Baroness Pinnock:

Moved by Baroness Pinnock

247: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—“Local authority acquisition of dormant assets(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations enable a local authority to carry out functions relating to compulsory acquisition of land under section 226A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by Schedule 16 of this Act) where the local authority is satisfied that any land of community value to be purchased within the authority area is dormant.(2) Land of community value is considered dormant if—(a) the land has been included in the authority’s list of assets of community value under section 86A (inserted by Schedule 29 of this Act) for five years continuously,(b) a notice of relevant disposal under section 86M was issued at least once during the five year period under sub-paragraph (a),(c) there has been a preferred community buyer whose offer was rejected despite the buyer offering the value price determined under section 86T or an agreed price with the owner by the end of the negotiation period (see section 86S(4)), and(d) the owner has not entered into a relevant disposal of the land with any other buyer during the permitted sale period under section 86M(6).(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statementThis new clause would allow the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority to engage the compulsory acquisition function under Schedule 16 of this Act if the land is considered dormant.

My Lords, earlier we discussed the words “community empowerment” in the title of the Bill. We have not had sufficient discussion about what that will mean and how it will be included in the Bill and made a reality for communities. The word “empowerment” in the Bill is without meaning if communities are left powerless to save the very assets they value the most.

Amendment 247, in my name, addresses the critical issue of dormant assets of community value. That could be, for example, a local village pub that is no longer in use, or a village shop or community centre that is listed by the local authority as an asset of community value. That means that the local community has already made the effort to gather the necessary names to support making that building, that particular asset, one of community value. A dormant asset of community value, to which this amendment refers, arises when a fair offer is made on a professionally determined value price, but the owner rejects it and proceeds to let the building sit empty and decaying, and therefore dormant, for years, refusing to sell to the community or anybody else.

This amendment seeks to provide a necessary backstop for those situations. It would empower a local authority to use compulsory acquisition powers to purchase land or a building that has been, in effect, abandoned by its owner to the detriment of the public. That would not happen immediately, as the amendment sets out stringent qualifying conditions to ensure it is used only as a last resort. The land has to have been on the list of assets of community value for five continuous years. A notice of disposal must have been issued, with the owner having rejected a fair market offer. The owner must have failed to sell the land to any other buyer during that sale period.

When those conditions are met, the land is, by any reasonable definition, dormant. It is serving no economic purpose, providing no social value and is often becoming a physical eyesore that holds back local regeneration. By allowing local authorities to step in under these specific circumstances, the amendment would ensure that the right to buy is more than just a right to wait in vain. The amendment would give communities a path to reclaim and revitalise the spaces that define them—the pride in place that we have heard about throughout the debates on the Bill. I hope the Minister will welcome the amendment and ensure that community empowerment becomes a tangible reality for those seeking to protect their local heritage, their pride in place and their future. I beg to move.

My Lords, I have Amendments 251, 263ZA and 263ZB in this group. I start by giving my general support to Amendment 247, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, just set out. Councils already have quite a lot of compulsory purchase powers, but in my experience they are very reluctant to use them, so I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from.

On Amendment 251, it may seem like Groundhog Day. I am grateful to noble Lords who voted for this in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. At the time, there was a concession from the Planning Minister in the Commons who said that they would look to consult on this. I reminded the Minister then that I would bring the amendment back if necessary, because we had not heard anything about what was going on with this. The issue, as addressed in Amendment 251, is that, at the moment, only a handful of asset types are protected from demolition. In my experience as an MP in a local community, when owners of places with an asset of community value designation decided to demolish them rather than allow anything further to happen, I felt that was unjustifiable.

I hope the Minister will say something somewhat more encouraging than what she said in Committee, when we were told that apparently the consultation would happen “in due course”. For those of us who have served in government, we know that that is basically speak for “never”. That is not encouraging. That is why I want to hear what the Minister has to say today in response to whether any further consideration has been given of when there might be a timely consultation and, ideally, legislation. On that, I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House subject to the answer of the Minister.

