Harp of Erin – next betting shop?

The Harp of Erin has seen better times. Full of history, it is now a pub that beer snobs Fancy A Pint and Beer in the Evening wistfully regard as one of the last pubs in Deptford High Street not worth going in (there is only one other, The Swan, whose Vietnamese owners don't have real ale on their agenda). The Deptford Dame, in her post Deptford pubs added to local listing shows "The Harp" appearing as one of many pubs the Council has identified to be added to a list of heritage assets to be protected.

It recently appeared on the market as a lease worth £24,000 pa with estate agents Cannon Kallar, but has been removed. It may be sold, under offer or temporarily withdrawn. A notice seen in a window of the pub suggests the game is on privately.

Since there would be no need to change the planning class of this premises to turn it into a BETTING SHOP, we think Lewisham Council and EVERYONE should keep a careful eye on this. Betfred is still waiting for an 'in' to the Deptford High St gambling enclave, and Paddy Power's recent takeover of McDonnell Racing is hardly making an impact (they can't be much pleased with looking like a likkle sweet shop opposite the church).

We'd like to point Lewisham towards the progress of Newham Council's present battle with Paddy Power. Newham refused Paddy Paddle'o'Shite a license on the grounds that the operator was making more money out of gaming machines than ordinary betting (which they are). But as usual, the £multi-billion gambling operator has appealed, so Newham is now facing a test case in the high court, the sort of case that Lewisham have hitherto avoided.

This article explains Newham's case well enough:  www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2283376/Bookies-Paddy-Power-lose-licences-gaming-machines-dispute.html
 

Crosswhatfields campaigned tirelessly against Betfred being the 8th bookies to enter Deptford High Street all through from Jan 2011 till June 2012, but the only thing that saved us was someone clever (but rather slow-acting) in Lewisham Council who came up with an old planning clause about the use of the premises. Let's hope The Harp is now equally protected.

Please read this timely article in The Independent by Mathew Norman which neatly sums up all we have fought over and written about over the last two years...(search 'Betfred' on this blog).

Also see the Deptford Betting Map (please email any inaccuracies).

Betfred appeal dismissed!

Good news just in! The Government Inspectorate has dismissed Betfred's appeal against the previous Inspector's decision to decline permission for betting office use at the old Halifax premises.

Overall, I conclude that the balance of likelihood is that the use enabled by the removal of the condition in dispute would give rise to anti-social behaviour and disturbance to local residents and other users of Deptford District Centre; that the fear of crime would be enhanced by an additional betting office in close proximity to 5 others; and that there is a risk of an increase in actual crime. Such outcomes would broadly conflict with the intentions of criterion (d) of UDP policy STC4. There would also be material conflict with the social component of sustainable development, as set out in the NPPF. However, I have not identified conflict with any part of Policy 6 in the Lewisham local development framework Core Strategy (June 2011), also cited on the Council’s decision notice.

Sorry, this writer had to go back to work and miss the fanfares and celebrations...

UPDATE 15-06-2012: Details...and Peckham continues the struggle...

The Deptford Dame has since gone into some detail about the Inspector's decision, which may have ramifications for any betting company who has to go through planning, with an interesting speculation on Betfred's next move – the High Court? (If only!). Dept Misc has also published the Inspector's decision in his post Deptford 4 - Betfred 0.

Deptfordians have been fighting Betfred since January 1st 2011 when we first spotted the notice on the old Halifax building of Done Brothers applying for their Gambling License. We soon discovered the Licensing Committee were powerless to turn them down, and, as Dept Misc sums up, it's only through a quirk (or foresight) of planning that we have held them at bay.

However, in Peckham, campaigners have just on Thursday (ironically the day after Deptford's good news) suffered the same disappointment as we did in January 2011, as Betfred swanned through Southwark Licensing Committee to get their Gambling License. Campaigner Rowenna Davis wrote the disappointing news on Thursday evening to fellow petitioners who had attended the license hearing at Southwark council that morning:

Despite a brilliant set of presentations from representatives of Peckham church groups, police, residents and business leaders, I'm afraid we lost the case today. BetFred is set to open.

However, we did manage to win a stronger set of conditions - I believe extra staff and security measures - which I believe the council will publish shortly. I also think the fact we tried and failed tells a very important story about how local people don't have enough power. I think the licensing committee would have liked to have sided with us, but didn't feel they had the legal authority to do so. I plan to write about this and keep fighting the next application for a betting shop, which is at the Bun House.

In this case, Peckham folk do not seem to have ahead of them the opportunity of seeing Betfred "go through planning" – though neither did Deptford campaigners see any hope back in January 2011.  If anyone wants to contact Rowenna to help her in Peckham, please email us for her details.

Queen starts her weekend betting

It's a little galling to see the Queen starting her Jubilee weekend at Epsom, when many of her poorer subjects are under the illusion, or suffering the delusion, that gambling will support a better way of life.

Epsom Derby is a great annual sporting fixture for many and we've enjoyed a few great days out there. But the royal family's love for and association with horses and horse racing means that the Jubilee celebrations are highlighting to the world a fairly limited range of British culture with the choice of activities being racing, boats and music.

Whilst the river pageant offers a connection with the country's history and working life, and the music encapsulates a wide-ish range of styles and tastes, horse racing is mainly about gambling. One might wonder how the Queen splits her bets with £35m to spend. The BBC can't help itself in its excitement at being at Epsom with the Queen there. Paddy Power, Ladbrokes et all must be laughing all the way to the bank, they couldn't ask for a better branding scenario.

All the work done by the Leveson Inquiry that has discredited Jeremy Hunt who heads the Department of Culture Media and Sport is undone. The Select Committee have been reviewing the 2006 Gambling Act (a New Labour disaster which has hitherto allowed the betting industry to conduct business as they please), but a more public inquiry such as Leveson's could lead to proof of irregularities where lobbying by the Betting Industry has achieved extraordinary power over Her Majesty's government (and possibly even over the organisation of this weekend). Whilst the Select Committee is examining the vast loopholes in the Act, the industry has been lobbying to increase the number of Fixed Odd Betting Terminals in betting shops from four to eight. With Hunt in charge at the top, they will probably get their way.

