Betting shop bid blocked

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Cllr Clyde Loakes with residents outside the existing William Hill in Leytonstone Town Centre Cllr Clyde Loakes with residents outside the existing William Hill in Leytonstone Town Centre

A bid to open a bookmakers has been blocked after 1,000 people signed a petition opposing it.

William Hill applied to create a new branch in Church Lane,  Leytonstone, but concerns were raised over crime and anti-social behaviour associated with betting shops.

As well as the petition, which was the largest submitted to the council since the M11 link road campaign ten years ago, the planning commitee also considered 140 individual objections.

The planning committee rejected the application on Thursday.

 

 

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:15am Wed 18 Dec 13

Dave mp says...

Well done. Some Betting shops have even became 'territorial' and even seem to have their doormen. Some betting shops even have door controls on now, what next?
Well done. Some Betting shops have even became 'territorial' and even seem to have their doormen. Some betting shops even have door controls on now, what next? Dave mp

11:50am Wed 18 Dec 13

Billy Yerache says...

Loakes must take the credit for these blockages and also his stance on the scourge of the chicken shops that both ruin peoples lives.
Loakes must take the credit for these blockages and also his stance on the scourge of the chicken shops that both ruin peoples lives. Billy Yerache

11:58am Wed 18 Dec 13

mdj says...

A good result; but if the Council has the power do to this, why did they allow Bakers Arms and Walthamstow High St to become infested with them?

Given the number of people who have petitioned the Council over the EMD cinema over the years, the 1000+ who petitoned over Yum Yum 's only last week, and the 10,000+ petition to save the William Morris Gallery from Mr Loakes, I think we can set aside the statistical claim
A good result; but if the Council has the power do to this, why did they allow Bakers Arms and Walthamstow High St to become infested with them? Given the number of people who have petitioned the Council over the EMD cinema over the years, the 1000+ who petitoned over Yum Yum 's only last week, and the 10,000+ petition to save the William Morris Gallery from Mr Loakes, I think we can set aside the statistical claim mdj

2:04pm Wed 18 Dec 13

OngarRS says...

Do they really think stopping a betting shop opening will stop those who are addicted to gambling? Why not then stop it on TV, or at every Premiership game? It won't do anything.
Do they really think stopping a betting shop opening will stop those who are addicted to gambling? Why not then stop it on TV, or at every Premiership game? It won't do anything. OngarRS

2:34pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Sean P says...

I heard that a charity own this particular building. Can you believe it?
Well done to all those in the community that fought this campaign. We dont need no more betting shops on our High streets.
I heard that a charity own this particular building. Can you believe it? Well done to all those in the community that fought this campaign. We dont need no more betting shops on our High streets. Sean P

3:22pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Robert19 says...

Sean P wrote:
I heard that a charity own this particular building. Can you believe it?
Well done to all those in the community that fought this campaign. We dont need no more betting shops on our High streets.
Yes you are right the Bourne (in Lincolnshire) United Charities. Here is an extract from their web page:

The largest single endowment is the Charity of Robert Harrington (1589-1654). He is reputed to have left Bourne as a lad and walked to London to seek his fortune, becoming a gentleman landowner who left land and property in the Leytonstone area of London producing an annual income to be used for the benefit and education of the poor. In 1830, this was bringing in £300 a year but by the end of the century, as Harrington's estate at Leytonstone began to be developed, the value of his charity started to increase in a spectacular way and by 1909 it had reached more than £2,000 a year while burgeoning property values in recent years has made this the most important source of income for BUC today.

I suspect renting to a betting shop chain would not be what he would not be thinking about if he were alive today!
[quote][p][bold]Sean P[/bold] wrote: I heard that a charity own this particular building. Can you believe it? Well done to all those in the community that fought this campaign. We dont need no more betting shops on our High streets.[/p][/quote]Yes you are right the Bourne (in Lincolnshire) United Charities. Here is an extract from their web page: The largest single endowment is the Charity of Robert Harrington (1589-1654). He is reputed to have left Bourne as a lad and walked to London to seek his fortune, becoming a gentleman landowner who left land and property in the Leytonstone area of London producing an annual income to be used for the benefit and education of the poor. In 1830, this was bringing in £300 a year but by the end of the century, as Harrington's estate at Leytonstone began to be developed, the value of his charity started to increase in a spectacular way and by 1909 it had reached more than £2,000 a year while burgeoning property values in recent years has made this the most important source of income for BUC today. I suspect renting to a betting shop chain would not be what he would not be thinking about if he were alive today! Robert19

3:23pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Robert19 says...

