The current assets of community value regime was introduced by sections 81 to 108 of the Localism Act 2011. If you don’t have the now quite out of date book Localism and Planning gathering dust on your bookshelf, which my Town Legal colleague Duncan Field and I wrote in 2012, with assistance from various colleagues present (Meeta Kaur and Juliet Munn) and past, there is a useful summary in this House of Commons library research briefing.
I commented on some aspects of the regime in my 11 July 2018 blog post 2 ACV Disputes .
Beware, the regime is about to have sharper teeth, by way of provisions in the English Devolution And Community Empowerment Bill (see my 11 July 2025 blog post A Bluffer’s Guide To The English Devolution And Community Empowerment Bill).
As introduced on 10 July 2025, what was Schedule 27 (now Schedule 29) of the Bill introduces the separate category of “sporting assets of community value”, providing enhanced protection for sports grounds and their supporting facilities. To quote from the explanatory notes to the Bill: “The amendments in this clause provide for the automatic and indefinite listing of sporting assets of community value. This Schedule also broadens the scope of what can be included within a listing, allowing assets that support the functioning of a sports ground, such as car parks, to be indefinitely listed as assets of community value.” In contrast to the five years’ period for listing of a asset of community value under the current legislation, after which the listing is to be reviewed, in some circumstances the listing of a sporting asset of community interest will have permanent effect.
There are other changes but the most important is to give community groups greater influence where they make a bid to acquire an asset of community value once its intended disposal is publicised (you will recall that there is an initial six weeks’ moratorium period to give groups a chance to make a bid which is extended to six months if any groups indicate that they wish to bid). Rather than, as currently, the landowner being free to decline any bid made, the Bill “introduces a ‘right of first refusal’ for community groups, who will have the first option of purchasing an asset of community value that is put up for sale. This new section also sets out the circumstances in which an asset owner is able to sell an asset that is listed as an asset of community value to a buyer that is not a community buyer.” The Bill provides a process for determining the “price negotiation between the asset owner and the community group and the role of the local authority in relation to this negotiation process” including a meeting as soon as possible between the asset group and the community buyer and for an independent valuation process if the community buyer and asset owner do not agree on a price for the asset within an eight week negotiation period. Rather than the owner being free to sell the asset on the open market if they wish, the “new provision will mean that, where an owner and the community buyer are not able to agree a purchase price for the asset during the negotiation period, there is an independent valuation process to ensure a fair price is obtained for both parties. This will be based on market value and carried out by an authorised valuation officer from District Valuer Services, unless there are circumstances which mean it is not realistic for the local authority to make this appointment. The community buyer will need to meet this price in order to purchase the asset.”
The six months’ moratorium period is extended to 12 months with “a new provision whereby the owner of the asset can request that the local authority reviews the progress made by the community buyer at the six-month point of the process, with the ability to terminate the process if adequate progress is not demonstrated. This will protect the rights of owners where the community buyer has no realistic prospect of purchasing the asset.”
This clearly gives additional power to community groups in the process and creates additional jeopardy for landowners.
But that power/jeopardy is now proposed to be further increased, by way of amendments that the government has made to the Bill, referred to in an MHCLG 18 March 2026 press statement New amendments will create safer streets, champion culture, and strengthen local accountability under the English Devolution Bill:
“Communities will have far longer to save the pubs, parks, libraries and local spaces that matter most to them, with the Community Right to Buy listing period doubling from five to 10 years.”
The Bill completed the Lords Committee Stage on 5 March 2026. The Lords Report Stage runs from 24 March to 13 April 2026.
The changes to the ACV process have had surprisingly little publicity to date. I think we need to catch up. Will this strengthening of the assets of community value process have unanticipated consequences? I suspect that they will. Landowners should be even more aware of uses on their land which may give rise to the future risk of ACV listing and/or they will need to plan for the possible consequences. Might the fear of listing mean that owners are more reluctant to introduce “meanwhile” uses pending redevelopment? Indeed someone suggested to me this week that perhaps there should be a process whereby some form of immunity from listing might be sought in order to enable temporary uses to be introduced without giving rise to the risk that longer term redevelopment plans may be prejudiced?
If nothing else, this regime is going to become significantly more complicated and, from time to time, more adversarial. Is now really the right time to make these changes?
Simon Ricketts, 22 March 2026
Personal views, et cetera
SIMONICITY 