Oh the queen loves horses and betting on horses. But Her Majesty's government watered down, if not did away with the Racing Levy (a tax that supports the racing community) and sold The Tote to Betfred. It has been a struggle for the racing community to get the betting industry to continue to support racing, since it sees its future fortunes in football, gaming machines and online poker. Meanwhile it has vastly increased its property portfolio across the country, investing in cheap property to open as many branches as it can in our poorest high streets, where the main income is from the FOTB machines and not racing.

With the Jubilee coverage of the Epsom Derby, a myth that betting on horses is a popular pastime for the British is perpetuated, which conceals the true nature of the part gambling is now playing in Britain during a time of deep recession. A triumph for the some of the most insidious corporate tax-avoiding companies presently operating in this country.

Image: Maria Clemen
 

Linking crime to bookmakers – no problem!

Those who have been objecting to Betfred opening shop at the old Halifax site have been waiting to hear the decision of the Bristol Planning Inspectorate after Betfred appealed for the second time (see our January post).

Yesterday, anyone who had written an objection should have received an email from the Inspectorate notifying them of a new statement submitted by the appellant. In this 18-page document Betfred argue that the decision made by the Inspector against their last appeal on the grounds that betting shops in the area attract crime and antisocial behaviour was based on rather flimsy evidence.

However, as if on cue, the NewsShopper reports today that three men have been arrested over alleged drug dealing at Paddy Power.

On May 2, New Cross Safer Neighbourhoods Team arrested the men on suspicion of supplying Class B drugs from Paddy Power, Deptford High Street.

One man was searched in New Cross Road after leaving the betting shop and five wraps of Class A drugs were found on him. Officers then returned to the bookies, detaining and searching the punters inside. A further man was found in possession of Class A drugs and arrested, while another was given a cannabis warning.

At a linked address, police found scales, cling film and cutting implements believed to be used for preparing Class A drugs, along with three bags of cannabis and a can of CS gas.

Two men in their 20s have both been bailed pending further enquiries. 

This news will come as no surprise to some locals, one or two of whom have been following the manager's Twitter feed. So, it appears, have the police.

Meanwhile, Betfred whine on and on: 

"...no information is given as to the number of reportable crimes relating to Deptford High Street in general or in relation to other identified occupiers within the town centre to identify how the reportable crimes associated with betting shops compare with other shops on the High Street."

We suggest the Inspector has a chat with the staff at Greggs (who, coincidentally, recently saw fit to bring in some male staff) and to other shopkeepers such as Housewives Cash n' Carry about the massive level of blatant shoplifting – along with aggressive behaviour – committed by some betting shop regulars. The frequency of this petty crime means it is not worth reporting, since doing so is disruptive to trade. Nor are there local police resources to keep up with it. But Betfred go on:

"Having reviewed the list of reported crimes provided by the Licensing Officer, only one of these relates to a public order offence which could constitute antisocial behaviour, the majority of the other offences listed do not relate to crimes which would impact on neighbouring residents, only to the owners of the individual betting offices. Furthermore, no information is given as to the exact nature of the crimes, particularly in relation to the incidents of criminal damage to be able to adequately assess whether any of these incidents would have impacted on neighbouring residents.

No evidence has been put forward by the Council to support their case that a higher number of betting shops automatically results in more crime...Should an individual engage in criminal activity they are not more likely to do so because there are more betting shops. There is a case to be made that in fact it is more likely that with a higher number of betting shops it is less likely that large congregations of customers will result in a single shop and therefore crime and disturbance could decrease."

This last statement beggars belief. How little these people understand their customers! Punters will congregate where they find the best deals, and Betfred will no doubt aim to offer better deals than their rivals (if and when they get stake in our high street). In Paddy Power's case, the best deals have also included Class A drugs!

Betfred will argue that they'll run a cleaner shop than their (potential) next door neighbours – the very same promise made by those other identical corporate billion pound businesses when they moved into this 150 meter stretch. Paddy Power, meanwhile, continues to break local planning laws with their unauthorised building alterations, as well as breaching the terms of their gambling license by allowing crime to be conducted on their premises.

One of the Licensing Objectives is: "preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder, or being used to support crime." This, as we have learned previously, is interpreted in law as crime = "serious organised crime" and disorder = "riots". So it will be business as usual at Paddy Power, who can now claim to be "creating a new job in a vibrant town centre".

Of course all this is not to say that all betting shop punters are criminals, or that all the blokes who hang outside for a tinny and a smoke are up to no good. Indeed the Safer Neighbourhood Teams know exactly who the regular offenders are. But it should be noted that Lewisham Met's Licensing Officer has failed to supply updated crime statistics to back up in law what everyone who lives or works on the high street knows to be the case. Betfred state: "It is also relevant that the Witness Statement prepared by the Licensing Officer is unchanged from the response provided in relation to the previous application submitted in February 2011." Such laziness may well lose the case on a technicality for the good people of Deptford.

Betfred objection deadline 6 December

As we reported in October, Betfred have reapplied to Lewisham Planning for the site at 93 Deptford High Street after having their appeal to the Government Inspectorate turned down.

This has meant a campaign-weary community having to repeat their previous objections. Presently there are 23 objections filed on the planning portal for application DC/11/78506/X. Last time there were 84.

Hopefully the smaller number of objections will still be enough to support Lewisham should they be minded to turn the application down again, but if you can spare some time in the next week and don't want to see an eighth betting shop opening on our high street, please write in to object. The target date for receiving objections is 6th December.

If you don't have time to write an objection, there is a petition you can sign at Come The Revolution Cafe on New Cross Road. But a petition only counts as one objection...

Pawnbroker update: Want instant cash now? YOU BET!

Last month, our appeal-wary planning department were obliged to give permission for Change of Use to the fourth pawnbroker on Deptford High Street. Abermarle & Bond's new premises is opposite Ladbrokes, William Hill, and another pawnbroker, The Money Shop. It is quite near Paddy Power and Better, and not far from three other pawnbrokers – in fact there will now be four pawnbrokers within 50 metres of each other.

However, as the Dame recently pointed out, Lewisham Planning did not grant permission for them to change the shopfront, and asked them to apply separately for this. But barely a day had passed after Change of Use was granted (from Sui Generis to A1 Retail) before Abermarle & Bond had set about refurbishing the shop. The shop is almost ready to open (the picture above was taken last week). The target date for their application to be decided is 27th December 2011, but a new shop front is already in place – in time to cash in on the Christmas trade.

