Agenda item

In the matter of the application for a Premises Licence, the Committee has considered the relevant representations made.

The Committee has made the following determination:

With a view to ensuring the promotion of the licensing objectives, in accordance with the provisions of the statutory guidance and the principles of our licensing policy, the application for a premises licence was GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Premises opening hours: a. 09:00 to midnight Sunday to Thursday; and b. 09:00 to 02:00 the following morning on Friday and Saturday.

2. The venue shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system at the premises which should cover, as a minimum: a. all entry and exit points to and from the premises enabling frontal identification of every person entering under any light conditions; b. the areas of the premises to which the public have access (excluding toilets); and c. gaming machines and the counter area; The CCTV system shall continually record whilst the venue is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of thirty one days with date and time visible. Subject to data protection legislative requirements, recordings shall be made available to the Police or an authorised officer of the Licensing Authority upon request.

3. There shall be an external camera at the premises which will provide live images to staff in the service counter area.

 4. Notices indicating that CCTV is in use at the premises shall be placed at or near the entrance to the premises.

5. The licence holder shall ensure that the outside areas of the premises are monitored so as to ensure there is no public nuisance or obstruction of the highway.

 6. An incident log shall be kept at the premises and made available on request to an authorised officer of the Licensing Authority or the Police. Details to include: a. all crimes reported to the venue b. all ejections of patrons c. any complaints received concerning crime and disorder d. any incidents of disorder e. all seizures of drugs or offensive weapons f. any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service. g. any attempts by children and young persons to gain access to the premises to gamble h. any Think 25 Refusals.

7. A Think 25 proof of age scheme shall be operated at the premises where the only acceptable forms of identification are recognised photographic identification cards, such as a driving licence, passport or proof of age card with the PASS Hologram.

8. Prominent signage and notices advertising the Think 25 Policy will be displayed at the premises.

9. Third party testing on age restricted sales systems shall be carried out on the premises at least 3 times a year and the results shall be provided to the Licensing Authority upon request.

10. The licensee will ensure, through regular checks and intervention that customer’s children are not left unsupervised outside the premises.

11. A magnetic locking device, commonly referred to as a Maglock will be installed and maintained on the main entrance/exit to the premises which will be operable by the ground floor staff.

12. The appropriate staffing levels will be assessed by way of risk assessment and cognisance will be taken of any police advice.

13. There shall be no pre-planned single staffing after 20:00.

14. If at any time (whether before or after the opening of the premises), the police or licensing authority supply to the premises names and/or photographs of individuals which it wishes to be banned from the premises, the licensee shall use all reasonable endeavours to implement the ban through staff training.

15. The Licensee shall implement a policy of banning any customers who engage in crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour within or outside the premises.

16. The licensee will refuse entry to customers who appear to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

17. The licensee shall install and maintain an intruder alarm on the premises. 18. The Company’s staff guard system or similar shall be installed and maintained at the premises, which allows direct communication with a central monitoring station permitting audio and CCTV communication.

 19. The licensee will ensure that customer toilets are checked hourly and access is permitted by interaction with staff members

20. Prominent GamCare documentation will be displayed at the premises.

21. The Licensee shall train staff on specific issues related to the local area and shall conduct periodic refresher training. Participation in the training shall be formally recorded and the records produced to the police or licensing authority upon request.

 22. The licensee will contact Bench Outreach and local charities identified by the Licensee as working with people with mental health issues and gambling addiction issues to work in partnership and identify local concerns.

 23. The licensee shall take all reasonable steps to prevent street drinking of alcohol directly outside the premises and to ban from the premises those who do so.

24. The licensee shall place a notice visible from the exterior of the premises stating that customers drinking alcohol outside the premises is not permitted and those who do so will be banned from the premises.

 25. Full cash collections will not be completed by lone staff members.

 26. Upon request, the licensee shall provide the Licensing Authority with their compliance/operating manual which sets out all of the premises policies to meet the regulatory requirements under the Gambling Act 2005 and shall provide a copy of any update or revision as soon as practicable following the implementation of that change.

