Experts are expressing concerns that the UK government's recent decision to abolish the ‘aim to permit’ licensing guideline for gambling establishments may necessitate new legislation to modify the 2005 Gambling Act, raising the possibility of additional reforms.
The ‘aim to permit’ rule has been instrumental in guiding local councils on providing licensing approvals for gambling venues, contingent upon their compliance with Gambling Commission policies, guidelines, and licensing objectives.
On August 11, Prime Minister Andy Burnham disclosed this change as part of an initiative aimed at granting councils greater authority over their high streets. This revision also includes a requirement for Adult Gaming Centres, which offer around-the-clock access to gaming machines, to obtain planning permission.
In making the announcement, Burnham grouped vape shops alongside betting establishments, referring to them both as "dodgy businesses," a characterization that has ignited significant backlash from the industry.
Changing the long-standing ‘aim to permit’ rule is expected to be complex, as it is a key component of the original Gambling Act from 2005. Andrew Lyman, Gibraltar’s Gambling Commissioner and former UK Gambling Commission director, emphasized that altering such a foundational principle would need to be accomplished through primary legislation.
He suggested that the government could potentially navigate around this issue via adjustments to planning regulations, but he cautioned that this route could provoke legal challenges and trigger judicial reviews.
Louisa Clark, an independent licensing and compliance consultant and ex-Gambling Commission compliance manager, concurs that amending the Gambling Act via primary legislation appears unavoidable.
“It’s clear that the aim to permit is embedded in the Gambling Act itself. It cannot be nullified through mere ministerial announcements or changes to local policies or Gambling Commission guidance,” she said. Clark noted that the specifics of how this amendment would take shape—whether it involves a revision of the entire Act or a new, standalone bill—remain to be clarified in a forthcoming consultation.
Legislative adjustments related to the Gambling Act could prompt significant complications for the industry. Many fear that prevailing governmental attitudes toward gambling are shifting unfavorably.
Following the announcement concerning ‘aim to permit,' the Association of Directors of Public Health (ADPH), which represents numerous public health directors throughout the UK, called for a new Gambling Act centered on public health principles. They stated that such a legislative change "must be matched by national action, including introducing a gambling advertising, promotion and sponsorship ban.”
Lyman noted that there is likely to be increasing pressure from both campaigners and lawmakers to expand discussions on reform to encompass broader issues. He warned that any modifications to primary legislation would stimulate a widespread dialogue about the government’s stance on gambling.
“There are those who will advocate for a completely new Gambling Act,” he said, suggesting the ongoing six-week consultation could evolve into a more extended policy process regarding legislative modifications and the Gambling Commission’s role.
This shift toward giving power back to local communities could open a Pandora’s box, leading to a protracted path toward a revised Gambling Act.
The actual implications of these changes remain uncertain. The Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government is set to lead a fast-track consultation, targeting implementation by January 2027. However, industry insiders have deemed this timeline ambitious, especially if there is a need for primary legislation.
The current version of the Gambling Act experienced several years of development before its rollout, which suggests that if a new or substantially modified Act is pursued, the industry may face a lengthy wait. During this period, priorities may shift, complicating matters further.
Experts assert that the recent announcement had not been preceded by thorough contemplation regarding the practicalities of eliminating the ‘aim to permit’ guideline.
“There’s going to be a consultation, and that will be our chance to discuss the implications of this change,” Clark noted. “Right now, it feels more like a political move than a well-thought-out strategy.”
She cautioned against making any firm predictions about the outcomes until the consultation results are in, suggesting that such discussions might empower campaigners looking to explore broader reform opportunities.
While a new Act is not deemed unavoidable, Clark emphasized the importance of remaining cautious about predictions until more concrete details emerge from the ongoing consultation process. “We should not conflate political announcements with what has been established legislatively,” she concluded.
As pressures mount on the UK retail sector, the potential for further restrictions poses a significant concern for executives. One alarming proposition, supported by reform activists, is the possibility that existing licenses could be vulnerable to revocation, not solely those for new establishments.
Lyman voiced strong opposition, warning that granting licensing authorities the power to revoke existing licenses based purely on moral or social objections to gambling would undermine the rule of law and exemplify why local councils should not wield such authority.
