Casino plan moves closer (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Reality of large style casino in Southampton moves closer
12:57pm Thursday 27th September 2012 in News
By Matt Smith, Politics and business reporter
A roulette table
IT’S the multi-million pound gamble that has been hovering over civic chiefs in Southampton for years.
A Las Vegas-style casino could bring hundreds of vital jobs and millions of pounds into the city’s economy.
With it though comes the public health warning issued by some community leaders fearing of a rise in gambling addiction and debt.
But today the Daily Echo can reveal that the prospect of a huge gambling den in the city has moved a step closer.
It comes after councillors in the city agreed the draft rules they will use to award a controversial casino licence to a potential operator.
A super-sized casino, one of only eight allowed in the country, could land the cash-strapped council with a cash windfall, bring hundreds of jobs and millions of pounds of regeneration to the city.
Casino operators have in recent months renewed their interest in building a giant casino in Southampton, the Daily Echo understands.
More than a dozen companies, including international operators, have so far contacted the council to register an interest in bidding for the licence.
Southampton was one of eight local authorities that were four years ago granted the right to award a “large casino” licence brought in by the last Labour Government.
But the recession, changes in gambling duties and the council’s previous lack of interest in moving the controversial issue forward have seen little progress – until now.
New council leader Richard Williams said he was keen to launch a public consultation on having a large casino in the city.
He said while some people will have “legitimate reservations”
about super casinos, having one in Southampton would bring a big boost to the economy and be a significant attraction to “Destination Southampton”.
The licence would allow an operator to build a casino housing up to 150 slot machines with jackpots of up to £4,000 and up to 30 tables for blackjack and poker.
Regular casinos have a limit of 20 slot machines.
The first large casino opened its doors in Stratford, near the Olympic stadium, earlier this year creating 440 jobs.
The operator, Aspers, has agreed to pay Newham Council at least £1m a year from its takings.
A similar arrangement could be agreed in Southampton where the city council has earmarked the major £450m redevelopment of the waterfront at Royal Pier as its preferred location for a large casino.
But an operator could come forward and ask to apply for the licence on a location of its choice.
In a report commissioned by the council five years ago, consultants reckoned the supercasino would pump an estimated £11m annually into the local economy.
Southampton is understood to be one of the most desirable of the locations granted the right to issue a large casino licence, and is only one on the south coast.
Former council leader Royston Smith said his Conservative group had always promised to have a meaningful consultation or preferendum on a large casino.
He said there were differing views among his councillors and no decision has been made as to how they would vote.
Cllr Williams said a public vote on the casino remained an “option”, he said.
Senior clergymen in Southampton, including the Bishops of Winchester and Southampton, have warned it would lead to a rise in problem gambling, debt, alcoholism and other social ills, particularly among the poor.
A previous Daily Echo online poll, four years ago, revealed 52 per cent of readers were in favour of a supercasino in Southampton.
The Chamber of Commerce backed the council’s bid to get the licence as away to bring investment and jobs into the area and unlock the development of the waterside provided safeguards were put in place to prevent people becoming hooked on gambling.
Although it acknowledged potential “downsides” such as transport problems and money being spent on gambling instead of local goods and services.
The updated council licensing policy has been put out to consultation to come back for final approval in November.
The council could then invite bids from casino operators in an open competition which will look for the application bringing the “greatest benefit” to the city.
However it understood the process could take around 18 months before a licence was awarded, sometime in 2014.
Comments(48)
Lockssmart
says...
1:21pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Maine Lobster
says...
1:24pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Surely this can only be a positive development as some of the former casinos in Southampton that have failed have not provided the range of facilites that the public want, resulting in their demise.
Dino-Saw-Us
says...
1:42pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Inform Al
says...
2:20pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Rob444
says...
2:26pm Thu 27 Sep 12
What is a "Regular casino"? What does it do regularly?
Please will the Echo stop using these Americanisms.
mooky9
says...
2:28pm Thu 27 Sep 12
mooky9
says...
2:28pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Stillness
says...
2:28pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Shoong
says...
