CHELMSFORD DIOCESE

THAMES GATEWAY – OCCASIONAL PAPER: 4

FANCY A DAY TRIP TO BLACKPOOL?

A conundrum? Sir Peter Hall is a professor of planning at London University, but he was brought up in Blackpool. He reminisces about his childhood, his old primary school and spending his summers renting deckchairs on Blackpool beach. He remembers that, in those days, Blackpool marketed itself as a health resort.

Sir Peter goes on to compare that situation with the Blackpool of today – it has the second worse life expectancy in England – the highest rate of alcohol-related deaths in the North-West – the UK’s highest suicide rate – more than 20% of the adult population are overweight – 8% are obese and 40% of the population take no exercise despite seven miles of seaside promenade. One in twelve teenage girls becomes pregnant before reaching adulthood and between 2,000 and 4,000 children are affected by parental alcohol problems. Sir Peter bemoans the fact that his old primary school has a 60% churn rate (the percentage of children that join and leave the school in the same year). This is because Blackpool, like many seaside towns, is a magnet for benefit tourists. He raises the question, “what brought them to these strange and unhappy lives besides the sea? How have they descended, in so many cases, into a vortex of alcoholic despair?”

However Blackpool has decided to take action. Health experts, schools, police and the local paper have joined with the town’s leisure industry in a new initiative, Blackpool Life: Rise to the challenge, led by the Blackpool Primary Care Trust. The aim is to turn the tide, to improve people’s health and simultaneously promote a positive image of Blackpool as a healthy place to live and work.

All very laudable, but then I find that at the same time, as a famous son of Blackpool, Sir Peter is the Chair of the Blackpool Regeneration Company which is also seeking to renew the town and its centrepiece for this transformation is the building of the one Super Casino, which will be allowed in the country. So into this town of addictions and deprivation we bring the answer – gambling for all!! Maybe I’m a bit stupid but I would have thought this was the last thing required!

AND WHAT ABOUT SOUTHEND? When the Gambling Bill was first suggested it was proposed to open up the legislation regarding casinos and allow “walk in” casinos. (These are casinos which the general public can use without being a member) Southend was early into the fray with its plans for regenerating the town by becoming a gambling centre. Initially this looked unstoppable as two large casinos resorts were proposed for each region with Southend and Great Yarmouth being obvious choices for the East of England. Within Southend the plans appeared to have an unstoppable momentum with the Christian Church seeming to be a lone voice crying in the wilderness against the plan.

However at national level the proposals have met with considerable opposition. The Bill eventually put before parliament had the number of super-casinos reduced to eight. When the election was called there was some horse trading to get the bill through and it was passed with only one super-casino (up to 5,000 sq. mtrs.), eight large casinos (up to 1,500 sq. mtrs.) and eight small casinos (up to 750 sq. mtrs.) being allowed. Blackpool is widely tipped to get the super-casino, whilst the press reports eight other potential bidders, not including Southend, who will be unlucky but will presumably take up all the large casino options. So where does this leave the Southend plans?

My sources say that there seems to be some confusion generally in Southend, because there are two separate issues regarding casinos, and not everybody who speaks on the subject really understands the difference.

Firstly, there is the question of whether Southend should seek Casino resort status, but this is (for now at least) irrelevant, since there will be only one Casino resort, and that is assumed to be Blackpool.

Secondly, there is the question of whether the existing casino complex on the sea-front in Westcliff should be allowed to expand, with the building of a hotel as part of that expansion.  This has generated a great deal of controversy and protest in Southend, but more on the planning question of whether the sea-front should be developed, than on the moral questions regarding gambling per se.

Although these two are separate issues, they are linked in that the public generally doesn't distinguish between them, and also, I think, by the council (who are pro-casino as a means of generating income) seeing the second option as the next best available to them since option one is now closed.