32967


32967

DISPOSAL OF THE SITE OF THE FORMER COULBY NEWHAM SECONDARY SCHOOL MANOR FARM WAY COULBY NEWHAM MIDDLESBROUGH

EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR RESOURCES

NICKY WALKER

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PAUL SLOCOMBE

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1.To report on the bids received for the redevelopment for residential purposes of the site of the former Coulby Newham Secondary School, Manor Farm Way, Coulby Newham Middlesbrough.

BACKGROUND AND EXTERNAL CONSULTATION

  1. The Individual Executive of 31 March 2005 approved that the Council withdraws from negotiations with the then preferred developer, that the school premises still occupying the site be demolished and the site remarketed.

Informal bids were invited following the usual procedures. Eleven bids were received and the schedule of figures will be tabled at your meeting.

The demolition of the former school premises was completed on 11 July 2005.

OPTION APPRAISAL/RISK ASSESSMENT

  1. The Appendix sets out the technical appraisal of the bids proposed for short listing purposes. These have been carried out by Urban Policy and Transport and Design representatives. Further analysis is set out below.

Developer A has proposed a phased financial bid, which was specifically stated in the particulars as being unacceptable to the Council. In addition the density of the scheme was excessive and exceeded the requirements of the development brief. Following concerns expressed against the previous scheme proposals for this site a maximum of 100 units was specified whereas the scheme submitted contains 120 units.

Developer B also submitted a scheme where the density was excessive (146 units) and also includes two blocks of retirement flats which is wholly outwith the requirements of the development brief.

The scheme submitted by Developer C is acceptable for submission as a possible candidate however in technical terms and ease of realisation this is inferior to the scheme submitted by Developer D. The price difference between C and D is considered de minimus against the superior technical nature of the scheme submitted by Developer D. Hence it is proposed that Developer D be selected as preferred developer and Developer C be selected as reserve.

FINANCIAL, LEGAL AND WARD IMPLICATIONS

4.Financial – Considering the disposal exercise as a whole it is recommended that the submission by Developer D be regarded as best consideration in the context of the Council’s requirements as set out in the disposal particulars. This represents a major capital receipt, which will be received as a single lump sum upon completion and exceeds the offer contained in the previous (abortive) disposal.

5.Ward Implications – The site is in Coulby Newham Ward. The previous abortive scheme raised concerns with Members, Ward Councillors and local residents. As part of the current exercise the development brief was drafted to take account of these concerns. In addition an outline planning application for residential development was submitted and, following consideration by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister approved, on 28 June 2005. One objection was received from the adjacent Kings Academy.

  1. Legal Implications – The disposal will be on the basis of a transfer of the Council’s freehold interest. This will take place following planning approval with the transfer document incorporating the general and construction terms and conditions as adopted and approved for previous disposals of the Coulby Newham development sites. There are no untoward legal implications.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. That Developer D is selected as preferred developer and that the usual legal procedures are put in hand to effect the disposal.

That Developer C is selected as reserve.

REASONS

8.A detailed development brief (Number MP 377) was prepared and approved for the site which provided a comprehensive framework for the bid submissions and the development and disposal of the site. A list of financial contributions to be made by the developer in addition to the bid price and works to be completed by the developer in addition to the scheme proposals was also included.

The brief and covering documentation set out the criteria against which the submissions would be assessed namely :

#Financial bid

#Quality of design

#Adherence to the Council’s requirements as specified

All the submissions have been considered against the criteria listed above and the submission from Developer D maximises compliance.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

The following background papers were used in the preparation of this report:

Individual Executive Report dated 31 March 2005

AUTHOR: Peter Metcalfe

TEL NO: 727076

______

Address: First Floor Rede House 69-71 Corporation Road Middlesbrough

Website:

32967