The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill promises to hand communities a new right to buy local assets, from empty pubs and shops to community spaces, as part of a wider effort to tackle the decline of the high street.
The aim is to empower communities to take control, support high street regeneration and stimulate local pride. Yet for many of us the property and planning world, this all seems very familiar.
The ‘Community Right to Bid’ introduced by the Coalition government under the Localism Act 2011 was intended to achieve much the same. It enabled communities to nominate buildings or land for listing as an ‘Asset of Community Value’ and, if the owner decided to sell, to delay the sale for six months while the community prepared a bid.
In practice, however, the process proved cumbersome, underfunded and rarely successful, as is demonstrated in written evidence submitted by then Department for Communities and Local Government. According to government data, only a small fraction of listed assets were ever bought by the community.
CAN THIS GOVERNMENT DO BETTER?
As the Select Committee evidence shows, Localism’s Community Right to Bid existed largely on paper: few community groups had the capital, expertise or confidence to act on it. In reality, a genuine transfer of power is needed to follow through on a bid; it requires funding, capacity building and technical support.
Many communities have a strong vision for their high streets but few have the means to execute it.
Means to overcome this could include partnership models, where local authorities or development corporations act as enablers rather than gatekeepers, and where private investors see community ownership not as a risk but as a catalyst for placemaking.
COMMUNITY POWER
The new proposals could, for example, link with existing funds, social investment vehicles or local growth partnerships – where they exist – to give communities real power.
Otherwise, the new right to buy risks following the same path as its predecessor – well-intentioned but ultimately ineffectual.
There’s also a question about whether ownership should be the goal at all. High street revitalisation often depends less on who owns a building and more on how it is managed.
The success stories of the past decade – from community-led markets and pop-up collectives to long-term social enterprise hubs – have typically involved flexible stewardship models rather than outright purchase.
The government could therefore broaden its approach, promoting long leases or shared management structures that balance community benefit with commercial viability. Encouraging meanwhile uses, co-operative leasing and blended funding could allow communities to activate spaces quickly without the administrative and financial hurdles of purchase.
COLLABORATIVE REGENERATION
In many towns, what’s needed is not so much the funds to deliver ownership but the structures to deliver collaborative regeneration, enabling councils, developers, landowners and residents work together to redefine the purpose of the high street.
Where this Bill may succeed where Localism faltered is in its timing and context. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is part of a broader agenda to transfer power from Whitehall to regions and combined authorities.
Of those combined authorities which already exist, many already have experience of place-based regeneration; this was less common in 2011.
These devolved institutions may be better placed to integrate community rights into strategic planning, aligning them with investment zones, town centre funds and local plan objectives.
A COHERENT, LAYERED APPROACH
Perhaps there is an opportunity for a more coherent, layered approach: local (or regional) government enabling and coordinating, communities leading on delivery, and the private sector providing the expertise and capital that makes transformation possible.
Any discussion about community rights must also grapple with the underlying economics of the high street.
And in this respect, the situation has worsened in the past 14 years. Many empty properties are vacant not because of a lack of local support but because an online alternative exists.
REVERSING DECLINE
So transferring ownership to communities without addressing commercial realities may do little to reverse decline.
In line with planning changes during that time (specifically the introduction of Class E and an extension of permitted development rights), policy should encourage mixed-use repurposing – blending retail, residential, workspace and leisure in ways that reflect contemporary needs.
Ultimately, community empowerment must not become a substitute for government or private investment. T
he best examples of regeneration are collaborative rather than ideological. If done well, this could succeed in reviving Localism’s unfulfilled potential. However, if the new right to buy is introduced without clear mechanisms for funding, expertise and coordination, it will remain a well-meaning echo of past policy.
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill has set an ambitious tone for community empowerment.
Whether the right to buy becomes a transformative policy or another chapter in the long history of failed local initiatives will depend on whether the government invests not only in rights but in the means to exercise them.
