The Gambling Act 2005 established a dual tier system of regulation with authorities granting betting and other premises licences once an operator has obtained an operating licence from the Gambling Commission. Local authorities are responsible for deciding whether or not a betting premises licence should be granted to established operators (this decision should be made separately from the planning process).
Yes. Objections cannot be made on moral grounds, but local residents and businesses can make representations during the application process. These objections must relate to the licensing objectives (crime/disorder, fairness to customers and protecting children and vulnerable persons) and not be spurious or generalised in nature. Where the licensing authority is satisfied that there are genuine risks to the licensing objectives they can refuse the licence.
Under previous legislation a betting operator had to prove "un-stimulated demand" for betting in a location before a new premises licence was granted. This criterion is no longer something that can be considered. This reflects the principles of the Gambling Act, which enable more market liberalisation in return for increased levels of regulation (the two tier system detailed above). Before 2007, betting shops were regulated by the local magistrates court, so regulating betting premises is a new responsibility for local authorities.
The simple answer is no. Betting shop numbers have remained stable for a number of years and if anything there is a net decline in overall numbers. Some of the London Boroughs who have raised concerns about betting shop proliferation such as Hackney and Haringey have actually seen a slight decline in the number of betting shops in their areas in line with other retail outlets.
For commercial reasons, some betting operators have opened shops in close proximity to their rivals. The industry is strongly competitive and in the retail environment, prices and customer service drive a high turnover, low margin business. In some limited inner city locations this may have given rise to betting shops being clustered together. In a depressed retail environment this may be more apparent, but betting operators are certainly not engaged in a policy of filling empty high street shops just because they can.
Local politicians and campaign groups within a number of London boroughs have become frustrated with their own authorities’ perceived inability to refuse premises licences. These include individuals who are pursuing their own moral objections to gambling. However many of these campaigners are working on the basis of false perception not evidence – and the courts seem to agree. One London borough spent over £60,000 on hearings and appeals that subsequently went in favour of the betting operators concerned. Others have spent a considerable percentage of their gambling regulatory budget objecting to premise licences that have subsequently been granted.
It is all too easy to make a glib assertion that betting shops somehow undermine sustainable communities. Let’s look at the facts. Levels of problem gambling in the UK are low by international standards (0.6%) and surveys show that average household spend on gambling (as a percentage of total spend) varies regionally between 0.4% (London) and 1.2% (North East). The latest gambling prevalence statistics (January 2010) showed that 55.2% of the adult population had gambled within the last four weeks but only 6.5% of these had placed an over-the-counter bet in a betting shop and only 2.5% had played gaming machines. By far the most prevalent gambling activity was the purchase of National Lottery tickets (45.7%) or National Lottery scratch cards (10.9%). Does this mean that newsagents should be subject to tougher regulation?
The vast majority of betting shops never appear on the radar of most local authorities. In some inner city boroughs where there is a high crime rate, offences of criminal damage and a small number of public order offences do occur. However, when one looks at crime rates in certain areas and there is a comparison with offences committed in betting shops, it shows that betting shops are well managed, orderly and generally safe places for customers.
Betting shop estates are already under commercial pressure with around 30% of all betting shops suffering marginal profitability. Further planning or regulatory restrictions will increase that cost base for betting operators at a time when the industry is, like other retailers, suffering the effects of the recession. Artificially limiting betting operators from being able to make legitimate commercial decisions about shop relocation or new builds will impact on the whole business and put betting shop jobs under pressure.
Betting shops provide 40,000 flexible full time jobs nationally and promote footfall for other local retailers. These heavily regulated environments are hugely preferable to the illegal gambling that may occur in pubs and clubs if regulated premises were restricted. The majority of stakes in a betting shop are modest (average £6-£8) and those who frequent them will understand the role they fulfil as alcohol-free social centres where groups of individuals come together on a regular basis to exchange opinions, pool knowledge, engage in banter, interact with staff and generally enjoy a harmless leisure pursuit. Visit one on an afternoon during Cheltenham week or on Grand National Saturday - the atmosphere is well worth experiencing.
ABB members are mindful of their responsibilities to the communities within which they operate.