evidence that was captured in the report.
Councillor Guthrie said that if the Council resolved not to adopt a “No Casino” resolution” this matter would not be debated again unless the allocation of casinos under the Gambling Act was increased by the Secretary of State.
The key evidence within the report in as far as the full allocation of casinos for the country was that the allocation had already been fully utilised under the Act, of 8 small casino’s 8 large Casino’s and 1 regional Casino.
No provision was available for a licence to be granted anywhere in England. Furthermore, as the full allocation under the Act had been granted it would need a suitable economic climate and the political will of the Government for the Secretary of State to lay legislation for a further allocation of casinos. A further allocation was highly unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future as the current Government was tightening restrictions to gambling.
The original concern regarding casinos stemmed form a planning application for Snoasis which included plans to have a casino on site. This application has now been withdrawn and the new proposed development in this area, Valley Ridge has removed all references to the provision of a casino.
Councillor Guthrie added that Mid Suffolk District Council had not received any applications for a casino from when the Gambling Act 2005 had come into force until present day. Research had also shown that none of the surrounding district and borough councils that border with Mid Suffolk have adopted a “No Casino Resolution.
Councillor Guthrie informed Council that Mid Suffolk only had two betting shops and all other gambling activities were either EWP machines in amusements with prizes in licensed premises or other small lottery registrations.
Councillor Guthrie then MOVED the recommendations in the report which Councillor Muller SECONDED.
Councillor Mansel sought clarification on the recommendations in the report.
Councillor Eburne asked whether the Licensing and Regulatory Committee had a view on this, what the benefits were of a “No Casino” approach and whether there were any applications in the pipeline?
In response, Councillor Guthrie said that the “No Casino” resolution was a full Council decision, and as there were no allocation left for casinos there was little benefit to the Council. She was not aware of any applications in the pipeline.
Councillor Stringer sought clarification on the risk management element in the report.
Councillor Amorowson felt that despite there being conflicting evidence regarding casinos in the report, it had been proven that gambling places a greater burden on social services and felt that the Council should adopt a “No Casino” resolution.
In response, Councillor Guthrie said that it was very unlikely that there would be any further licences issued and if the Council were to pass a “No Casino” resolution it would be an unnecessary cost to the Council. If the Council were ever to decide to increase the number of licences it could be brought back to the Council at that appropriate point.
Councillor Humphreys stated that there were four hundred and thirty thousand people in poor debt and the detrimental effect this was having to their health and wellbeing. He was totally against gambling and felt that the Council should act and do whatever it could to protect its residents from the dangers of gambling.
Councillor Eburne endorsed what Councillor Humphreys had said, that the Council should be sending out a strong message and that she supported the “No Casino” resolution.
Councillor Whitehead said that he was more concerned about people buying lottery tickets and scratch cards and felt that by bringing in a “No casino” resolution could be the start of a slippery slope to restricting freedom of choice.
Councillor Fleming said that if the Council adopted a “No Casino” resolution it would not provide any more protection from gambling in the district and instead would incur additional costs and the need to bring the resolution back to Council every three years for them to ratify.
Councillor Morley said that she found gambling abhorrent, however there was no mechanism for a casino in this district, the original request was brought about by the Snoasis development which was not now going forward. There was therefore no need for this resolution. By having a resolution, it would mean that it would need to come back to Council every three years at a cost to the Council and would not achieve anything.
Councillor Stringer cautioned against saying never and said that although the threat was not imminent it could happen and although there was a cost to the Council it was an investment to stop developers going down this route and he would be supporting the “No Casino” resolution.
Councillor Richardson agreed with Councillor Morley that gambling was abhorrent but said that if the Council did not agree to a “No Casino” resolution it would not need to be debated again unless the Secretary of State increased the number of licences. He felt that a “No Casino” resolution would have no meaningful impact in deterring gambling.
Councillor Caston said that he did not believe in a blanket decision for the whole of the district and would want to see the detail behind any application coming forward.
Councillor Stringer sought a point of clarification on how soon the recommendation could return to Council.
In response, the Monitoring Officer confirmed that the six- month rule would apply however there was provision in the Constitution if a third or more of the Council wanted to bring the decision back before then.
Councillor Welham said that casinos were glitzy places that made gambling look fun and therefore the Council should make a stand by having a “No Casino” resolution.
Councillor Warboys gave examples of the devastating effects of gambling and that although the government were strictly limiting licences at this point in time, he felt that it was important that the Council sent out a strong message.
It was RESOLVED: -
That a ‘No Casino’ Resolution be adopted.
Supporting documents: