ACVs AND CIL

Question

I am stuck between “two Councils”.  During the life of the previous Council we appeared to be loosing an asset of Community Value. While the old PC supported the objection to the development the Planning application was eventually passed. As a part of the process the new Council failed to “call in” an amended application and as such the PC will receive the appropriate amount of CIL. A Councillor on the former Council (now retired) states this was a major oversight as the new PC cannot now receive/claim  any compensation for its “loss of amenity”.   So my question is any “compensation” available to communities for the loss of an ACV other than CIL? I seem to recall something called “developers’ voluntary contributions” under the old S106 system but is there an equivalent under CIL? The new Council says we will be getting all we are entitled to .

Answer 1

An asset of community value isn't something that you should deem as being "lost" or an "entitlement".  It has to be designated as such by agreement and could be a building or sports field etc that the principal authority can no longer support.  It doesn't necessarily  follow that it would be considered a loss of amenity in same the way that such items are cited as an objection to a planning applications.

CIL can be deemed as an alternative to a S106 agreement.Principal Planning authorities can decided whether they wish to implement CIL's, S106's or both.  In both cases, developers may be called on to make financial contributions.

Answer 2

You do not say what actions the council took when you say "During the life of the previous Council we appeared to be loosing an asset of Community Value."

An ACV only gives the council the right to bid for an asset. Did the council trigger the bidding process? If not, the owner of the land can essentially dispose of the land as they wish. (See the Interim Moratorium period etc). In any case, even if the council does put in a bit, the owners are not obliged to sell to the council.

I have my doubts about the council receiving any compensation for the loss of an ACV, especially if you did not put in a bid yourselves.

(Slightly off topic, the waters get a bit muddy if a council triggers the bidding process then fails to put in a bid and the land owner does not sell at all. So can the council then put in a new application for an ACV after the old one has expired?)

 

Comments

The planning process spanned two Councils. Council one opposed the application and supported a local group who tried to raise funds for a bid which failed miserably. When revised plans were submitted the new Council came to be and the newly elected Ward Cllrs failed to call in these plans i.e. an action which allows Cllrs to decide the application rather that the nominated Council Officer.
The former ward Cllr when discussing the case has said when referring to the need to call in planning applications
The xxxxxx application is one such application given the local interest and feeling regarding the site over many years, and the extent of the proposal. I had indicated to officers that I intended to call it to committee should they intend recommending approval.

Until the facility was forced to close it was extensively used for community activities and I ran the PACT meetings there for years. I believe that further improvement could have been achieved in the design and volume of the application and a possibility that a significant sum could potentially have been gained for the community, in order that provision be created elsewhere, by resisting the application under policy DM68.

Planning regulation DM68 exists:
‘To protect existing and planned community facilities from alternative development where a community use is still viable, unless it involves the provision of a suitable replacement facility.’

Our community is desperately short of facilities and of course we are working to replace our library.

Policy DM68 states
Land and buildings in existing use, last used for, or proposed for use for a sporting, cultural or community facility, are protected for that purpose unless the land is allocated for another purpose in another planning document.

DM68 goes on to say.
‘Development of such sites or buildings for other uses will only be permitted if one of the following applies of which the relevant section is as follows.

‘Where acceptable alternative provision of at least equivalent community benefit is made available in the same vicinity and capable of serving the same catchment area’.

Regrettably, by this permission being granted the site is now allocated for housing and our opportunity is lost.

There is no guarantee that we would have been successful in gaining funds, however that is no reason for not trying. This application should have been debated in open forum.

What I don’t understand is what could have possibly been gained and under what circumstances and who would have paid for it.

---

It sounds as though your District Council went against it own policies.
I am surprised the officers took the decision they did under the circumstances you describe.
Without looking at the full planning application it would be difficult to get a sense of how the developer proposed that DM68 was not engaged.

One caveat with these call in's at district level is that they often fail, sometimes by the chairmans casting vote, as they know the developer will challenge them in court and that, of course, costs money - sad but true.

Did your Parish Council make any financial provision for helping to buy the site? Say with a Public Works Loan Board loan???

I think a lot of councils put ACV's on a host of buildings without thinking through the reality of the situation should they be asked to bid for a site. They tend to be created then forgotten about. (I'm speaking from experience here!)

Answer 3

As far as I'm aware, developers' voluntary contributions are simply a part of the horse trading that goes into the creation of a Section 106 agreement. The developer offers to resurface the village hall car park and erect a lamp post, the planning authority demands a new school and eventually the two sides agree (or not) on items or payments and sign the S106 agreement. The voluntary contributions will sometimes be included in the S106 agreement, but are often left as gentlemen's agreements with no legal standing.

I'm not in a CIL area, but my understanding is that CIL replaces all of the above with a flat rate payment system.

In either scenario, I fear the answer to your question is that there is no second source of funds available to you, unless somebody else on the forum has greater experience in this area.

Comments

This case involved a British Legion owned building which was rented, and a Village Club formed as a watering hole for “old soldiers” . That organisation tended to be very protective of its membership and eventually they were no longer able to afford the rent as usage became less and less. The local  BL branch  had very close connections within the old PC and as soon as the BL announced they were going to sell it the PC supported the local BL branch (and others) in preparing a bid.  All failed miserably to raise enough funds.
Now planning permission has been received and the building is about to be demolished. The argument seems to be that the Council policy seems to have a provision for a replacement facility, but this was not considered fully as it would have been if the final planning application was called in. I have eventually located a copy of the policy and have to say its clear as mud. I think it fair to say that you only learn what can be done in such circumstances by “doing one”. I wonder if NALC should consider an LTN on the subject?

---

DM68 includes the phrase "where a community use is still viable". So if they were no longer able to afford the rent as usage became less and less, replacement may not have been deemed necessary. A private members club may fall outside the intended remit of DM68. These are question that only the officer concerned would be able to answer, unless it is set out in the case papers.

I see no reason why DM68 should be applied exclusively to decisions of the full committee. It's policy, so it should apply equally to an officer-delegated decision,