FURTHER to the recent article on the council’s reasoning for the refused Odeon asset of community value (ACV) nomination, I thought I’d just clarify our points.

The decision we received did not address points made, nor was it sufficiently clear exactly which section of the Localism Act the nomination allegedly failed to meet.

This is important, as there are two separate processes within the Act which determine these applications.

The council appears to suggest that the continuation of furthering the social wellbeing and interest of the community is not realistic, although it acknowledges that the Odeon currently provides this and did not use these terms of the Act.

Being ‘realistic’ is a somewhat slippery test, but it has been clarified slightly by tribunal decisions, which we built upon in the nomination.

It is established that this test is not to be wholly dictated by the owner’s intentions; this is for obvious reasons which would in cases of disagreement otherwise negate the whole process of community empowerment!

It is also significant that, quoting the Act, the means in which the Odeon can further these interests need not be ‘in the same way’, i.e. it is not the actual proposed use which is important, but the fact that it is possible in some way which is detached from the owner’s intentions.

This point also makes their argument leaning on the alleged covenant of little importance.

Clearly, where there is an existing furthering of community interest, it is difficult to argue that continuation in some way is not realistic.

No counter-argument to the above has been communicated and it would hardly do the town much justice if we didn’t challenge it.

JAMES WEIR

Heritage officer, Bournemouth Civic Society, Queens Park West Drive, Bournemouth

The Letters Editor welcomes your views on any subject. Please remember to include your name and address. Send us a letter