Amendment 263ZA may seem familiar. It was tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. I had tabled something similar, but it was not as good an amendment as that tabled by the noble Lord. Currently, the greater protection given to sporting assets of community value is, in effect, available only to sports grounds that have spectator accommodation. It has been designed for non-league and league football clubs where, as we have seen in the past, things suddenly have gone wrong after the owner has gone bankrupt or similar. I felt, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that this should go further, and take the approach of considering for protection community and playing fields. Such protection is available today in the same way, but not with the same proactivity from the local authority as is currently required under what is proposed for sporting assets of community value.

In Amendment 263ZB, I decided that this is important enough to go further again. We already know that the role of Sport England as a statutory consultee is under threat. It is an expressed view of the Government that they wish to no longer have Sport England be a consultee when it comes to planning applications covering existing playing fields. That went out to consultation, but that was the preferred view of the Government. Amendments 263ZB and 263ZA would, in effect, marry, and bring Sport England back into an important role to help local authorities consider and designate particular areas as sporting assets of community value.

The Government have been surprised at how communities right across the country have, and rightly so, stood up and supported Sport England in its response to the consultation. I am conscious that there are relevant aspects in the NPPF, but the reason I am seeking to put this here is to make sure that we continue to have, for the playing fields and sports grounds that we have today, the statutory role of Sport England recognised in legislation. That could be done in a proactive way.

I am interested to hear further from the Minister about why “sporting ground” has been so narrowly defined, even at this stage on Report, because we have not covered that, and where she considers the role of Sport England to be in making sure that we have playing fields for generations to come. That is why I will press my amendments.

My Lords, I support Amendment 247. My noble friend Lady Bennett supported the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on this amendment. I will speak also to Amendments 255 and 257. I am grateful to the Minister for the time she took to meet me following Committee; that was very generous. However, I am much less grateful about the fact that what I asked for is still missing from the Government’s Bill. I had hoped that that discussion might lead to some movement on the issue of environmental interests, but they are still missing from the legal definition of assets of community value.

In Committee and again at our meeting, the Minister expressed a concern that including environmental assets could turn this scheme into something of a proxy part of the planning system. I want to address that directly, because it reflects a complete misunderstanding of what these amendments would do. Assets of community value give communities a fair chance to come together and buy a valued asset if it comes up for sale. They are not a backdoor planning system, they do not grant a right to veto development and they do not override local plans. That is already true for social and economic interests. No one suggests that allowing a community to buy a pub, shop or community centre turns this scheme into a proxy for regulating the economy or blocking development, so why is the environment treated differently?

This is where the Government’s position gets very difficult to follow. On the one hand, Ministers say that environmental assets—woodlands, allotments, green spaces—can already be nominated where they further social or economic well-being; on the other hand, they stop allowing communities to refer explicitly to environmental interests in the same way. I do not think that communities think like that. They do not say, “We value this woodland only for its social benefit”, or, “We want to retrofit this community building only for economic reasons”. In practice, we pursue social, economic and environmental goals together, just as every part of our planning system already recognises. However, as the Bill stands, a community could nominate a woodland but would not be able to properly articulate the environmental outcomes that they want to protect or enhance; they could seek to acquire a community centre but could not refer to plans to improve energy efficiency or biodiversity as part of their case. That weakens their chance to make a credible case.

The Government’s answer remains that this may be addressed in statutory guidance, but guidance is not law: it can be changed and it carries less weight. As the Committee debate showed, this risks embedding the very confusion that we are trying to resolve—the confusion between the asset itself and the interests it serves.

Finally, I return to the broader principle. Everywhere else in policy—planning law, national frameworks and sustainable development—we recognise that social, economic and environmental goals belong together. The Bill, in many respects, seeks to devolve power and to trust communities, but in this one area it holds back. Leaving environmental interests out of statute is not being neutral; it is a signal that they matter less, which does not surprise me coming from this Government, because that is what we have seen again and again on environmental issues. It risks missed opportunities and poorer outcomes for communities.

I thank my colleagues on the other Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyburg, for supporting these two amendments. I hope that they will say something in support. I reserve the right to ask the House to vote on this, because, quite honestly, it is a principle that the Government have missed completely. As a Green, that distresses me hugely.

