VALIANT PUB CO LTD v NEWCASTLE CITY COUNCIL (2026) UKFTT 683 (GRC) holds that, for the purpose of determining whether a building or land was an ACV, the term “ community “ in Section 88(1) of the LOCALISM ACT 2011 is not limited to the vicinity of thre premises, but extended to groups with a SUFFICIENTLY PROXIMATE CONNECTION with them.

When an acquiring authority seeks to exercise its POWER OF ENTRY FOR SURVEY under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to enter land at a “ reasonable time “, its NOTICE (1) has to be given to every owner or occupier, (2) does not run with the land, and (3) has to include DETAILS OF WHAT IS PROPOSED with such PRECISION as is reasonable and practicable, explaining (i) what is proposed to be done, (ii) where, and (3) when. So held in BARSTOW v GREEN GENERATION ENERGY ( 2026 ) EWHC 1698 ( Admin ).

HILL v SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DC ( 2026 ) UKFTT 942 ( GRC ) deals with the question of entitlement to payment of COMPENSATION under Regulation 14 of the Assets of Community Value ( England ) Regulations 2012.

SINTES v TOWER HAMLETS LBC ( 2026 ) EWCA Civ 752 concerns allegations of negligence and nuisance against the Council as licensing authority under the London Local Authorities Act 1990, and the Council’s private law assumption of responsibility and duty of care towards someone who tripped.

ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE LTD  v HARROW LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2026) UKUT 197 (LC) holds that the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal has JURISDICTION to award costs in a TREE PRESERVATION ORDER compensation case under the TPO Regulations 2012. The damage to the claimant’s property caused by the Council’s refusal to permit the felling of 2 trees under a TPO meant that the proceedings constituted “ proceedings for injurious affection of land “ within the Lands Chamber Rules. The refusal of consent to fell the trees resulted in the damage to the property. The damage was the cracking and subsidence which resulted from the refusal to allow the felling of the trees.

PALMER v PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL (2026) EWHC 1262 (Ch) holds that Section 144 of Law of Property Act 1925 ( Landlord’s ability to charge a premium for CONSENT TO ALIENATION) and Section 19 of Landlord and tenant Act 1927 (dealing with all aspects of alienation) are NOT inescapably inconsistent. BOTH apply to a covenant requiring a premium for consent to assignment.

Common land is defined by 2 mutually exclusive types of land : land subject to rights of common; and waste land of the manor, not subject to rights of common. R(COMBER) v HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (2026) EWHC 1244 (Admin) holds that there is NO JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE AN APPLICATION TO REGISTER LAND as “ wate land of a manor not subject to rights of common”, within Section 22(1)(b) of the COMMONS REGISTRATION ACT 1965 when the registration authority is not a “ pioneer authority  operating the scheme in the 2006 Act.

A LAW COMMISSION REPORT, published on 18 March 2026, sets out the findings of its Review of Burial and Cremation Law. It highlights issues as to the fragmented and outdated legal framework.

On 13 November 2025 MHCLG has published for local authorities and others GUIDANCE on thr RENTERS’ RIGHTS ACT 2025, including an IMPLEMENTATION ROADMAP.

In R ( Margery Kempe Trust ) v Norfolk County Council, the Garage Trust Interested Party (2025) EWHC 2840 ( Admin ) the Council had declared King’s Lynn Central Library surplus to its requirements. It instructed its Director of Property to dispose of the building through a closed market exercise, to chaity and community groups in the first instance. These included the Claimant and the IP. The subsequent decicion challenged was to sell the Carnegie Library building to the IP. The Claimant’s wide ranging challenge failed on all 8 grounds.