There was a boost for football fans earlier this week after the council decided to uphold its decision to list the Camrose stadium as an asset of community value.

The historic stadium was the home of the town's football club until 2019, when it was evicted.

The now community-run club applied last year for the site to be listed as an asset of community value (ACV), which was granted in January.

But Basingstoke Town Limited, owned by Rafi Razzak, requested the council review the decision, the result of which was announced on April 15.

What is the history of the appeal?

Basingstoke Town Community FC applied for ACV status on the Camrose in November 2020, two months after plans to redevelop the site were rejected.

The decision was approved by the council in January, although Basingstoke Town Limited - the company set up by Mr Razzak to run the football club in the 2000s that still technically is the leaseholder of the Camrose - requested a review in February.

Yesterday, on April 15, Ms Thomsen dismissed the review and decided in favour of listing the site as an ACV.

It gives it extra protections to the ground for the next five years, including forcing Mr Razzak to notify the community club if he intends to sell it, and allowing them six months to raise the money to buy it, if requested.

How was the decision made?

The decision was made by Fiona Thomsen, the council's head of law and governance.

She examined section 88 of the Localism Act which sets out the criteria for determining whether land is of community value.

Ms Thomsen had to decide whether "there is a time in the recent past when an actual use of the land... furthered the social wellbeing or interests of the community" and "it is realistic to think that there is a time in the next five years when there could be use of the land that would further the social wellbeing or interests of the community".

Phillips solicitors, on behalf of Mr Razzak's BT Ltd, mentioned in a letter that football stadia have been listed as an ACV where the "playing of football is viable", and "the important difference in this case is that football has not been financially viable at the Stadium for a long time before it closed. It is analogous to a rundown public house which has been unviable for a long time.”

But Ms Thomsen decided that there had been a time where the use of the land furthered social wellbeing, and then debated BT Ltd's objection that it was not realistic for it to be so in the next five years.

What did Mr Razzak's firm say?

Phillips Solicitors, on behalf of BT Ltd, sent a letter to the council objecting to granting the Camrose ACV status. It cited a number of reasons, including that the club has recently moved to Winklebury Sports Complex and that it is "against its interests to seek to move back to the stadium".

The summary of Phillips' reasons from Ms Thomsen in her decision notice continued: "It is against the interests of the local community to seek to divert funds and efforts from the facility at Winklebury."

The letter cited that planning permission for the Camrose link road, since scrapped by Hampshire County Council, makes it impractical to continue using the stadium, and that it would require more than £1-1.5 million to allow it to be used by the public for football.

"The level of funding is not and will not be available," the decision notice continues. "The open market value of the Stadium far exceeds a level which is feasible for a community interest group to contemplate and fund the carrying costs.

"No community group will be able to raise the funding for the acquisition and required building work and no third party undertaking will provide such funds in respect of the stadium.

"In the nomination it is asserted that it is realistic to expect that the Stadium can further social wellbeing within a relatively short period. Such a bald assertion without any supporting substance highlights the absence of any ability to tackle the real difficulties facing the stadium.

"The financial viability of the club at the stadium has been proven over many years to be unsustainable and the continued existence of the club has occurred due to the generosity of its benefactors."

It adds that it is a "proven fact" that the community has not supported the football team at the stadium in sufficient numbers.

What was Ms Thomsen's decision?

Ms Thomsen said that her "main consideration" was that planning permission had not been granted, saying the owner is "not in a position to prevent further community use in the next five years".

"If the owner is not successful on the planning appeal, it will need to consider other options for the land. Given the planning policy protects the current use of the land this may include a future community use."

"Given there is an active campaign group and planning permission has not yet been secured for the redevelopment of the site, my view is that community use remains a realistic possibility and I am therefore upholding the listing of the site as an asset of community value," she concluded.

What now?

Mr Razzak has 28 days to request a review to a First Tier Tribunal.