North Yorkshire Council
20 October 2023
Assessment of Assets of Community Value Nomination
NYCACV0020 Methodist Chapel (Ebenezer Chapel), Kirkby Malzeard
Report to the Assistant Chief Executive Local Engagement
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To determine whether Methodist Chapel (Ebenezer Chapel), Kirkby Malzeard should be placed on the Council’s List of Assets of Community Value (ACVs)
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 The nomination covers the Methodist Chapel (Ebenezer Chapel), Kirkby Malzeard. The recommendation is that the Assistant Chief Executive Local Engagement:
(i) Determines that the nomination for the Methodist Chapel (Ebenezer Chapel), Kirkby Malzeard is unsuccessful and does not meet the definition of community value as detailed in the Localism Act 2011
(ii) It should be placed on the North Yorkshire Council Assets of Community Value List of Unsuccessful Nominations
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 The Localism Act 2011 requires the Council to consider all valid nominations for properties and/or land to be placed on the List of Assets of Community Value. This is also known as the ‘community right to bid’. Land or property considered of community value can be nominated by a voluntary or community body that complies with regulation 5.
3.2 When a listed asset comes up for sale a community interest group can trigger a delay (moratorium) in any sale process. The purpose is to create a “window of opportunity” to secure funding and bid for the property on the open market. The owner is not obliged to accept a bid from a community interest group and can sell to whomever they choose.
3.3 The Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 provide a mechanism for the owner of land listed as an ACV to request an internal review and also appeal to the first-tier tribunal against the listing. Although first-tier tribunal decisions are not binding precedents any appeal decisions provide judicial guidance to the operation of the legislation. The guidance provided by these decisions is becoming increasingly useful to local authorities in the assessment of Assets of Community Value nominations.
3.4 Private owners may claim compensation from the Council for loss and expenses incurred through their property being listed. More details are provided in the 2012 Regulations.
3.5 This report ensures that the Council considers the nomination for the Methodist Chapel (Ebenezer Chapel), Kirkby Malzeard as required by the Act.
4.0 NOMINATION CONSIDERATION
a) Description of asset
4.1 Kirkby Malzeard Methodist Church is located in the village of Kirkby Malzeard on the Main Street. Information available indicates that it is now closed, and the congregation meets at St Andrews Lady Chapel on the last Sunday of the month and join with Grewelthorpe St James on the 3rd Sunday of the month.
4.2 The nomination states that the last church service was held in October 2022. The Methodist Chapel comprises the main chapel and a meeting room at the rear with a storage area, kitchen and toilets (including accessible toilets).
4.2
b) Nomination
4.3 The valid nomination to list Kirkby Malzeard Methodist Church as an Asset of Community Value was received on 29 August 2023 from Kirkby Malzeard, Laverton and Dallowgill Parish Council. A copy is attached at APPENDIX A and in accordance with the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 a decision is required by 23 October 2023.
4.4 Ownership information was also confirmed.
c) Community Value Consideration
4.5 In terms of making a decision on this matter the nomination together with any additional information received within the agreed timescale has been used to assess if the property/land listed meets the definition of community value as detailed in the Localism Act 2011. There is no current actual use of the nominated land/property as it has been closed since October 2022. The assessment process is therefore to determine if the two conditions in Section 88(2) have been met
CONDITION ONE - There is a time in the recent past when an actual use of the building or other land that was not an ancillary use furthered the social wellbeing or interests of the local community
|
1. Recent Past |
|
|
4.6 In order to be listed the nomination must demonstrate that there is a time in the recent past when an actual use of the nominated asset furthered the social wellbeing or interests of the local community. There is no statutory definition or guidance regarding the term ‘recent past’ and it is deliberately loose regarding the specific five-year timescale in the second condition. The official guidance is that ‘if there have been uses of the land for purposes such as use by the Ministry of Defence for live ammunition practice the period could be ten to twenty years. Some authorities have set their own timescales including three- or five-year periods preceding nominations. It seems clear that there is no specific period beyond which it is definite that it is not included in the ‘recent past’ and again it is for each authority to determine.
