Can a Council Refuse a New Betting Shop or Gambling Arcade?

Yes, but a council cannot refuse a gambling premises licence simply because local people dislike gambling or believe there are already enough betting shops.

The decision has to be made under the Gambling Act 2005. Section 153 currently tells licensing authorities to "aim to permit" gambling where an application is consistent with the licensing objectives, Gambling Commission guidance and the council's own licensing policy. That does not guarantee approval. Sheffield City Council refused an adult gaming centre in 2023 and successfully defended the decision on appeal.

The framework is changing. Gambling Impact Assessment powers have been enacted for England and Wales but are not yet in force. The Government has also said it will consult on removing "aim to permit" altogether. For now, section 153 still governs applications.

Who licenses a betting shop or gambling arcade?

A physical gambling business normally needs more than one form of permission.

The Gambling Commission licenses the business and its gambling activities. The local licensing authority, usually the council, deals with the premises licence for the individual location. Planning permission is a separate question.

A business appearing in the Gambling Commission register does not automatically have permission to open at any address it chooses. Equally, planning permission does not replace the need for a premises licence.

Our guide to checking a gambling licence explains the difference between an operator's Gambling Commission licence and the permission attached to a particular venue.

What "aim to permit" currently requires

Section 153 of the Gambling Act says a licensing authority should aim to permit gambling premises where it considers the application:

• consistent with relevant Gambling Commission codes
• consistent with Gambling Commission guidance
• reasonably consistent with the three licensing objectives
• consistent with the council's own statement of licensing principles

The three licensing objectives are:

• preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, associated with crime or disorder, or used to support crime
• ensuring gambling is conducted fairly and openly
• protecting children and other vulnerable people from harm or exploitation

The current law creates a presumption in favour of permitting gambling premises where those requirements are met. A council can still refuse an application where the evidence shows that approval would not be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives and appropriate conditions would not deal with the problem.

What a council cannot base its decision on

Gambling premises licensing is not a public vote. A large petition may show the strength of local feeling, but numbers alone do not establish that an application conflicts with the Gambling Act.

Arguments are unlikely to carry much weight if they amount to:

• gambling is morally wrong
• the area does not need another gambling business
• an existing operator would face more competition
• the premises might lower nearby property values
• the council should refuse the application solely because it is unpopular

The Act expressly prevents licensing authorities from considering expected demand for gambling facilities.

Planning concerns also need to be handled through the planning system. Licensing authorities can examine the location and its risks, but they should not use a premises hearing as a substitute planning decision.

What can make an objection relevant

A useful representation connects the proposed premises and its location to the licensing objectives.

Relevant evidence might include:

• nearby schools, youth services or places regularly used by children
• services used by people experiencing homelessness, addiction or financial crisis
• documented crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour in the immediate area
• the concentration of existing gambling premises
• evidence of local vulnerability or gambling-related harm
• weaknesses in the operator's local risk assessment
• reasons why proposed licence conditions would not address the identified risks

Specific local evidence is more useful than a general claim that gambling causes harm. An objection should identify the location, explain the risk and show how it relates to the council's gambling policy or one of the statutory objectives.

What happened in Sheffield

Royal Amusements applied for an adult gaming centre premises licence at 9 Fargate in Sheffield city centre. Sheffield City Council refused the application on 6 November 2023 and the operator appealed.

The appeal was heard by District Judge Spruce at Sheffield Magistrates' Court over two days in October and December 2024. Judgment was delivered on 24 February 2025 and the appeal was dismissed.

The council's case concentrated on the characteristics of that particular location. A policy brief published in August 2026 records that the council identified more than 40 sensitive locations and areas of risk around the proposed site. These included support services, student accommodation, university buildings, parks and the local NHS gambling service. It also recorded 11 existing licensed gambling premises within 500 metres.

The council argued that some gambling harms occur beyond the premises and are not always visible to staff. Conditions governing entry, staffing or activity inside the venue would not necessarily address those wider risks.

The operator relied heavily on the permissive approach in section 153 and its experience of operating adult gaming centres elsewhere. The court found that a general comparison with other city centres did not adequately address the specific Sheffield location. The judge concluded that the licensing subcommittee had acted consistently with the established law and guidance.

