Hillingdon Council Cabinet Member and Officer Decisions
Rural Activities Garden Centre: Asset of Community Value Nominations - RAGC and Adjoining Car Park Land
Report Document
Can't see the PDF? Download Report
Decision / Minutes Document
Can't see the PDF? Download Minutes
Text extracted from PDFs
View Report Text
Democratic Services Location: Phase II Ext: 0692 DDI: 01895 250692 CMD No: 1604 To: COUNCILLOR JONATHAN BIANCO CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES & PROPERTY c.c. All Members of th e Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee c.c. Andrew Low – Residents Services c.c. Dan Kennedy – Corporate Director of Residents Services c.c. Ward Councillors for Colham & Cowley Date: 15 January 2026 Non-Key Decision request Form D RURAL ACTIVITIES GARDEN CENTRE: ASSETS OF COMMUNITY VALUE NOMINATIONS – RURAL ACTIVITIES GARDEN CENTRE AND ADJOINING CAR PARK LAND Dear Cabinet Members, Attached is a report requesting that a decision be made by you as an individual Cabinet Member. Democratic Services confirm that this is not a key decision, as such, the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 notice period does not apply. You should take a decision on or after Friday 23 January 2026 in order to meet Constitutional requirements about publication of decisions that are to be made. You may wish to discuss the report with the Corporate Director before it is made. Please indicate your decision on the duplicate memo supplied and return it to me when you have made your decision. I will then arrange for the formal notice of decision to be published. Ryan Dell Democratic Services Title of Report: RURAL ACTIVITIES GARDEN CENTRE: ASSETS OF COMMUNITY VALUE NOMINATIONS – RURAL ACTIVITIES GARDEN CENTRE AND ADJOINING CAR PARK LAND Decision made: Reasons for your decision: (e.g. as stated in report) Alternatives considered and rejected: (e.g. as stated in report) Signed ……………………………………………………… Date…………………….. Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property Cabinet Member report – 15 January 2026 Part I – Public RURAL ACTIVITIES GARDEN CENTRE: ASSETS OF COMMUNITY VALUE NOMINATIONS – R URAL ACTIVITIES GARDEN CENTRE AND ADJOINING CAR PARK LAND Cabinet Member & Portfolio Councillor Jonathan Bianco Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property Responsible Officer Daniel Kennedy – Corporate Director of Residents Services Report Author & Directorate Andrew Low – Assistant Director of Property Papers with report Appendix A – site plan HEADLINES Summary This report seeks Cabinet Member approval to: 1) a gree the registering of the Rural Activities Garden Centre (RAGC) site as an Asset of Community Value 2) d ecline the nomination to register the adjoining land as an Asset of Community Value. Putting our Residents First Delivering on the Council Strategy 2022-2026 This report supports our ambition for residents/ the Council of: An efficient, well-run, digital-enabled council working with partners to deliver services to improve the lives of all our residents This report supports our commitments to residents of: Safe and Strong Communities Financial Cost It is not anticipated that there are any financial costs associated with these decisions. Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee Ward Colham & Cowley RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property: 1. A pproves the registering of the R ural Activities Garden Centre site as an Asset of Community Value as outlined in red on the attached site plan in appendix 1; and 2. D eclines the nomination to register the adjoining land as an Asset of Community Value as outlined in blue on the attached site plan in appendix 1. Cabinet Member report – 15 January 2026 Part I – Public Reasons for recommendations 1) The Council received nominations to list both sites as Assets of Community Value . The groups that submitted the nominations appear to be qualifying groups capable of meeting the requirements to submit a qualifying nomination. The qualifying criteria for unincorporated groups is they must consist of at least 21 local people who appear on the electoral roll within the local authority where the asset is situated, or within a neighbouring local authority. 2) Statute sets out two tests that must be met if a building or other land is to be registered as an Asset of Community Value: a. The actual current use (or use in the recent past) furthers the social well -being or social interests of the local community. b. It is realistic to think that there can continue to be (or will be in the next five years) use of the building or other land which will further the social well -being or social interests of the local community. 3) Having reviewed the relevant statute and available guidance it is clear the RAGC site was, and is still, being used for a purpose that furthers the social well-being or social interest of the local community. As a result, the RAGC site qualifies as a site which can be nominated as a site of community value and therefore the nomination to register the site should be accepted. 4) When the RAGC was open the adjoining land was used as an overflow car park for the RAGC and therefore the use of this site gave an ancillary community benefit because of its link to the use of the RAGC. As the RAGC is proposed to no longer operate with open access to the general public there is no longer a requirement for overflow parking. It is therefore considered this site does not qualify to be registered as an Asset of Community Value because the site is a grass field which was previously used as a car park and any previous community benefit arising from this site is deemed to be an ancillary benefit rather than arising from its main use. Currently the land is a grass field and there is no realistic prospect of the site being used for a qualifying use in the next five years. As the main use of the site does not meet the test to qualify the nomination to register the adjoining land site as an asset of community value should be rejected. 