The applicant's flagrant disregard for local planning rules is also demonstrated by the distribution of leaflets in the local neighbourhood which confirm the fact that they are first and foremost a Financial Service and NOT a retail outlet:  "Say NO THANKS to banks" "Quick cash loans" "No hassle and no credit checks" APR: 581.9%.

Pawnbrokers are classed as A1 Retail as long as the other services they offer (cheque cashing and pay day loans) remain ancillary to the main use as pawnbrokers/jewellers. But selling jewellery is now a small part of the service since people are selling and pawning their gold rather than buying it.

The Telegraph reported four days ago that Abermarle & Bond said the value of gold it had bought off customers had increased by 83%, adding that the market for retailing gold jewellery remained very weak. It continued to prefer to scrap second hand jewellery if this generated a better return on capital.

Cash loans on jewellery are often third on an advertised list of services, after Pay Day Loans and Speed Loans. Pawnbrokers are no longer simply a place to get a quick cash loan on some jewellery or prized possession, but have instead become extremely aggressive loan sharks. They are part of the cycle of poverty, and not, as they claim, any part of the solution – since a high interest loan can easily spiral out of control, especially when the lender is situated in the immediate vicinity of bookmakers. Abermarle & Bond's advertising "Want instant cash now? YOU BET" is a not very subtle nudge.

Pawnbrokers are also extremely poorly regulated and monitored, hence their nickname "robber's shops" (no pun intended) – who knows where the gold they are buying has come from? And they inevitably set up shop in poor areas where there is a desperate need for cash and people have no credit ratings. Abermarle & Bond's financing is by Speedloan Finance, a sub-prime small loans company specialising in making loans to people who have difficulty maintaining repayment schedules.

We need better alternatives to banks and better solutions to debt management than this new breed of pawnbroker can provide. Like the betting industry, the corporate pawnbrokers are set on a massive expansion in – or, rather invasion of – Britain's poorer high streets, aiming to make huge profits from the recession.

Their present DUBIOUS planning class as A1 Retail (because they sell jewellery) allows them to pop up wherever they like – usually next to bookmakers (for obvious reasons). Local authorities across the country are unable to turn them down in the shopping areas they have designated to be RETAIL ONLY (that is, not Financial Services).


Joan Ruddock MP is leading the fight to stop the corporate Betting Shops by attempting to introduce a Bill to give them a Planning Class of their own. The same should be done to curb the invasion of sub-prime loan sharks masquerading as jewellers. Write to your MP now!

See previous post on Abermarle & Bond here.

Yet another pawnbroker for Deptford High Street

Albemarle & Bond have put in a planning application for 37 Deptford High Street. The company is 29% owned by Ezcorp, a US company that "acquires, establishes and operates pawnshops" and is just one of the many businesses profiting from the recession. Their corporate website boasts that business has grown substantially, with an aggressive expansion rate of 25 new stores opening per year.

They see an increased demand for their services "since high street banks have reduced lending levels, making it harder for individuals and small businesses to access loans. As a consequence more customers are experiencing the ease and simplicity of accessing short term, flexible loans via our stores." (albemarlebondplc.com). According to the National Pawnbrokers Association (NPA) there are about 800 pawnbrokers in the UK and this number is set to grow at 10% per annum.

A&B's pre-tax profits surged by 75% in the second half of 2009, despite a 5% decrease in retail sales due to a reduced demand for gold jewellery as more people pawn or sell their jewellery rather than buy any. Higher gold prices also helped to boost profits. "Consumer awareness of the higher price of gold and difficult economic conditions are creating increased demand for short term cash." The following six months saw a 48% increase in turnover, and although early this year there was a 1% drop as they funded their ambitious store expansion, by May 2011 their "pledge book" (the pawnbroking side of business) had risen 24% over the previous year.

Meanwhile, Signet (parent company of H Samuel and Ernest Jones jewellers) reported UK sales were 'flat' at 0.2%. These high street jewellers do not offer other services except repairs and fittings (although they do buy gold online).

On the website of Albemarle & Bond's rivals H&T Pawnbrokers – at no.72 Deptford High Street, next door to Coral the bookmaker – the cost of their pawnbroking loans is clearly spelt out: they will charge £144 on a £300 loan over 6 months which they claim is an APR of 119% (we make it an APR of 150%?).

Over at Fish Brothers – a couple of doors down near Paddy Power – we find a monthly interest rate of 6.5% for loans of £5–£999, supposedly an APR of 93%. They also give examples, which make the whole business look quite agreeable: only 50 quid to pay on a £2K loan over 15 days with a diamond ring as collateral. Only 12 quid on a £100 loan over 2 months with a gold bracelet as collateral. Only 36 quid to pay if you borrow £5500 for five days! Amazing.

What rates can we get at The Money Shop (in between Ladbrokes and William Hill)? At their yellow & black website, the only rate advertised is the special offer on PayDay loans: £90 over a month will cost a tenner instead of the usual £17, with an APR of 260%. The Money Shop is also a pawn broker but doesn't pretend to sell jewellery.  

Albemarle & Bond (who aim to be across the road dead opposite The Money Shop) are not as forthcoming about their pawnbroking rates as their competitors. But on an equally gawdy yellow and black website they advertise a typical APR on a £1000 loan as 281.5%.

With so much building going on in the area, they must be anticipating an increased market in cheque cashing and payday loans. Branding wise, A&B, in its use of the same garish yellow as The Money Shop, appear to be competing directly.

A bank loan is much cheaper than a pawnbroker loan, but banks generally don't lend small amounts except as overdrafts which can be expensive. Pawnbrokers like to say they perform a valuable function for people struggling on benefits or low wages, those who don't have bank accounts or can't get overdrafts, those with a bad credit history or with county court judgements against them. But a member of staff at Deptford & New Cross Credit Union (165 New Cross Road  SE14 5DG, 020 7277 7477) told us that often some of their members have joined the union to borrow money to pay back a pawnbroker loan that has spiralled out of control. The not-for-profit Credit Union has all sorts of members, both working and unemployed, who may access cheap loans at 1 or 2 per cent. Unfortunately the Credit Union cannot provide on-the-spot loans (a loan may take ten days to set up).

