UK gambling operators face further pressure after Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced plans to give local authorities greater powers to refuse new betting shops, just months after a major increase in online gaming taxation.
Burnham’s government intends to remove the Gambling Act’s “aim to permit” principle, which currently limits the circumstances in which councils can reject applications for new gambling premises.
The proposals would give councils greater discretion over new betting shops, while adult gaming centres offering slot and gaming machines would also require planning permission.
The intervention comes as operators absorb a substantial increase in online gambling taxation introduced by the previous government.
Remote Gaming Duty, which applies primarily to online casino gaming, increased from 21% to 40% on April 1.
A new 25% Remote Betting Rate will apply to most online sports betting from April 1, 2027, compared with the current 15%. Remote bets on UK horseracing will remain at 15%.
The Betting and Gaming Council has warned that the impact is already extending beyond online operations into Britain’s retail betting sector.
The trade body said operators have announced more than 540 betting shop closures since the November 2025 Budget, with around 4,500 jobs lost or placed at risk across the sector.
The figures are industry estimates and include restructuring that has not yet been completed, including Betfred’s planned closure of 132 shops from September, which Global Gambling News has previously reported.
The BGC said around 3,000 betting shops and more than 15,000 jobs have disappeared since 2019, leaving the remaining retail estate supporting approximately 37,500 jobs.
The government has rejected the suggestion that its tax policy is directly responsible for high-street closures, pointing out that gambling duty rates applying to retail betting shops have not increased.
Operators argue that the distinction between online and retail is less clear commercially because major gambling groups manage both businesses through the same balance sheets.
Fresh financial results from William Hill and 888 owner Evoke provide evidence of how the higher duties are affecting those decisions.
Evoke reported a £46m (US$62m) year-on-year increase in gaming duties during the first half of 2026, predominantly from the UK, contributing to a 9.5% decline in adjusted EBITDA.
The company said it offset more than half of the additional duty burden through lower marketing expenditure, improved promotional efficiency and operating cost reductions.
Evoke also closed approximately 200 William Hill shops during May as part of a restructuring of its retail estate.
The group had 1,024 shops at the end of June, compared with 1,302 a year earlier, a reduction of 21.4%.
The underlying trading figures present a more complicated picture than falling customer demand.
Like-for-like retail revenue increased 4% despite reported retail revenue declining as shops closed. Retail adjusted EBITDA increased 5.4%, with Evoke attributing the improvement partly to closing loss-making locations and restructuring its operating model.
UK and Ireland online revenue also increased 3.5%, while adjusted EBITDA from the division rose 28.3%.
The figures suggest higher costs are changing where operators allocate investment and which retail locations remain commercially viable, rather than simply reflecting a collapse in gambling demand.
Burnham said the government wants to give communities greater control over businesses opening in their town centres.
Burnham said: “We’re putting communities back in control and giving local people a real say over what opens on their high street.”
The BGC maintains that the retail betting estate is already contracting and argues that additional restrictions risk accelerating that decline.
The debate now extends across the UK gambling industry rather than one part of the market.
Online casino operators are already absorbing the 40% gaming duty, online bookmakers face a further tax increase in 2027, and retail operators face tighter controls over future premises alongside rising employment and operating costs.
The policy divide is equally clear. The government argues that higher remote taxes and stronger local licensing powers address different concerns around gambling harm and high-street development.
Operators argue that online and retail economics are interconnected and that pressure imposed on one part of a gambling business ultimately affects jobs, investment and premises elsewhere.
Evoke’s first-half results suggest that argument can no longer be considered purely theoretical.
