Agenda item

a period of up to 15 minutes is available to deal with questions submitted to the Council in accordance with the Executive Procedure Rules;

E.54/16           

In accordance with Executive Procedure Rules, the following question had been submitted from Lou Selene-Sayell on behalf of ‘Don’t Bury Dartington Under Concrete’:

Asset of Community Value proposals by local residents for Green Space and the Wildlife Valley at Brimhay, Dartington have been refused.  However adjacent land was previously approved as an ACV by Ross Kennerley.

Please could these new applications be reconsidered as there is inconsistency in the refusal for listing as ACVs.

The Executive Portfolio Holder for Customer First responded to the question as follows:

‘There is no inconsistency. The Humpty Dumpty Nursery application was approved because ‘The asset complies with the national definition of an Asset of Community Value (ACV), as its current use furthers the social well-being and interests of the local community (by virtue of its use as a nursery) and it is realistic to think it will continue to do so.’ It should be noted that at the request of the owner of the nursery, the decision to list was subject to an internal review, with the decision to list being upheld.

The Brimhay Nursery and Brimhay Green nominations were not supported, because in both cases the land is connected to a residence under a single ownership (i.e. South Devon Rural Housing Association), and every part of the land can be reached without crossing land not owned by the single owner. It was therefore it the view of officers that the land nomination could not be listed in accordance with Schedule 1 of The ACV (England) Regulations 2012.

The case will no doubt be made for the community/social interest in the land, and that the Council did not take this into account. Officers noted that it was inconclusive whether or not the intention for the two nominations was as a garden/space primarily for the general community, or a garden/space primarily for residents, however even if the land did further the social wellbeing interests of the local community (meeting the requirement under the Localism Act), it still could not be listed as it does not meet the requirements of Schedule 1 of the ACV Regulations.

In conclusion, this land cannot be listed, as to do so would be contrary to Schedule 1 of the ACV Regulations. This point has been made repeatedly to the applicant before nominations were made, with both this and previous application to list this land as an ACV.’

A supplementary question was then asked by Trudy Turrell, a previously agreed substitute for Ms Selene-Sayell, as follows:

Do you think that should be the case, and are your decisions delivering the spirit of the Act on two pieces of land with different attributes?

The Executive Portfolio Holder responded that he was happy with the decisions made and quoted from Schedule 1 of the Regulations which, in referring to land which is not of community value and therefore may not be listed, advised that:

… land is connected with a residence if –

(a) the land, and the residence, are owned by a single owner; and

(b) every part of the land can be reached from the residence without having to cross land which is not owned by that single owner.