Councils across England are seeking greater powers to block gambling venues, but are their proposed reforms evidence-based or driven by prejudice?

Local councils across England continue to lobby parliament in an attempt to strengthen their powers to block proposals for new AGCs.

Under Section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005, councils are currently bound by the “aim to permit” principle, which obliges them to approve gambling premises if certain requirements are met. Despite this rule, anti-gambling councillors have frequently attempted to block applications rather than aim to permit them, leading to many operators only being granted their rightful permission after a lengthy and costly appeal process. But these councillors are now going one step further – asking for the rules to be changed so they can block all applications.

West Norfolk Council is the latest to join a growing coalition of over 40 councils urging reform. Councillor Deborah Heneghan has tabled a motion to support a six-point plan that includes giving councils the power to reject applications on the grounds of local welfare and safety. The proposed reforms also call for greater restrictions on promotions and a halt to changes in the gambling white paper that would allow operators to have a larger ratio of B3 machines.

Joseph Cullis, president of Bacta, the AGC trade body, has said that scrapping the rule “would create legal uncertainty and put legitimate local businesses at risk,” adding that it doesn’t mean automatic approval. He argues that Bacta’s members offer “safe, low-stake entertainment in well-regulated, supervised, alcohol-free environments,” for all of which there is strong supporting evidence. On the other hand, West Norfolk Council’s six-point plan is supported by nothing but prejudice and moral opposition – on the basis of which laws should never be changed.

Coinslot has long been sounding the warning that the aim to permit principle is in danger and the creeping momentum of what is a very impressive anti-gambling campaign has now shifted to imminent threat levels. The process to change the aim to permit principle does require arduous parliamentary processing, but with the government bending more to its lippy newby MPs, and an opposition that is barely moving its lips on any political matter, concern will continue to rise over the vital legislatory protection for operators on the high street.

Aim to not permit?

Coinslot said…… “The process to change the aim to permit principle does require arduous parliamentary processing, but with the government bending more to its lippy newby MPs, and an opposition that is barely moving its lips on any political matter, concern will continue to rise over the vital legislatory protection for operators on the high street……