The Localism Act 2011 has conferred an ability to nominate land or buildings to be placed on a list of assets of community value. This will have an impact on property ownership. It restricts the ability of the owner to dispose of the property and it will also affect the planning position Once on the list kept by the local authority.
- It will stay on the list for five years
- If the owner wishes to dispose of the listed asset a moratorium must be observed to allow a competitive bid from a community interest group
- The owner cannot be compelled to sell to such a group and cannot be prevented from going ahead with the intended disposal on the expiry of the moratorium
- The listing may be a material consideration for planning purposes and in the case of nominated and listed pubs will prevent the Permitted Development Rights regime applying
- Compensation is payable for any loss or expense caused by the listing.
If notice is given of an application to nominate land or buildings then it will be necessary on behalf of the owner to check whether
- The application for listing is valid
- the land or building is excluded from the listing regime
- the qualifying criteria have been satisfied;
- the intended disposal qualifies as a part-listed disposal.
Guide to Assets of Community Value Regime
I have prepared a Guide to the Assets of Community Value regime which incorporates the statutory provisions and the reported appeals to the Regulatory in First-tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber up to 8th June 2018.
(i) the Court of Appeal decision in Banner Homes;
(ii) the nine ACV appeals to the First-tier tribunal since June 2017;
(iii) the appeal in Admiral Taverns to the Upper Tribunal;
(iv) further discussion of nominations by CAMRA;
(v) recent planning decisions.
The June 2017 update included:
(i) the thirty appeal decisions since June 2016;
(ii) the 2017 changes to the Permitted Development Rights regime;
(iii) a fuller consideration of the compensation provisions;
(iv) an expanded discussion of the eligibility of nominators;
(v) more planning appeals concerning ACV listed assets.
The June 2016 update included:
- analysis of the recent FTT appeals – Haley v West Berkshire DC; Hawthorn Leisure v St. Edmondsbury BC; Kicking Horse v Camden LBC; Mendoza v Camden LBC; STO Capital v Haringey LBC; Haddon Property v Cheshire East Council; Pullan v Leeds City Council
- discussion of the first appeal to the Upper Tribunal – BHL v St Albans City and District Council
- expanded consideration of nominators, contents of nomination forms, supporting evidence, manner of assessment by the listing authority and exempt disposals
- specific consideration nominations of public houses
- further planning appeals relating to listed ACV
The November 2015 update reflects the regular flow of news items regarding ACV. It includes the two new appeal decision
Chadwick v Rosendale BC – the first appeal of a compensation decision. It illustrates how hard it will be to succeed. More importantly Judge Lane gives his view
that a reduction in value of a listed asset due to listing will not be a loss covered by a compensation claim;
Wellington Pub v Kensington & Chelsea – useful guidance is given as how to determine whether or not a residential part of a building should be included in a listing;
In addition there is expanded discussion as to
what constitutes a hotel for the purposes of excluded land;
the effect of conditional contracts prior to listing;
what constitutes an unincorporated association for the purposes of nomination taking into account the decision in Williams v Devon CC;
Planning Inspectors decisions relating to listed assets;
the process of assessment by a local authority.
The two latest rulings in the Chadwick and wellington Pub cases are considered in an article published on the Local Government Lawyer website on 26th November 2016 – [Further guidance on the operation of the ACV regime PDF]
The July 2015 version of the ACV Guide includes expanded consideration of the ACV regime and discussion of the recent First-tier tribunals decisions in Trouth v Shropshire County Council (car parks and ancillary use) and Punch Partnership v Wykrie BC (effect of supermarket developments retaining operating pub) and the recent judicial review concerning the Gullivers Bowling Club.
An earlier discussion is to be found in the attached article Assets of Community Value under the Localism Act – Blighting of development or boosting the local community
An overview can also be found in the section on Assets of Community Value in the Westlaw UK Insight Encyclopaedia.
There has been uncertainty as to whether an entitlement for compensation can arise solely from the listing of an asset. This has been decided by Judge Simon Bird QC in St John’s Ambulance v Teignbridge CR/2018/0003. It also decided the measure to be adopted in assessing such compensation. It was argued that compensation should be assessed on the basis that there is no ACV regime. This was rejected. The judgment is discussed in this paper – which was first published in the Local Government Lawyer.
Vacant Assets of Community Value
It is not uncommon for an ACV to be left vacant whilst listed. In some cases this is prompting attempts to be made to have the property compulsorily purchased by the local authority. These attempts are discussed in this article which was first published in the Local Government Lawyer.
The impact of the ACV regime on public footpaths is considered in this paper which was first published in the Waymark Journal Volume 31 issue 1
In an article published in the Local Government Lawyer on 1st December 2017 headed Fresh Developments in Assets of Community Value regime the following issues are considered:
(i) Multiple use of buildings – Uptin House v Newcastle CC;
(ii) CAMRA nominations – McNeill UB40 Limited v Hackney LBC;
(iii) Compensation – Whitehead v Tunbridge Wells BC; and
(iv) Owner’s intentions – Worthmore Properties Limited v S Oxfordshire DC.
In an ACV appeal decision Judge Jacqueline Finlay has ordered the removal of Uptin House in Newcastle from the ACV list on the ground that it was not realistic to think that in the future it will be used to further the social well-being or social interest of the local community.
A fresh batch of ACV appeals have been published at the start of 2017. These include ZB Investments v Croydon concerning the conversion of a closed pub to flats without planning permission and the first appeal concerning a commercial gym. These are considered in a n article first published in the Local Government Lawyer –Fresh points on Assets of Community Value.
Ten new ACV appeal decisions have been released. These include Hamna Wakaf Limited v Lambeth LBC (CR/2015/0026) which is concerned with the validity of a nomination by a CAMRA branch. The various points addressed by these appeals are considered in an article first published in the Local Government Lawyer – Public houses and the ACV regime again.
The listing of public houses has not deterred the determination of some owners from attempting to convert the pub to a dwelling. This was the issue in a recent First tier Tribunal appeal decision – King v Chiltern DC (CR/2015/0025). This case and others arising from such attempts are considered in “Battles to convert ACV listed public houses to dwellings” (first published on the Local Government Lawyer website on 11th June 2016).
New points of guidance taken from the burst of reported appeal decisions in the first part of 2016 are discussed in an article published in the Local Government Lawyer on 23rd June 2016 – Further development of the Assets of Community Value Regime. It covers fresh guidance with regard to public houses; the recent past; golf clubs; changes in ownership after nomination; supporters groups qualifying as nominators; whether actual use has to be lawful; and the effect of planning permission on the prospects for future community use.
In an article headed “Guidance gleamed from ACV appeals and Planning Inspectors’ decisions” published by the Local Government Lawyer on 3rd September 2015 [click to download] the extent to which useful guidance can be obtained from the appeal decisions is considered. In addition some of the decisions concerning the planning aspects of ACV are discussed. The planning aspect is likely to have increasing importance.