Pub owner wins appeal against ACV listing

By Ellie Bothwell contact

- Last updated on GMT

Related tags: Appeal

The Kings Head in Pulham St Mary has been closed since 2007
The Kings Head in Pulham St Mary has been closed since 2007
The owner of a pub that has been closed for seven years has successfully appealed the listing of his site as an asset of community value (ACV).

The First Tier Tribunal de-listed the Kings Head in Pulham St Mary, Norfolk, after ruling there had been no community use of the building in the recent past.

It is the first case reported by the Publican's Morning Advertiser​ where a pub owner has successfully appealed against an ACV-listing.

Owner Graham Scott appealed to the Tribunal after his application for a review to South Norfolk Council, following their listing in October 2013, was unsuccessful.

South Norfolk Council had claimed that the Kings Head “could be used by the community as a recreational facility”, and although it is not in use and has not been used recently, the history of the property “confirms the viability of the business”.

It added there is “the need for a premises of this type to further the social wellbeing of the community”.


However, the First Tier Tribunal overturned their decision due to the fact the pub has been closed since 2007.

One condition of listing a building as an ACV, as outlined in the Localism Act 2011, is that the site has been used “in the recent past” and has “furthered the social well-being or interests of the local community”.

Judge NJ Warren said: “I therefore conclude, as the reviewing officer should have done from his finding of that fact, that the past condition was not satisfied. The appeal therefore succeeds.”

Related topics: Other operators

Related news

Show more


Show more

Pub Co model is consequence of Government policies

Posted by Graham Bell,

Governments, and planners, should accept responsibility for what was allowed to happen to the brewing (now Pub Co) industry. They were happy to see deserted high streets turned into late night economies, and tolerated the associated anti-social behaviour, for too long.

The traditional pub customer deserted the scene to be brainwashed by the media reporting trouble and attributing this to all pubs.

I would like the definition of a "pub" (A4 drinking establishment) to be made clear, and for everyone to stop beating up the industry as a whole, and respect the many who do work hard, trying to maintain a service which is sadly disappearing.

Report abuse

The reality

Posted by david,

Graham, we might be in agreement. I refer to your phrase: "All that is needed is for planning procedures and rules to be seen to be fairly applied and complied with".

I would argue it is NOT fair for a Pub Co to ruin a pub via the tied lease model and multi-churned tenants reducing the appeal of a pub to the point where the Pub Co can declare it non-viable, and then sell it as a Tesco Metro (no change of use permission required) or gain change of use permission for housing and sell it at far more than its book value.

The self-declared 'non-viability' should be exposed to proper scrutiny by the planning authorities, not be used as a right of passage to a quick buck and the permanent loss of a community's pub.

That is what is happening in countless instances nationwide.

Report abuse

In total Agreement

Posted by RFM,

With Graham on this. As for the 7 years. Can you not be declared legally dead after 7 years if missing. This pub is clearly legally dead.

One assumes the ACV hasn't resulted in a community buy out again.

Report abuse