4.7 When considering the closure of public houses, periods of six years (River Arms in Cheeseborne), five years (the Kings Head in Diss) and five and a half years (the Cricketers Rest in Norwich) have been considered to be outside the recent past. There are some also examples where the recent past has been in excess of six years, in Hawthorn Leisure v Chiltern DC the Kings Head in Great Missenden had been a pub since the nineteenth century and the unchallenged evidence of the publicans from 2000 to 2007 established that during that period the pub qualified as an ACV. Judge Lane held that given the long history of the Kings Head as a pub the use during that period ending in 2007 occurred in the recent past, this period ended over seven years before the nomination. It seems clear, however, that there is no specific period beyond which it is definite that it is not included in the recent past and this will be dependent on the circumstances in each nomination.
4.8 In Crostone v Amber Valley Judge Lane stated that the assessment of recent past will depend on all the circumstances in a particular case and that “the expression is a relative concept”. He stated that in that regard the length of time the Black Swan had been a public house was relevant (the period was nearly two hundred years). The implication is that the longer the period of use furthering a community benefit the longer the period which will constitute the recent past.
4.9 In Worthy Developments v Forest of Dean DC, the judge stated that when considering ‘recent past’ it could not have been intended to import the five-year period from the future condition when Parliament had failed to set out a precise period for the condition.
4.10 There is also no equivalent consideration of ‘recent past’ in planning determination therefore no appropriate comparable evidence as part of any Planning Application decisions.
4.11 North Yorkshire Council has not determined a specific timescale to apply when considering the recent past and each nomination is assessed individually. As stated previously there is no agreed criteria for ‘recent past’ determination, however, there are a number of relevant factors that could be taken into account when determining what constitutes the recent past and these are listed below. Assessments of these factors is appropriate for the nomination for Kirkby Malzeard Methodist Church so that the facts can be established:
(1). The length of the period of community use of the nominated asset in the past
(2). The type of asset involved
(3). The nature of the community use of the nominated asset
(4). The degree of connection between the asset and the community
(5). Whether the asset has been out of use for a period prior to the nomination
(1). The length of the period of community use of the nominated asset in the past
4.12 There is no indication from the information in the nomination form about the length of time that the church has been used for any purpose other than the statement that “the Methodist Chapel in Kirkby Malzeard has been a community facility for many years alongside its use as a religious building”. Photographs of the building do, however, indicate that it was built in 1880 therefore has been used for at least 142 years.
(2). The type of asset involved - Chapel
4.13 The nominating group identify that Methodist Chapel has been used as a religious building with other community uses alongside.
4.14 The use of a building as a place of religion, such as a chapel, arguably does not fall within the scope of the uses which further “the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community”. This argument was accepted by the First Tier Tribunal in General Conference of the New Church v Bristol City Council which concerned the use of a former closed church. The Tribunal considered that in other statutory contexts religious use was expressly dealt with, but this was not so in the Act, and it was difficult to see that religious use fell within the wording. It was held that “social wellbeing and sporting interests of the community” did not encompass religious observances in a place of worship, etc. a building will therefore not fall within section 88 unless there is some other non-ancillary use made of it which satisfies the criteria.
4.15 The fact that a nominated asset is a chapel therefore does not satisfy the community use criteria and it is the consideration of a number of other factors/uses identified in the report that fulfil the assessment of community use.
(3). The nature of the community use of the nominated asset
4.16 The nomination states that when it was open the Chapel (and associated accommodation) had some uses associated with a community facility:
· The Neighbourhood Planning Group held meetings there
· The excellent lighting in the main chapel meant that the room was a popular location for art exhibitions
· Art exhibitions
· Music concerts
· Coffee mornings
· Wakes and christening teas
· Pathfinder meetings
· Toddlers’ groups
· Birthday parties
· Hobby groups
4.17 The information provides some evidence of community uses of the Methodist Chapel associated with a village community facility. These uses are considered in section 2 however there is evidence of uses associated with a community facility.
