Council denies anything untoward with Innes School sale

It took over four weeks, but the Impact Partnership has finally responded to questions asked about the sale of the former Innes School site on Ings Lane. Nigel MacDonald, Account Manager Estates (Operational), in a written reply to Christine Arrowsmith, who originally posed the question at a Spotland Forum meeting, said the accusation that the decision to sell was "furtive and rushed" is without foundation.

The full text of Mr MacDonald's letter said: "I believe you have asked some questions at a recent Rochdale Township meeting which couldn’t be answered on the night. The Township Manager has forwarded your questions to me for a response and I therefore apologise for the delay so caused.

"You suggest that the decision to sell is ‘furtive and rushed’. The decision to sell Innes was actually taken in January/February 2004. The decision to close 5 Special Schools was taken by the Schools Organizing Committee at it’s meeting on the 29 January 2004. The decision was influenced by Government advice to local authorities on their provision of Special Needs Education.

"Here in Rochdale, we provided our care for children with special needs at 5 separate sites across the Borough. Government advice was to centralise this provision in one new ‘state of the art facility’ building. Schools Organizing Committee acted on the Government advice and decided to close the 5 sites (including Innes) and that the capital receipt from the sales would be earmarked for investment in the new facility, (which incidentally, has now been provided and is the new Redwood school in the grounds of Oulder Hill School).The decision of Schools Organizing Committee was ratified by Cabinet at it’s meeting on 16 February 2004 and Schools Service was thereby authorised to begin the release process with the Department For Education and Skills (DFES – now DCSF), which is necessary for the disposal of educational assets.

"In the circumstances therefore, the decision to close and sell off the facility is neither rushed nor furtive, but I need to explain the appearance of the property in the auction catalogue prior to receipt of full DCSF approval. There is a lead-time to submission of items in the auction. There is also a considerable gap between auction dates. With a surplus asset, there are the attendant costs and liabilities of retention pending sale and there are necessarily therefore pressures to get assets to market as soon as practicable.

"The original release by DCSF did not include all the proposed disposal site and so a second consent was applied for. We had been advised (off the record) by DCSF of the likely timescale required to complete the Statutory requirements of the process. We were already aware that the parameters within which DCSF were to work could only give a positive outcome. Given the above, and with a supposed date to work to, the property was entered into the auction on that basis.

"When the due decision date came and went without receipt of a decision, the property had to be removed from the auction. DCSF explained that due to a clerical error, the decision had been missed off the February 20 agenda, but was on the 20 March agenda and so the property was re-entered into the April auction.

"I can confirm that DCSF did make a positive decision on the 20 March and that written confirmation of the decision is now with the Council and the property can now legally be sold.

"Returning to your questions, I can advise that the release of surplus Council assets is not subject to public consultation. You were correctly advised at Spotland Area Forum that the land is to be released for private housing development.

"Best Value is achieved by exposing a surplus asset to the market on the basis of the most lucrative land use available in planning terms. We are achieving record land sales for private housing at the moment and therefore Best Value will be achieved by exposure to the private housing market via the auction process (the most transparent vehicle available).

"No other public projects were considered for this site. The site has been released by DCSF for the purpose of a private housing development only. The site has never been earmarked for a PCT “LIFT” Centre or for any other purpose since being declared as being surplus.

"The land was not given to the people but was bought for value by the authority (the land was bought for General Improvement, Allotments and Highways). The uses found on the land are consistent with services provided by a local authority.

"The only proposals I am aware of that have involved the area you refer to are the sales-off of Dellar Street garage site upon which there is now a flatted development, the site of the nursery on Phoenix Street which was sold some years ago and there was a proposal to sell the ‘white land’ in line with the nursery and clinic on Phoenix Street for housing but this did not get political approval and remains within the curtilage of the school.

"The other land in the area could not be considered for development as it is Protected Open Space, although of course this is a misnomer as both Meanwood and Innes Schools are not accessible by the public.

"I trust I have explained the circumstances surrounding this disposal, and you will appreciate that the Council has been steered along this course in compliance with Government Advice."

Date article online: 11/04/2008