The UK government is considering scrapping the 'aim to permit' principle from the Gambling Act 2005, which would give local authorities greater power to refuse new betting shop licences. Gareth Hughes, a partner at Keystone Law, warns the change could drive up operator costs and trigger more legal disputes.
The 'aim to permit' principle replaced the demand test in 2005, under which disputes over new venues dragged on for days. The new framework simplified licensing but never guaranteed approval — applicants still had to meet Gambling Commission standards and local policy. Hughes notes councils already refuse licences under the current system.
The timing is off. Local gambling impact assessments were only just introduced, giving authorities tools to weigh betting shop density, proximity to schools and problem gambling data. Removing 'aim to permit' before the new mechanism shows results is premature, Hughes argues. Committees may read the repeal as a green light to tighten up, making new licences harder to secure.
Existing shops face no threat — changes would only affect new applications. But public sentiment risks playing a bigger role. Hughes recalls a case in Clapham where 2,000 residents petitioned against a bookmaker, predicting crime and prostitution. The shop opened without incident.
Operators will face wider policy variation between councils and higher costs for expert reports, mirroring what already happens with alcohol licensing. Hughes doubts bookmakers are to blame for high-street decline — the causes run deeper: business rates, rents, overall costs. Betting shops simply fill vacant units.
The shift would reverse the philosophy of the Gambling Act 2005. Operators will adapt, but the question is proportionality: a lawful, licensed sector already tightly regulated. Adding more restrictions makes sense only with solid evidence of harm.
