“Imposing Gambling Impact Assessments into the licensing process, and the requirement to provide credible and robust evidence to back them up is not a licensing framework people can work with easily, if at all.”

That’s the sobering message delivered by David Lucas, Vice Chair of the Institute of Licensing, in response to the current amendments going through Parliament as the assault on Aim to Permit continues.

Talking to Coinslot ahead of next week’s IoL Gambling Conference, Lucas expressed his “disappointment” that the GIAs have been slotted into the legislatory process without any consultation. 

He stated: “This is the disappointment, if there was at least a formal consultation, we would have been able to explain how GIAs are flawed from the very principle to their practical implementation. The lessons of the Cumulative Impact Assessments in the Licensing Act have shown this to be the case. Fewer councils are leaning on CIAs in the licensing process because they are potentially more problematic than problem solving.”

And he believes the GIAs will follow suit. “It appears GIAs will have a very similar impact and, quite honestly, it contradicts all the experience that we have when it comes to gambling premises. The truth of the matter is gambling isn’t one of the problem areas for licensing authorities. Gambling premises do not usually give rise to complaints.”

Lucas’ extensive conversation with Coinslot features on pages 34-35 of this week’s edition, where he urges the authorities to commence consultations urgently. “When the IoL, local business associations and all the national trade bodies have a consensus view – one should listen. And more importantly, when the forerunner of GIAs, the Cumulative Impact Assessments, are losing popularity, talking to us will be beneficial.”