No public mandate, no clear author: Who’s behind the casino push in Lambeth – and Why?

Despite public resistance, the borough’s long-standing ‘no casino’ clause has disappeared from draft council policy, with no clear rationale and no named author on the consultation documents.

Lambeth Council’s proposed 2025–2028 Statement of Gambling Principles removes the borough’s long-standing ‘no casino’ resolution, a highly symbolic clause most recently reaffirmed in January 2023. The change is acknowledged in the Summary of Changes (Appendix 2), which states:

“The proposed revised Statement of Gambling Principles does not refresh the ‘no casino’ resolution.”

However, this wording avoids explicitly stating that the clause is being dropped, framing the decision as a passive administrative choice rather than a reversal of policy.

Furthermore, in the original low key public consultation which ran for 5 weeks from 31 October 2025, the issue appeared without any explanation. Appendix 9 of the draft policy, which accompanied the consultation, simply stated rather opaquely that:

“The decision on whether or not to pass a further ‘no casino’ resolution will form part of the consultation process.” – Lambeth Council

The consultation itself clearly didn’t get public support with only 32% of respondents agreeing it even met Gambling Licensing Objectives (which includes addressing gambling harm). Many written responses (full list at end of article) were passionately worded, with one describing the move as:

“morally bankrupt, prioritising revenue over community health.” – Lambeth Resident

Lambeth’s Licensing Committee meeting on 11 December was forced to adjourn after councillors were given hundreds of pages of late-arriving documents, with just 24 hours to review them, meaning the proposed changes could not be debated.

Unusually, the draft policy is unauthored, a striking departure from previous gambling policies which clearly named the officer responsible. This version appears to have emerged solely from Lambeth’s Regulatory Services department.

However, the Audit Trail in agenda documents for the postponed licensing meeting reveal that the policy was signed off by Nabeel Khan, the council’s Corporate Director for Growth and Environment, and originally discussed in April 2025 with Cabinet Member for Safer Communities, Cllr Mahamed Hashi. This timeline raises further questions about who actually initiated the clause’s removal, whether it reflects Cabinet-level policy, and why no explanation was offered to the public.

The removal sits within a consultation process that not only sidesteps public concern, but clearly identifies several gambling cluster areas within the borough, including Waterloo & South Bank, Clapham High Street, Central Brixton, Streatham Hill, and St Leonard’s – all areas already saturated with betting shops and gaming venues. This is despite widespread public concern over the social harms of gambling, particularly in deprived communities, with local health profiles and national data consistently linking gambling exposure to addiction, debt, and mental health issues.

Opposition councillors are expected to press Cllr Mahamed Hashi, the cabinet member identified as first discussing the removal of the ‘no casino’ clause back in April – before the next Licensing Committee meeting.

As the person named in the Audit Trail, Hashi will likely face questions over who initiated the reversal, whether it came from Cabinet, and why the administration is prepared to override public opposition.

Filtered

It’s poignant that as this article goes live, national news reports that Bet365’s owner, Denise Coates, earned £280 million in 2025 alone, and more than £2 billion over the past decade. Gambling makes big money for big business, and Lambeth’s cabinet seems to be placing a quiet bet on future changes to gambling law, hoping to get their piece. One has to wonder whether they know something the rest of us don’t?

What we do know is that the stealth removal of a highly popular ‘no casino’ clause in favour of future ‘growth’ aligns perfectly with Thatcherite, free-market ethos, similar to that which scrapped the Lambeth Country Show in favour of commercial festivals, funnels millions into private landlords for temporary accommodation with social housing failures so severe that Lambeth ranks 349th out of 353 providers.

Although I’m not a gambler, I’d oppose any outright ban. But £2 billion in personal profit is also 2 billion harms, its £2 billion extracted from the most vulnerable and dispossessed, the very people elected politicians are supposed to protect. As politicians on all sides gear up for May’s local elections, and with clear public support for the ‘no casino’ clause, I wonder if this is a (William) Hill that Lambeth’s Labour councillors are willing to die on?

More Info

Gambler’s Anonymous

Contact Samaritans

Gamcare

Break Even

Lambeth Licensing Agenda 11.12.25

Photos courtesy of Mayor of London Assembly, Lambeth Council