Thursday, March 31, 2011

Betfred Refused Planning Permission!


Lewisham has refused Betfred's Planning Application!

We called the Planning Officer today to find out when the Planning Committee hearing might take place and were told that only just yesterday the Chief Planning Officer, as the delegated authority, had turned them down, based on Lewisham's Planning Policy. Such a decision negates the need to go to committee.

The reasons are posted on the website page detailing the Planning Application and are:

1) The proposed variation of Condition (2) to allow use of the premises for unrestricted A2: Financial and Professional Services, for use as a betting shop would continue the proliferation of an over concentration of betting office uses in the vicinity within a designated core shopping frontage, beyond an acceptable level, detracting from the range of retail services available within the defined District Town Centre, adversely affecting the diversity of uses and the vitality and viability of the area, contrary to Policy STC 4 Major and District Centres - Core Shopping Areas of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy CSP6 of the Submission Core Strategy.

2) The proposed variation of Condition (2) to allow use of the premises for unrestricted A2: Financial and Professional Services, for use as a betting shop, would have the potential to cause harm in terms of anti-social behaviour, crime and disturbance to neighbouring residents and other users of the town centre, contrary to the requirements of Policy STC 4 Major and District Centres - Core Shopping Areas in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2004) and Policy CSP6 of the Submission Core Strategy.

Betfred will now have to appeal to the government Planning Inspectorate in Bristol.

We would like to think Lewisham's decision was reinforced by the sheer volume of objections from the community and the petitions signed, which totalled over 1100 signatures overall (320 of which went to planning - see earlier post).

Yesterday we got a call from BBC London who wanted to come down to Deptford to do a story on the high street betting shops with reference to the campaign against Betfred. A reporter had arranged to come tomorrow morning (Friday), but with the latest news, has now been pulled off the story. Perhaps we shouldn't have let him know the news, since although the battle has been won, the war goes on...

Meanwhile, Betfred's application to make modifications to the back of the building was granted, so the building work that we've witnessed over the past few weeks will probably continue.


Like Paddy Power at the Deptford Arms, who went ahead with their new shop front despite planning permission being turned down, Betfred are likely to continue refitting the ground floor premises at 93-95. Paddy Power will now be subject to planning enforcement that may involve a retrospective planning application, a long drawn out process that would hopefully result in them having to rectify what they've done and remove unapproved structures at their own cost.

-o-

A note on Betfred and Paddy Power profits...
Betfred announced sales of £3.5bn in January 2011, up 30% on last year. 'Pre-exeptional' operating profits were £12.37m. £10.2m of 'exceptional costs' relating to 'provisions against property-related loans' mean that their pre-tax profits were only £360K...Despite some closures, Befred opened 41 new shops in the 12 months to the end of March 2010, taking the total number of outlets to 832. They have since increased their portfolio to beyond 850, with the intention of expanding to 1000 over the next year. The business had continued to benefit from the operation of fixed-odds betting terminals, while a tight rein had been kept on overheads. Staff numbers had increased to 2,951. Betfred is a leading contender to buy the Tote, which was officially put up for sale by the coalition government in June 2010 and estimated to be worth up to £200m with 3,300 staff and 500 shops in the UK.
      Meanwhile, Paddy Power announced in March 2011 that profits rose by 56% as it capitalised on World Cup misery. The draws against America and Algeria in the group stages of last summer's world cup were preceded by a wall of money being placed by patriotic fans on England winning. The company also benefited from its acquisition of Australian company Sportsbet. Pre-tax profits rose to £89.6m in 2010, £6.4m of which were UK operating profits. Almost two-thirds of its profits last year were generated outside the Republic of Ireland, and most of their revenue is now internet related, with many punters using smart phones to place bets. (It is expected that there will be a billion smart phones in use by 2013, as many as there are now computers).

19 comments:

  1. 'kin marvellous! Let's hope that the planning inspectorate agrees.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 79 seperate objections as well as the petition.

