Local Authority perspective on Sheffield ‘aim to permit’ case

The IoL previously reported on a case where the Magistrates’ Court refused an AGC licence refusal appeal.

On the 6^th November 2023 Sheffield City Council refused an application made by Royal Amusements a premises licence for an Adult Gaming Centre (“AGC”) at 9 Fargate, Sheffield S1 2HD. The Applicant duly appealed. The appeal was heard over two days in the Sheffield Magistrates’ Court on the 17^th October and 3^rd December, 2024 by District Judge Spruce.

The judgment was given on the 24^th February, 2025 when the appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, who said that he was [109] ‘completely satisfied that the Licensing Sub-Committee approached its decision in a way which is entirely consistent with the established law and guidance.’

In the June LA Bulletin from the Gambling Commission, Samantha Bond, Lawyer for Licensing and Prosecutions at Sheffield City Council, discussed the recent case.

According to the bulletin, she said:

“Sheffield City Council received an application for a premises licence for an Adult Gaming Centre (“AGC”) in a prominent city centre location, which was subsequently refused by the Council’s Licensing Sub-Committee on 6^th November 2023. The application was refused primarily on the basis that the granting of the licence would not be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives, namely ‘preventing gambling from being a source of crime and disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime’ and ‘protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling’.

The Sub-Committee heard from a number of interested parties who detailed concerns in relation to existing issues in the vicinity of the proposed premises, in particular, high levels of crime and anti-social behaviour, a proliferation of ‘street drinkers’ who engage in disorder and begging, and the involvement of a number of different agencies and charities who work together in order to try and combat the issues of drink and drug-related crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour.  The city centre was also identified as an area accommodating a high number of children and young people living and working in the area and travelling through it or using it for leisure, recreation or education purposes, in addition to a large student population.

The operator appealed the decision, with judgement handed down in February 2025.  The appeal was dismissed with the District Judge noting he was ‘completely satisfied that the Licensing Sub-Committee approached its decision in a way which is entirely consistent with the established law and guidance.’

A heavy emphasis was placed by the operator on the ‘aim to permit’ principle in s153 Gambling Act 2005 both at the Sub-Committee hearing and on appeal. The Council maintained its position throughout that it was this particular locality which was of relevance to the grant or refusal of the licence.  The Council’s position was that there were no conditions which could regulate the gambling harms at or beyond the premises, nor mitigate concerns in relation to nearby ‘sensitive locations’ in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. This was found to encompass ‘invisible harms’ and ‘unidentified vulnerabilities’ which went beyond what happens in the premises.  The impact of ‘clustering’ of gambling premises was also identified as a contributor to an increased ‘risk of preventable harms from gambling to local people, in particular to children and other vulnerable persons.’

Strong emphasis was also placed by the operator on their record of good operations and robust set of conditions, in addition to there being no evidence linking the specific premises to existing societal problems or further crime and disorder.  However, it was found that this did not take into account the increased risk of gambling harms within an area specific location.

This case demonstrates the importance of identifying the relevant locality of an application and the particular associated risks as well as the role of a proper local area risk assessment (‘LARA’).  The operator had submitted 3 LARAs, none of which sufficiently identified the relevant characteristics and sensitivities of the proposed location. The case also confirmed the importance of a strong Statement of Licensing Policy in the context of the Gambling Commission’s Guidance to Local Authorities, which states ‘licensing authorities are better placed to understand and manage local issues’.”