2 The Community Right to Bid |
5. The Community Right to Bid came into operation
in September 2012. The Plain English Guide to the Localism Act
explained the reasons behind its introduction:
Every town, village or neighbourhood is home
to buildings or amenities that play a vital role in local life.
They might include community centres, libraries, swimming pools,
village shops, markets or pubs [
] and if they are closed
or sold into private use, it can be a real loss to the community.
In some cases [
] community groups who have attempted to
take assets over have faced significant challenges. They often
need more time to organise a bid and raise money than the private
enterprises bidding against them.
The Right to Bid was designed to provide people with
that time and involves the following process:
· a community group can nominate a local
building or land for listing by the local authority as an Asset
of Community Value (ACV);
· if the local authority decides to list
it, the asset sits on a register for five years;
· listing gives local people an opportunity
to bid for the ACV if the owner decides to sell, as this usually
triggers a six-month moratorium, during which time the asset cannot
be sold except to a community bidder;
· the six-month period includes an initial
six-week window in which local groups, if they wish to bid, must
express an interest;
· local groups then have the remainder of
the six-month period to organise the bid;
· at the end of the six months, the owner
may sell, but they do not have to sell to a community bidder.
If the sale begins before the asset is listed, the
moratorium does not apply, even if the property is subsequently
Evidence of awareness and use
6. According to Locality, which provides support
to groups interested in the Community Rights, the Community Right
to Bid "has gained rapid momentum. Its implementation resulted
in an immediate and broad range of enquiries [...] which continues
to grow". We
heard that the nomination paper to list an asset was "not
particularly onerous" to complete; and use of the Right had
been higher than that of others, because the "process is
simpler, the risk of not using the power is high and the rewards
of using the power to buy time to save an asset of community value
According to the Department for Communities and Local Government
(DCLG), since the Right came into operation in September 2012,
more than 1,800 assets have been listed as ACVs; 122 groups showed
an intention to bid by triggering the six-month moratoriums; and
nine assets have been bought by community groups.
Further research by Simon Danczuk MP, a member of our Committee,
has, however, yielded more information on these results. Based
on freedom of information requests to local authorities it appears
that of the 122 groups that triggered a moratorium, 60 were unsuccessful
in their bid, 27 bids are outstanding and only 11admittedly
two more than DCLG's figureshave
so far resulted in a community buyout.
Civic Voice said community ownership of properties should not
be the measure of the policy's success: "What should be recognised
and emphasised is that people are coming together to demonstrate
civic pride and what they care about in their communities."
The Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) provided us with the most recent
breakdown of listed ACVs.
|Type of asset
||Proportion of total listed
|Community shop, library, car park, allotment, school, sports ground, park
|Post office, other public space, land, village green
7. The Community Right to Bid process has achieved
some success because the first phase, listing local land or property
as an Asset of Community Value (ACV), is relatively straightforward.
It brings people together and gives them the opportunity to have
a say in what happens to valued pubs, shops or community centres
if they are put up for sale. But if, as it appears, almost 50%
of attempts to buy ACVs are unsuccessful, there must be scope
for enhancing people's chances of success with the second and
most importantbiddingphase of the Right.
Reforming the Right
8. Witnesses suggested a range of ways in which the
listing and sales processes of the Right to Bid could be improved:
· change permitted development rights in
relation to ACVs;
· make ACV status a material consideration
in planning applications;
· give nominators a right of appeal against
local authority refusal to list an asset;
· extend the moratorium on a sale; and
· change the regulations on selling ACVs
as a 'going concern'.
PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
9. Listing a building such as a pub as an ACV does
not prevent its change of use under permitted development (PD)
rights to a shop, estate agent or restaurantor indeed its
demolition. The Plunkett
Foundation said that there "have been a number of examples
where pubs have been registered as assets of community value,
but been converted into supermarkets or other uses through permitted
development rights". It said that, if a property is listed
as an ACV, its PD rights should be automatically removed: "This
would ensure that communities could take action to save their
CAMRA said the removal of PD rights could add "significant
weight" to the legislation, and explained there had been
"several cases" where the Right to Bid had been undermined
by "planning loopholes".
