A community right to buy: Assets of Community Value

Community right to buy: Changes to the assets of Community Value regime

On 26 April 2026, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (‘‘the Act’) received Royal Assent and introduced major changes to the Assets of Community Value (‘ACV’) regime. It has significantly expanded the scope of ACVs, creates new protections for sporting assets, imposes enhanced sale restrictions and a pre-emption right in favour of community buyers.

This article summarises the core changes in the Act.

From right to bid to right to buy

The most important change for landowners is that an ACV listing may now affect not only when a sale can take place, but also who the asset may be sold to.

Previously, owners could “wait out” an imposed moratorium period and regardless of whether a community group provided market-value bids, there was no requirement for the owner to sell to the community group. Now, after notice procedures are followed, a community interest group that is able to provide market price for an ACV will be able to acquire that ACV.

The regime that has been created in relation to this new pre-emptive right to buy is highly complex and technical.

Overall, the new regime means that an ACV listing is no longer just an issue of delay for landowners. It will now significantly affect the sale process, the range of potential bidders, and the eventual purchaser. Landowners will need to consider ACV risk at an early stage when planning the sale of land that may have a community or sporting value as the overall process for sale changes substantially.

Economic interests

Previously the ACV regime sought to protect a community’s interest in assets where there was an actual current use that furthered the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.

The Act now seeks to widen the definition of ACVs to explicitly include economic wellbeing and interests.

Whilst the 2011 Act introduced a definition for “social interests” the Act does not introduce a definition for “economic interests”. This clearly could have a wide interpretation. Whilst social endeavours are fundamentally more limited, one might argue that most economic endeavours function to promote the wellbeing and interests of a local community. In addition, one might question what could not be regarded as an ACV when considering economic and social value separately.

This change of definition is highly significant and guidance will be needed for all interested parties to understand the extent and intended scope of this definition.

The Act does state that the Secretary of State will be empowered to issue guidance which may include information on what these economic interests are, but one would note that there is no requirement on the Secretary of State to do this, and that whilst the original regime in the 2011 Act introduced several of opportunities for further regulation, that regulation was few and far between in practice.

Past use

Land can be listed as an ACV where an actual current use of the building or land, that is not an ancillary use, furthers the economic or social wellbeing and interests of the local community and it is realistic to think that there can continue to be non-ancillary use of the said land.

However, further to this test of current use in the previous regime, where the current use was no longer relevant (for example, in the case of a closed pub) one could rely on “recent past” use, so that land could be listed if there had been in the recent past an actual use that furthered the economic or social wellbeing and interests of the local community provided that it was realistic to think that that there could be such a use within the next five years. This has been amended to any time in the past. This means, potentially, regardless of the ancient nature of the use purported, if it is realistic to think that there will be a time in the next 5 years when that relevant use could be satisfied, then the land could be listed as an ACV.

The removal of one word, “recent”, here is hugely significant and provides a potential opportunity for buildings and land whose community benefit has potentially been lost for a considerable amount of time to be reclaimed through the new regime.

Sporting assets

In addition to economic interests, the Act creates a separate lane for sporting assets of community value (‘SACVs’) . Local authorities will have to categorise these assets separately in their ACV register, separating them into (i) standard ACVs, (ii) SACVs and (iii) assets that support SACVs. Whilst “standard” ACVs will be on the list and benefit from protection for 10 years, SACVs will be on the list indefinitely.

Local authorities will need to determine whether a sporting asset is an ACV if it is a sports ground within the meaning of s17 of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 i.e. is a place where sports or other competitive activities take place in the open air and where accommodation has been provided for spectators (including by artificial/natural structures).

A key difference in the application of the ACV regime for sporting assets is that from 6 months after implementation of this new regime, and then every 5 years from that point, local authorities must include in their ACV list any land which they consider would be a SACV. This bypasses the need for a community nomination, and introduces an indefinite restriction on sale regardless of whether there is a current community appetite or resource for purchase.

Inclusion of land as an SACV may well then drag additional surrounding land into the ACV regime if the actual use of the land or building provides support for the use of SACVs. This will likely encompass underutilised land around sports grounds generally used for car parking or catering.

Enhanced burden and liability for local authorities

As well as the enhanced restrictions for owners, local authorities have been placed at the heart of negotiations that could involve highly significant assets both from a community but also commercial perspective. There are clear obligations on local authorities to take charge of the procedure for notices and over negotiations. The actions of local authorities are required in order to trigger key periods of negotiation. In addition, local authorities must arrange and pay for district valuations where that is needed.

Compensation will also be a major feature in this new system. Whilst we will need to wait for further regulations to understand exactly how compensation is to function under this new regime, it is enough to say that there is a question as to whether an owner will be entitled to compensation where they are forced to sell at the “valued price” of a district valuer, when they consider the open market price could have been higher.

The ACV regime has now become more complex, and the opportunity for error has increased. Consequences for a non-compliant disposal are that the disposal can be made ineffective, creating significant risk of liability in the event of error.

For further information or tailored advice on this topic, please contact Douglas Haycock and Matthew Tucker.