Venue: Council Chamber - Civic Centre. View directions
Contact: Sue Lawrence, Democratic Support Officer 023 8083 3569
Apologies and Changes in Membership (If Any)
To note any changes in membership of the Committee made in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4.3.
The Committee noted that apologies had been received from Councillor Spicer.
Disclosure Of Personal And Pecuniary Interests
In accordance with the Localism Act 2011, and the Council’s Code of Conduct, Members to disclose any personal or pecuniary interests in any matter included on the agenda for this meeting.
Members stated that the interests declared at the 16 December 2014 and 9th and 30th April 2015 remained unchanged and thus reaffirmed the following and remained in the meeting during the consideration of the matter:
Councillors Galton, Vassiliou and Painton declared personal interests, in view of Councillor Galton’s respective status as being a member of Mint Casino (now Genting) and having previously visited the Genting Casino and being a member of Grosvenor Leisureworld, Councillor Vassiliou’s respective status as being a member of Grosvenor Leisureworld and Genting Casino and Councillor Painton’s respective status as holding membership of Genting Casino.
Councillor Furnell, Jordan, McEwing and Parnell confirmed they had not visited any casinos.
In addition Councillor Tucker declared a personal interest as having previously attended a launch of Watermark Westquay event held by Hammerson.
To approve and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 11th November 2015 and to deal with any matters arising, attached.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 11th November 2015 be approved and signed as a correct record.
Exclusion of the Press and Public - Confidential Papers Included in the Following Item
To move that in accordance with the Council’s Constitution, specifically the Access to Information procedure Rules contained within the Constitution, the press and public be excluded from the meeting in respect of any consideration of the following item.
The Report/Appendices are considered to be confidential, the confidentiality of which is based on categories 3, 5 and 7a of paragraph 10.4 of the Council’s Access to Information Procedure Rules. It is not in the public interest to disclose this because doing so would reveal information which is both commercially sensitive and detrimental to the business affairs of the Council.
RESOLVED that in accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the press and public be excluded from the meeting in respect of the following item based on Categories based on categories 3, 5 and 7a of paragraph 10.4 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules. It is not in the public interest to disclose this because doing so would reveal information which is both commercially sensitive and detrimental to the business affairs of the Council.
Gambling Act 2015 Award of Large Casino Licence
Report of the Service Director, Legal and Governance requesting that the Licensing Committee determine which of the four applications for the Large Casino Licence provides the ‘greatest benefit’ to Southampton and which Applicant should be awarded the ‘Provisional Statement’, attached.
The Committee considered the confidential report of the Service Director, Legal and Governance, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972 Section 100A(4), requesting that the Licensing Committee determine which of the four applications for the Large Casino Licence provides the ‘greatest benefit’ to Southampton and which Applicant should be awarded the ‘Provisional Statement’.
(i) that the following decisions be approved and notified, as agreed at the meeting, to all applicants in writing after the meeting;
(ii) the Committee has decided to grant the provisional statement to Aspers, whose quantitative score under the Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Matrix was very significantly above the second placed applicant, and whose bid the Committee qualitatively considered to be head and shoulders above the others; and
(iii) accordingly, the applications by Global Gaming Ventures (Southampton) Limited, Grosvenor Casinos Limited and Kymeira Casinos Limited are rejected.
1. This is the decision of the Licensing Committee in relation to the application for a provisional statement for a large casino at Watermark West Quay.
2. The provisional decision to grant the application for a provisional statement, colloquially known as the “Stage 1 grant”, was made on 4th September 2014. This decision, known as the “Stage 2 decision”, is the final decision to grant a provisional statement, following a competition between the Stage 2 entrants, Aspers Universal Limited (“Aspers”), Kymeira Casino Limited (“Kymeira”) which applied on the same site at the Royal Pier Waterfront Development), Grosvenor Casinos Limited (“Grosvenor”) whose site is at Leisureworld, West Quay, and Global Gaming Ventures (Southampton) Limited (“GGV”) which has applied at Watermark West Quay, Southampton.
3. The Committee wishes to thanks all participants for the quality of their bids and their responsiveness and co-operation during what has been a long and exhaustive process.
4. Within the bounds of confidentiality, this decision sets out the reasons for the result just stated.
The legal test
5. The overriding legal test set out in Schedule 9 paragraph 5(3)(a) of the Gambling Act 2005 (“the Act”) which requires the Committee “to determine which of the competing applications would, in the authority’s opinion, be likely if granted to result in the greatest benefit to the authority’s area.”
6. In accordance with the Secretary of State’s Code of Practice for Determinations under Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Schedule 9 to the Gambling Act 2005 relating to Large and Small Casinos the Council as licensing authority published the principles they proposed to apply in making the Stage 2 determination, which were embodied in the Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Matrix.
7. As well as scoring the proposals according to the scoring mechanism set out in that document, the Committee has also asked itself which of the competing applications would be likely if granted to result in the greatest benefit to the authority’s area. This produced the same conclusion. In both cases, the conclusion was unanimous.
8. Section 210 of the Act requires the Committee to disregard whether or not a ... view the full minutes text for item 14.