Supply and demand

The Local Government Association recently called for greater controls on the number of bettting shops that are allowed to up. Andrew Woods reviews the prospects of a new demand test.

We have all seen a number of headlines recently both in the trade press and in local news about the perceived increase in the number of betting offices since the Gambling Act 2005 removed the demand test.

The demand test (which was never quite a demand test in the way that some reported) was contained in the 1963 Betting Legislation and allowed the authorities to refuse an application for a betting office if in their opinion it was expedient to do so given the demand for betting in the area. There is no doubt that this test moderated the number of betting offices in certain areas and also governed the approach to new licences of the major bookmakers. The Gambling Act 2005 took away any discretion that the appropriate authority had and observers have watched with interest how this has affected the high street.

It is argued by a number of local authorities and in particular by the inner London authorities that there has been a proliferation of betting shops in areas of unemployment. That it is those sort of areas which attract the betting office operators, which in some London boroughs, has led to a significant number of betting shops on one particular street. It is argued that it cannot be right that some of the more deprived areas have seen a significant increase in betting shops,  with the argument being that the more betting shops there are, the more punters will want to bet.

The difficulty that those who do not approve of such a high number of betting shops face, is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to say that there is any link between a high number of betting shops and one of the Licensing Objectives, such as crime and disorder. If there is no link between the Licensing Objectives and any application then the local authority must grant the application.

It is now reported that the Local Government Association are discussing this position with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, which is carrying out an inquiry into the Gambling Act 2005. The Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) disagrees in any event with the Local Government Associations assertions. The ABB show that numbers have remained stable over the past decade but are down from the number of betting shops at the end of the 1960s  I am sure the ABB will not really try and push the argument about the number of betting offices at the end of the 1960s as this included many many small uncontrable betting offices but their argument that betting shop numbers have remained stable is a powerful one.

The issue for the inquiry into the Gambling Act 2005 is whether or not it is time to consider some sort of Cumulative Impact Zone such as those adopted by local authorities in terms of alcohol licensing, so as to give the local authority discretion to refuse applications in areas which the local authority deem appropriate. My guess is that we are heading in this direction, but I still think the difficulty that the local authority has in setting up a policy of this nature is that I am yet to see any link between the number of betting offices and any issues whether it is crime and disorder/increased gambling or something else. Is it right that local authorities introduce Cumulative Impact Zones simply because many councils do not approve of betting offices in their entirety?

Andrew Woods is a partner at Woods Whur. He can be contacted at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..