Agenda item

App No	Ward / Cumulative Impact Area	Site Name and Address	Application	Licensing Reference Number
2.	Lancaster Gate Ward / Bayswater Cumulative Impact Area	74 Queensway, London, W2 3RL	New gambling premises licence	20/03575/LIGN

 

LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE No. 5

Thursday 11 June 2020

 

Membership:              Councillor Murad Gassanly (Chairman), Councillor Jim Glen and Councillor Maggie Carman

 

Legal Adviser:             Horatio Chance

Committee Officer:      Georgina Wills

Policy Officer:              Aaron Hardy

Presenting Officer:      Jessica Donovan

 

74 Queensway London W2 3RL

 

Application for a New Gambling Premises Licence [20/03575/LIGN]

 

 

Relevant Representations:         Environmental Health, Metropolitan Police, The Licensing Authority, Cllr Margot Bright, South East Bayswater Residents' Association (SEBRA), Queensway Resident Association, Bayswater Resident Association, and six Local Residents

 

Present:          Andrew Woods (Solicitor, representing the Applicant, ), Gavin               Tresidder (the Applicant,  Future Leisure Limited–), Richard                              Brown CAB (representing South East Bayswater Residents'                                     Association, SEBRA), PC Bryan Lewis, (Metropolitan Police),               Karyn Abbott (Licensing Authority), John Zamit (Local Resident),                      David Parton (Local Resident), Rhys Hart (Local Resident),                               Andrew Smith (Local Resident) and Roger Harding (Local                         Resident) and Steven Kalogroulis (Local Resident),

 

This is an application by Future Leisure Limited seeking a new Gambling Premises Licence under the Gambling Act 2005 (“The Act”) for the purposes of Adult Gaming Machines (“AGM”) for available use at 74 Queensway, London W2 3RLIt. The Premises is situated within the Lancaster Gate Ward and is within the Bayswater Cumulative Impact Area.

 

DECISION

 

The application was refused

 

 

SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS

 

The Sub-Committee had before it an application for the purposes of Adult Gaming Machines (“AGM”) for available use on the Premises. The Applicant sought to provide between 30 to 35 machines (ranging from B category machines limited to 20% and categories C and D machines) inside the Premises at any one time and for the operational hours to be 24 hours. The Premises had previously held a licence for a betting shop under the Act which was surrendered in October 2019.

 

Mr Andrew Woods, the Applicant’s Legal Representative, advised that Mr Gavin Tresidder, Applicant, had over some 25 years’ experience of operating betting shops and gambling premises. Mr Tresidder was reported to have operated seven similar premises. The Sub-Committee was advised that the Applicant had submitted a lengthy report which included a local area risk assessment, training manual, staff procedures and also a list of additional Conditions which would be adopted should the Sub-Committee be minded to grant the application. These included the employment of a SIA Security Guard, CCTV and customer intervention procedures. He commented that the Applicant had provided an ‘impressive array’ of policies and procedures and the Application complied with the requirements of the Act. The Sub-Committee was advised that there would be two members of staff on the shop floor

 

The Sub-Committee was advised that there were several gambling centres in the vicinity and that the Premises would be one of the smallest gambling providers in the Borough. Mr Woods advised that the Premises was located 250 meters away from the nearest school and place of worship. There was reported to be one Casino and betting Shop in the locality. He advised that the Premises was previously operated by William Hill PLC during the period 2007 – 2019 and the Company had surrendered their licence. The Applicant has taken the lease of this Premises. Mr Woods highlighted that the Applicant had submitted the proposed layout plan of the Premises. The Sub-Committee was reminded that the Gambling Acts differed from the Licensing Acts and that Section153 of the Gambling Act 2005 should only be considered. Mr Woods commented that the Act stipulated that issues such as management control and training programmes should be taken into consideration. Mr Woods further commented that concerns regarding ethics and morality were irrelevant in the Sub-Committee’s determination of the matter.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Woods advised that the Training Programme for staff members will include ‘indicative behaviour’ and that employees would be trained to observe certain behaviour such as ‘anger’ and patron’s composure whilst entering the Premises. He advised that concerned behavioural traits would be listed in the Staff’s training manual and actions which need to be undertaken during scenarios. This included staff members talking to patrons who demonstrated these characteristics and removing individuals away from machines. Mr Woods commented that there would be difficulties in identifying patrons who were vulnerable and did not demonstrate any ‘indicative behaviour’. He advised that employees interact with patrons and would become familiar with their ‘habits’ and would intervene when concerns arise. The Sub-Committee was advised that all employees would have undergone training before the Premises is opened. 

