Paisley town centre vacancy study

nick wright planning planning, community engagement & regeneration

276 Main Road Elderslie Johnstone PA5 9EF Scotland t/f 01505 352147 m 07900 334110

www.nickwrightplanning.co.uk blog experience approach contact

Paisley town centre: Paisley town centre: Paisley town centre: Paisley town centre:

examining the potential reexamining the potential reexamining the potential reexamining the potential re----useuseuseuse

of vacant upper floor propertyof vacant upper floor propertyof vacant upper floor propertyof vacant upper floor property

Final Report

for

Renfrewshire Council

December 2008




www.nickwrightplanning.co.uk 1

ContentsContentsContentsContents

Chapter 1 Introduction page 2

Background

Report structure

Brief and study area

Approach

Comparisons with the 2000 study

Chapter 2 Housing market review page 5

Introduction

Market overview: spring 2008

Market update: autumn 2008

Owner occupied market

Private rented market

Housing Associations


Key points

Chapter 3 Building use and condition survey page 13

Approach

Key points

Chapter 4 Vacant property assessments page 19

Approach

Site visits (including summary of each visit)

Intelligence from owners and agents

Chapter 5 Key sites page 27

Introduction

Site 1: Causeyside Street / Canal Street

Site 2: Causeyside Street / Browns Lane

Site 3: High Street / Orr Square

Key points

Chapter 6 Conclusions page 38

Introduction

A: Grant assistance for enabling works

B: Condition surveys and site assembly

C: Compliance with regulatory frameworks

D: Working in partnership with the private sector

E: Demonstration project

Action plan and conclusions

Appendices (bound separately) 1 Building use and condition survey results

2 Maps of vacancies and gap sites

3 Letter/questionnaire to owners/agents of vacant properties

4 List of vacant properties and site visits

5 Photographs of vacancies and gap sites

6 Proposals from site visits to vacant properties identified in Chapter 4

7 Gross Development Values for key sites identified in Chapter 5


1111 IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction

Background

1.1 This is the draft final report of an examination of the potential re-use of upper floor property

in Paisley town centre, combined with a survey of the use and external condition of all

property within the town centre.

1.2 The report also refers to additional work undertaken as an extension to the original brief,

which contains outline costed proposals for three specific groups of properties within the

town centre (on Causeyside Street and the High Street). This additional work is the focus of

chapter 5.

1.3 This work has been commissioned by Renfrewshire Council in support of its wider objective

of regenerating Paisley town centre. It has been undertaken by a team of consultants led by

Nick Wright Planning (planning and overall project management) with J & E Shepherd

(surveying), Collective Architecture (architectural advice) and Willie Miller Urban Design

(mapping and urban design).

1.4 A similar study was previously undertaken for the Council, Scottish Homes and the then

Renfrewshire Enterprise in 2000 by Halcrow and Anderson Christie. This 2008 study is an

updating of that previous study. We have attempted to make the results directly comparable

wherever possible.

Report structure

1.5 The structure of this report is as follows:

• This chapter explains the background to the work, the requirements of the brief and the

study area.

• Chapter 2 contains a review of the various sectors of the housing market as it was in

spring 2008 together with an update on the market in autumn 2008.

• Chapter 3 contains surveys of the use and external condition of all properties in the town

centre study area.

• Chapter 4 contains a more detailed assessment of the potential for the re-use or

conversion of vacant upper floors to residential use, including the results of a number of

site visits to vacant properties.

• Chapter 5 contains outline costed proposals for three specific groups of properties –

which we have termed key sites – within the town centre (on Causeyside Street and the


High Street) which we investigated in greater depth, in an extension to the original brief.

• Chapter 6 contains our conclusions and recommendations to progress implementation of

the physical proposals contained in chapters 4 and 5.

Brief and study area

1.6 The aims of the study are to:

• Quantify the extent of under-use of properties above commercial properties in the town

centre.

• Examine their potential for re-use, with a particular focus on residential use.

1.7 The Council is also keen to obtain:

• A picture of current housing market conditions in the town centre.

• The pattern of use and condition of buildings.

• A greater understanding of developers’ and owners’ intentions for investment in vacant

property.

1.8 The extent of the study area is shown in the plan overleaf. As the plan shows, the study area

has been extended north of the main railway line to include the northernmost part of Moss

Street and the southern frontage of Old Sneddon Street. This reflects the town centre nature

of the property uses in these areas.

1.9 We are aware that the commission does not sit in isolation, but is part of a concerted action

plan for residentially-led revitalisation of Paisley town centre which encompasses £50 million

of investment over a 10 year period. Whilst substantial investment is anticipated to come

from the private sector, the Paisley Vision Board’s action plan still calls for around £10 million

of public sector investment. Correct targeting of that investment is critical.

1.10 This commission forms one of the building blocks for the Council to plan how that investment

should be targeted. We understand that good quality research and analysis are essential if

the 10 year investment plans are to achieve their goal. In other words, we fully accept the

responsibility that falls on us and our contribution towards the regeneration of the town

centre.

Approach

1.11 Our approach has incorporated the three areas of work identified in the Council’s brief:

• An assessment of the local housing market. This is covered in more detail in chapter 2.

• A technical survey of the use and external condition of all properties in the town centre

(see chapter 3), together with more detailed assessment of the potential for the re-use

or conversion of vacant upper floors to residential use (see chapter 4).

• An attitude survey of owners of vacant property or their agents to establish their

intentions, willingness to redevelop or dispose of the property, and any issues which

prevent or delay bringing the property back into re-use (see chapter 4).