One too many nots in my last post.
One too many nots in my last post. Robert19

3:44pm Wed 18 Dec 13

RichieA70 says...

It's been blocked at council stage, but will William Hill get it approved on Appeal by national govt like the one on Forest Road recently?
It's been blocked at council stage, but will William Hill get it approved on Appeal by national govt like the one on Forest Road recently? RichieA70

4:12pm Wed 18 Dec 13

mdj says...

'I suspect renting to a betting shop chain would not be what he would not be thinking about if he were alive today!'

Agreed: but charity trustees may well be bound to get the best return for the fund - the highest rent, in this case - that they can.
The petition was in fact initially to the charity, to ask them not to grant the lease: this implies that at that point the council thought it had no planning powers to stop it. What's changed, one wonders?
'I suspect renting to a betting shop chain would not be what he would not be thinking about if he were alive today!' Agreed: but charity trustees may well be bound to get the best return for the fund - the highest rent, in this case - that they can. The petition was in fact initially to the charity, to ask them not to grant the lease: this implies that at that point the council thought it had no planning powers to stop it. What's changed, one wonders? mdj

6:02pm Wed 18 Dec 13

theshariahproject says...

Yes. Far too many betting shops in the area. Check out our anti-gambling campaign: http://www.thesharia
hproject.com/boycott
-gambling.html

Abu Rumaysah
www.theshariahprojec
t.com
Yes. Far too many betting shops in the area. Check out our anti-gambling campaign: http://www.thesharia hproject.com/boycott -gambling.html Abu Rumaysah www.theshariahprojec t.com theshariahproject

6:27pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Billy Yerache says...

theshariahproject wrote:
Yes. Far too many betting shops in the area. Check out our anti-gambling campaign: http://www.thesharia

hproject.com/boycott

-gambling.html

Abu Rumaysah
www.theshariahprojec

t.com
I would rather have more betting shops than Sharia Law.

If you like Sharia Law why do you not transfer to somewhere already under it rather than enjoy the fruits of the UK and try and convert UK Citizens?
[quote][p][bold]theshariahproject[/bold] wrote: Yes. Far too many betting shops in the area. Check out our anti-gambling campaign: http://www.thesharia hproject.com/boycott -gambling.html Abu Rumaysah www.theshariahprojec t.com[/p][/quote]I would rather have more betting shops than Sharia Law. If you like Sharia Law why do you not transfer to somewhere already under it rather than enjoy the fruits of the UK and try and convert UK Citizens? Billy Yerache

6:48pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Robert19 says...

I suspect it is the simpler way to get the trustees to not grant a lease rather than a formal hearing. The reason why this one was overturned was on change of use. That is why the firms are buying former pubs as they do not require change of use as they are in the same planning band that of entertainment - not sure that most bets fit that category - tend to be only entertaining when you win.
Donors can stipulate how they want their money invested and distributed. Probably clearer to do so in the 17th century but we live in a different world. You are right mdj that the Charity Commission requires trustees to maximise income within reason and protecting the assets but it also allows trustees to make investments to further the charity's aims. In this case I suggest Bourne United Charities fail.
I suspect it is the simpler way to get the trustees to not grant a lease rather than a formal hearing. The reason why this one was overturned was on change of use. That is why the firms are buying former pubs as they do not require change of use as they are in the same planning band that of entertainment - not sure that most bets fit that category - tend to be only entertaining when you win. Donors can stipulate how they want their money invested and distributed. Probably clearer to do so in the 17th century but we live in a different world. You are right mdj that the Charity Commission requires trustees to maximise income within reason and protecting the assets but it also allows trustees to make investments to further the charity's aims. In this case I suggest Bourne United Charities fail. Robert19

11:11pm Wed 18 Dec 13

mdj says...