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my amendments in this group, concerned with cultural assets of community value—the same amendments I tabled in Committee. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Freyberg for these amendments. I have done so primarily to allow me to thank the Minister for the encouraging reply she gave in Committee that such assets will be explicitly recognised in statutory guidelines. The Minister has kindly invited feedback on that guidance, and my noble friend Lord Freyberg and I have drawn up a more comprehensive list of categories of possible cultural assets than we have discussed, in the hope that this may be of practical use. I have forwarded this in a letter to the Minister over the weekend, so she may not yet have had time to have a look at it. It is a longer list than the examples contained in my Amendment 262, which then would be cited in the Bill. In the interest of completeness, it contains perhaps some unusual examples, but it may be the unusual that a local community wishes to maintain.

One outstanding concern which occurred to us in drawing up this list is about potentially moveable cultural assets, such as archives or furnishings, or even a single object of cultural value; of course, this will be a particular concern for heritage sites. It may be a question of whether or not such assets are integral to the property in which they are housed. This is not something we have previously discussed, but I hope nevertheless that this dimension might be acknowledged within the guidance, so I ask the Minister to consider that specific point. Of course, with historic buildings of national significance, one would hope that other measures come into play, and the conscious inclusion of cultural assets within the scheme should not negate responsibility to others, particularly that which local councils ought to have with regard to many of our cultural assets. However, the great thing about the scheme as it stands is that it is about people power. The local people are often the first to recognise an asset’s importance. In that sense, the scheme is not a replacement for, but an important additional part of, the armoury.

The rest of my amendments raise the status of cultural assets within the legislation; they are not less important. I still protest against cultural being treated as a subset of social and being less important rather than equal to sporting assets within the legislation as it stands, but I am not going to press this at this stage. Rather, I will congratulate the Minister and her team on the clear progress that has been made, ensuring that cultural assets will be much more widely recognised as potential candidates for this scheme.

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendments 263A and 263B. I also support Amendment 263ZB on the consultation with Sport England, which I think is very important. We must not remove Sport England as a consultee. I declare an interest as the honorary president of the London Playing Fields Foundation, the charity that was founded way back in 1890 to protect, promote and provide playing fields at a time when the pressure to build on open green spaces was intense. Very little has changed since then. However, the activities that can take place on well-managed playing fields, I think we all know, can improve lives, especially when we know how the situation is with young children and obesity.

Sport can provide the motivation to be more active and encourage confidence and social skills. Of course, none of this would be possible without a pitch to play on in the first place, and it is therefore vital that we protect playing fields so that they remain accessible, affordable and attractive to current and future generations. Getting rid of our fields is a false economy. Research commissioned by the London Playing Fields Foundation showed just how much money could be saved. An impact study on the activities at the Douglas Eyre Sports Centre in Walthamstow over a 12-month period found that the minimum saving to the public purse was £4.8 million, mostly in reducing crime and anti-social behaviour. Let us not forget: once a playing field is lost, it is lost for ever.

I turn to my amendments. First, I say to the Minister that I support government Amendment 252, which is very important, and also the new category of indefinite sporting ACVs in the Bill, which is most welcome. It makes it clear that once a playing field, always a playing field. Thousands of playing fields have been lost to speculators, and the Bill’s right to buy for sporting assets of community value has the potential to ensure that our remaining playing fields become community-owned assets in perpetuity. The right-to-buy mechanism could be a game-changer in saving playing fields, but there is a flaw in the Bill. It is silent on hope value, which, if left unaddressed, means that communities will always fail to compete with speculators.

The Minister said in Committee:

“We want to ensure that communities have the best opportunity to purchase valued assets and are not priced out by inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential”.—[Official Report, 5/3/26; col. GC 517.]

She was so right; “inflated sale prices” is the lay definition of hope value that Amendments 263A and 263B seek to remove from assets of community value valuations. The principle of removing inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential is accepted by the Government; “inflated sale price” is a non-legal term or definition for what we all call hope value. You could also say that it is the key definition. Hope value is the amount of inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential. Hope value is so big in playing fields because the valuation of a playing field is low, because a playing field run by community sports clubs is usually dependent on volunteers, and that is a break-even social asset. Of course, the same acreage with planning for housing is worth many millions.