PLAN OF

STUDY AREA


1.12 More detailed information about the approach used for each of these component parts of

the study is contained in the relevant chapters.

1.13 The base research for the study was carried out between January and March 2008. In an

extension to the original commission, proposals for three key sites were prepared in summer

2008.

1.14 As explained in section 1.3, this study updates a previous similar piece of work undertaken in

2000. In order to make the results of the two studies as comparable as possible, we have

followed closely the approach that was used in 2000. The intention is that the Council will be

able to chart change over time. We would however warn that direct comparisons may be

misleading (see paragraph 1.16 below).

1.15 Our anticipated 10 week programme for the study has proved to be optimistic. This

programme assumed a similar level of vacancies to 2000; this assumption proved to be

incorrect, as will become clear in this report. A greater number of vacancies than anticipated

meant that the amount of work involved in contacting owners and agents has been

considerably more than expected. This additional work has been absorbed by the

consultant, with assistance from Council officers in agreeing that the internal technical

surveys should focus on those upper floor properties with real potential for residential

conversion (similar to the 2000 study).

Comparisons with the 2000 study

1.16 There is a risk of undertaking direct quantitative comparison between the 2000 and 2008

studies. Whilst some of the data in this report may appear directly comparable (for example,

use and condition of individual properties), decisions about how to categorise property use

and condition are to an extent subjective.

1.17 Two examples will help to illustrate this:

• The 2000 report does not explain how uses such as amusement arcades and betting

shops were allocated between categories like leisure, culture, shops and offices.

Although we have used the same categories, we have no way of knowing whether we

have allocated uses to these categories in the same way as in 2000. This is because we

have no record of whether common uses like betting shops, travel agents and

hairdressers were categorised as office/commercial or shops. It would therefore be

dangerous to say, for example, that the number of premises in the residential category

increased or decreased by a certain percentage.

• We have used a scoring system of 1 to 5 used for external building condition, as in 2000.

As the assessment of condition is a subjective one on the part of the person undertaking

the survey, it would again be dangerous to draw numerical comparisons between 2000

and 2008.

1.18 In case the Council decides to undertaken a similar study again in a few years’ time, we have

attempted to provide sufficient clarity on our approach throughout this report for

comparisons to be made more easily with this report in the future.


2222 Housing market reviewHousing market reviewHousing market reviewHousing market review

Introduction

2.1 This chapter looks at the housing market within the study area, with a particular emphasis on

issues which are likely to influence the potential for conversion of vacant upper floor

properties to residential use.

2.2 This chapter was prepared in spring 2008 as part of our original commission. An updated

market commentary has been provided as part of the additional work on key sites which we

undertook in summer 2008; this can be found in Chapter 5.

2.3 The information in this chapter has been based on the professional surveying experience

within the team combined with a series of consultations with property professionals, letting

agents, the two Housing Associations operating around the town centre, and the Council’s

Housing and Property Services Department.

2.4 The chapter begins with a brief overview of the market, and then looks at each form of

tenure in more detail. This structure follows that of the similar chapter in the 2000 study, for

ease of comparison.

Market overview: spring 2008

2.5 House prices have risen dramatically since 2002 throughout Scotland. Most recent data

shows that the market may be cooling on the back of recent interest rate rises and accessing

the markets has become increasingly difficult for prospective first time buyers. House prices

picked up sharply towards the end of 2006 and accelerated through 2007. This momentum

appears to be slowing and it is now becoming clear that house price growth peaked around

June 2007. Since then, most areas have seen the pace of growth slow. Increases in interest

rates and growing affordability pressures have had their effect. The key driver behind

demand growth at the beginning of the decade was the decline in the cost of credit.

2.6 House prices in Scotland rose by 2.4% in the last three months of 2007 compared to a fall of

0.8% in England. The relative affordability of properties in Scottish towns and cities has

helped to sustain growth. Prices in Scotland rose by an average of approximately 13% in

2007 and a slowdown to 4% growth is predicted for 2008.

2.7 Paisley house prices sit below the Scottish average and as a consequence, price growth could

be greater than the predicted average if further interest rate cuts follow.


Market update: autumn 2008

2.8 Paragraphs 2.9 to 2.14 contain a commentary from J & S Shepherd on the property market

relative to the three key sites which formed an extension to the original commission (see

chapter 5). The updated market commentary was prepared in September 2008.

2.9 On considering all three sites, we are of the opinion that the proposed developments would

undoubtedly improve the overall town centre locations, although the residential market at

present is experiencing difficult times with a lack of finance, mortgage products and

confidence with the market place. The majority of mainstream lenders are restricting

lending on residential flatted projects and to this end, should the subjects be placed on the

open market “For Sale”, demand would be extremely limited at present.

2.10 The Scottish residential market is stalling, more so within the West Coast of Scotland but in

general, stock levels have risen sharply with some estate agencies unwilling to take on any

new properties. Values in general are having to be reduced in order to achieve a sale. The

Housebuilders Forum for July reported a negative figure which, in principle, means that there

were more cancellations than reservations within the new build sector.

2.11 Whilst properties are still selling, most are taking a longer period of time and expectations of

achievable prices are not in all cases being met. As a result, developers are offering a range

of incentives and a number of “fixed price properties” are being marketed and it is

commonplace for deals to be concluded under the “fixed price”.

