Gambling with our high streets

The clustering of certain types of premises – such as betting offices – can prompt real concern. Councillor Nilgun Canver reports on Haringey's efforts to tackle the problem.

Licensing authorities need to have discretion and powers to prevent the clustering and over development of high street premises, so that when local concerns are raised by residents and agencies, the licensing authority has proper regard to them.

A predominance of many types of premises can be a problem for an area – fast food outlets, pubs and clubs, one pound or charity shops – but in Haringey the real problem is betting shops. Haringey has 66 betting shops, giving it one of the highest concentrations of betting shops in the country.

It is not that overall numbers of shops have gone up since the Gambling Act in 2005, but that the increasing tendency for them to group together causes problems – both in terms of reducing the attractiveness of the high street and in turning small incidences of crime into bigger issues.

Like any responsible authority, Haringey has sought to tackle this impact through a variety of measures, and I have personally lobbied Ministers from the past and present Governments on the issue.

At an early stage of administering the Gambling Act, Haringey’s Licensing Sub committee had reasons to refuse three applications in the Harringay Green Lanes area. These applications received a substantial number of representations from local residents, as well as from the police, health practitioners and ward councillors. Evidence from the Council showed that the area already had high levels of betting shops and that the location already suffered from related high levels of crime and disorder.

At appeal the case of the appellant was that there was no evidence that one extra betting shop would in any way impact on the area in a way which is contrary to the licensing policy objectives. This position was supported by evidence of proposed management controls, socially responsible policies and expert evidence. As a consequence the Magistrates ruled that the licensing authority had acted improperly and upheld the appeals.

To help us effect some control over the proliferation of betting shop clusters on the High Street I sought Counsel's opinion on what steps Haringey might take to resist such appeals. The advice was that to prevent any additional licensed gambling premises in an area we would have to carry out substantive research that demonstrates a clear link to crime or the exploitation of or harm to vulnerable persons. This research would have to show the impact that any further gambling premises would have on the area in relation to the licensing objectives.

If such research demonstrates a valid position, we could vary our policy statement to show locations in the borough where there is evidence of risk from further gambling. Market soundings we have undertaken shows that this approach is cost prohibitive for any individual local authority.

Clearly, then, licensing can only be part of the solution and not the deciding factor. Unlike premises licensed to sell alcohol, we do not have the option to introduce cumulative impact policies or levy a fee to cover the additional resources the council must allocate to regulate this problem.

My officers and I then looked to what options planning law offered us. Here, we found greater scope to use our existing powers.

By scrutinising an application against our Unitary Development Plan, we were able to make the case that a betting shop would both result in the loss of a valuable retail unit to the detriment of the town centre frontage, and harm the vitality and viability of the centre. The success of this approach is a tribute to the way in which all service departments in Haringey collaborated in the development of the Unitary Development Plan and the way in which we planned ahead as a council with a view to addressing issues like this.

However, we still found this approach to be cumbersome and by no means a resolution to the whole problem. Not least because this refusal was only possible if it was a change of use application. As I mentioned earlier, I have given evidence to Government that the use of Article 4 Direction is an inappropriate and expensive mechanism to resolve overdevelopment and clustering of betting shops. Notwithstanding our view that the Licensing Act and guidance etc should be amended to provide for more effective control, I suggested to the recent Select Committee that it should consider the reclassification of betting shops from A2 (financial and professional services) to 'Sui Generis'. This will allow for applications to be determined on their merits but without the expensive recourse to Article 4 Direction.

I welcomed the two recommendations in the Portas Review relating to betting shops, including giving betting shops their own planning class, but it remains to be seen if the Government will act on them. My first contact with the Government over this matter was in 2008 and, despite assurances at all levels that something would be done, nothing has happened.

What is clear is that the removal of the ‘need test’ and the presumption, inherent in the Gambling Act 2005, in favour of granting an application has deprived councils of essential powers to tackle problems and respond to their residents.

I also feel there is clear evidence that the betting industry targets areas of deprivation and communities where addictive gambling behaviours can be cultivated. I have heard from local residents and other councillors that the installation of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) in these locations is a specific approach taken to draw in and retain those customers likely to display addictive gambling behaviours. Because it is the industry norm to cluster, the effect is that communities in the targeted locations suffer disproportionately from associated crime or disorder.

In July 2010, we established a joint problem solving group with the police because of evidence linking betting shops to crime and disorder. We identified that betting shops in Haringey had been linked to 262 crimes over a one-year period; equating to five crimes a week. Due to the tendency for betting shops to cluster, this meant that crime was noticeably increasing in areas that already had significant crime issues.

This data showed that criminal damage accounted for more than 74% of reported offences and ‘Gaming Machines’ were damaged in 80% of reports for criminal damage offences. Rowdy and inconsiderate behaviour was raised in 42.4% of incidents. Clearly, something has to be done.

I am aware of the work that the gambling industry itself is doing to tackle its poor reputation. However, my experience of the ‘Safebet Alliance’ and the voluntary code entered into by the industry to tackle crime in betting shops is that low level crime is not adequately covered by this code. I fear that this represents a missed opportunity for the industry to establish robust measures for tackling low level crime.

I urge the government to take action to return powers to local councils who know best what needs to be done for, and with, their local communities. It is not that we have a problem with betting shops themselves, but that having too many of them in one area is just not healthy for the local economy or residents.

It is ironic that at a time when the Government is purporting to be decentralising power and advocating “localism” the Gambling Act actually dis-empowers local communities by giving them no say on crucial issues like this.

I will continue to work to tackle the problems caused by the clustering of betting shops in Haringey and would be keen to hear from other councils that are experiencing similar problems. I can be contacted at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Cllr Nilgun Canver has been a Labour Party councillor in the London Borough of Haringey since 1998 and was the Cabinet Member for Crime and Community Safety from 2002 to 2010. Since 2010, she has been the Cabinet Member for the Environment, looking after the environment, waste and recycling, transport, streetscene, parks, enforcement and licensing portfolios. She has been leading the way in tackling the clustering of betting shops and the impact this can have on high streets and communities.