5) Under statute the C ouncil has eight weeks to consider any nominations . However, the window for making this decision expired some time ago. Therefore, further delaying or refusing the nomination to list the RAGC site is likely to result in legal action being taken against the Council. It is not thought the same risk applies to the Adjoining Land Site as it is thought this site does not pass the qualifying criteria and therefore a legal challenge on this asset is less likely, although it does remain a possibility. Alternative Options Considered/ Risk Management 6) The option of refusing the nomination on the RAGC is not recommended as in the officer’s opinion the site (red outline area appendix 1) does qualify as an asset capable of being registered and one of the nominating parties has made it clear that legal action is likely to result if the nomination is not accepted. 7) The option of accepting the nomination to register the Adjoinin g Land Site as an Asset of Community Value (blue outline, appendix 1) is not recommended as it is not thought the land qualifies as an asset which can be registered as an A sset of Community Value because any previous community benefit was derived from an ancillary use, currently the Cabinet Member report – 15 January 2026 Part I – Public site is not being used for a use which creates a community benefit and there is no realistic prospect of the site being used for a use which benefits the community in the next five years. It is not thought declining this nomination will result in a legal challenge, but this does remain a potential risk primarily because the C ouncil is outside of the eight -week window in which the decision to accept or decline the nomination should have been made. 8) T he option of the Council doing nothing and not responding to the nominations is also not recommended. The reason for this is that it would likely result in legal action being instigated against the Council and this would result in the C ouncil incurring unnecessary and expensive expenditure as well as reputational damage. Democratic compliance/ previous authority 9) The Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property has the necessary delegated authority in the Council’s Constitution to take these decisions. Select Committee comments 10) None at this stage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 11) The Council has received three Assets of Community value Nominations. The details of these are set out in the table below: Date Nominator Property Landowner Date Decision Response Due 07.06.25 Hayes Community Development Forum Rural Activities Garden Centre London Borough of Hillingdon 04.08.26 13.06.25 Friends of the Rural Activities Garden Centre (FRAGC) Rural Activities Garden Centre London Borough of Hillingdon 08.08.26 23.06.25 Friends of the Rural Activities Garden Centre (FRAGC) Land Adjoining the Rural Activities Garden Centre Buckinghamshire County Council 18.08.26 12) To guide Members through the decision-making process the Legal Team has provided the following advice: An ACV is a building or other land considered to be land of community value if: a) the actual current use (or use in the recent past) furthers the social well-being or social interests of the local community; and b) it is realistic to think that there can continue to be (or will be in the next five years) use of the building or other land which will further the social well -being or social interests of the local community. Cabinet Member report – 15 January 2026 Part I – Public Both tests must be satisfied. The use of the building or land furthering the social well -being or social interests of the local community must be the main use and not an ancillary use and it must be realistic to think that such use can continue. Officers will need to decide whether the claimed use is the main use or an ancillary use. If officers decide the claimed use is ancillary then the nomination can be declined. If on the other hand it is decided that the claimed use is the main use, there must also be a realistic prospect of that use continuing. If officers are able to evidence that this is not likely to be the case then again the application can be declined. A decision either way must be made and all parties notified within 8 weeks. If the decision is not to list, valid reasons need to be given. If a nomination is accepted, the building or land should be registered as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) and it will remain on the Council's register of community assets for five years. When a listed asset comes up for sale, the Community Right to Bid for ACVs provides a delay in the sale process, called a moratorium. The moratorium allows community groups to prepare and make a bid for the asset on the open market. This aims to ensure that buildings and amenities can be kept in public use and remain an integral part of community life where possible. If the owner of the land or building listed as an ACV wishes to sell, they must contact the Council who will notify the community group which nominated the asset. The community group then has six weeks to register its interest as a potential bidder. If the community group wishes to buy, it is then allowed six months to prepare a proposal and raise funds to bid to buy it. During the moratorium period, the owner of the asset cannot agree a sale. However, the owner of the ACV is under no obligation to sell to a community group, and after the moratorium period the owner of the ACV can sell to whomever they choose, the community group is simply bidding like anyone else. After the moratorium period has ended, another moratorium period cannot begin for a further 12 months. The