Bradford gambling business plan would cause 'unacceptable harm'

A GOVERNMENT inspector has agreed that a new gambling business in an area already dominated by similar businesses would cause “unacceptable harm” to the city centre.

Merkur Slots had planned to open an adult gaming centre in the former Leeds Building Society unit on Bank Street, in the heart of the city centre.

But last summer, Bradford Council refused the plans. This was partly due to the high number of gambling businesses and betting shops within a short walk of the unit.

Landmark House, the building the unit is a part of, is already home to Admiral Casinos, William Hill, Paddy Power and Ladbrokes, with a Betfred bookmakers in the neighbouring Brown Muffs block.

And Merkur Slots had opened a city centre “bingo hall” at the top of nearby Ivegate just weeks before the Bank Street plans were submitted.

Planning officers said there was an “overconcentration” of gambling businesses in that area of the city, and that another unit being taken up by such a business would be “unsustainable, and removes opportunities for the area to adapt within its primary retail function". 

Planning officers also refused the plans on public health grounds, saying the city centre was home to a high number of people who were vulnerable to becoming gambling addicts.

Merkur Slots appealed the decision, arguing the new venue, which would open from 9am to midnight, would help fill an empty unit.

They referred to successful appeals against other refusals – including one in Kidderminster.

Planning officer C Megginson has now dismissed the appeal – agreeing with the Council’s claims that the gaming centre would harm the high street.

However, they did not agree that the new business would cause public health issues.

Dismissing the appeal, they said another gambling business in that area would move one of the centre’s main shopping areas further away from retail.

They pointed out that this area of Bank Street is a “primary shopping area” and that Council policies for this type of area should “ensure that the dominant shopping character of primary shopping frontages is maintained".

“Proposals which would result in the loss of retail floorspace will be expected to demonstrate that they will not be detrimental to the continued viability and vitality of the shopping street," they added.

Their response to the appeal added: “The Broadway shopping centre is located in close proximity and the Council state that since opening, there has been a natural shift of commercial uses towards the appeal site.

“I appreciate that the appeal property was previously in a non-retail use, has been vacant for some time and that there will be economic benefits from returning it into use.

“I appreciate that an adult gaming centre would generate footfall and potential for linked trips and can complement a retail offer.

“I also recognise that the number of betting shops, casinos, bingo and amusement centres within Bradford city centre as a percentage of uses is small.

“Nevertheless, the appeal site lies in an area currently dominated by nonretail uses.

“The appeal proposal would remove the potential for retail use completely, within a prominent primary shopping frontage and would perpetuate the dominance of non-retail uses and inactive frontages in this area.

“This would unacceptably harm the vitality and viability of the primary shopping frontage.

“The appellant has highlighted a recent approval for an adult gaming centre at Ivegate.

"From the limited evidence before me and my site visit, I observed that this property appears to be within an area with a healthy mix of different uses and sits in a much less prominent location within the street, when compared to the appeal site.”

However, they were less supportive of the Council’s claims that an extra gambling business would harm public health in Bradford.

The decision said: “It has not been demonstrated that the appeal proposal would necessarily lead to an increase in problem gambling, and the Council has not provided any substantive evidence that the proposed use would significantly and disproportionately harm the health of and wellbeing of citizens within the ward.”

Referring to the company’s argument that a similar appeal for a business in Kidderminster was successful, the inspector said: “I am not convinced that it is directly comparable.”