2:43pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Stillness wrote:Yes, 'Lymington'. Much more well known than 'Southampton'.
I think it should be put somewhere out of the way. Lymington perhaps.
Mr E
says...
3:07pm Thu 27 Sep 12
southy
says...
3:18pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Shoong
says...
3:20pm Thu 27 Sep 12
southy wrote:And you know this how..?
Williams find a different location its not going to happen on Mayflower park
Georgem
says...
3:23pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Shoong wrote:Special secret document issued to all members of political parties, and nobody else.
southy wrote:And you know this how..?
Williams find a different location its not going to happen on Mayflower park
bigal007
says...
3:26pm Thu 27 Sep 12
bazzeroz
says...
3:27pm Thu 27 Sep 12
bazzeroz
says...
3:27pm Thu 27 Sep 12
bazzeroz
says...
3:28pm Thu 27 Sep 12
bazzeroz
says...
3:28pm Thu 27 Sep 12
bazzeroz
says...
3:29pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Stillness
says...
3:37pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Shoong wrote:?
Stillness wrote:Yes, 'Lymington'. Much more well known than 'Southampton'.
I think it should be put somewhere out of the way. Lymington perhaps.
southy
says...
3:40pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Georgem wrote:Its pie in the Sky when it comes down to Mayflower park there are rules and condition that the council must follow, one of them is no reclaiming on it shores and no dredging.
Shoong wrote:Special secret document issued to all members of political parties, and nobody else.
southy wrote:And you know this how..?
Williams find a different location its not going to happen on Mayflower park
The city council are only caretakers to the park, that park is owed by every one in the city. Every one has the right to enter that park every day but for 10 days in a year, Local river users have the right to land on the shore of mayflower park 24/7 free of charge, and this is what they are trying to block river users able to land on the park shores free of charge. people have the right to the water front to dig or pick up bait, to fish or to take a swim.
elvisimo
says...
3:43pm Thu 27 Sep 12
If remotely as good as the one in Stratford it will do well.
southy
says...
3:44pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Stillness wrote:Would be a much better place to gave a casino
Shoong wrote:?
Stillness wrote:Yes, 'Lymington'. Much more well known than 'Southampton'.
I think it should be put somewhere out of the way. Lymington perhaps.
Georgem
says...
3:45pm Thu 27 Sep 12
southy wrote:I hope you're right, since Mayflower Park is supposed to belong to the people of Southampton, but you know what happens when a big enough wad of cash is waved around :(
Georgem wrote:Its pie in the Sky when it comes down to Mayflower park there are rules and condition that the council must follow, one of them is no reclaiming on it shores and no dredging.
Shoong wrote:Special secret document issued to all members of political parties, and nobody else.
southy wrote:And you know this how..?
Williams find a different location its not going to happen on Mayflower park
The city council are only caretakers to the park, that park is owed by every one in the city. Every one has the right to enter that park every day but for 10 days in a year, Local river users have the right to land on the shore of mayflower park 24/7 free of charge, and this is what they are trying to block river users able to land on the park shores free of charge. people have the right to the water front to dig or pick up bait, to fish or to take a swim.
WORZEL
says...
3:46pm Thu 27 Sep 12
This is an opportunity for Southampton to seize the chance of securing the millions of cruise passengers for a further night stay in the City - more hotels, more diners, more drinkers, more shoppers.
As others have said the local community are already well served - and winning is the focus - this is for creating NEW business for the City.
I have to hope that for once it will happen!
Shoong
says...
3:58pm Thu 27 Sep 12
southy wrote:Why not just explain that in your original post then? Strewth!
Georgem wrote:Its pie in the Sky when it comes down to Mayflower park there are rules and condition that the council must follow, one of them is no reclaiming on it shores and no dredging.
Shoong wrote:Special secret document issued to all members of political parties, and nobody else.
southy wrote:And you know this how..?
Williams find a different location its not going to happen on Mayflower park
The city council are only caretakers to the park, that park is owed by every one in the city. Every one has the right to enter that park every day but for 10 days in a year, Local river users have the right to land on the shore of mayflower park 24/7 free of charge, and this is what they are trying to block river users able to land on the park shores free of charge. people have the right to the water front to dig or pick up bait, to fish or to take a swim.
southy
says...