Hogarth captures the scene outside Paddy Power and Ladbrokes (Wikimedia Commons)

Pawnbrokers have always had a place in the high street, but do we really need four of them within spitting distance of each other? It doesn't help that the main Building Societies keep closing branches but at least banks and building societies are regulated to some degree. Although pawnbrokers are required to ask for ID when they lend and buy, it seems they have to be reminded to be vigilant about receiving stolen goods. According to a news report in the Evening Standard in August, robberies had leapt by 18% in the previous three months resulting in Cash Converters signing a deal with the Met to exchange information.

Meanwhile, the intended site of Ablemarle & Bond is far from ideal: opposite two bookies and a 'money shop', within a 150m stretch that has five bookies and three money lenders. It's no coincidence that betting shops always seem to be accompanied by pawnbrokers. Here's the cluster:

70: Coral
72: H&T Pawnbrokers
60: Fish Brothers Pawnbrokers
52: Paddy Power
48-50: Ladbrokes
44: The Money Shop Pawnbrokers
38-40: William Hill
37: Albemarle & Bond Pawnbrokers
14: Better

Albemarle & Bond are applying for change of use. The shop used to be an amusement arcade and was not classified – arcades and theatres among others are 'sui generis' (of its own kind). It is likely the amusement arcade suffered with the increase in the number of betting shops full of slot machines. A&B's application is for A1 Retail use.

A&B know this part of the high street is a Designated Core Retail Area and are at great pains to emphasise that their main business is Selling Jewellery – even though they admit in their own reports that there is a big reduction in retail sales and their website plays down the retail aspect: "Our high-street pawnbrokers specialise in a range of pawnbroking services, gold-buying, pay day and short-term loans and offer a range of quality pre-owned and new jewellery through convenient locations across the country...Our friendly and experienced staff can help you manage your finances or find the perfect gift."

The amusement arcade as was...run out of town by the betting shop slot machines?

Just as the bookies take advantage of planning laws that enable them to easily take over pubs and estate agents (A2 class), pawnbrokers are classed as A1 as long as the cheque cashing and similar activity remain ancillary to the main use as pawnbrokers/jewellers. But who's going to check?

As Albemarle & Bond open more and more retail outlets (like Paddy Power and Betfred), in areas where property is cheap and punters are desperate for cash, they have modernised their shopfront design. Retail-jeweller.com reported in February 2011 that A&B were "rolling out a new fascia across its portfolio as it looks to revamp its image as its retail sales fall in the face of soaring gold prices." (Yet more proof that they are not primarily retail).

And A&B's new logo now features the word "Bond" more prominently – because, according to CEO Barry Stevenson, their "customers have difficulty saying 'Albemarle and Bond'".

How will this modern design go down with the planners? The proposed internally illuminated double sided projecting sign reading "We buy gold any condition" jutting out from the bright yellow fascia illuminated by a continuous strip light doesn't exactly conform to the guidelines issued by Lewisham relating to those properties considered as heritage assets. This is not a listed building, mind, but it is in a conservation area. A&B want to replace the present timber framed shopfront (which has panelled pilasters and stallrisers) with a modern aluminium frame so that the shop looks like all their other branches and pays little attention to Lewisham's Shopfront Design Guide which requests that traditional materials must be used in conservation areas.

If you feel compelled to write an objection, you may want to emphasise the unsuitability of the proposed shopfront design in a conservation area. This may carry more weight than arguing that Albemarle & Bond are not really retailers, or that we've already got enough pawnbrokers, or that this particular site is not suitable due to its proximity to a cluster of betting shops...Objections must be in to Lewisham by 4th October 2011. See the application here and the documents here.

Sign of the Times by Adam Vass, to be featured in Deptford X at The Bird's Nest pub (click to enlarge)

Debt Advice
Crossfields residents may be interested to know that Lewisham Homes have teamed up with the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and their Moneymadeclear service to provide residents who need debt advice the opportunity to speak face-to-face with a trained money guide. They can provide impartial information and guidance with no fees. Call 0300 500 5000 or Lewisham Homes 0800 028 2028 (free from landline)/020 8613 4000 (if calling from a mobile) or go to  www.moneymadeclear.fsa.gov.uk.

Debt advice is also available at 170 Community Project in New Cross Gate (170 New Cross Road, 020 7732 9716). Unfortunately the Deptford Citizens Advice Bureau no longer exists – Catford Citizens Advice 0844 826 9691 (5p per minute) is the nearest within the borough.

Joan speaks for Deptford

Yesterday, Joan Ruddock MP spoke to a rather empty house (no guesses as to why it was less than full apart from it's holiday time) to propose legislation to tighten planning permission restrictions for high street betting shops. Worth ten minutes of your time – check it out at the Beeb's Democracy Live.

As pointed out by recent Crossfields commenter Charlz, she was opposed by some Tory called Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) who said the betting industry contributes greatly to the racing industry, seemingly forgetting that the racing levy only just survived an onslaught from the betting industry to ditch it, and continues to suffer less funding from said industry because most of the betting companies' increasing online activities are based offshore – which is why the levy was increased in February by .75% to 10.75% and the threshold reduced, which the betting industry was not pleased about at all.

Everything else Robertson said can be completely disproved with convincing statistics from highly credible sources and studies, including the government's own Gambling Prevalence Surveys. The man is an ass. Fortunately the 'ayes' went in Joan's favour, which means we may hear more again of this in the autumn.

Congratulations, Joan, and thanks.


Meanwhile, the Deptford Dame has posted about a campaign called Living Streets: the local joke. This is worth looking at, but misses the point a bit, seemingly misunderstanding how planning regarding betting shops works, despite a great cartoon. However, as the Dame says, use it to make your views known.

Betting Shops: Joan's 10 Minute Rule Bill tomorrow

This blogger received news last week from Joan Ruddock's office that she will be presenting a new bill in the Commons tomorrow, as part of the ongoing campaign against betting shops. I was on holiday at the time, so here is the belated news:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday 19 July

Ten-minute Rule Motion

BETTING SHOPS

Joan Ruddock

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to create a new planning use class for betting shops which would require the granting of planning permission; to provide that local planning authorities assess demand for betting shops when considering applications for premises in that planning use class and place a cap on the number of betting shops for which planning permission may be granted in any area; and for connected purposes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glad to hear Joan's contributing to the cause, but not entirely sure what a Ten Minute Rule Bill/Motion is, so went to the oracle...

