Valiant Pub Company v Newcastle City Council: Tribunal upholds asset of community value listing for thriving pub and brewery

A profitable, recently refurbished pub, hotel and brewery serving a regional catchment can properly be listed as an asset of community value, the First-tier Tribunal has confirmed, rejecting an operator's argument that ordinary hospitality use falls short of the statutory test.

In Valiant Pub Company Limited v Newcastle City Council [2026] UKFTT 683 (GRC), decided on 16 July 2026 following a hearing on 6 May, Judge Harris dismissed an appeal under regulation 11 of the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 against the listing of the Keelman.

Valiant, which operates 96 pubs nationally, purchased the four-acre site in November 2024 and invested substantially in it. The premises include multiple bars, a full-service restaurant, 14 guest bedrooms and an on-site brewery, with an open market value said to exceed £3.5 million. The Tyneside and Northumberland branch of CAMRA nominated the property in July 2025. Newcastle City Council listed the pub and brewery building alone, not the wider site, in September 2025 and confirmed the decision on review that November.

Because the relevant non-ancillary uses were ongoing, the applicable provision was section 88(1) of the Localism Act 2011 rather than section 88(2), which addresses uses in the recent past. The appeal was heard afresh, with appropriate weight given to the authority's view as the body with institutional competence.

Valiant's case, advanced by Gerry Carroll, was that use by walkers, cyclists, park users and attendees of social events amounted to the ordinary characteristics of a successful hospitality venue rather than evidence that the premises operate as community infrastructure, and that on the Council's approach virtually every public house would qualify automatically. It contended the Keelman is a regional destination venue rather than a neighbourhood pub, that commercial success demonstrates viability rather than community asset status, and that Grade II listing already affords protection.

Judge Harris rejected the community infrastructure argument outright, holding the concept undefined in law in the ACV context and no part of the section 88 test. Nor was the Keelman disqualified as an atypical candidate for listing: arguments about saving the last pub in the village address circumstances where community use has ceased and engage the different test in section 88(2).

The judgement adopted a broad construction of local community, holding the phrase extends beyond those living in the vicinity to groups with a sufficiently proximate connection. Examples given included a football team sponsored by the pub and walkers taking refreshment on Hadrian's Wall. Evidence drawn in part from the Keelman's own social media postings supported the conclusion that the premises serve as a base for social activity.

Anthony Gill, for the Council, relied on Admiral Taverns Ltd v CWAC and FPC [2018] UKUT 15 (AAC), where the Upper Tribunal approved a finding that use by local people meeting in a convivial atmosphere for food and drink, together with events such as quiz nights, sufficed. The threshold, he submitted, is low and the category of qualifying activity wide. On catchment, the Council pointed to 4C Hotels (2) Ltd v City of London and to the listing of substantial sports stadia, arguing that an asset's value bears no relationship to whether it furthers social wellbeing.

The second limb was satisfied on the appellant's own evidence. Mr Carroll's witness statement confirmed there were no plans to close, sell or change the use of the premises, from which it was realistic to think the qualifying uses would continue.

Arguments that a future sale would be a going concern disposal exempt from the moratorium, and that a CAMRA branch cannot itself trigger one, were treated as questions arising only on a relevant disposal and not bearing on the listing decision.