(4). The degree of connection between the asset and the community
4.18 The nomination states that the Methodist Chapel in Kirkby Malzeard has been a community facility for many years alongside its use as a religious building”
4.20 The nominating group, Kirkby Malzeard, Laverton and Dallowgill Parish Council is a very active Parish Council that is keen to support local residents’ quality of life and access to services.
4.21 The Parish Council also supports the Kirkby Malzeard, Laverton and Dallowgill (KMLD) Business and Community Group which offers networking opportunities and facilitates co-operation between local businesses. This group has contact with many local small businesses and artisans who live and work within the Parish.
4.22 Parish Councillors are also keen to make links with the nearest market town, Ripon.
(5). Whether the asset has been out of use for a period prior to the nomination
4.23 The nomination identifies that the last church service was held in October 2022 and since then has slowly wound down, with some resources being shared out to other churches in the area. At the time the nomination was submitted the chapel was not available for community groups due to insurance issues and the chairs had been removed. 2022. There is evidence of one meeting in the chapel in early November 2022.
4.24 The Methodist chapel has therefore been out of use for approximately one year.
Recent past conclusion
4.25 As stated previously there is no specific period of time beyond which it is definite that it is not included in the recent past. The implication is that the longer the period of use furthering a community benefit then the longer the period which will constitute recent past. Each nomination is considered individually, and it is the evidence/facts in each case that a local authority will consider to make its determination. There are a number of relevant factors that could be taken into account to enable the Council to reach a conclusion. These have been detailed above and the following is a summary of the conclusions from the consideration of these factors:
· It is demonstrated that the Methodist Chapel was, at least, constructed in 1880 and has therefore been used for 142 years. The nominating group has indicated that “it has been a community facility for many years alongside its use as a religious building”
· The information details some community uses of the Methodist Chapel associated with a village facility and there are examples of cultural and recreational meetings/sessions/events. There is therefore some evidence of uses of The Methodist Chapel associated with a community facility
· There is evidence provided to demonstrate some degree of connection between the asset and the community. It has been used to host various interest groups, as a venue for performance rehearsals and as a bookable room for many one-off community meetings, the Neighbourhood Planning Group also held meetings there. The nominating group, Kirkby Malzeard, Laverton and Dallowgill Parish Council is a very active Parish Council that is keen to support local residents’ quality of life and access to services.
4.26 The Methodist chapel has been out of use for approximately one year.
2. Actual use that is not an ancillary use
4.28 The term “ancillary use” is not defined in the Act, and it is left to each local authority to determine. In the context of assessment, the frequency, regularity and whether uses are still in place have been identified as factors for consideration. It was thought that this condition meant that the community use had to be the primary use of the asset, but this was dispelled by Judge Warren in Firoka (Oxford United Stadium) Limited v Oxford City Council, and the test is whether the use is significant, but does not require it to be the predominant use.
4.29 As detailed in paragraphs 4.18-4.20 the use of a building as a place of religion, such as a chapel, arguably does not fall within the scope of the uses which further “the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community”. It is therefore the consideration of other uses identified in the nomination that is relevant to the criteria for actual use that is not ancillary use.
4.30 Evidence of actual use is detailed at paragraphs 4.21 these are identified between the meeting room and the chapel itself:
- Main Chapel/Meeting Room
· Art exhibitions
· Regular coffee mornings
· Wakes and Christening teas
· Bookable meeting rooms for general community use
· Music concerts
· Choir rehearsals
- Meeting Room
· Pathfinder meetings
· Toddler groups
· Children’s birthday parties
· Pantomime rehearsals
· Hobby groups e.g., sewing group
4.31 In addition to the above the nomination also states that the Neighbourhood Planning Group held meetings there and the excellent lighting in the main chapel meant that the room was a popular location for art exhibitions.
4.32 The information provided does not detail the frequency of use or numbers of users and also only identifies uses for the Chapel with the meeting room. Some of the uses identified are annual events such as Pantomime rehearsals and life events such as birthday parties. There are also uses listed (for the chapel/meeting room) that are consistent with religious uses such as choir rehearsals and wakes and christening teas and therefore could be considered ancillary to religious use.