The Ten Minute Rule, also known as Standing Order No. 23, is a procedure in the British Parliament for the introduction of Private Member's Bills in addition to the 20 per session normally permissible. It is one of the ways in which a bill may receive its first reading.

Any MP may introduce a bill under the Ten Minute Rule, although in practice it is only used by backbenchers. To qualify to introduce a bill under the Rule, the MP in question must be the first through the door to the Public Bill Office on the Tuesday or Wednesday morning fifteen working days (three weeks) prior to the date they wish to introduce their bill. Due to the popularity of the Rule and the difficulty in launching a Private Member's Bill by other means, MPs have been known to sleep outside the Public Bill Office in order to guarantee a slot.

Ten Minute Rule motions are held in the main Commons Chamber after question time, at around 12:30pm on most Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Whichever MP has reserved the slot presents their bill and is entitled to speak for 10 minutes to convince the house of its merit. After the 10 minutes have passed, another MP may speak for a further 10 minutes to oppose the bill. The Speaker then calls a voice vote to decide whether the bill should be allowed a second reading, which is when the bill is debated at a later date. The Speaker will divide the house for a recorded count of votes if there is some opposition. However, the majority of Ten Minute Rule motions are not objected to, and are allowed to proceed without any debate at this stage. This is because MPs have not yet had time to review the bill's content.

When a Ten Minute Rule motion passes, the bill is added to the register of parliamentary business. It is scheduled for debate along with the other Private Member's Bills, but at a lower priority. The MP presenting the bill must tell the Speaker the date for this second reading debate. The bill is generally printed and published shortly before the second reading.

Bills introduced under the Ten Minute Rule rarely progress much further, since the Government usually opposes Private Member's Bills in the later stages and, given their low priority in the schedule, there is often insufficient time for the debate to be completed. Most Ten Minute Rule introductions are instead used to stimulate publicity for a cause, especially as the debate follows the media-popular question time and is usually broadcast live on BBC Parliament, or to gauge the opinion of the house on an issue which may later be introduced in another bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Minute_Rule

Betfred appeal against Lewisham Planning decision

On 30 March 2011, Lewisham refused Betfred's planning application (see our post here). It was inevitable that Betfred would appeal against this decision to the government's Planning Inspectorate and now they have.

Those who objected to Betfred opening a new betting shop at 93-95 Deptford High Street are now being given the opportunity again to make their views known to the Planning Inspectorate.

The objections already made at application stage have been forwarded on to the Planning Inspectorate for consideration, but any further observations you may wish to make should be sent directly to:

Mrs Ruth Howell
The Planning Inspectorate
3/14 Eagle Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN

by THURSDAY 9 JUNE 2011.
Comments must be sent in triplicate quoting reference APP/C5690/A/11/2151228/NWF.

Or you can email teamp6@pins.gsi.gov.uk.

Any comments you write on this appeal will be copied by the Planning Inspectorate and forwarded to all parties to the appeal including the appellant.
Those who own a property nearby should make sure they tell the Planning Inspectorate if they want the Inspector to view their objections from their property. He may make a site visit to determine the relevant facts and features.

Anyone is welcome to send in their objections – not just those who have already objected. So please get writing! 

In their appeal, Betfred state:

"...the use of the unit as a licensed betting office rather than a bank/buiding society would not adversely affect the diversity of uses or the vitality and viability of the area. The proposed use will create a level of footfall similar to that of an A1 retail unit."

Except most retail units are not open in the evening encouraging drinking and begging outside on the pavement.

"...there is nothing to suggest the use of the premises as a betting shop would cause harm in terms of anti-social behaviour, crime or disturbance to neighbouring residents and other users of the town centre. This reason for refusal is based on a subjective view of the type of people that use betting shops. There is no evidence that customers visiting betting shops are any more likely to cause harm in terms of anti­social behaviour, crime or disturbance than any other use present along Deptford High Street."

Funny, then, that street drinking is only taking place outside betting shops and not other retail outlets...

The Blackheath Bugle has posted the letter from planning here, and suggests his/her readers use the Bugle's comments section to gather case studies, examples and evidence that illustrate why yet another betting shop in Deptford High Street is a bad idea. Feel free to do that on this blog too.

And the bigger picture...

We have been contacted by Joan Ruddock's office to let us know that David Lammy MP is tabling an Amendment to the Localism Bill as it relates to Planning Consent for Betting Offices, and this bill in back in the Commons on Tuesday/Wednesday this coming week and could be called anytime.

The idea of the amendment is to give more powers to local authorities to refuse planning permission to betting shops (as one way of combating the loopholes in the present Gambling Act). There is absolutely no guarantee that the amendment will be called for debate, but if it is, Ms Ruddock would like to speak about the experience on Deptford High Street.

So if you're able to find time to write an objection this week, please copy it to Joan Ruddock's assistant, Jessica.

The petition again...

Meanwhile, the online petition No to Betfred in Deptford High Street is still available for you to add your signature to, if you haven't already. It was addressed to Lewisham Planning, but after 181 signatures we may readdress it to the Planning Inspectorate. People have left some extremely pertinent comments on the petition which makes it worthwhile to continue. Any further signatures and comments may be submitted to the Inspectorate.

Some of these comments were incorporated into my March Planning Objection. This was a pretty long objection but contains a lot of information from surveys and reports about gambling and its effects on vulnerable people and poor communities. Download it here.

Betfred Licensing Hearing decision

Inevitably, Lewisham Licensing Committee were obliged to grant Betfred their Betting Licence yesterday evening, due to the restrictions imposed on them by the Gambling Law 2005.

Three people spoke on behalf of the people of Deptford in objection, one of whom runs a business on the high street who spoke passionately on behalf of businesses in the immediate vicinity who are opposed to the new betting shop.

The committee posed a few questions to the Betfred representative related to children and to problem gambling. Since the law as it stands discounts the effect on children of the prevalence of bookmakers in the area so long as they are not allowed on the premises, all arguments about the proximity of the proposed premises to primary schools and community resources could not be considered.

Regarding the question of problem gambling, the response of Betfred was laughable, but still within the law, since it is an irrelevancy under the current Act.

The hearing ended with an afterword from the Licencing Team officer, who said we would be sent papers about how we could appeal quite soon against this decision (in Bromley), and also that the applicant would be obliged to submit to a Planning stage in due course.