In Committee, the Minister dismissed amendments very similar to these on the grounds of “striking the right balance” between communities and asset owners. I agree with that, and I think we all agree with that, but there are two scenarios where a speculator owns a sporting asset of community value with the intent of change of use for abnormal profit. A speculator who owns a playing field that is subsequently determined by the local authority as an ACV has a right to appeal the designation of ACV. A speculator can also afford a judicial review of the council decision. Moreover, a speculator who buys a playing field that is already a sporting ACV does so at their own financial risk, speculating that they can remove the ACV designation to enable change of use for profit. My amendments do not disrupt the right balance. The historic loss of playing fields has proven what we all know: it still favours the speculator. The speculator has more funds and more specialist knowledge to pursue their aims than the community has to protect sporting ACVs at risk.

My Amendment 263A presumes that the new right-to-buy process is working and removes the inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential from the valuation process, and so gives a community charity a chance to buy a playing field at a valuation based on its use as a sports ground. Amendment 263B is the back-up if the right-to-buy process fails as the speculative owner is unwilling to sell an ACV to a charity. The Crichel Down rules for compulsory purchase already provide a path to CPO to tackle obstructive owners, but this amendment makes sure that inflated sales prices based on redevelopment potential—hope value—are removed from CPO valuation for sporting ACVs.

Why do so many groups working to protect playing fields feel so strongly and support these amendments? Let me lay out starkly why these amendments are needed. I use Udney Park in Richmond as a reference case. It was opened in 1922 as a war memorial sports ground by Old Merchant Taylors’ Football Club and was re-donated under covenant in 1937 to St Mary’s Hospital Medical School, which then merged with Imperial College London in 1988. In 2014, Imperial decided that Udney Park was surplus and put it on the market. In 2015, Imperial sold it to a UK speculator who gazumped the £2 million community bid with a £6 million winning bid—so £4 million of hope value, or inflated sale price based on redevelopment potential, probably about £30 million. The UK speculator took five years then to get their planning application to a public inquiry, spending a further £4 million on professional fees. Udney Park became an asset of community value in 2016, thanks to all the campaigners. In 2020, the planning inspector refused the change of use and the UK developer then put Udney Park back on the market in 2021.

However, the current asset of community value right-to-bid process failed. The community bid £1 million. The park was now dilapidated and the war memorial pavilion closed and vandalised, so there was a reduction in value as a sports ground since 2015. Unfortunately, an offshore speculator bought the park in 2022 for £3.5 million, so that was now £2.5 million of hope value or inflated sale price based on redevelopment. If hope value is removed, this offers a path to community ownership for Udney Park and other playing fields at risk.

As the Minister must know, local people in all cases of playing fields being threatened put huge voluntary effort into trying to save them. I pay tribute to the Udney Park Playing Fields Trust, led by Mark Jopling, who has also written to the Minister and the Shadow Minister, and has been working closely with the Liberal Democrat MP for the area. The trust has been tireless in its efforts, but faced with the wealth of this developer, it has virtually no chance of saving the playing fields for their children’s children to play on if we do not even up the situation on hope value. That is why these two simple amendments are so important.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 263ZA and 263ZB. I declare that I am chair of Sport Wales, I have recently been appointed to the board of Active Travel England and I am a patron of Fields in Trust. Sport England is notified only if there is loss or damage to sports fields. While I admire the Government’s ambition to increase housebuilding in an attempt to stimulate growth, it is important than people, especially children, have a place to play. The work of Sport England in safeguarding these areas is really important.

The Sport and Recreation Alliance has done some work in this area. These places contribute more than £2 billion a year to improving well-being, impacting 4 million adults and around 1 million children. While as a country we celebrate big moments of sporting success, such as the Red Roses, the Lionesses or the recent Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, most athletes start their career in a playing field. That is where my career started. Protection of playing fields goes beyond the elite pathway. It is thinking about how people can be active.

In the 1980s and 1990s, national planning policy alone proved completely insufficient to prevent building on playing fields. Between 1980 and the mid-1990s, about 10,000 playing fields were lost. Planning policy guidance note 17 in 1991 failed to protect the playing fields. Sport England being given statutory consultation status in 1996 was an important move forward. Sport England currently protects around 1,000 playing fields every year and objects to only 0.001% of planning applications, so of around 300,000 planning applications a year it objects to just three. It responds to 99.2% of planning applications within 21 days. Removing Sport England as a statutory consultee will not speed up housing delivery but will risk losing more fields. Fields are also being targeted as windfall sites if local authorities struggle to meet their housing needs. Local authorities may also allocate their own fields, especially as rules on capital receipts have changed.