2.12 The new build market in and around major cities within Britain is being closely monitored by

all major High Street lenders at present. Due to the current market and previously over

inflated asking prices, lenders are taking a more cautious approach when it comes to lending

on new build properties, particularly flats.

2.13 Residential surveyors and valuers have also received new guidance from The Royal Institution

of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) advising on the appropriate method to value new build

properties. Greater importance has therefore been placed on using second-hand re-sales of

comparable new property, rather than just looking at current sales within the development.

The “new build premium” in essence must be disregarded.

2.14 In and around Paisley, new flatted developments are proving slow to sell and incentives

within the market place are now common. Incentives can range from fitted floor coverings,

guaranteed rental income over a 2 year period, mortgage subsidies and cash back deals.

2.15 The remainder of this chapter refers to research and consultations undertaken in spring

2008.

Overview of Paisley town centre

2.16 The housing stock within the study area ranges from rundown tenement flats with values of

£30,000-£40,000 to upmarket conversions and new builds in Oakshaw Conservation area.

2.17 Most of the residential properties within Paisley town centre are terraced tenement flats,

some combined with commercial premises at ground floor level and offices. The majority of

the housing stock dates to the turn of the century. Many new housing stock additions have


been concentrated within the Oakshaw Conservation area, but there have been a number of

other developments in the town centre as noted in the following two paragraphs.

2.18 In 2006, the former Auction House at Orchard Street was demolished and replaced with

modern flats by Waterside Developments Limited with prices ranging from £95,000 for a one

bedroomed flat to £125,000 for a two bedroomed flat. Also in 2006, Cluny Properties

Limited converted the former girl’s home at Weighhouse Close, a Grade II Listed building,

into one and two bedroomed flats with prices ranging from £126,000 for a one bedroomed

flat to £225,000 for a two bedroomed flat.

2.19 A new development recently carried out within Paisley town centre was at The Terrace

Building at High Street in Paisley just off Paisley Cross, where the upper floors were

converted into four one bedroomed flats, selling at £85,000 for a one bedroomed flat and

£125,000 for a two bedroomed flat.

2.20 Some of the housing stock within the study area, particularly at Gordon Street, Orchard

Street and Incle Street, has deteriorated to such an extent that the properties are no longer

considered as suitable security for mortgage purposes. As noted in paragraph 2.47, the

Council is taking proactive action to address these issues such as through the designation of

Housing Action Areas.

2.21 The main factors which affect sale or rental values within the study area are as follows:

• Location

• Supply and demand

• Size and condition

• Whether the buildings are factored/managed

• Proximity to nuisance neighbours (public houses, hot food takeaways and nightclubs)

Owner occupied market

2.22 Buoyant conditions over the past years have resulted in few flats currently being available for

sale within the town centre study area. Prices within the first time buyers sector have been

pushed up by pressure from the Buy to Let sector.

2.23 The flat types which command strong prices are those where the buildings have benefited

from fabric repair programmes and refurbishment schemes.

2.24 Some lenders will not provide mortgage finance where there is a commercial user at ground

floor level, particularly if it is a public house or hot food takeaway. With the smoking ban

now in force, flats above pubs are now less attractive to purchasers, due to the general

nuisance caused by smokers congregating outside.

2.25 The sector of the housing market which has slowed the most is large new build

developments, where a range of incentives are now being offered by most developers. Most

lenders are now tightening their lending criteria for this sector and are less likely to be willing

to lend in excess of an 80% loan to value ratio on new build developments.


Values

2.26 An analysis has been made of sale prices within the study area over the past two years. The

results are as follows:

Street Average price Residential sales

Causeyside Street £ 72,316 46

Forbes Place £ 84,085 12

Gauze Street £ 79,500 2

George Street £ 55,986 35

Gilmour Street £ 50,000 1

Gordon Street £ 51,163 16

High Street £ 69,562 8

Incle Street £ 24,932 11

Lawn Street £ 62,000 2

Moss Street £ 63,167 6

New Street £ 49,400 10

Oakshaw Street East £ 128,897 19

Orchard Street £ 68,484 16

Orr Square £ 152,733 12

School Wynd £ 70,950 8

Silk Street £ 60,000 1

Smithhills Street £ 44,375 8

Townhead Terrace £ 82,632 14

2.27 For ease of reference, the same data is ranked in the table below according to average price.

NB: please note that sample sizes for some individual streets are too small for reliable

comparison (particularly Gauze Street, Lawn Street, Gilmour Street and Silk Street):

Street Average price Residential sales

Orr Square £ 152,733 12

Oakshaw Street East £ 128,897 19

Forbes Place £ 84,085 12

Townhead Terrace £ 82,632 14

Gauze Street £ 79,500 2

Causeyside Street £ 72,316 46

School Wynd £ 70,950 8

High Street £ 69,562 8

Orchard Street £ 68,484 16

Moss Street £ 63,167 6

Lawn Street £ 62,000 2

Silk Street £ 60,000 1

George Street £ 55,986 35

Gordon Street £ 51,163 16


Gilmour Street £ 50,000 1

New Street £ 49,400 10

Smithhills Street £ 44,375 8

Incle Street £ 24,932 11

2.28 The highest prices are being achieved within the Oakshaw Conservation Area, together with

new building and conversion properties. This is mainly due to the location and quality of

accommodation provided.

Private rented market

2.29 The fluctuation of the stock market over recent years and availability of funds from Banks

and Building Societies for the private Buy to Let market has greatly increased the number of

flats within this sector. Within the town centre, it is estimated that the percentage of flats in

this sector amounts to approximately 50%. Demand for student accommodation at the

University of the West of Scotland helps to keep this market buoyant.