It cited The George IV public house in Brixton, which despite
its listing as an ACV was converted to a supermarket. The George
IV was, however, listed after its sale to a retailer. The
community did not therefore have the chance to bid for the pub,
in order to stop the retailer acquiring it and, hence, being able
to convert it. CAMRA pointed out that two pubs every week were
converted to supermarkets between January 2012 and January 2014.
(We assume that most will have been through a sale process first,
rather than have been converted by the brewery or pubco owner.)
The Plunkett Foundation acknowledged that communities needed to
"see the value in registering Assets of Community Value before
there is a crisis [
] Until then, communities will always
be on the back foot when attempting to save assets of community
10. Community groups need to register prized local
buildings and land as Assets of Community Value before they are
sold. If they do, they will have the opportunity to bid for assets
if they are then put up for sale. That is one way of potentially
preventing such assets being acquired by developers and converted
to other uses or demolished. To protect valued community facilities
in this way, local people need to be more aware of the Community
Rights, including the Right to Bid. We discuss in chapter 6 how
awareness might be improved.
11. The Government has said that the ACV scheme is
not a planning policy to protect against change of use and that
local authorities can use their local plan or an Article 4 direction
to do that. When
we raised the possibility of a blanket exemption from PD rights
for all ACVs, the Minister, Stephen Williams MP, told us it would
be a "much bigger step" to suspend PD rights altogether,
because some pubs may no longer be viable due to changes in demographics.
The Government has also previously said that "disproportionate
restrictions on change of use [...] might result in more empty
buildings, spoiling the local environment and holding back economic
The change being called for is, however, the removal of PD rights
from ACVs, not from all pubs. There are currently about 1,800
ACVs, of which 500 are pubs, and this compares with 48,000 pubs
last year in the UK.
A property's ACV listing lapses when it is sold, and, if there
was any linked restrictions on PD right, they would lapse then,
too. In contrast, under an Article 4 direction, which is a separate
process, planning permission is still required to change the property's
use after its sale, and the Article 4 process makes provision
for owners to claim compensation in certain circumstances.
12. The Government has consistently said that
removing permitted development (PD) rights in respect of change
of use from all pubs would amount to a disproportionate change
in planning regulations that could blight town centres and prevent
development. Removing PD rights from only the relatively small
number of assets listed as Assets of Community Value (ACVs) would
not be disproportionate, however, and their ACV listing would
suggest they may have a viable future under community ownership.
In our view what does appear disproportionate is to require local
people and local authorities to nominate and list an asset as
an ACV and then to go through an Article 4 direction process to
remove PD rights from that same asset. It would be more efficient
to integrate the Article 4 process into the ACV process. We
recommend that the Government consult on removing PD rights in
respect of change of use from ACVs for the duration of the listing
or for five years, whichever is the longer. The issue of any compensation
for owners should also be considered.
13. Before leaving this topic we must comment on
the use of Article 4 directions, particularly if the Government
persists with the Article 4 route over the change we suggest.
One reason why local authorities have not used these directions
is fear of being liable for compensation.
Mike Perry, from the Plunkett Foundation, said something was needed
to "de-risk" the Article 4 process and noted the Government's
compensation fund to support councils facing claims by property
owners for losses due to their property's listing as an ACV.
Compensation in respect of Article 4 directions is payable if
a local planning authority refuses planning permission for development
which would otherwise have been permitted development or grants
planning permission subject to more limiting conditions than the
general permitted development order. Compensation is payable only
within 12 months of an Article 4 direction being issued.
In January 2014 the Government said, although there were no centrally
held statistics, it was unaware of any successful claims for compensation.
And in relation to pubs, Stephen Williams MP told us he had no
evidence of a brewery or pubco successfully mounting a legal challenge
against a local authority that had "considered" putting
an Article 4 direction on pubs.
