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
reportensures that the Council considersthe nomination for
theCrown Inn Roecliffe
as required by the Act.
4.0
NOMINATIONCONSIDERATION
·
Description of asset
4.1
The
Jefferson Arms is located in the village of Thorganby a small
village and civil parish in North Yorkshire, England. It is
situated 3 miles from the village of Wheldrake. The village is on
the west bank of the river Derwent and is across the river from the
Lower Derwent National Nature Reserve. In the 2001 census, the
parish had 241 residents, increasing by the 2011 census to 330,
latest estimates are that the population has risen 350.
4.2
The
Jefferson Arms is located on the Main Street and the building
itself dates back to the 18th century.
4.3
The
nomination form states that it is the only community building in
the village apart from the village hall and “formed the
social hub of the village for many years”.
4.4
It is
agreed by the Nominating Group and owner that the Jefferson Arms
has been closed since early October 2022, a period of 1 year and 9
months.
4.5
The
owner has confirmed that the property has been put up for sale and
rent.
4.6
The
valid nomination from Thorganby Parish Council to list the
Jefferson Arms as an Asset of Community Value was receivedon
16 May 2024 and in
accordance with the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations
2012 a decision is required by 11 July 2024.
4.7
Ownership information was also confirmed.
4.8
In the
original nomination there were two residential identified on the
site plan and it has been confirmed with the nominating group that
these properties do not form part of the nomination to be
considered.
c) Owner
Comments
4.9
The
owner provided information about the trading history for the
Jefferson Arms. He had bought the property in 2010 and jointly
renovated the property. It is stated that the trading history has
been poor with periods of closure since 2010 until final closure in
2022, all tenants have been unable to trade successfully and at
least one has been declared bankrupt.
4.10
The
owner confirms that the Parish Council were offered the pub to rent
or buy the Jefferson Arms after its closure and “At no time
since have they ever approached me to explore these
possibilities”. It is stated that “the nomination form
contains no expression of interest to attempt to buy or rent the
property either. I have received no interest from anyone else
wanting to buy or rent the property for use as a pub. Not really
surprising when you look at its trading history”.
c)
Community Value Consideration
4.11
In
termsof making a decision on this matterthe nomination togetherwith
any additional information received within the agreed timescale has
been used to assess if the property/land listedmeets the definition
of community valueas detailed in the Localism Act 2011. There is no
current actual use of the nominated land/property as it has been
closed for a period of
years. The assessment processis therefore to determine if
the two conditions in Section 88(2) have been met.
CONDITIONONE - 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
4.12
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
officialguidance is that ‘ifthere have been uses of the land
for purposessuch 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.
4.13
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 inNorwich) 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 DCthe Kings Head in Great
Missendenhad 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.
4.14
In
Crostone v Amber ValleyJudge 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 longerthe period of use
furthering a community benefit the longer the period which will
constitute the recent past.
4.15
In
Worthy Developments v Forestof Dean DC,the judge stated that
when considering ‘recent past’ it could not have been
intendedto import the five-year periodfrom the future condition
when Parliament had failed to set out a precise period for the
condition.
4.16
There
is also no equivalent consideration of ‘recent past’ in
planning determination therefore no appropriate comparable evidence
as part of any Planning Application decisions.
4.17
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 criteriafor
‘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 The Jefferson Arms so that the facts can be
established:
(1). The lengthof the period of
communityuse 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 degreeof connection
betweenthe 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
4.18
There
is no indication from the information in the nomination form about
the length of time that the Jefferson Arms has been in use other
than it “formed the social hub of the village for many
years”. It also states that “the pub has always been a
venue for friends and residents to meet for drink and food and to
socialise and create a village heartbeat”.
4.19
Other
references from supporting statements include:
·
“It is located on the Main Street in the centre of
the village of Thorganby and has been the cornerstone of the local
community since the late 19th century.”
·
“The pub has been the heart of the village community
for many years (over 100 years we believe).”