2.30 While rentals in general have remained strong, the relatively low prices at which flats in the

town centre can be purchased in comparison to Glasgow and other areas has provided

attractive returns for investors with demand coming from not only Scotland, but the English

and Irish markets. The willingness of lenders to continue to provide funding for this sector

will affect demand.

2.31 Current rental prices in Paisley town centre are as follows:

1 bedroomed tenement flat £325 - £375 per calendar month



1 bedroomed modern flat £400 - £450 per calendar month

2 bedroomed modern flat £450 - £550 per calendar month

Housing Association rented sector

2.32 Two Housing Associations are active on the fringes of the town centre: Williamsburgh

Housing Association and Paisley South Housing Association. The two Housing Associations

have distinct, albeit informal, geographical areas of operation in the town. They co-ordinate

their efforts to avoid duplication.

2.33 Williamsburgh Housing Association has traditionally focussed on the areas east, north and

west of the town centre. The Housing Association does not manage any properties within

the study area. They have in the past considered individual gap site developments or

refurbishments on the northern fringes of the town centre, including Silk Street, Lawn Street,

Incle Street, Old Sneddon Street, Brick Lane and Moss Street. None of these sites have ever

been taken forward. This is due to a combination of individual site-specific issues and, more

generally, the priorities placed by the Housing Association on addressing Below Tolerable

Standard properties and the main routes into the town centre, rather than the town centre

itself.


2.34 The cost of acquisition of town centre property continues to make viability of conversions

problematic, and the Housing Association would not wish to develop property that is not in

its ownership (as stated in the 2000 report, paragraph 2.6.3). The only exception to this

would be work undertaken on behalf of owners through the tenemental improvement

programme, where factoring would also be undertaken on behalf of the owners.

Williamsburgh did however emphasise that it has a very limited budget for grants of this sort

to owners.

2.35 Paisley South Housing Association’s activity around the town centre focuses on the areas to

the west and south. The Housing Association has in the past undertaken schemes for student

accommodation around George Street (outwith the study area) with sporadic investment

around Causeyside Street.

2.36 Within the study area, Paisley South is just completing a tenemental refurbishment scheme

on consolidated ownership at Johnston Street. A similar tenemental refurbishment scheme

on Gordon Street is currently going out to tender for a building contractor. Orchard Street is

likely to be an area of future interest for a similar scheme.

2.37 In terms of the demand that Housing Associations are experiencing, older people are

becoming less keen on tenemental living; they now generally prefer to have their own front

door (e.g. cottage flats or houses) rather than a shared close. Additional markets which have

emerged in recent years include:

• Section 5 referrals for homeless people.

• Single men in their 40s and 50s (typically, physically mobile but perhaps with a sickness

allowance, and needing an extra bedroom for children).

• Eastern European students and construction workers, with some people from black and

ethnic minorities.

• Some enquiries from students, but it is unclear how many of these translate into housing.

2.38 Overall, the picture is increasing demand for houses rather than flats.

2.39 In terms of future involvement in the town centre, both Housing Associations are interested

in progressing schemes - but delivery needs public investment. Small-scale developments

are not the most attractive projects for Housing Associations in the context of the general

move towards larger-scale Associations.

2.40 The Associations feel that it will become more difficult to obtain grants from the Scottish

Government for smaller tenemental improvement schemes, as HAG funding moves towards

demolitions and cleared sites. Linking different smaller developments may be one response

to this situation, but this could have practical difficulties. In addition, financing the

acquisition of sites is still very problematic unless values are absolutely rock-bottom.

2.41 Both Associations believed that they could potentially have a role in providing affordable

housing in bigger town centre redevelopment schemes through Homestake or provision of

rented property. The nature of such affordable provision should reflect the need to respond

to demand by providing houses rather than flats where possible. (The Associations did note

that working with large number of commercial owners is not a particularly proposition for

them due to its complexities.)



2.42 The Council’s main role in relation to housing in the town centre is as the strategic housing

authority. It is responsible for preparation of the Renfrewshire Local Housing Strategy (LHS),

and the associated Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP). The Council also works with

local Housing Associations in implementing both the LHS and the SHIP.

2.43 The Strategic Housing Investment Plan covers the period 2008/09 to 2012/13, and is the first

such document. It is intended to is to identify where public subsidy is needed to address

pressures and problems within local housing markets, with a particular focus on the supply of

affordable housing. The SHIP does not include investment in existing council and housing

association stock. Amongst its priorities, however, is the comprehensive improvement of

strategically located pre-1919 tenements in Paisley town centre, including the Gordon Street

Housing Action Area. The SHIP therefore provides a favourable context for registered social

landlords to receive grants for Comprehensive Tenement Improvement schemes in the town

centre.

2.44 Renfrewshire Council does not manage any residential housing stock within the town centre

study area. In the past, a number of properties have been acquired through the tenemental

programme but these are generally sold off once refurbished.

2.45 The Council’s main involvement in housing provision within the town centre has been

through an enabling role for Housing Associations and private owners, for example through

bringing forward Housing Action Areas for tenemental refurbishment (as is currently being

undertaken in Gordon Street) and for demolition (such as at Incle Street).