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises was located in a thoroughfare to student accommodations and raised concerns in relation to vulnerable persons such as students and young persons. In response to questions, Mr Woods advised that signage would be displayed on the Premises which advised that patrons must be over 18 to enter the Premises. The Applicant will also implement a 25 Challenge, install CCTV and have a SIA trained staff member based in the Premises. The Sub-Committee also noted that the Premises was situated in a Community Protection zone and was in an area which was a ‘hot spot’ for crime and Anti-Social Behaviour and questioned what specific Conditions proposed by the Applicant would address these issues. Mr Woods advised that the Applicant had took into consideration areas considered as ‘hot spots’ and viewed their statistics. He commented that research had been undertaken about the locality and this information had been fed into the Report and Risk Assessment. He advised that the Metropolitan Police would be liaised with regarding any such concerns about the locality if the Application was granted.

 

Mr Woods provided an outline of daily activities which will be carried out by staff and this included regular patrols of the Premises and implementing Challenge 25. He advised that staff will be frequently interacting with patrons and it was estimated that a maximum of 10 customers would be present at the Premises at any one time. Mr Woods advised that the Premises would operate a ‘spending level’ and that patrons would be encouraged to ‘self-exclude’ and would be prevented by staff to continue activities if individuals refuse to comply.

 

The Sub-Committee raised question regarding the Risk Assessment carried out by the Applicant and enquired whether any research had been carried out specifically on the locality in conjunction with statistical information that was submitted by the Applicant. The Sub-Committee was advised that the Applicant had held interest in establishing a Premises in the locality for several years and had made regular visits to the area. Mr Woods advised that further local work would be undertaken if the Application was granted. In response to questions, Mr Woods advised that the Premises operational hours was to be determined and that the Applicant’s other establishment hours of operation varied.

 

PC Bryan Lewis, Borough Wide Metropolitan Police advised that their representation had been maintained and this was on the grounds of the Applicant failing to fully agree to the Conditions recommended by the Police and the late submission of the Local Area Risk Assessment that had been submitted by the Applicant. It was confirmed that these documents have been forwarded to relevant local Met Police Officers. PC Lewis advised that the he had met with local Met Police Officers, Ward Met Police Officers, Safer Neighbourhood, Sergeant and Dedicated Met Police Officers. He confirmed that there was a number of anti-social behaviour in the locality and that a Community Protection Zone had been implemented for the area. PC Lewis advised that local Met Police Officers had raised concerns about premises located at Inverness Terrace and commented that the vicinity had several low budget hotels and hostels. It was stated that the premises were reported to attract vulnerable persons.

 

PC Lewis advised that the Risk Assessment and control measures issued by the Applicant was welcomed and the Metropolitan Police would work in conjunction with the Premises if the Application was granted. The Sub-Committee were advised that the Metropolitan Police had recommended that a Door Supervisor operate the doors of the Premises from 12:00 hours onwards and that this recommendation had been refused. The Applicant had advised that a Door Supervisor would be present from 18:00 hours onwards. PC Lewis in response to questions from the Sub-Committee advised that additional Door Supervisors operating together would provide further reassurance.

 

Karyn Abbot, Licensing Authority Officer, advised that their representation had been maintained as the Premises was located in a sensitive area and was in close proximity and on a main route to a school, hostel and in a sensitive location which had potential for exposing children, young people or other vulnerable persons. Ms Abbot advised that there were two ‘fast food’ outlets near to the Premises as well as a Public House and a casino. A school is located 320 meters from the Premises.  She advised that the Application had a potential to impact the three Licensing Objectives; namely  the prevention of gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime; ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way; and protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

 

Ms Abbot noted that the Applicant had proposed a minimum of two members of staff to be present at the Premises and a SIA Door Supervisor and had agreed several Conditions with the Police.  The Applicant was also reported to have submitted plans which indicated where the CCTV were to be installed and the gamming machines. The Sub-Committee noted the further documentation submitted which detailed how the Premises operations would comply with the Licensing Objectives. These submissions have been welcomed. Ms Abbot confirmed that the Applicant had been granted Licences for other Premises. Ms Abbot advised that vulnerable persons were classified as individuals who gambled more than they personally desired, individual who gamble beyond their financial means and individuals who are unable to make informed choices due to impairments. The Applicant was reported to have been requested to share information on what they would classify as a vulnerable person and was found to have the same classifications as the Council for this cohort.