Our further investigation has yielded references to compensation
paid in relation only to Article 4 directions restricting car
boot sales, Sunday markets and motor racing.
14. The Government has not been amenable to the
automatic removal of PD rights from ACVs. It prefers the targeted
use of Article 4 directions to remove PD rights from specific
buildings. To underpin this approach, however, local authorities
need more reassurance that imposing an Article 4 direction will
not mean costly compensation payments to affected property owners.
If the Government's preferred approach to the removal of PD
rights continues to be the use of Article 4 directions, we recommend
that it consider establishing a fundsimilar to that for
compensation payments relating to properties listed as ACVsfor
compensation claims in relation to Article 4 directions.
ACV AS A MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATION
15. The Government's guidance to local authorities
on the Right to Bid states, "it is open to the Local Planning
Authority to decide whether listing as an asset of community value
is a material consideration if an application for change of use
is submitted, considering all the circumstances of the case".
Civic Voice cited examples of councils that had and had not taken
listing into consideration and said that "it seems bizarre
that some communities can have the confidence to know that their
local authority will consider an ACV as a material consideration,
while others will not". It recommended new guidance clarifying
"any property that is registered as an Asset of Community
Value is treated as a material planning consideration".
The British Property Federation (BPF) shared some of these concerns:
"The extra delay and confusion surrounding whether the listing
is a material consideration discourages investors and hinders
economic development." While the BPF accepted that in reality
an ACV listing was often treated as a material consideration,
it thought the guidance would benefit from further elaboration
and called for a "proportionate response to listing. For
example, an application for a minor material amendment should
not trigger a consideration of the ACV listing".
In two cases taken up by former DCLG Ministers, pubs sold and
then listed as ACVs have had planning permission refused, with
their ACV status cited by both planning authorities in their decisions.
16. Community groups, developers and property
owners would welcome greater certainty about the status accorded
to ACV listing when planning authorities are considering planning
applications. If developers knew ACV status would be considered,
they would have greater certainty about the process that might
take place after they had acquired an ACV and submitted a planning
application, including for change of use. Equally, such certainty
would provide community groups with the knowledge that registration
provided them with a further potential protection against what
they saw as unwanted development. Obliging local authorities to
consider ACV status would not mean the inevitable refusal of planning
permission, and ACV status should not be a mandatory material
consideration in applications for minor changes to property. We
recommend that the Government, as part of its review of Community
Rights later in 2015, consult on a proposal to amend its guidance
so that ACV listing is a material consideration for local authorities
in all planning applications other than those for minor works.
17. Listing property as an ACV and bidding for it
when it is put on the market does not guarantee a community's
success in buying it. We heard that one way to assist communities
would be to extend the current six-month moratorium on the sale
of a listed property. Advocating an increase, Action with Communities
in Rural England (ACRE) said: "The development of business
plans and budgets, exploring funding options, preparing applications
and ensuring sufficient funds are available is a time consuming
process without the added pressure of a six month deadline."
According to a Plunkett Foundation survey, the average community
pub acquisition takes 10 months.
Tom Stainer, from CAMRA, called for a 10-month moratorium and
said it would not slow down developers where the property was
no longer wanted, as the initial six-week moratoriumthe
first six weeks of the overall six-month moratoriumwould
demonstrate whether anyone was interested in bidding. If there
was interest, he said, communities would "need to know they
have the time to put together what can be very complex legal community
18. In this context, the issue of disadvantaged communities'
access to the Rights was raised, and those providing advice and
grants to community groups favoured a 12-month moratorium.
Locality pointed out that the concern with the current six-month
limit had been "particularly acute where either the project
demands high levels of capital and/or the community gets caught
up in lengthy funding application cycles". It added that
this "particularly impacts on deprived communities".
ACRE said that, if the challenge of putting together a group,
reaching a consensus, making applications and generating funding
was not recognised, there was a risk of "favouring those
communities with articulate retired people who are able to dedicate
the time to it and disadvantaging communities that do not have
those people there".
