The Assets of Community Value (“ACV”) regime was introduced to give communities an opportunity to protect land and buildings that support local and social wellbeing.
Typically, such purposes might include cultural, recreational and sporting interests. The use must provide for future viability over a nominal five-year period.
Examples of ACV designated assets might comprise village halls, community centres, sports grounds or ‘green amenity’.
In practice, the designation commences with a nomination from a voluntary or community organisation, made to the Local Authority who then consider, evaluate, validate (or not) and issue a decision. The process is governed by the 2012 ACV Regulations.
Originally prescribed by section 88 of the Localism Act 2011 (and later modified by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026), an asset may qualify where its current – or recent – use furthers the social interests or social wellbeing of the local community and it is realistic to think that such use could continue or resume within the next five years. The designation can apply to privately owned land and can be applied retrospectively.
The recent case of Hill v South Cambridgeshire District Council tells us more about contested qualifying criteria and the wide scope afforded to “community use”.
The subject property was a relatively small parcel of land adjacent to a residential estate. The land comprised two distinct areas: a hard-surfaced public footpath and an adjoining grass area.
The latter contained four substantial trees and shrubs and had historically been laid out for planting and access to former oil-storage tanks serving the surrounding 1970s housing development.
Daniel and Louise Hill purchased the land at auction in October 2023. It is reported that the Hills were property investors and had held an intention to develop the land, although no formal Planning Application was ever submitted.
Haslingfield Parish Council had itself made unsuccessful attempts to acquire it, both before and at the auction, and subsequently entered into unsuccessful negotiations with the Hills.
A previous proposal to build a detached house and garage on the grassed area had been refused planning permission on appeal in 2003.
On 20 October 2023, shortly after the Hills’ purchase, the Parish Council nominated the land as an ACV. South Cambridgeshire District Council accepted the nomination and listed it as an ACV on 12 December 2023.
At around the same period, the Hills are reported to have removed the trees (October 2023) and fenced in the grassed area (approximately December 2023 or January 2024).
The alleged qualifying community use related principally to residents’ informal recreational and social use of the grassed area, rather than the footpath, whose listing was not disputed.
The Hills challenged the ACV listing at Tribunal, arguing principally that the evidence did not demonstrate a sufficiently recent, non-ancillary community use or a realistic prospect of such use occurring within five years.
The Tribunal’s reasoning can be summarised as follows:
- There was an actual community use
The evidence showed that local residents had used the grassed area for informal recreation and community activities. This included children playing, social interaction and its use in connection with local events, including a scarecrow celebration. Although some of the material was hearsay or photographic evidence, the Tribunal was entitled to consider it and was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that actual community use had occurred.
- The use furthered social wellbeing or social interests
The informal and recreational character of the use was capable of furthering the social wellbeing and recreational interests of the local community. Section 88(6) expressly provides that “social interests” include recreational interests. The legislation did not require organised activities, formal public facilities or particularly intensive use.
- The community use was not merely ancillary
The residents’ use of the grassed area was a use of the land in its own right. It was not simply incidental to some separate principal use of the site. The fact that the land also included a footpath did not reduce the recreational use of the grassed area to an ancillary use.
- The use occurred in the “recent past”
The Localism Act does not define “recent past” by reference to a fixed period. The Tribunal treated this as a fact-sensitive assessment. The evidence of use before the trees were removed and the land was fenced was sufficiently recent for section 88(2)(a), notwithstanding that access had subsequently been restricted.
- Future community use within five years was realistic
The Tribunal also accepted that a non-ancillary community use within the following five years was a realistic possibility. Relevant matters included:
- the land’s established history of informal community use;
- its physical suitability for such use;
- the Parish Council’s demonstrated interest in acquiring it;
- the previous refusal of planning permission for a house and garage; and
- the possibility that the fencing could be removed or access restored.
The statutory test was whether future community use was realistic, not whether it was probable or certain. The owners’ fencing of the land and apparent wish to exercise private control, therefore, did not conclusively prevent the Council from finding that community use could resume.
Lessons and Takeaways
ACV designation can apply to residential, commercial and agricultural land – as well as village greens and “unowned” areas. It has no limitation on its scope of application. One of the most common applications of the regime is for derelict and abandoned public houses (and gardens).
An ACV assessment is necessarily fact-sensitive: historic use, present circumstances, planning constraints, the owner’s intentions and the practical viability of future uses may all be relevant. Reasoning and evidence are crucial factors.
A future community use need not be certain, but it must be more than speculative. This reflects the broader approach in Banner Homes Ltd v St Albans City and District Council [2018] EWCA Civ 1187, where the Court of Appeal confirmed that “realistic” does not mean probable.
The wider lesson is that ACV status is neither a planning designation nor a guarantee that the community will acquire the asset. However, it can in practice serve as a detriment to land value, utilisation and development.
It is, at one end, a means to protect and preserve community enjoyment of land. And at the other periphery, it is a dilution of speculative development commercialisation. Quite often, the subject matter falls within the broad scope of the two extremes.
The headlines for lawyers are ones of “knowledge” and “certainty”. It is important for communities to proactively seek designation. And it is imperative for buyers, or investors, to make diligent enquiries – not only as to formal designation, but also as to past use.
At Dyne Solicitors, we have a Team of experts who specialisise in Property and Regulatory Disputes.