New Barrow Ltd v Ribble Valley Borough Council (Community Right to Bid) [2017] UKFTT 2016_0014 (GRC) (2 March 2017)

New Barrow Ltd v Ribble Valley Borough Council (Community Right to Bid) [2017] UKFTT 2016_0014 (GRC) (2 March 2017)

As at the date of the Tribunal hearing, it was not realistic to think that use of the listed land as allotments could continue, given the impending and likely five-year use of the land as a construction compound and the strong likelihood of residential development thereafter. The requirements of section 88(1)(b) were not met, and the appeal was allowed.

Citation
[2017] UKFTT 2016_0014 (GRC)
Parties
Appellant: New Barrow Ltd; First Respondent: Ribble Valley Borough Council; Second Respondent: Barrow Parish Council
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
02 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Community Right to Bid Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Appeal From Local Authority Review Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Asset of Community Value, Localism Act 2011, Section 88(1)(b), Listing of Land, Community Right to Bid, Planning Permission, Allotments
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Asset of Community Value Localism Act 2011 Section 88(1)(b) Listing of Land Community Right to Bid +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

New Barrow Ltd

Appellant

Ribble Valley Borough Council

First Respondent

Barrow Parish Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Community Right to Bid Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Appeal From Local Authority Review Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the land continued to meet the statutory requirements for listing as an asset of community value under section 88(1)(b) of the Localism Act 2011 as at the date of the Tribunal hearing
  2. 2 Whether it was realistic to think that non-ancillary use of the land furthering social wellbeing or social interests of the local community could continue

Ratio Decidendi

As at the date of the Tribunal hearing, it was not realistic to think that use of the listed land as allotments could continue, given the impending and likely five-year use of the land as a construction compound and the strong likelihood of residential development thereafter. The requirements of section 88(1)(b) were not met, and the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The land is to be removed from the list of assets of community value.
  • No order as to costs.