High street HSBC bank to close

Those with accounts based at our local branch of HSBC should by now have received a letter from the bank stating their account will be transferred to Lewisham branch*. The Deptford High Street branch is due to close in April, apparently because not enough people are using it. Of course, the increase in online banking means many current account holders may not use the bank for anything other than cashing the rare cheque or using the cash point. There are now three or four alternative free cash points they can use, and cheques can be paid in at any branch.

But many high street traders are not at all happy about the closure, as most of these small businesses can't afford to operate card transactions and rely on the bank for depositing cash takings. One cafe owner complained that he had not that long ago had to move from the Halifax (closed in 2010) to the HSBC and would now have to change to the one and only remaining bank, Barclays, which is well known for its long queues. The alternative is to spend extra time legging it over to Lewisham (and back). Another trader declared that "when a bank shuts, so does the high street".

More worrying, though, is the future of this modestly handsome old building that sits at the civic heart of the street. As with the Halifax, its planning class is A2 Professional Services (eg Financial services) and the most likely new tenant or owner could well be a betting shop or pawnbroker (who somehow fit into this category). The old Halifax (rumoured to be soon taken over by an expanding Greggs) eventually escaped becoming a Betfred because of a special condition in the building's planning permission (only discovered by Lewisham Planning after a long and concerted community campaign run by this blog and assisted by Dame Joan Ruddock in Parliament and after Betfred had already appealed against planning refusal).

Perhaps empire building pub managers Antic will step in to create a new bar instead. Or might we see another Vietnamese or Asian restaurant? Perhaps it could be turned into an Asset of Community Value or a branch of London Mutual or Lewisham Credit Plus... Either way, we can't have another a betting shop! Perhaps a change of planning class can stop this?

*They may not have a letter since the Royal Mail has been spectacularly bad recently – we've had experience of more than two letters posted in the middle of November only turning up last week!

Police launch murder investigation and meanwhile bust the bookies

The high street felt somewhat blighted today, not only with bad weather and endless roadworks disrupting trade and shopper's movements, but also with the sad news of the death of 82 year old Giuseppina Fazzani in a fire at Lou's cafe, which occurred in the early hours of yesterday morning.

There was a high police presence at that end of the street as they investigate what they now believe to be an arson attack, with evidence that an accelerant was used to start the fire on the cafe and the Vietnamese restaurant next door to it. The Fire Brigade managed to save the life of a second woman who lived on the first floor, and the Deptford Dame, who broke the story yesterday morning, points out that if the proposed closures of our fire stations go ahead, she may not have survived.

Older residents will remember Giuseppina from when the cafe was a popular haunt before it closed around 20 years ago – it was also quite a creative hub for local musicians, artists and activists. Friends and family have been leaving flowers.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the street, van loads of coppers descended on Corals, Paddy Power and Ladbrokes in what is thought to be a drugs operation. William Hill and Jennings seem to have escaped the raid. A staff member at William Hill's said, "We only sell bets here...". Of course, despite these bookies breaking the terms of their licenses by "being associated with crime and disorder or being used to support crime" (Gambling Act 2005), it'll be business as usual tomorrow, no doubt.

See next post for Crossfields' remembrance of Josie.

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).

Demonstration against the 2005 Gambling Act

Those readers who joined the local campaign to stop Betfred opening the 8th betting shop in Deptford High Street may be interested to know that a young man called Ben Thacker has been continuing the fight in a national campaign.

With an emphasis on the dangers of gambling addiction to mental health, Neuroliberation is "campaigning against the rapid expansion of the gambling industry since the Gambling Act 2005 and raising awareness of its social manifestations" and is against "gambling 'normalisation' driven by corporate industries that create community difficulties and cognitive impairment (en masse)".

He has organised a demonstration in Parliament Square to be staged this Saturday 24th November, 12-6pm which has the full support of GRASP (Gambling Reform and Society Perception). Unfortunately, this clashes with the Save Lewisham Hospital demonstration, where many local readers may prefer to be.

However, we wish Ben the best of luck on Saturday, and meanwhile direct you to his various info pages and petition, and hope you will find time to give him some support:

neuroliberation.blogspot.co.uk
www.facebook.com/Neuroliberationcampaign
epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/36386
twitter.com/NLcampaign
www.grasp-group.org

Deptford High Street mentioned in Dispatches

The Channel 4 Dispatches investigative team visited Deptford High Street back in May to take a look at the plethora of betting shops and interview some locals on their feelings about the situation. The team also visited other high streets to get the national picture.

