Wrthi'n llwytho
Does dim crynodeb o'r cyfarfod hwn eto. Caiff un ei ysgrifennu pan fydd y cyngor yn cyhoeddi'r cofnodion. Mae'r agenda a'r papurau isod.
There were no declarations of interest.
Present: Applicant: Dave Wheeler, BoyleSports Paddy Whur, Woods Whur Solicitors (Solicitor) Other persons: Cllr Lee Bridgeman (Ward Councillor) Cllr Lexi Pocknell (Ward Councillor) Application: An application for a Betting Premises Licence had been received from BoyleSports (UK) Limited in respect of BoyleSports, 30 Countisbury Avenue, Llanrumney, Cardiff, CF3 5SJ. Applicant Representation Mr Whur outlined the application, noting that a Planning application for the premises by the applicant had recently been granted. He made reference to the case outline and supporting documentation previously submitted by the applicant and seen by the Committee. Mr Whur noted that the applicant’s policy documents are approved by the Gambling Commission, and its training packages are considered best practice. Mr Whur explained that BoyleSports operates in multiple locations across the UK including at one shop already in Cardiff. Care is taken over the choice of sites and the company has never had an application refused or licence reviewed, nor has it had any negative interactions with licensing officers in the areas where it trades. The existing BoyleSports shop in Clifton Street in Cardiff was recently inspected and no issues were identified. Mr Wheeler previously worked for Betfred, and the other responsible person previously worked for William Hill, they are therefore both familiar with the other local betting shops in the vicinity. Mr Whur observed that there were previously 6 betting shops in Llanrumney and now there are 4, so it could not be argued that there is an over proliferation of betting shop licences. Mr Whur drew the Committee’s attention to the significant amount of regulation in place regarding betting shops. The applicant makes use of mystery shopping and venue audits to ensure compliance, in line with Gambling Commission guidance and codes of practice. Mr Whur observed that the applicant always tries to engage with the local community, and should the application be granted would work with local ward councillors and neighbourhood groups. In regard to children, Mr Whur stated that under-18s are not allowed on premises and that staff are trained in operation of Challenge 25. This is independently tested by a third party, Serve Legal. Mr Whur stated that the applicant has never had an issue with vulnerable people and complies with all its obligations in relation to safer gambling. Staff are trained to understand trigger events and interact with customers, to carry out affordability checks and offer customers opportunities to self-exclude. Mr Whur reminded the Committee that the Gambling Act 2005 is permissive and that the instruction to licensing authorities is to aim to permit. An application should only be refused if the opponents satisfy the Committee on the balance of probability that it should be refused. Mr Whur outlined the Licensing Objectives and the Cardiff Council Statement of Licensing Policy. He noted that South Wales Police had not raised concerns about the application, and that the points raised by the Ward Councillors in their submission related to anti-social behaviour and were not specific to gambling. The objective that gambling be conducted in a fair and open way is primarily a matter for the Gambling Commission. Turning to the objective to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm, Mr Whur outlined the training received by staff and pointed out that the layout of the premises creates good sightlines and ensures sufficient monitoring of customers. Finally, Mr Whur referred to the points raised in the submission from the Ward Councillors, stating that the claim of oversaturation was not a relevant consideration under the Gambling Act 2005, that there was no suggestion either from the representation or South Wales Police that crime in the area was such that the licence should be refused, that the question of whether there was need for another betting shop was not a relevant criterion under the Gambling Act, and that in regard to deprivation, mitigations were in place as already described to deal with people who should not be gambling. Questions to the Applicant Responding to questions, Mr Wheeler told the Committee that staff are generally recruited from within the industry and receive comprehensive training, with regular 3 and 6-month reviews. Training occurs before staff work in the shop, and staff are trained to monitor and deal with underage customers and problem gambling. Mr Whur added that training has been developed with GamCare and the National Gambling Helpline. Mr Wheeler told the Committee that should the licence be granted he anticipated the shop to start trading early in 2026. New staff would undergo a minimum of 4 weeks’ training. Mr Whur confirmed that the reference in the report to Think 21 should read Challenge 25. Members asked why the specific site had been chosen, and Mr Whur told them it made commercial sense. The Applicant was confident the area would support the business. BoyleSports has a loyal customer base and offers different types of bets and odds to other betting businesses. Members asked whether the high level of deprivation in the ward and likely greater number of financially vulnerable people undermined the objective of protecting vulnerable people from harm. Mr Whur stated that betting shops tend to be located in areas where people like to bet. It is a lawful pastime and many people get a lot of pleasure from betting small amounts in a betting shop. The question is whether there are systems to ensure that vulnerable people, or people who should not be gambling, are protected. Speaking as an objector, Cllr Bridgeman questioned why South Wales Police had