    The largest number of objections I can recall on a Deptford planning application.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, well done to those who took the trouble to object, and to all those who signed the petitions.
    We shall keep the online petition against Betfred open, but for the mean time we shall remove the link to it above. Meanwhile, the national petition to change the Gambling Act remains.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And well done, Sue, for your dedication in keeping this in the public eye. Right, did anybody have any money on the refusal?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great news, well done Sue! (from Green Ladywell Sue)

    ReplyDelete
  6. what're the odds of that!

    But seriously, well done Sue and well done to the planners too. No doubt they'll have to spend months on the appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So which local politician will be the first to claim the credit I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
  8. GREAT NEWS..WORTH ALL THE LEG WORK WE PUT IN..CAN'T WAIT TO TELL THE PARISH...THIS REALLY SHOULD BE IN THE LOCAL NEWS...HOW ELSE ARE ALL THOSE PETITIONERS CANVASSED IN PERSON RATHER THAN ON LINE GOING TO KNOW THE OUTCOME !! THERE IS A NEW FREE LOCAL PAPER IN PRINT (PREVIOUSLY) ONLY ON LINE..CALLED EIGHT16..CARRYING STUFF THE OTHERS OVERLOOK !! RECOMMEND EVERYONE SEEKS IT OUT..AND SPREAD THE WORD..IT IS WICKED HOW OUR AREA IS INVISIBLE EXCEPT FOR SENSATIONAL PRESS STORIES WE ARE ROBBED OF KNOWLEDGE AND POWER BY THE LACK OF LOCAL NEWS COVERAGE WELL DONE SUE AND EVERYONE INVOLVED XXX

    ReplyDelete
  9. think that paper should be called seEIGHT16 - covers the overlapping postal codes that slip through the local press cracks !!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tinker, isn't that paper called Eight16 and about to hit the streets again next week? ;-)

    Feel free to rewrite this post any way you wish!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cynic, you hit a sweet note. We have no idea whether the refusal was bolstered by all the objections and petitions, or whether Lewisham had always intended to refuse, which is a bit annoying since such a lot of effort went into objecting, and then they sneakily turned down the application without telling anyone...
    Likewise no one from the council ever bothered to tell us it was pointless to object to the Gambling License in January.
    There still remains the problem of the betting shops already there and if Lewisham means what they say they must police the area properly.

    ReplyDelete
  12. When the England cricket team were slaughtered by Sri Lanka in the quarter finals of the current World Cup, I was so impressed that I thought it would be worth backing Sri Lanka to win the cup outright. It's some years since I last entered a betting shop but I set out to find out the odds and was determined to 'invest' £10 or even £20.

    In order, Corals, Paddy Power, Ladbrokes and Hills all said the same thing, i.e. 'we are not betting on this event'. This is a major global tournament, yet, probably because they can't be sure of winning, these lowlifes refused to accept my wager. They are not providing the 'service' that they promise.

    These greedy barstewards are as bad, if not worse, than city bankers and deserve all the odium we can heap upon them. If Sri Lanka do eventually win call on me for support to help destroy them and their like.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I always suspected that the people who bet online are a bit cleverer than those who use betting shops (no offence JP) but I was looking at some online forums and it seems like the situation is just as bad for punters online as it is in the shops in that the betting operators bend the rules, such as changing the odds after a bet has been placed, or pretending there is a glitch in the computer systems to avoid paying out and telling the customer the bed is void. Also some people get an online account and start being quite successful with smallish bets but when they continue to win and want to bet bigger stakes they are told their bets can't be taken. Anyway, I've never seen so many people hate the bookies as much as real betters do. It's like the whole point for some people is to beat the bookies at their own game, but the bookies always win.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Its good to hear from people using the bookies ! and that they hate them too !! Thanks for putting the paper name straight..Hope it does come out again soon Will find out and let yous know ..nite all xx

    ReplyDelete
  15. Some sort of victory for the time being.....lets see what the bastards do next.Well done everyone who signed Sues petition and well done Sue.Best wishes Fred Aylward.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Even though the application was turned down, there are still 9 (at last count) betting shops. Do you still have that bbc contact? I would have thought they'd still run it as a story.

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://therustywireservice.blogspot.com/2011/04/against-odds-deptford-beats-bookies.html

    ReplyDelete