·
“The Jefferson Arms has historically served as the
primary gathering place for village residents, hosting events,
meetings, and social activities. It has fostered a sense of
community and belonging”.
4.20
The
owner does not make reference to the length of time that the
Jefferson Arms has been in use.
4.21
The
pub has therefore potentially been in use since the 19th
century or over 100 years.
(2).
The type of asset
involved– Public
House
4.22
The
nominating group and the owner identify that The Jefferson arms is
a public house. The fact that a nominated asset is a public house
does not in itself satisfy the community use criteria. It is the
consideration of a number of factors identified in the report that
fulfil the assessment of community use.
(3).
The nature of the community use
of the nominated asset
4.23
This assessment takes into account
the uses identified in the nomination as community use, these are
also considered in section 2 regarding ancillary use. The
nomination states that “it is the only community building in
the village apart from the village hall and “formed the
social hub of the village for many years”.
4.24
The
nomination and supporting statements provide the following
additional information:
·
“The pub has always been a venue for friends and
residents to meet for drink and food and to socialise and create a
village heartbeat”.
·
“Social events such as quiz nights, themed evenings
such as music events, race nights have always drawn the residents
together.”
·
“The Jefferson Arms has
historically served as the primary gathering place for village
residents, hosting events, meetings, and social activities. It has
fostered a sense of community and belonging”.
·
“Although it had no formal groups meeting there,
whenever events were being planned in the village it's the pub
where the organisers met and ideas discussed for the village fete
and other events such as the Jubilee Celebrations, the bonfire
event on the playing field etc.”.
·
“Me and my father ran the pub from 1992 to 1995 and
the place was always busy. We were full every Sunday for lunch and
most evenings, and we opened all day and people from the local
community and outlying villages came in”.
·
“New Years Eve parties, a lively atmosphere,
excellent good value for money food”.
·
“We have lived in the village for over 30 years,
during which time the pub was the focal point and where we met many
long-standing friends. Not only was it a social meeting place for
the village residents, it also hosted many events- such as parties,
weddings, christenings, and funerals”.
·
“It has played a vital role as a place for people who
live in Thorganby, and nearby, to congregate, make and maintain
friendships, as well as providing a compelling reason for visitors
to the area to stop and stay.”
·
“It was more than just a pub; it was a place where we
could come together, share experiences, and build lasting
relationships. Its absence has left a void in our community, and we
have lost an essential part of our social
infrastructure”.
·
“It has always remained a centre of the village
community acting as a meeting place and an events
venue”.
·
“The Jefferson Arms has
historically served as the primary gathering place for village
residents, hosting events, meetings, and social activities. It has
fostered a sense of community and belonging”.
·
“The Jefferson Arms has been an integral part of our
village's heritage for
·
decades. It is not just a building but a symbol of our
community’s identity and continuity”.
·
“In those days the Jefferson Arms was what it was
supposed to be: a friendly, accessible village pub and a centre of
community life, in truth a cosy and welcoming venue in which to
meet, chat and have a pint or two”.
4.25
The
owner provides evidence about the trading history for the Jefferson
Arms, and it was stated that the trading history has been poor with
periods of closure since 2010 until final closure in
2022.
4.26
The
information provides some evidence of community uses of the
Jefferson Arms associated with a village public house facility;
these uses are considered in section 2.
(4).
The degree of connection
betweenthe asset and the community
4.27
The
nomination states that “it is the only community building in the village
apart from the village hall and “formed the social hub of the
village for many years” and that The Jefferson Arms has
historically served as the primary gathering place for village
residents, hosting events, meetings, and social activities. It has
fostered a sense of community and belonging”.
4.28
There are 11 supporting statements from local
residents and/or past residents of the village in support of the
nomination. There are anecdotal references to uses as well as
actual uses by residents of the village.