We'd assumed there would be very little happening at Planning stage, since the premises has A2 use already, but it appears it has exclusive use as a "Building Society" and nothing else, a rather bizarre twist in the story....

STOP Betfred - Deadline for petition

The hearing for BetFred's Betting Licence application for the old Halifax premises at 93-95 Deptford High Street is next Wednesday 9th Feb at the Town Hall. Afterwards it will be the 8th betting shop on the high street, or not. And the sixth within a 150m cluster, and the 11th within the vicinity of the high street, or not.

There are only 3 or 4 days left for you to sign your objection, if you haven't already. You can sign against Betfred online or do it on paper in the high street at Kim's newsagents, Ralph's grocers (High Street Flowers), Sight Centre opticians, Deptford Project train café, Albany Café, and Deptford Deli.

The closer you live to the high street the more urgently we need your signature, but please sign anyway if you visit the high street regularly.

If you're signing online, please also sign the national petition here. It took over 600,000 signatures to bring the government's proposed sell-off of our national woodlands to media attention which in turn led to it being debated in parliament, instead of it being slipped through without notice.

If you thinking signing the local petition will make no difference, that is even more reason to sign the national one, which demands a change in the 2005 Gambling Act to give councils and communities all over the country more power to SAY NO to betting shops opening up where there are already enough. Pass it on to your friends and relatives in other parts of the UK. Unlike the local objection to Betfred, the national petition can go on and on...

SAY YES to boarded up shop fronts if that's what it takes to get rid of these Multi Millionaire Tax Dodging Off-shore Banking Parasites that are deliberately targeting poor communities and making them even poorer...

New e-Petition to lobby Parliament re Betting Shops

A petition against Betfred getting a license to operate at 93-95 Deptford High Street (ex-Halifax) has gone to Lewisham's Licensing Team, along with an objection. It had 55 signatures, 47 of which were from businesses and their staff operating directly in the vicinity (37 different high street addresses in all), the remaining being market traders and residents.

This petition was one of two circulating. The other had well over 100 signatures. However, some of those signatures will not count since the objectors do not 'reside' in the vicinity and the petition was attached to an objection based on the grounds that there are already too many betting shops, and therefore, by law, cannot be accepted. Nevertheless it is an indication of how everyone feels. Unfortunately, too, a petition only counts as 'one' objection. The hearing before the Licensing Committee at which objections may be heard will possibly be held in early February.

We could keep the petition (based on the grounds that gambling attracts and is associated with crime and disorder) going beyond the Licensing Objection deadline (Wednesday), and this can be accepted nearer the date of the hearing in February if it is supplementary to an already existing objection. *

But because of the stated position of Lewisham council (see previous post) and, indeed, of other London boroughs and councils across the country, it is unlikely to make any difference to the outcome. It appears that even if someone got knifed in Paddy Power tomorrow, or loads of people got shot dead in an armed robbery at Coral, it would make no difference to the fact that Lewisham won't turn down the licence because Betfred would appeal and appeal until they get their way. The council say they cannot afford to fight them.

A change in the law is required. 

Therefore we have started a NEW e-Petition to lobby Parliament to amend the 2005 Gambling Act to give local authorities greater powers to refuse permission to the betting chains. We need this to go viral across the country, so if you have any friends and relations in other parts of the UK, please tell them about it.

Stop Betting Shops Taking Over Our High Streets

Sign the petition now at www.gopetition.com/petition/42066.html

This is intended to be a cross-party campaign, but was inspired by the reply Diane Abbot MP got from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport who told her that they were unconvinced the law needed changing. Ken Livingstone will also hopefully become more vocal about the problem once he gets his campaign for Mayor underway (his campaign manager is David Lammy MP, who like Abbott, has been lobbying on this problem for some time).

We hope our own council and MP will speak out in due course.

*More news on this shortly...OH! Here it is!

No to Betfred in Deptford High Street

Sign the petition now at www.gopetition.com/petition/42164.html


TWO PETITIONS – ONE AIM!

No more betting shops - update

We wrote to the Mayor and councillors about the latest license application from Betfred and got the following replies:

On behalf of the Mayor & Cabinet Office, Andy Williams wrote:

"Steve has asked me to let you know that In July 2009, Lewisham put forward 3 requests, under the Sustainable Communities Act, to amend the Gambling Act to give local authorities more freedom to limit the number of betting shops in an area. However, currently the Council's Licensing Authority has no power under legislation to refuse an application on the grounds that an area is becoming over congested with betting shops.

Each application is assessed on its own merits and can only be refused if objections by local people or organisations highlight a direct contravention of licensing objectives of the Gambling Act.

That said, objections have been received in relation to this application and it will be determined by the Council's licensing committee soon, possibly in February."

We suggested in response that the Mayor might like to make his position more clearly visible in a public statement, since many people mistakenly seem to think the Licensing Committee must be taking backhanders. They also believe the council has abandoned the Deptford community (and Catford, where there are 10 bookies around the high street), despite the large-scale civil amenities being built (which has led to limited and expensive parking). We are pleased to hear that the Mayor made representations in 2009, but what did he do in 2010?

Our original email to him wasn't just about numbers of betting shops either. We had to point out again that there were more than enough grounds under the Licensing Objectives relating to how gambling is linked to crime for an application from Betfred to be turned down.

But an email response from a member of the Licensing Team, Cllr Stella Jeffreys (Lab, Lewisham Central) clarified their position (without addressing crime):

"Thank you for your email.  I do appreciate your concern and as a member of the Licensing Committee I am aware of the public feeling on the proliferation of betting shops in particular areas.

As you note the law does not allow us to take the number of betting premises in an area into account, unlike alcohol licences in a designated cumulative impact area, and the logic of the Act is presumably that new premises will only open if there is a commercial benefit to the operators.  

In the past Lewisham has tried to stand up to prevent the opening of new betting shops but has incurred high costs when the companies have appealed.  At this time of massive budget reductions for Lewisham Council it would not be prudent for us to repeat that.

The only way forward is for Parliament to change the law.  I am sure that you have already lobbied Joan Ruddock the MP for Deptford on this matter, but as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are now in power, can I suggest that you also contact the relevant minister, John Penrose MP, Minister for Tourism and Heritage in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport."

