Assets of Community Value
| Author | William Webster |
| Pages | 465-488 |
Chapter 25
Assets of Community Value
INTRODUCTION
25.1 This chapter is concerned with assets of community value (ACVs) and the process by which such assets are to be included within a local authority’s list of ACVs under the scheme
25.2 The scheme gives local community groups a right to nominate a building or other land (from local pubs and shops to village halls, community centres and sports stadia) for listing by the local authority (the district or unitary council) as an ACV, the result of which is that when the asset is to be sold, local community groups will be in a position to make a bid to buy it in the open market at its open market value. Nominated assets may be owned by anybody, including the local authority and the Crown.
25.3 The community right to bid (and it should be stressed that there is no community right to buy the asset, merely to bid for it) only arises when the asset’s owner decides to sell it. The scheme does not give a right of first refusal to the community group, unlike the equivalent scheme in Scotland, or a right to acquire the asset at a discount. This means that the local community bid to acquire the asset may be unsuccessful as the price or value of the asset is beyond the realistic reach of a community group, in which event the owners can, at the end of the moratorium period, sell to whomever they choose and at whatever price. The owners are also free to do what they want with their property while they own it and they can also negotiate terms with a third party during the moratorium period, although no sale can be concluded during that period unless it is with a local interest community group.
466 Planning Law: A Practitioner’s Handbook
25.4 That an asset is listed as an ACV may well be considered to be an important material consideration relating to the use and development of land to which an local planning authority (LPA) is to have regard in dealing with planning applications.
WHAT LAND ASSETS ARE AFFECTED?
25.5 A local authority
Assets of Community Value 467
is included in the list, the entry is to be removed from the list at the end of five years.
25.6 A building or other land in a local authority’s area is ‘land of community value’ if in the opinion of the authority:
(a) an actual current use of the building or other land that is not an ancillary use
(b) it is realistic to think that there can continue to be non-ancillary use of the building or other land which will further (whether or not in the same way) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.
25.7 The term ‘social interests’ includes each of the following: (a) cultural interests; (b) recreational interests; and (c) sporting interests.
25.8 Land which may not currently be land of community value may still qualify for listing if, in the opinion of the authority, there was a time in the recent past when it did qualify and it is realistic to think that there would be a time in the next five years when it could qualify for listing as land of community value.
‘if in the opinion of the local authority – (a) there is a time in the recent past when an actual use of the building … furthered the social wellbeing or interests of the local community, and (b) it is realistic to think that there is a time in the next five years when there could be non-ancillary use of the building or other land that would further (whether or not in the same way as before) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.’
In BHL v St Albans City and District Council [2016] UKUT 232 (ACC) (11/5/2016), the Upper Tribunal determined that the expressions ‘actual current use’ in s 88(1)(a) and ‘an actual use’ in s 88(2)(a) did not import an obligation that the use relied on had to be lawful, and that, in these circumstances, the use need not be lawful unless there is some other way in which the law provided that it should be. In this case, shortly before the land (which comprised a 12-acre parcel within the metropolitan Green Belt crossed by two public footpaths which had a 40-year history of use for walking and as recreational open space) was listed in September 2014, the appellant had lawfully erected fencing along the entire length of the footpaths interspersed with prohibitory signage. Although the fencing was damaged over the following months, any user would have
468 Planning Law: A Practitioner’s Handbook
term ‘realistic’ in this context connotes a much lower test than the ordinary civil burden. It seems likely that the possibility of a revival in the future of qualifying community use will be ‘realistic’ provided it is not fanciful or unrealistic on the evidence. For instance, it might be shown that development was unlikely to occur within a commercially viable timescale, bringing with it the possibility that the owner might either sell the premises on the basis of its existing use or else be persuaded to agree to a resumption of relevant community use within the statutory period whilst he decided what to do with the land.
been trespassory. Following the erection of the fencing, the appellant applied for but...
To continue reading
Request your trial