Confusion has existed over this point. Although ACV guidance from teh government said it was many lawyers and practitioners have said the government cant change the law on this. Today the DCLG select asked for clarification.
The argument (in my head) goes as follows:
-ACVs are adaptations of the legal principle regarding restricting sales of artwork overseas whilst local bids are prepared. It is a property law issue not a planning law one.
-If an ACV is listed one of three things can happen:
-The pub etc. can be demolished – asset no longer exists so cant be protected. Appeals have upheld this point. Loophole soon to be closed by government, but in the event not material.
-The community group cant put forward a bid, so not material as no viable ACV use
-The community group put forward a bid and the site is sold, ACV status no longer relevant.
So its materiality never falls to be considered.
The materiality is the existence of a viable bid showing retention viable not the ACV status itself. The problem is applications forced through in the six month breathing period, the simple solution, change the law to allow such applications to be turned away without consideration in those six months.