The resulting programme, Britiain's High Street Gamble will be aired this coming Monday 6 August at 8pm on Channel 4.

"Britain's high streets are struggling to survive, but one business is booming; betting shops. On average one new bookie opens every week. In one London high street there are now 10 within yards and the locals are fed up. What's driving this gambling boom and what's the impact on our communities? Michael Crick investigates the rise of High Street gambling. He hears from an apologetic politician who now admits they got the gambling laws wrong, and from those most affected by the spread of the betting shops."

Watch the trailer here.

Meanwhile, thanks to a clause in the original planning permission for the ex-Halifax site at 93-95 Deptford High Street, Lewisham Planning and the government inspectorate have managed to fight off Betfred's exhaustive attempt to become the eighth betting shop in the high street. Betfred seem to have given up for now, if this To Let sign is anything to go by.

However, the problem has not gone away, especially since the recent Select Committee's Review of the 2005 Gambling Act ("A bet worth taking?" published on 24 July) has seen fit to recommend an increase in the allowance of Fixed Odd Betting Terminals (FOBTs) from 4 to as many as 20 – per shop!

See Daily Mail report based on the programme.

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
 

Channel 4 filming in Deptford High Street

A researcher working for Channel 4's Dispatches (October Films) contacted Crosswhatfields last Friday to get some gen on the betting shop situation in our high street. Last night he let us know they would be filming this morning and were looking for locals to speak to camera in a bit of vox-pop to include in a half hour piece they are doing on betting shops, antisocial behaviour and the 2005 Gambling Act.

Michael Crick (Political Correspondent and co-founder of C4 News and ex-editor of Newsnight) was doing the interviewing and Dame Joan was coming at 11am to speak about the problems betting shops are causing in our area. It was a bit late notice to contact people who might want to air their views on record, and those not at work today weren't overly keen to speak to camera, fearing repercussions. The shopkeepers we spoke to later said they hadn't been approached – except one who spoke to them but hadn't wanted to be filmed. Another worried that all the bad press was not good for business.

A local who met up with the crew just before 1pm was told they already had enough footage. The production team have since told us they "had an extremely productive day". The film is scheduled to broadcast on 18th June.

Later today, in the afternoon heat, men were openly dealing drugs opposite Paddy Power, despite (or perhaps because of) the recent drugs bust there. Meanwhile, the street drinkers were gathered in the sun on Reginald Road near the side entrance of Paddy Power, marking the first of their open air summer season parties (which go on every day till the betting shops close). A junkie was begging with his dog outside Greggs and yesterday, there was a rumpus when a couple of shoplifters met with some strong resistance at a pound shop in the vicinity, and were seen off with the help of other shopkeepers (police turned up too late).

Last week, some local residents had a meeting with representatives of Paddy Power and Ladbrokes, convened by New Cross Safer Neighbourhoods Team. The residents wanted the bookies to reduce their opening hours and install some security guards – suggestions which met with blank looks from the bookmakers, who are incapable of admitting any real responsibility for the disturbances and crimes caused by their businesses. The onus remains on the police.

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.

Zero tolerance on the high street

Although the high street was as lively as ever in the Spring sunshine yesterday, certain usually more rowdy areas were eerily quiet. Can you guess what is missing in these pictures?

The street drinkers who gather outside the betting shops and on the anchor have been "moved along". These spots are now being policed by the Safer Neighbourhood Team (or whatever they're called now). The officers first took up their posts on Wednesday and it's thought they might be around for a couple of weeks. We are unable to confirm how long this will last at time of posting, and also didn't have time to find out where the drinkers have "moved along" to.

Mostly everyone seems to welcome the arrival at last of the police presence – or rather, the absence of the street drinking crowd. Signs stating the high street is a zero tolerance zone have been up for a long time, so congratulations must go to whoever has finally decided to actually put it into practice.

UPDATE 30/03/12: 4pm

Officers were called off early for the day, as the regulars began to gather outside Ladbrokes in anticipation of their leaving. The two-week initiative is drawing on officers from all surrounding wards and several 'dispersal notices' have been issued since it started. Well-known character Errol was fined £50 for 'getting a bit too feisty', but was back in his usual spot next to Paddy Power today.

UPDATE 13/04/12

This initiative didn't seem to last for more than a week. The Deptford Dame posted on 7 April about the antisocial behaviour being tolerated by local residents, one of whom has started a petition (click to sign) and has also received a response from Mayor Steve Bullock regarding the problem.