2.46 The emphasis for the limited Council budget continues to be on improvement of substandard

(“Below Tolerable Standard”) residential properties rather than conversion of non-residential

properties, as was stated in the previous report in 2000. In terms of upgrading substandard

properties, the Scottish Government now places the onus for residential property renewal

onto owners of properties, although the Council is aware that for properties with multiple

tenures the Council may have a role in providing grant assistance for renewal.

2.47 The Council is aware that there are still many substandard properties requiring significant

investment in the study area, such as those currently being tackled with Housing Associations

through the Housing Action Area proposals in Gordon Street. Council officers have indicated

that they would also be keen to progress Council involvement in any conversion projects in

the town centre in an enabling capacity or using statutory powers as necessary.

Key points

2.48 Although the growth in Scottish house prices that has been witnessed in recent years

appeared to peak during 2007, Paisley house prices are below average and could therefore

grow faster than the predicted average if further interest rate cuts follow. This will not ease

the situation for prospective first time buyers, who find it increasingly difficult to access the

housing market. Pressure from the Buy to Let sector has exacerbated this problem.

2.49 The housing stock within the study area ranges from rundown tenement flats to upmarket

conversions and new builds. Prices are highest in Oakshaw Conservation Area, together with

newly built and converted properties.


2.50 In some areas (particularly Gordon Street, Orchard Street and Incle Street) property has

deteriorated to such an extent that it is no longer considered as suitable mortgage security.

Also, some lenders will not provide mortgage finance where there is a pub or takeaway at

ground floor level, particularly with the smoking ban.

2.51 The private rented market is strong, with investor interest from across the UK and Ireland –

but this may be adversely affected if lenders become less willing to provide funding.

2.52 Housing Association development work in the town centre is currently limited to the

southern part of the study area (Johnston Street and Gordon Street, possibly extending to

Orchard Street). The Housing Associations note that demand is increasingly for houses

rather than flats, reflecting a shift in the nature of tenants. The Associations also raise

concerns about their future ability to deliver schemes in the town centre – especially for

improvement schemes – given the increasing difficulty of obtaining funding for smaller

schemes.


3333 Building use and condition surveyBuilding use and condition surveyBuilding use and condition surveyBuilding use and condition survey

Approach

3.1 The purpose of this part of the commission was a basic survey of buildings within the town

centre, as defined on the plan on page 4. The basis of the survey was the address list used in

the 2000 study, with very minor amendments to reflect subsequent physical changes to the

town centre. Each property was assessed externally to establish both its use and basic

condition, using similar criteria to the 2000 study.

3.2 In terms of use of buildings, we have followed the format used in 2000 as closely as possible.

This is to maximise the ability to chart changing patterns of use between 2000 and 2008.

Each floor of every building was categorised into one of the following groups:

• Gap site

• Vacant

• Retail, hairdressing

• Hot food, cafes, restaurants, pubs

• Office, business, betting shop

• Residential

• Storage

• Workshop

• Cultural, religion

• Commercial leisure

• Other (e.g. railway station, pend)

• Under construction

3.3 In terms of external condition of buildings, we have followed the format used in 2000, again

to maximise the opportunity for comparison. The condition of the roof, walls, drainage and

external timberwork of each property was ranked, as far as could be established from street-

level external examination, using a scale of 1 to 5:

1 Excellent

2

3

4

5 Poor


3.4 The results of the survey are contained in tabular form in Appendix 1, with vacant properties

and gap sites highlighted in colour. These are cross-referenced to the sequence of detailed

plans in Appendix 2, which show the location of all vacant properties or gap sites.

Key points

3.5 In terms of use, most properties in the town centre comprise commercial or retail uses on

the ground floor with two or three floors of residential or office use above. This has

remained largely unchanged since 2000. The main exceptions to this generalisation are:

• The Paisley Centre and the Piazza are both covered shopping malls. The Piazza has two

substantial office blocks above.

• Townhead Terrace, Orchard Street and Gordon Street are predominantly residential from

the ground floor up.

• Silk Street, Shuttle Street and parts of Gordon Street are generally two storeys, often

with little residential use; there are also isolated buildings on the High Street and

Causeyside Street which are two storeys.

• Marshalls Lane, Browns Lane and Weighhouse Close are typical “back lanes” with limited

frontage development, generally of lower height and more orientated towards yard

space, workshops and storage.

3.6 Overall, the number of vacant premises appears to have increased significantly since 2000 –

up from 20 in 2000 to 77 in 2008 for the same area (see paragraph 4.5 for more information).

3.7 The following paragraphs summarise building condition, use and vacancy rates in different

parts of the town centre. (Full A4 versions of the thumbnail plans can be found in Appendix

2.)

Blocks 1-3 – Silk Street area

Change since 2000 – Vacancies: slight increase. Condition: similar.

Description – A varied mix of offices, off-centre retail and pubs, with some

residential uses on the upper floors.

Commentary – Although the number of vacancies has increased slightly since

2000, there are still relatively few. Little change in the pattern of use since

2000, except some new-build residential on Gauze Street. Taken overall, the

external condition of buildings is generally acceptable, and seems to be similar

to 2000.

Block 4 – Arnotts

Change since 2000 – Vacancies: marked increase. Condition: markedly worse.

Description – Dominated by the vacant buildings of the former Arnotts and its

associated car parking areas, this block also contains other vacant/derelict land

and dilapidated tenements on Incle Street.

Commentary –The amount of vacancy, dereliction and dilapidation has

increased markedly since 2000, mainly (but not solely) brought about by the

closure of Arnotts. The condition of buildings appears generally to have

deteriorated slightly.