' The reason why this one was overturned was on change of use..'

Still somewhat baffled. Only one of the many bookies at Bakers Arms and in the High St is a former pub, so if this power exists, were the council simply asleep at the wheel for the last ten years?

The planning categories are strange. The only reason the EMD saga has gone on for so long is that cinemas and churches fall into different usage categories, enabling protesters to stall the changeover. Since both are large places of civil assembly where alcohol is not consumed, there seems no real reason why - not that most of us regret this, in this case.
' The reason why this one was overturned was on change of use..' Still somewhat baffled. Only one of the many bookies at Bakers Arms and in the High St is a former pub, so if this power exists, were the council simply asleep at the wheel for the last ten years? The planning categories are strange. The only reason the EMD saga has gone on for so long is that cinemas and churches fall into different usage categories, enabling protesters to stall the changeover. Since both are large places of civil assembly where alcohol is not consumed, there seems no real reason why - not that most of us regret this, in this case. mdj

12:33am Thu 19 Dec 13

Billy Yerache says...

I am not a fan of Loakes but he has fought this campaign against liberal policy. He alone should be congratulated and it is no wonder why the people of Northampton wanted his talent.
I am not a fan of Loakes but he has fought this campaign against liberal policy. He alone should be congratulated and it is no wonder why the people of Northampton wanted his talent. Billy Yerache

7:03am Thu 19 Dec 13

Helen, Walthamstow says...

mdj wrote:
'I suspect renting to a betting shop chain would not be what he would not be thinking about if he were alive today!'

Agreed: but charity trustees may well be bound to get the best return for the fund - the highest rent, in this case - that they can.
The petition was in fact initially to the charity, to ask them not to grant the lease: this implies that at that point the council thought it had no planning powers to stop it. What's changed, one wonders?
What's changed? It could be the fact that there will be an election in less than six months' time.

WFN is stuffed with "we are wonderful stories" (at our expense) and party "newsletters" are starting to come through the door after a three-year silence.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'I suspect renting to a betting shop chain would not be what he would not be thinking about if he were alive today!' Agreed: but charity trustees may well be bound to get the best return for the fund - the highest rent, in this case - that they can. The petition was in fact initially to the charity, to ask them not to grant the lease: this implies that at that point the council thought it had no planning powers to stop it. What's changed, one wonders?[/p][/quote]What's changed? It could be the fact that there will be an election in less than six months' time. WFN is stuffed with "we are wonderful stories" (at our expense) and party "newsletters" are starting to come through the door after a three-year silence. Helen, Walthamstow

8:55am Thu 19 Dec 13

Robert19 says...

mdj wrote:
' The reason why this one was overturned was on change of use..'

Still somewhat baffled. Only one of the many bookies at Bakers Arms and in the High St is a former pub, so if this power exists, were the council simply asleep at the wheel for the last ten years?

The planning categories are strange. The only reason the EMD saga has gone on for so long is that cinemas and churches fall into different usage categories, enabling protesters to stall the changeover. Since both are large places of civil assembly where alcohol is not consumed, there seems no real reason why - not that most of us regret this, in this case.
I think the change that has crept up on most councils are these machines that are restricted to three per shop. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Labour government did not think this one through properly as they should have known that this is what the big firms would do - open new premises yards away. Indeed the whole liberalisation of betting and drinking was seriously mishandled. It is left to councils to try to clear up the mess which is not helped by the present planning minister giving a nod to the bookmakers to make it even easier to open new shops.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: ' The reason why this one was overturned was on change of use..' Still somewhat baffled. Only one of the many bookies at Bakers Arms and in the High St is a former pub, so if this power exists, were the council simply asleep at the wheel for the last ten years? The planning categories are strange. The only reason the EMD saga has gone on for so long is that cinemas and churches fall into different usage categories, enabling protesters to stall the changeover. Since both are large places of civil assembly where alcohol is not consumed, there seems no real reason why - not that most of us regret this, in this case.[/p][/quote]I think the change that has crept up on most councils are these machines that are restricted to three per shop. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Labour government did not think this one through properly as they should have known that this is what the big firms would do - open new premises yards away. Indeed the whole liberalisation of betting and drinking was seriously mishandled. It is left to councils to try to clear up the mess which is not helped by the present planning minister giving a nod to the bookmakers to make it even easier to open new shops. Robert19

10:07am Thu 19 Dec 13

Billy Yerache says...