4.33 It is assumed from the nomination form that the storage area, kitchen and toilets (including accessible toilets) are used in conjunction with the other uses as there is no reference to them specifically.
4.34 In terms of assessment of actual use that is not an ancillary use there is little evidence provided about uses of the Methodist Chapel, comprising the chapel, meeting, room storage area, kitchen and toilets. Frequency and user numbers are not detailed other than some annual, or life events and there are also uses identified that are consistent to religious use of the chapel. It may have been possible to consider separate parts of the nomination such as the meeting room (storage area, kitchen and toilets) however there was little information for these areas separately. There is insufficient information provided to demonstrate significant actual use that is non-ancillary and therefore this criteria is not met.
3. Furthering the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community
4.35 There are no clear definitions provided in the legislation as to what constitutes ‘social wellbeing/interests’ except that social interests can include ‘cultural, recreational and sporting interests. The nomination identified some cultural and recreational uses as detailed in previous sections (paragraphs 4.21 and 4.35). There are also some other specific references including:
· The Methodist Chapel in Kirkby Malzeard has been a community facility for many years alongside its use as a religious building
· It has been used to host various interest groups, as a venue for performance rehearsals and as a bookable room for many one-off community meetings
· The Neighbourhood Planning Group held meetings there
· The excellent lighting in the main chapel meant that the room was a popular location for art exhibitions. Arts projects are very popular locally and are a valuable asset for socialising and for community cohesion
4.36 When considering those matters that could be taken into account when assessing social benefit there is evidence provided. These are summarised above and include relevant cultural and recreational interests and are in the form of uses associated with a village facility. The uses detailed are considered to further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community and this criteria is therefore met
4. Local Community
4.37 A nominated asset must further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community. There is no definition in the Act or Regulations of a local community other than for those groups who are able to nominate so it is for the authority to determine ‘local community’ for each nomination. The Methodist Chapel is a facility in the village of Kirkby Malzeard and the nomination makes the following selected references:
· The nominating group, Kirkby Malzeard, Laverton and Dallowgill Parish Council is a very active Parish Council that is keen to support local residents’ quality of life and access to services. Also supported by the Parish Council is the Kirkby Malzeard, Laverton and Dallowgill (KMLD) Business and Community Group which offers networking opportunities and facilitates co-operation between local businesses
· The Methodist Chapel in Kirkby Malzeard has been a community facility for many years alongside its use as a religious building
· It has been used to host various interest groups, as a venue for performance rehearsals and as a bookable room for many one-off community meetings
· The Methodist Chapel is an ideal size, layout and location to be a valuable asset for the community in two ways: as a gathering place for local residents and businesses and also as a place for local artisan businesses to meet, share experience and support each other
· The Methodist Chapel has the size, layout and local need to be a hub for arts projects, both for local businesses and for the local community
4.38 The nomination identifies the local community as the village of Kirkby Malzeard, local businesses and local community and this criteria is therefore met
Condition two - It is realistic to think that there is a time in the next five years when there could be non-ancillary use of the building or other land that would further (whether or not in the same way as before) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community
1. The “realistic to think” test
4.39 The test does not require the likely future use of the relevant building to be determined but rather to determine whether future community use is one of a number of realistic options for the building (Patel v London Borough of Hackney and Worthy Developments v Forest of Dean DC).
4.40 The test is also not whether such future use is wholly unrealistic but whether it is realistic to think that there could be a relevant non-ancillary use in the next five years (Judge Lane at Para. 26 in General Conference of the New Church v Bristol CC supra. 12 February 2015). In addition, “what is realistic may admit a number of possibilities none of which needs to be the most likely outcome” (Evenden Estates v Brighton and Hove City Council)
4.41 It is common for nominations not to have a business plan put forward by those supporting the listing and judges have not regarded this as significant when considering whether future community use in the next five years is a realistic prospect. The First Tier Tribunal has also made clear that it is important not to concentrate too closely on “hard headed commercial or financial analysis”. Owners of pubs or other businesses that have failed often argue that it is not realistic to think that the same business can operate in the future as “it is not financially viable”. These arguments often fail as account should also be taken of recognised community effort, Worthy Developments Ltd v Forest of Dean District Council “It is important however, not to confuse commercial viability with what altruism and community effort can achieve”
4.42 It has been established that the threshold to satisfy the “realistic to think” test is low. The First Tier Tribunal in King v Chiltern District Council commented that “the test is not a demanding one. “Parliament has chosen to set the bar low”.