We are grateful to Stella for her response. She manages to say that the borough cannot afford to turn down applications where the applicant can afford to appeal.

UPDATE: To be fair, it appears Lewisham Council was the lead authority on a proposal shortlisted by the Local Government Association and submitted to central government as a suggested amendment to the Sustainable Communities Act. It proposed that councils should have the power to cap the number of bookmakers in a certain area...see the Deptford Dame's post from March 2010.

Unfortunately, the implications of that are that if an armed robbery took place inside and outside Coral tomorrow it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to Licensing's response to Betfred's application to open up across the road. They won't turn them down since they know they'd appeal and Lewisham can't or don't want to afford to fight the appeal.

And that Minister for Tourism & Heritage Stella mentioned would be the same John Penrose MP who would like to see the 2005 Gambling Act weakened even further to allow ordinary (adult only) slot machines take higher minimum stakes (from £1 to £2) so that amusement arcades in his constituency of Weston-super-Mare can do better business. Those B3 one-armed-bandits are just not as exciting as the FOBs (Fixed Odd Betting machines) that are only allowed to be installed in betting shops where you can touch the screen every 20 seconds in the vain hope of winning £500. Says Penrose "I would like to ensure these businesses remain competitive in these tough economic times." (Hansard) 

The 2005 Gambling Act debate

Apart from Penrose's initial preferences, in Parliament, the main issues being debated around the Act concern the Horseracing Betting Levy (which has helped fund British horse racing since the 1960s) and The Tote (the state-owned legal betting service founded in 1928 which also helps fund British horse racing, now a state-run casino as it keeps abreast of bookmaking trends, although it remains independent). Areas of debate on the Levy include Offshore Online Betting Businesses that are outside the Levy (Hills and Ladbrokes for instance), Overseas Racing (no Levy), Gross Profits Thresholds (percentage of total profits that can be paid by bookmakers, presently only 10%), Betting Exchanges (that operate outside bookmakers and is unlevied) and Media Rights (which bookmakers resent paying)...

The racing community claims that a series of loopholes exploited by bookmakers have resulted in the size of the levy on bookmakers' profits falling by more than a third in the past two years (£75m instead of £130m-£150m). Bookmakers argue that racing is no longer their main concern, though if you ever glance inside one, you'll know that it's the main event on all the screens. Obviously the shop isn't the only medium for betting and racing isn't the only thing we can bet on, but it can be argued that the demand for racing hasn't decreased (in fact attendance at race meetings has grown), just the opportunity for betting on everything else has increased. See Racing United for more on the Levy.

The Tote is a national asset that the government has been thinking of selling off to the highest bidder for some time (like Waterways and Woodlands), particularly since Gordon Brown as chancellor announced the intention in 2001. It has 517 high street betting shops and the monopoly to run "pool betting" (oh god, don't ask) online and at 60 racecourses in the UK. Allegedly, in the year to April 2010 it made profits of £13.3m on revenues of £2.8bn, and contributed £11.3m to the horse racing industry.

The Jockey Club (which regulates horse racing, owns and operates 13 racecourse etc) opposes the sale of the Tote, whilst Betfred was prepared to pay up to £250m in December 2010 (it was worth £400m in 2007), up against Paddy Power, Sportech (headed by Ian Penrose, shurely no relation) etc. Coral and Ladbrokes already have partnerships with the Tote. They are ruled out of bidding on "competition grounds". (Meanwhile, like they give a shit, Paddy Power was reported in December 2010 as buying Australian company Sportsbet for £86.2m).

I reckon the Tote is worth more than £250m because of its 'pool betting' monopoly but don't ask me why. Obviously I'm of a type that is averse to sell-offs anyway (such as waterways and woodlands, not to mention those already sold off), especially when some bastard gets it cheap. Then again, I've only seen toffs with plenty of money who own racehorses, why should they be subsidised for their jockeys, vets, trainers and prize money?

Both the Levy and the Tote are long-running sagas for the government. Penrose has been reported as considering various options other than a direct sell of the Tote, but is excluded from the Levy debate because his wife is a member of the Jockey Club. Guess who's in charge? Jeremy Hunt, who would probably, like the bookmakers, prefer the levy scrapped, and has possibly already lined up a mate to buy the Tote, if his recent reputation is anything to go by.

If, like me, you have never followed racing or the betting industry, you'll be confused. Anyone who knows and wants to make the above clearer, please do. But with all these vested interests going on and arguments (some moral) centred around tradition & heritage versus 'a modern gambling experience', and state ownership and subsidy versus pure market forces, it is hardly surprising the Labour government made such an enormous cock-up of the 2005 Gambling Act...

During that time, you probably couldn't move in Westminster for betting industry lobbyists. No doubt it is similar now, only more competitive...A box at the races for you and your banking mates, free booze and direct line to tax free exchange betting, anyone?

Whatever, it's beyond ironic that New Labour's complete and utter fumbling of the 2005 Gambling Act has led to New Labour's flagship boroughs suffering the most.

Down on the street

North of the river, in Hackney alone there are nearly 70 betting shops, three times the national average. There were 2,095 gambling licenses in operation in 33 boroughs in 2009, up from 1,721 in 2003 (Gambling Commission and Home Office).

Hackney Mayor Jules Pipe describes betting shops as "sucking the money out of people's pockets".

In September 2010 he joined Ken Livingstone and Tottenham MP David Lammy in a press call at a new Paddy Power in Mare Street, where there are already 9 bookies. Livingstone said:

"We are calling on the government to give local communities a greater say over their high streets...there should be a separate planning class for betting shops to give councils and residents the power to determine their location and overall numbers."

Lammy said, "It is surely wrong that (councils) cannot deny an application for a betting shop on the basis of the number already open in the area."

The Hackney News reported that the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) has said it would be co-operating with a review announced by Haringey council into the proliferation of high-street betting shops, but denied that new legislation was needed, since under the current Act, local councils can refuse licenses where they can show 'good and sustainable reasons'.

Local campaigners in Deptford (apolitical local residents horrified by the developments on their doorsteps) who went to the trouble of objecting for "good and sustainable reasons" (including planning objections under conservation rules that seem to hold even less weight), to Paddy Power taking over both the Deptford Arms and the John Evelyn pubs within a 4 month period know this is simply not true.