Block 5 – The Piazza area

Change since 2000 – unknown (not included in 2000 study).

Description – This varied block is dominated by the shops and offices of The

Piazza, Gilmour House and One Smithhills Street.

Commentary –Although levels of retail vacancies within The Piazza were not

recorded in 2000, anecdotal evidence shows that there were then far more

vacant shop units than the four recorded in 2008. Of the two substantial office

blocks (the biggest commercial office spaces in the town centre), Gilmour

House was substantially vacant. At a different scale, there are high vacancy

levels in the units fronting onto Old Sneddon Street underneath the railway

station (these were not included in the 2000 study, so no comparison is

available).

Blocks 6, 7 & 8 – Forbes Place area

Change since 2000 – Vacancies: increased. Condition: similar.

Description – Includes part of east side of Causeyside Street.

Commentary – Relatively low levels of vacancies, although higher than in 2000.

Both of the two buildings which are entirely vacant have planning consent for

redevelopment or conversion. The external condition of buildings is variable

but seems to be similar to 2000.

Blocks 9 & 10 – Gordon Street area

Change since 2000 – Vacancies: slightly increased. Condition: similar.

Description – Like the other blocks south of George Street/Orchard Street

(Blocks 11-14), these blocks are mainly residential use above retail, except the

eastern end of Gordon Street which has a mix of uses in different buildings.

Commentary – Slight increases in ground floor vacancy rates around the

junction of Causeyside Street and Gordon Street. As in 2000, the tenemental

stock on Gordon Street is not in the best condition, but occupancy remains

high.

Blocks 11 & 12 – Johnston Street area

Change since 2000 – Vacancies: slightly increased. Condition: improved.

Description – Includes part of east side of Causeyside Street. Like the other

blocks south of George Street/Orchard Street (Blocks 9, 10, 13 & 14), these

blocks are mainly residential use above retail.

Commentary – The three traditional small shop units on the south side of

Johnstone Street are currently all vacant (all were recorded as in use in 2000).

Otherwise, low levels of vacancies. Building condition generally better than

2000, buoyed up by new residential flats on Orchard Street and recently

refurbished flats on Johnston Street by Paisley South Housing Association.


Blocks 13 & 14 – Canal Street area

Change since 2000 – Vacancies: similar. Condition: similar.

Description – Includes part of west side of Causeyside Street. Like the other

blocks south of George Street/Orchard Street (Blocks 9-12), these blocks are

mainly residential use above retail.

Commentary – Low levels of vacancy as in 2000 (although a different building),

and similar levels of external condition (generally average).

Blocks 15-17 – George Street and Shuttle Street area


Description – Includes part of west side of Causeyside Street. George Street has

a mix of uses including entire residential buildings, Shuttle Street is focussed on

bars and restaurants, whilst Causeyside Street is a mix of retail and commercial

with some residential above.

Commentary – Vacancy rates generally remain low as in 2000, although there

are two redevelopment sites at the northern end of Shuttle Street. There is a

great variety of buildings, generally in average condition as in 2000 – although

there is a cluster of buildings in poor condition on the west side of Causeyside

Street, focussed on no.44.

Blocks 18-18a – around the Paisley Centre & St Mirren Street

Change since 2000 – Vacancies: increased. Condition: possibly slightly worse.

Description – Together with the Piazza (Block 5) and Block 23 (the north side of

the main High Street pitch), these Blocks contain the town centre’s main

shopping pitches. Residential uses are concentrated on New Street.

Commentary – Non-residential vacancy rates have increased since 2000, the

most prominent being the former Littlewoods store, but with a small number of

other less prominent ground and upper floor units now vacant on each street.

Although no data is available for vacancies in the Paisley Centre in 2000, there is

undoubtedly now a higher number of vacant retail units (11 of 46 units at the

time of the survey, plus 10 vacant InShops units). External condition of buildings

remains generally average, but may have deteriorated slightly since 2000.

Blocks 19-20 – Paisley Cross to Old Sneddon Street


Description – Dominated by retail and commercial uses, with no residential use

at all.

Commentary – The study area has been extended to include the south side of

Old Sneddon Street, which suffers from a relatively high level of empty units.

Elsewhere the level of vacancy is low – with the persistent exception of the

upper floors at County Place. Overall, building condition appears to be largely

similar to 2000; the condition of the buildings at County Place remains poor.


Blocks 21-22 – west side of Moss Street


Description – A mixture of retail/commercial below and largely residential

above, Moss Street has a concentration of poorer quality buildings and vacant

property between School Wynd and County Place.

Commentary – Although one property has been brought back into use since

2000, more have become vacant. The poor condition of nos. 13, 23 and 25

Moss Street is particularly prominent.

Block 23 – north side of High Street (east of New Street) & School Wynd

Change since 2000 – Vacancies: worse. Condition: worse.

Description – A range of fine buildings on the North side of the High Street, with

commercial uses dominating. Dense development to the rear of main

frontages.

Commentary – The north side of the High Street’s main shopping pitch (and its

continuation to the west in Block 24) suffers from high rates of vacancies, on

ground and upper floors. The position has deteriorated significantly since 2000.

Upper floors in use have a mix of residential and commercial (in contrast to the

south side of this part of the High Street which has very little residential use,

Blocks 18-18a). The external condition of High Street buildings has perhaps

worsened slightly since 2000. School Wynd has more residential use, few

vacancies and generally satisfactory external condition.

Blocks 24-25 – north side of High Street (west of Church Hill)

Change since 2000 – Vacancies: worse. Condition: worse.

