10. April 2026

Do We Need Gambling Impact Assessments? A Look at Existing Powers and Emerging Proposals

As we know, the Gambling Act sets out the principle of the ‘Aim to Permit’ (Section 153), which was a key part of the transfer of responsibility for licensing premises to local authorities.

That principle is now back in focus.

A Shift in Policy Direction

The current Government has suggested that local authorities could be given additional powers to limit the number of gambling premises on the high street, following pressure from some MPs for greater discretion to refuse applications. This has understandably given rise to debate within the industry as to how this might impact future premises licence applications.

The Government’s High Streets Strategy is designed to give local communities more influence over the mix of businesses on their high streets. One of the more notable proposals is the potential introduction of Gambling Impact Assessments (GIAs).

What Gap Are We Trying to Fill?

At face value, this may seem like a logical extension of existing controls. But it does raise a more fundamental question:

What additional gap are we trying to fill?

Because the current framework already provides a number of safeguards:

• Interested parties can make representations on applications
• Local authorities can impose tailored licence conditions
• Decisions must be made with regard to the licensing objectives

In practice, these powers are already used.

A Changing Sector Landscape

Looking at the wider landscape, it is also worth noting how the sector itself has changed. Gambling Commission industry statistics show that the number of betting shops has declined significantly over the past decade — from around 9,000 in 2010 to fewer than 6,500 in recent years (Gambling Commission, Industry statistics).

This reflects both regulatory changes (including the reduction in B2 machine stakes in 2019) and wider economic pressures on land-based operators.

At the same time, overall participation in gambling has remained relatively stable, while problem gambling rates remain low in percentage terms. The NHS Health Survey for England estimates problem gambling prevalence at around 0.3% of the adult population (NHS Digital, Health Survey for England – Gambling behaviour), although the impact on individuals and families remains significant and rightly continues to be a policy focus.

Lessons from Previous Approaches

We have also seen similar policy approaches before. Cumulative Impact Assessments (or zones) were widely adopted in alcohol licensing for a period. However, post-pandemic — and with high street vacancy rates sitting at around 13–14% (British Retail Consortium / Local Data Company, Vacancy Monitor) — there has been limited appetite for reintroducing broad restrictive measures across town centres.

Against that backdrop, the introduction of further layers such as GIAs does raise questions about proportionality and practical impact.

Clustering and Market Reality

‘Clustering’ of betting premises was historically linked to the profitability of higher-stake gaming machines. That landscape has now changed considerably. Combined with rising operating costs, the trend in recent years has been towards consolidation and closure rather than expansion.

Meanwhile, the growth in bingo and Adult Gaming Centre (AGC) premises reflects a wider shift in the high street itself. Retail has evolved — with online shopping replacing many traditional outlets — and town centres are increasingly focused on leisure and social interaction.

The Social Role of Premises

This is an important point that is sometimes overlooked.

For some customers, gambling premises provide routine social contact and a sense of familiarity. Staff often know their customers well and can play a role in identifying and responding to risk. That nuance does not always feature in wider public or political discussions.

Emerging Powers and Future Direction

There are also early signs of further structural change. The recent development of granting the Mayor of London powers to intervene in certain licensing decisions may indicate a broader direction of travel, potentially extending to other regional authorities over time.

Where Does This Leave Us?

There is a strong argument that the existing legislative framework — supported by statutory guidance and local policy — already provides local authorities with the tools they need.

The key challenge may not be the absence of powers, but how consistently and confidently those powers are applied.

Introducing additional mechanisms such as GIAs risks:

• Adding complexity to an already resource-stretched system
• Increasing administrative burden for local authorities
• Creating uncertainty for applicants without clear evidence of improved outcomes

Regulation will always have an important role to play. But more regulation does not automatically mean better regulation.

In some cases, the focus may need to be on making full and effective use of the framework already in place.