 

Ms Abbot confirmed that the Applicant had provided a staff training manual, self-exclusions forms and core procedures. There were to be signages for gambling support agencies and local services. In addition, there will be information on ‘game care’ and Challenge 25 which will be displayed in the Premises. In response to questions, Ms Abbot confirmed that the Premises was located in a ‘sensitive location’ and the Sub-Committee were required to ensure that the Applicant meets all the Policy objectives.

 

Councillor Margot Bright, Ward Councillor St James Ward, addressed the Sub-Committee. Councillor Bright advised that the Premises was located in a ‘sensitive area’. A Community Protection Zone was implemented for the locality following a rise in anti-social behaviour and public nuisance. The formulation of the Community Protection Zone started in November 2019 and remained in force even with the current Covid-19 Pandemic situation. The Sub-Committee was advised that anti-social behaviour had continued to steadily rise despite security measures being put in place. Cllr Bright stated that many homeless persons had been housed in the locality and that the vicinity included the make-up of several hostels, a women’s refuge, social housing for residents who were mentally or physically impaired. The locality was also frequented by construction workers and individuals working in the hospitality sector. She also highlighted that the locality was also near to halls of residence of nearby Universities and these dwellings housed a large number of international students.  The locality was also noted to be used by individuals who were involved in the illicit trade of prohibited substances and attracted vagrancy. The latter crimes were reported to be seasonal.

 

Councillor Bright advised that the Applicant had failed to include in the Application how vulnerable persons as listed above would be properly dealt with so that the licensing objectives were not undermined. The Sub-Committee was advised that the area was to undergo a major redevelopment and reminded that two major Resident Associations’ had submitted representations objecting to the Application in the strongest terms. Councillor Bright highlighted that a place of worship was located near to the Premises. She commented that the proposed site for the Premises was wrong and would cause considerable harm to residents that were vulnerable.

 

Richard Brown, CAB Representative of South East Bayswater Residents' Association, raised concerns regarding the locality of the Premises and commented that the large documentation submitted by the Applicant on how the above mentioned were to be addressed demonstrated this. Mr Brown commented that the Premises location had a high foot fall and was near to two fast food outlets and a Public House. He commented that the Applicant’s Risk Assessment Plan was deficient and highlighted that their assessment of the location did not refer to the Hostels located in the vicinity nor the Crime Prevention Zone. Mr Brown advised that these factors were crucial and should have been addressed if the Applicant had liaised with the Metropolitan Police.

 

Mr Brown advised that other Premises operated by the Applicant were in locations that differed to the proposed sites and it did not automatically follow that this Application could be considered in like terms. He commented that Responsible Authorities had confirmed that the location was in a ‘sensitive area’. The Sub-Committed were advised that gaming machines were categorised, and that the speed of games differed between B2 & B3 gaming machines. The maximum stake on gaming machines have also been reduced. There were concerns that the Applicant had failed to provide the hours of operation for the Premises. Mr Brown commented that the Application was contrary to all relevant Guidance, Codes of Practices, the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Principles for Gambling and the Licensing Objectives.

 

John Zamit, Chairman of South East Bayswater Residents' Association (SEBRA) and a Member of the Bayswater Residents Association addressed the Sub-Committee. Mr Zamit advised that he had resided in the locality for over 35 years and that Queensway was undergoing redevelopment and £5 million had been invested by the Council to improve its public realm. He commented that there were limited parking bays in the locality and that the area becomes pedestrianised. He advised that pedestrians congregated on pavements and often had scooters, and this was usually outside the two fast food outlets. There were concerns that the Premises operating 24 hours would exacerbate concerns with parking and encourage large congregations on public highways. Mr Zamit commented that City Inspectors worked set hours and would be unable to monitor the area after 16:00 hours. The Sub-Committee was informed that there were a number of residential properties located in the vicinity and this factor had contributed to the vicinity being designated as a ‘stress area’.

