Council defeats legal challenge over designation of sports ground as asset of community value
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council has won a case at the First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) over the future of a local football ground.
In Basingstoke Town Ltd v Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council & Anor [2022] UKFTT 310 (GRC) Judge JR Findlay dismissed the appeal by Basingstoke Town Football Club and said the provisions of section 88(2)(a) and (b) of the Localism Act 2011 were satisfied concerning the ground’s designation by the council as an asset of community value (ACV).
Basron Developments is the freeholder of about 71% of the Camrose Stadium and the council the remainder.
Basingstoke Town Community Football Club played football at Camrose for over 70 years and in 2017 formed a Save the Camrose Committee to try to demonstrate the community club's ability to operate its own site and why Camrose is the ideal place for community football.
The Basingstoke Town club made 13 grounds of appeal against the ACV but the council said the legislation does not require a detailed business case for an ACV.
Rafi Arif Abdul Razzak, the sole director of Basingstoke Town, told the court he had provided either personally or through his companies more than £2.3m to the club and written off £1m having twice saved it from bankruptcy.
Mr Razzak said he would put no more money into the club and so without his support it was not viable to play football there.
Judge Findlay said: “I find that there are a number of realistic future uses of the land. [Basingstoke Town] may be granted planning permission and proceed to develop the land with or without some provision for community use of part of the land.
“[It] may not be granted planning permission and decide to consider other options for the land which may include future community use. [It] may decide to dispose of the land which would give [Basingstoke Town Community Football Club] the opportunity to create a community sports hub including football facilities.”
The judge said Basingstoke Town might also sell the land to the community club and “all the above are realistic future uses of the land”.
Basingstoke Town submitted that its inability to operate without the support of a substantial financial benefactor was relevant and showed it was not possible to carry on football or any other qualifying use in a financially viable manner.
It also said the market value of the land would be too highly priced for a community group or a football club to acquire it.
Judge Findlay said: “I am not persuaded by the submissions of the appellant that the sums of money involved in the possible purchase and restoration of the land mean that the [community club’s] proposals are unrealistic.
“I do not accept that the acquisition costs are such as to preclude and possibility of the land being put to a qualifying use in the next five years. In my view the capital sums involved do not mean that is necessary for the preparation and submission a more detailed plan of how the finance will be raised in order to establish that it is realistic to think that there is a time in the next five years when there could be non-ancillary use of the land that would further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.”
Mark Smulian