Why the operator's local risk assessment mattered

Licensed operators must assess local risks when applying for or changing certain premises licences. A generic document is unlikely to be persuasive if it fails to engage with the actual area.

According to the Institute of Licensing's account, the operator submitted three local area risk assessments during the Sheffield process. None adequately identified the relevant characteristics and sensitivities of the location. That did not create an automatic ground for refusal, but it weakened the operator's answer to the council's evidence.

A serious local assessment should identify the nearby risks, explain how the proposed operation responds to them and set out what practical controls will be used. A good operating record elsewhere may not answer concerns about a particular location.

Did Sheffield create a legal precedent?

The Sheffield decision is not a binding precedent in the way a reported High Court or appellate judgment would be. It came from a Magistrates' Court, so other courts are not required to follow it.

It is still relevant as a worked example of a refusal upheld under the existing section 153 framework. The case shows the type of local evidence, policy preparation and risk analysis that can support a council's decision.

The August 2026 policy brief calls the case a landmark and a precedent. That description should be read in context because two of its authors were Sheffield City Council officials and the paper is a policy brief rather than an independent legal judgment.

Future applications still have to be decided on their own facts.

Gambling Impact Assessments

Section 87 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 creates Gambling Impact Assessments for England and Wales. The Act received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026, but section 87 is not yet in force.

Once commenced, a licensing authority will be able to publish an evidence-based assessment covering part or all of its area. An assessment may cover:

• betting premises
• bingo premises
• adult gaming centres
• licensed family entertainment centres

Casino premises are not included in the section's list of relevant licences.

A council will need to set out the evidence supporting its assessment, consult affected groups and incorporate the relevant presumption into its three-year gambling policy. Where those steps have been completed, the council may adopt a presumption that applications within the assessment's scope will be rejected.

That presumption can be displaced if an applicant shows that its proposal would be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. It is therefore not an automatic ban on new gambling premises within the area.

The Government has said it expects Gambling Impact Assessments to be in place by the end of 2026. Section 87 will require commencement before councils can use the new powers.

The proposed removal of "aim to permit"

On 11 August 2026, the Government announced that it intended to remove the Gambling Act's "aim to permit" rule. A written ministerial statement on 2 September said the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will consult on removing it.

The proposal is intended to give councils more discretion when considering new gambling premises, but it has not yet changed section 153. The current position is:

• section 153 still contains "aim to permit"
• the Gambling Impact Assessment provisions have been enacted but are not yet in force
• the Government has said it will consult on removing "aim to permit"
• no effective date for removing the rule has been set

The practical effect will depend on any legislation that follows the consultation. Councils still have to apply the law in force when they determine an application.

How to object to an application

Start with the licensing notice or the council's public register. Check the deadline and the method for submitting a representation.

Keep the objection tied to the location and the licensing objectives. A useful structure is:

1. Identify the application and premises.
2. Explain your connection to the area.
3. Identify the relevant licensing objective.
4. Set out the local evidence.
5. Explain why the proposed controls do not resolve the concern.
6. Refer to the council's gambling policy or local area profile where relevant.
7. Attach documents, maps, photographs or official data that support the case.

Avoid exaggeration. If a fact cannot be supported, leave it out.

Do not assume that a councillor, petition organiser or member of the public can simply demand refusal. The licensing authority still has to reach a lawful decision that can survive an appeal.

The position today

A council can already refuse a new betting shop or gambling arcade, but the decision needs more than general opposition. Sheffield succeeded because the council built a location-specific case, connected it to the licensing objectives and explained why conditions would not adequately control the risks it had identified.

Gambling Impact Assessments will change the framework further once section 87 comes into force. The Government is also preparing to consult on removing "aim to permit". Neither change replaces the law councils must apply today.

This article was reviewed by the GamRight editorial team on 22 September 2026. It explains the regulatory position using public legislation, official guidance and published accounts of the Sheffield appeal. It is not legal advice. Please use our contact page to report a factual error or request a correction.