 

The Sub-Committee was advised that Premises which had licences which permitted for longer operational hours had been permitted before the changes in the Act and that most establishments closed at 20:00. Mr Zamit advised that the locality was quiet during later hours and was not serviced by many late night transportations. He raised concerns about the clientele which may be attracted to the Premises and highlighted that there were several places of worship near the location. Mr Zamit advised that SEBRA was a recognised Amenity Society and was widely known and commented that the Applicant had failed to liaise with the Residents Association which was somewhat unfortunate in light of the contentious issues raised. He highlighted the evidence provided to the Sub-Committee but was of the view that the Application should be refused. However, if the Sub-Committee were minded to grant the Application then Conditions should be imposed Mr Zamit commented that it was preferred that the Premises closes at 20:00 and should remain closed during Bank Holidays. The Sub-Committee was advised that the Premises operational hours were crucial and should be limited given its sensitive location.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Brown advised that a Condition which required for Challenge 25 to be operated, pre-plan single staffing and conditions which prohibits advertisement of the Premises in external areas away from the shop should be made. Mr Brown advised that additional Conditions which required two SIA Staff Members, toilet provisions for patrons, a restriction on capacity and ensuring that views to the inside of the Premises are made opaque should be imposed on the Licence. He further stated that Conditions which require for the Premises windows and doors to remain closed should be imposed and that Model Condition 45 (MC45) which prohibits ‘advertising should be adopted.  

 

Mr David Burton, local resident, addressed the Sub-Committee and raised concerns over the concentration of Betting facilitators in Queensway. Mr Burton advised that there were concerns over the protection of vulnerable persons and commented that the locality had a high number of residents who were classified as such and was a ‘sensitive area’. He advised that the locality was surrounded by schools, several places of worship and hostels. The Sub-Committee was advised that the fast food outlets attracted a young cohort. Mr Burton advised that he resided near to the Premises and was fully aware of the individuals which frequentedand congregated in the locality. He raised concerns over the absence of Substance or Alcohol Recovery Centres in the locality.

 

The Sub-Committee advised that the late operations of fast food outlets attracted crowds that would congregate in the vicinity and these persons would be vulnerable to gambling outlets. There were expressed concerns that the Premises operating for extended hours would cause harm to such persons. Mr Burton advised that the Applicant had failed to address specifically how vulnerable persons would be safeguarded from visiting the several gambling and betting facilities in the area. Mr Burton advised that the London Council’s Report 2018 and Gambling Commission had found that the proliferation of gambling facilities in areas which had high deprivation had a direct correlation in the increase of crime, individual debts and breakdown in social relations. He commented that vulnerable persons would be at further risks following the gradual easement of social restrictions during the Covid-19 Pandemic and any future economic downturn.

 

Mr Burton commented that the Applicants proposals for two staff members to be present at the Premises was insufficient and highlighted that during several likely scenarios only one employee would be available and would be expected to monitor patrons, ensure the security of the Premises and ensure Licensing Conditions are met. He highlighted that there was no evidence provided that the Applicant’s Risk Assessment had been independently evaluated by appropriate Independent Bodies. The Sub-Committee was advised that staff solely monitoring the Premises would not be sufficient as the establishment was located in a ‘sensitive role’. He commented that there was no information on how gambling addicts and their social circles would be supported.

 

Mr Rhys Hart, local resident, advised the Sub-Committee that there was 100 Anti-Social Behaviour reported incidents in January 2020 and commented that this figure was raised to 269 in April 2020. There were reported to be a number of burglaries, sexual offences, robberies and hate crimes in the locality and these incidents were witnessed and have taken place during both the day and evening.  He commented that the locality was a ‘crime hot spot’ and that implementation of the Crime Protection Zone had given additional powers to the local Metropolitan Police to address the criminal activities. These include dealing with gang activities and crime associated therewith.

 

Mr Hart advised that the concentration of gambling facilities in the locality led to increased anti-social behaviour and criminal activities. He commented that fast food outlets attracted individuals to congregate in the vicinity and the proposed late hours of operation would increase these numbers of persons. The removal of current restrictions imposed during the Covid-19 Pandemic would result in the resurgence of the night-time economy and increase of alcohol consumption. There were concerns that these factors would have a mal effect in the locality. Mr Hart commented that the clustering of gambling facilities had a direct effect on crime, poverty and deprivation in the immediate area.  The Sub-Committee was advised that the Home Office and London Crime Reduction Unit advocated a ‘public health approach’ to prevent violence and noted that deprivation was a contributing factor in increases in serious violence crimes.