4.43 When considering the “realistic to think” test, future community use in the next five years must be a realistic option and one amongst a number of possibilities none of which needs to be the most likely outcome. The test is not a demanding one as “Parliament has chosen to set the bar low” and there is no requirement to have a Business Plan as part of the nomination
2. Nomination Evidence
4.44 The nominating group provided (Kirkby Malzeard, Laverton and Dallowgill Parish Council) stated that they were a very active Parish Council that is keen to support local residents’ quality of life and access to services. It was stated that they were by the Kirkby Malzeard, Laverton and Dallowgill (KMLD) Business and Community Group which offers networking opportunities and facilitates co-operation between local businesses. This group has contact with many local small businesses and artisans. All of these live and work within the Parish. As an extension, Kirkby Malzeard Parish Councillors are keen to make links with the nearest market town, Ripon. The following information is included in the nomination relevant to the assessment:
· The Methodist Chapel is an ideal size, layout and location to be a valuable asset for the community in two ways: as a gathering place for local residents and businesses and also as a place for local artisan businesses to meet, share experience and support each other
· The KMLD Business and Community group is working with local groups to improve Kirkby Malzeard’s sense of ‘place’ and improve the extent to which it is somewhere people want to ‘live, work, play and invest’
· The KMLD Business and Community Group have set about establishing a contact list of local businesses and have been contacted by 16 local artisan businesses and a further 12 small businesses, many of whom make products that could be sold to visitors
· The KMLD Business and Community group has researched other models where a building such as the Methodist chapel is used to promote art, either for sale or in the form of workshops. (Models contacted were Leyburn Arts Hub, Rural Arts in Thirsk, Arts Studios in Pateley Bridge, ArtisOn in Masham, Community House, Masham (Which sells art from the Flock Art Gallery)
· The Methodist Chapel has the size, layout and local need to be a hub for arts projects, both for local businesses and for the local community
· The Methodist Chapel could provide a perfect space in which to sell local art (to the benefit of local artists and also other local businesses who benefit from the visitor footfall), to hold workshops (this could offer improved wellbeing for residents who are quite isolated, especially those who have limited access to transport) and for local businesses to meet for mutual support and networking
· Alongside this, the building would be available for local use as a meeting room, exhibition area and for local residents to pursue art projects that require some space. Arts projects are very popular locally and are a valuable asset for socialising and for community cohesion
· There is a small storage room at the back of the chapel that has access on to the Back Lane. This would be an ideal location for a Man Shed. Loneliness amongst elderly male residents is a particular concern. This was highlighted during the volunteer response to the lockdowns during the covid pandemic. The KMLD Business and Community Group has already been in touch with Community House, Ripon for advice on the Man SHed project.
· There are numerous hospitality locations (air B&B, glamping, holiday cottages and campsites) nearby. Kirkby Malzeard should be a location for visitors. We think the Methodist Chapel could play a significant role in supporting and promoting local businesses and creating a space in which visitors can access the beautiful art that is created locally.
4.45 The nominating states that the nominating group are keen to investigate the possibility of retaining the building for the benefit of the community and to support the rural economy. It is stated that the intention is to undertake a feasibility study for future use in line with the points stated in paragraph 4.49. It is also confirmed that the nominating group and the KMLD Business and Community Group do not want to have a lengthy battle over the chapel. Both organisations have agreed to keep in communication with the Methodist Church, to share the findings of any feasibility study and to seek the best possible solution, quickly, to the satisfaction of all parties.
4.46 When considering the “realistic to think” test, as stated previously, future community use in the next five years must be a realistic option and one amongst a number of possibilities none of which needs to be the most likely outcome. The test is not a demanding one as “Parliament has chosen to set the bar low” and there is no requirement to have a Business Plan as part of the nomination.