27. The licensee shall participate in a local Betwatch or similar scheme, where available.

28. The Licensee will provide a contact number for local residents to contact the premises

29. Any ATM made available for use on the premises shall be located in a place that requires any customer who wishes to use it to cease gambling at any gaming machine in order to do so.

In coming to a determination the Committee considered the following matters;

1.    The Committee noted the representation made by the representative of the Deptford Society and the ward Councillor. Deptford’s unique character derives from its mixed community of commercial and residential users, but there should be a balance between the needs of businesses and local residents. Deptford has high levels of social deprivation and another gambling establishment would increase the cumulative impact of gambling on existing deprivation in Deptford.

2.    The Committee noted there were already four gambling businesses in Deptford High Street with a further four more in adjoining streets. There were so many vulnerable adults in the area that there were eleven charities in the immediate vicinity of the High Street aimed at supporting these people.

3.    It was claimed that Deptford High Street was already saturated with gambling establishments and were a source of anti-social behaviour, including street drinking, open drug dealing, and public urination.

4.    The Committee further noted that representations had been received from professionals supporting children and vulnerable adults. Nearly half of children in Tidemill School were in receipt of premium grant. Some of the mothers looked to gambling as a means to supplement their income. A support worker from the charity Bench Outreach, in their representation stated that there was a well-known link between homelessness, poor mental health, substance abuse and poverty.

5.    The Committee noted the representation made on behalf of the applicant. A decision must be based on whether the application would uphold the four licensing objectives not the saturation of gambling establishments in the area.

6.    Members of the Committee noted the applicant’s claims that the licensing objectives would be upheld because there were detailed statements of operations and compliance witnesses had been provided. The applicant had never had an application for a premises licence refused or licence reviewed. Merkur had traded successfully in Lewisham with 24 hour licences.

7.    The applicant said that clients were not allowed to loiter outside the premises; children could not see into the premises but if they attempted to enter they would be refused.

8.    Representation had not been received from any of the relevant authorities. It was agreed that by granting the application the four licensing objectives would be upheld.

3.1      The Chair welcomed all parties to the Licensing Committee. She introduced those present, and outlined the procedure to be followed for the meeting. She then invited the Crime and Enforcement and Regulation Manager to introduce the application.

Licensing Officer   

3.2      Ms Spall said that members were being asked to consider an application for a bingo premises licence for Merkur Slots 40 Deptford High Street London SE8 4AF under the Gambling Act 2005.  This application had been postponed from 24 June 2021 to allow time for full consideration of late documentation. She outlined the application and said that representations had been received from 15 interested parties on the grounds of all of the licensing objectives. These included an objector from Councillor Dacres, a ward councillor for New Cross.

3.3     Ms Spall then outlined the powers available to members when making their decision.

Applicant

3.4      Mr Kolvin made a presentation on behalf of the applicant. He made the following points:

·                Objections to this application had not been received from any responsible authorities.

·                The evidence that the applicant upholds the licensing objectives was extensive and uncontested because:

Ø  There were detailed statements of operations and compliance witnesses.

Ø  The applicant had never had an application refused.

Ø  There had not be any Regulation intervention in any of the 190 premises.

Ø  It trades successfully under a 24 hour licence in Lewisham High Street with no conditions.

Ø  The local authority had not made an objection to the application.

Covert visits had been made to over 14 London premises in relatively deprived areas.

• The applicant trades without relevant impact because it is one of the largest most experienced gaming operators on the high street in the UK.
• The applicant’s record on crime and disorder was the result of many proven factors including its systems for prevention, good management, good surveillance, rules, demographic of its customer base, layout of the premises, and liaison with the Police.

3.5      Mr Kolvin said there was no loitering outside his client’s premises, Children could not see into the premises but because of the style of the buildings and the supervision, they would not be interested in going in. If they attempted to enter, they would be challenged. Vulnerable people were protected with advanced systems of player protection and his client continued to work with gambling charities to improve these systems.

3.6      Mr Kolvin said that if the application was granted, the applicant’s licence would be subjected to extensive legal obligations.