3:59pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Georgem wrote:I do know what happens when a wad of cash is waved about, but they have a fleet of small boats right on the shore of mayflower park getting in the way of any reclaiming
southy wrote:I hope you're right, since Mayflower Park is supposed to belong to the people of Southampton, but you know what happens when a big enough wad of cash is waved around :(
Georgem wrote:Its pie in the Sky when it comes down to Mayflower park there are rules and condition that the council must follow, one of them is no reclaiming on it shores and no dredging.
Shoong wrote:Special secret document issued to all members of political parties, and nobody else.
southy wrote:And you know this how..?
Williams find a different location its not going to happen on Mayflower park
The city council are only caretakers to the park, that park is owed by every one in the city. Every one has the right to enter that park every day but for 10 days in a year, Local river users have the right to land on the shore of mayflower park 24/7 free of charge, and this is what they are trying to block river users able to land on the park shores free of charge. people have the right to the water front to dig or pick up bait, to fish or to take a swim.
Stillness
says...
4:01pm Thu 27 Sep 12
southy
says...
4:04pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Shoong wrote:I explain it all before more than once in the pass.
southy wrote:Why not just explain that in your original post then? Strewth!
Georgem wrote:Its pie in the Sky when it comes down to Mayflower park there are rules and condition that the council must follow, one of them is no reclaiming on it shores and no dredging.
Shoong wrote:Special secret document issued to all members of political parties, and nobody else.
southy wrote:And you know this how..?
Williams find a different location its not going to happen on Mayflower park
The city council are only caretakers to the park, that park is owed by every one in the city. Every one has the right to enter that park every day but for 10 days in a year, Local river users have the right to land on the shore of mayflower park 24/7 free of charge, and this is what they are trying to block river users able to land on the park shores free of charge. people have the right to the water front to dig or pick up bait, to fish or to take a swim.
fritzer
says...
4:07pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Mr E wrote:You are dead right Mr E, if it is any like the Aspers casio that has recently shut it's doors at Swansea it would fit in the Cloak room of any Vegas casino or any Aussie casino come to that.
I will be extremely surprised if anything remotely resembling a major Las Vegas Casio is built in Southampton.
fritzer
says...
4:07pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Mr E wrote:You are dead right Mr E, if it is any like the Aspers casio that has recently shut it's doors at Swansea it would fit in the Cloak room of any Vegas casino or any Aussie casino come to that.
I will be extremely surprised if anything remotely resembling a major Las Vegas Casio is built in Southampton.
elvisimo
says...
4:32pm Thu 27 Sep 12
fritzer wrote:It was 8000 sq.ft. - one of 2005 small casino licenses - this would be 60,000 sq.ft.
Mr E wrote: I will be extremely surprised if anything remotely resembling a major Las Vegas Casio is built in Southampton.You are dead right Mr E, if it is any like the Aspers casio that has recently shut it's doors at Swansea it would fit in the Cloak room of any Vegas casino or any Aussie casino come to that.
Lone Ranger.
says...
4:57pm Thu 27 Sep 12
.
His opinions are not important
kingnotail
says...
5:13pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Shoong
says...
5:35pm Thu 27 Sep 12
kingnotail wrote:Harsh!
How about some decent pubs, bars and nightclubs first? Southampton has to be one of THE worst nights out in the whole of the UK!
Haven't been to Eastleigh or Basingstoke lately then?
SaintM
says...
5:37pm Thu 27 Sep 12
cantthinkofone
says...
5:54pm Thu 27 Sep 12
A 'super-casino' is the last thing we need.
The council are either completely out of touch, or don't give a d@mn about the city's residents. Or both.
skin2000
says...
6:44pm Thu 27 Sep 12
cantthinkofone wrote:Totally agree, there is a lot more Southampton needs than a Super Casino.
We already have a very destructive gambling problem among some cultures in the city, ruining families, losing jobs, creating more lone parents, more antisocial youth, etc.
A 'super-casino' is the last thing we need.