4.47 The nomination provides information that the nominating group (the Parish Council) is supportive of the work to look at the feasibility of bringing the Methodist Chapel back into use. There is a local group, The KMLD Business and Community Group that are working to improve Kirkby Malzeard’s sense of ‘place’ and improve the extent to which it is somewhere people want to ‘live, work, play and invest’ They are looking at taking forward a feasibility study for future use of the chapel for community use and want to involve the Parish Council and owners in the work. The group have also undertaken the following:
· Researched other models where a building such as the Methodist chapel is used to promote art, either for sale or in the form of workshops.
· Identified potential future uses such as:
o A hub for arts projects, both for local businesses and for the local community
o A space in which to sell local art (to the benefit of local artists and also other local businesses who benefit from the visitor footfall), to hold workshops
o The building would be available for local use as a meeting room, exhibition area and for local residents to pursue art projects that require some space
o There is a small storage room at the back of the chapel that would be an ideal location for a Man Shed
4.48 In summary it is reasonable to conclude that due to the reasons provided at paragraphs 4.49-4.52 it is realistic to think that there is a time in the next five years when there could be non-ancillary use of the building or other land that would further (whether or not in the same way as before) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community. This condition is therefore met
d) Conclusion
4.49 The aim of Part 5 Chapter 3 of the Localism Act and the Assets of Community Value Regulations is to encourage community- focused, local-led action to save and take over assets which are significant to them. The scheme is intended to give communities the opportunity to identify assets of community value and have them listed and, when they are put up for sale, have more time to raise finance and prepare a bid for them. These assets could include the Village shop, community centre or pub but assessment is based on the evidence submitted and it is for the local authority to determine each nomination.
4.50 When assessing the community value of Churches/chapels the use of a building as a place of religion, such as a chapel, arguably does not fall within the scope of the uses which further “the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community (see Paragraph 4.19). The fact that a nominated asset is a chapel therefore does not satisfy the community use criteria and it is the consideration of a number of other factors/uses identified in the report that fulfil the assessment of community use.
4.51 There is no current actual use of the Methodist Chapel as it has been closed for approximately one year. The assessment process was therefore to determine if the two conditions in Section 88(2) were met
Condition one - There is a time in the recent past when an actual use of the building or other land that was not an ancillary use furthered the social wellbeing or interests of the local community
(See paragraphs 4.17-4.43)
4.52 In terms of determining ‘recent past’ the evidence demonstrates that The Methodist Chapel has fulfilled some uses associated with a community role as well as religious use and the building was built 142 years ago. There is some evidence of use associated with a community facility that furthered the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community with a period of use of 142 years prior to closure. The one-year time period since closure is therefore within the recent past.
4.53 In terms of assessment of actual use that is not an ancillary use there is little evidence provided about uses of the Methodist Chapel, comprising the chapel, meeting, room storage area, kitchen and toilets. Frequency and user numbers are not detailed other than some annual, or life events and there are also uses identified that are consistent to religious use of the chapel. There is insufficient information provided to demonstrate significant actual use that is non-ancillary.
4.54 When considering those matters that could be taken into account when assessing social benefit there is evidence provided and include relevant cultural and recreational interests and are in the form of uses associated with a village facility. The uses detailed are considered to further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community and the local community is also defined in the nomination.
4.55 There is therefore insufficient information to determine that there was a time in the recent past when an actual use of the building or other land that was not an ancillary use furthered the social wellbeing or interests of the local community. This Condition is therefore not met
Condition two - It is realistic to think that there is a time in the next five years when there could be non-ancillary use of the building or other land that would further (whether or not in the same way as before) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community
(See paragraphs 4.44-4.53)
4.56 It is reasonable to conclude that due to the reasons provided at paragraphs 4.44-4.53 there is a time in the next five years when there could be non-ancillary use of the building or other land that would further (whether or not in the same way as before) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community. This condition is therefore met
5.0 CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN AND RESPONSES
5.1 NYC Internal consultation with the following services was undertaken and there were no comments received:
· Environmental Protection
· Community Safety/CCTV
· Food, Licensing or Occupational Safety
· Parking Services
5.2 The records on the Local Land Charges register for this property are as follows, within Area of Specia Control of Advertisements:
· Planning history
- 88/03150/FUL - Extend schoolroom to form kitchen and toilet facilities. Permitted 25.10.1988
