Agenda item

To receive a briefing paper on the Paddy Power appeal hearing against the Council.

The Committee considered a report from the Paddy Power appeal hearing which was held at Highbury Magistrates Court over two days in November 2014. The following points were raised during the discussion of the report:

• The Committee noted that Paddy Power won the appeal hearing but that the Council was not made liable for court costs. The Regulatory Services Manager commented that the Council’s case was predicated on arguing that crime and disorder in the area caused by the customers of the existing betting shops was sufficient of a link to gambling and that there was clear evidence that the level of disorder was above the threshold of being a mere nuisance. The Council argued that there were no conditions that could be added to the licence to minimise the risk of further crime and disorder. 
• The District Judge noted that the local authority had a duty to aim to permit such applications and that she was satisfied that the evidence before her showed no connection between acts of crime and disorder in the area and gambling.
• The District Judge also commented that the conditions on the licence proposed before the first hearing was sufficient and should have been added to the Licence at the time by the Licensing Committee. Consequently the Licence was awarded and the list of conditions was added to the Licence.
• During the costs hearing, Paddy Power’s QC noted that one of the Licensing Committee Members approached him and expressed an opinion that the Council should not have refused the Licence application. It was noted that Members should be aware that such comments can be mentioned in court and undermined the Council’s case in apportioning costs.
• Confirmation was given that there would be no appeal on the award of costs.
• In response to a question on what grounds would the Council bring a similar case to court, officers advised that the Council’s case hinged on the witnesses convincing the Judge that the anti-social behaviour caused by patrons of the existing betting shops was sufficient to refuse the licence on the grounds of crime and disorder. Officers also advised that similar cases in other boroughs had gone against the local authority, and in a number of cases had resulted in the betting shop company being able to also claim substantial costs.
• The Committee was advised that Police had not given evidence in support of the case and that the reason why was because crime statistics tended to be quite low around betting shops, especially in comparison to some other high street premises e.g. McDonalds.
• The AD Planning noted the Government had been consulting on whether betting shops should be given a different licensing classification of sui generis which would allow the planning authority to restrict instances of changes of use. As part of the Development Management Policies’ DPD, the Council has suggested a policy approach on numbers and what the level of concentration should be. The Committee were encouraged to review the documents and feedback any comments to Planning.
• The Committee noted that that planning permission was often seen as the best route to tackle the proliferation of betting shops, given the weakness of current gambling legislation.

The Committee agreed to ask the Monitoring Officer to produce guidance for Members in light the instance of a member of the Planning Committee giving his personal opinion to Paddy Power’s barrister and undermining the Council’s case.