 

The Sub-Committee was advised that an additional gambling facility would increase the cluster of these establishments and informed that 40% of crimes committed against retail outlets were targeted at betting and gambling premises. The Panel was reminded that the Metropolitan Police had opposed the Application. Mr Hart advised that there were concerns how the Applicant would engage with the Metropolitan Police and commented that the Applicant had failed to take into consideration how the Premises would address the issue of anti-social behaviour in the locality.  He reminded the Sub-Committee that the locality was a ‘hot spot’ for criminal activities and that an additional gambling facility would have a mal impact on crime levels and Police resources.

 

In response to the Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee, PC Lewis advised that the Community Protection Zone had been implemented to tackle anti-social behaviour in the locality and advised that there would be potential difficulties with the Premises, and this was in relation to anti-social behaviour and the risk posed to vulnerable residents. PC Lewis confirmed that the Metropolitan Police would be concerned if the Premises was to operate beyond 20:00 and noted that the Premises had not opened.

 

In summary Councillor Bright stated that there were serious concerns with the locality and that the Premises was unsuited for the area. She commented that the Conditions which had been proposed by the Applicant would not alleviate concerns regarding the locality. The Sub-Committee was advised that anti-social behaviour which occurred in the area would be increased after the easement of the current restrictions during the Covid-19 Pandemic. Councillor Bright advised that the locality had a large concentration of vulnerable inhabitants and these individuals included young people, homeless individuals and students. The Sub-Committee were reminded that the locality had also several hostels and that concerns about the Premises had been raised by local residents, Ward Councillors and Residents Association.

 

In summary Mr Burton stated that the locality was a ‘sensitive area’ and had a large number of inhabitants that were vulnerable. He commented that the Conditions proposed by the Applicant did not provide any assurances that vulnerable resident would be protected. Mr Burton commented that staffing levels was inadequate and that there would be likely scenarios in which only one member of staff is present on the shop floor and that the individual would be required to monitor the floor and observe patrons. The Sub-Committee was reminded that there was no assurance that the Applicant Risk Assessment Report, Staff Training Programmes of Policies had been validated by relevant Bodies or a third Party.  

 

In summary Mr Rhys stated that the locality had a high level of crime in the locality and these rates had increased despite the Area being designated as a Community Protection Zone and that crime in the area was still taking place despite the Covid-19 Pandemic lock down. He commented that another betting facility in the locality would attract vulnerable persons and highlighted that these Premises also attracted individuals who were involved in criminal activities. The Sub-Committee was advised that the was a direct correlation of increased deprivation in areas where there was a high concentration of gambling and betting facilitators and this had been widely documented. He commented that the proposed site was inappropriate for the Premises and acknowledged the importance of supporting the local economy and business.

 

In summary Mr Zamit stated that the Premises was unsuitable for the location and highlighted that the Applicant was unaware of it being a ‘sensitive area’. He commented that the Applicant would only employ one Supervisor and recommended that a registered SIA Door Supervisor should be present during all operational hours if the Application was granted.

 

In summary Mr Wood stated that there was acknowledgment that gambling facilities were undesired and a preference for them to be absence from localities. He commented that the representations made by objectors were largely speculative and that the Applicant was a responsible operator and had over 25 years experience in operating Adult Gaming Centres. He commented that the Application would need to be considered in respect of the three Licensing Objectives. Mr Wood advised that the Risk Assessment and Policies and Procedures which had been submitted by the Applicant had been checked by the Gambling Commission and The British Amusement Catering Trade Association (BACTA).  Mr Wood commented that the current site had held a gambling licence for over a period of twelve years and that there was no evidence which linked the Premises to the various concerns regarding anti-social behaviour and crime. The Sub-Committee was advised that there was also no evidence from the Metropolitan Police and Licensing Authority which linked other gambling and betting facilities in the area to criminal activities.

 

The Sub-Committee was advised that the Premises would be one of the most Conditioned Adult Gaming Centre which was operated by the Applicant and that there were various security measures which included CCTV and a SIA Door Supervisor. He advised that Conditions had been agreed with the Metropolitan Police and informed that the Premises was small and could only hold a maximum of eight patrons at any time. Mr Woods advised that the Policies and Procedures which had been submitted by the Applicant had not been refuted by either the Metropolitan Police or the Licensing Authority. He commented that the above measure indicated that the Applicant was aware that the Premises was in a sensitive area. Mr Woods advised that the Applicant did not wish for the Premises to attract any anti-social behaviour or cause crime and disorder.

