Brent Council and MP Warn on Gambling Venue Surge in London

Key Points

• Brent, a deprived North London borough, has seen a sharp rise in Adult Gaming Centres (AGCs), especially in poorer neighbourhoods like Harlesden, Wembley, and Kensal Green.
• A third of AGCs are concentrated in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods nationally, with gambling-related harm significantly higher than the national average in Brent.
• Residents and frontline workers in Brent report gambling venues open too frequently, being too numerous, and offering little to no community benefit.
• The Social Market Foundation (SMF) report, sponsored by Brent Council, warns AGCs encourage gambling among children and young people and potentially increase crime.
• Current legislation includes an ‘aim to permit’ rule that restricts councils’ ability to refuse new gambling licence applications, effectively limiting local authority control.
• Brent Council and Labour MP Dawn Butler are campaigning to abolish the ‘aim to permit’ rule and strengthen local powers to control gambling harms.
• The SMF report recommends several reforms including greater licensing powers for councils, involvement of public health directors, review of licence classifications, fee adjustments, clearer enforcement roles, and removal of the ‘aim to permit’ rule.
• Brent Deputy Leader, Cllr Mili Patel, calls for reforms to restore pride in local high streets and give communities control over gambling proliferation.

What is the situation with gambling venues in Brent and North London?

As reported by SMF in their October 30, 2025, report sponsored by Brent Council, Brent is one of London’s most economically deprived boroughs and hosts a disproportionately high number of Adult Gaming Centres (AGCs). These venues are densely clustered in disadvantaged neighbourhoods including Harlesden, Wembley, and Kensal Green. The borough experiences gambling-related harms significantly above the national average, with the estimated cost of related harm rising sevenfold since 2012, according to council assessments.

Residents interviewed by the Social Market Foundation emphasised that gambling venues open too frequently and are excessively numerous, offering no meaningful benefit to the community. A local health worker underscored “pretty high need” regarding gambling addictions, and a drug and alcohol support worker observed that gambling establishments “are everywhere.”

Why are AGCs described as a problem by researchers and residents?

Dr James Noyes, Senior Fellow at the Social Market Foundation and one of the report’s authors, highlighted the risks posed by the proliferation of AGCs. Dr Noyes stated the research found that these venues “risk encouraging gambling amongst children and young people” and are “potentially encouraging crime.” Despite opposition from communities, Dr Noyes noted that local authorities are “essentially powerless” due to restrictive legislation.

Additionally, interviews with high street residents described the growth of gambling venues as symptomatic of wider social decline. One participant, cited by SMF, called it a “slippery slope.” Earlier research by the charity More in Common found similar views, with one interviewee noting, “It’s definitely not just in Brent, it seems to be all over London. I’d be surprised if that doesn’t mean it’s all over the country.”

What does the recent report by the Social Market Foundation reveal about the distribution of gambling venues?

The SMF report draws on data from the Gambling Commission showing a 7% increase in AGC numbers nationwide between 2022 and 2024. Crucially, it reveals that 33% of these venues are located in the top 10% poorest neighbourhoods, highlighting a striking concentration in areas already facing severe social and economic challenges.

The research includes comprehensive fieldwork: interviews with frontline support workers, members of the public, retail employees, random site visits of AGCs in Brent, and surveys involving 348 residents and business owners.

What is the legal framework governing gambling venue licences, and why is it problematic?

The report exposes the limitations caused by the ‘aim to permit’ rule entrenched in the current licensing framework. This rule severely restricts councils’ ability to refuse licence applications for new gambling premises, including AGCs, regardless of local concerns.

As Ms Dawn Butler MP, who represents Brent and campaigned for reform, wrote in the report’s foreword:

“The evidence presented here is deeply concerning. AGCs are clustered in areas facing the greatest deprivation, and their numbers are growing. Their spread is linked to a range of potential harms: from crime and anti-social behaviour to the exploitation of vulnerable people and children. Yet the current licensing framework, underpinned by the outdated ‘aim to permit’ rule, leaves local authorities with little ability to respond. This is not simply a technical flaw in regulation; it is a matter of fairness, accountability and democracy.”

She continued:

“There is a clear paradox in having a Government that seeks to prevent gambling harm, all while aiming to permit a business model which creates that harm in the first place. Scrapping the Aim to Permit rule, among other measures, would ensure local communities are empowered to make a choice on the role that gambling plays in the make-up of their High Streets, and protect some of the most vulnerable in society from exploitation and harm.”

What are the calls for change from Brent Council and elected representatives?

Both Brent Council and Ms Butler have been campaigning to reform planning and licensing laws to halt the rapid expansion of gambling venues. Brent Deputy Leader Cllr Mili Patel stated:

“Along with a further 44 local authorities – and grounded in the lived experience of our own residents here in North-west London – we have called for a set of urgent reforms to put pride back into our ailing high streets, restore local democracy, and put communities, not corporations, back in control of their destiny.”

What recommendations does the Social Market Foundation report make to reform gambling licensing?

The SMF has outlined six key recommendations to give local communities stronger control over gambling harms:

• Grant greater licensing powers to local authorities, including the ability to conduct cumulative impact assessments without further delay.
• Include public health directors in the gambling licensing process, similar to their role in alcohol licensing.
• Review existing premises licence classifications, especially concerning AGCs operating under bingo licences.
• Increase the cap on annual licence fees payable to local authorities from £1,000 to at least £2,000, with annual reviews.
• Clarify responsibilities between local authorities and the Gambling Commission regarding enforcement and inspection.
• Review and ultimately remove the ‘aim to permit’ rule to empower councils to better manage gambling-related harm.

How do gambling venues challenge existing regulatory objectives?

The findings suggest AGCs often contradict the objectives set by the 2005 Gambling Act, which aims to prevent crime, reduce anti-social behaviour, and protect vulnerable people—including those with gambling addictions. Dr Noyes remarked:

“If the Government is serious about restoring pride to local communities, the role of the High Street is crucial – and that’s why it’s so concerning to see the proliferation of Adult Gaming Centres in some of Britain’s most deprived neighbourhoods. Our research has found that AGCs risk encouraging gambling amongst children and young people, as well as potentially encouraging crime, while acting against consumer interests – and yet, even if local communities object to them, local authorities are essentially powerless to prevent them opening.”

What is the response from industry representatives?

The trade association Bacta, which represents the amusements and low-stake gambling industry including AGCs, was contacted for comment regarding the SMF report but did not respond prior to publication.