4.29
The
owner states that the letter from the Chairman of the Parish
Council (nominating group) clearly states 'Although it had no
formal groups meeting there' which is key to proving a community
link but actually confirms this was not the case. It is stated that
this means that when arranging community events for the village,
organisers met there, “no mention of how often, or proof this
did occur is supplied” the owner also notes that the
community events were not to be held at the pub but at other
locations in the village. The owner stated that the real social hub
was the village hall, which has a licensed bar and holds the
village annual beer festival and a pop-up pub.
4.30
The
information provides some evidence of links with the local
community, in summary the following:
·
The
pub has always been a venue for friends and residents to meet for
drink and food and to socialise and create a village
heartbeat.
·
The
Jefferson Arms has historically served as the primary gathering
place for village residents, hosting events, meetings, and social
activities. It has fostered a sense of community and
belonging.
·
We
have lived in the village for over 30 years, during which time the
pub was the focal point and where we met many long-standing
friends. Not only was it a social meeting place for the village
residents, it also hosted many events- such as parties, weddings,
christenings, and funerals.
·
“The Jefferson Arms has historically served as
the primary gathering place for village residents, hosting events,
meetings, and social activities. It has fostered a sense of
community and belonging”.
·
“The Jefferson Arms has been an integral part of our
village's heritage for decades. It is not just a building but a
symbol of our community’s identity and continuity.
4.31
There
is some information provided about links with the local community
and the information is consistent with a village public house.
There are a number no statements in support of the nomination from
residents, with some general descriptions about actual community
value such as “the pub has always been a venue for friends
and residents to meet for drink and food and to socialise and
create a village heartbeat”. The statements are fairly
descriptive/generic and consistent with a village public
house.
4.32
The
owner states that the information about the Jefferson Arms confirms
that no formal groups met there and that the actual venue for
community use was the village hall that had a licensed
bar.
(5).
Whether the asset has
been out of use for a periodprior to the nomination.
4.33
The
nomination identifies that The Jefferson Arms has been closed since
October 2022, the property has therefore
been out of use for 1 years and 9 months.
4.34
The
owner has confirmed that the property has been put up for sale and
rent.
Recent past conclusion
4.35
As
statedpreviously 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 making 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:
·
The
pub has potentially been in use since the 19th century or over 100
years.
·
The
Jefferson arms is a public house. The fact that a nominated asset
is a public house does not in itself satisfy the community use
criteria. It is the consideration of a number of factors identified
in the report that fulfil the assessment of community
use.
·
The
information provides some evidence of community uses of the
Jefferson Arms associated with a village public house facility;
these uses are considered in section 2.
·
There
is some information provided about links with the local community
and the information is consistent with a village public house. The
owner states that the information about the Jefferson Arms confirms
that no formal groups met there and that the actual venue for
community use was the village hall that had a licensed
bar.
·
The
nomination identifies that The Jefferson Arms has been closed since
October 2022, the property has therefore been out of use for 1
years and 9 months.
4.36
It has been stated that the Jefferson Arms has
been a public house since the 19th century and that it
has been closed for 1 years and 9 months. Community use during this
period of time is considered in later sections, a long history
could support a determination of ‘recent past’ and
there are cases where seven years has been determined as being
within the ‘recent past.
4.37
The nominating group identify that The Jefferson
Arms is a public house. The fact that a nominated asset is a public
house does not in itself satisfy the community use criteria and it
is the consideration of a number of factors identified in the
report that fulfil the assessment of community use.
4.38
The
information about community use provides some evidence of the
Jefferson Arms associated with a village public house. These uses
are detailed in section 2 and paragraph 4.24 and include hosting
events, meetings, and social activities, hosting events, meetings,
social activities and New Years Eve parties. The owner, however,
states that the information about the Jefferson Arms confirms that
no formal groups met there and that the actual venue for community
use was the village hall that had a licensed bar.
There
is, therefore, some evidence of uses of The Jefferson Arms
associated with a community facility however the information is are
fairly descriptive/generic and consistent with a village public
house.