Robert19 wrote:
mdj wrote: ' The reason why this one was overturned was on change of use..' Still somewhat baffled. Only one of the many bookies at Bakers Arms and in the High St is a former pub, so if this power exists, were the council simply asleep at the wheel for the last ten years? The planning categories are strange. The only reason the EMD saga has gone on for so long is that cinemas and churches fall into different usage categories, enabling protesters to stall the changeover. Since both are large places of civil assembly where alcohol is not consumed, there seems no real reason why - not that most of us regret this, in this case.
I think the change that has crept up on most councils are these machines that are restricted to three per shop. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Labour government did not think this one through properly as they should have known that this is what the big firms would do - open new premises yards away. Indeed the whole liberalisation of betting and drinking was seriously mishandled. It is left to councils to try to clear up the mess which is not helped by the present planning minister giving a nod to the bookmakers to make it even easier to open new shops.
And Stella Creasy fails to acknowledge her Party's own contribution to this mess even with her focus and drum banging campagne regarding Loan Sharks.
[quote][p][bold]Robert19[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: ' The reason why this one was overturned was on change of use..' Still somewhat baffled. Only one of the many bookies at Bakers Arms and in the High St is a former pub, so if this power exists, were the council simply asleep at the wheel for the last ten years? The planning categories are strange. The only reason the EMD saga has gone on for so long is that cinemas and churches fall into different usage categories, enabling protesters to stall the changeover. Since both are large places of civil assembly where alcohol is not consumed, there seems no real reason why - not that most of us regret this, in this case.[/p][/quote]I think the change that has crept up on most councils are these machines that are restricted to three per shop. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Labour government did not think this one through properly as they should have known that this is what the big firms would do - open new premises yards away. Indeed the whole liberalisation of betting and drinking was seriously mishandled. It is left to councils to try to clear up the mess which is not helped by the present planning minister giving a nod to the bookmakers to make it even easier to open new shops.[/p][/quote]And Stella Creasy fails to acknowledge her Party's own contribution to this mess even with her focus and drum banging campagne regarding Loan Sharks. Billy Yerache

1:21pm Thu 19 Dec 13

mdj says...

'The Labour government did not think this one through properly ...'

Some of that, but other considerations too.
If high street and onshore betting are confined too much, a lot of it simply goes offshore, with no tax or employment recompense at all to the country suffering the drain of capital.

My own take on Labour's bizarre love affair with gambling was that it was a camouflage to protect the City. Amid the super-casino flim-flam they made gambling debts pursuable in the courts for the first time. Since most of the City's income now derives from deals that are essentially wagers, it was only a matter of time before some sore loser refused to pay, which would have brought the whole thing crashing down ( a good thing, in my book).
'The Labour government did not think this one through properly ...' Some of that, but other considerations too. If high street and onshore betting are confined too much, a lot of it simply goes offshore, with no tax or employment recompense at all to the country suffering the drain of capital. My own take on Labour's bizarre love affair with gambling was that it was a camouflage to protect the City. Amid the super-casino flim-flam they made gambling debts pursuable in the courts for the first time. Since most of the City's income now derives from deals that are essentially wagers, it was only a matter of time before some sore loser refused to pay, which would have brought the whole thing crashing down ( a good thing, in my book). mdj

4:30pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Robert19 says...

But the problem is that they are expanding exponentially and often the same firm has two or more shops within yards of each other. Unlike pubs, which at least you could say was recognising that less and less people use them and they are closing at a rate of knots, I think the Labour government saw betting and gambling as a way of contributing to the economy and creating jobs as you say mdj. It was badly thought out and is causing a lot of problems in anti social behaviour and already poor people losing a lot of money on the machines.
I don't think that tighter regulation would cause people to go offshore - it might slow the demise of high streets which are fast being populated by chicken shops, payday load companies and betting shops. Virtually getting rid of all the planning laws as advocated by right wing Tories is going to hasten that demise.
But the problem is that they are expanding exponentially and often the same firm has two or more shops within yards of each other. Unlike pubs, which at least you could say was recognising that less and less people use them and they are closing at a rate of knots, I think the Labour government saw betting and gambling as a way of contributing to the economy and creating jobs as you say mdj. It was badly thought out and is causing a lot of problems in anti social behaviour and already poor people losing a lot of money on the machines. I don't think that tighter regulation would cause people to go offshore - it might slow the demise of high streets which are fast being populated by chicken shops, payday load companies and betting shops. Virtually getting rid of all the planning laws as advocated by right wing Tories is going to hasten that demise. Robert19

