North London Borough Declares ‘Serious Public Health Emergency’ Due to Surge in Gambling Shops

A council in North London has officially declared a ‘gambling emergency’, urging for every legal measure at its disposal to be employed in order to foster a “hostile environment” that prevents the further expansion of the gambling industry within the borough. This declaration was made during a Full Council meeting held earlier this week, where Labour members of Brent Council proposed a motion aimed at initiating a ‘Gambling Harms Strategy’ to address the increasing number of gambling establishments, particularly in the more disadvantaged areas of the borough.

The local authority has asserted that gambling-related harm should be considered “a serious public health emergency”. This comes in light of a recent assessment that unveiled the financial, health, and social repercussions of gambling in the area, which include significant links to issues such as debt, deteriorating mental health, family breakdowns, crime, and social inequality. The motion, presented by Councillor Jasbinder Bajwa from Kingsbury, received unanimous support across party lines and commits the council to developing a cohesive strategy that encompasses licensing, planning, public health, community safety, education, debt advice, and resident support to effectively confront the escalating problem.

Current Landscape of Gambling in Brent

At present, there are 81 licensed gambling venues within Brent. The council, in collaboration with 40 other local authorities and various MPs, has been spearheading a national campaign advocating for gambling reform. This reform seeks to empower councils with greater authority to reject applications that they believe could be detrimental to their communities. Opposition parties have also been vocal against the proliferation of gambling premises in the area, exemplified by a recent protest led by Green councillors outside a former bank on Walm Lane in Willesden, where an application for an adult gaming centre licence was submitted. Ultimately, the council denied the application for the Walm Lane site, which was already surrounded by 19 gambling businesses within a 1.7-mile radius, though the decision is still subject to appeal.

Cllr Bajwa expressed concern over the current state of local high streets, stating, “Residents should not have to watch their high streets permeated with gambling premises while councils are left with limited powers to act. Where residents and councils oppose gambling venues, they should possess the authority to refuse them.” He further noted the alarming fact that with 81 licensed gambling establishments in Brent, residents find it easier to locate a betting shop or adult gaming centre than a supermarket. He argued that the minimal economic contribution from these establishments pales in comparison to the broader harm they inflict. He firmly stated that the growth of the gambling industry should not be supported in Brent and that every lawful measure should be taken to deter its establishment.

Calls for Government Action and Community Collaboration

The government has begun implementing Gambling Impact Assessments designed to empower local authorities to manage the over-concentration of betting shops and gambling establishments in their respective areas. As part of Brent’s declaration, the council is pressing the government to expedite the implementation of these assessments to prevent operators from submitting applications under the previous regulations before councils are adequately prepared to respond.

Additionally, Brent Council has resolved to communicate with major landowners in Wembley to express its firm opposition to gambling advertising and the increasing normalisation of gambling within public spaces. The council is committed to collaborating with residents, MPs, other councils, and advocacy groups to promote a new Gambling Act that prioritises public health.

Cllr Liz Dixon, the Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Public Health, emphasised the significance of the motion, stating that it underscores a broader issue of “freedom from harm”. She remarked, “It’s freedom from an industry that too often profits from vulnerability, financial distress, isolation, and addiction. This form of addiction can be insidious; it often goes unnoticed, yet its impact is felt by families who endure the consequences.”