Representation
Comment
Action
Recommended
Elizabeth Speed
Group General Counsel
Novomatic UK
For Luxury Leisure
1. As the Draft appreciates in relation to issues to
Enforcement, the Authority is subject to the
Regulators’ Code. That code imposes a number
of obligations on the Authority, including one that
it should carry out its activities in a way that
supports those they regulate to comply and
grow. Additionally, when designing and
reviewing policies, the Authority must, among
other things, understand and minimise the
negative economic impact of their regulatory
activities and regulate and minimise the costs of
compliance of those they regulate. Further, the
Authority should take an evidence-based
approach in determining priority risks and
recognise the compliance record of those they
regulate.
S6.9 of the draft policy contains reference to the Regulators Code
as follows. It is not thought necessary to change the statement.
6.9
Part 15 of the Act gives “authorised persons” power of
investigation and section 346 enables licensing authorities
to institute criminal proceedings in respect of offences
described in that section. In exercising these functions the
Authority will endeavour to follow the Regulator’s Code and
Hampton principles.
The principles require that
enforcement should be:



We suggest the Draft be amended to include a
statement that the Authority recognises that it is
subject to and will comply with the Regulators’
code in relation to matters of gambling licensing
and enforcement.
2. In the provisions for local risk assessments, the
Draft repeats provisions of the LCCP, which we
None


Proportionate: regulators should only intervene when
necessary: remedies should be appropriate to the risk
posed, and costs identified and minimised
Accountable: regulators must be able to justify
decisions, and be subject to public scrutiny
Consistent: rules and standards must be joined up and
implemented fairly
Transparent: regulators should be open, and keep
regulations simple and user friendly
Targeted: regulation should be focused on the problem,
and minimise side effects.
In the view of the Nottinghamshire Authority Licensing Group
(NALG) this serves to focus applicants minds on the requirements
None
suggest is unnecessary.
3. The provisions of paragraph 2.3 repeat the
provisions of paragraph 2.2, save for the
substitution of the word “making” for
“undertaking”. The wording of 2.3 accurately
repeats the provisions of LCCP 10.1.1 and as
such we suggest that 2.2 be deleted.
and is a useful reminder.
Agreed
Delete para 2.2
4. The first sentence in paragraph 2.5 repeats the Para 2.5 further expands para 2.4 and is therefore relevant.
No change
provisions of 2.4(d) and as such we suggest that
it should be deleted. Further, the provisions of
LCCP 10.1.2 require licensees to “… review
(and update if necessary) their local risk
assessments …”. Accordingly the statement in
the Draft that “Risk Assessments must also be
updated …” does not accurately reflect the
LCCP obligation and we suggest it should be The statement “Risk Assessments must also be updated” relates Amend
amended.
to the following bullet points as listed in LCCP10.1.1 Para 2. indicated
However for clarity this will be amended to state that “risk
assessments must be reviewed:” to reflect the wording in the
social responsibility code provision.
5. Ordinary code provisions in the LCCP do not There are two types of code provisions set out in the LCCP:
have the status of Operating licence conditions,  Social responsibility code provisions: compliance with these is
but rather set out good practice (see Part II
a condition of licences;
Code of Practice – LCCP). As such it is not  Ordinary code provisions: these do not have the status of
accurate to state that an ordinary code provision
operator licence conditions but set out good practice.
“requires” licensees to share their risk
Operators may adopt alternative approaches to those set out
assessment with licensing authorities etc. as the
in ordinary code provisions if they have actively taken account
Draft currently states at paragraph 2.6. That
of the ordinary code provision and can demonstrate that an
paragraph also includes a date of 8th May 2015
alternative approach is reasonable in the operator's particular
for the effective date of the relevant LCCP
circumstances; or that to take an alternative approach would
as
provisions. That is not correct – the correct date
is 6th April 2016.
be acting in a similarly effective manner.
As stated in the ordinary code provision 1.1.1 the Commission
expects licensees to conduct their gambling operation in a way
that does not put the licensing objectives at risk and to work with
the Commission in an open and cooperative way.
The Licensing authority would echo those sentiments and would
expect licensees to follow suggested good practice where
outlined in the ordinary provisions.
Ordinary provision 10.1.2 Para 1 states “ Licensees should share
their risk assessment with licensing authorities when applying for
a premises licence or applying for a variation to existing licensed
premises, or otherwise on request.”
Our expectation is also that when conducting inspections, we
would expect the local risk assessments to be available to view.
It would also seem prudent for applicants, having carried out
and/or reviewed their risk assessment to include it as supporting
evidence with their application.
