The Licensing Sub Committee A of Islington Council met on Tuesday 6 October 2026 to consider a new gambling premises licence application for Jackpot Slots at 403 Holloway Road. After hearing representations from responsible authorities, interested parties, and the applicant, the committee decided to refuse the application.

Gambling Premises Licence New Application - Jackpot Slots, 403 Holloway Road, London, N7 6HL

The committee considered a new application for a gambling premises licence for Jackpot Slots, located at 403 Holloway Road, London, N7 6HL. The application was heard under item B1 of the agenda.

Representations from Responsible Authorities:

• Metropolitan Police Service (PC Francis): The police objected to the application due to concerns about the impact on vulnerable people and the potential for gambling to contribute to crime and disorder in the locality. PC Francis highlighted the concentration of vulnerable persons and support services in the area, including facilities for the homeless, those with addiction issues, and mental ill health. While acknowledging the applicant's proposed conditions, the police maintained that these did not sufficiently address the risks posed by the specific location, particularly the reliance on staff interventions to identify less apparent forms of vulnerability. They cited operational experience of unidentified offenders despite overt actions and the practical limitations of safeguards in an area already stressed by crime and disorder. The police recommended refusal.
• Licensing Authority (Dan Whitton): The Licensing Authority also raised significant concerns regarding the licensing objectives. They noted the premises' location within a designated gambling vulnerability zone and adjacent to an area with a high gambling risk index rating. The existing cluster of gambling premises within 250 metres was highlighted as a concern, potentially normalising gambling in an area with high levels of deprivation and inequality. The applicant's risk assessment was deemed inadequate in addressing these location-specific risks. Concerns were also raised about crime and disorder, with proposed measures considered generic and not tailored to the specific location. The authority questioned whether gambling would be conducted in a fair and open way, given the potential impact of cumulative exposure to gambling and vulnerability on decision-making. The Licensing Authority recommended refusal.

Representations from Interested Parties:

• Public Health (Maureen Bullock): Maureen Bullock, a Public Health Consultant for Islington Council, outlined three key risks: the applicant's own risk assessment confirming the high-risk nature of the location within a gambling vulnerability zone; the reliance on generic industry controls with concerns about the 24-hour operating model and on-site cash machine; and the heavy reliance on premises staff to identify vulnerability, which was deemed unreliable.
• Community Safety (Alice Coles): Alice Coles, a Community Safety Officer for Islington, presented data showing significantly higher ASB and crime rates within a 250-metre radius of the proposed premises compared to the borough average. The primary concern was the proposed 24-hour trading, which would create a destination during low surveillance periods, increase congregation, and add to existing pressures on vulnerable residents. Community Safety requested refusal.
• Councillor Sheridan Kates: Councillor Kates, representing Tufnell Park ward, expressed shock at the applicant's cavalier attitude and inadequate initial risk assessment. She emphasised that local residents' objections were genuine and not manufactured, with no one consulted expressing support for the venue. Councillor Kates drew parallels with a previous case in Sheffield where an application was rejected due to an inadequate risk assessment, arguing that conditions could not mitigate the harm to vulnerable residents. She also raised concerns about the applicant's recent finding of having short-changed workers, questioning their ability to operate a safe gambling premises. Councillor Kates urged refusal.
• Councillor Devon Osborne: Councillor Osborne, also representing Tufnell Park ward and the Islington Green Group spokesperson for communities and partnerships, argued that many of the applicant's proposed mitigations were buzzwords, not policies and lacked robust actions. She highlighted unreasonable expectations placed on staff to identify intoxication and vulnerability solely through CCTV, and the lack of specific policies to mitigate harm to young adults, who are identified as vulnerable in Islington's gambling policy. Councillor Osborne also pointed to discrepancies in the applicant's complaints procedure across different documents, questioning their overall competency.
• Jeremy Corbyn MP (on behalf of Dr. Robbins): Jeremy Corbyn MP, representing Islington North, opposed the application, citing the existing proliferation of gambling premises on Holloway Road and Seven Sisters Road, and the major problem of gambling addiction in the area. He argued that a 24-hour centre would worsen the situation and highlighted the vulnerability of rough sleepers and homeless individuals in the area. He also raised concerns about inadequate staffing levels, particularly at night.
• Natasha Arnold (Local Resident): Natasha Arnold, a local resident and NHS consultant, spoke about her experience working with older and vulnerable people suffering from alcohol addiction and falls. She feared the proposed venue would exacerbate local problems, noting that people with addiction cannot be helped solely through self-referral or staff intervention.
• Hernan Romero (Local Resident): Hernan Romero, living near the proposed premises, spoke about witnessing drug dealing and defecation on the pavement in front of his son's nursery. He argued that the applicant's risk assessment failed to mention the nursery and that comparisons to other areas were not comparable due to the existing cluster of gambling premises. He stated that the applicant's proposed measures were the legal minimum and unrealistic for the proposed operation.
• Abdi Rahman (Arisalan Mosque): Abdi Rahman, representing the Arisalan Mosque and Islington Islamic Centre, expressed deep concern about the potential impact of a 24-hour gambling venue on the mosque, worshippers, local families, children, and vulnerable community members. He highlighted the association of gambling with financial hardship, crime, and mental health problems, particularly in an area already experiencing significant pressures.
• Ikram Hamad (Local Resident): Ikram Hamad asked the committee to consider a previous Islington decision concerning a similar application on Caledonian Road, where conditions and assurances were deemed insufficient to address increased gambling opportunities in a difficult area. She argued that the applicant had not demonstrated that adding another 24-hour AGC would not increase cumulative risks.

Applicant's Representation (Gary Grant, Barrister):

Gary Grant, barrister for the applicant, argued that there was no dispute that gambling could cause harm if not managed, but that the applicant had addressed all best practice checklists and met or exceeded all requirements. He contended that the proposition that the Nag's Head area could not have an AGC was extraordinary and that the applicant had an excellent track record of operating responsibly. Grant argued that many objections were legally irrelevant, focusing on moral objections to gambling rather than the licensing objectives. He highlighted that adult gaming centres pose a very low risk to crime and disorder compared to betting shops. He also conceded that the applicant would consider a compromise on operating hours, suggesting 8 am to 11 pm as a potential compromise, and offered 22 additional discretionary conditions.

Summing Up:

• Responsible Authorities: Reiterated concerns about the practical limitations of safeguards in areas of increased vulnerability and maintained that the proposed conditions were not specific enough to the site's local concerns. They recommended refusal.
• Interested Parties: Public Health maintained that the venue would be insufficient mitigation to the risk of harm posed by increasing gambling density. Community Safety reiterated objections based on crime rates and the Sheffield appeal case. Councillor Osborne highlighted discrepancies in the complaints procedure and inaccurate comparisons. Jeremy Corbyn MP reiterated concerns about vulnerability and the area's existing issues. Natasha Arnold spoke about the negative impact on community hubs. Hernan Romero raised concerns about self-exclusion sharing and facial recognition effectiveness. Abdi Rahman highlighted inaccurate distance measurements. Ikram Hamad referred to the previous Islington decision on Caledonian Road.
• Applicant: Argued that there could be no blanket ban on gambling premises and that the applicant had satisfied the policy requirements for a gambling vulnerability zone. They highlighted the benefits of investment and job creation, and the enjoyment recreational gamblers derive from such venues. They also conceded on operating hours and offered additional conditions.

Decision:

The subcommittee decided to refuse the application for a new premises licence in respect of Jackpot Slots, 403 Holloway Road, London, N7 6HL. The reasons for the decision will be provided in writing within five working days.

No decisions were made regarding other items on the agenda as they were not discussed.