listing does not have any impact on the owner’s ability to use the site or repurpose the site providing it does not seek to dispose of the site. 13) To date, officers have written to all nominators acknowledging receipt of their applications and have advised them of the anticipated decision dates. Buckinghamshire County Council (and their rural land agent – Carter Jonas) have also been written to, to advise them of the nomination and to invite them to make a representation to challenge the nomination if they wish. Despite a follow- up email sent on 0 4 August 2025, to date no response has been received from either Buckinghamshire Council or their Rural Land Agent. Cabinet Member report – 15 January 2026 Part I – Public 14) In considering the constituent parts of the decision, officers have concluded and advise the following to the Cabinet Member: Decision Options Test 1 The actual current use (or use in the recent past) furthers the social well -being or social interests of the local community. Property Description Decision Options Current or Proposed future Use Recomme ndation Reasons for recommendation Risks RAGC (x 2 Nominations) Accept or decline Used as a community Garden Centre and it is currently being used for a use which benefits the community. Accept The current and recent previous use of the land and buildings was a use that benefits the community. If we were to decline the nominations on the ground it was not used for a community use primarily, the decision is likely to be challenged. If we accept there is unlikely to be any opposition. Car Park Land Adjoining RAGC site Accept or decline Used as an overflow car park for the RAGC. Given the proposal to change the service away from an open to the public centre, there is no proposed or current use for this field. Decline The community benefit is ancillary to the main use of the site which is as a car park and therefore as the community benefits are ancillary and not the main purpose of the site the nomination does not clear this test. This may be challenged but it will be difficult to prove a community use is the main purpose of the site. Decision Options Test 2 Is it realistic to think that there can continue to be (or will be in the next five years) use of the building or other land which will further the social well -being or social interests of the local community. Property Description Decision Options Current or Proposed future Use Recommen dation Reasons for recommendation Risks RAGC (x 2 Nominations) Accept or decline Used as a community Garden Centre and it is currently being used for a use which benefits the community. Accept The proposed use is for a purpose which has a community benefit, therefore there can be no credible reason to decline. If we were to decline the nominations on the ground the site is not capable of being used realistically for a community use the decision is likely to be challenged. If we accept there is unlikely to be any opposition. Car Park Land Adjoining RAGC site Accept or decline Used as an overflow car park for the RAGC. Given the proposal to change the service away from an open to the public centre, there is no proposed or current use for this field. Decline The community benefit is ancillary to the previous use of the site which was as a car park and therefore does not qualify. There is currently no use of the site as it is surplus to requirements. This may be challenged but it will be difficult to prove a community use is or could be the main purpose of the site. Cabinet Member report – 15 January 2026 Part I – Public When considering the Pros and Cons of a ccepting or d eclining nominations, officers considered the following: Decision Disadvantages Advantages Accept 1. If the site were to be sold the group would have rights to purchase at market value and would have a six -month window in which to transact causing a delay. 2. Planners would need to recognise the listing as part of any determination of an application for redevelopment but they do not see this as a significant obstacle to any potential plans in the future. 1. Likely to avoid any potential challenge to the decision and reputational damage to the Council. 2. Would enable the site to be used whilst working up any development plans. 3. Would not incur any costs should there be a challenge. Decline 1. Likely to result in a challenge and possible Judicial Review which could be expensive. 2. Difficult to substantiate our stance legally if the site is used. 3. May risk reputational damage for the Council. 4. Would in effect require the site to stay vacant and to not be used which could lead to ASB and high security costs, 1. If listing avoided it would leave the Council free to transact on the site as it wishes, subject to usual planning conditions. 15) As a result of the above, the officers’ recommendations for each nomination as are as follows: Date Nominator Property Landowner Decision (Reason) 07.06.25 Hayes Community Development Forum Rural Activities Garden Centre London Borough of Hillingdon Accept and register the asset as an Asset of Community Value with the group’ s interest forming part of the registration. 13.06.25 Friends of the Rural Activities Garden Centre (FRAGC) Rural Activities Garden Centre London Borough of Hillingdon Accept and register the asset as an Asset of Community Value with the group’ s interest forming part of the registration. 23.06.25 Friends of the Rural Activities Garden Centre (FRAGC) Land Adjoining the Rural Activities Garden Centre Buckinghamshire County Council Decline (Does not qualify as the previous community benefit was from an ancillary use and the site is not nor realistically likely to be used for a community benefit use in the next five years). Financial Implications 16) It is not anticipated there are any financial costs associated with these decisions. RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities 17) The decision to close retail operations to the public at the RAGC has already been made by the Council. The remaining services currently being offered from this site, are subject to separate proposals for decision, following a consultation on future service options. 