However I would agree that the word requires may be an
overemphasis and would suggest that para 2.6 is amended as
follows:
Amend
“The new social responsibility provision is supplemented by an indicated
ordinary code provision recommending as good practice that
licensees should share their risk assessment with licensing
authorities when applying for a premises licence or applying for a
variation to existing licensed premises, or otherwise at the
request of the licensing authority. Both provisions take effect from
as
6 April 2016.
Note that the date is also amended
6. Section 158 of the Gambling Act 2005 sets out
the definition of “an interested party”, who can
make representations under Section 161 of that
Act. Under Section 153(2) a licensing authority
may not have regard to the expected demand for
the facilities which it is proposed to
provide. Accordingly any representations on
demand, regardless as to which interested party
or
responsible
authority
makes
such
representations, cannot be considered. It does
not
just
apply
to
existing
gambling
businesses. Those businesses may or may not
qualify as an interested party under Section 158,
but it is not for the Authority to predetermine the
relevance and applicability of representations
that such a party might make.
All
representations must be based on the licensing
objectives and it is not for the Authority to seek
to dis-apply the Act in relation to one section of
the community. All applications must be
considered
on
their
merits
and
all
representations
considered
likewise. Accordingly we submit that paragraph
3.7 of the Draft should be deleted.
Representations are considered on a case by case basis. This None
paragraph further reinforces the points made in the
representation. The policy does not seek to disenfranchise any
business in respect of the ability to make representations.
However as many representations in respect of “need “ or
“demand” may be from existing gambling businesses, it provides
some pointed guidance to those who may not have grasped the
concept.
See 1.11, final bullet point, 1.14 and 3.17.
This seeks to emphasise the need for representations to be
focussed upon the licensing objectives.
7. The Draft proposes at Paragraph 3.13 that a The phrases “not considered suitable and sufficient” and None.
representation may be made on the grounds that “Otherwise should not be granted” are not to be read in isolation.
the applicant’s local risk assessment (which
under LCCP 10 relates to risks posed by the
provision of gambling facilities at the relevant
premises) is “not considered suitable and
sufficient”. This wording is, with respect, vague
and is not transparent. There is a real risk that it
will encourage spurious representations and
challenges of local risk assessments, spawning
a satellite industry and satellite litigation. If it is
for the applicant to identify risks and to address
them. With respect, the provisions the LCCP are
not directed at a dissection of the risk
assessments themselves, but at the treatment of
identified risks. Furthermore, a representation
should be based on the licensing objectives and
the suggestion at Paragraph 3.13 that an
application can be rejected on general,
unspecified grounds (“• otherwise should not be
granted”), is in conflict with the Act and
supporting
legislation.
8. Paragraph 4.19 states that the Authority will look
particularly closely at applications that are made
for premises close to sensitive areas or
developments and include, as an example,
premises licensed for gambling. It does not give
any grounds for its statement that such premises
are “sensitive areas or developments” for these
purposes. Gambling is a perfectly legal and
legitimate leisure activity, provided it is regulated
and carried out in accordance with the law. As
the Authority notes (and as referred above)
It is quite clear that the representation must relate to the licensing
objectives(iv) and that evidence is to be provided to support any
such representation (vi).
The policy in no way suggests that an application may be rejected
on unspecified grounds and fully supports the legislation requiring
that representations must relate to the Licensing Objectives.
“Spurious representations” must stand the test or will not be
accepted. There is little risk of a satellite industry of litigation.
Para 4.19 does not indicate grounds for refusal. It states that the None.
authority will look particularly closely at applications made in
certain areas. Managing the Gambling Act is about mitigating risk,
ensuring that the licensing objectives are upheld and if it is felt
that any of these areas create such a risk, the authority must
investigate that issue.
Again it is reiterated that each representation is considered on its
merits. There is no suggestion that, as this representation
suggests, an application would be refused because there is a
licensed premises in the area.
Nowhere in the paragraph is
“refusal “ mentioned.
demand is not a matter which an authority can
have
regard
to
in
considering
an
application. The suggestion that the simple fact
that there is another licensed premises in the
area would be grounds to refuse an application
for a premises licence, is with respect, not
correct. The inclusion of this bullet point in the
final Statement of Principles and the application
of such principles to the premises licence
process, would be deeply flawed and open to
challenge. As such it should be removed.
Gosschalks Solicitors
Acting for the Association of British Bookmakers
(ABB)
1.9 Local Area Profile
The policy states that the local area risk profile has
been prepared although it is not attached to the draft
statement of principles. As stated above the ABB
believes that this should be made clearly available
within the body of the licensing policy statement. It is
not clear whether or not this profile has been
consulted upon and whether or not it contains
matters that are relevant to the licensing objectives.
The Local Area Profile will be made available to view but will not
form part of the policy as any amendments to it will result in the
whole Statement of Policy being required to be consulted upon.