Description – There is no residential use along the High Street frontage. (In

contrast, the area to the rear - Orr Square and Church Hill – has seen a number

of successful conversion and new-build schemes in recent years.)

Commentary – Like the west side of Moss Street, the north side of High Street

between Church Hill and the Library/Museum suffers from dilapidation and

prominent vacancies. Although there are some persistently problematic

buildings (such as 44 High Street), both condition and vacancy rates have

worsened since 2000.

Blocks 26-27 – west end of High Street & Townhead Terrace

Change since 2000 – Vacancies: improved. Condition: worse.

Description – The pattern of use remains the same – largely tenemental

properties, with retail/commercial ground floors on High Street and Storie

Street.

Commentary – This is the one part of the study area where vacancy rates have

improved since 2000 – there were no vacancies at the time of the study.

External condition is generally acceptable.


Blocks 28-30 – south side of High Street (west of New Street)


Description – Largely commercial/retail ground floors with residential above,

although some buildings on High Street are entirely in office/commercial use.

Weighhouse Close is dominated by car parking and yards, with little frontage

development – the main exception being the high quality restoration and

conversion of the listed building (Mrs Archibald Coates) on the corner.

Commentary – Vacancy rates are low, although there are a number of gap sites.

Building condition is generally average, and similar to 2000.

3.8 In terms of levels of vacancies, the situation is generally worse than 2000. Although the

general downward trend can be seen throughout the town centre, the deterioration is most

marked on the west side of Moss Street (Blocks 21-22), the north side of the High Street

(Block 23), and the street block containing the former Arnotts store (Block 4):

• West side of Moss Street: nos. 13, 23 and 25 Moss Street are particularly prominent. We

understand that an architect is preparing proposals for the rehabilitation/redevelopment

of no.13 Moss Street, an existing building which is in a poor condition; the Council may

wish to contact the owners directly to ascertain progress and establish if any support can

is required. No.23 is a gap site and is therefore beyond the scope of this study. It does

however offer redevelopment potential, if possible in combination with no.25 (a former

tenemental block which has been demolished down to ground floor level; the ground

floor is in use as a commercial unit). The Council may wish to approach the owner to

establish whether any support is required, including the possibility of CPO if there are

land assembly issues.

• North side of the High Street: there are a number of vacant units here, although it

should be emphasised that the condition of the built fabric is not as poor as on the west

side of Moss Street. Outline feasibility has been considered for two particular critical

properties, at nos. 20 and 22 High Street (see paragraphs 4.27-4.38 below).

• Arnotts, Gauze Street: the future of this important block is being considered directly by

the Council in conjunction with its owners.

3.9 In terms of external condition, the 2000 report stated that “the building condition of the

central area of Paisley is moderate to poor in the main” (paragraph 3.4.1 of that report). This

remains true in 2008. Looking at the figures overall, there may have been a very slight

downward trend in external condition; this conclusion is however potentially misleading, as

the 2000/2008 assessments are subjective and have been made by different people (see

paragraphs 1.14 and 1.16).


4444 Vacant property assessmentVacant property assessmentVacant property assessmentVacant property assessment

Approach

4.1 The assessment of vacant property involved a number of stages:

1. Identifying vacant premises (undertaken as part of the building use and condition survey

described in chapter 3).

2. Identifying the owners of vacant premises or their agents.

3. Making contact with owners/agents, initially via a letter and questionnaire.

4. Visiting as many vacant upper floor premises as possible, with a view to establishing the

feasibility/potential for residential conversion.

4.2 The second of these four stages, identifying owners and agents, involved various lines of

enquiry (face-to-face, telephone and web):

• Agents, if the property is on the market.

• Valuation roll – now rather dated as it was last revised in 2005, and many ownerships

have changed since then.

• Occupants of premises within the same or adjoining buildings.

• Former occupants.

4.3 The third stage involved sending a letter and questionnaire was sent to each owner or agent

who had been identified. Appendix 3 contains a typical letter; these letters were often

tailored for individual properties to increase the likelihood of getting a response.

4.4 There was a low level of response to this mailout: of the 85 letters/questionnaires

dispatched, we received only 13 written responses (7 completed questionnaires and 6

letters). Given this low response rate, the information that could be derived from the

questionnaires was of little value for the study: it was far short of what was required to build

up a meaningful body of evidence. The poor response rate also meant that the

letter/questionnaire was not particularly effective as a means of arranging visits:

considerable effort had to be expended to trace, contact and follow-up owners/agents by

telephone to discuss their intentions and request site visits. If the study was to be repeated,

we would recommend dispensing with the questionnaires, and instead using the letters

simply as letters of introduction quickly followed up with telephone calls.

4.5 A few words about the increase in numbers of vacant properties since 2000. Letters and

questionnaires were sent out regarding 20 vacant properties in 2000. In 2008, the number

had increased to 85 (excluding retail units in the Piazza and Paisley Centre). A small part of


this increase (8 properties) can be attributed to the extension of the study area to include

Old Sneddon Street. But even discounting these eight, there has still been an apparent

increase from 20 to 77 vacant units between 2000 and 2008, assuming that both surveys

were undertaken accurately and on the same basis.

4.6 Following external inspections, 24 of the 85 vacant properties were identified as possibly

having potential for residential conversion. The remainder were regarded as being

inappropriate for residential use for one or more of a number of reasons (see Appendix 4):

• Ground floor vacant units on a main shopping or commercial pitch.