Representation

3.7      Mr Richardson addressed the Committee on behalf of the Deptford Society. He said that Deptford’s unique character derives from its mixed community of commercial and residential users and the Deptford Society supported this co-existence but they both had their individual needs. Deptford has high levels of social deprivation and the decision made by the Committee was vital to the future of the area.

3.8      Merkur were a highly professional company and well able to operate within the limits of gambling law. However, the Deptford Society believed that the application should be refused because the location chosen would increase the cumulative impact of gambling on existing deprivation in Deptford. Mr Richardson raised the following points:

·         There were already four gambling businesses in Deptford High Street with a further four more in adjoining streets. The applicant had tried to distinguish between Bingo and betting, suggesting that there would be less impact playing Bingo. However, it was not community led, it could be described as on line gambling for those without internet access.

·         Objections had been received from professionals seeking to protect children and vulnerable adults. They were highly experienced in understanding vulnerable people and the threat that this application would have to their health and mental well-being.

·         The Headteacher of Tidemill School, less than 100 metres from the premises, stated that nearly half of the children in the school were in receipt of pupils’ premium grant. Some parents considered gambling as a way to boost their finances; any loss of income had a huge impact on the wellbeing of their children. Considering the number of single parent households, the applicant’s declaration that half of their clientele were women, being presented as a positive in their application, was of concern. The Headteacher then referred to the anti-social behaviour outside the school and the number of vulnerable people who already congregate outside the school. Pupils had written to their local M.P requesting that something should be done about this situation.

·         A representation had also been received from Mr Flynn, the Chief Executive of Bench Outreach; this was one of the eleven charities in the immediate vicinity aimed at helping vulnerable adults. In his statement he referred to the link between homelessness, poor mental health, substance abuse and poverty. The applicant had not made any reference to these charities in the risk assessment.

·         In 2020, when Palace Amusements was granted a gambling licence, Mr Flynn considered that this Committee had failed to protect the most vulnerable in our society. 

·         If the application was to be granted, in consideration of co-resistance with residents and businesses in the location, it was suggested that hours of operation should be 11pm Sunday to Thursday and midnight Friday to Saturday.

3.9      In summing up, Mr Kolvin referred to the legal test outlined in page 11 of the agenda section 153 of the Act and the Gambling Act and the mandatory aim to Permit. He said that this was not a test about the character of an area or deprivation within an area, or nuisance to local residents. It was a test about impact on the licensing objectives. He considered that the evidence presented had been clear. If there was an impact on the licensing objectives, then there were review provisions in the legislation.

3.10    Mr Harrison said that in 2013, all of the London boroughs met to discuss a framework to provide boroughs with a way in which they could test cumulative effect of gambling on local areas. Westminster had been successful in refusing an application in Edgeware on the basis of cumulative impact.

3.11    Councillor Dacres made a presentation. She said that Deptford High Street was already saturated with gambling establishments and they had been a source of anti-social behaviour, including street drinking, open drug dealing, and public urination. This establishment was in close proximity to two primary schools, two secondary schools, nurseries, and other premises and organisations which were used to support children and young people already vulnerable and susceptible to gambling establishments.

3.12    The applicant advised that they managed other gambling establishments in Lewisham and around London, but Deptford High Street had a history of anti-social behaviour. It had also been claimed that patrons did not hang around outside gambling establishments, but in Deptford this was a common cause for complaint.

3.13    Councillor Dacres considered that a gambling licence for 24 hours was not acceptable for Deptford High Street. The area was a densely residential area with many families living in and around the High Street. There should be a balance between the needs of the business and local residents. There were a number of charities working with very vulnerable people in the area and the increasing numbers of gambling establishments was having a negative impact on children and family life. All of the objections raised referred to the Licensing Objectives and anti-social behaviour and the protection of children.

3.14    The Chair asked whether the applicant would consider a reduction in the application for 24/7 operating hours. Mr Kolvin said that his client would agree to 9am-Midnight Sunday to Thursday and 9am to 2am Friday and Saturday.

3.15    The Chair said that the members would make a decision at the end of the meeting. All parties would be advised of the decision within 5 working days. She thanked all those present for their attendance.