 

Mr Wood advised that the nearest gambling facilities operated 24 hours throughout the week and stated that the Premises closing at 20:00 would not be commercially viable. He advised that an operational hour between 06:00hrs to 23:00 would therefore be acceptable. Mr Wood advised that the Applicant would agree for a SIA Door Supervisor to be stationed at the Premises from 12:00 onwards. Mr Wood commented that Model Condition 45 would be accepted and that all external doors, windows would be kept closed and made opaque.

 

Mr Woods commented that the implementations of proposed policies and Conditions would ensure that vulnerable persons are protected also met all the three Licensing Objectives. He commented further that the Local Areas Assessment would be updated if the Application was to be granted. 

 

Conclusion

 

The Committee has a duty to consider each application on its individual merits in addition to the policy objectives contained within the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Principles for Gambling (“SLP”) and is not bound by previous Decisions of licensing premises that may or may not have been granted within the area.

 

The Committee noted that the Premises held previously a licence for a betting shop under the Act which was surrendered in October 2019 and was now seeking a licence for the use of Gaming Machines on the Premises. The Committee noted that the Applicant stated in his application that there would be an estimate of 30 to 35 machines (ranging from B category machines limited to 20% and categories C and D machines) inside the Premises at any one time and that it was to operate 24 hours a day although the Applicant did state that he would be prepared to have some flexibility with the hours but this reduction was only put forward as a last minute proposal when questioned by the Committee.

 

The Committee considered the evidence before it and whether the three licensing objectives under section 1 of the Act will be promoted namely;

 

(a)        preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,

(b)       ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and

(c)        protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

 

The Committee as a matter of good practice also applied the principles it should follow under section 153 of the Act when looking at the application. The Committee heard evidence from all the respective parties and in the light of considering that evidence refused the application for the reasons outlined below: -

 

The Committee noted that Queensway is an area made up of licensed and unlicensed retail and hospitalitypremises and residential accommodation. The area has19 other licensed premises under the Licensing Act 2003. In addition, there are 11 premises holding a license under the Gambling Act 2005within a 250 meters radius, consisting of 1 Casino, 2 betting shops and 8 premises with Gambling Permits and Notifications including the Bayswater Arms which is opposite thepremises. There are 254 residents within a 75-metre radius of the Premises. The Premises is also sandwiched between a busy Burger King Restaurant and McDonalds.

 

The area is a main route for transport links into the centre and west of London and isa busy vibrant high street. There does exist within the surrounding locality a School 320 metres away from the Premises as well as a nearby Church.  

 

In policy terms it was agreed with the licensing authority and the applicantduring the hearing that the premises are within  a “sensitive location”, defined under policy LOC1, due to the proximity of several hostels, university accommodation and schools, for which Queensway is a main access route and additionally the Community Protection Zone in place on Queensway and Inverness Terrace due to increased problems with anti-social behaviour. The Committee therefore concluded that vulnerable persons may be further attracted to the area by the opportunity to gamble on gaming machines at the Premises. The Committee felt it had a responsibility to safeguard this potential risk from happening in an area of sensitivity.

 

The Committee noted from the evidence that the area has a number of hostels, HMO’s and supported housing adjacent to Queensway on Inverness Terrace, Queensborough Terrace, and other nearby streets. The area is associated with homelessness and rough sleepers which places these persons in the vulnerable group category for those likely to suffer with addictions such as gambling and drugs.

 

The Committee realises that general sweeping statements are not to be relied upon and that its role should not be to consider the moral viewpoint society may hold on gambling premises, which is to be disregarded, but instead has to properly assess the evidence based on the claims of those objecting through their personal knowledge of the area and in so doing applied the necessary weight to that evidence.

 

The Committee considered the location and make-up of the area as a key consideration and thus an important aspect to its decision-making process.

 

It was noted by the Committee that there was no direct evidence found to link the Premises to specific incidents of crime and disorder, however, the Committee has to consider the global and negative impact it would have on the area as a whole if it were minded to grant the application due to the issues identified above

 

The Committee had due regard to policies LOC1, AGC1, OBJ1, OBJ2 and OBJ3 of the SLP when arriving at this Decision.

