Gambling Impact Assessments

Gambling Impact Assessments slipped into English Law under the coattails of The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in the final stages of its metamorphosis into an Act of Parliament. The speed of things was unusual, if not unseemly. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage tabled her amendments to the Bill – the effect of which was to turn section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005 on its head – at the Report stage (i.e. the 11th hour of its passage through Parliament) on 18 March 2026. The Lords passed the Bill to the Commons on 15 April. The Commons passed it into law on 29 April[1].

Section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005 provides that when determining an application for a gambling premises licence, a licensing authority must “aim to permit the use of premises for gambling”, subject to the application being in accordance with any relevant codes of practice and guidance issued by the Gambling Commission; reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives; and in accordance with the authority’s own statement of licensing policy. The fourth edition of ‘Smith and Monkcom, The Law of Gambling’ says this of section 153: “The duty to ‘aim to permit’ must, it is submitted, create a presumption in favour of granting a premises licence.” It is difficult to read The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (“EDCEA”) other than as reversing that presumption.

In summary, section 87 of the EDCEA amends The Gambling Act 2005 as follows:

1. A licensing authority may publish a ‘Gambling Impact assessment’ (“GIA”) which states that applications for certain licences (bingo, adult gaming centre, family entertainment centre or betting) within the area of the assessment are “not likely to be reasonably consistent with one or more of the licensing objectives”: s 153A (1).
2. The ‘aim to permit’ requirement of section 153 is made expressly subject to section 165A – which it is not unfair to characterise as inviting a licensing authority to ‘aim to refuse’: s 153 (3).
3. The authority’s licensing policy may include a presumption that the authority will reject a licensing application within the scope of the GIA: s 165A(1)(b).
4. Subject to (e) below, a licensing authority may reject an application in accordance with the presumption, i.e. solely on the ground that the licence applied for is within the scope of the GIA: s 165A(2).
5. A licensing authority may not reject an application on that ground, however, if the applicant “shows” that the grant of the licence would be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives: s 165A(3).

The overall scheme of sections 153A and 165A therefore presents a familiar rebuttable presumption of refusal. The original policy steer of section 153 – “shall aim to permit” – has quite simply been reversed. A licensing authority that has published a statement that the grant of gambling premises licences within a GIA  is not likely to be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives, and has gone on to publish a policy presumption that premises licence applications within the scope of a GIA will be rejected, can by no stretch of the English language be said to be ‘aiming to permit’ the use of premises for gambling.

The procedural requirements for the publication of GIAs are as to be expected: consultation with the police, persons carrying on gambling businesses in the relevant area, and persons representing the interests of those likely to be affected; and the GIA must set out the evidential basis for the authority’s opinion that the grant or further grant of premises licences in the area of the GIA  is not likely to be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. Whether consultation will deflect a licensing authority from an assessment already made, remains to be seen.

The language of the amendments is occasionally ‘raw’, in the sense that it reads more like a proposal to be sent to the parliamentary draftsman than the finished product of his drafting. Section 165A (3) is an example. Having said that an application cannot lawfully be rejected solely on the ground that the licence applied for is within the scope of the GIA if the applicant –

(a) asserts in the application that the grant of the prospective licence would be reasonably consistent with the licensing objective or objectives to which the gambling impact assessment relates, and

(b) then shows that the grant of the prospective licence would be reasonably consistent with that licensing objective or those licensing objectives;

 – the subsection adds the following in parenthesis:

(and, accordingly, inconsistency with that licensing objective or those licensing objectives cannot otherwise be a ground for rejecting the application.)

Self-evidently, if an applicant “shows” that the grant of an application would be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives, inconsistency with them cannot be a reason for refusal. The added words are more likely to confuse than assist a licensing sub-committee.

Then there is, with respect, a rather awkward attempt to make the rejection of an application bullet-proof. Section 165A (2) provides –

(2) It is lawful for the licensing authority to reject the application solely on the ground that the prospective licence is within the scope of the gambling impact assessment (and therefore regardless of anything, including any legislation, which would otherwise support or require the grant of the prospective licence).

One almost expects the words “So there!” to be placed before the closing bracket.

The degree of scrutiny which these far-reaching amendments were given is perhaps assessed by reference to the fact that neither the Lords nor the Commons altered one word of the proposals tabled on 18 March 2026. It is tempting to wonder if anyone even read the three pages about Gambling Impact Assessments tucked into the three hundred and ninety six pages about Devolution and Community Assessment. The preamble to the Act is blissfully unaware of the incongruous section 87 which the Bill had somehow picked up on its journey: the preamble reads –

An Act to make provision about combined authorities, combined county authorities, the Greater London Authority, local authorities, police and crime commissioners and fire and rescue authorities, local audit and terms in business tenancies about rent.

Not a hint of gambling impact assessments or the volte face creation of a presumption of refusal of applications. The lesson to legislators who have in mind controversial reforms could not be more clear: slip them in at the Report stage of a Bill about something entirely different, and hope no one notices.

Gerald Gouriet KC is a barrister at Francis Taylor Building.

^[1] The amendments will come into effect on a date to be set by the Secretary of State.