Islington BC's Response

The council’s response to your questions is as follows:

1. The Review Officer would from the papers considered and the evidence heard have been aware when making the decision of the date of the nomination , the date of the lease, the date the pub closed and the date when works to the pub are said to have commenced.

2. As per my email to you of 11th September the owner was entitled to grant the lease, change the use and commence works at any time prior to and on 30th March regardless of whether or not the property was listed as an asset of community value. The “right to bid” for assets of community value contained in the Localism Act, which is what gives rise to the duty on local authorities to list nominated land and buildings that it considers to be assets of community value, is just that, a right to bid when the owner decides to sell the property freehold or to grant a lease of the same for 25 plus years.

3. In relation to the ACV nomination the changes to the GPDO that took effect in April this year were immaterial in the council’s opinion to the decisions taken in respect of the nomination in May and August.

4. The Officer considering the listing application was given advice about the change in the GPDO rights prior to making the decision in May because this was the first application on a public house that had been considered since the legislation came into effect. The council in considering an ACV nomination is not acting as the planning authority and can only consider matters relevant to the nomination. However, in any event in this matter there was nothing in the papers before the Officer that would have led to enforcement action being considered.

5. As previously explained the review is treated as a de novo hearing and the Reviewing Officer is entitled to take into consideration fresh evidence, whether or not available to the previous decision maker, as indeed a First Tier Tribunal would be if the matter became the subject of an appeal by the owner.

6. It is likely that the owner was not aware of the ACV application at the time the Lease was completed but this would in any event not have had a bearing on the outcome here. Please see the reply to question 2 above.

7. This would not have been the case. As I explained in my email of 11th September and in reply to your second question, the ACV listing would have made no difference to the grant or continuance of the Lease. A listing as an ACV would not have prevented the use of the property as a restaurant.

8. The council does not agree with your comment as you were supplied with a copy of the owners submission and invited to the review hearing. You were afforded the opportunity to comment.

9. It is unlikely that the Reviewing Officer would have reached a different decision given the evidence available. Your web-link submission to the Reviewing Officer was considered.

10. and 11. The council has a distinct role prescribed by statute to fulfil in relation to ACV nominations. It takes the duty imposed on it as with every other duty very seriously. It has to act in accordance with the law and in this case that has meant this particular nomination has not been successful. The legislation prescribes what the council can do and as explained above listing the pub as an ACV would not have changed what the owner was legally entitled to do here. This decision does not set a precedent as each nomination is considered on individual merits against the legal criteria for listing. The council remains committed to protecting public houses and seeks to ensure that this is achieved in the legal ways open to it such as through its planning policies.

I trust the above has answered your questions.