DCLG said its new package of support for 2015-16 aimed to address
the concern that deprived communities might find accessing the
rights a greater challenge.
When we visited The Ivy House pub in Nunhead, we heard how its
Grade II listed status meant the buyout team, including a solicitor,
a chartered surveyor and a town planner, had been able to apply
for and secure a £500,000 loan from the Architectural Heritage
Fund to finance its bid. Tessa Blunden, from the team, told us
that making the bid had been a full-time jobon top of her
19. From the developers' perspective, however, the
BPF said the moratorium was a drag on economic activity and deterred
investors; there had been "many examples" where six
months had worked; and, in the case of someone who wanted to sell
because they needed the money, it would be unfair to make them
wait "just under a year" to do so.
As we have noted at paragraph 14, however, owners are able to
apply for compensation in relation to their asset being listed.
They may claim for loss or expense which they would not have incurred
if the asset had not been listed and for loss resulting from a
delay in sale caused by the moratorium.
Civic Voice thought nine months would strike the correct balance
between the rights of the owner and of the community.
20. Bidding for an Asset of Community Value (ACV)
is a complicated process requiring time, organisation, effort
and resources to put together business plans and find funding.
This burden may have a particular impact on disadvantaged communities,
whom the Government, rightly, wants to target to make the Rights
more accessible. Extending the moratorium on a sale to nine months
would strike a better balance between the rights of the community
and of property owners. Owners would still be entitled to lodge
a compensation claim for any loss they believed they had incurred
due to a delay in the sale. We recommend that the Government
extend the moratorium on the sale of an ACV to nine months.
21. On the issue of making property owners wait to
sell their asset, we considered what should happen if at any point
during the moratorium a community group were to abandon its bid.
Should the owner or other bidder(s) have to wait until the six
months were up before they could get on with their transaction?
Witnesses representing community groups and property owners agreed
it should be possible to stop the process if this became apparent.
22. If it becomes clear during the moratorium
that a community group bid has been abandoned, it should be possible
to end the moratorium immediately so the owner can proceed with
the sale. This will ensure owners do not incur any unnecessary
delay in selling their asset, and local authorities are not subject
to excessive compensation claims due to unwarranted delays in
sales. We recommend that the Government ensure the moratorium
on a sale can be brought to an immediate end if a community group
bid has been abandoned.
23. One particularly potent change suggested to us
was to convert the Right to Bid into a right to buy.
We asked various panellists about this but found it difficult
to conclude how a 'market-level' price would be determined.
In lieu of a right to buy, Seb Elsworth from Social Investment
Business (SIB) suggested the potential to assign preferred-bidder
status to a community group: if it were not outbid, the group
would automatically have a right to buy.
24. Determining the market price for an asset
without putting it on the open market is problematic. A property
can be valued, but it is always an estimate, and owners have a
right to achieve the selling price they want by testing the market.
In our view an extension to the sales moratorium to give communities
greater opportunity to raise money to bid against a commercial
competitor or developer is sufficient. Communities might also
seek to achieve preferred-bidder status with the property owner
so that, as long they are not outbid, they have first refusal
on an assetand, in effect, a proxy for a right to buy.
NOMINATORS' RIGHT OF APPEAL
25. Currently owners have the right to ask a local
authority to review its decision to list their property as an
ACV. If they disagree with the local authority's decision on review,
they may appeal to the First-tier TribunalProperty Chamber
Some witnesses called for the right of appeal to extend to nominators
if the council decided not to list the property. Nominators
wishing specifically to challenge a decision have recourse only
to the courts and judicial review, which CAMRA described as "time
consuming and very costly".
The Theatres Trust said applicants found it hard to know how much
detail to provide in support of their nomination. It said an appeal
should be possible "if the situation materially changes and/or
they [the nominator] can provide additional relevant evidence".
The legislation does not, however, prohibit re-nomination of the
same asset, although some councils have introduced their own limits.
