The Assets of Community Value (ACV) regime, introduced by the Localism Act 2011, aimed to give communities a meaningful chance to safeguard important local assets by delaying sales and allowing community groups to bid. In practice, however, the system has struggled to deliver its intended impact. Few listed assets have been acquired by communities, and the moratorium has generally operated as a short delay rather than a genuine opportunity to buy. Communities rarely have the resources to assemble a viable proposal within the current six‑week or six‑month moratorium periods, and owners remain free to sell to any party once that period ends. The result has been a regime that is procedurally well‑defined but often limited in practical effect.

The existing process also brings structural challenges. Listing is an evidence‑based administrative exercise rather than a political decision, which can sit awkwardly with member expectations. Internal reviews must be undertaken by senior officers unconnected with the original decision, placing pressure on already stretched leadership teams. Appeals commonly arise from procedural issues or limited engagement between owners and nominators. Overall, while the system has provided visibility and recognition for valued assets, it has rarely delivered substantive community ownership.

The new ACV regime

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill seeks to strengthen the system by introducing a more practical and expansive framework for community involvement. Through new sections 86A-86Z6 of the Localism Act, the Bill widens the definition of qualifying assets to include uses that support economic as well as social wellbeing, allowing a broader range of land and buildings to be listed, including factories and retail premises. It also creates a new category of Sporting Assets of Community Value (SACVs), giving sports grounds, clubhouses and related land automatic and ongoing protection through dedicated local authority lists.

Most significantly, the Bill replaces the current right to bid with a right to buy, giving communities a clearer and more realistic pathway to acquiring assets. Once an owner signals an intention to dispose, the nominating party becomes the preferred community buyer. Authorities must facilitate discussions, support an eight‑week negotiation period, and commission an independent valuation if required, with an extended twelve‑month moratorium offering communities more time to prepare a viable proposal. This represents a genuine revitalisation of community rights and has the potential to produce better outcomes than the existing system.

However, the more ambitious regime brings with it substantial new obligations for local authorities. Councils will need to maintain expanded ACV and SACV registers, manage statutory negotiations, oversee progress reviews, appoint and fund valuers, and administer broader review and appeal rights. These tasks require officer time, specialist knowledge and consistent processes at a point when many authorities face significant capacity and resource pressures.

The reforms, therefore, offer a welcome strengthening of community rights, addressing long‑recognised weaknesses in the current system. But they also create a materially more demanding framework. For councils already under severe financial and staffing pressure, the new regime risks becoming extremely difficult to deliver without additional resources.

For any queries regarding ACVs or the proposed legislative changes, please contact me.