This is not about pathway or about elite athletes. It is about the vital role that Sport England plays in protecting the health of the nation.

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to all of which I have added my name. I have also added my name to Amendments 255 and 257.

The amendments tabled by the noble Earl do two simple things. Amendment 262 defines “cultural interests” with clear examples, while the remaining amendments correct the anomaly of cultural assets sitting subordinate to sporting assets in a way that DCMS’s own cultural policy does not intend. I also associate myself with the email sent yesterday by the noble Earl to the Minister, referred to in his speech, offering suggestions for the statutory guidance on cultural assets. Can the Minister confirm that there will be feedback on this and that comprehensive guidance will be published before the Bill commences?

Amendments 255 and 257 deserve particular attention. They would extend the community right to buy assets that further environmental well-being, but they would do so carefully. The Minister raised a concern in Committee that amendments should not become a vehicle for general environmental protection. The amendments’ wording addresses that concern directly because land already allocated in local development plans is excluded. That is a precise and principled limitation, meaning that what is left is exactly what should be protected—the green spaces, woodlands and riverside walks that communities have already identified as central to their way of life. The Minister’s alternative, that such assets should be captured through guidance under the existing social and economic well-being criteria, does not provide equivalent security. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, put it in Committee, once you leave something out of legal safeguards, you invite people to ignore it.

Guidance is precisely what gets set aside when other pressures arise. A green field matters to a community just as much as a music venue does. It deserves the same legal footing, not a footnote in statutory guidance. Yet recognition alone is not enough if an asset can simply be demolished. Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, addresses that gap. I supported that on the planning Bill, as she knows. The Minister confirmed that the Housing Minister has committed to consult on this in the next review of permitted development rights, but a commitment to consult is not a commitment to act. A future consultation offers cold comfort to a community watching its assets face demolition now. The Government have acknowledged that there is a justified argument for this to change. The time for it is in this Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I add my support for Amendments 255 and 257. I will not repeat what has been so eloquently said by my noble friend Lord Freyberg and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but, as the Minister pointed out in Committee, environmental assets can be included in the register of assets of community value if they are shown to support social and economic well-being. But I am very concerned that the wording of this Clause—that these have to be “non-ancillary” uses—will rule out many areas of green space. We know how important green and blue spaces are to communities.

For example, a row of trees or hedgerows between a road and a community would be an important filter for health, filtering noise and visual amenity. But none of that would be easily captured in a way that would allow a community to defend in a legal context that this was a social or economic well-being matter. It is a matter of environmental well-being, mental health, physical health and all sorts of things that would not come under this.

I strongly feel that guidance and using the existing clause as worded will not work for many of the purposes that the Government set out and wanted this clause to capture—all the derelict areas that communities could take up and adopt as green spaces within their community areas. I hope the Government look at this clause again. I will support the noble Baroness if she takes this to a vote.

My Lords, at its heart this group of amendments speaks to something fundamental—the importance of preserving those local assets that bind communities together. Whether they are pubs, sports grounds, community halls or green spaces, these are important spaces for local people. They are the places of shared identity and connection. In that context, we see merit in the Amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Her proposal to ensure that buildings designated as assets of community value are protected from permitted development rights that would allow for their demolition is both practical and necessary. Without such protection, there is real risk that assets could be lost before communities have a meaningful opportunity to act.

Similarly, her amendments to broaden the definition of sporting assets and to involve Sport England as a statutory consultee, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, reflect the importance of safeguarding grass-roots sports and recreational spaces. These are often the very facilities that underpin community health and well-being, yet they can be among the most vulnerable to loss.

We also recognise the intention behind the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which seeks to address the issue of so-called dormant assets. While these are important questions to consider around the use of compulsory purchase powers, the principle that communities should not be indefinitely frustrated in their efforts to acquire valued local assets is one that deserves careful attention by the Government.

The amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and others, seek to expand the definition of community value to include culture and environmental well-being. We acknowledge their intentions, as we have throughout the whole Bill, and the important role that such assets play in community life. However, these provisions do not sit in isolation; they depend on a wider funding landscape if they are to be meaningful in practice. The Government have placed considerable emphasis on Pride in Place funding as the means of supporting local regeneration and community assets. Yet there remains a lack of clarity as to how this funding is being distributed and whether it is truly reaching all parts of the country fairly.

We understand that the Pride in Place programme offers £5.8 billion over 10 years to more than 300 areas. But what then of those communities deemed ineligible for this funding; what financial support is available to them, and how does the department intend to ensure that they are not left behind? Can the Minister also explain the three metrics used to allocate this funding and the rationale behind the weightings applied to them? Transparency in this respect is essential if confidence in the system is to be maintained. There is a further concern. To what extent has this funding been drawn from existing programmes? If that is the case, what assessment has been made of the impact of the decisions to withdraw that funding?

If we are serious about empowering communities and protecting the assets they value, it is not enough simply to repackage funding or redistribute it from one initiative to another. Communities need certainty, continuity and a clear sense that support is being strengthened, not replaced. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their amendments regarding community right to buy an asset of community value, which I will refer to as an ACV, and to all noble Lords for participating in a very useful and thoughtful debate.

I will begin with Amendment 247. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I agree about the importance of ensuring that valued local assets can be retained and used for the benefit of the community. However, the ACV scheme is not designed to interfere with how asset owners are using their private property, nor to compel these owners to sell their property against their wishes. It is intended to empower communities while respecting the property rights of asset owners, and we do not consider it proportionate to restrict how asset owners use their property as long as the use is in line with planning requirements.

We also do not believe that the criteria set out in the noble Baroness’s amendment are a fair representation of a dormant asset. Asset owners may continue to own and manage an ACV for the benefit of the community, even if they indicated an intention to sell previously. Under the policy, it is within their rights to change their mind and withdraw the asset from sale completely. It is where asset owners do wish to sell their asset and the benefit to the community could be lost, or there is an opportunity to revive an asset that had value for the community in the past, that we want to ensure the community can take ownership of and protect the asset through the community right to buy.

Local authorities may already use their compulsory purchase powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to acquire ACVs where there is a compelling case in the public interest and negotiations to acquire the land by agreement have failed. Taking the example of the derelict property that the noble Baroness gave, in some circumstances that could be resolved through CPO powers. I am not pretending it is easy; there are steps that need to be taken, but those powers can be used for that purpose.

Placing additional responsibilities on local authorities, which would need to monitor and make potentially complex judgments on whether assets are genuinely dormant, would represent an unreasonable burden. This is especially true given the increase in the number of listed assets we expect to see as a result of this policy.

I turn now to Amendment 251, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It follows the same amendment made in Committee, as the noble Baroness pointed out, and during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act. As noble Lords will recall, we do not need primary legislation to amend permitted development rights. We agree with the intention of protecting these important assets of community value, and we have already committed to consult on this. This will follow the proper approach to amending permitted development rights, allowing all interested parties to make representations on the proposals ahead of any secondary legislation needed to make such changes, should the consultation responses support it. There is a slight update on what I said in Committee—we intend to include this proposal in the next consultation on permitted development rights, which we will publish this year.

I now turn to government Amendments 252 and 264. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for raising questions in Committee about the appropriate listing period for an asset of community value. We have reflected on the points raised during previous debates: that the current five-year listing period is too short and may leave valued assets vulnerable to loss if the community does not successfully re-nominate them in a timely manner. We have therefore tabled an amendment to extend this period to 10 years. This will reduce the risk that an asset of community value falls through the cracks when a listing expires. It will decrease the burden on communities of re-nominating an asset every five years, which includes compiling evidence of an asset’s community value and making an application to the local authority. It will also decrease the burden on local authorities in processing these applications and updating their local lists.

We consider that a listing period of 10 years strikes the right balance between increasing protections for assets while ensuring that they remain of value to the community and that restrictions are not placed on private property ownership unnecessarily. Assets that are already listed when the new community right to buy powers come into force will see their original listing extended for an additional five years, so that they are also listed for 10 years in total from the date they were originally entered on the list. We consider the impact of this extension to property rights of asset owners to be justified under the European Convention on Human Rights.

