A right to buy is not yet the capacity to own

Community ownership can give people lasting influence over local spaces. Making it achievable requires more than a route to purchase. We explore early advice, community accountability, operating costs and the support Black-led organisations need to turn a property opportunity into a sustainable place.

A community can have a clear idea of what a building could become long before it has the money to buy it. People may know which activities need a home, who would use the space and why the loss of that place would matter. Turning that knowledge into ownership involves another set of demands: a survey, a legal agreement, a business plan, a board decision and enough cash to keep the doors open.

Those demands deserve attention in the conversation about community power. The ability to imagine and organise a useful space does not automatically come with access to property finance or professional advice.

In England, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026. The government describes its Community Right to Buy as giving communities first refusal when valued local assets come up for sale. On 16 June, it also announced a £61 million Community Right to Buy Fund to support people in deprived areas to take ownership of local assets at risk.

These are significant commitments. They recognise that communities should have a stronger say over places that shape their lives. The practical test is whether organisations with limited reserves and little experience of property transactions can use the opportunity alongside those already well positioned to do so.

Power to Change’s July 2026 findings from community businesses point to that concern. Respondents identified affordability and access to time, knowledge and practical support as barriers. Some worried that the process would favour established organisations with previous funding and asset-management experience. A right designed to broaden ownership needs an approach that takes those different starting points seriously.

For Black-led organisations, the question includes who is recognised as a credible custodian of a local space. DiNN’s published work with City Bridge Foundation acknowledges longstanding barriers in access to funding and support. It would be a mistake to assume that organisations arrive at a property opportunity with equal reserves, relationships or experience simply because the same application process is available to them.

A useful starting point is the community’s purpose for the building. A familiar space can carry enormous meaning, but affection alone cannot decide its future use. Who wants to use it, for what, and at which times? Which groups have been part of that conversation? Who might struggle to participate? These questions should shape the plan before the organisation commits to a particular mix of rooms or services.

They also help distinguish community ownership from ownership by an organisation that happens to work locally. The people using and sustaining a place need ways to influence what happens there. That could include membership, regular opportunities to shape priorities and clear routes for raising concerns. The appropriate structure will vary. What matters is being able to explain how local knowledge reaches decisions.

The next task is to understand the building being offered. An attractive purchase price can sit alongside substantial repair costs or limitations on use. Access, energy performance, safety, maintenance and the legal terms all deserve proper examination with qualified advice. If that investigation identifies a problem the organisation cannot responsibly take on, the money spent finding out has still served a purpose.

This is why early development funding is so important. Communities may need help before they can produce the evidence a capital funder expects. Asking a small organisation to pay for all the professional work upfront can exclude it before anyone assesses the quality of its plan. Funding should make space for investigation, including the possibility that a particular purchase will not proceed.

The operating plan needs equal care. Imagine a community hub that expects room hire and a café to contribute to running costs. The forecast should account for staffing, cleaning, utilities, insurance and maintenance as well as the income. It should examine how quickly bookings might build, which uses need to remain affordable and what happens during quieter periods.

That example also shows why a busy building is not automatically a financially secure one. Low-cost community activity may be central to the mission while contributing little to the bills. Commercial hire may help, but can compete for the same space and time. The organisation needs an explicit plan for that balance, including any continuing grant support it requires. Otherwise, financial pressure may gradually decide who gets to use the building.

Cash is needed after the purchase too. A plan should show how the organisation will meet costs while activity develops and how it will provide for future repairs. Capital funding that ends at completion can leave a group with an asset and too little room to operate it. Funders should look at acquisition, organisational support and the first period of operation together.

The work also needs named people with time to do it. Opening and closing, managing bookings, supervising staff and dealing with a broken boiler are ongoing responsibilities. A model that assumes trustees or founders will always absorb them for free is vulnerable. Community ownership can create paid work and shared responsibility when these functions are planned and resourced from the outset.

Buying will not be the right route for every organisation. A well-negotiated lease, shared use or a temporary space may sometimes meet the need, though each carries its own costs and limitations. Organisations should be able to compare those options without being treated as less ambitious. The relevant question is how much control, security and responsibility the mission requires.

Local authorities and funders can help by making information accessible, supporting early feasibility work and allowing realistic preparation time. They should also examine who progresses through each stage and who drops out. A programme can appear open while repeatedly losing groups that cannot afford the work needed to remain in it.

We should welcome stronger rights and then ask what makes them usable. For an organisation considering a space, the first step is to bring together its community mandate, an informed assessment of the building and a costed plan for running it. For the institutions backing that ambition, the responsibility is to help resource those steps. The measure of success will include what communities are able to do in the places they own, long after the purchase is complete.