Representation of the people

Andy Woods looks at the increasing number of representations made against betting premises licence applications and queries whether many of the representations are in fact invalid.

It has been impossible not to notice during the last 12 months the significant rise in the number of representations made against applications for betting premises licences. The rise has been more significant for applications within the M25, but has also been apparent for applications made in many of the major cities around the UK.

The representations usually take the form of objections from local residents, to more betting offices in a certain area, but increasingly representations are also made by the local police and by the licensing authority themselves. It is clear that there is a growing number of people who are upset about the number of betting offices on the High Street and want to try and block further applications.

It is not unusual for representations to refer to a number of articles such as the following: Betting shop boom worries councils (Councils say betting shops which often stay open in the evening can be linked to anti-social behaviour and they say many areas have reached saturation); and Betting shops are blighting Southall, says councillor (People see these places as magnets for anti-social behaviour contributing to wider issues like alcohol and drug abuse as well as prostitution).

The police representations and local authority representations often centre on public nuisance and disorder, although often these representations can be overcome and agreed if the applicant implements additional security measures.

I have been to a number of hearings at which residents are complaining about the number of betting shops and attempting to link betting shops to crime and disorder, but I don’t think it is too much of a generalisation to say that those representations always fail. Despite the best attempts of some local authorities to try and block betting premises licence applications, we are still waiting some five years on from the implementation of the Gambling Act 2005, for any appeal in the Magistrates’ Court to uphold any decision not to grant a licence.

It seems to me to be unfair for those making representations to launch into a stinging criticism of the industry; which for many years has been working to ensure that good practice is prevalent throughout the betting shops in the United Kingdom.

It is somewhat ironic that several Labour MPs are leading the crusade against betting shops. The irony is clear for all to see, in that it was the Labour Government who supported the report of Sir Alan Budd and completely changed the legislation through which applications for betting office premises licences were made by removing any form of discretion vested in local people (the Magistrates, under the 1963 Act) and positively requiring the local authority to “aim to permit” the use of premises for gambling.

Unlike the 1963 Act in which solicitors were given great scope to interpret the word “inexpedient”, the Gambling Act 2005 is clear and prescriptive in what the local authorities should do; “in exercising their functions under this part a licensing authority shall aim to permit the use of premises for gambling insofar as the authority think it (is in accordance with codes of practice/guidance/objectives)".

I do not propose to go through examples of various hearings I have been at which show why the local authority has to aim to permit to grant licences, but it does seem to me to be interesting that local authorities are permitting a wide range of representations to be treated as valid, when in many instances it seems to me that those representations should not be entertained.

There is no doubt in my mind that the principle enshrined in the Thwaites Case, which concerned the Licensing Act 2003, would equally apply to the Gambling Act 2005. In particular, the ruling that “guess work” or “conjecture” should not be considered relevant. When a local resident makes a representation to the licensing authority on the basis that the proposed betting office will lead to public disorder, it has to be appropriate for the licensing authority in the first instance to consider whether that is a genuine representation.

Interested parties can object under the Gambling Act 2005 and an interested party is a person who in the opinion of a licensing authority:

(a) Lives sufficiently close to the premises to be likely to be effected by the authorised activities;

(b) Has business interest that might be effected by the authorised activities; or

(c) Represents persons who satisfy para (a) or (b).

A further point to note is that the authorised activity referred to above is betting. It is placing a bet usually over the counter on the outcome of an event, as well as, the playing of machines which are authorised by the grant of a betting office licence.

How is a resident or business person going to be affected by someone placing bets or by playing a machine? The Licensing Objectives set out in the Act are of course completely different to those objectives set out in the Licensing Act 2003, which deals with alcohol legislation. The Gambling Act sets out three objectives which can be summarised as follows:

• No link between gambling and criminal activities. Gambling must not be a source of crime or disorder.
• Gambling must be conducted fairly and openly.
• The vulnerable and children must be protected.

The Gambling Commission have a major rule to play in the second and third objectives. The Gambling Commission grant operating licences and ensure that operators have appropriate policies in place to ensure that gambling is conducted fairly and openly and that the vulnerable are protected. Once an operator has an operating licence then it should be rightly presumed that the second and third objectives are complied with and no amount of conjecture could defeat arguments on those points. The Gambling Commission will also ensure that there is no link between gambling and criminal activity and the only remaining part of the objectives which may be relevant is that “gambling must not be a source of crime or disorder”.

A very simple interpretation of the legislation is that the act of placing a bet or the act of playing a machine must not, or I suppose the use of the premises by customers to partake in those activities must not, be a source of crime or disorder. There must be a clear link between the actual gambling activity and ‘crime and disorder’ for the representation to have any validity at all. It is simply not enough for those making representations to refer licensing committees to articles in newspapers which are often an expression of an opinion by a politician against the number of betting offices nationwide and which are often are unsupported by evidence linking gambling to crime and disorder.

I have been involved in a recent case in which residents tried to suggest that the area in question was a hotspot for crime and disorder in that particular city and that the grant of a betting office licence would therefore undermine the Licensing Objectives. There was as you would expect no link between statistics put forward which led to the area being defined as a hotspot to betting offices and no evidence to suggest that any other betting offices in the area contributed to the general crime and disorder in that particular area.

Licensing authorities must look closely at the representations made and decide whether the representations are in fact valid and relevant. This is not the voice of the industry trying to get rid of a number of representations which may cause a nuisance in the application process, but it is the only view which can be taken if the Gambling Act is interpreted correctly.

As I indicated earlier the precise wording of the Gambling Act 2005 is not the fault of the industry, but the fault of the draftsman and politicians who drove the Gambling Act 2005 through Parliament. Local councillors cannot be criticised for granting applications given the wording of the legislation and the industry should not be criticised for making applications until there is any direct evidence linking betting offices to crime and disorder.

Andy Woods is a partner at Woods Whur. He can be contacted on 0113 234 3055 or by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..