The main event

In the second article on gambling law for Local Government Lawyer from the Gambling Commission, policy development manager Rob Burkitt explains the Commission’s concerns about the sub-division of premises and the need for the primary gambling activity at a premises to be that for which the licence is granted.

As readers will be aware, under the Gambling Act 2005 (‘the Act’) ‘responsible authorities’ are able to make representations in writing to a licensing authority about a particular premises licence application.  The procedures for determining an application then varies depending on whether representations have been made.  The Gambling Commission (‘the Commission’) is a responsible authority, as is the licensing authority itself, the police and a number of other bodies.

As stated in the Commission’s Guidance to Licensing Authorities, 3rd Edition (May 2009), the Commission does not routinely make representations on premises licence applications.  Instead, the Commission will make representations, by exception, where an application for a premises licence, or the operation of a current premises licence, raises matters of wider or national significance.  This is an important point to note, as from time to time the Commission hears rumours that some applicants and their representatives are inviting licensing authorities to infer, from the absence of representations, that the Commission is content that the application should be granted, which is not necessarily the case.  

The Commission has recently made a number of targeted representations, with the aim of establishing principles and ensuring that both regulators and the regulated were clear about the limits of what is permissible in relation to the primary gambling activity that takes place in the premises and the artificial separation of premises.

Primary Gambling Activity

Following a series of consultations about the subject, the Commission published new licence conditions and codes of practice for bingo, betting and casino operators in May 2009.  The new conditions and codes were designed to ensure that licensed gambling premises genuinely offered the activity they hold a licence for - namely bingo, betting or casino games – and were not only offering gaming machines.  So, for example, operating licences are now subject to a condition that betting, bingo or casino facilities must be provided where gaming machines are made available for use.  

The licence conditions and codes of practice impose a combination of both generic and specific requirements on each type of operating licence.  Crucially, there is no single factor which outweighs all others and thereby makes premises compliant. For example the factors to be considered for all three classes of premises include the following:

- The extent to which the primary gambling activity is promoted on the premises and by way of external advertising compared to other gambling activities

- The use, either expected or actual, to be made of the different gambling facilities     

Specifically in relation to betting, an additional factor to be considered is:

- The range and frequency of events on which bets can be made

In general terms, the Commission requires operators to ensure that it is quite clear to a customer, both from outside the premises and within the premises in terms of the gambling made available that, for example, it is a betting shop rather than an arcade premises which only offers gaming machines.

The artificial separation of premises

The Commission recognises that premises licensing is principally a matter for licensing authorities rather than the Commission.  Nevertheless, there are occasions when a particular premises licence application raises matters of wider or national significance, in which case the Commission is likely to make representations.

For example, late last year it became apparent that a number of betting operators had made, or were considering making, applications to split existing betting premises into multiple units with shared facilities. One of our concerns with these applications was that betting was unlikely to be the primary gambling activity in the premises rather that the main purpose of the applications was to benefit from the machine entitlement that a further premises licence would bring.

Following discussions with the licensing authorities who had received the applications and LACORS, the Commission made a series of representations, which resulted in the applications being withdrawn.  In another case an operator applied to convert an existing AGC premises into a combination of AGC premises and a betting premises. Again the Commission made representations and the application was withdrawn.   

Summary

The Commission will continue to work with licensing authorities in monitoring whether operators are complying with the terms and conditions of their licences.  The Commission will take action on a case by case basis where that is considered appropriate and consistent with pursuit of the licensing objectives in the Act.

Rob Burkitt  is policy development manager for the Gambling Commission