The Gambling Act Sub-Committee of Waltham Forest Council met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026, to consider an application for an adult gaming centre premises licence for Merkur Slots at 220 Hoe Street, Walthamstow. After hearing submissions from the applicant, local councillors, and various council departments, the Sub-Committee determined to reject the application.

Grant of a Premises Licence for Merkur Slots, 220 Hoe Street, Walthamstow, E17 3AY

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Merkur Slots UK Ltd for a premises licence to operate an adult gaming centre at 220 Hoe Street, Walthamstow. The application was opposed by several interested parties, including local residents, ward councillors, and representatives from Waltham Forest's Youth Services, Public Health, and Area Regeneration teams.

The Sub-Committee focused on Section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005, which requires licensing authorities to aim to permit gambling where it is in accordance with codes of practice, guidance from the Gambling Commission, reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives, and in accordance with the council's statement of principles. Despite a presumption in favour of granting the application, the Sub-Committee was unable to conclude that the risks to children and vulnerable people in the area could be mitigated to a sufficient extent.

Key concerns raised during the hearing and in written representations included:

• Concentration of Support Services and Deprivation: The area around Hoe Street has a high concentration of support services, such as Walthamstow Library, Citizens Advice, and the Job Centre, indicating a level of deprivation and a presence of residents already experiencing issues such as problem gambling, mental health challenges, and financial hardship. The Sub-Committee noted that these vulnerable individuals are likely to be drawn to the proposed venue.
• Crime and Disorder: The Local Area Risk Assessment highlighted pockets of high crime in the area, with the High Street ward recording more offences than the London average. The Sub-Committee heard evidence that the adult gaming centre across the road from the proposed site is frequented by the police approximately once a month, and they believed granting the licence would exacerbate existing crime and disorder issues.
• Protection of Children and Vulnerable Persons: The Sub-Committee was particularly concerned about the high numbers of young people aged 18-25 who walk past and congregate in the area, potentially making them vulnerable to gambling harm. Evidence from Youth Services indicated that gambling is becoming increasingly popular among young people, with concerns raised about misleading advertising and the impact on families. The presence of nearby schools and youth facilities, such as The Cotch youth space, was also a significant consideration.
• 24-Hour Opening: The Sub-Committee expressed significant concern regarding the applicant's proposal for 24-hour opening. They were unconvinced by the applicant's assertion that early morning clientele would primarily be hospitality workers, believing vulnerable individuals were more likely to frequent the venue during these hours. The risk of vulnerable people spending excessive amounts of time gambling was a major concern.
• Operator's Track Record: Representations highlighted concerns about Merkur Slots' business model, including allegations of staff incentives linked to customer losses, and a recent £95,450 fine from the Gambling Commission for social responsibility failings at one of its centres. While the applicant provided evidence of their policies and procedures, the Sub-Committee found that these would not sufficiently mitigate the harm to vulnerable people and children in this specific location.
• Clustering of Gambling Premises: While cumulative impact is not a direct licensing objective, the Sub-Committee noted the existing presence of two adult gaming centres in close proximity, including one directly opposite the proposed site. This clustering was seen as potentially exacerbating gambling harm in the area.

The Sub-Committee concluded that granting the licence would not be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives, as it would pose a clear risk of harm to vulnerable adults and children. The decision to reject the application was made based on the material and evidence presented.

The meeting closed at 12:36 pm.