4.39
In
assessing the degree of connection between the asset and the local
community the nomination provides some evidence of links with the
local community (See paragraph 4.30-4.32). The information Is,
fairly generic and consistent with a village public house, however
there are a number of supporting statements from residents or
previous residents. There is therefore some
evidence to demonstrate a connection with The Jefferson Arms and
the local community.
4.40
In
termsof determining ‘recentpast’ the above demonstrates
that The Jefferson Arms had some
community uses, and this was potentially for a long period of
time. There are
statements about uses of The Jefferson Arms associated with a
community facility however the information is fairly
descriptive/generic and consistent with a village public house.
There is some evidence to demonstrate a connection between the pub
and the local community. The evidence is insufficient to
demonstrate the nature of the community use and the 1
year and 9-month time period since closure is therefore not
within the recent past and this criteria is not
met.
2.
Actual use that is not an
ancillary use
4.41
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) Limitedv Oxford City
Council, and the test is whetherthe use is significant, but
does not require it to be the predominant use.
4.42
Evidence of actual use is detailed at paragraph 4.24. The
evidence was in the form of statements and anecdotal references
from the nominating group and residents/previous residents and
included the following:
·
The
pub has always been a venue for friends and residents to meet for
drink and food and to socialise and create a village
heartbeat”.
·
“Social events such as quiz nights, themed evenings
such as music events, race nights have always drawn the residents
together.”
·
“The Jefferson Arms has historically served as the
primary gathering place for village residents, hosting events,
meetings, and social activities. It has fostered a sense of
community and belonging”.
·
“Although it had no formal groups meeting there,
whenever events were being planned in the
village”.
·
“Me and my father ran the pub from 1992 to 1995 and
the place was always busy. We were full every Sunday for lunch and
most evenings”.
·
“New Years Eve parties, a lively atmosphere,
excellent good value for money food”.
·
“Not only was it a social meeting place for the
village residents, it also hosted many events- such as parties,
weddings, christenings, and funerals”.
·
“It has always remained a centre of the village
community acting as a meeting place and an events
venue”.
·
“The Jefferson Arms has historically served as
the primary gathering place for village residents, hosting events,
meetings, and social activities”.
·
“In those days the Jefferson Arms was what it was
supposed to be: a friendly, accessible village pub and a centre of
community life, in truth a cosy and welcoming venue in which to
meet, chat and have a pint or two”.
4.43
The
information provided is fairly descriptive/generic and consistent
with a village public house. There is some reference to annual or
life events such as New Years Eve parties, parties, weddings and
christenings however no further detail such as evidence of actual
groups meeting or frequency of use and numbers. The evidence
provided about actual use is also detailed in the assessment at
paragraphs 4.23-4.26. There is insufficient information
provided to demonstrate actual use that is non-ancillary and
therefore this criteria is not met.
3.
Furthering the social wellbeing
or social interestsof the local community
4.44
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 uses as detailed in
previous sections (paragraphs 4.24 and 4.30), these include the
following:
·
“The pub has always been a venue for friends and
residents to meet for drink and food and to socialise and create a
village heartbeat”.
·
“Social events such as quiz nights, themed evenings
such as music events, race nights have always drawn the residents
together.”
·
“The Jefferson Arms has historically served as the
primary gathering place for village residents, hosting events,
meetings, and social activities. It has fostered a sense of
community and belonging”.
·
“Although it had no formal groups meeting there,
whenever events were being planned in the village it's the pub
where the organisers met and ideas discussed for the village fete
and other events such as the Jubilee Celebrations, the bonfire
event on the playing field etc”.
·
“Me and my father ran the pub from 1992 to 1995 and
the place was always busy. We were full every Sunday for lunch and
most evenings, and we opened all day and people from the local
community and outlying villages came in”.
·
“New Years Eve parties, a lively atmosphere,
excellent good value for money food”.
