QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Global Gaming Ventures (Southampton) Limited |
Claimant |
|
- and – |
||
Southampton City Council |
Defendant |
|
- and - |
||
Aspers Universal Limited |
Interested Party |
____________________
Mr Philip Kolvin QC (instructed by Southampton City Council Legal Department) for the Defendant
The Interested Party was not represented and did not attend
Hearing date: 31 January 2017
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Jeremy Baker:
"(a) shall determine which of the competing applications would, in the authority's opinion, be likely to result in the greatest benefit to the authority's area.
………….."
"may wish to pay particular regard to the following:
…………
(d) the likely effects of an application on employment and regeneration within the authority's area,
(e) the design and location of the development proposed in the application,
(f) the range and nature of non-gambling facilities to be offered as part of the development proposed in the application…...
……."
"15.13 Southampton City Council intends to enter into a contract with the development partners for the Royal Pier development and a casino element is intended to be part of the Royal Pier development with an application of a large casino licence forthcoming in relation to the site. The information is set out here so as to ensure that potential applicants are aware of this likelihood so as to ensure transparency. As a consequence, there can be no reason for the procedure to be or be perceived as unfair in any way or perceived to be unfair to any applicant.
…………
15.28 The Council and the Licensing Authority does have a preferred specific location for a large casino as part of the Royal Pier and Mayflower Park redevelopment project. This site was previously identified (amongst others) as part of the Council's submission to the Casino Advisory Panel. However, all proposals will be judged on their own individual merits regardless of their location. Nevertheless, given the importance placed on the ability of the proposal to deliver large scale physical regeneration and tourism potential, areas of Southampton that already have substantial visitor/tourists would be most likely to be at a disadvantage when judged against a proposal which anchors a new infrastructure project."
"Up to 750 points is available to applicants whose proposal demonstrates the greatest potential Gross Value Added (GVA) by promoting physical regeneration, tourism, employment opportunities, and through financial contributions directed specifically to achieve regeneration while also having regard to the need to demonstrate deliverability of that proposal.
The assessment of deliverability will take into account all relevant factors including but not limited to: the practicability of the scheme; the applicant's standing and track record of delivery; any legal agreement offered; and any guarantor willing to guarantee delivery of the proposals. The best proposal will be awarded 750 points, with points awarded to the remaining applications dependant on their respective merits."
"Following completion of the bid documentation, the Advisory Panel will evaluate each bid.
The evaluation will consist of:
(1) A qualitative appraisal.
(2) A quantitative appraisal against each of the headings in the Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Matrix document. The Panel will make a recommendation as to the overall score that show (sic) be attributed to each application.
In reaching a unified score for each application, the Panel may choose its own method, for example by taking an average or median score, rounding up or down, or some other method, provided that the same method is used consistently for all applicants."
"In terms of the evaluation of the GVA of each scheme, although the Panel sought GVA information from each applicant, the applicant's response varied in their methodological approach to assessment of GVA. Further, the Panel considered that a very broad range of considerations both mathematically verifiable and subjective had to be taken into account. Therefore, rather than trying to evaluate the GVA of each scheme mathematically, the Panel has taken a broad, evaluative view of the tangible and intangible benefits brought by each scheme."
Ground 1
"Factor 5 was also scored 1 – 10, with 10 reflecting that the wider scheme is effectively dependent on the casino, so that it would certainly not be developed unless the casino is developed, with 1 reflecting that the casino had no influence whatsoever on the wider scheme. The interstitial points were a matter of broad evaluative judgment."
Ground 3
"9.6.13 In terms of the evaluation of the GVA of each scheme, although the Panel sought GVA information from each applicant, the applicants' responses varied in their methodological approach to the assessment of GVA. Further, the Panel considered that a very broad range of considerations both mathematically verifiable and subjective have had to be taken into account. Therefore, rather than trying to value the GVA of each scheme mathematically, the Panel has taken a broad, evaluative view of the tangible and intangible benefits brought by each scheme, using the scale described above"
"32…………The panel did not understand Criterion 1 as requiring a precise mathematical cross-comparison. Had it done so, it would have gone about its work very differently and even then it would have failed to reflect less quantifiable benefits, the differentials in deliverability of each casino and each wider scheme, and the different causative influences of the development of the casinos on the wider schemes of which they formed part. The approach was necessarily one of broad evaluation."
Conclusion