Brian Newton v Derbyshire Dales District Council & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 435 (GRC)
Swinton Park Golf and Country Club 2017 Limited v Salford City Council
21 March 2023
[2023] UKFTT 514 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A golf club closed, and the council wanted to keep the land for the community. Even though the new owners want to build houses, the judge decided there's a real chance the land could be used for community purposes in the next few years, so the council's decision to protect it was upheld.
Key Facts
- •Swinton Park Golf and Country Club (appellant) appealed Salford City Council's (respondent) decision to list its 97-acre land as an Asset of Community Value (ACV).
- •The golf course and clubhouse closed in September 2020.
- •A restrictive covenant on approximately 23% of the land restricts its use to a golf course.
- •Wain Estates acquired the appellant in April 2021 and intends to develop the land residentially.
- •The land was initially listed as an ACV in November 2019.
Legal Principles
A building or other land is considered land of community value if (a) there was a time in the recent past when its actual use (not ancillary) furthered the local community's social wellbeing or interests; and (b) it's realistic to think there could be a non-ancillary use within the next five years that further (whether in the same way or not) the community's wellbeing or interests.
Localism Act 2011
The owner's intention is a relevant factor but not determinative in assessing the realistic prospect of future qualifying use.
High Court Direction (referenced in the judgement)
'Realistic' means having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected.
Tribunal interpretation
The test for future use under s.88(2)(b) requires a possibility that is not fanciful, not that a future use is probable or likely.
Tribunal interpretation
For a use to be considered 'non-ancillary', it must not be merely supportive or serve a primary purpose, such as residential housing when considering green space.
Tribunal interpretation
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the conditions of s. 88(2)(a) and (b) of the Localism Act 2011 were satisfied. There was past community use and several realistic possibilities for future community use within the next five years, despite the appellant's intention to develop the land residentially. These possibilities included a lifestyle purchaser acquiring the land for community use or the inclusion of community spaces in any potential residential development.
Similar Cases
Pavillion (Watford) Limited v Three Rivers District Council
[2024] UKFTT 443 (GRC)
Dragonfly Architectural Services Limited v Brighton & Hove City Council
[2023] UKFTT 946 (GRC)
Andrew Tarling v Somerset Council & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 442 (GRC)
Tavern Group Properties Limited v South Kesteven District Council
[2024] UKFTT 146 (GRC)