English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

235F: After Clause 72, insert the following new Clause—
“Permission for gambling premises: cumulative impact assessments(1) A local authority which is a planning authority must, when considering any application for planning permission or change of use for premises which are to be used for gambling, take into consideration any relevant cumulative impact assessment published in accordance with section 349(1A) of the Gambling Act 2005, and where the conditions in that document are satisfied they shall in the absence of very special circumstances refuse the application.(2) The Gambling Act 2005 is amended according to subsections (3) and (4).(3) In section 153(1)(d), after “statement” insert “, including any cumulative impact assessment,”.(4) After section 349(1), insert—“(1A) A licensing authority may include in their statement an assessment (“a cumulative impact assessment”) stating that they consider that the number of premises licences granted under section 163 in one or more parts of their area described in the assessment is such that it is likely that it would be--(a) inconsistent with the licensing objectives in section 1, or(b) harmful to the wellbeing of the community,for the authority to grant any further premises licences which would result in an increase in the number of such premises in that part or those parts”.”

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, I apologise for being a Johnny-come-lately, having left my noble friends to do all the heavy lifting on this Bill. I have come to raise only one issue: the concern that many of us have about the prevalence of gambling premises on our high streets.

In raising that issue, I declare my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform and the chair of Action on Gambling. Many noble Lords will be aware of the serious concerns about the large number of gambling premises, particularly betting shops and adult gaming centres, on many of our high streets. Only a few weeks ago a Minister wrote in a Written Answer:

“Some high streets have become increasingly dominated by certain types of premises—including gambling establishments—which don’t always meet the needs of their communities. According to the Gambling Commission, the number of adult gaming centres (AGCs) rose by 7% between 2022 and 2024, with additional data showing that AGCs are most concentrated in areas of higher deprivation”.


That last point was confirmed by the NHS’s Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, which confirmed that the most deprived local authorities have three times more gambling premises per head of population than the least deprived local authorities. Research shows not only very clear links with increased crime but, crucially, higher levels of gambling harm and all the problems that brings to the individuals, their families and their communities.

As a result, communities across the country have been demanding that local councils take action to stop the proliferation. But, as has been seen in many council areas—Peterborough, Brent and numerous others—they have come up against a stumbling block: Section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005. This is the so-called aim to permit section, under which the default position that councils have to take is that they must permit the use of premises for gambling unless there are specific reasons not to do so. Councils that have tried to stop new gambling venues have often had lawyers from the very powerful and wealthy gambling companies to contend with and have always ended up losing.

No wonder Brent Council, which has been leading a group of councils to try to bring about change to get more power, has come up with a little card pointing out that it is easier to block a fast food joint opening next door to a school than it is to stop a high street casino next door to a homeless shelter. Quite simply, planning and licensing authorities need additional powers to regulate the circumstances in which they authorise or reject premises being used for gambling.

On numerous occasions the Government have said that they wanted to do exactly this. The Pride in Place strategy, published on 25 September 2025, said:

“We … want to empower local authorities to curate healthy, vibrant public spaces that reflect the needs of their communities”.


It reaffirmed the Government’s commitment

“to strengthen councils’ tools to influence the location and density of gambling outlets”.

That is a clear commitment and has been repeated by the Prime Minister and other Ministers time after time. Sadly, the answer has been not to rule out the aim to permit but to come up with another solution. This alternative way forward was based on the solution to a problem that used to exist when there was a growth in the number of premises selling alcohol, and it is the basis for my amendment today.

That solution enabled local authorities to review and consult on the number and impact of the existing relevant premises, including pubs, in a particular area. Are there too many? Are there enough, or could we have some more? That was called a cumulative impact assessment. If that CIA concluded that there were already enough pubs in an area and that an extra one would harm the well-being of the community, it could be used to reject a licence for an additional one.

That idea of a cumulative impact assessment being used for gambling premises was picked up by the Conservative Government when they were in power. Their White Paper on gambling said categorically:

“We will align the regimes for alcohol and gambling licensing by introducing cumulative impact assessments”,


for gambling licences,

“when Parliamentary time allows”.

The new Government have come to the same conclusion. The Prime Minister announced that it is the Government’s intention to introduce cumulative impact assessments when parliamentary time allows, and Ministers have used it time after time in answers to Written Questions.

During the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, I argued that it provided the necessary parliamentary time, so I introduced an amendment that would have provided CIAs for gambling licences. The Government accepted that it was a great idea and they really wanted to do it, but told me that that was not the right Bill to do it in. I was confused at the time as to why that was but nevertheless accepted it. I am very much hoping that we have another Bill which is the right Bill in which to do it. My Amendment 235F would therefore bring forward, as I have done previously, the giving of the power to local councils to use cumulative impact assessments to address, where it is appropriate, concerns about additional gambling premises coming to a particular area.

I hope the Minister will agree at least in principle to the amendment. If she is in any way unhappy with any of the details, I hope she will agree to work with me and other interested parties so we can resolve them and bring back an amendment that is acceptable to all parties at a later stage in the Bill, therefore giving councils the additional powers they need to curb the proliferation of gambling venues with all the problems they can create on our high streets.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his amendment. Having listened to his arguments, I believe he is right that local authorities should not only have the ability to but should take into account cumulative impact before deciding on planning applications for gambling premises.