18) In addition, it may in theory be considered that registering the RAGC site as an Asset of Community Value affords greater protection to the site, to ensure the use of this asset as a community use in the future, but the effects of the registration only come into effect if the Council seeks to dispose of the site. As the Council has no plans to dispose of the site in the next five years and the listing of the Asset as an Asset of Community Value does not restrict the C ouncil from repurposing the site for a different use, subject to the usual Cabinet Member report – 15 January 2026 Part I – Public planning consents being obtained, it is not thought the listing will have any effect on Hillingdon residents, service users and communities. 19) As the Adjoining Land Site is not currently being used for community use and the recommendation is that the nomination of this site as an A sset of Commun ity Value is rejected, it is not considered there will be any effect of this decision on Hillingdon residents, service users and communities. Equalities implications 20) It is not considered that as a result of the recommendations in this report that there will be any equalities implications. The report is proposing registering the RAGC site as an Asset of Community Value and the Council is not planning to dispose of the site. Services which are currently being provided on the site are subject to a separate set of proposals for a decision. This means there is not going to be any reduction or alteration to the service being offered to the community because of the recommendations in this report. 21) It is not thought there will be any equalities implications arising from the rejection of the nomination to register the adjoining land site, as this asset is not currently used by the community and , therefore, there is not going to be any reduction or alteration to the services being offering to the community because of this decision. Consultation & Engagement carried out (or required) 22) I nternal consultation has taken place with colleagues in the Legal, Adult Social Care, and Planning Teams and with relevant Cabinet Members. CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance 23) Corporate Finance have reviewed this report and concur with the Financial Implications set out above, noting there are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendations within this report. Legal 24) The Localism Act 2011 sets out the two tests (described above) that need to be satisfied for an asset to be listed as an Asset of Community Value. 25) With regards to the land adjoining the main RAGC site (land which is not Council owned), the subject of the application dated 23 June 2025, officers are satisfied that the main use of this land is that of a car park and therefore the application would fail on the first test in that it is not considered that the main purpose of the land is a use which furthers the social well-being or the social interest of the local community. As both tests need to be satisfied there is no need to consider the second test. 26) With regard to the main RAGC site, the subject of the applications dated 07 and 13 June 2025, officers are satisfied that the most recent primary use of the main RAGC site can be considered to be a use which furthers the social well-being or the social interest of the local community. As such the applications satisfy the first test. Cabinet Member report – 15 January 2026 Part I – Public 27) With regard to the second test, whilst there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate the group has sufficient funds to continue the operation of the RAGC (today) it is not wholly inconceivable that this will remain the case for the next 5 years. In view of the level of public support the group appears to be gaining, the prospect of the group being able to raise funding is becoming more realistic. 28) In the event the Council at some point in the future does decide to dispose of the asset , listing the asset as an Asset of Community Value will mean the Council will be required to follow the moratorium steps (as detailed above) and additionally, the Local Planning Authority would have to consider the listing in determining any application for redevelopment of the site. However, the Council will still be able to use the land as it wants (subject of course to planning) in the meantime. 29) Other than the above considerations, Legal Services confirm there are no legal impediments in agreeing the recommendations and further confirm that as the two tests have been satisfied in respect of the Council owned land. N ot to list the asset would be a breach of the requirements under the legislation referred to above and risk potential legal action. BACKGROUND PAPERS Nil. Cabinet Member report – 15 January 2026 Part I – Public APPENDIX A - Site Location Plan
View Decision / Minutes Text
Executive Decision Notice – 03 February 2026
This notice is a public document also available to view on the Council's website www.hillingdon.gov.uk
OFFICIAL EXECUTIVE DECISION NOTICE
PUBLISHED BY DEMOCRATIC SERVICES
Notice is hereby given that the following decision(s) have been made today by
Cabinet Members at the London Borough of Hillingdon:
Title of decision RURAL ACTIVITIES GARDEN CENTRE:
ASSETS OF COMMUNITY VALUE NOMINATIONS – RURAL
ACTIVITIES GARDEN CENTRE AND ADJOINING CAR PARK
LAND
Reference No. 1604
Date of decision Tuesday 03 February 2026
Call-in expiry date Tuesday 10 February 2026
Relevant Select
Committee
Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee.
