Basingstoke Town Limited v Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council & Anor

Basingstoke Town Limited v Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council & Anor

It is realistic to think that there could be non-ancillary use of the Camrose Football Stadium furthering the social wellbeing or interests of the local community within the next five years. The existence of alternative facilities, the owner's intentions, and the lack of a detailed business plan do not preclude this possibility. Community effort, diverse funding sources, and multiple potential uses make future qualifying use realistic under section 88(2)(b) of the Localism Act 2011.

Parties
Appellant: Basingstoke Town Limited; First Respondent: Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council; Second Respondent: Basingstoke Town Community Football Club
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Community Right to Bid Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Asset of Community Value, Community Right to Bid, Localism Act 2011, Appeal Procedure
Local Government Law Property Law Asset of Community Value Community Right to Bid Localism Act 2011 Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basingstoke Town Limited

Appellant

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

First Respondent

Basingstoke Town Community Football Club

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Community Right to Bid Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Camrose Football Stadium meets the criteria for listing as an Asset of Community Value under section 88(2)(b) of the Localism Act 2011
  2. 2 Whether it is realistic to think that there could be non-ancillary community use of the land within the next five years

Ratio Decidendi

It is realistic to think that there could be non-ancillary use of the Camrose Football Stadium furthering the social wellbeing or interests of the local community within the next five years. The existence of alternative facilities, the owner's intentions, and the lack of a detailed business plan do not preclude this possibility. Community effort, diverse funding sources, and multiple potential uses make future qualifying use realistic under section 88(2)(b) of the Localism Act 2011.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. The provisions of section 88(2)(a) and (b) of the Localism Act 2011 are satisfied.