This would not be an outright ban on premises being used for gambling, nor would it encourage local authorities to come to a particular conclusion or other. Rather, this would allow councillors to make a reference to cumulative impact assessments and adopt an evidenced-based approach on planning matters. Local authorities should be empowered to respond and make planning decisions according to their communities’ needs, and they are best placed to interpret the evidence and act proportionately. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

For these reasons, I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment, although I thank him for raising the issue. I reassure him that the Government are actively working to introduce cumulative impact assessments as soon as possible. I hope that, between now and Report, the noble Lord will continue his dialogue with me so that we can try to make some progress on this. I understand his frustration, and I hope that, from the tone of my reply, he understands that we are very anxious to move this on. In the meantime, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, before I do exactly that, I thank the Minister for her very warm response. I am well aware of the difficulty around the issue of planning and licensing. The Minister will be aware that many councils have combined the two, even though they must have separate business because of the regulations and rules surrounding that. I absolutely appreciate that there are a lot of issues around that.

If the Minister’s indication is that we can work this out together before Report, I look forward to that very much indeed. I know that the Government are very keen to do this, so I am sure that, between us, we will come up with a way of making it happen. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. I apologise again to the Committee for being a one-trick pony and departing fairly rapidly after having done it.

Amendment 235F withdrawn.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for raising the important issue of tackling gambling harms on our high streets. We have reflected on the points raised during previous debates about the need for local authorities to have the tools they need to tackle gambling harms and make licensing decisions that are in the best interests of their communities. We have therefore tabled this amendment to strengthen the ability of licensing authorities to issue what will be known as a gambling impact assessment.

The gambling impact assessment can set out that granting a licence for gambling premises in specific areas is not likely to be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. Such an assessment must be based on evidence showing that premises in a specific area risk undermining the licensing objectives; for example, by causing harm to children or other vulnerable people. This evidence must be published in the assessment.

We anticipate that gambling impact assessments will apply predominantly in areas where licensing authorities want to limit the granting of further gambling premises licences on cumulative impact grounds. However, it will also be possible to prevent the granting of a single licence in a specific area if the licensing authority believes there is evidence to show that this would not be likely to be consistent with the licensing objectives. This will help licensing authorities to more easily limit the number of gambling premises licences in their areas where this is justified.

Where gambling impact assessments apply, licensing authorities can adopt a policy that they will not grant any new premises licences in the areas covered by the assessment. However, this is in no way a blanket ban. Each application for a premises licence must be considered on a case-by-case basis, and a licensing authority would be required to grant a licence if the applicant provides evidence to show that the licence would be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. This will deliver on commitments made in the English devolution White Paper and the Pride in Place strategy, and it will help local authorities to curate healthy and vibrant high streets that reflect local need.

I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for speaking in such great detail and with such knowledge on this. I also thank all my colleagues in local authorities who I know will be very pleased to hear that this is being done. I beg to move.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform and as chair of Action on Gambling. I thank the Minister for her very kind words just now. As she said, giving local councils greater power to control the number of gambling premises on their high streets is something I have pursued for many years. For instance, 22 years ago in the other place—I was looking back at the record earlier today—when opposing what became the Gambling Act 2005, I said that there was a need to provide

“strong and absolute powers to local councils to specifically reject individual casino applications”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/04; col. 62.]

The need to provide greater powers to councils to control all forms of gambling premises remains. Large numbers of gambling premises on the high street, often in deprived areas, are closely linked with increased crime and gambling harm, causing great harm to individuals, their families and the communities in which they live.

Only a couple of weeks ago, the Observer reported on the closure of the very last bank in a historic coastal town. That bank is now being taken over by an adult gaming centre, providing gambling machines and all sorts of other opportunities to gamble. It is going to operate for 24 hours a day. Many members of the local community were violently opposed to this and, not surprisingly, the council itself was opposed to it, and the planning application and the licensing application for the conversion of the former bank into an adult gaming centre were rejected.

Nevertheless, Admiral, which was making the proposal, took its application on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. As a result, the rejection by the council—despite all the opposition—was overturned. Indeed, the Observer article pointed out that between 2021 and 2025 there have been 85 examples of similar planning applications refused by the local council, and yet 59 of them were overturned by the Planning Inspectorate and have gone ahead. There is still an urgent need to do something about it.

One of the reasons why the Planning Inspectorate overturned those rejections by local councils was because of a section in the Gambling Act 2005 that says councils must have an “aim to permit” gambling premises to open. Therefore, the best way of dealing with the problem will be to delete the “aim to permit” section from the Gambling Act, but sadly neither the previous Government nor the present Government were willing to do that. So I proposed an alternative: to use the cumulative impact assessment procedure, which had been successfully introduced many years ago to help councils stop the proliferation of premises selling alcohol. Clearly that is not a problem today as many pubs are closing, but at the time it was very effective, used in the way the Minister has described. I was absolutely delighted that the Government said that they would use the approach of the cumulative impact assessment procedure.

The Minister knows that I have a slight concern about the wording of the amendment, and we have had a discussion about it. But she assured me—and I quote from her letter to me—that she is confident that

“the amendment as drafted will clarify and strengthen licensing authorities’ powers during the licensing process, particularly in areas vulnerable to gambling related harm”.

I hope she is right. I am increasingly confident that she is. On the basis of that, I hope all noble Lords will support her amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful that the Government have come forward with this amendment. We believe it is right that the cumulative impact of gambling licences in an area should be taken into account. We are pleased that the Government have sought to respond to the amendment in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. That said, we note that this amendment is somewhat longer and more complex than the original amendment proposed by the noble Lord. We fear that, as a result, it may lack some clarity—in particular what it means for an applicant to show consistency with licensing objectives and how the evidence would be assessed. The regulatory framework should be communicated in a way that is understandable and reliable for business and local authorities alike to prevent inconsistencies and confusion, which could then result in costly appeals or legal challenges. I ask the Minister to respond to that, but I thank her for bringing forward this proposal. We will also be supporting it.