It appears the temporary police presence was the result of the Safer Lewisham Partnership's Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) being applied. "The DPPO can now be used in tandem with Police Dispersal powers that allow Police Officers to disperse individuals causing alcohol related disorder from a particular area for up to 48 hours. If the individual returns to the area within this time they will be arrested. The enforcement of these dispersal orders will begin shortly and it’s hoped this will have a significant impact on the drinking habits of the problematic drinkers in the High Street area." Read the Mayor's letter in full on the Deptford Dame's post.

Dung Brothers at it again (Betfred update)

Fred Done aka Done Brothers aka Betfred (who last year bought the Tote for £7b) invites you to take a punt

We regret to inform you that the Betfred saga is far from over. Having been turned down a second time by Lewisham Planning, they are now appealing again to the Government Planning Inspectorate in Bristol.

Comments previously submitted to the Council as objections have been forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate and will automatically be considered by the Inspector.

Any further observations you wish to make should be emailed by 17 February 2012 to: teamp6@pins.gsi.gov.uk.  Address your email to Ms Vicky Williams, and quote reference APP/C5690/A/11/2168006/NWF.

The usual jolly scene outside Ladbrokes and Paddy Power today.

Here's the Deptford Betting Map – updated since Better at no.14 became Jennings very recently. (Hales Gallery at no.70 was originally bought by Jennings who quickly sold out to Coral).


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

Also see 853's post about Coral taking over the Nationwide in Lewisham High Street. 

If you're unfamiliar with the history of Betfred's attempts to grab a share of the profits being made by their rivals already operating on Deptford High Street, you can read all our posts about last year's campaign against them here. Alternatively, for a brief summary, pop over to the Deptford Dame.

Betfred refused again!

Good tidings! On 16th December, Lewisham Planning again turned down Betfred's application – this time for a "Variation of Condition...to allow all A2 uses, including a betting office".

Reasons for the refusal were given as: "The proposed variation of Condition (1) to allow use of the premises for unrestricted A2: Financial and Professional Services including the use as a betting shop, would be likely to give rise to anti-social behaviour and disturbance including a risk of an increase in crime detrimental to the maintenance of a safe and accessible environment for local residents and users of the town centre where crime and disorder or fear of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion..." See the application here.

Thanks to everyone who took the trouble to object.

Meanwhile, betting shops were mentioned in The Portas Review – An independent review into the future of our high streets published on 13th December (see p.29):

13. Put betting shops into a separate ‘Use Class’ of their own

I also believe that the influx of betting shops, often in more deprived areas, is blighting our high streets. Circumventing legislation which prohibits the number of betting machines in a single bookmakers, I understand many are now simply opening another unit just doors down. This has led to a proliferation of betting shops often in low-income areas. 

Currently, betting shops are oddly and inappropriately in my opinion classed as financial and professional services. Having betting shops in their own class would mean that we can more easily keep check on the number of betting shops on our high streets.

Hopefully the government will take note – and do the same with Pawnbrokers while they're at it.

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.

Our Deptford High Street

A project such as mydeptfordhighstreet.com (see previous post) may help draw attention to a less desirable aspect of our main shopping mall – the over population of betting shops.

The Deptford Dame has recently posted about the Mayor's call for planning controls over betting shops. Boris has finally joined the cross party campaign spearheaded by his rival Ken Livingstone (and Livingstone's campaign manager, David Lammy MP), and other Labour MPs such as our own Ms Ruddock, to change the national planning law to help control the proliferation and clustering of betting shops.

According to the BBC, the Green Party's Darren Johnson says Boris had dodged taking action when he replied to a question from the Greens in a May 2010 London Assembly meeting, preferring to offer the same excuse for inaction that the government and the betting industry has long been giving (that the issue can be dealt with by a local authority's own planning powers).

Boris told Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, that having so many bookies so close together could negatively affect the vitality and viability of town centres and the quality of life of those living nearby. "There is a balance to be struck between having betting shops as part of the high street retail mix and the negative impact they can have on shoppers and visitors when they start to dominate."

