Part 1 (Open to the public)
ITEM NO.
___________________________________________________________________
REPORT OF STRATEGIC DIRECTOR FOR SUSTAINABLE REGENERATION
___________________________________________________________________
TO THE LEAD MEMBER FOR PROPERTY AT HIS MEETING
ON TUESDAY 11TH JANUARY 2010
___________________________________________________________________
TITLE: SURPLUS PROPERTY - FORMER SEEDLEY PRIMARY SCHOOL AND
CARETAKER’S HOUSE, LIVERPOOL ROAD, SALFORD.
___________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Lead Member for Property approves:
1. That the council declares the former Seedley Primary School and Caretaker’s
House surplus to its requirements and instructs Urban Vision to dispose of the
property.
2. That all buildings on site are demolished.
3. That an early marketing exercise is undertaken to test the market in an
attempt to find a purchaser. Otherwise the site will be held until the market
improves.
4. That the Council seeks to bring the s.77 protected land on this site out of
protection by identifying a replacement site elsewhere.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The property has been declared surplus to operational requirements by the
Children’s Services Directorate as part of the rationalisation of its Primary Schools
under the Primary Capital Programme.
The One Council Team has considered the potential options for the future use of this
asset including re-use by the City Council. It has recommended that the Lead
Member for Property approves the above recommendations.
___________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
(Available for public inspection)
Option appraisal form sent to One Council Team members for consideration on the
21st December 2010
D:\219518244.doc
___________________________________________________________________
KEY DECISION:
NO
___________________________________________________________________
DETAILS:
1. TITLE
SURPLUS PROPERTY - FORMER SEEDLEY PRIMARY
CARETAKER’S HOUSE. LIVERPOOL ROAD, SALFORD.
SCHOOL
AND
2. BACKGROUND
Seedley Primary School was closed in July 2010 and has been declared surplus by
Children’s Services.
The property is shown edged red on the attached plan. It comprises the curtilage of
the school (coloured pink), its playing fields (coloured green) and the vacant
caretaker’s house (coloured blue). The whole site is 1.195 ha (2.95 acres). Of that
0.43 ha (1.07 acres) are former school playing fields.
The buildings on site comprise a three storey school building and two storey
caretaker’s house, constructed of brick with a pitched slate roof. There are also flat
roofed buildings to the rear of the main school building, which are later additions.
The school playing fields are protected from sale or change of use by s.77 of the
School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and subsequent legislation. This
protection effectively sterilises the playing field area from development for 10 years,
until 2020. There are exemptions available to release land from s.77 protection,
however they are generally very difficult to satisfy.
One option which the Council is investigating in relation to its portfolio of s.77
protected sites is the systematic replacement of those playing fields in valuable
developable locations with alternative provision elsewhere on land less favoured for
development.
3. CONDITION
The main school building and caretaker’s house were in reasonable condition until
closure.
However, since their closure and despite extensive security the buildings have been
broken into and subjected to vandalism and theft on numerous occasions. Water and
heating pipes have been stolen and lead flashing has been stripped from their roofs.
This has allowed considerable ingress of water to all floors, causing extensive
damage throughout the buildings.
Due to the poor condition of the buildings and concerns about Health and Safety, reuse of the buildings is unlikely and consideration has been given to the potential
demolition of all the buildings on the site. The estimated cost for demolition is
D:\219518244.doc
£150,000 but this is in part offset by savings on security costs, maintenance and
empty property rates. Demolition will also make the site more attractive to
purchasers as it removes a potential liability for them.
4. PLANNING COMMENT
Planners confirm that residential and community uses would be acceptable, subject
to detailed consideration of proposals.
Because the site, according to planning policy PPS4 is in an off centre location,
being more than 300m from the nearest Neighbourhood Centre on Langworthy
Road, it will need to satisfy a sequential test before commercial use of the site could
be considered.
The playing field provision is protected by planning policy unless it could be replaced
elsewhere, subject to a number of tests.
5. OPTIONS CONSIDERED
OPTION
A. Demolish the
school buildings
and caretaker’s
house and clear
the
site
for
redevelopment.
ADVANTAGES
>
Cleared
site
reduces
substantial ongoing building
maintenance
and
security
liabilities.
> Removes a focus for antisocial/criminal behaviour in the
neighbourhood.
>
Provides
a
site
for
development and economic
regeneration when economy
and property market recovers.
> Provides a site suitable for
publicly supported regeneration
if funding becomes available
DISADVANTAGES
> Building is landmark and community
may want to retain building for
“beneficial” use.
> Unlikely to be redeveloped in
foreseeable future due to economic
conditions, the property market and
cuts in social housing support funding.
> Sale likely only to property
speculators in short term.
> Ongoing site management costs will
be incurred.
> Existing playing field, about 30% of
site,
not
developable
without
replacement.
B. Demolish the
school buildings
and clear the site
for
redevelopment,
but retain the
caretaker’s house
for
sale
for
refurbishment.
> Provides an early capital
receipt for the Council.
> Brings a dilapidated property
back into the local housing
stock.
>
Demonstrates
to
the
community that the Council will
retain older properties when
viable.
> Retention may reduce the options
for redevelopment by limiting the
number of potential highways access
points, which may reduce the density
of development significantly and thus
may disproportionately lower the
potential capital receipt for the whole
site.
C. Retain the
school buildings
and caretaker’s
house and seek
alternative private
uses.
> Provides an opportunity for
economic
regeneration
if
refurbishment becomes viable.
(unlikely)
>Will
probably
attract
community support.
