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. At present, that Act 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 rule does not guarantee approval. Sheffield City Council proved that when it refused an adult gaming centre in 2023 and successfully defended the decision on appeal.

The law is now moving again. New Gambling Impact Assessment powers have been enacted for England and Wales, although they are not yet in force. The Government has also announced that it intends to remove "aim to permit" altogether.

Those are three different legal positions. Only the first applies today.

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 again.

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

"Aim to permit" creates a permissive starting point. It does not order councils to approve every application.

A council can refuse an application where the evidence shows that approval would not be reasonably consistent with those 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. 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. It did weaken 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.

Simply pointing to a good operating record elsewhere may not be enough.

Did Sheffield create a legal precedent?

Not in the usual binding sense.

The decision came from a Magistrates' Court. It is not a reported High Court or appellate judgment that other courts must follow.

It is still useful.

The case shows that "aim to permit" does not make refusal impossible. It also demonstrates the type of local evidence, policy preparation and risk analysis that may support a defensible decision.

The August 2026 policy brief calls the case a landmark and a precedent. That language should be treated cautiously because two of its authors were Sheffield City Council officials and the paper is a policy brief, not an independent legal judgment.

Sheffield gives other councils a worked example. It does not settle future applications, which still have to be decided on their own facts.

New Gambling Impact Assessments

Parliament has already approved a more substantial change for England and Wales.

Section 87 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 creates Gambling Impact Assessments. The section received Royal Assent as part of the Act in April 2026, but it was not in force on 28 August 2026.

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 will not be an absolute ban. An applicant can argue and demonstrate that its particular proposal would still be reasonably consistent with the relevant licensing objectives.

The Government previously indicated that it expected Gambling Impact Assessments to be available by the end of 2026. That is an expectation, not an effective date. Commencement regulations and supporting guidance are still required.

The proposed removal of "aim to permit"

On 11 August 2026, the Government announced that it intends to revoke the Gambling Act's "aim to permit" rule.

The announcement said the change would give councils and communities a stronger say over new betting shops and 24-hour slot-machine venues.

It did not itself change the law.

As of 28 August 2026:

• section 153 still contains "aim to permit"
• the Government has announced an intention to remove it
• no implementing Bill or draft amendment has been published
• no effective date has been set
• the exact territorial and procedural detail remains unknown

Removing the phrase could materially change the starting point for premises decisions. The practical effect will depend on the legislation that replaces or amends it.

Councils cannot act as though the announcement is already law.

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.

The forthcoming Gambling Impact Assessment system could make evidence about clustering and local vulnerability more influential in England and Wales.

The proposed removal of "aim to permit" may go further. Until Parliament enacts that change, it remains a government commitment rather than the law.

This article was reviewed by the GamRight editorial team on 28 August 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.