The MPs state that they would like the Casino Advisory Panel’s decision to be examined by the Joint Committee. This view is apparently backed by some 99 MPs who have signed a Commons Motion calling for an examination for the decision.

Mr Ennis, quoted in the Blackpool Gazette, said: "When we first considered the draft legislation, the original expression they had for this so-called supercasino was a resort casino. When you think about resorts, you think about seaside places.

"When the Government changed the name from resort to regional, I wasn't happy with that. All the supercasinos in America are destination locations, the classic one being Las Vegas.

"I feel that if we're going to mitigate against gambling addiction then it needs to be a destination casino which people visit once or twice a year, otherwise they are tempting fate by attracting a lot of local people."

Mr Wright, also in the Gazette, added: "The fact is that places like Manchester and London have so many people living in that area, it's not too much of a task for people to travel to it.

"But with Blackpool, Great Yarmouth, Scarborough and so on, the majority of people would have to make a conscious effort to go and may stay overnight, and hence the regeneration."

Some of the conflict appears to have arisen from the CAP’s specification that the licence was for a regional casino rather than a resort casino; but considering the amount of money to be invested in such a project, it seems a narrow view that would place it in an area of apparent mass deprivation. It is understandable how the decision went to Manchester once the report is read and the criteria they were working from is understood, but surely questions must be asked about the relevance of the criteria. Is it not promoting potential harm when one of the important measures is to be able to measure social impact of such a project, but the decision went against Blackpool because this impact could not be measured as so many of the potential customers would be visitors to the town, bringing fresh money to hotels, restaurants and the local area. With the emphasis on a regional casino, the CAP is correctly saying that impact can be measured more accurately on the local area; the same report also says that Manchester has 1million people within one hour of the casino site. Is that not a contradiction? How is impact to be measured across Liverpool, Leeds, Bolton, Greater Manchester, Bradford and further afield? Is that any different than monitoring the impact of a casino in Blackpool? If East Manchester is massively deprived, a local market is surely the last thing developers want; visitors will be essential for a casino this size to survive. After all, in Las Vegas, locals play largely in off-Strip casinos, while tourists frequent the Strip, where the larger developments sit. Has the CAP considered this in its decision?

Meanwhile, a group of Blackpool MPs has reported that its meeting with Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell was ‘positive’. The MPs met with Jowell to ask her to reconsider the CAP’s decision

Blackpool South MP Gordon Marsden said: "She has agreed to go away, consult with colleagues and reflect as to whether there is the need for a scrutiny committee to look at it.

"What is important, and what she has to reflect on, is that every member of the original scrutiny committee feels the panel's decision is totally at odds with the criteria set down for it to work to."

Reaction to the decision in Blackpool has been mixed, but it is largely huge disappointment that not only did the decision not go in Blackpool’s favour, but it went to their nearest rivals. Colleen McLaughlin, Manager of the Regional Gaming Academy at Blackpool and the Fylde College, said: "For me as a resident of Blackpool, it's a devastating decision. With regard to the Gaming Academy, it's not the end of the world as Manchester is only about 50 minutes away by car. I still think there are opportunities to work with the people of Manchester to give them the skills they need when the casino arrives.

"We're trying to be as positive as we possibly can; we're looking at franchising out what we do throughout the country to the colleges where the 17 licenses have been issued.

"My family live here; it's absolutely the worst possible case scenario. Even if there is another round of casinos four or five years after the first opens, the proximity to Manchester is far too close for us to be even taken into contention then.

"The crime levels in that area of Manchester are through the roof, and the lack of housing around there… they're talking about building on land that should be considered for more housing.

"I think that the council were very short-sighted with not having a Plan B, and that was pointed out at every given opportunity. Their whole masterplan was built around Blackpool getting the first resort casino, when they should have been saying 'if we don't get it, this is what we're going to do'."

Sheila Parkinson, Political Writer for the Blackpool Gazette, says the town has been getting support from unexpected areas. She explained: "We've had a mixture of letters come in. We've launched a campaign, and have a petition which has had over 5,000 signatures on that from all sectors and ages that are disappointed about the decision. Obviously the local MPs – not just in the Fylde, but lots of Lancashire MPs, Liverpool MPs and even Manchester MPs that are not happy with the decision and feel it should probably have come to Blackpool.”

However, the view is different in Manchester where David Ottewell, Political Reporter, Manchester Evening News took in the decision. He feels the CAP did its job but that people are being sucked in by media hype about Blackpool and the Dome. David said: "Admittedly, it would be fair to say a lot of people here were surprised, including people involved in the bid. But when people actually read the report, matched against the criteria the CAP was using Manchester clearly had the strongest case.

"Things like deprivation, for example, we're as deprived or more deprived than anywhere else. When you look at these details, and you put aside the media hype that has been in favour of Blackpool and the Dome and just look at the evidence, Manchester does make sense.

"I spoke to Richard Lees (of Manchester City Council) just after the decision was announced and he said the reason we won is because the independent panel did put those things aside and acted like an independent panel should."

Whatever Tessa Jowell decides to do, it must be remembered that any decision must still pass through a vote in the Commons, followed by a vote in the House of Lords, a notoriously tricky hurdle in itself.

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend