Agenda item

Full Planning Permission - Change of use from former Class E use

to an Adult Gaming Centre (Sui Generis)

14 – 16 Strait Bargate, Boston PE21 6LW

Merkur Slots UK Ltd

Full Planning Permission - Change of use from former Class E use

to an Adult Gaming Centre (Sui Generis)

14 – 16 Strait Bargate, Boston PE21 6LW

Merkur Slots UK Ltd

The Senior Planner presented the report to committee advising that the application had been called-in for committee determination by Councillor Neill Hastie.

Prior to presenting the report the senior Planner provided committee with updates to the report tabled within the agenda.

An operational management plan has been submitted detailing how the premises will be managed with regards to entry and dispersal of customers where required, security, and crime and disorder.

There was an error in paragraph 5.1 of the tabled report, regarding the number of comments received which should have read 61 at the time of the report.

An additional representation had been received following issue of the agenda, taking the total received to 62. These comments broadly align with those summarised within the agenda.

Concluding the update, members were advised that it was felt that the additional comments did not alter the assessment or recommendation of the proposal as presented in the agenda and no additional conditions had been proposed.

The application site remained vacant and was situated on the corner of Strait Bargate and New Street within the town centre and Boston Conservation Area, and was also within the primary shopping area and part of the primary shopping frontage.  The application related to the ground floor of the building only, accessed through a door at the centre of the property. A first and second floor are accessed via a separate entrance on New Lane. The site has been vacant since December 2016 when it was last occupied by Clarks.  The proposal sought to change the use of the ground floor to a sui generis use to provide an adult gaming centre. An adult gaming centre bring a licensed premise for those aged 18 and over that contained fruit machines and other similar style gaming machines. The licensing requirement limited the total number of category B machines in any one premises to up to 20% of the total number of machines. The machines had a maximum stake of £2 and a max pay out of £500. The remaining machines must be category C (with a maximum stake of £1 and maximum £100 pay out) or D (typically low stake fruit machine style, coin pushers, or crane grabs).  The application included no operational development, however, a separate application for advert consent for associated signage has been submitted and was also before members to assess.

Addressing the history of the site, the Senior Planner confirmed that application B 17 0381 for a change of use from a shop (Class A1) to a coffee shop comprising A1 and A 3 uses had been approached on the 7 November 2019 but not implements.  Application B 17 0390 to remove the lantern light and in-fill the roof via timber joist and single ply roof system and install a section of flat roof over the light well and also replace three windows to the first floor with double glazed, u-PVC framed window units had been approved on the 6 December 2-17 and application B 22 0229 for advertising consent for 2no illuminated fascia signs and 1no externally illuminated projecting sign was pending determination.

A number of public representation had been received from addresses across the Borough and surrounding parishes with a low level of comments received from addresses outside of the county.  Committee were advised not all comments were a material planning consideration with repetition of comments made across the representation including, concerns noted at the suitability of the use with reference to the number of existing similar businesses, potential loss of the prominent site would undermine the retail function within the town and the negative impact on the environment and local amenity of the centre of Boston in relation to the enjoyment of residents and tourists.  Representations also voiced concern on the historic environment of the town centre, noting no heritage assessment had been submitted with the application and the existing site had structural and decorative features which were an example of an era and any ground floor frontage displace needed to be in keeping with that era.  A number of representations also raised concerns in respect of the health of wellbeing of the towns’ residents, due to the site encouraging gambling which could result in crime and debt.  Further effects could result in increased acts of anti-social behaviour and outcomes of debt and gambling could affect the publics’ wellbeing leading to poor mental health and suicide. 

Representation was received in objection to the application by Mrs Taylor which included:

Advising that they were a member of a recently formed group of women raised to object to 24 hour gambling establishments, the objector confirmed they had intended to present on planning reasons but instead believed due process had not been carried out as it appeared there had been no statutory consultation with the Police which the objector stated was the statutory process and as such, no response from the police was available within the report.  Furthermore, the objector stated that not all the public submissions had been received due to an IT issue with the planning portal accepting public comments and as such, they felt the application to be illegal and questioned how many other applications had been determined incorrectly during that period when the Planning Portal had not been accepting representations.

Representation was received from Mr Rogers, the agent for Merkur Ltd which included:

Stating that the Police were involved in the licensing process for the site and they were not a statutory consultee in planning, Mr Rogers confirmed that the application adhered to both local and national policy requirements and would provide job creation, increased footfall within the town and would see replace a long standing vacant premise unit to contribute to the economy.

Addressing the nature of the business, members were asked to recognise the importance of the business not offering fixed odd betting terminals which were provided within other establishments.  Average stakes were 30p / 40p and customers were those with spare change who enjoyed their pastime.  There was a misconception of AGC’s which the owners recognised needed further public relations media to dispel a number of myths surrounding them.  They were strictly controlled, there was no alcohol licence on the site and the business operated to Policy 25.  The gaming appealed to individuals and not groups and Merkur had never had a licence revoked.  There had been no evidence of any increase in anti-social behaviour resulting from the business, if there had been it would have been highlighted by the Police and the licence would not have been granted.  There was a clear market demand for such a business and the existing site which was in a derelict condition, required investment which Merkur would provide. 