As mentioned in previous debates, the indefinite listing period for sporting assets of community value reflects their unique value to the community and their particular susceptibility to redevelopment, and is appropriate for these types of assets. Coupled with other provisions in the Bill—such as the requirement for local authorities to notify the community and other relevant partners six months before an asset is due to be removed from their list, so that they have ample time to apply to the local authority to relist the asset—I hope that noble Lords will agree that this 10-year listing period will ensure stronger safeguards for assets.

I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for Amendments 253, 254, 256 and Amendments 258 to 263. I have not received his letter yet, but when I do I will give it due consideration. We share the desire to safeguard arts and cultural spaces such as music venues, recording studios, theatres and rehearsal spaces. They are essential for artists to work effectively and play an important role in the vibrancy and identity of local areas. A broad range of arts and cultural spaces will already be in scope of the ACV definition. Communities will be able to nominate any asset that furthers their social or economic interests, and the definition is clear that social interests include the cultural interests of the community. As set out in previous debates, statutory guidance will be explicit that cultural assets are in scope of the policy. I will look at the email that the noble Earl sent me. We continue to welcome his feedback as we develop this guidance. Together with protections for cultural assets provided through the planning system and other government support, I hope that this reassures the noble Earl that there is already a strong framework for supporting valued cultural spaces.

Amendments 255 and 257, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, propose environmental considerations as part of the community right to buy. The core aim of this policy is community ownership. It is about giving communities real power to take ownership of cherished local assets. The key here is “asset”. All noble Lords in this Chamber will know of a pub, community centre or public garden in their local area that is at risk of loss or closure despite being at the heart of the community, and this is what the policy has been created to protect. Many environmental assets will already be in scope given that they would be considered to further the economic or social wellbeing or interests of the community. This could include allotments, playing fields, woodlands and farms. Statutory guidance will make it clear that local authorities should accept nominations of environmental assets where the community can demonstrate social or economic value, whether current or historic.

However, this is not a policy centred on environmental protection, nor is it designed to apply to assets that have no prior connection to the community. The inclusion of assets that further the environmental well-being of communities but have no demonstrable social or economic value to those communities, as the noble Baroness is proposing, would take away from the core aim of the policy. It could potentially allow communities to nominate any piece of private land for environmental well-being reasons, which may have an unjustifiable impact on the property rights of asset owners as well as risking the misuse of the policy to block development. Environmental protections are best delivered through effective planning regulation, and it is important that we keep these systems separate.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment which seeks to extend the scope of the sporting asset of community value—SACV—scheme so that it is not limited to sports grounds featuring spectator facilities. The existing legal definition of a sports ground, set out in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, which specifically requires the presence of a spectator facility, gives councils a straightforward and impartial method for determining whether an asset can be listed as an SACV. There is currently no equivalent or alternative legislation that offers an all-encompassing or universally accepted statutory definition of a sports ground. Expanding the definition to include also land that is wholly or mainly used for sporting or physical recreation activities would impose a significant burden on local councils. It would require them to undertake complex subjective assessments, gather additional evidence and manage a larger volume of cases. Moreover, having a spectator facility is a practical and impartial sign of community value. If a venue can accommodate spectators, that demonstrates it is intended for collective organised activities and is already fulfilling a broader community function.

The current SACV definition will markedly boost the number of sports grounds that local communities can acquire through the new community right-to-buy scheme. Sports grounds at grass-roots level that do not meet the criteria set by the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 will still be able to be listed under the standard assets of community value scheme if the community considers them to be of value.

Regarding Amendment 263ZB, I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of ensuring that local authorities make the right decisions on listing SACVs, so that as many eligible sports grounds as possible are given these protections. The provisions in the Bill provide an objective framework for local authorities to make decisions about listing SACVs in their local area. This is clear that land is an SACV if it meets the definition of “sports ground” contained in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975—a place where sports or competitive activities take place in the open air and where spectator accommodation is provided.

Given this clear framework, requiring local authorities to consult Sport England in listing SACVs is unnecessary. Moreover, it would represent a significant burden on both local authorities and Sport England, which would be required to consult on the eligibility of thousands of sports grounds. As the noble Baroness will be aware, we will publish comprehensive statutory guidance to support local authorities in delivering the new policy. This will clearly set out their duties in listing SACVs, including consulting relevant sporting bodies if they consider this to be appropriate.

