Could Revoking “Aim To Permit” Hold UK Gambling Ambitions Back?

Repealing the ‘Aim to Permit’ rule could create a major legislative headache for the UK gambling industry and lead to further reforms down the line, experts have warned.

Currently, the ‘Aim to Permit’ rule limits the ability of councils to regulate betting shops and 24-hour arcades opening in the area. Although the Association of Directors of Public Health (ADPH) have welcomed the proposal, not everyone is on the same page.

The story so far

The attitude of the UK government towards retail betting has been rather unsavoury. Last week, the Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, set out his proposals to shake up the industry, lumping in land-based betting venues alongside other “dodgy businesses”, such as vape shops.

In a bid to give councils greater control, Burnham hinted that Adult Gaming Centres (AGCs) would require planning permission. Moreover, rescinding the “Aim to Permit” would shift the power in their favour.

According to recent research, around 1.4 million people in the UK are dealing with gambling-related harm. While Burnham isn’t holding back with his policy pledges, the “Aim to Permit” rule could be more problematic than first envisaged.

A recipe for disaster?

Enshrined in the Gambling Act 2005, the “Aim to Permit” rule, at the time, was viewed as a game-changer. Although problem gambling has been perceived by many campaigners as a public health issue, a consultation is set to take place over when the “Aim to Permit” rule will be implemented.

The potential for a new Gambling Act has been murmured, and simply removing “Aim to Permit” may not be so straightforward. Rather, Andrew Lyman, a former director at the United Kingdom Gambling Commission (UKGC), thinks changes to the Gambling Act could open up a dangerous can of worms.

He said:

“Any change to primary legislation will result in a wider debate about government risk appetite and the general approach to gambling. Those calling for a new Gambling Act will agitate for that and what has been billed as a six-week consultation will morph into a much longer policy process around changes to the Gambling Act and the role of the Gambling Commission.

“It’s possible that the idea of giving back power to local communities may open Pandora’s box, leading to a long and torturous road to a new Gambling Act.”

Economic landscape unsettling retail sector

Understandably, the shifting economic landscape has caused sleepless nights for the retail betting sector. In the previous budget, a steep rise in gambling taxes was confirmed.

As of April, the remote gaming duty (RGD) paid on online casino bets surged from 21% to 40% of gross gambling yield (GGY).

In April 2027, the general betting duty paid on online sports bets will rise from 15% to 25% of GGY, with horseracing exempt. As a result, operators have been forced to adjust to mitigate the tax impact. Betfred, for example, closed down 132 shops earlier this month, and they are thought to be exploring the AGCs route to combat the changes.

Nothing set in stone

Although existing gambling premises are in the firing line, nothing has been set in stone about whether a new gambling act will materialise. Louisa Clark, a former Gambling Commission compliance manager, attested to this, suggesting that “political rhetoric shouldn’t be confused with what’s been settled legislatively”.

What is clear is the government has to unknot some precarious issues. The current Gambling Act took years to formulate, but avoiding a fudge of “Aim to Permit” could really test their skill.