Relevant Wards Colham & Cowley
Decision made
Cabinet Members making
the decision
Councillor Jonathan Bianco, Cabinet Member for Corporate
Services & Property
Decision Agreed
That the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services &
Property:
1. Approved the registering of the Rural Activities
Garden Centre site as an Asset of Community
Value as outlined in red on the attached site plan
in Appendix A of the associated report; and
2. Declined the nomination to register the adjoining
land as an Asset of Community Value as outlined
in blue on the attached site plan in Appendix A of
the associated report.
Reason for decision The Cabinet Member duly considered the report and noted
that the Council had received nominations to list both sites
as Assets of Community Value, and the groups submitting
them were considered eligible to make valid nominations. In
assessing the statutory tests, it was concluded that the Rural
Activities Garden Centre (RAGC) had clearly been used in
a way that furthered the social well ‑being and interests of
the local community, and that such use could realistically
continue. For this reason, the nomination to list the RAGC
site was accepted by the Cabinet Member.
The adjoining land, however, had only provided ancillary
benefit as overflow parking when the RAGC operated as a
Executive Decision Notice – 03 February 2026
This notice is a public document also available to view on the Council's website www.hillingdon.gov.uk
public‑facing site. As open public access was no longer
proposed, the land no longer served a qualifying community
function. Being currently only a grass field, with no realistic
prospect of future qualifying use within five years, it did not
meet the statutory tests. Consequently, the nomination for
this site was rejected by the Cabinet Member.
It was also recognised that the statutory deadline for
determining the nominations had already passed. Further
delaying or refusing the RAGC listing risked legal challenge,
whereas the adjoining land posed significantly less legal risk
due to its failure to meet the qualifying criteria. Therefore,
the Cabinet Member agreed both recommendations in the
report.
Alternative options
considered and rejected
The option of refusing the RAGC nomination was rejected
because the site met the statutory tests for listing. Accepting
the nomination for the adjoining land was also rejected, as
the land no longer served a qualifying community purpose,
had no realistic prospect of such use within five years, and
therefore did not meet the statutory criteria. Doing nothing
was rejected as well, since failing to respond to the
nominations would have exposed the Council to
unnecessary risk.
Classification Part I – Public
Link to associated report Here
Relevant Officer contact
& Directorate
Andrew Low – Residents Services Directorate
Any interest declared by
the Cabinet Member(s) /
dispensation granted
N/A
Implementation of decision & scrutiny call-in
[Internal Use only]
When can this
decision be
implemented by
officers?
Officers can implement Cabinet Member decision in this notice only
from the expiry of the scrutiny call-in period which is:
5pm on Tuesday 10 February 2026
However, this is subject to the decision not being called in by
Councillors on the relevant Select Committee. Upon receipt of a
valid call-in request, Democratic Services will immediately advise
the relevant officer(s) and the decision must then be put on hold.
Councillor scrutiny
call-in of this
decision
Councillors on the relevant Select Committee shown in this notice
may request to call-in this decision. The request must be before the
expiry of the scrutiny call-in period above.
Councillors should use the Scrutiny Call-in App (link below) on their
devices to initiate any call-in request. Further advice can be sought
from Democratic Services if required:
Executive Decision Notice – 03 February 2026
This notice is a public document also available to view on the Council's website www.hillingdon.gov.uk
Scrutiny Call-In - Power Apps (secure)
Further information These decisions, where applicable, have been taken under The
Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access
to Information) (England) Regulations 2012.
This is the formal notice by the Council of the above executive
decision, including links to the reports where applicable.
If you would like more information on this decision, please contact
Democratic Services on 01895 250636 or email:
democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk.
Circulation of this decision notice is to a variety of people including
Members of the Council, Corporate Directors, Officers, Group
Secretariats and the Public. Copies are also placed on the
Council’s website.
Democratic Services
London Borough of Hillingdon
Civic Centre
High Street
Uxbridge
UB8 1UW