On Amendment 263A, I recognise the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in seeking to limit the inflation of asset prices based on redevelopment potential. We want to ensure that communities have the best opportunity to purchase valued assets when they are put up for sale and are not priced out because of this. However, we need to strike the right balance between giving communities strong powers to safeguard their valued local assets and protecting the property rights of asset owners. We consider that the benefits to the public as a whole of removing redevelopment potential in the valuation of individual assets would not be significant enough to justify the interference in the rights of asset owners.

That said, we have sought to protect communities from inflated prices as much as possible through the community right to buy process. In the first instance, the negotiation period will give community buyers and asset owners the opportunity to agree a mutually acceptable price. If they are unable to reach an agreement, the independent valuation process will determine a fair price for both parties based on market value. Community groups will have the opportunity to make representations to the independent valuer to support them in making their determination, and this will be the final price that community groups will have to meet to purchase an asset.

On Amendment 263B, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, the community right to buy has not been designed to compel owners to sell their assets. The policy means that if they do wish to sell an asset, the community must have right of first refusal on its purchase. This amendment would provide that local authorities may use powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to compulsorily purchase ACVs at their market value without paying hope value. Local authorities can already make compulsory purchase orders under that Act, which may be exercised on behalf of community groups or parish councils to acquire assets provided there is a compelling case in the public interest. Introducing a new provision to compulsorily purchase an asset where the owner does not wish to sell would represent an unjustifiable interference with the property rights of asset owners. Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 effectively removes hope value from compensation for the market value of land acquired through the use of compulsory purchase powers for a certain category of schemes where this is justified in the public interest.

We agree with the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that communities are not prevented from protecting ACVs due to inflated sale prices, but we must also ensure the property rights of asset owners are upheld. A blanket rule removing hope value from the value of individual assets would not sufficiently protect the rights of asset owners. The independent valuation process will determine a fair price for both parties based on market value, and all parties will have the opportunity to make representations to the independent valuer to support them in making their determination. This will be the final price that communities will have to meet to purchase an asset. If owners do not agree with the price, they can choose not to sell.

On the point about Pride in Place, made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, it would probably be more helpful if I wrote to her setting out the detail of how the areas subject to Pride in Place funding have been chosen, and about the schemes available for areas that may not come into the Pride in Place category. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her amendment, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Hoey, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, not to press theirs.

Before the Minister sits down, are the Government actually saying that environmental assets, environmental benefits, are secondary to social and economic ones and that they are not all intertwined? I cannot believe such blindness on such an important issue.

No, I am saying that if an asset is of value to the community for environmental purposes, that would fit in with the economic and social purposes we have set out.

Will the Minister define more carefully the phrase “market value”? She said many times “market value” and “hope value” and that there could be negotiations about the value of a piece of land. I think that by “market value” she means current use value. Will she explain what market value actually is? What is the market value if it is not hope value and does not include hope value?

This would be a negotiation, as I set out, involving an independent valuation process to determine a fair price for both parties based on the market value of that asset. That means that both parties get the opportunity to make representations to an independent valuer to support them. The final price will be determined by the independent valuation process. Community groups will have to decide whether they want to go ahead with that purchase, and asset owners will decide whether they wish to sell at that price.

But surely the market value depends on what is going to be done with the particular playing field?

I cannot really add anything to what I have said already. The valuation process would take all matters into account. It will be for both parties to make representations from their perspective about what they consider to be the market value, and the independent valuer will make the judgment between the two of them.

My Lords, we have had nearly an hour of debate on this very important group of amendments, which is at the heart of the community empowerment part of the Bill. The various issues that have been raised—cultural issues, playing fields, community buildings, assets of environmental value, assets of social value—encapsulate what communities believe to be the value of the place where they live: their pride in place, which they hope the Government will endorse and support.

I welcome the two government amendments in this group that enhance the assets of community value, but there is still much more to do, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has said. My friend and colleague, the Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson, has written and urged me to speak on this in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It is a good example of what can go wrong and how communities can lose what they value most. When we come to the next group, that will be reiterated.

Although we have had a good debate, we are not making any progress with the Minister. I will read her detailed answer in Hansard and maybe follow up some points at the next stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 247 withdrawn.