Agenda, decisions and minutes

To confirm arrangements for chairing the meeting as follows:

Councillor Lomas – Standard agenda items and Applications for Community Right to Bid under the Localism Act 2011, items 1-8.

It was confirmed that Cllr Lomas would chair all the items on the agenda.

To receive and note apologies for absence.

It was confirmed that there were no apologies for absence.

At this point in the meeting, Members and co-opted members are

asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary interest, or other

registerable interest, they might have in respect of business on

this agenda, if they have not already done so in advance on the

Register of Interests. The disclosure must include the nature of

the interest.

An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it

becomes apparent to the member during the meeting.

(1)  Members must consider their interests, and act according to the following:

(2) Disclosable pecuniary interests relate to the Member

concerned or their spouse/partner.

(3) Members in arrears of Council Tax by more than two months

must not vote in decisions on, or which might affect, budget

calculations, and must disclose at the meeting that this restriction

applies to them. A failure to comply with these requirements is a

criminal offence under section 106 of the Local Government

Finance Act 1992.

The Executive Member had no disclosable pecuniary interest, nor any other registerable interest in respect of the business on the agenda which had not already been declared in advance on the Register of Interests.

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have

registered to speak can do so. Members of the public may speak

on agenda items or on matters within the remit of the committee.

Please note that our registration deadlines are set as 2 working

days before the meeting, in order to facilitate the management of

public participation at our meetings. The deadline for registering

at this meeting is 5:00pm on Friday 7 August 2026.

To register to speak please visit

www.york.gov.uk/AttendCouncilMeetings to fill in an online

registration form. If you have any questions about the registration

form or the meeting, please contact Democratic Services.

Contact details can be found at the foot of this agenda.

Webcasting of Public Meetings

Please note that, subject to available resources, this meeting will

be webcast including any registered public speakers who have

given their permission. The meeting can be viewed live and on

demand at www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.

 It was reported that there had been three registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Nabeel Hanif was the owner of Victoria Vaults and spoke against the ACV. He outlined several objections including questioning why the ACV was being nominated again when a previous one had been listed but then removed. He stated that there had been no offers in the last year to purchase the venue for music use and noted that it didn’t have planning permission for a music venue nor a license to operate with 140 patrons in attendance. He also noted it needed £250,000 for repairs to restore the venue.

Nick Love spoke on behalf of CAMRA in support of the application. He outlined the reasons why there could be another application for an ACV and stated that this was not a duplicate application. He outlined reasons for the residential part of the building to be included in the nomination and noted that there were parties interested in operating the building as a music venue again and stated that it was therefore realistic to think it could reopen within the 5-year timeframe.

Christopher Sherrington Co-founder of York Music Venue Network spoke in favour of the application and stated that Victoria Vaults was a grassroots venue and that it was credible it could be so again. He stated that, if critical works were required, funding could be found and this could include grants which he noted had already been received by other local venues. 

The Executive Member acknowledged the written representations received relating to this nomination and confirmed that the written representation from Nabeel Hanif had been accepted and published notwithstanding that he had also attended and spoken at the session, despite this being a departure from constitutional procedure, and also acknowledged a late written representation received from Cllr Rose and confirmed that it would be published following the meeting. 

The minutes for the 30 July 2026 Decision Session are not yet published and will be approved at a later date.

It was confirmed that there were no minutes available from previous meetings. This is due to this meeting being an additional meeting to be able to consider the Application for Community Right to Bid under the Localism Act 2011 item.

This report details an application to list the following property as Asset of Community Value (ACV) for consideration by the Council:

The Victoria Vaults, 47-49 Nunnery Lane, York, YO23 1AB

The application has been made by Campaign for Real Ale (York Branch).

The application has been received, for a decision by the Executive Member in the Council’s statutory capacity as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) listing authority.

Resolved:

                   i.        Approved the listing of The Victoria Vaults, 47-49 Nunnery Lane, York, YO23 1AB, as an Asset of Community Value (ACV).

Reason:    To ensure the Council meets its legislative obligations (pursuant to the Localism Act 2011 and the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012) and promotes community access to community facilities.

Officers introduced the report outlining the proposal, that CAMRA were an eligible nominating body, and the history of previous nominations. Officers noted the reasons for CAMRA’s nomination, and the grounds of opposition from the owners of Victoria Vaults against it being listed as an Asset of Community Value, before recommending the nomination be accepted.

The Executive Member noted that the owner had raised concerns over a possible abuse of process in relation to the application history and asked that the Council’s Head of Legal Services advise on the legality of the application and the options available in considering the nomination.

The Head of Legal Services advised that, once a nomination is received, the Authority is statutorily required to consider it.  The application was not identical to the previous application in 2024 and there was nothing preventing a nomination from being renewed.  Whilst the history should be acknowledged, the new application should be judged on the information now before the Executive Member. In doing so, the Authority would not frustrate the purpose of the legislation, nor would it be acting unreasonably, nor offending a sense of natural justice such as might amount to an abuse of process.

In relation to the residential flat above Victoria Vaults, he explained that a nomination could not lawfully include a residence, save where it was only partly residential and, but for the residential part, the property could otherwise be listed.  It was for the Executive Member to determine whether there was a physical and functional relationship between the residential part and the remainder of the property. If there was not, the nomination must be refused unless there was a clear demarcation and the 2 areas could be separated into individual nominations.

In determining whether it was realistic to think that, within the next 5 years, the Victoria Vaults could again be used in a way which would further social wellbeing and interests in the local community, whether or not the use was the same as previously, the Executive Member must consider what could sensibly and practically be achieved.  Long term commercial viability was not in itself determinative; a full business case was not required, nor should the nomination be judged on a balance of probability.  Even prospective unlawful use in breach of the present Premises Licence was not automatically disqualifying.  The owners’ comments regarding threatened costs, or a subsequent appeal, could be disregarded.

The Executive Member recognised that this had been a long and challenging process for an Asset of Community Value application. She confirmed that this was a fresh application, and that she would consider all the relevant information and submissions before her. The Executive Member considered that the residential flat and the rest of the property have a functional relationship and therefore would be considered a single nominated property within the regulatory exception for the purpose of this application. The Executive Member also cited the interest in operating the venue as it had been described to her, in balance with the viability issues  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.