Barbara Price v Cotswold District Council & Anor

1. The Craven Arms Inn, Brockhampton, GL54 5XQ (Land Registry Title Number GR102318) was nominated by Sevenhampton Parish Council (“the Parish”) as an asset of community value. This Nomination was validated on 24th February 2023.

2. The 1st Respondent (Cotswold District Council, “the Council”) made an initial decision to list part of the Craven Arms as an Asset of Community Value on 12th June 2023. In making that decision the Council noted the statement made by those supporting the nomination: “The Landlady has indicated to a number of people that she would be willing to sell the pub, at the right price. A number of individuals in the parish are interested in purchasing it. With some investment, it is considered that the pub could be very successful, financially and for the local community.”

3. On 6th August 2023 the Appellant (the registered owner of the Craven Arms) requested the Council review its decision. On 14th May 2025, the Council issued the Listing Review Decision which upheld the listing. On 9 June 2025 the Appellant (“Mrs Price”) appealed to this tribunal against the decision of the Council.

4. Section 88 of the Localism Act 2011 makes provision for land of community value: Section 88 Land of community value (1) For the purposes of this Chapter but subject to regulations under subsection (3), a building or other land in a local authority's area is land of community value if in the opinion of the authority— (a) an actual current use of the building or other land that is not an ancillary use furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community, and (b) it is realistic to think that there can continue to be non-ancillary use of the building or other land which will further (whether or not in the same way) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community. (2) For the purposes of this Chapter but subject to regulations under subsection (3), a building or other land in a local authority's area that is not land of community value as a result of subsection (1) is land of community value if in the opinion of the local authority— (a) there is a time in the recent past when an actual use of the building or other land that was not an ancillary use furthered the social wellbeing or interests of the local community, and (b) it is realistic to think that there is a time in the next five years when there could be non-ancillary use of the building or other land that would further (whether or not in the same way as before) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community. … (6) In this section— … “social interests” includes (in particular) each of the following— (a) cultural interests; (b) recreational interests; (c) sporting interests;

5. The Craven Arms closed in 2022 accordingly the issue falls to be considered under s88(2) . The parties are agreed that in the recent past when it was open “the actual use of the building or other land that was not an ancillary use furthered the social wellbeing or interests of the local community” s88(2) (a). The question in dispute is the test laid down by ss88(2) (b) whether: (b) it is realistic to think that there is a time in the next five years when there could be non-ancillary use of the building or other land that would further (whether or not in the same way as before) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.

6. There was some disagreement as to how long the Inn had been in existence, Councillor Day suggested that it dated to the 16 th century; Mrs Price stated that it became a public house in the 1930s.

7. The previous owners left during summer 2002 and in 2003 there was a period when a community group ran it for a few months however in 2004 Mrs Price and her late husband paid £495,000 for the freehold (as recorded by the Land Registry) and a total of £665,000 for the freehold, fixtures, fittings and goodwill.

8. Mrs Price stated that she closed the Inn in October 2022 and applied for planning permission to convert to residential use. She considered that rising prices, including her electricity costs escalating from £400/£500 per month to in excess of £2000 rendered it no longer viable. She indicated that it had been running at a loss for years and that use by villagers was minimal, typically just a few people for drinks who left by about 7.30. The planning officer who considered the application concluded that this was potentially acceptable however Mrs Price withdrew the application.

9. An offer to purchase the pub in the sum of £750,000 was made in 2023 but withdrawn. The community group made an offer to purchase which was not successful.

10. On 15 September 2023 M Hughes MRICS provided a report to the Council on behalf of his clients Sevenhampton and Brockhampton Save Our Local Pub Collective in relation to the Council’s review of the Asset of Community Value. He considered the value of the property in accordance with RICS guidance. He commented: The current owner has advised in previous meetings, and to my clients that she has received numerous ‘valuations’, including one from the agents Fleurets at £825,000. These ‘valuation reports’ have never been forthcoming to my client. I suspect that these ‘valuations’ are only market appraisals, made by an agent to win the instruction to market the property. Such appraisals do not follow the strict methods required by a red book valuation and are used only to show the maximum price an agent may hope to obtain.

11. Following the appropriate methodology he wrote: My valuation of the Market Value of the Craven Arms closed is £465,000. Only if the pub was open and trading and achieving a FMT of £400,000 net of VAT per annum would the value as a Fully Equipped Operational Entity having regard to Trading Potential ("Market Value Trading,") increase to £600,000. My clients have offered the current owner £625,000, an offer significantly above Market Value of the closed pub and as a turnkey operation trading at FMT. This offer has been turned down. … The local community have provided an offer for the Craven Arms that is above market value. It is fully acceptable for the owner to decline such an offer, but in so doing they cannot then argue that the business is not viable, and an ACV registration should be taken off the property

12. Mrs Price told the tribunal that she had had very little positive contact from the community group which had campaigned for the listing as an asset of community value (the Save Our Pub group) and claimed that they had criticised the management of the pub – which was inconsistent with reviews posted about it when it was open. During the Council’s process of gathering information about the finances of the pub in 2023 as part of its listing decision she did not wish financial information to be given to the Parish. She confirmed that she was now retired and had no intention of re-opening and managing the Craven Arms.

13. After the closure of the pub she had explored the possibility of using it for parties and weddings. She further argued that the local village hall was consistently used including a very successful quiz night which had transferred from the pub and was well attended in the hall which had a greater capacity.

14. On 7 November 2025 a property agent instructed by Mrs Price wrote to her in the following terms: “Just to update you as discussed, several potential buyers who've initially enquired about the Craven Arms have chosen not to proceed. This is due to a variety of factors including, the size of the dining area, availability of natural light and the method of access to the letting rooms. Some feedback has also included concerns relating to the pubs ACV designation, such as: Uncertainty around the sale process and future development potential Concerns about community resistance to changes in how the pub is run, due to the visible "Save Our Pub" campaign Worries that ACV status could affect lending as some lenders see it as a risk factor, so potentially reducing loan offers Risk that if the business fails, future resale or redevelopment options may be limited”

15. Councillor Day explained that the village hall only applied for a handful of licences for events each year, and those holding events there rarely sought a licence for the event. He explained that the company formed by the community group with a view to taking on the Craven Arms had been dissolved but a further company could be set up when needed. He did not consider that the hall and the pub would be in competition. Consideration

16. The question for the tribunal to determine is whether it is realistic to think that there could be a use of the building within the next five years that could further the social wellbeing and social interests of the local community.

17. There is ample evidence before me of a long-standing desire in the community to have a functioning pub in the village and a preparedness to move forward to acquire the property in order to maintain the pub. At one stage Mrs Price was considering diversifying the use of the property to becoming a venue for various events. Such use could clearly also promote the social interests of the local community. There is no requirement in the legislation that future use should be identical with previous sue. There is also evidence in emails to Mrs Price that a number of individuals have been interested in acquiring the property and continuing its use as licensed premises as a pub/restaurant. While there may be disputes as to the price for which the Craven Arms might be sold; there is ample evidence of an interest in running it as a pub and as such it would further the social wellbeing of the community.

18. Accordingly I am satisfied that the listing criterion laid out in S88 of the Localism Act 2011 are met and the appeal is dismissed. Signed Date: Hughes 26 January 2026