The Local Government Association argues that lax licensing of gambling premises in deprived areas simply increases poverty. "We are a bit concerned...they're taking advantage of people's desperations and concerns at such a difficult time." (Hackney News) Also see the LGA website.

Hackney's MP Diane Abbott has long been campaigning about the clustering of betting shops. She has talked about it on the telly, and before she got drawn into the Labour leadership campaign, as a back bencher she was putting in EDMs (Early Day Motions) to Parliament in an attempt to change the 2005 Gambling Act. 

Time for Lewisham to Speak Out

In a response to our email to Diane Abbott about what is happening in Deptford, her office furnished us with the response she received from John Penrose in October 2010. In the letter, Penrose says there are powers which local authorities can implement to make it harder for certain shops to open under Town & Country Planning legislation. "There are wider issues at play that should be dealt with through the Local Development Framework and Town Centre Management strategies, rather than being addressed by gambling specific legislation."

Unless there is something mysteriously masonic in John Penrose's words that councillors and bureaucrats in boroughs all over the country have missed to the detriment of their communities (that'll be Tory wards that aren't blighted), it needs to be pointed out to John Penrose MP that when a local authority turns down licensing or planning applications to ambitious new betting chains it is inevitable that said betting chains, Paddy Power, Betfred etc, WON'T BE HAPPY until they have BANKRUPTED every local authority in the UK...
in order to maintain and achieve even greater hold over their competitors in our high streets, whilst all along singing merrily that they have only provided us with what we wanted all along. 

Penrose went on to tell Diane Abbott that he's not convinced the law needs changing because he hasn't heard similar complaints from around the country – whilst his government cuts local authority funding to ribbons. Whatever your opinions on how your council makes its cuts, you will probably agree you'd rather keep a library open than fund a hopeless legal case against a wealthy offshore betting chain.

Penrose probably doesn't know either that bookmakers are the second most likely target for armed robbery (after shops and before post offices and banks), and doesn't have to walk down a street where punters hang outside betting shops all day drinking, drug dealing, stealing from the adjacent shops and shoppers, and begging. 

John Penrose's response to Diane Abbott is a WAKE UP call to our powers-that-be in Lewisham (including the Borough Chief of Police) to speak up in support of Deptford shopkeepers, street traders and residents, and join our friends north of the river in a nationwide campaign to change the law.

-0-

At the time of writing, we have had no response to our emails to Joan Ruddock. We visited her surgery at The Albany yesterday afternoon and picked up ticket number 26. There were already 15 people waiting, and ticket number 16 was called at 5.45pm, 15 minutes before her session was to close. We sincerely hope she is able to help those people, some of whom had been waiting since 3pm....

However, we hope Deptford can count on her support in the future. She's always been a jolly good Chair.

Read how to object here. (Objections now closed)

Further update: Some background reading on the local situation...
http://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2010/10/paddy-power-licence-granted.html
http://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2010/10/john-evelyn-pub-another-paddy-power.html
http://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2010/05/deptford-arms-planning-applications.html
http://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2010/03/deptford-armspaddy-power.html

Deptford Betting Map

View D=f(m,b,c) Deptford High Street in a larger map

We've updated the Deptford Betting Map since a comment to the Deptford Dame revealed there are in fact already TEN betting offices in the vicinity of Deptford High Street (we thought it was nine). The new Betfred coming to the ex-Halifax will bring the local total to ELEVEN. If you include the rest of Evelyn Street (still in Deptford) it becomes 13. The map shows that Betfred will be the SIXTH within a 150metre area in the south of the high street.

If you want to object to Betfred's application for a betting licence see our post here.

Meanwhile, this is a charming poster presently gracing one of the windows of the old Deptford Arms – at childrens' eye level. It seems to suggest that if you are an overweight woman you can become a man with an enormous knob...certainly not what anyone would call the 'usual prospects'...

Oppose the tenth betting shop...(Part 1)

There are no easy systems in place to block an application for a betting license, especially if the premises was already a bank, where there are no changes in use (financial)....

So we have the:
"Done Brothers" of Warrington WA3 7PQ trading as Betfred
applying for a betting premises license under section 159 of the Gambling Act 2005 
for 93-95 Deptford High Street.

Unfortunately, the 'Gambling License' applied for above does not require that it is posted online and, unlike 'Planning Permission' there is no facility for objecting online either. In fact the only way you would know that the Halifax is about to become Betfred is by reading the notice currently stuck to the window of 93-95 Deptford High Street.

We wrote to the Licensing Team and got this message:

Your objection can be via letter or email but must include a name and address as objectors must reside in the vicinity of the premises.

The grounds for such objections under the above legislation, must specifically relate to one or more of the Licensing Objectives which are

• Preventing 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
• Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploiting by gambling.
•  Under this legislation the number of betting shops in an area is not a relevant ground for objection.

I would also advise that a copy of your representation has to be sent to the applicant,  and should the application be determined by the licensing committee of the council at a public meeting your letter would form part of agenda papers for the meeting. You will have the opportunity to address the committee on this matter. These documents are available to the press and the public.

Well, we do know some people living in the vicinity, so we will be encouraging them to making representations (not that they need much nudging).

Those of us living down the road (ie not in the immediate vicinity) but nevertheless concerned if not distressed by this might want to write a letter of objection to the licensing committee and should copy that letter to local councillors, MP and press.

The address to email your objections to:
Licensing@lewisham.gov.uk

The Licensing Team did not tell us the email address of the applicant however, so we cannot copy to them until we are informed of it, although we do have an address from the notice in the window as follows: Spectrum, 56-58 Benson Road, Birchwood, Warrington, WA3 7PQ

In the meantime copy your email to:

john.hugill@slp.co.uk
CllrStephen.Padmore@lewisham.gov.uk
CllrPaul.Maslin@lewisham.gov.uk
madeliene.long@lewisham.gov.uk
ruddockj@parliament.uk
Betfred / Done Brothers (awaiting address from Licensing since no contact email has been provided)*

Then there are the councillors on the Gambling Licensing committee...but that's built on shifting sands and it's difficult for the public to find out who the three members of the Licensing Team may actually be....:
Councillors Addison, Affiku, Britton, Bonavia, Daby, Griesenbeck, Jeffrey, Morrison, Peake and Stamirowski (chair).

*Postscript:
Licensing has since written to us to say they will send on a copy to the applicant any objections sent to them.