This is not deemed at effective use of resources.
3.17 Irrelevant Considerations
The section will be amended to include the fact that objections Amend
based on moral or ethical grounds will not be accepted.
indicated.
The ABB welcomes the list of irrelevant
considerations at paragraph 3.17. This list should be
expanded to recognise that the Gambling
Commission has stated at paragraph 5.34 of the 5 th
as
Edition Guidance to Licensing Authorities that
considerations such as moral or ethical objections to
gambling are not valid reasons to reject applications
for premises licences.
4 Licensing Objectives
The wording associated with the licensing objective will be Amend
amended so it included the full definition.
indicated.
as
The policy will be amended to ensure that the crime and disorder Amend
element is related to gambling.
indicated.
as
The draft statement of principles would be assisted
by outlining the first licensing objective in full rather
than paraphrasing it. The draft statement of
principles should be amended to reflect that the
licensing objective is preventing gambling from being
a source of crime or disorder, being associated with
crime or disorder or being used to support crime.
4.8 Policy 3
This indicates that “the authority will have particular
regard to the likely impact of licensing on related
crime and disorder in the district particularly when
considering the location, impact, operation and
management of all proposed licensed applications.”
The draft statement of principles should be clear that
the licensing objective relates to preventing
gambling from being a source of crime or disorder.
Instances of gambling being a source of crime or
disorder will be minimal. Other issues of crime and
disorder for example anti-social behaviour in the
area are not issues for consideration when
considering an application under Gambling Act
2005.
4.13 Protection of Children and Other Vulnerable The advertising of gambling activities is to remain in the policy as None.
Persons
this is an area that the Licensing Officer will look at when
inspecting the premises.
This paragraph indicates that “the authority will seek
to limit the advertising for premises so that gambling
products are not aimed at children or advertised in
such a way that makes them particularly attractive to
children.” The regulation of advertising of gambling
products is heavily regulated and is already covered
by the licence conditions and codes of practice.
Ordinary Code Provision 5.1.6 requires socially
responsible advertising, compliance with CAP and
BCAP Codes of Practice and the Gambling Industry
Code for Socially Responsible Advertising. The
advertising of gambling premises is therefore
already the subject of operating licence conditions
and not an issue for consideration by the licensing
authority.
Paragraph 4.19 indicates that where the legislation
allows, the authority will look particularly closely at
applications that are made for premises close to
“sensitive areas or developments” defined as
residential areas, schools and other educational
establishments, residential hostels for vulnerable
adults or premises licensed for alcohol or gambling.
The proximity of premises licensed for gambling or
alcohol cannot be relevant for the purposes of an
investigation as to whether or not an application is
reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. The proximity of gambling premises to residential areas and
As far as residential areas are concerned, gambling schools is relevant as it ensure that the necessary checks are
premises have, for 50 years, been situated in areas conducted to safeguard the community. This will include the
of high footfall or residential areas. They are, premises assessing the local area risk assessment relating to
therefore, usually sited where there are children. their policies and procedures.
Operators have developed policies and procedures
over the last 50 years of betting regulation to ensure
that those who are not permitted into betting
premises (anybody under 18) do not enter the
premises and do not bet. The mere proximity of a
proposed premise to a school is not a reason to
reject an application. This proximity will be dealt with
under the local area risk assessment from which it
will be clear about the policies and procedures in
place to ensure that those who cannot bet do not do
so.
Martyn Saxton
Head of Planning Community Safety and Regulatory
Services
There is a need to include a section on the
S6.9 of the draft policy contains reference to the Regulators Code None.
Regulators Code i.e. that as a Regulator we will
as follows. It is not thought necessary to change the statement.
comply with the Code in that we will;
Part 15 of the Act gives “authorised persons” power of
 carry out our activities in a way that supports 6.9
investigation and section 346 enables licensing authorities
those we regulate to comply and grow
to institute criminal proceedings in respect of offences
 provide simple and straightforward ways to
described in that section. In exercising these functions the
engage with those we regulate and hear their
Authority will endeavour to follow the Regulator’s Code and
views
Hampton principles.
The principles require that
 ensure clear information, guidance and
enforcement should be:
advice is available to help those we regulate
to meet their responsibilities to comply
 Proportionate: regulators should only intervene when
 ensure that our approach to their regulatory
necessary: remedies should be appropriate to the risk
activities is transparent
posed, and costs identified and minimised




Accountable: regulators must be able to justify
decisions, and be subject to public scrutiny
Consistent: rules and standards must be joined up and
implemented fairly
Transparent: regulators should be open, and keep
regulations simple and user friendly
Targeted: regulation should be focused on the problem,
and minimise side effects.