King v Chiltern District Council & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant purchased a longstanding village pub and restaurant in May 2006, which had served the local community since the nineteenth century but closed in November 2008. The property also contains living accommodation on the first floor, which remains the Appellant's residence. The local parish council nominated the pub for inclusion in the local authority's statutory list of assets of community value (ACV), and the local authority accepted this nomination in 2013. The Appellant sought a review of that decision, which was refused in 2015. The Appellant appeals against the refusal of the review. The appeal was heard in July 2016 before a tribunal judge at a Magistrates Court, with evidence from the Appellant, local authority representatives, local residents, and statements from the parish council. The tribunal considered expert valuation reports, planning history, and local community interest in the asset.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the pub is excluded from the scope of the ACV listing regime by the relevant regulations concerning residences partially used as such.
2. Whether the pub furthered the social wellbeing or interests of the local community in the recent past within the meaning of section 88(2)(a) of the Localism Act 2011.
3. Whether it is realistic to think that there could be non-ancillary use of the pub in the next five years that would further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community under section 88(2)(b) of the Localism Act 2011.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the property should not be listed as an asset of community value because it has been used as her private residence since the pub's closure in 2008.
• She relied on the fact that the local authority charges Council Tax on the property as a residence.
• The Appellant sought to change the use of the property to wholly residential, making various unsuccessful planning applications and a Certificate of Lawfulness application.

Respondents' Arguments

• The local authority and parish council argued that the pub was properly listed as an asset of community value under the Localism Act 2011.
• They emphasized the pub's historic role in furthering social wellbeing and interests of the community, including sporting clubs and social events.
• They contended that the closure and residential use did not negate the lawful use of the property as a community asset for the purposes of the regulations.
• The local authority highlighted relevant planning policies designed to protect community facilities and noted the pending enforcement related to lawful use.
• The community interest company formed to purchase and operate the pub presented evidence of strong local support and commercial viability as a community asset.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by considering whether the property was excluded from listing as an ACV under the regulations relating to residences partly used as such. It found that prior to closure in 2008, the pub was only partly used as a residence, satisfying the physical and functional relationship tests established in prior decisions. The court held that the lawful use, rather than actual use since closure, governs the exclusion analysis, thus the residential use after closure did not exclude the property from listing.

Next, the court assessed whether the pub furthered the social wellbeing or interests of the local community in the recent past. It found, based on evidence and historical operation, that the pub had indeed furthered social interests including sporting clubs and social events up to its closure in 2008. The court accepted that the statutory language was satisfied, considering the closure date as recent past relative to the 2013 listing decision.

Finally, the court considered the likelihood of the pub being used in a non-ancillary way to further community interests within the next five years. Despite the Appellant’s pending planning application and personal circumstances, the court found it realistic that the pub could be reopened as a community asset, noting strong local support, viable community interest company proposals, and the relatively low statutory threshold for this test. It rejected the view that reopening was unfeasible.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court upheld the decision to list the pub as an asset of community value. This means the listing remains in place, preserving the community’s opportunity to bid for the property should it be sold. The decision reinforces the application of the Localism Act 2011 and associated regulations in protecting community assets, particularly in cases involving mixed residential and community use properties. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case.