12:21am Tue 24 Dec 13

fabster says...

Loakes may want to be cautious blocking betting shops on 'political' grounds for that reasoning will not stand on appeal with central government. So too is the use of a petition as that generally has little merit on planning decisions. The reasons against more bookies in principle remain an issue of saturation, crime, anti-social consequences, reduction of diversity on the high street & negatively affecting the regeneration of our night time economy. The reasons cited for refusing permission for several bookies in WF have been weakly argued and poorly presented by this Council thus far - which explains why on appeal the applicants always end up getting licensing permission granted.. (You don't see those overturned decisions announced in the propaganda Waltham Forest 'News' do you!)

Dear Loakes, please do not sabotage the community's efforts in fighting against betting shops by turning it into a political issue for your benefit in your bid for Leadership as this move will discredit valid planning concerns and can actually jeapordise the appeals currently awaiting decision at central government level.

The planning process should never be political (not that this borough understands, judging by recent shenanigans with South Grove, Goss site, Blackhorse Lane, dog track, etc). At the appeal stage, only strong consistent cohesive planning arguments can be presented & considered. If anything, Loakes posing outside a bookies with an emotive "No no no!" serves to weaken the argument against Betting shops as it perpetuates the applicants' notion that decisions against betting shops are politically motivated. In fact, previous appeal applications have been overturned on these grounds due to it arguably falling foul of the law within the planning realm.

Ironic then, in trying to capitalise politically on this issue, Loakes is weakening the sound strategic reasons for which we need to halt the proliferation of betting shops in Waltham Forest.
Loakes may want to be cautious blocking betting shops on 'political' grounds for that reasoning will not stand on appeal with central government. So too is the use of a petition as that generally has little merit on planning decisions. The reasons against more bookies in principle remain an issue of saturation, crime, anti-social consequences, reduction of diversity on the high street & negatively affecting the regeneration of our night time economy. The reasons cited for refusing permission for several bookies in WF have been weakly argued and poorly presented by this Council thus far - which explains why on appeal the applicants always end up getting licensing permission granted.. (You don't see those overturned decisions announced in the propaganda Waltham Forest 'News' do you!) Dear Loakes, please do not sabotage the community's efforts in fighting against betting shops by turning it into a political issue for your benefit in your bid for Leadership as this move will discredit valid planning concerns and can actually jeapordise the appeals currently awaiting decision at central government level. The planning process should never be political (not that this borough understands, judging by recent shenanigans with South Grove, Goss site, Blackhorse Lane, dog track, etc). At the appeal stage, only strong consistent cohesive planning arguments can be presented & considered. If anything, Loakes posing outside a bookies with an emotive "No no no!" serves to weaken the argument against Betting shops as it perpetuates the applicants' notion that decisions against betting shops are politically motivated. In fact, previous appeal applications have been overturned on these grounds due to it arguably falling foul of the law within the planning realm. Ironic then, in trying to capitalise politically on this issue, Loakes is weakening the sound strategic reasons for which we need to halt the proliferation of betting shops in Waltham Forest. fabster

9:07am Tue 24 Dec 13

mdj says...

' I think the Labour government saw betting and gambling as a way of contributing to the economy and creating jobs as you say mdj.'

I didn't say that at all, Robert! I DID say they hadn't thought it through.
They can't even do corruption efficiently...
' I think the Labour government saw betting and gambling as a way of contributing to the economy and creating jobs as you say mdj.' I didn't say that at all, Robert! I DID say they hadn't thought it through. They can't even do corruption efficiently... mdj

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree