Guy Shrubsole
Environmental campaigner and author
Community ownership of land and property in England is, at present, small-scale and largely confined to assets like pubs and village halls. But imagine if Labour’s forthcoming Community Right to Buy allowed the public to dream bigger – and enabled communities to buy natural assets like rivers, woods and peat bogs.
Imagine a community owning a stretch of river that they can swim in and help defend from pollution; or a wood that’s great for walks and bursting with wildlife; or a peat bog that acts as a natural flood defence, protecting residents downstream.
Well, communities won’t have to imagine this for much longer – if the government delivers on its pledge to make one simple tweak to what counts as a community asset. But rumours are circulating that this sensible change is at risk of being abandoned.
Community ownership in England
Under the Localism Act 2011, communities can nominate land and property they deem important as an ‘Asset of Community Value’ (ACV), with the local authority deciding whether it meets the criteria for doing so. ACVs are currently designated based on whether they further the social wellbeing of a community. This is clearly too narrow to encompass all the things that matter to people: in particular, it omits both economic and environmental benefits.
For years, organisations like Power to Change and the Community Land Trust Network have campaigned to expand the definition of ACVs to include economic and environmental benefits.
These calls began to gain political traction in early 2024, when the final report of the Community Ownership Commission – commissioned by Labour’s former Levelling Up Secretary, Lisa Nandy – made a clear recommendation to broaden the ACV criteria to include “environmental benefits”. In the wake of their report, then shadow Levelling Up Secretary, Angela Rayner, promised that “a Labour Government will… review the definition of community assets in existing legislation”, alongside introducing a much more expansive Community Right to Buy. That pledge has been carried through into Labour’s first King’s Speech, its English Devolution White Paper, and an ongoing programme of work on Community Right to Buy within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).
Honouring commitments
But now, it appears that MHCLG may not be convinced of the need to include environmental benefits in what counts as an Asset of Community Value.
I hope the Ministry sees sense on this, as it would be a departure from commitments Labour made publicly during the 2024 election. During the election campaign, Labour announced a set of nature policies that included: “Empower communities to create new parks and green spaces by introducing a new Community Right to Buy to help them purchase and restore derelict land and green space of community value.” This won positive coverage for the party in the run-up to the election. Shadow Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, then went on camera during the election campaign to pledge “new parks and green spaces in local areas with a new community right to buy so they can restore derelict land.”
Denying communities the chance to own natural assets delivering environmental benefits would also undermine other Government policies and priorities:
- Firstly, it would fail to understand that – as MHCLG Secretary, Angela Rayner, has said – “Sustained economic growth depends upon a healthy natural environment.” High streets can’t be regenerated if they frequently flood. The floods that struck northern England on New Year’s Day 2025 are only a foretaste of what’s to come with the accelerating climate crisis. But we know that restoring peat bogs and regenerating upland woods significantly slows the flow of water downstream. So why not give communities the chance to own and repair such vital natural flood defences?
- Secondly, it would undermine the Government’s ability to reach net zero, clean up rivers, and meet legally-binding environmental targets. Delivering Labour’s ambitious clean power mission, stretching nature goals like 30by30, and manifesto pledges on water pollution, will require every tool in the drawer. So why deny communities the chance to help deliver these goals? There are thousands of community groups across England who care for their local rivers, look after wildlife and want to do more to help tackle the climate crisis. Look at the River Roding Trust, who clear litter from a rubbish-choked inner-city watercourse in East London; or the Heavens Valley project, who are creating a community-owned nature reserve on the edge of Stroud; or the community bid to buy Bridestones Moor in West Yorkshire, safeguarding its vital function as a carbon store and natural flood defence. The Government could encourage thousands more community projects like these in future by allowing land and assets to be designated as ACVs for environmental reasons. In doing so, they would help leverage in private finance and unlock the creativity of communities who are keen to help restore wildlife, tackle river pollution and fight climate change.
- Thirdly, it would be inconsistent with the Government’s own definition of sustainable development, which recognises that “three ‘pillars’ – the economy; society; and the environment – are interconnected”. As one example, economic productivity is strongly connected to a society’s physical and mental health – which in turn is impacted by the public’s ability to access nature, breathe clean air and take regular outdoor exercise. So why limit the criteria for Assets of Community Value to just one or two out of these three pillars? It doesn’t make sense. After all, MHCLG appear to accept the rationale to expand ACV criteria from just ‘social’ to include ‘economic’ benefits – so why not environmental, too? This isn’t about privileging one criterion above another: the policy should allow for all three, and encourage communities to nominate assets that deliver multiple benefits.
Moreover, excluding environmental criteria for ACVs means communities won’t be able to access funding streams that only fund environmental projects. There are plenty of philanthropic trusts and foundations whose funding criteria relate strictly to environmental goals – and who would be put off financing community buyouts that don’t include this in their outcomes. Given that the Government wishes to leverage in more private funding to support community asset purchases – as well as to restore nature and tackle climate change – it would be a huge missed opportunity to artificially restrict communities’ access to these funds.
Allowing communities to dream bigger
What’s of value to communities very often includes their local environment – access to nature, fresh air, clean rivers, abundant wildlife. The government shouldn’t be putting a lid on what communities say they value – instead, they ought to be unleashing the public’s imagination. In Scotland, where a Community Right to Buy has existed for over twenty years, half a million acres of land now belongs to communities – from small inner-city green spaces, to a vast former grouse moor being turned into a community nature reserve. Why shouldn’t communities in England dare to dream of doing this too?
