Sandhu v South Oxfordshire: Asset of Community Value listing upheld for closed village pub

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) has dismissed an appeal against the listing of a former village public house as an Asset of Community Value, providing important guidance on the temporal scope of section 88(2) of the Localism Act 2011.

In Satwinder Sandhu v South Oxfordshire District Council [2025] UKFTT 1306 (GRC), the appellant challenged South Oxfordshire District Council's decision to list the former White Lion Public House in Crays Pond as an ACV. The White Lion, which had traded as a public house for over a century, closed in August 2013. The appellant purchased the premises in October 2013 with intentions to convert it to an Indian restaurant, then sought planning permission for residential use in December 2013—an application that was refused.

The premises had been listed as an ACV in October 2013, with that listing expiring in 2018. Following relisting in June 2019, the appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal in 2020. The current appeal concerned a fresh listing decision made on 14 June 2024 and upheld on review on 2 October 2024.

The "recent past" requirement

The central question under section 88(2)(a) was whether the White Lion's use as a public house, which ended 11 years before the listing decision, could still be considered in the "recent past". The Tribunal, comprising Judge Saward and Judge Harris, emphasised that Parliament deliberately chose imprecise language, making "recent past" a flexible concept dependent on individual circumstances.

Drawing on the previous 2020 decision concerning the same premises, the Tribunal held that the 11-year period remained within the "recent past" when considered against over a century of use as a public house in a small community. Significantly, the Tribunal noted that the dormancy resulted from the owner's decision, and that the lawful use as a drinking establishment had never formally ended.

The "realistic to think" test

On the forward-looking requirement under section 88(2)(b), the Tribunal applied principles from the recent Upper Tribunal decision in Dragonfly Architectural Services Limited v Brighton & Hove City Council [2025] UKUT 051 (AAC). This established that "realistic" means showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved, without requiring hard-headed commercial analysis or detailed business cases. The test is deliberately low, though aspirations must have some realistic foundation.

The Tribunal found several factors supported a realistic prospect of community use within five years. The White Lion Crays Pond Community Interest Company, incorporated in 2021, had made multiple purchase offers of increasing value and prepared a business plan for community operation. The company report confirmed it was formed specifically to bid for the premises. Over 300 people had expressed support through the CIC's website, with in-principle financial pledges from supporters and local businesses.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments regarding the CIC's business plan deficiencies, noting that detailed financial scrutiny was unnecessary. The Council had examined the updated January 2024 business plan and found it adequately demonstrated how the CIC would manage and restore the asset over five years. The fact that the premises had been marketed by a national agent indicated the appellant's willingness to sell, supporting the realistic prospect of a purchaser emerging.

The decision reinforces the community-protective purpose of ACV legislation whilst confirming that extended closure periods do not automatically preclude listing where historical community use has been significant and circumstances support realistic prospects of resumption.

Copyright & permissions