CAMRA said the lack of an appeal mechanism meant communities were
"powerless", even if they felt the council had not correctly
applied the statutory test when deciding whether to list an asset.
It cited examples of what it considered to be local authorities'
failure to apply the test properly, including one authority that
rejected a nomination, stating "potential is specifically
excluded from the criteria". CAMRA pointed out, however,
that this was "clearly not the case as potential community
value is specifically included in the criteria".
Civic Voice similarly called for a right of appeal local authority
decisions, while accepting it should include "safeguards
against repeated appeal requests and should specify clearly the
grounds upon which an appeal could be made".
The Minister, on the other hand, said the listing process meant
potentially holding up a sale and interfering in owners' property
rights. He was therefore "not sure" whether the owners'
right of appeal, against what he described as "a limitation
on their free will", should extend to nominators.
26. Owners have the right to ask a local authority
to review its decision to list their property as an Asset of Community
Value (ACV) and, if necessary, the right to appeal against that
review to the First-tier Tribunal¯Property Chamber
(Residential Property). If a community group wishes to challenge
their council's decision not to list an asset, the best course,
where new and material information comes to light, is to submit
a fresh application for nomination. If new evidence comes to light
or the situation materially changes all groups should be able
to re-nominate immediately. If they wish to challenge a decision,
however, including if they believe the authority has not applied
the statutory test correctly, they should be able to appeal to
an independent tribunal. We recommend that the Government
consult on (i) allowing for immediate re-nomination where new
and material information arises and (ii) the introduction of a
nominator's right to appeal against a local authority's decision
not to list an asset as an ACV.
27. CAMRA highlighted what it saw as a "loophole"
in the legislation. It said that ACV status could be ignored if
an asset was sold as a 'going concern' "even if the buyer
is clearly a developer with no intention of retaining the pub".
Locality called for owners using such practices to have to prove
their sale was excluded from the moratorium process.
The Minister, Stephen Williams MP, said such examples were "very
helpful" and added, "as people test the legislation
to its limits, we will have to consider whether either a Localism
Act mark 2 or power by regulation will need to be taken up in
28. We recommend that the Government, as part
of its review of Community Rights later in 2015, bring forward
proposals to close the loophole in the current legislation which
allows an Asset of Community Value to be sold as a going concern
when the buyer has no intention of retaining it in its current
NATURE OF SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITIES
29. Communities have other means than the Community
Right to Bid of taking over local assets, and as part of this
inquiry we were urged to reflect on how to support them. In 2007
the then Government set up an Asset Transfer Unit to support the
process of Community Asset Transfer. Under this, public bodies
can voluntarily hand over the ownership and management of their
land and buildings to local communities at less than full market
value. The National
Association for Voluntary and Community Action said that, since
the passing of the Localism Act in 2011, local authorities had
been forced to make considerable budget cuts and, as a result,
many assets were being "thrown at the voluntary sector in
desperation by local authorities". It felt the focus on helping
local communities take over ACVs, such as pubs, was no longer
right; community organisations needed support to understand whether
the asset they were being offered was a community asset "or
really a community liability". In particular they required
support "to build up local expertise in running sustainable
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has made similar points, concluding
that community groups taking on assets need good business plans,
support and an awareness of the asset's maintenance and running
30. Locality explained that help for communities
to take over ACVs, specifically, was still required: the Right
to Bid was a welcome tool in areas with high land values, where
discounted asset transfer was unlikely, and in relation to private
assets. The Plunkett
Foundation also noted that the assets it dealt with, in small
rural communities, were either community or privately owned.
Locality drew our attention to the pre-planning, feasibility and
business planning support that was already a "key part"
of its Community Rights contract.
Seb Elsworth, from SIB, which awards grants to community groups,
said its pre-feasibility and feasibility grants were similarly
focused on developing business acumen at an early stage.
He added that investing a "modest grant" in community
groups to help them figure out whether they were taking on a liability
was "a good part of the process".
