The Licensing Sub-Committee of Enfield Council met on Wednesday, 22 July 2026, to consider a new premises licence application for an Adult Gaming Centre. The primary focus of the meeting was the application for Palace Amusement, located at 101-109 Green Lanes, London, N13 4SP.

New Premises Licence Application – Adult Gaming Centre (AGC)

The main item scheduled for discussion was a new application for an Adult Gaming Centre (AGC) premises licence for Palace Amusement, located at 101-103 & 105-109 Green Lanes, London, N13 4SP. The applicant, East Kent Leasing Limited, sought permission to operate an AGC, which would provide Category B3, Category C, and Category D gaming machines.

The report pack detailed the licensing history of the premises, noting that it had not previously held a Gambling Act 2005 premises licence. It also outlined the applicant's existing operations, including another Palace Amusements venue in Palmers Green and one in Enfield Lock, and confirmed that East Kent Leasing Limited holds a Gambling Commission Operating Licence with no recorded history of regulatory enforcement action.

The application was advertised in accordance with the Gambling Act 2005 regulations. The report detailed representations received from various parties, including the Metropolitan Police and the Licensing Authority, who had initially raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the Local Area Risk Assessment and the management of vulnerable persons. However, following discussions and the submission of revised documentation and proposed licence conditions by the applicant, both the Metropolitan Police and the Licensing Authority withdrew their representations.

A significant number of representations were received from Other Persons, primarily local residents, local businesses, school representatives, and ward councillors. The principal issues raised by these objectors included:

• Preventing Gambling from being a Source of Crime or Disorder: Concerns were raised about the potential for increased crime, disorder, loitering, street drinking, drug-related activity, and associated disturbance, particularly from late-night activity.
• Protecting Children and Vulnerable Persons: Objectors highlighted the proximity of the premises to local primary schools, nurseries, bus stops used by school children, accommodation for young adult care leavers, and community organisations supporting vulnerable individuals. Concerns were expressed about the potential normalisation of gambling, gambling-related harm, and exposure of children to gambling premises.
• Concentration of Gambling Premises: Many objectors stated that there was already a significant number of gambling premises within a 1.5-mile radius of the application site and expressed concern about a further concentration of gambling facilities.
• Gambling-Related Harm and Public Health: Representations referred to broader concerns about gambling addiction, financial hardship, mental health impacts, and wider social consequences.

The report also outlined the proposed licence conditions agreed upon by the applicant, which included enhanced CCTV, Challenge 25 procedures, third-party age verification testing, staff training, incident recording, minimum staffing requirements, and measures to safeguard vulnerable persons.

Relevant legislation, guidance, and policies were detailed, including the Gambling Act 2005, the Gambling Commission's Guidance to Licensing Authorities, and Enfield Council's Statement of Principles 2025-2028. The report noted that the premises were not situated within one of the Council's designated Gambling Vulnerability Areas. The case law of Royal Amusements v Sheffield City Council (2024) was also discussed as a material consideration regarding the interpretation of gambling harms and vulnerable persons. Emerging changes to gambling regulation, including the Government's White Paper High Stakes: Gambling Reform for the Digital Age, were also mentioned.

The officer's comments highlighted the substantial number of objections received and noted that while the Metropolitan Police and Licensing Authority had withdrawn their initial representations, the Sub-Committee still needed to consider the concerns raised by other persons. The report concluded by outlining the potential decisions the Sub-Committee could make: grant the application as applied for, grant the application subject to conditions, or reject the application.

The meeting also included standard agenda items such as a welcome, apologies, and declarations of interest. A resolution under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 was scheduled to be considered if necessary, to exclude the press and public from any Part 2 agenda items, although no Part 2 agenda was listed.