Introduction

The case Gullivers Bowls Club Ltd v. Rother District Council ([2014] UKFTT CR_2013_0009 (GRC)) represents a pivotal judgment concerning the interpretation of the Localism Act 2011 regarding community asset listings. This case revolved around the inclusion of the Gullivers Bowls Club site in Bexhill-on-Sea on Rother District Council's list of community assets—a decision contested by the club's owners. The principal issues addressed were the criteria for listing the entire site versus parts of it and the future viability of the community use. The parties involved included Gullivers Bowls Club Ltd as the appellant, Rother District Council as the respondent, and the Cantaloupe Community Association as the second respondent.

Summary of the Judgment

The First-Tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal by Gullivers Bowls Club Ltd, upholding Rother District Council's decision to list the entire site as a community asset under the Localism Act 2011. The judge, NJ Warren, determined that the overall use of the site contributed to the social wellbeing of the local community, despite certain portions being underutilized. The judgment emphasized that the listing process considers the site in its entirety rather than segregating parts based on current usage. Additionally, the tribunal rejected the notion that commercial viability is a requisite for maintaining the community value status, focusing instead on the present and potential social benefits.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

While the judgment does not explicitly reference prior case law, it implicitly engages with established principles regarding community asset listings and the interpretation of statutory criteria under the Localism Act 2011. The judge noted the concept of a "planning unit" from planning law, highlighting its relevance and the caution against directly applying it to community asset evaluations. This indirect reference underscores the tribunal's reliance on statutory interpretation over judicial precedents typically associated with planning disputes.

Legal Reasoning

The crux of the tribunal's reasoning lay in interpreting Section 88(1) of the Localism Act 2011, which defines the criteria for an asset to be of community value. The judge focused on two conditions:

• Present Use: The site must currently further the social wellbeing or interests of the community.
• Future Use: There must be a realistic prospect of continued non-ancillary use that benefits the community.

Mr. Cameron, representing Gullivers, argued that since 37% of the site was not actively used, the entire site should not qualify for listing. However, the judge rejected this, emphasizing that community assets can encompass areas with ancillary or intermittent use without undermining the overall community value. Regarding the future condition, the tribunal dismissed the necessity of projecting long-term viability, focusing instead on the current sustainability and community engagement, as evidenced by stable membership and ongoing operations.

Additionally, the tribunal addressed the potential for future development and partnership schemes, indicating openness to innovative solutions that preserve community use even if parts of the site are redeveloped. This balanced approach reflects a pragmatic interpretation of the statute, prioritizing community interests while recognizing practical limitations.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent for how local authorities and tribunals assess community asset listings. By affirming a holistic approach, it clarifies that partial underuse does not negate the community value of a site. This decision empowers local councils to protect community assets comprehensively, ensuring that multifaceted uses contributing to social wellbeing are recognized even if certain components are not fully utilized. Future cases may reference this judgment to support inclusive evaluations of community assets, fostering a broader understanding of what constitutes community benefit.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Community Asset Listing

Under the Localism Act 2011, a community asset listing identifies buildings or land retained for community use. Once listed, owners must notify the local authority before selling, allowing community groups an opportunity to bid.

Moratorium Period

The moratorium is a six-month period during which the sale of a listed asset is paused, giving community groups time to propose alternative uses or purchase the asset.

Ancillary Use

An ancillary use refers to a secondary or supplementary use that supports the main function of the asset but is not the primary activity.

Non-Ancillary Use

Contrarily, a non-ancillary use is the primary or main activity that defines the asset’s role in serving community interests.

Conclusion

The judgment in Gullivers Bowls Club Ltd v. Rother District Council underscores the importance of a comprehensive evaluation of sites for community asset listings. By endorsing a holistic approach, the tribunal ensures that entire sites contributing to community wellbeing are protected, even if portions are underutilized. This decision reinforces the protective framework established by the Localism Act 2011, promoting sustained community engagement and preserving spaces vital to social interests. Legal professionals and local authorities can draw on this precedent to advocate for and implement inclusive community asset strategies, thereby fostering resilient and vibrant community infrastructures.