31. In terms of support after acquisition, Tony Armstrong
from Locality drew attention to its "lifeboat fund",
for members struggling to manage their assets. He added that Locality
used to manage the Asset Transfer Unit, which provided similar
"ongoing support", and he "strongly" recommended
that any new Government money should support "that kind of
asset management and transfer".
DCLG has agreed a £15.2 million package of funding for community
rights in 2015-16.
32. Communities will continue to require support
as they seek to acquire Assets of Community Value from community
and private owners, and from public bodies in areas of high land
value. But public bodies facing spending reductions, or those
in areas with lower land values, may look voluntarily to transfer
more public assets to local people. If more community groups are
offered assets, more support may be required to ensure they have
sound business plans in place and are aware of the costs of running
the asset. If, as a result of that process, the group decides
it is not equipped or the asset is in fact a liability, the time
and money should not be considered wasted; it may in fact prevent
waste. Resources should be directed at preparation for transfer
and prevention of problems, but there may also be a case for setting
aside a small amount as a safety net for groups struggling to
maintain community assets. We recommend that Government consider
whether a greater proportion of overall funding to support Community
Rights be directed to ensure local people are adequately prepared
to take on the public assets they are offered.
7 Cited in Assets of Community Value, Standard
Note, SN0636, House of Commons Library, August 2013, p 3 Back
Assets of Community Value, Standard Note, SN0636, House
of Commons Library, August 2013, p 3. A number of community organisations
can nominate land and buildings for inclusion on the list: parish
councils, neighbourhood forums (as defined in Neighbourhood Planning
regulations), unconstituted community groups of at least 21 members,
not-for-private-profit organisations (e.g. charities). Back
To qualify as an asset of community value the asset must have
a connection with the wellbeing of the local community or have
done so in the recent past. Domestic property cannot be listed,
and owners have the right of appeal against their property's listing. Back
If there is no expression of interest, the owner can sell at the
end of the six-week window. Back
Assets of Community Value, Standard Note, SN0636, House
of Commons Library, August 2013, p 4 Back
Locality (CRS 040), para 3.2 Back
North Norfolk District Council (CRS 028), para 2.5; The Plunkett
Foundation, (CRS 011), para 12 Back
Department for Communities and Local Government, (CRS 046), p
1. We discuss in the final chapter the need for improved data
collection by the Government. Back
We examine and comment on the lack of adequate data on the use
of Community Rights in chapter 6. Back
Summary table of results supplied by Simon Danczuk MP. Back
Civic Voice (CRS 026), paras 14, 15 Back
CAMRA (CRS 006), para 3.1. DCLG provided CAMRA with these figures,
based on 1,268 identified ACVs in June 2014. Since then CAMRA
has identified more listed pubs. Back
Change in use of a building from a use falling in class A4 (drinking
establishments) to class A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional
services) and A3 (restaurants and cafes) can take place without
planning permission under permitted development rights. See The
Planning Inspectorate, Planning Portal: 'Change of Use',
accessed 15 December 2014. Back
The Plunkett Foundation (CRS 011), paras 21.3, 29.1, 29.2; see
also CAMRA, (CRS 006), para 5.7. Back
CAMRA (CRS 006), para 5.10-5.12 Back
The Plunkett Foundation (CRS 011), paras 13, 16. There have been
circumstances in which planning permission has been refused due
to ACV listing. We refer to these at paragraph 21. Back
HC Deb, 7 April 2014, col 11 Back
HC Deb, 21 May 2013, col 1208. See also Q95 [Ghislaine Trehearne]. Back
Department for Communities and Local Government, (CRS 046), p
1, and CAMRA, (CRS 006), para 3.3. UK pub figures, see British
Beer and Pub Association, 'Statistics',
accessed 15 December 2014. The Right to Bid and ACV scheme extend
only to England. Figures for number of pubs in England not available.