 

Policy LOC1 states: -

 

“ A sensitive location is defined as any premises which is within close proximity or on a main routeto a school, educational institution, hostel or other sensitive locations where there is the potential for exposing children, young people or other vulnerable persons to gambling’. The proposed location of this new adult gaming centre must be considered as part of this applicationdue to the local area profile and its potential to impact upon the promotion of the 3 gambling licensing objectives.”

 

Policy AGC1 states:

 

“ Applications will be determined, subject to relevant criteria in policies

OBJ1, OBJ2, OBJ3 and other polices within the Statement of Licensing Principles for Gambling.”   

 

Paragraphs 27.1 to 27.6 on pages 32 to 33 of the SLP refers

 

Policies OBJ1, OBJ2 and OBJ3 effectively mirror the gambling licensing objectives and are more particularly detailed at paragraphs 11 to 15 on pages 14-20 of the SLP for a full analysis.

 

The Committee accepted that whilst the Premises had provided a raft of information relating to various policies in relation to how the Premises would be run by staff members, in terms of security, management, child protection, amongst other things it felt that the policies did not go far enough in dealing with the many challenges the area faced due to its unique problemsdue to its location. The Committee duly considered the Gambling Risk Assessment provided by the Applicant but again was of the view that this was too general in nature and failed to identify the make up of the area and how those specific issues would be addressed that would promote the licensing objectives, meet the necessary policy requirements and alley the fears of those objecting.

The Committee noted that the Applicant was an experienced independent operator with a wealth of experience of some 25 years and held a portfolio of other licensed gambling premises.  The Committee was disappointed to note that the Applicant  had not actively engaged with the local community to try and resolve the many differences between them as this would have helped during the course of the hearing, particularly with the hours and proposed conditions but it was abundantly clear that there were too many opposing views of the parties not capable of reaching a consensus or indeed resolution. The Committee took the view that if the Applicant had taken this approach, prior to the hearing, then perhaps local residents, the resident associations and the local ward councillor in attendance could have found a compromise of sorts with particular emphasis being on the issues of vulnerable and young people being affected by gambling in the area.

The Committee has to consider whether these groups of people who may suffer from drug and gambling addictions are likely to become prime users of the Premises having regard to the promotion of the three licensing objectives and the Gambling Commission Guidance issued to Licensing Authorities. Based on the evidence the Committee concluded that the Premises was likely to attract this specific target group to the Premises.

The Committee concluded that Queensway and the immediately surrounding streets are a recognised 'hot spot' for anti-social behaviour and drug-related crime within the City of Westminster, which has given rise to a Community Protection Zone. The Committee noted that the Premises is located between a large Burger King branch located at number 72 Queensway and a large McDonalds located at number 76 Queensway which again has the potential to attract young people. It was submitted by those objecting that these fast-food premises are very popular with younger people, resulting in a high footfall. The Committee was of the view that the existence of an AGC at these Premises is likely to attract and therefore risk harming vulnerable people thereby undermining the licensing objective;protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

With that specific issue in mind it could not ignore the fact that granting the application would exacerbate the problems residents and local business already experienced with anti-social behaviour in the area. 

 

The Committee also felt that the Gambling risk assessment did not satisfactorily address the specific issues relating to these groups of people in the sensitive area that would ultimately promote the licensing objectives. Young people and teenagers are frequently involved, as are vulnerable people with drug and alcohol addictions and the Gambling Commission is clear on the role of the Licensing Authority under Part 4 of the Guidance to ensure that these concerns are not magnified when dealing in a sensitive area such as Queensway and the surrounds.

The Committee felt that it needed to strike the right balance when considering the merits of the application and the evidence before it and did not arrive at the decision to refuse the application lightly having regard to the full set of circumstances of the case. It did properly consider whether the mandatory conditions would mitigate the concerns of residents but was not persuaded by the Applicant that these would go to the heart of the problems associated with the area which were clearly documented in the objections.  In fact, the Committee came to the conclusion that having an AGC at these Premises would have the reverse effect by further compounding the fears of residents resulting in a negative impact and this approach would not help the Applicant to achieve the promotion of the licensing objectives which ultimately is what the 2005 Act is designed to do.

 

The Committee did carefully consider also whether the additional conditions aforesaid offered by the Applicant and agreed with the Police would mitigate the concerns raised but concluded due to the peculiarities and specifics of the location and with it deemed a “sensitive location” under Policy LOC1 the conditions offered would not have the desired effect of promoting the licensing objectives.