>Building has been very badly
damaged due to vandalism and
subsequent water ingress and is now
a Health and Safety issue
> Unsuited to modern needs.
> Very large over 3 floors.
> Not DDA compliant.
> Asbestos
D:\219518244.doc
> Costs needed for refurbishment and
on-going use very high.
> Apartment market over-supplied.
Recovery unlikely?
> Commercial re-use not supported
by potential value.
> Too difficult, risky and unviable.
Unlikely to find developer.
> Remains a focus for antisocial/criminal behaviour in the
neighbourhood.
> Blight will block area regeneration
as issues worsen and costs grow over
time.
D. Retain the
school buildings
and caretaker’s
house and seek
alternative
public/community
uses
> Provides an opportunity for
social regeneration in
a
deprived community if public/
3rd sector funding is available.
> Likely to attract community
support.
>Building has been very badly
damaged due to vandalism and
subsequent water ingress and is now
a Health and Safety issue
> Unsuited to modern needs.
> Very large over 3 floors.
> Not DDA compliant.
> Asbestos
> Costs of refurbishment and ongoing use very high.
> Limited resources produce better
outcomes elsewhere?
> Not likely to find users able to meet
ongoing costs and sustain full and
efficient use of the property.
> Remains a focus for antisocial/criminal behaviour in the
neighbourhood.
> Blight will block area regeneration
as issues worsen.
> substantial ongoing costs and
management time whilst option is
considered
6. SITE VALUE
Presently and for the foreseeable future it will be difficult to find a purchaser for
residential development land in this area. Without regeneration subsidy,
development in the short to medium term is not considered financially viable. Such
subsidy is unlikely, having regard to other regeneration priorities and the reduction in
central government housing regeneration grants.
Any acquisition is likely to be speculative and accordingly the sale price achieved
would need to reflect the significant risk that market conditions may not improve
sufficiently in this relatively deprived area to make residential development viable.
There is no supporting evidence of recent open market residential land sales
available.
D:\219518244.doc
In the present conditions there is a ready availability of alternative speculative land
acquisition opportunities; therefore the imposition of land value claw-back
arrangements is likely to significantly damage the prospects for a sale. Such an
acquisition would be speculative and any purchaser would seek to maximise their
returns from the inherent risks in such a transaction.
Having regard to the significant uncertainties set out above, it is estimated that the
market value of this site lies in the range of £350,000 to £500,000. However,
Achieving a sale would be uncertain and, if a buyer could be found, a sale would be
likely to take some time to conclude. If sold, the site is likely to stand vacant for the
foreseeable future, until market conditions improve significantly. It may take between
two and five years before conditions are conducive to achieving a positive outcome
on the open market. Therefore, to maximise the capital receipt from the property the
Council could retain ownership of the cleared site until such time as market
conditions significantly improve and then market it for residential development.
7. CONCLUSION
There are advantages and disadvantages to each option. However, on balance
option A, the sale of land falling outside the protection of s.77 of the School
Standards and Framework Act 1998, produces the best outcome, especially in view
of the damage that has been done to the buildings through vandalism and theft.
The balance between the demolition options A and B is finer. The prospect of
making an early capital receipt from the sale of the caretaker’s house makes option
B attractive. However the receipt from such a sale is likely to be low due to its
present very poor condition; in the region of £35,000 to £50,000. On the other hand
the potential loss of overall site value from a separate disposal of the caretaker’s
house could be greater than that, bearing in mind that it would narrow the frontage
and possibly give rise to access issues when detailed site layouts are prepared.
Finding a purchaser for the overall site in the short term, able to commit to a
timetable for development, is very unlikely. However, there may be a prospect of
finding an, as yet unanticipated user for the site, for instance health care, residential
home for the elderly and so forth.
This requires further exploration by Urban Vision, who recommends that limited
marketing of the site for say six months is undertaken as soon as instructions are
received. Any early open market sale would include a requirement that the purchaser
commence development within 18 to 24 months. This will avoid acquisition by
speculative purchasers with the attendant risks.
KEY COUNCIL POLICIES:
 Asset Management Plan.
___________________________________________________________________
COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND IMPLICATIONS:
D:\219518244.doc
The most effective use of the Council’s assets impacts on the community and
community groups
___________________________________________________________________
ASSESSMENT OF RISK: LOW
___________________________________________________________________
SOURCE OF FUNDING:
___________________________________________________________________
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Norman Perry Ext 2325
As it is, the buildings are a liability, incurring costs regarding security which has not
been effective so far, resulting in a deterioration of the asset. It is probable that if the
situation is allowed to continue unchanged, that the assets will deteriorate further.
Providing that there are no covenants regarding the use of the site and requiring
maintenance of buildings thereon, it would seem sensible to demolish the buildings
and clear the site.
It is unfortunate that disposal of the whole site is out of the question at present, but at
least there is the possibility of a capital receipt and the cessation of the payment of
security and management costs
___________________________________________________________________
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Stephen Bayley Ext 2584
Demolition of the buildings will save the Council security, maintenance and empty
property rate costs. The cost of demolition will have to be charged to capital and
offset against any capital receipt that may be realised in the future.
___________________________________________________________________
OTHER DIRECTORATES CONSULTED: All Directorates consulted. No further
comments received.
___________________________________________________________________
CONTACT OFFICER: Russ Nutter
TEL. NO. 2321
___________________________________________________________________
WARD(S) TO WHICH REPORT RELATE(S): Langworthy and Seedley
___________________________________________________________________
Seedley Plan
D:\219518244.doc
SeedleyPrimSchDraft
PressRelease11-12-10.doc