Plans for a round-the-clock slot machine arcade in one of Exeter’s most deprived streets have been given a rough ride by city councillors.
A decision on whether Merkur Slots will be allowed to open a new business in Sidwell Street will be taken by a government inspector after the city council ran out of time to decide.
But members of the city’s planning committee will make it clear that they don’t support the plan. Cllr Anne Jobson (Con, St Loyes) said: “This is not the right place for this particular use.”
A decision will be taken at a planning appeal, with Merkur asking the inspector to make a ruling because the city council has failed to do so in time.
Chairman Cllr Paul Knott (Lab, Exwick) said this had been because of issues ‘relating to team management’ but didn’t say what they were.
Merkur wants to turn a former pizza takeaway at 47 Sidwell Street into a 24-hour adult gaming centre.
Cllr Tammy Palmer (Lib Dem, Duryard and St James) said the street is home to a large number of vulnerable people, as well as being close to schools, hostels, several churches and a mosque. Sidwell Street, she said, is in the top 10 per cent of the most deprived areas in the country.
She asked: “Is it sensitive and appropriate for an area that wants to be seen as multi-cultural to have a 24-hour gambling site?”
And she had concerns for the safety of customers coming and going from the arcade, particularly lone women.
“I don’t want to nanny people,” she said. “But there is overwhelming evidence that talks about the dangers of gambling and the cost to society.”
Cllr Michael Mitchell (Lib Dem, Duryard and St James) pointed out that Merkur had never lost an appeal on planning grounds, but added: “This is a legitimate use, but not on these premises, on this site, on this street.”
And Cllr Gemma Rolstone (Lab, Topsham) told the committee: “We are putting something that research has shown to be risky into an area that is scoring particularly highly on the index of multiple deprivation. I think that sits very uncomfortably.”
Councillors were asked if they would have supported the application if they had been given the chance to decide on it within the timeframe allowed, and by a majority they decided that they would not have.
Their objections will now be put forward to a planning inspector’s appeal hearing.