Gorstyhill Golf Club Exclusion from Community Asset Listing: Comprehensive Legal Analysis

Introduction

The case of Haddon Property Development Ltd v. Cheshire East Council & Anor ([2016] UKFTT CR-2015-0017 (GRC)) brought before the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) addressed significant questions regarding the application of the Localism Act 2011 in determining whether specific land assets qualify as being of community value. The appellant, Haddon Property Development Ltd, contested the inclusion of the Gorstyhill Golf Club in the list of community assets maintained by Cheshire East Council. This comprehensive commentary explores the background, key legal issues, judicial reasoning, and the broader implications of the Tribunal's decision.

Summary of the Judgment

The First-tier Tribunal examined whether the Gorstyhill Golf Club met the criteria under Section 88(2) of the Localism Act 2011 to be considered land of community value. While acknowledging that the golf club had previously served the local community by providing recreational facilities and acting as a social hub, the Tribunal found several factors undermining its inclusion as a community asset. The temporary planning permission for the clubhouse expired without transition to a permanent structure, casting doubt on the club's future utility and sustainability. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to exclude the Gorstyhill Golf Club from the list of community assets, allowing the appellant's appeal to succeed in this aspect.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Tribunal referred to previous cases such as Trouth v Shropshire Council and Caynham Village Hall Committee (CR/2015/0002) to emphasize that mere common ownership of multiple land parcels does not automatically justify their combined listing as community assets. These precedents established that functional distinctions between separate land units must be recognized, supporting the Tribunal's approach in differentiating between the Gorstyhill Golf Club and the adjacent Country Park.

Legal Reasoning

The Tribunal applied a two-fold analysis based on Section 88(2) of the Localism Act 2011:

The Past (Section 88(2)(a)): The Tribunal acknowledged that the golf club had historically furthered the social wellbeing of the local community through recreational use and the clubhouse as a social venue. Despite a predominantly older and male membership, the Tribunal concluded that this did not negate its community value.
The Future (Section 88(2)(b)): The critical focus was on the feasibility of maintaining a non-ancillary use that benefits the community within the next five years. The expiration of the clubhouse's temporary planning permission without a viable plan for permanent accommodation led the Tribunal to question the realization of continued community benefits. The absence of concrete plans or evidence supporting the restoration or sustainable use of the clubhouse significantly influenced the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal meticulously evaluated the evidence presented, particularly highlighting the precarious future of the clubhouse and the lack of a robust, actionable plan to ensure its ongoing role in enhancing community wellbeing. The reliance on potential but unsubstantiated funding sources (e.g., grants or lottery funding) further weakened the respondents' case.

Impact

This judgment sets a precedent emphasizing the importance of not only the historical contribution of a property to community wellbeing but also the necessity of a sustainable future plan to maintain such status. Local authorities must now ensure that listed community assets have clear, actionable plans that guarantee their continued benefit to the community. Additionally, property owners seeking to challenge such listings must demonstrate concrete obstacles to the sustained community value of the asset.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 88 of the Localism Act 2011

This section outlines the criteria for a property to be considered of community value. It includes both current and potential future uses that enhance social wellbeing or interests of the local community.

Community Interest Group (CIG)

A group that has the opportunity to bid for a community asset when it's listed for sale. They can delay the sale to develop a community-led proposal.

Moratorium

The six-month period during which a community interest group can propose an alternative plan for a community asset, halting the sale process temporarily.

Conclusion

The Tribunal's decision in Haddon Property Development Ltd v. Cheshire East Council & Anor underscores the necessity for local authorities to evaluate not only the past contributions but also the future viability of assets when considering their listing under the Localism Act 2011. The exclusion of Gorstyhill Golf Club from the community asset list serves as a reminder that sustainable planning and clear, actionable proposals are essential to maintain the status of community-valued properties. This judgment will influence future deliberations on asset listings, ensuring that community benefits are both current and maintainable over time.