- 01/00904/FUL - Formation of disabled access ramp. Permitted 18.06.2001
5.3 There were no comments received from the Ward Member.
5.4 There were no additional comments/information received from the nominating group
5.5 There were no comments received from the owner or occupant
6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED (MANDATORY)
6.1 None. Not to consider the nomination for the Methodist Chapel (Ebenezer Chapel), Kirkby Malzeard would not fulfil the Council’s responsibilities required by the Localism Act 2011 and The Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012.
7.0 IMPACT ON OTHER SERVICES/ORGANISATIONS
7.1 If successful the fact that land/property is listed as an Asset of community Value may be taken into account as a material consideration for any future planning application.
8.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
8.1 If the decision is to list the property the owner can make a claim for compensation for which the Council is liable.
9.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
9.1 If the property/land is listed the council is required to apply to the Land Registry for entry of a restriction on the Land Register. This restriction will be in a form of wording in Schedule 4 to the Rules, as Form QQ. This is “No transfer or lease is to be registered without a certificate signed by a conveyancer that the transfer or lease did not contravene section 95(1) of the Localism Act 2011“. An owner of previously unregistered listed land, who applies to the Land Registry for first registration (or a mortgagee who applies for first registration on behalf of the owner), is required at the same time to apply for a restriction against their own title. The local authority is also required to apply to the Land Registry for cancellation of the restriction when it removes an asset from its list.
9.2 If the property/land is listed and the owner/leaseholder wishes to dispose of it, he must notify the council. Once this has taken place an interim moratorium period (6 weeks) will apply where disposal of the property may not take place (except if sold to a community interest group which can take place at any time). If, before the end of the interim moratorium period the council receives a written request from a community interest group to be treated as a potential bidder then a full moratorium period applies. Disposal may then not take place within 6 months from the date the Council receives notification from the owner (except if sold to a community interest group).
9.3 When a listed asset is disposed of, and a new owner applies to the Land Registry to register change of ownership of a listed asset, they will therefore need to provide the Land Registry with a certificate from a conveyancer that the disposal (and any previous disposals if this is the first registration) did not contravene section 95(1) of the Localism Act (the moratorium requirements).
10.0 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
10.1 The Methodist Chapel (Ebenezer Chapel), Kirkby Malzeard includes accessible toilets
11.0 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS
11.1 There are no climate change implications
12.0 CONCLUSIONS
12.1 If unsuccessful all parties will be advised of the outcome of the decision, and the Council’s reasoning for it. The nominating group will be advised that there is no provision within The Regulations (The Asset of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012) for them to seek a review of the Council’s decision.
13.0 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
13.1 The evidence demonstrates that the nomination for the Methodist Chapel (Ebenezer Chapel), Kirkby Malzeard does not meet the definition of community value as detailed in the Localism Act 2011.
|
14.0 |
RECOMMENDATION(S)
|
|
|
It is recommended that the Assistant Chief Executive Local Engagement:
(iii) Determines that the nomination for the Methodist Chapel (Ebenezer Chapel), Kirkby Malzeard is unsuccessful and does not meet the definition of community value as detailed in the Localism Act 2011
(iv) It should be placed on the North Yorkshire Council Assets of Community Value List of Unsuccessful Nominations
|
APPENDICES:
Appendix A – Nomination Form NYCACV0020 The Methodist Chapel (Ebenezer Chapel), Kirkby Malzeard
Appendix B – Site Map
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
Localism Act 2011
The Assets of Community Value Regulations (England) 2012
Assistant Chief Executive Local Engagement
County Hall
Northallerton
20 October 2023
Report Author – Mark Codman Scrutiny, Governance and Risk Manager
Presenter of Report – Mark Codman Scrutiny, Governance and Risk Manager