Councillors refused a gambling licence for a 24-hour arcade at 403 Holloway Road and rejected shorter 8am-11pm hours too. The minutes give the reasons.

Islington councillors have refused a gambling licence for a 24-hour amusement arcade in the old Barclays bank at 403 Holloway Road.

The decision was taken by Licensing Sub-Committee A on 6 October. The council published the draft minutes, with the committee’s full reasons, on 30 October (Islington Council, draft minutes).

The applicant, Cain’s Amusements, wanted to trade there as Jackpot Slots. At the hearing it offered to open from 8am to 11pm instead of around the clock. The committee turned that down too. It said no set of conditions could fix the problems it found, “even with reduced hours”.

The same unit was refused planning permission on 22 September. We previewed the licence hearing on 2 October.

Why the committee said no

The minutes say the refusal rests on two of the three licensing objectives in the Gambling Act 2005: keeping gambling away from crime and disorder, and protecting children and vulnerable people.

The committee’s main findings were:

  • The site is in a Gambling Vulnerability Zone. The council’s 2026-2028 gambling policy says refusal will be considered there unless an applicant “comprehensively” shows vulnerable people will not be harmed. The committee was not satisfied that had been done.
  • Staffing was too thin. The applicant promised at least two staff at all times. The committee said that at break times this would in effect mean one person, who could not watch both inside and outside the premises.
  • Overnight opening “is not credibly supervised”. It accepted the police and licensing officers’ view that one or two staff cannot reliably spot harms that are often not visible.
  • The risk assessment kept getting the area wrong. Three versions were submitted. The committee said even the latest still had gaps in the applicant’s knowledge of the immediate area, and that “the lack of care in the paperwork was concerning”.
  • Arsenal match days were not properly covered. The committee was not satisfied the applicant had adequate measures for the extra footfall when Arsenal play at home.

The committee also said what the decision does not rest on. It disregarded the planning refusal, as section 210 of the Act requires. It made no finding on moral objections to gambling, on demand, or on clustering “as such”.

What the committee found about the area

The minutes record that five gambling premises operate within about 200 metres of the site and fourteen within a mile. Within a short walk, the committee listed:

  • Grafton Primary School, 0.2 miles away, with its main entrance at the junction
  • Alrisaalah Mosque and Islamic Centre, with its madrasa, under 0.1 miles away
  • Willow Children’s Centre, 0.1 miles away
  • Islington’s child and adolescent mental health service, 0.3 miles away
  • Capital City College and the National Youth Theatre, 0.3 and 0.2 miles away
  • student accommodation within 150 yards
  • four pawnbrokers within 0.2 miles

It also relied on the police and council figures from the papers: 443 priority incidents in the ward between January and mid-July 2026, and 343 street anti-social behaviour reports in the Nag’s Head town centre since July 2025.

The Met told the hearing that 19 crimes had been recorded in Islington gambling premises since April 2026, and offenders had been identified in only two. The committee said it did not use that figure to compare arcades with betting shops. It relied on it for one point: offenders in gambling premises often go unidentified, which undermines a plan built on staff spotting problems.

Who objected, and what the applicant said

The council received representations from the Licensing Authority, the Metropolitan Police, Public Health, the Community Safety team, two ward councillors and 220 residents. Islington North MP Jeremy Corbyn spoke against the application on behalf of residents who had contacted him.

Cain’s Amusements argued that it has held a Gambling Commission operating licence since 2007 without a review or sanction. It said adult gaming centres are alcohol-free, with an average spend of around £40 and stays of 20 to 30 minutes. It offered 22 conditions, including CCTV with facial recognition, magnetic door locks and SIA-registered staff between 11pm and 7am. It said refusal would push people to online gambling with fewer safeguards, and that the unit had stood empty for a long time.

What happens next

The applicant can appeal. Under section 207 of the Gambling Act 2005, an appeal goes to the magistrates’ court and must be lodged within 21 days of the day the applicant receives notice of the decision. The council has not published the date the notice was sent.

Even a successful licence appeal would not let the arcade open on its own. It would still need planning permission, which means winning a planning appeal as well. The deadline for that is 22 March 2027.

What it means for you

  • No arcade can open at 403 Holloway Road for now. Both the licence and the planning permission have been refused.
  • Watch for an appeal. We will report it if Cain’s Amusements takes either decision further.
  • The gambling policy has teeth. This is a test of the council’s 2026-2028 vulnerability zone rule. The committee’s reasons, set out in 27 numbered paragraphs, are a guide to how it may treat the next application in Nag’s Head or Finsbury Park.

You can read other Holloway news on our Holloway page.

Sources