The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) in Gibson v Babergh District Council [2015] UKFTT CR/2014/0019 (GRC) issues a reminder of the way in which scheme established by Part 5 Chapter 3 of the Localism Act 2011 (“the Act”) and the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulation 2012 works. The scheme enables parishes and community organizations – including neighbourhood forums – to nominate local assets to their local authority to be included on its statutory list of assets of community value. (“Assets” for this purpose means land and other buildings.) In such event, the local authority has eight weeks to make a judgment about whether the asset meets the definition set out in section 88 of the Act, or whether it falls into one of the excluded categories.
That definition requires the local authority to ask itself (a) whether an actual current use of the building or other land that is not an ancillary use furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the community and (b) whether 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.
Where the definition is met, the local authority must list the asset, place it on the local land charges register and – if registered at the Land Registry – apply for a restriction to be entered. The effect of listing is that, generally speaking, an owner intending to sell the asset must give notice to the local authority. A community interest group then has six weeks in which to ask to be treated as a potential bidder. If it does so, the sale cannot take place for six months. The owner has the right to require an internal review by the local authority of its decision and, subject to that, a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. There are also arrangements for the local authority to pay compensation to an owner who loses money in consequence of the asset being listed.
In Gibson the issue for the First-tier Tribunal was whether the section 88 definition had been met in respect of a loss-making pub that had been nominated by the parish council, after the owner had offered it for sale as a going concern. The Tribunal concluded on the evidence before it that both limbs of the section 88 definition had been satisfied.
John Martin is a planning law consultant
