Below is a planning observation I sent in on plans for an “amusement centre” proposed for Dolphin’s Barn. The full project details are here and observations wereopen until 28 August 2024.

UPDATE: Dublin City Council thankfully REJECTED this application in September 2024. The full decision is here. The developer has now appealed to An Bord Pleanála – I will be submitting a further objection there.

I am writing to strongly object in totality to the application for a gambling establishment at 394 South Circular Road (WEB1913/24).

The application describes the development as an “amusement centre”, in an attempt to secure a more favourable planning designation under the Z4 zoning. The planning authority should not go along with this misleading designation.

The stated presence of “Amusement With-Prize” machines clearly makes this a space for gambling/gaming. Instead of an amusement where the reward is the activity itself or the ability to continue playing the game, they instead seek to install machines which offer prizes to people who play. This neatly fits within Irish legal understandings of gambling, which include betting, gaming and lottery. 

Specifically, the Gaming and Lottery Act 1956 defines gaming as “playing a game (whether of skill or chance or partly of skill and partly of chance) for stakes hazarded by the players”. Building on this definition, Section 43 of the Finance Act 1975 defines such machines as “gaming machines” in a manner that would clearly apply here.

This is clearly a form of gambling: a business which requires its customers lose out for it to be viable, and which materially worsens an area in which it operates. For the planning authority to go along with the charade and to not regard an establishment with “amusement-with-prize” machines as a gambling establishment would mean that any development for gambling could simply be reclassified as a “game” or “amusement” with reward.

The reasons why the applicant seek to have their application regarded as an “amusement centre” are clear – it’s an easier standard to meet:

1. In the Z4 zoning for the site, “amusement/leisure complex” is considered a permissible use. However, the more gambling-focused and thus more analogous “betting office” is merely open to consideration – a more difficult standard to reach. 

2. There are far tighter restrictions rightly applied to casinos, another analogous type of gambling development. Section 15.14.12 of the development plan states:

“Matters that shall be taken into account by the planning authority in assessing planning proposals for these uses and extensions to such uses include, but are not limited to the following:

  • The amenity of neighbouring residents and occupiers.
  • Hours of operation.
  • Traffic management.
  • Shop frontage treatment and impact on streetscape.
  • Proposed signage.”

The applicant does not adequately address these matters, and plainly does not state the hours of operation or the proposed signage. At the very least, the application should be assessed on such grounds – closer to a betting shop or casino, rather than simply an amusement arcade.

—

Separately, the development plan contains an applicable policy (CCUV14) which is worth quoting in its entirety:

“Adult Shops, Betting Shops and Gaming Arcades

That there will be a presumption against adult shops, betting shops and gaming arcades in proximity to residential areas, places of public worship and schools and similarly, there will be a presumption against an excessive concentration of such uses having regard to the existing presence of such retail outlets in an area.”

This presumption against this development (whether regarded as a “betting shop” or “gaming arcade”, or a combination of the two) should apply in this case, as it meets several of the tests:

Proximity to residential areas: The site is situated in a primarily residential area and is beside a site which will soon be developed for social housing (application ref 3581/24). In terms of zoning, Z1 zoning (Sustainable Residential Neighbourhoods) surrounds the site on all sides within 100m. The development is also directly below a residential unit.

Indeed, on page 14 of their planning report, the applicants themselves concede that “the vicinity of this land contains longstanding housing”. They further say “we do not consider that there is a conflict between the proposed amusement facility, on one hand and existing residential development.” But this is not the test applied under the CCUV14 policy, which does not speak about “conflict”, but “proximity”. This, in itself, should be sufficient to trigger the “presumption against” under CCUV14.

Proximity to places of public worship: The site is also in close proximity to multiple places of worship. It is:

  • on the same junction (95m away) as Our Lady of Dolours Catholic Church;
  • on the same section of road (230m away) as St. Andrew’s Community Centre, which is host to the Christian House of the Rock church;
  • on the same section of road (335m away) as the Church of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary of Fatima;
  • on the same section of road (335m away) as the St. Thomas Pastoral Centre (Syro-Malabar Catholic Church);
  • on the same road (700m) as the Dublin Mosque.

This, in itself, should be sufficient to trigger the “presumption against” under CCUV14.

There is also another betting shop in the Rialto area, operating on the same road: Boyle Sports at 445 South Circular Rd.

—

Overall, this development would be highly unwelcome in the area. An “amusement centre containing … Amusement-With-Prize machines” should be in the first place classed appropriately by planners. It should then be subjected to the various extra tests and presumptions such gambling developments attract. It should be rejected in totality.

Is mise,

Cllr. Michael Pidgeon