·
“We have lived in the village for over 30 years,
during which time the pub was the focal point and where we met many
long-standing friends. Not only was it a social meeting place for
the village residents, it also hosted many events- such as parties,
weddings, christenings, and funerals”.
·
“It has played a vital role as a place for people who
live in Thorganby, and nearby, to congregate, make and maintain
friendships, as well as providing a compelling reason for visitors
to the area to stop and stay.”
·
“It was more than just a pub; it was a place where we
could come together, share experiences, and build lasting
relationships. Its absence has left a void in our community, and we
have lost an essential part of our social
infrastructure”.
·
“It has always remained a centre of the village
community acting as a meeting place and an events
venue”.
·
“The Jefferson Arms has historically served as
the primary gathering place for village residents, hosting events,
meetings, and social activities. It has fostered a sense of
community and belonging”.
·
“The Jefferson Arms has been an integral part of our
village's heritage for decades. It is not just a building but a
symbol of our community’s identity and
continuity”.
·
“In those days the Jefferson Arms was what it was
supposed to be: a friendly, accessible village pub and a centre of
community life, in truth a cosy and welcoming venue in which to
meet, chat and have a pint or two”.
4.45
When
considering those matters that could be taken into account when
assessing social benefit there is some evidence provided. These are
summarised above and are fairly
descriptive/generic and consistent with a village public house.
There are some references in the form of statements about
community/social value, however there are limited references to
recreational or sporting interests. There is insufficient evidence
to demonstrate that the uses detailed further the social wellbeing
or social interests of the local community and this criteria is
therefore not met.
4.
Local Community
4.46
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
Jefferson Arms is a facility in the village of Thorganby and the
nomination makes the following selected references:
·
“The Jefferson Arms formed the social hub of the
village for many years.”
·
“As the cornersone of the village
community”
4.47
The nomination identifies the local community as the
village of Thorganby 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 wouldfurther (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.
4.48
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).
4.49
The
test is also not whethersuch future use is whollyunrealistic but
whetherit 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
likelyoutcome” (Evenden Estatesv Brighton and Hove City
Council)
4.50
It is
common for nominations not to have a business plan put forward by
those supporting the listing and judges have not regardedthis 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
closelyon “hardheaded commercial or financial
analysis”. Owners of pubs or otherbusinesses 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 DeanDistrict Council “Itis important
however,not to confuse commercial viability with what altruism and
community effort can achieve.”
4.51
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”.
4.52
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
4.53
The
nominating group state that “the village of Thorganby needs a
social centre for people to meet. The building is conveniently
located and could be used for a variety of hospitality purposes or
even as a local shop for key essential items as proved to be the
case during the Covid lockdown”.
4.54
There
is no information provided about potential purchase by the
nominating group or evidence of an active community group that may
want to purchase the property. There are numerous comments about
the high sale price of the property, the method of marketing and
the potential intentions of the owner to convert to residential
use. The nomination does state that in the right hands “The
Jefferson Arms could be turned into a thriving pub serving the
local community “. There are, however, concerns that the
building is being run down.
4.55
The
owner provides information about the financial history of the
Jefferson Arms highlighting how unsuccessful previous tenants have
been. There are also comments about the motivation of the
nominating group and statements of support. It is also stated that
the Parish Council were directly offered the opportunity to
purchase the property or to rent 18 months ago and did not contact
the owner to discuss and/or explore options.
4.56
It
should be noted that any comments about the motivation of the owner
or nominating group are not part of the Assets of Community Value
assessment criteria.
4.57
It is
agreed by the owner and nominating group that the property has been
put up for sale. The owner states that it is also available to rent
as a public house.
4.58
When
considering the “realistic to think” test, as
statedpreviously, 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.
4.59
The
nomination provides information that the property is for sale or
rent. It has been advertised as a public house and the nominating
group (the Parish Council) is supportive of the sale of the
property, however, are concerned about the potential of the
building being run down. Due to the fact that the property is up
for sale and could be sold as a public house with the nominating
group in support then it is therefore realistic to think that
future community use in the next five years is a realistic
option.
