Appendix 4
MSP Appraisals 2008-2011
Appraisal feedback and response form
Lower Broughton Feedback, 10th March 2008
To ensure that the Secretariat has a complete record of all information
requested and provided through the appraisal process, all requests and
returns are required to be completed in the following format. Where responses
require a written response please provide details in the relevant box below.
Where plans or spreadsheets are required in response please reference in
the relevant box below. This sheet will then accompany your original
application form on MSP’s records. Boxes can be expanded on screen as
necessary.
Thank you
The following feedback is provided in recognition that the application remains
work in progress. A series of gaps within the form and discrete sections of text
remain to be filled to allow the appraisal to be progressed.
1. At the time of the 2006-2008 appraisals a revised masterplan was in
preparation to incorporate flood alleviation measures. Could a copy of
the area’s final masterplan be provided to accompany the appraisal?
2. A substantial programme of HMR activity remains to be delivered in
Lower Broughton. Recognising uncertainty over future funding
allocations/bidding rounds, how would interventions be concluded post
2008/2011 if HMR support was not available? Could activity be
effectively phased, if necessary, to minimise disruption to residents by
completing discrete elements?
3. The 2006-2008 appraisal identified a HMR funding requirement of
£14.0m for future years (2008/9 onwards). The latest submission
suggests that this figure has increased to £22.9m. What are the
reasons for this change and when is spend forecast to conclude? How
will the programme continue to be monitored to ensure that funding
requirements are managed to ensure the programme is financially
viable and appropriate for market conditions?
1
4. When appraising the 2006-2008 programme it was reported that
residential acquisitions had previously averaged £22,000 with values
for the 2006-2008 programme anticipated to average £55,000. The
assumed acquisition values for 2008-2011 have risen to £100,000.
What are the reasons for this? Are different types of properties being
acquired?
5. Have any changes been made to the programme to reflect changes in
market/neighbourhood conditions during 2006-2008?
6. What have been the key lessons for the Lower Broughton team
through delivery of the 2006 – 2008 programme? How has this
informed your approach (interventions and delivery mechanisms) for
2008 -2011?
7. Further detail of the 2008-2011 programme would greatly assist the
appraisal to include:
a. a breakdown of those elements of activity that are a direct
continuation of 2006-2008 activity (e.g. discrete blocks of
ongoing acquisitions) and those elements that will start as new
phases of activity during 2008-2011 (e.g. Mocha Parade);
b. the coverage of phases of acquisitions to be progressed (plan of
site boundaries if possible and names of target streets);
c. the tenure break down of the 311 acquisitions for 2008-2011
and 61 acquisitions for future years and confirmation of the
number of residential and commercial premises within this;
d. anticipated requirements for CPOs;
e. an indication of the forecast division of spend by phase/core
element of schemes, for example costs for Mocha Parade;
f. a breakdown of costs by type of activity, e.g. acquisitions
(residential and commercial), private sector relocations, social
tenant home loss/disturbance, demolitions;
g. confirmation of whether any acquired properties will be retained
(the spreadsheet suggests fewer demolitions than acquisitions
across the 2008-2011 and future years’ programmes);
2
h. a plan showing the phasing of new development proposed
during 2008-2011.
8. What cost assumptions have been made regarding % take up of
relocation assistance, commercial acquisition costs (including
assumptions for extinguishment and relocation) and demolition costs?
9. Other public sector funding contributions are low at £584,000 for 20082011 and £3.0m for future years.
a. Are these figures correct?
b. Will further Salford City Council contributions be made in the
form of land and property values? If so, can an estimate of the
value of these contributions be provided?
c. Are any other contributions anticipated for development of the
social housing units?
10. Does forecast private sector investment relate to all forecast
completions? Investment of £148,491,000 for the development of 3,585
homes equates to £41,420 per unit. Is this correct? Based on an
average forecast sales value of £155,000-£165,000, can you confirm
how the surplus would be divided between all funding partners?
11. The spreadsheets accompanying the application include no indication
of anticipated capital receipts. Can an indication of the anticipated
timing and potential level of receipts to the Pathfinder be provided
below? Given the high level of investment proposed in the
neighbourhood, an understanding of the potential returns is required.
3
12. Which development phases currently have detailed agreements with
Countryside? Is there potential for the terms of phased agreements to
allow the developer to accommodate a proportion of acquisition costs,
to reflect increasing confidence in the area and rising sales values?
How will this situation continue to be reviewed to ensure that the public
sector do not fund activities that can be accommodated within private
budgets, subject to favourable market conditions?
13. In addition to housing units, are any community facilities due to be
completed in the area during 2008-2011?
14. Is it possible to specify milestones for the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Anticipated CPO timescales by phase?
Finalisation of phased developer agreements?
Completions on phase 2/3 sites?
Any further anticipated milestones beyond July 2009 to
understand the forecast roll out of activity, for example
completion of community facilities, further phases of planning
permissions?
4