Local Residents Demand Action Against Betting Shops in Earl’s Court

Residents in Earl’s Court, West London, are increasingly vocal about their concerns regarding the proliferation of betting shops and gambling establishments in their neighborhood. Local advocate Andrea Level, who serves as Co-Chair of the Earl’s Court Society Planning and Conservation Group, voiced her frustration, stating, “In Earl’s Court we have faced a huge uphill battle trying to rein in the proliferation of betting shops and fast food takeaways.” She claims these venues contribute significantly to anti-social behavior (ASB) in the area.

The rise in gambling machines across the UK has caught the attention of many community members. According to a report from ITV News published in April, the number of gambling machines increased from approximately 171,000 before the pandemic to around 202,000. This surge has raised alarms, particularly in neighborhoods like Brent, where local councils are grappling with the dual challenges of gambling and its associated public health implications.

In Earl’s Court, the impact of gambling establishments is visible. Within a short distance from Earl’s Court Station, there are several betting shops, including Coral and Admiral Casino, alongside a William Hill. Concerned residents successfully opposed a proposal for a new 24/7 SilverTime casino in the area last year; however, the lingering presence of existing establishments continues to provoke anxiety among locals.

Sandra Yarwood, another local resident and co-chair of the planning group, echoed these sentiments. She noted the clustering of gambling venues, with two slot machine locations and several betting shops situated close to one another, significantly degrading the High Street atmosphere. “The area would benefit from more small chain and independent restaurants and coffee shops, plus potentially a gym,” she suggested.

Local politicians are also responding to these concerns. Cllr Linda Wade, a Liberal Democrat representative for Earl’s Court, emphasized that the issue extends beyond gambling shops. She highlighted the changing nature of high streets and the promotion of a night-time economy that includes adult gaming and betting shops, which tend to target economically disadvantaged areas.

Nearby locations like Uxbridge Road in Shepherd’s Bush and Notting Hill Gate are experiencing similar challenges. In Uxbridge Road, a resident reported that there are nine betting shops either on the street or in close proximity, with one located next to a primary school. They expressed a desire for the hours of these establishments to be significantly reduced or for them to be repurposed for community-oriented businesses.

In Notting Hill Gate, Joe Powell, the Labour MP for Kensington and Bayswater, is actively campaigning against the establishment of a 24/7 SilverTime casino. “Thousands of residents have backed my campaign to say they do not want more slot machines and gambling establishments on our high streets,” he stated, urging the Kensington and Chelsea Council to take decisive action.

The growing frustration among residents is compounded by the challenges faced by local councils. Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, remarked that efforts to limit the number of gambling premises often feel like a losing battle. In a letter submitted to the Government by 36 councils and two mayors, it was argued that current legislation restricts local authorities from effectively intervening against new gambling establishments, even in the face of strong community opposition.

Councils are calling for changes to the Government’s ‘Aim to Permit’ framework, which mandates that local authorities prioritize approval for gambling licenses. Powell highlighted the need for reforms to give licensing authorities greater power to oppose new applications.

In response to the concerns raised, a spokesperson for Kensington and Chelsea Council stated that while there is no direct evidence linking anti-social behavior to betting shops, they are actively working to improve the area in partnership with local police. “We introduced a public space protection order in 2024, which allows us to impose fines for anti-social behavior,” they explained.

The Gambling Commission has underscored the legal obligations that govern the operation of gambling establishments. According to their guidelines, both the Commission and local authorities are tasked with regulating gambling in a manner consistent with licensing objectives, rather than outright prevention.

A recent review by Hammersmith and Fulham Council identified a correlation between clusters of gambling establishments and areas of high deprivation and crime. In response, the council has implemented a new gambling policy aimed at exercising more control over the introduction of new venues.

A representative from Hammersmith and Fulham Council expressed solidarity with resident concerns, emphasizing their commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals in the community. “We’re leading the way locally and nationally in clamping down on businesses that prey on vulnerable people,” they stated.

The betting industry, however, has voiced opposition to such measures. The Bingo Association and Bacta, the trade association for the amusements and low-stake gambling sector, have requested a judicial review of Hammersmith and Fulham Council’s new policy. Joseph Cullis, President of Bacta, argued that existing laws should be applied fairly and consistently, stating, “Councils should focus on using the strong powers they already have, rather than creating new hurdles that go beyond what Parliament intended.”

The Betting and Gaming Council has also weighed in, highlighting the contributions of betting shops to local economies. They noted that their members support approximately 46,000 jobs and contribute significantly to local taxation. Despite the concerns raised, they emphasized that the majority of customers engage with gambling responsibly.

The ongoing debate over gambling establishments in Earl’s Court and similar neighborhoods reflects a complex interplay between economic interests, community well-being, and regulatory frameworks. As residents continue to advocate for change, the challenge remains for local councils to balance these competing priorities while ensuring that the voices of the community are heard.