There may be many areas in which it would be suitable for a casino to be based. The Panel's role is ultimately to recommend the best area(s) to the Secretary of State in the light of the criteria applied and the statutory limits to the types of casinos permitted. The process is therefore of necessity highly competitive. In this competition it is inevitable that some towns and cities that might have benefited from the development of a regional casino will be omitted.

There was no single marking process which determined the final outcome of the sifting. The initial evaluations related to the satisfactoriness of evidence submitted against the previously published criteria. This was not itself determinative, but formed a basis to actual decision making by the whole Panel, based on reasoned discussion and consideration, particularly regarding those proposals close to the margins of being shortlisted. When the Panel were satisfied that they had carefully considered all proposals and were in agreement, they produced a shortlist which represented those proposals the Panel felt had submitted the strongest and most compelling evidence.

It is inevitable that the Panel's decisions would cause disappointment to some, not least to authorities who had looked to their casino proposal as a means of alleviating severe problems of deprivation or even improving social conditions and meeting the need for economic regeneration. However, the competition was very strong, and so it is inevitable that some proposals, good enough though they may have been in themselves, had to yield before the more powerfully justified cases.

Individual comments regarding reasons why proposing authorities did not make the shortlist (PDF 32kb)

Casino Advisory Panel
June 2006