The bookies are reported to have reacted angrily to the news. A statement issued by the Association of British Bookmakers said that it was a myth that there had been a sharp rise in the number of betting shops in London. Meanwhile, the ABB, along with William Hill and Ladbrokes are lobbying the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee to remove the limit on the number of Fixed Odd Betting Terminals allowed in their shops. In July 2011 they presented written evidence to the Committee's review of the Gambling Act, saying that betting shops "support the vibrancy and footfall of the high street and pay a higher level of tax" and urging them to "mitigate against the heavy tax and regulatory burden that Licensed Betting Offices face". Despite evidence to the contrary, the ABB did not accept there was any widespread problem with minors gambling in their members' premises, nor that problem gambling was an issue. They also requested a liberalisation in the maximum permitted number of gaming machines since "there is no evidence to link them to problem gambling." (www.parliament.uk)

The ABB boast that the industry voluntarily donates £5m a year towards helping fund the education, research and treatment of problem gambling. Small fry when Betfred, to name but one corporate tax dodger in this industry, turn over £3.5bn and recently paid £265m for the Tote (and their online gambling business, growing at a rate of 80%, is based in Gibraltar to avoid tax).

Whilst the industry was lying and whining to the Select Committee in July, Joan Ruddock presented a bill to the House of Commons proposing to change the planning class of betting shops and allow councils to place a cap on the number of them in any area. Ideally they would be taken out of the A2 Financial Services and put into a class of their own. Joan told the Commons that "a turf war is now under way, as bookmakers, including new entrants, seek to seize a market share." (See our post in July, Joan speaks for Deptford). The ABB said in response, "Extra regulation on our industry would be wholly disproportionate. Local authorities are already able to have their say on betting shops through the licensing process. Under the Gambling Act, councils have the power to decline licensing applications where there is hard evidence that a bookmaker would have a negative impact in a community."

All lies, damn lies. As we have already seen with Betfred, Paddy Power et al, the Licensing Law as enshrined in the 2005 Gambling Act was written by bookies for bookies, and no local authority dares to turn them down. It is only at the planning stage that councils can wield any power – but only if a Change of Use is being applied for. If the premises was already classed as A2 (be it a pub or a bank), planning can do very little except request modifications to shopfronts and signage. The industry is prepared to bankrupt local authorities in constant appeals whenever a decision goes against them.

In the unusual case of Betfred in Deptford High Street (where there was already a condition placed on its A2 useage), the planners could turn them down; they then appealed to the government inspector and lost, and are now trying again, no doubt in the hope that when they are turned down and appeal again, they will get a different inspector – who may let them through. They have enough resources to try and try again, wasting vast sums of public money in the process.

Please write an objection. See the application DC/11/78506/X and Betfred's covering letter here.

Betting shops and pawnbrokers again

(The vile) BETFRED

We regret to inform you that Betfred are back for a battle over 93-95 Deptford High Street. They have reapplied to Lewisham planning for permission to enable the premises to be occupied by any Class A2 use, including a betting office. See the application DC/11/78506/X and Betfred's covering letter here.

At the end of March, Lewisham Planning turned down their application to alter the then current planning class (A2 Financial) to lift the condition on it that said it was only to be used as a Building Society. Betfred then appealed to the government Planning Inspectorate.

On August 16, the government Inspector decided to lift the special conditions on the A2 Financial use – since there had not been a Building Society there for some time anyway (the Halifax had been a bank since 1997). However, he decided to allow all A2 uses but then applied a new condition to preclude its use as a betting office. 

This conclusion was based on the objections provided by local people and the police and their reporting of the high level of antisocial behaviour created by already existing betting shops (see extracts from the inspector's report at the bottom of this post). Although the inspector agreed the proposed betting office would occupy an empty unit and create jobs in line with national planning policy for sustainable economic growth (PPS4), he stated "there is no indication that this is the only viable use of the premises or of the employment that would be generated. Since the main aims of PPS4 also encompass safe environments, these factors do not outweigh the harm identified."

Betfred are now whining on about how the antisocial behaviour going on at other betting shops is not a good enough reason to disallow their own presence, arguing that the imposition of the new condition by the government inspector is unreasonable.

Objections need to be put in again. If you objected last time round this new objection can be an updated version of your old objection (with the date and application number altered), or a new letter that refers to your previous objection. Address it to planning@lewisham.gov.uk – the planning officer in charge is Russell Penn. We have up until the beginning of December to get in objections but don't delay!

----§----

ALBEMARLE & BOND Pawnbrokers

Deptford Nightlife: the view from 37 Deptford High Street: three betting shops and another pawnbroker within spitting distance.

