"Our work has been vindicated": Judge sides with Derbyshire allotment holders and council in landowner dispute
A group of Matlock allotment holders who were evicted by their landlord scored a legal victory last week, after a regulatory tribunal judge ruled that the site can be classed as an Asset of Community Value (ACV).
Some 16 months on from the tribunal hearing between landowner Brian Newton, Derbyshire Dales District Council and the Starkholmes Allotment Association, on Thursday, May 30, Judge Joseph Neville came down on the side of the council and the allotment holders.
He dismissed Mr Newton’s appeal against the council’s 2021 decision to list the allotments as an ACV, on the basis that they had been in use for more than 100 years and the land could still have served that purpose despite Mr Newton enforcing a Notice to Quit on allotment holders in late 2022.
In his concluding remarks, Judge Neville writes: “Continued allotment use remained one of the realistic alternatives for the site, only requiring failure of his residential development ambitions, a break in his resolve to let the land go to scrub, or compulsory acquisition.”
Listing a building or land as an ACV means that if it is put up for sale within five years, there is a six-week period during which a community group can express an interest in putting together a bid to buy it, which then triggers a six-month moratorium on selling to any other buyer.
By nominating the land for ACV status, the allotment association hoped to secure that opportunity for themselves in the event that Mr Newton tried to sell the land, and the council found that the nomination met all necessary criteria.
While appealing against the listing, at the tribunal hearing in January 2023 Mr Newton insisted that there was no prospect of the land being sold, and that he intended to farm Christmas trees on the site.
The tribunal decision notes Mr Newton’s stated intention to “pursue the residential development potential of the land” at the time of the ACV listing.
Judge Neville wrote: “At the hearing there was much evidence about the commercial viability of a Christmas tree farm instead, but this notion has arisen entirely after the date of listing and I disregard it.”
The judge also chose to disregard legal arguments put forward by both Mr Newton’s representatives and the council about how the tribunal should assess their competing claims.
The 2021 Supreme Court case involving the Home Office and Shamima Begum – the British woman stripped of her citizenship after she left the country as a child to join ISIS – has had repercussions throughout the legal system and raised ongoing questions about the proper powers of government and the judiciary.
Both the council and Mr Newton’s lawyers suggested that previous assumptions ought to apply in this case, and that “the First-tier Tribunal stands in the shoes of the local authority and makes its own findings of fact and decision afresh.”
However, Judge Neville concluded: “I reject the argument that this puts the tribunal in as good a position to decide the statutory condition as the local authority. The statutory scheme requires an opinion, and it specifies that it should be the opinion of the local authority.
“It is the local authority that is obviously best placed to make proleptic assessments of community needs and usage, with all the local planning, environmental, civic and demographic considerations that are potentially relevant.”
He goes on to add: “Mr Newton accepts that at the date of listing the allotments were still in use and that this furthered the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.
“Given that there was as yet no application for planning permission, it was therefore realistic to think that community use can continue.”
Responding to the result, Paul Hackney, a partner with Mr Newton’s legal representatives Geldards, said: “My provisional view is that there are strong grounds to support an appeal.
“The land has been and continues to be used for the growing of Christmas trees. This decision will in no way change that use.”
Even if the tribunal decision is ultimately allowed to stand, it is unclear what the implications could be for any hopes of reinstating the allotments in future.
In his reasoning, Judge Neville reflects on the possibility of Matlock Town Council pursuing a compulsory purchase or lease order for the land, as was being discussed around the time of the listing.
He notes that former district legal officer Lee Gardner weighed up the town council’s interest in reviewing the ACV listing and gave cogent reasons for finding that it gave rise to a realistic possibility.
Judge Neville added: “There is no reason to think it unrealistic that a compelling case for compulsory acquisition might not be established when the process took its course.”
The Starkholmes Allotment Association and Matlock Town Council were approached for comment but had not responded at the time of publication.
A spokesperson for Derbyshire Dales District Council said: “We defended the designation of Starkholmes allotments as an asset of community value and our work has been vindicated at tribunal.
“We have always recognised the importance of the allotments in the Starkholmes community and we will continue to work with key stakeholders to seek a positive outcome for the community.”
For the full text of the tribunal decision, search for [2024] UKFTT 435 (GRC) at caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk.