Global Gaming Ventures (Southampton) Ltd v Southampton City Council

In a statutory competition for a large casino licence, the licensing authority may assess the likely overall benefit to its area through a broad evaluative judgment. It may give substantial weight to regeneration, tourism, employment and associated non-gambling development, rather than focusing only on benefits generated directly by the casino.

Where the authority’s published criteria do not prescribe a methodology for calculating Gross Value Added, the authority is not required to produce a mathematical comparison. It must apply the same criteria to all applicants and give reasons which sufficiently identify the nature and content of the evidence considered. It need not specify every detail of that evidence.

The claimant challenged Southampton City Council’s decision to grant Aspers Universal Limited a provisional statement for a large casino at the Royal Pier development, and to reject the claimant’s application for a casino at Watermark West Quay.

The claimant renewed its application for permission to judicially review the decision on grounds concerning relevant considerations and the assessment of Gross Value Added. The central issues were whether the Council could treat the casino as a catalyst for wider regeneration and whether its criteria required a mathematical calculation of Gross Value Added for each application.

1. Applications refused. The renewed application for permission on ground 1 and the adjourned application for permission on ground 3 were refused.
2. Under Schedule 9 paragraph 5(3)(a) of the Gambling Act 2005, the Council had to determine which application was likely to result in the greatest benefit to its area. In light of the statutory Code of Practice and the Council’s published criteria, it was entitled to regard the impact on wider non-gambling facilities and regeneration as more important than benefits produced by the casino itself.
3. The Council was entitled to assess the causative significance of the casino to the Royal Pier scheme. On the available evidence, and absent bad faith, the Advisory Panel and Licensing Committee could conclude that construction of the casino was a necessary prerequisite to the wider development. The absence of equivalent evidence concerning contingency plans for the claimant’s development justified treating the two applications differently.
4. The Council was also entitled to conclude that the Royal Pier development was more likely than not to be delivered. The Panel and Committee had considered the progress of the scheme, investment, agreements, landowner and developer support, planning position, track records and financing and delivery arrangements. They were not required to disclose every detail of the evidence, provided their reasons clearly indicated its nature and content.
5. Although Gross Value Added is usually expressed monetarily, the published criteria did not prescribe a methodology for calculating it. The Panel was therefore entitled to make a broad evaluative assessment of tangible and intangible benefits, including matters not susceptible to mathematical measurement. The criteria had been applied consistently to all applicants.

The judgment describes an earlier procedural stage before the High Court. Edis J refused permission on the grounds concerning relevant considerations and apparent bias, but adjourned consideration of the ground concerning application of the appropriate criteria. The present court refused the renewed and adjourned applications for permission.