See paragraph 13. Back
RPS Planning, Research into the use of Article 4 Directions on behalf of the English Historic Towns Forum,
October 2008, para 3.21 Back
Q8 Local authorities are liable for up to £20,000 per year
in compensation payments. The Government meets any liabilities
exceeding this amount. Owners may claim for loss or expense which
they would not have incurred if the asset had not been listed,
and for loss resulting from a delay in sale caused by the moratorium. Back
Sections 107 and 108 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
deal with the obligation on the local planning authority to pay
compensation following the making of an Article 4 Direction. The
Town and Country Planning (Compensation) (No. 3) (England) Regulations
2010 (SI 2010/2135) state a local planning authority can avoid
the need to pay compensation by giving twelve months advance warning
that an Article 4 is to be issued. Back
HC Deb, 16 January 2014, col 614W Back
RPS Planning, Research into the use of Article 4 Directions on behalf of the English Historic Towns Forum,
October 2008, para 3.21 (car boot sales and Sunday markets); Barry
Denyer-Green, Compulsory Purchase and Compensation, (Taylor
and Francis, 2013), p 351 (motor racing). Back
Department for Communities and Local Government, Community Right to Bid: non-statutory advice note for local authorities,
para 2.20 Back
Civic Voice (CRS 026), paras 44, 45 Back
British Property Federation (CRS 031), paras 17,18 Back
"Developers need not fear community listing", Planning,
25 February 2014. An application to turn The Bittern pub in the
Southampton, Itchen constituency of the Rt Hon. John Denham MP
into a drive-through McDonald's was refused. An application to
build on the site of The Porcupine pub (once demolished) in the
Bromley and Chislehurst constituency of Robert Neill MP was also
Action with Communities in Rural England, (CRS 017), para 2.4.
See also Q110 [Barney Mynott]. Back
The Plunkett Foundation (CRS 011), paras 29.4 Back
Qq162, 163. Tony Armstrong of Locality said, "We would go
for 12 months, but nine months would be more helpful (than six)".
Locality (CRS 040), para 3.4 Back
Q15 [Janice Banks] Back
Department for Communities and Local Government (CRS 039), p 6 Back
British Property Federation (CRS 031), para 23; Q101 Back
Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2421),
Regulation 14. Local authorities are liable for up to £20,000
per year in compensation payments. The Government will meet any
liabilities exceeding this amount. Back
Q15 [Dr Freddie Gick] Back
See for example Locality (CRS 040), para 5.1 and CAMRA, (CRS 006),
para 7.1 Back
See for example Qq55-62, and Qq102-109. Back
The Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2421),
Regulations 10 and 11 Back
The Theatres Trust (CRS 029), paras 18, 20 Back
See for example Barnet Borough Council, Community Right to Bid - the council's process,
para 7; and Royal Borough of Maidenhead and Windsor, Register of Assets of Community Value,
accessed 7 January 2015. Both state that groups cannot re-nominate
until five years after the unsuccessful nomination. Back
CAMRA (CRS 006), para 7.1. A local authority determines whether
an asset is an Asset of Community Value against definitions in
section 88 of the Localism Act 2011. Under the statutory test,
councils must satisfy themselves that: the asset is of community
value; the building has been used as a community asset in the
recent past; and there is a realistic prospect that the building
will be used as a community asset in the next five years. Back
CAMRA (CRS 006), para 6.4 Back
Civic Voice (CRS 026), para 36; see also Joint Scrutiny Committee
of Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils (CRS 012), para 4.2. Back
CAMRA (CRS 006), para 5.5 Back
Locality (CRS 040), para 3.4 Back
My Community Rights, 'Understanding Asset Transfer',
accessed 10 December 2014 Back
NAVCA (CRS 027), p 3 Back
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Community organisations controlling assets: a better understanding,
(summary) June 2011 Back
Locality (CRS 040), para 3.5; in small rural communities the majority
of community assets are either owned by the community, such as
village halls, or privately owned, such as shops and pubs, according
to the Plunkett Foundation. Back
Department for Communities and Local Government (CRS 039), p 6