What is an asset of community value (ACV) and what is it for? ACVs were created under part 5 (Community empowerment) of the Localism Act 2011. By the act, specified local authorities must maintain a list of nominated ACVs furthering the social wellbeing or interests of the local community, following nominations from parish councils or local community groups.
Assets currently remain on the list for five years. When listed assets come up for sale or change ownership, local groups are then given time to put together proposals and raise funds in order to bid to purchase the asset when it is marketed. While currently a right to bid, not a right to buy, under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (when commenced), ‘right to bid’ will become ‘right to buy’ and the listing period will double from five to 10 years.
As to what an ACV is, section 88(1) of the 2011 act (land of community value) provides that: ‘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 furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community, and (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’ (emphasis added). Famous examples of ACVs include the Ivy House Pub in south-east London; Manchester United’s ‘Theatre of Dreams’ at Old Trafford; Blencathra (the Lake District mountain, pictured); and the cold war control tower at the former Greenham Common RAF Base.
On 16 July 2026, Judge Harris in the UK First-tier Tribunal took a good look at an ACV in Valiant Pub Company Ltd v Newcastle City Council [2026] UKFTT 683 (GRC). This was an appeal concerning the decision of Newcastle City Council (the council), (confirmed on review), to include the Keelman pub, restaurant, hotel and brewery (the Keelman) on its ACVs list under the 2011 act. The appeal was brought by the freehold owner of the land comprising the Keelman under regulation 11 of The Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 SI 2012/2421 (the Regulations), which enables an owner of listed land to appeal to the tribunal against the local authority’s decision on a listing review in respect of the land.
The appellant’s grounds of appeal included that: the council had misapplied the community value test in section 88(1) of the 2011 act since ordinary social and recreational services do not alone justify listing as an ACV; and that the ACV listing is ‘pure bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake. It burdens a thriving local employer, wastes taxpayer money and undermines confidence in public decision-making’ and is thus a misallocation of public resources. Moreover, the ACV regime is not ‘intended to designate large mixed-use destination hospitality venues solely because they are popular’.
Judge Harris said that the key issue to be decided by the tribunal is whether or not the statutory test under section 88(1) is satisfied. Specifically, the tribunal must decide: (a) whether there is a current non-ancillary use of the Keelman that furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community; and (b) whether it is realistic to think that there can continue to be non-ancillary use of the Keelman which will further (whether or not in the same way) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community. He said that the tribunal’s approach was to consider the decision afresh and whether the council should have decided the matter differently. Appropriate weight is to be attached to the views of the council as the body with institutional competence and relevant expertise in making such decisions.
The tribunal consequently found (among other things) that the wording in section 88(1) referring to a ‘local community’, ‘does not only include those living in the vicinity of the premises, but can also extend to those groups who have a sufficiently proximate connection to the premises in question’. And this could ‘include the football team sponsored by the Keelman, or groups of walkers who use the Keelman for refreshment when walking Hadrian’s Wall’. The judge noted that section 88(1) provides that the test must be met ‘in the opinion of the authority’. And the ‘opinion of the council, which is the relevant authority here for the purposes of the statute, is that it does meet the required threshold of there being actual current use of the building or other land that is not an ancillary use [and] furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community’. So, giving ‘appropriate weight to the council’s opinion as the relevant authority’, the tribunal found that activities occurring at the Keelman, which is well used by several sectors of the local community, were sufficient to meet the test in section 88(1)(a).
As to the second part of the test in section 88(1)(b) (see above), it is the council’s opinion and not that of a potential ACV owner which must be taken into account when determining whether the test is met. Since the evidence showed that there were no plans to close, sell or change use of the premises, the section 88(1)(b) test was met. The tribunal therefore found that the council’s decision to list the Keelman as an ACV was correct and confirmed its decision.
Nicholas Dobson writes on local government, public law and governance
No comments yet