The recent House of Commons debate is a useful reminder that one of the cornerstones of the Gambling Act 2005 continues to attract attention and criticism, says David Inzani, partner at licensing law firm Poppleston Allen.
For those operating venues on the high street, the principle will be familiar territory. Licensing authorities are required to “aim to permit” the use of premises for gambling, so far as that is reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. The starting point in the legislation is therefore not prohibition, but reasonable regulation.
That concept has never been universally popular. Campaign groups and some local authorities have long argued that it restricts councils’ ability to refuse new gambling premises where there is community opposition or concerns about clustering. This was of course addressed in the government white paper in 2023. As the recent Coinslot article noted, the debate has not been settled.
Yet one aspect that often gets lost in the wider political discussion is how the principle itself is misunderstood. Something the policy paper that came out of the white paper (High stakes: gambling reform for the digital age) to an extent clarified.
“Aim to permit” has never meant automatic approval of gambling premises. Anyone who has spent time in front of a licensing sub-committee will know that is not how it works. While the phrase is always mentioned in an applicant’s submissions, members of the committee typically respond along the lines of: “Yes, we understand that, but we still have concerns.”
That exchange, in essence, captures the tension within the framework. The principle sets the legal starting point, but the outcome still depends on whether the operator can demonstrate that the licensing objectives will be upheld in a specific local context. In practice, applications succeed because operators come prepared. They have completed detailed local area risk assessments, engaged with responsible authorities, and have very thorough operating procedures in place.
Hearings also reveal how sensitive the political environment around gambling can be. Debates can drift from the licensing objectives to whether the town centre already has “too many” gambling venues. Or a councillor might open their questioning by alluding to a national newspaper article about gambling harm before the specifics of the application have even been discussed. This is procedurally wrong, but not particularly unusual.
These moments and the comments from Dawn Butler MP and Baroness Twycross referenced in the recent Coinslot article illustrate that even if the wording of the Gambling Act remains unchanged, the environment in which it operates is shifting. Local licensing policies are more detailed, planning considerations increasingly overlap with licensing, and political scrutiny has intensified.
One development frequently referred to in these discussions is cumulative impact. Unlike alcohol licensing, the Gambling Act 2005 does not provide for cumulative impact assessments and there is no formal mechanism for councils to refuse new premises on the basis of saturation. Yet the conversation around clustering and “too many” venues is gaining traction and the direction of travel at local level bears monitoring.
Operators will be familiar with the situation where councillors and campaign groups raise these concerns, even while the law does not yet grant them that power. Baroness Twycross was clear that cumulative impact assessments will be introduced, but they have not been yet. So tactful reminders from operators or their representatives that cumulative impact is not yet part of statutory law is an important part of maintaining the “aim to permit” starting point for the time being.
These factors show a trend of regulatory drift. Local authorities are increasingly exploring ways through detailed policy statements, or planning considerations, to exert influence over the number and location of gambling premises. This can feel like a quiet erosion of the principle in practice, even if it survives in legislation.
Ultimately, “aim to permit” remains a statutory cornerstone, but the way in which licensing authorities apply existing powers, combined with the growing political focus on cumulative impact, means its practical strength should not be taken for granted. The surrounding policy environment is evolving.
As local authorities explore the boundaries of existing powers and cumulative impact assessments move closer to reality, the balance originally struck in the Gambling Act faces increasing pressure.
For the time being, operators and their advisers may increasingly find themselves tactfully reminding decision-makers that the law still starts from a presumption in favour of permitting gambling.
From Aim to Permit to Not Permit?
David Inzani said… “The starting point in the legislation is therefore not prohibition, but reasonable regulation. That concept has never been universally popular. Campaign groups and some local authorities have long argued that it restricts councils’ ability to refuse new gambling premises where there is community opposition or concerns about clustering……
Originally published on Coinslot on March 30, 2026. Republished with permission.