not objected to the application and asked whether the applicant had spoken to local police officers or SWP headquarters in Bridgend. Mr Whur replied that the Applicant had complied with the Gambling Act in regard to notification of the application. He added that the Police licensing team in Cardiff was one of the most robust in the country and that if they had serious concerns about crime and disorder they would have been raised. Cllr Bridgeman sought to introduce various crime data but these were not considered as they had not been presented prior to the hearing. The Chair advised that it was a matter for South Wales Police whether they objected to applications. Ward Councillors’ Representations Cllr Pocknell, speaking as both Ward Councillor and local resident, stated that Llanrumney has faced longstanding inequalities and that locating a new betting shop in the area does not support the objective of preventing to children and vulnerable people. The Council should be giving opportunities to young people, not opening the door to addiction. Another betting shop would deepen harm and increase pressure on local services. Cllr Pocknell stated that there was a clear history of crime and disorder in the area with a high level of anti-social behaviour in some areas. She said that community safety is fragile and easily undermined. She told the Committee that the location chosen is surrounded by schools, shops and family homes. Children and vulnerable people will pass by the betting shop every day. She said that there had been complaints from residents about noise and antisocial behaviour. Cllr Bridgeman noted that this would be the third betting shop on Countisbury Avenue, and that this was an excessive number and directly undermines several licensing objectives. It was on a key route to a number of schools, and this normalisation of gambling presented the wrong message to children. He stated that betting shops are often linked to antisocial behaviour, and that residents have raised concerns about this. He said that vulnerable people are at greater risk when gambling outlets are clustered, and that the impact of three betting shops in a small area would be socially corrosive. He urged the Committee to consider the weight of community objections. Members sought clarification from officers on how cumulative impact and strength of community opposition relate to licensing policy and legislation. Dan Collins, Licensing, advised that cumulative impact is not a provision under the Gambling Act 2005 and would not be included in licensing policy. In developing the policy, officers received no comments or representation from Llanrumney, nor was any evidence presented by South Wales Police. Summing Up Mr Whur reminded the Committee that under section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005, licensing authorities have an obligation to aim to permit development where it aligns with licensing objectives. Any refusal has to be evidence based. He said there was no evidence to suggest that gambling is a source of crime and disorder in Llanrumney. In relation to prevention of harm to children and vulnerable people, BoyleSports has robust sytems and training and there is no evidence of any issues at existing premises. Decision The Sub-Committee considered the application, the written and oral submissions made by the applicant and by the Ward Councillors, the provisions of the Gambling Act 2005, the associated Guidance issued by the Gambling Commission, and Cardiff Council’s Statement of Gambling Policy. In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee had particular regard to section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005, which provides that licensing authorities shall aim to permit the use of premises for gambling in so far as the authority thinks it is reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was mindful that any refusal must be supported by evidence that the grant of the licence would be likely to undermine one or more of the gambling licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee carefully considered the representations submitted by Cllr Bridgeman and Cllr Pocknell. It acknowledged the strength of feeling expressed by local residents and the councillors regarding the potential for harm associated with gambling, deprivation in the locality, and concerns about anti-social behaviour and the number of existing betting premises along Countisbury Avenue. The Sub-Committee accepted that these concerns were sincerely held and reflective of broader social issues within the community. However, the Sub-Committee was required to determine the application strictly within the legal framework of the Gambling Act 2005. It noted that neither South Wales Police nor any other responsible authority had submitted a representation suggesting that the licensing objectives would be undermined should the licence be granted, and no evidence was produced to show a direct link between existing betting premises in Llanrumney and specific incidents of crime, disorder or harm to children or vulnerable persons. The Sub-Committee noted that cumulative negative impact and the perceived need for additional gambling premises are not relevant conditions under the Gambling Act. Members also acknowledged the applicant’s submission that extensive safeguarding measures are embedded within BoyleSports’ operational procedures, including Challenge 25, independent test purchasing, comprehensive staff training, self-exclusion systems, and monitoring for signs of problem gambling. Having considered all evidence and submissions, the Sub-Committee did not feel that there was sufficient evidence that the granting of the licence would undermine the licencing objectives. Therefore, the Sub-Committee resolved to GRANT the licence.
There were no urgent items.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.