The council are either completely out of touch, or don't give a d@mn about the city's residents. Or both.
WORZEL
says...
6:44pm Thu 27 Sep 12
cantthinkofone wrote:Where damage is likely to occur it has already happened - this initiative is totally different - this will bring significant business into the City - it has been proven in the US that there isn't an increase in gambling amongst the indigineous population - it creates jobs, money and attracts a significant increase in the number of "spending visitors" - just think of the crusie ships and the airport's international connections. A mega casino could not survive on the indigineous population.
We already have a very destructive gambling problem among some cultures in the city, ruining families, losing jobs, creating more lone parents, more antisocial youth, etc.
A 'super-casino' is the last thing we need.
The council are either completely out of touch, or don't give a d@mn about the city's residents. Or both.
Bring it on - bring them in - and let's make some money!
WORZEL
says...
6:49pm Thu 27 Sep 12
kingnotail wrote:Its obvious that the population don't want your so called "decent pubs and nightclubs" otherwise they'd already exist....or maybe they do, and it's you that is totally out of touch.
How about some decent pubs, bars and nightclubs first? Southampton has to be one of THE worst nights out in the whole of the UK!
FoysCornerBoy
says...
7:11pm Thu 27 Sep 12
WORZEL wrote:Gambling is not a particular vice of mine but I should be worried if a super casino were to feed addiction, which - during the recession - appears to be on the increase. I would like to see evidence of this in any local debate before the council takes a decision on purely commercial grounds.
cantthinkofone wrote:Where damage is likely to occur it has already happened - this initiative is totally different - this will bring significant business into the City - it has been proven in the US that there isn't an increase in gambling amongst the indigineous population - it creates jobs, money and attracts a significant increase in the number of "spending visitors" - just think of the crusie ships and the airport's international connections. A mega casino could not survive on the indigineous population.
We already have a very destructive gambling problem among some cultures in the city, ruining families, losing jobs, creating more lone parents, more antisocial youth, etc.
A 'super-casino' is the last thing we need.
The council are either completely out of touch, or don't give a d@mn about the city's residents. Or both.
Bring it on - bring them in - and let's make some money!
Personally I am more worried about the growth of online betting; gambling as part of a social activity appears more benign.
My main anxiety about a super casino is the potential knock-on effect on district-based bingo halls which are a source of pleasure to many sections of the community who won't go to a casino. I'd hate to see the Atherley Bingo Hall go the same way as the Portswood Broadway - unless we could convert it back to a community cinema. Now there's an idea...........
georgetheseventh
says...
7:19pm Thu 27 Sep 12
IronLady2010
says...
7:27pm Thu 27 Sep 12
sarfhamton
says...
11:25pm Thu 27 Sep 12
elvisimo
says...
8:17am Fri 28 Sep 12
skin2000 wrote:I think people are missing the point.
cantthinkofone wrote: We already have a very destructive gambling problem among some cultures in the city, ruining families, losing jobs, creating more lone parents, more antisocial youth, etc. A 'super-casino' is the last thing we need. The council are either completely out of touch, or don't give a d@mn about the city's residents. Or both.Totally agree, there is a lot more Southampton needs than a Super Casino.
The council will not be providing or indeed building a casino. This will be done by the operator either alone or in conjunction with a developer. The council simply control the licence which they were awarded years ago.
They will sell the licence with various conditions attached. This could involve a section 106 agreement or certain other planning conditions.
Money will be coming into the council as operators bid for the licence.
kingnotail
says...
11:29am Fri 28 Sep 12
6:49pm Thu 27 Sep 12
kingnotail wrote:
How about some decent pubs, bars and nightclubs first? Southampton has to be one of THE worst nights out in the whole of the UK!
Its obvious that the population don't want your so called "decent pubs and nightclubs" otherwise they'd already exist....or maybe they do, and it's you that is totally out of touch.
-
Have you ever left Southampton?. For a fairly large city, the nightlife here is truly abysmal.
OSPREYSAINT
says...
1:35pm Sat 29 Sep 12
Buntylicious says...
1:15pm Thu 27 Sep 12