The Social Relations of Property: Motives, Means and Outcomes of the Community Right to Bid in England Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Real Estate and Planning Tessa Lynn August 2018 Abstract This thesis discusses ownership as a governance issue and contributes to conceptualisations of property as an expression of wider social relations and vice versa i.e. how property impacts on social relations. This is pertinent given the advent of renewed attention to the (new)commons as a set of practices and is intrinsically linked issues of how rights are constituted, defended and challenged. Indeed, the collective right claims made via the Community Right to Bid (CRtBid) policy and Assets of Community Value (AsCV) mechanisms explored in the research do resemble discourses associated with the (new)commons and right to the city movements. Central to conceptualising property is consideration of claims to property that are often derived from conflicting value systems, which unsettle property in use and exchange from ‘owners,’ users and other third parties’ perspectives. This research describes how competing claims are reflected in stakeholder behaviours and motives, as well as in the means used and outcomes derived in practice. The empirical element of this thesis focuses on the CRtBid policy and AsCV regulations, enabled under the 2011 Localism Act in England. The CRtBid was introduced alongside a new localist approach to politics and planning, with a claim to recognise the socialities of property in planning decision making and opening new channels for alternative ownership of qualifying assets. The AsCV nominations and CRtBid were intended, and have been used by, communities, to increase local control of community assets. The findings indicate that the CRtBid policy largely emphasises market values and can lead to an unequal access to opportunities in protecting and purchasing assets. While such assets gain some status in planning terms, the protection afforded can be weak or indeed value may be effectively ‘lost’ through the process. Instead of enabling communities the policy can actually lead to the closing-off of rights claims while other mechanisms or avenues for communities may be more appropriate, as at least those other means do not operate through market logics and have some clearer democratic and equity- based attributes. This timely investigation of the CRtBid policy draws attention to a need to address issues in governing community assets in the public interest. i Acknowledgements I would like to begin by thanking the Department of Real Estate and Planning at the University of Reading, the Economic and Social Research Council and the Reading Real Estate Foundation. I am deeply grateful for being given this opportunity to spend this time for providing the environment and funding to develop myself as a researcher. I thank Steve Musson, my second supervisor, and to Alina Congreve for identifying this opportunity and contacting me originally about the studentship. Steve, I also thank you for your assistance throughout my time as a PhD student. The overall experience has been a life changing one, in no small part due to the professionalism, reliability and warmth of my supervisor and my mentor, Professor Gavin Parker, who has motivated, inspired me and supported me throughout the journey, which at times has been challenging. I thank you for your patience and for challenging me throughout. I couldn’t have wished for better supervision. I have received ongoing inspiration and motivation from Joe Doak, throughout my university experience and I feel that had it not been for Joe, I wouldn’t be on this track. I wish to thank all those who participated in the research and contributed to the data collection element of this thesis. Thank you to the Planning Law and Property Rights community and specifically the hosts and attendees of the PLPR conference in 2015 at Volos – this experience truly changed my life! Thank you to those who made extremely positive contributions to the presentation of my research. A special thank you to Greg Lloyd for mentioning me in the keynote speech, this was one of the proudest moments of my academic experience so far. Thank you to Jean-David and Andreas Hengstermann for the unexpected and truly beautiful journey across the coastline back to Athens! It seems appropriate to express my gratitude to my A-Level Philosophy teachers Colin Patterson and Dr Philip Wood, who assisted me on my journey of critical thinking and the love of philosophy. There have been many a time I have reflected on your teachings and passion. Thank you to Dr Wood for introducing human geography in such an exciting way; my interest in planning was inspired by this and had it not been for you I would not have not striven for a University education in planning. I cannot express how grateful I am for Anita Gordon and Colin Patterson for taking the time to read and discuss the thesis. So many others have helped me in ways that I cannot thank them all. I would, however like to highlight how grateful I am for the support network within the Department. Thank you, Katie, ii Rizvi, Emma, Richard, but particularly Amy, Senjuti, and Kirsten who have been able to relate to the challenges of pursuing a PhD as a mother. I would like to thank the librarian at my local library, Vicky, who has provided me with moral support and many a cup of tea during my times at the library during the latter phases of my research. I have also developed a relationship with a community garden near to my home, which has given me great pleasure and space to reflect. I am extremely grateful to have received support from the many friends I have met at the garden. I am grateful to my friends and relatives for your support and encouragement. Special thanks go to my Mum for your unconditional support, love and faith in me, and my Dad, for the often emotional conversations and the encouragement towards a positive mental attitude has got me through the challenging times. Thank you both for never stopping believing in me and raising me to trust that I can achieve my dreams. A special thanks go to my Nan and Gran who both passed away in 2015. They continue to inspire me and will both always be role models. To my Nan for her gentle, loving and sharing nature, her patience. Watching her leave this world was one of the most devastating yet enlightening experiences. Thank you for the time we spent talking about the work I am doing; these conversations will always be treasured. To my gran for her strength, honesty and openness, and her determination and life loving spirit, even with Dementia. They both have contributed to who I am and thus the products of my work, in so many ways. I know they would be very proud to see me finish this thesis! I miss you both greatly. To Chloe Northwood who has been my longest friend. Her love, motivation and support will forever be treasured. Finally, there are three people whose love and support are beyond extraordinary: my partner Colin Hargreaves and our children who were born during the production on this thesis; our daughter, Elsie and our son, Bodhi. I would like to thank them for giving me their unquestioning love and support and tolerating my frequent mental and physical absences over the years. There are no words to express how grateful I am to Colin, I am unsure as to what I would have done without his crucial support. He has tirelessly supported me in the production of this thesis, not only with childcare and managing the house, but also moral and emotional support and deep understanding during some of the most critical times of my life. I thank him for the long and sleepless nights, the patience, faith, optimism and enthusiasm for me to pursue my dreams. This thesis is dedicated to my family. iii Declaration I confirm that this is my own work and the use of all material from other sources has been properly and fully acknowledged. Tessa Jayne Lynn iv Table of Contents Abstract i Acknowledgements ii Declaration iv Table of Contents v List of Figures viii List of Tables viii Acronyms ix 1. Governing the social relations of property 1 1.1. The social relations of property 4 1.2. Community and property 6 1.3. Localism and community ‘rights’? 8 1.4. Structure of the thesis 9 2. Interpreting the social relations of property 11 2.1. Context: Land, property and rights 12 2.1.1. The formation of rights 13 2.1.2. Property relations and ‘rights’ 16 2.2. A socio-relational critique of neoliberal rights and values 18 2.2.1. The reification of rights 21 2.2.2. The valorisation of values 23 2.3. Closure of the commons 28 2.3.1. Closure of public houses in the UK 33 2.4. Conclusion 34 3. Property, community, politics and planning: governing the social relations of property 36 3.1. Planning, localism, property and values 37 3.1.1. The Localism Act (2011) and the National Planning Policy Framework 42 3.1.2. Critique of localism 45 3.2. Community assets 47 3.2.1. Community ownership 51 3.3. Community Right to Bid and Asset of Community Value Regulations 54 3.3.1. Nominating Assets of Community Value 59 3.3.2. Triggering the Community Right to Bid 60 3.4. Conclusion 61 4. Methodology 64 v 4.1. Theoretical framing 64 4.1.1. Neo-institutionalism and researching property 66 4.1.2.