A COUNCILLOR HAS launched a strong objection to plans for an “amusement centre” with controversial slot machines in Dublin’s Dolphin’s Barn, saying these types of venues “don’t add anything to the area”.

Green Party Councillor Michael Pidgeon told The Journal that he has objected to the proposal on moral grounds, claiming that he has seen how “grim and grubby this sector can be”.

A planning application submitted last month seeks to redevelop a vacant retail premises to “an amusement centre containing a mix of Amusement-With-Prize (AWP) and ‘Amusement-Only (AO) machines’”.

The applicants distinguish between the two types of machines by listing the AWP machines as “gaming machines on which prizes are paid to participants”, such as slot machines, and AO machines that “are played purely for recreational purposes”.

The plan was submitted by Farry Town Planning Ltd, on behalf of Kian McGuigan.

Pidgeon said that while some people are able to place bets and come away with a positive experience, slot machines are used as an “efficient way to extract cash” from vulnerable people.

He also said that “Ireland was much better off when we simply had a ban on poker machines”.

Slot machines were previously banned in Ireland under the Gaming and Lotteries Act of 1956, which only allowed machines that were “designed for amusement” and only paid back no more than the amount at stake.

However, this was changed in 1975, when the Finance Act partially updated the laws and allowed for the licensing of gaming machines.

Slot machines are considered by some to be controversial due to their addicting nature.

A recent study from the Economic and Social Research Institute found that “slot machines and casino gambling, particularly online, were more common among people with problem gambling”. 

In his objection, Pidgeon has called on Dublin City Council planners to reject the application’s definition of the proposed development as an “amusement/leisure complex” and instead should be assessed more like a betting shop or casino.

There are far greater planning restrictions placed on casinos that include the signage and advertising of the premises and its proximity to residential areas and places of worship.

Pidgeon has argued that the developers have not addressed these issues in their application.

The premises is also surrounded on all sides by residential units and is in close proximity to several places of worship.

This, Pidgeon argues, is sufficient for Dublin City Council planners to reject the proposal should they classify the development as a betting shop or gaming arcade as the city’s development plan includes a “presumption against” these types of developments “in proximity to residential areas, places of public worship and schools”.

Farry Town Planning Ltd has been contacted for comment.

A plan for a casino located in Ballincollig, Co Cork has recently been rejected by the City Council planners following a strong local campaign against the proposal.

Sinn Féin Councillor Joe Lynch was among those who campaigned against the development, saying that there was “no community benefit” to the proposal.

In their rejection of the proposal, Cork City Council argued that the location of the development and lack of “passive surveillance” in the area led to “a high potential of nuisance in the immediate vicinity”.

The developers of the Ballincollig proposal have since appealed the decision to An Bord Pleanála arguing that local concerns for the premises were based on “historical stigma rather than evidence”.

Lynch has also made a submission to An Bord Pleanála against the appeal, stating that “the granting of permission would represent poor quality development” and that Cork City Council’s decision should be upheld.