Hillingdon Council has failed to respond to a formal pre-action letter regarding the Rural Activities Garden Centre, marking the third missed deadline concerning the site’s future. With the Council now in breach of the Localism Act, the likelihood of a Judicial Review is escalating.
Leigh Day Solicitors, acting for the Friends of RAGC (FRAGC), served a pre-action protocol letter to the Council – funded by residents via a crowdfunding campaign – demanding the Council fulfill its legal obligation to decide on the nomination of the RAGC as an Asset of Community Value (ACV).
The letter set a final deadline of November 21st for a decision. That date has now passed without action, escalating the likelihood of a Judicial Review.
Recently, a pre-action letter was sent to Hillingdon Council asking them to meet their legal obligations regarding the nomination of the RAGC as an Asset of Community Value (ACV). This legal step was funded through the generosity of supporters through a crowdfunding campaign – which the Ruislip Residents’ Association proudly supported.
A Timeline of missed deadlines
The Council is currently in breach of the Localism Act, having failed to process the ACV nominations submitted by the community in June. The law stipulates an 8-week statutory period for such decisions, which expired in August 2025.
Following this breach, residents raised the issue at the Council meeting on 11th September 2025.
During the September meeting, Cabinet Member Councillor Bianco apologised for the delay, claiming the “timing had coincided with the summer holidays”, saying that a decision “should be made in the next fourteen days.”
That verbal deadline also passed with no decision.
Consequently, FRAGC was forced to instruct solicitors to send the formal pre-action letter (reproduced below). This letter provided a final deadline of November 14th for a response, and November 21st for a decision. The Council has failed to meet these deadlines as well, raising concerns among residents that the local authority is content to operate outside the law, setting a poor example for the community it serves.
Concerns regarding land sale
The persistent refusal to grant ACV status—which would give the community a right to bid on the property—has fuelled concerns that the Council is positioning the land for sale to assist with its financial difficulties.
At the September meeting, Councillor Bianco insisted that reports of a sale were “no more than a rumour” and that the Council “had no plans to sell.” However, residents are asking: if there is no plan to sell, why is the Council risking a Judicial Review rather than simply processing the ACV paperwork?
Councils are usually keen to grant ACV status to well-deserved facilities—especially one like the RAGC, which has provided horticultural and woodworking therapy to Hillingdon residents with autism and learning disabilities for over 40 years.
Ruislip Residents’ Association supports the FRAGC in their battle to save the RAGC
The RRA will continue to support the Friends of the RAGC to save the Rural Activities Garden Centre. We donated £100 towards the crowdfunding campaign in October. We will keep residents updated on the situation as it develops, and if you’d like to be sure of hearing the next update, you can join our newsletter mailing list below.
Subscribe to our mailing list to stay up to date
Join Ruislip Residents’ Association mailing list
Dear Hillingdon Council
Failure to discharge the statutory duty to determine the nomination of the Rural Activities Garden Centre and land associated with it as assets of community value
- We write in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review under the Civil Procedure Rules. This letter concerns a proposed claim for judicial review of the continued delay of Hillingdon Council (‘The Council’) in determining the nominations by Friends of Rural Activities Garden Centre (‘FRAGC’) to add the Rural Activities Garden Centre (‘the First Nomination) and a parcel of land next door (‘the Second Nomination’) to the Council’s list of assets of community value.
Party details
- The Claimant: Friends of Rural Activities Garden Centre.
- The Defendant: Hillingdon Council, Hillingdon Council Civic Centre, High Street Uxbridge, UB8 1UW.
The details of the Claimant’s legal advisers dealing with this claim
- Claimant’s solicitors: Leigh Day, Panagram, 27 Goswell Road, London, EC1M 7AJ. We confirm that this firm is instructed by the Claimant to accept service on its behalf, including by email at the email addresses specified in the header to this letter.
Details of the Decision being challenged
- The continuing failures to determine the Claimant’s nominations outlined above.
Factual background
- Rural Activities Garden Centre has provided horticultural therapy for those with learning disabilities and autism for over 40 years.
- On 13 June 2025, the Claimant submitted to the Council the First Nomination to list the Rural Activities Garden Centre as an asset of community value.
- On 20 June 2025, additional information needed for the First Nomination, namely a list of the FRAGC members, was provided.
- On 23 June 2025, the Claimant submitted the Second Nomination, covering the adjacent land used by Rural Activities Garden Centre.
- On 26 June 2025, [Redacted] made a statement about the Nominations at a Cabinet meeting attended by the public, including members of FRAGC.
- The Council contacted FRAGC and informed them that it aimed to determine the Nominations by 18 August 2025. Nothing was received by 18 August 2025.
- On 5 September 2025, FRAGC emailed their concerns regarding the delay to a [Redacted] FRAGC did not receive a reply.
- On 10 September, FRAGC emailed [Redacted] regarding the same issue but did not receive a reply.
- At a further meeting on 11 September 2025, John Scrivens, on behalf of FRAGC, formally asked a question to the Council regarding the delay of the First and Second Nomination decisions. In reply, he was told by [Redacted] that the decision should be made within 14 days (i.e. 25 September 2025). FRAGC were not offered any explanation for the delay, apart from the impact of the summer holidays. This was already over 4 weeks after the statutory deadline.
Ground of challenge: The authority has failed to discharge a statutory duty
- The proposed claim will be brought on a single and straightforward ground: the Council has failed to discharge its statutory duty.
- Regulation 7 of the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 requires, under the heading, ‘Procedure when considering whether to list land’:
“7. The responsible authority must decide whether land nominated by a community nomination should be included in the list within eight weeks of receiving the nomination.” (underlining added)
- In failing to determine the applications in time, the Council has unlawfully failed, and continues to fail, to discharge its statutory duty.
Action the Defendant is expected to take
- The Claimant seeks the Council’s decision in relation to the First and Second Nominations within 14 calendar days of receipt of this letter i.e. 21 November 2025.
Disclosure
- Please confirm which delegated officer will determine the Nominations and confirm whether that officer has any responsibility in advising the council on disposal of assets.
Response
- Please respond to this letter in 7 days, i.e. by 14 November 2025.
- If no satisfactory response is received, we reserve the right to issue proceedings without further notice.
Yours faithfully
Leigh Day
The Rural Activities Garden Centre is an important part of the lives of people like Mark, who have been going there for many years.
Comments are closed.