At this point in the proceedings the Chairman invited committee members to question the representatives.  It is noted that Mrs Taylor left the meeting on conclusion of her representation and was not available to take any questions.

In response to questions tabled Mr Rogers’ confirmed that Merkur staff were fully trained to recognise any customer exhibiting habitual tendencies of use of the site; that the staff were not required to achieve set targets on public spending and that he was unsure of who the owner of the building was, stating they had served notice but he did not know on whom.  Issues raised in respect of the frontage of the site, Mr Rogers’ confirmed they would be addressed in the subsequent application.

Before opening the meeting to committee deliberation the Chairman invited the Assistant Director – Planning and Strategic Infrastructure (Lead Officer for the committee) to respond to accusations tabled during the objectors representation for clarity of fact.

The Assistant Director reiterated the comment of Mr Rogers that the Police were not a statutory consultee for planning with their role being within the initial Licensing application, and in respect of the ownership of the site, confirmed that the Certificate B served on the owner of the site did not identify them as the Council.  The owner had been adequately served and there was nothing to preclude a decision being made.

Addressing issues raised by Mrs Taylor the Assistant Director stressed that all statutory consultees had been contacted in respect of the application and the weekly planning lists that were issued to a wide membership of various groups, included the police, who would have responded had they wished to comment.  However, they were not a statutory consultee.

There had been an I.T issue and the Council had responded accordingly and all applications determined during that period had been checked thoroughly to ensure they were correct.

The Council went above and beyond in respect of all its statutory publishing requirements.  The application notice went live 8 weeks previously when the consultation process began, well beyond the 28 days statutory requirement. The additional information provided at the start of the officers’ presentation confirmed that all comments were captured up until the evening before the planning committee meeting.   There was nothing to prejudice the Council’s ability to make a decision on the application. All planning applications were determined on planning merits and not on the volume of feeling within community and the report did include an extensive breadth of comments receive. 

Significant committee deliberation followed which included the following foremost comments:

Whilst not in favour of the application there was recognition of the officer recommendation and the need for actual planning reasons to refuse contrary, should committee wish to do so.

Concerns were agreed on the impact on the character of the area and the impact on the primary shopping frontage. There were existing similar establishments within close proximity along with numerous betting shops providing gaming facilities.  Members noted strongly their opposition at the town becoming a gambling destination which was not what they wished nor foresaw, as being the way forward for the future of the town. The site would not encourage visitors nor increase footfall for the existing retailers within the shopping frontage area.   The vitality of viability of the town would also be negatively impacted. 

Strong concerns were further raised in respect of the impact on the health and wellbeing of residents by encouraging gambling and the associated known effects of addiction, loss of finances and effects on mental wellbeing. The area was already low wage and high depravation which was just the area such establishments thrived within.  The town already had a high density of betting shops.

The application contravened a number of Local Plan, NPPF and Town and County policies.

The strength and volume of local opposition tabled in respect of the application did indeed, need to be taken into consideration.

It is recorded that during debate members were made aware of a similar application within the same local plan, in Spalding, which had been refused on similar grounds, which had been appealed and the Inspector had allowed the appeal. Members were advised that they needed to take this into consideration with it being within the same local plan and with such similar objections.

The Legal Officer advised members that whilst she agreed a comment made that each planning application would be determined on its own merits, committee did need to give weight to the appeal decision and how it had been interpreted within the local plan.  Addressing further comments made by a member who had commented on what they felt to be restrictions within planning and licensing regulations, preventing them from fighting passionately for the residents who elected them, the Legal Officer stressed that planning committee members represented the Borough of Boston, not just their own ward, and should any member wish to speak passionately on any item, they had the option to step down from any meeting and address the meeting in such a manner.

On drawing the deliberations to a conclusion the Assistant Director – Planning and strategic Infrastructure recognised that the majority of members felt unable to support the application and as such sought initial clarity on the reasons and also requested a delegation for himself and the Legal Officer be agreed, to enable the final decision to be formulated encapsulating planning reasons.  The general reasons sited included being contrary to policies 2,26, and 32 of the Local Plan and contrary to the NPPF and also to the statutory duty set out in S72 of the Town and County Planning Act. 

It was moved by Councillor Jonathan Noble and seconded by Councillor Katie Chalmers that a delegation be agreed to the Assistant Director – Planning and Strategic Infrastructure and the Legal Officer to formulate the final reasons to formally refuse the application, based on the reasons raised by committee.

Vote:      8 In Favour.        2 against.        Abstentions:  0

RESOLVED:

That Committee agreed to delegate authority for the determination of this application to the Assistant Director – Planning and the Legal Officer to formulate the final decision notice to refuse the application on the grounds identified.