B E S T O F T H E B LO G S
O Opinion
1
Juliette Bradbury is an associate in the Planning Team at Gateley LLP. She has experience of advising on all types of development schemes and planning law.
Assets of Community Value were introduc introduced by the Localism Act 2011; regulations were made to bring the subject into force and it commenced in September 2012. The policy was formulated on the basis that communities were losing local amenities and buildings of importance to them, from local pubs and shops to village halls and community centres. Now a local authority can list an asset of community value if the current use furthers the wellbeing or interests of the local community. This is widely defined. The owner of an asset proposed for listing may resist the application. If the asset is subsequently listed, the owner can ask the council to review its decision, and if that is unsuccessful, appeal to the First Tier Tribunal for further review. If an asset is listed, the owner faces two problems. Firstly, they cannot dispose of it unless they have notified the council. The community group can then say within six weeks that they wish to be treated as a bidder; then follows a period of six months for them to sort out make a bid for the asset. The owner has to wait for up to six months before being able to sell. Secondly, listing means the planning authority can decide that it is a material consideration when determining a planning application. Since September
Andrew Piatt is a partner and head of the planning team at Gateley LLP. He is an experienced public inquiry advocate.
Planning: The movie?
Assets of Community Value – a kick too far?
2012 quite a few local authorities have registered assets following public nominations for amenities such as pubs, shops, village halls, museums, community centres, allotments, churches and playing fields. There are concerns that the listing scheme can be used by objectors to delay development and to cause problems to the owner. In April, Manchester United supporters applied to list Old Trafford as an asset. Listing would stop the club selling the ground or moving to another stadium, and had major financial implications to a club with an estimated debt of £370million. When it was announced on 1 August that Old Trafford had been listed, the supporters encouraged fans at other clubs to take action, too. Listing a premier league club stadium can trigger fluctuations in share prices. It is most unlikely that the local community could ever get funding of several millions of pounds to buy the stadium. Was the listing of a major football ground within the spirit and guidance of assets of community value? Probably not. But the reaction of Eric Pickles would suggest otherwise as he said he was “delighted” with the decision which ensured that “even a global iconic institution like Manchester United will remain rooted in the community in which it was founded”.
"THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT THE LISTING SCHEME CAN BE USED BY OBJECTORS TO DELAY DEVELOPMENT"
18
2 BLOG
BLOG
Birds do it. MPs do it. Now Mr Pickles wants everyone to be doing it. Tweeters, bloggers, Facebook and YouTube users should be able to report live from the town hall on the decisions being made by elected representatives and officers. New regulations came into force a year ago, stating that councils should offer reasonable facilities to anyone reporting meetings “so far as practicable”. These are public meetings; councillors and staff should be held to account for what they are doing with maximum transparency. Not all councils find this new way of reporting practicable, refusing to let their meetings be filmed or preventing the use of Twitter. One council banned journalists from tweeting during meetings as they perceived a risk that they were “not accurately portraying a debate”; another barred filming due to the risk of “reputational damage to the authority”. Yet another cited health and safety issues. In June, new guidance encouraged councils to consider a policy on filming. It recommends that those wanting to film should liaise with council staff before the meeting, and that those who do not want to be filmed should not be filmed. In August, Mr Pickles announced pending guidance to allow planning appeal hearings to be filmed, tweeted and
reported. Not good news for anyone who has ever had a bad hair day. But, as Mr Pickles expressively and succinctly put it, “an independent local press and robust public scrutiny is essential for a healthy local democracy: without the sunlight of transparency, the flowering of localism will wither.” We are used to camera crews at major appeals but only on day one and before proceedings start: after 10am, silence. Does boredom set in? The DCLG says what happens thereafter is a mysterious and rarely seen side of the planning process. If the press can be there all the time, they might want to film cross examination or local residents having their say. Any such filming should not distract from proceedings. The other type of filming would be by the public using cameras or camera phones. It would not work if they were getting up and walking round the room. The guidance needs to be firm, and ban the use of flash. A major concern is that filming will result in comments taken out of context so as to not accurately portray what was happening. A greater concern is whether filming will impact upon process by allowing transcription of oral evidence at appeals, and whether such transcriptions are allowed as evidence in applications to the court to challenge a decision.
"ONE COUNCIL BANNED JOURNALISTS FROM TWEETING DURING MEETINGS"
THE PLANNER \ OCTOBER 2013
p18_19_opinion.indd 18
30/09/2013 12:05