4.60
In
summaryit is reasonable to concludethat due to the reasonsprovided
at paragraphs 4.53-4.59 itis 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 wellbeingor social interests of
the local community. This condition is therefore
met.
d)
Conclusion
4.61
The
aim of Part 5 Chapter 3 of the Localism Act and the Assets of
Community Value Regulations is to encourage community- focused,
local-ledaction 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 couldinclude the Villageshop,
community centreor pub but assessment is based on the evidence
submitted and it is for the local authorityto determine each
nomination.
4.62
When
assessing the community value of pubs there is a view that they are
social settings in themselves and are places that ‘further
the social wellbeing or social interests’ of those who visit.
This, however, should be considered in the context of each
nomination and the assessment of the community value of the
particular property as required by the Act and
Regulations.
4.63
There
is no current actual use of the Jefferson Arms it has been closed
for over a 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 wellbeingor
interests of the local community.
(See paragraphs
4.12-4.40)
4.64
In
terms of determining ‘recent past’ the above
demonstrates that The Jefferson Arms had some community uses, and
this was potentially for a long period of time. There are statements about uses of The
Jefferson Arms associated with a community facility however the
information is fairly descriptive/generic and consistent with a
village public house. There is some evidence to demonstrate a
connection between the pub and the local community. The
evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the nature of the community
use and the 1 year and 9-month time period since closure is
therefore not within the recent past and this criteria is not
met.
4.65
The
information provided is fairly descriptive/generic and consistent
with a village public house. There is some reference to annual or
life events such as New Years Eve parties, parties, weddings and
christenings however no further detail such as evidence of actual
groups meeting or frequency of use and numbers. The evidence
provided about actual use is also detailed in the assessment at
paragraphs 4.23-4.26. There is insufficient information
provided to demonstrate actual use that is non-ancillary and
therefore this criteria is not met.
4.66
When
considering those matters that could be taken into account when
assessing social benefit there is some evidence provided. These are
summarised above and are fairly descriptive/generic and consistent
with a village public house. There are some references in the form
of statements about community/social value, however there are
limited references to recreational or sporting interests.
There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the uses
detailed further the social wellbeing or social interests of the
local community and this criteria is therefore not
met.
4.67
The nomination identifies the local community as the
village of Thorganby and this criteria is therefore
met.
4.68
In
summary the nomination does not satisfy Condition One.
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
wouldfurther (whether or not in the same way as before) the
social wellbeing or social interests of the local
community.
(See paragraphs
4.53-4.60)
4.69
In summary it is reasonable to
conclude that due to the reasons provided at paragraphs 4.53-4.59
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.
5.0
CONSULTATIONUNDERTAKEN AND
RESPONSES
5.1
Included in report detail.
6.0
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONSCONSIDERED
6.1
None.
Not to consider the nomination for the Jefferson Arms wouldnot
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
communityValue may be taken into accountas a material consideration
for any futureplanning 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 withouta certificate signedby 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
disposeof it, he must notify the council. Once this has taken place
an interimmoratorium 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 treatedas a potential
bidder then a full moratorium periodapplies. Disposal may then not
take place within6 months from the date the Councilreceives
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 changeof ownership of a listed asset, they
will therefore need to providethe 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
There
are no Equalities implications.
11.0
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS
11.1
There
are no climatechange implications.
12.0
CONCLUSIONS
12.1
If
unsuccessful all parties will be advisedof 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 Jeffersons Arms
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 Jefferson Arms 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:
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
Localism Act 2011
The Assets of Community
Value Regulations (England)2012
Assistant Chief Executive
LocalEngagement
County Hall Northallerton
11 July 2024
Report Author – Mark
Codman Parish Liaison and Local Devolution Manager
15
SUMMARY