Three objections went into planning to oppose the pawnbroker Albemarle & Bond setting up shop at no.37 Deptford High Street (directly opposite another pawnbroker and two betting shops, and only a few doors down from two other pawnbrokers and three other betting shops). This many objections should have resulted in the application having to go before the Planning Committee, but it appears the planning department asked the applicant to withdraw part of their application, which was in essence a request for change of use but included drawings for a new shopfront. The planning team requested these to be submitted in a separate application. They were then obliged to allow the change of use from "sui generis" (no particular class) to "A1 Retail" as befits the council's own core retail strategy, and because pawnbrokers fall under the "Retail" classification.

Although the applicant may now set up shop, they may have difficulty getting permission for their modern branded shopfront. (See our previous post on Abermarle & Bond).

----§----

Extracts from the Planning Inspectorate's Appeal Decision on Betfred in August 2011:

21. Just because there may be problems in connection with other betting offices does not necessarily mean that these would be repeated in conjunction with Nos 93-95. The appellant company suggests that this could lead to a greater dispersal. However, this is a large unit and presumably it would not open unless the operator was satisfied that it would generate sufficient custom to make it profitable. If the appeal were dismissed then the current state of affairs would remain but, to my mind, an additional premises would simply add to problems and should not be supported.


22. Consequently the proposal would be likely to increase anti-social behaviour and 
disturbance although the implications for crime are less certain. The appellant company is critical of the Council for referring to the potential for harm to be caused in this respect rather than expressing certainty. It seems to me that it is not possible to be categorical but that the weight of well-informed evidence suggests that this outcome is likely to materialise. Put another way, it would be foolish to ignore the convincing accounts given or to assume that they would not be repeated in association with the proposed betting office.


23. As a consequence the proposal would make the High Street a less safe place 
for residents and other users of the town centre. In this way there would be a broad conflict with the intentions of criterion (d) of Policy STC4 of the Unitary Development Plan and also with the aims of PPS1. The same would not necessarily be true of every betting office but it is the conclusion in this case based on the evidence about existing operations in Deptford High Street.

See also Deptford Misc for more of the report, and, for a simple digest go to Deptford Dame.

Coral gets robbed

It had to happen sooner or later...

Coral Bookmaker at 70 Deptford High Street was broken into last night via the back of the premises. According to local shopkeepers who watched the police in action this morning, the alarm and CCTV were disabled and the safe blown open. We're guessing there may have been an entire weekend's takings to be had in what looks to be a professional job. The bookies was trading again by early afternoon.

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.

Betfred lose their appeal! Yippee!

Fantastic news! The Deptford Dame has just informed me that Bill Ellson at Deptford Miscellaneous has posted about the the Planning Inspectorate's decision to REFUSE Betfred's appeal. 

Suffice to say, the Inspector found the evidence from local residents "compelling" and is allowing the premises to be used for any Class A2 Financial Use EXCEPT as a Betting Shop!

Well done everyone who helped to keep Betfred at bay.

The Dame has now posted the news with some detail.
You can also see the report on Deptford Misc, or go to the Planning Portal and click on 'decision' to download the relevant document.

Update: We sent an email out with the news to petitioners and got some happy responses:

Cool. Well done, great job! Nick • Excellent news! Cllr Bell • Brilliant, well done for alerting everyone. Sue • Really great news thanks! Richard • Fantastic news! Lea • Why don't we stage a finger nosing parade outside? Marianne • Great news! A step in the right direction. Thanks! Caroline • Well done! Alison • Thanks so much for the good news! Susan • Yippee. The system works :-) Gus • That's fantastic, this is what happens when people unite for a worthy cause. Nathan • Great campaign and good news! A little rejoicing here too! Father Paul • That's fantastic news. John • Well done. Emma • Great! Billy • Fantastic! :-D Anton • Yes Yes Yes!!! Thank you. Sybar • Blimey! Someone in the planning inspectorate with common sense, perception and decency…Until the maggots at Betfred find a loophole. But meanwhile I agree, Yippee, toot toot! Julian • That is indeed excellent news. RH Joan Ruddock MP • Yahoo even! Good news! Cheryl • Yes yippee! Fantastic news! Well done for seeing this one through Anne • That's amazing – people have the power! If only we had more. Thanks for letting me know, that's great news and really inspiring. Keep on keeping on! Anita • Thanks you for this heartening news! And also thank you for all your hard work in bringing about this great result Nuala • Yeepeeee. All your efforts pay off. Well done. Raj • That's brilliant news Hazel • Great stuff! Mike

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.