• Directly beneath railway lines at Paisley Gilmour Street station.

• Basement location.

• Redevelopment plans are already well-advanced (e.g. the owner has already engaged

architects or gained planning consent).

4.7 Between March and May 2008, determined efforts were made to arrange access to each of

the 19 properties identified as being appropriate for residential conversion. The lead

consultant telephoned (and also emailed if necessary) owners and leaseholders to explain

the project, the likely benefits to them of getting involved, and the fact that it would not

commit them to anything.

4.8 Nineteen properties were identified as worthy of visiting. Appendix 4 gives details of each of

the 19 properties. Appendix 5 contains photographs of each property.

Site visits

4.9 The fourth stage of the vacant property assessment, site visits, took place over three

separate dates during March and May 2008. We were able to gain access to ten of these

nineteen properties. This part of the study has proved very worthwhile, yielding useful

information which enables us to provide the Council with independent assessments of the

potential for conversion of vacant upper floor properties to residential purposes.

4.10 The ten properties visited are shown on the map overleaf. They were:

• 44 Causeyside Street (above Your Move)

• 2 County Place (above R S McColl)

• 21 Forbes Place (above Clydesdale Bank)

• 20 High Street (above former Rangers shop)

• 22 High Street (above Priceless Shoes)

• 29 High Street (above Millets)

• 40 High Street (above Perfect Chicken)

• 52 High Street (former Hill House Hammond)

• 4 Johnston Street (3 ground floor commercial units next to Chinese restaurant)

• 4-6 Silk Street (above and behind Antica restaurant and vacant land to rear)

LOCATION OF

SITE VISITS


4.11 Our proposals for each of these properties are contained in Appendix 6. Each property has a

separate sheet providing:

• An indication of whether it is realistic to expect that conversion is a feasible option; and,

if so, an indication of the likely accommodation that could be accommodated, an

indicative cost and how difficult it would be to implement.

• If conversion is not thought to be feasible, consideration of the potential for demolition

and new-build.

• Where appropriate, conceptual images of development potential.

4.12 Although our brief specifically excluded undertaking full structural surveys or preparing

design options and conceptual drawings, we have taken the view that it is necessary to

consider proposals for each site in some detail in order to have certainty about feasibility.

4.13 The following paragraphs contain a summary of the proposals in Appendix 6.

44 Causeyside Street

4.14 (Please note that this site also forms part of the larger key site 2,

which is the subject of more comprehensive proposals – see

Chapter 5.)

4.15 Potential for conversion to three 1-2 bedroom flats within the

existing shell of the property.

4.16 Beyond that basic option are a number of other options for

redevelopment – such as extending over the rear yard to make larger more attractive flats, to

joint schemes incorporating demolition of adjacent FADS store and nightclub (as shown in

Appendix 6) or an even larger scheme linking through to Shuttle Street.

4.17 With a straightforward conversion for three flats, it will be a struggle to make the cramped

rear court attractive and of amenity value to owners/ tenants. A straightforward

development at this stage may be premature - if FADS were to move out of adjacent unit and

a vacant property arises, it would be better to consider both plots together.

4.18 Each successive option generates more income but also involves more ownerships. The

owner is keen and proactive, but Council support would help to resolve ownership issues.

(The ground floor of the property is, for example, in different ownership.)

4.19 See drawings in Appendix 6 for further information.

2-3 County Place

4.20 Potential for conversion to four flats (two 2-bedroom flats on

each of the two floors).

4.21 A conversion to residential for four flats could be relatively

straightforward. However, due to the fact that the second floor is

over 7.5m above ground level, there is a requirement for

Full details in Appendix 6



ventilated smoke lobbies. The impact of this has been indicated on the proposals in

Appendix 6. If a relaxation can be gained, due to the fact that the 7.5m is only just exceeded,

then the existing stairs and entrances can be retained. Pre-application discussions with

Building Control should clarify whether s relaxation application would be successful.

4.22 The owner expressed interest in developing the attic as a separate flat. Due to the attic floor

level being above 10m, the floor would need to be served by a lift. Either this would have to

be located within the back court or the existing stairwell would need to be reconfigured.

Alternatively, the attic space could be utilised as part of maisonettes with the main living

accommodation on the second floor; however, the maisonettes would be very large (4 or 5

bedrooms) and may be unlikely to attract many potential buyers.


21 Forbes Place

4.24 Limited potential for conversion to a single penthouse.

4.25 This attic floor above Clydesdale Bank and solicitor’s office which

offers limited potential for a single high quality penthouse. Further

potential is constrained by low headroom, the Bank’s substantial

water tank in one part of the attic and the fact that there is only a

single access stair.


20 High Street

4.27 Potential for conversion to 1 ground floor commercial unit, four

1-bedroom flats and two 2-bedroom flats.

4.28 Upgrading office to make attractive to tenants would require a

new lift to comply with DDA requirements. This is made

especially difficult due to level change between ground floor and

rear, which would require 8 steps before reaching the stairwell

where the lift could be located.

4.29 Flatted development would also require lift access to comply with building regulations as the

top floor is above 10m (10.8m approximately), unless sole access is from rear. This would

only be possible with access through gap site at 17 School Wynd.

4.30 If converted to flats, it should be permissible for the lift to be accessed via the 8 steps, as the

purpose is primarily for amenity as opposed to making the development wheelchair

accessible.

4.31 A protected lobby is required between the stair and flats as the top floor is above 7.5m. This

would require the existing stairwell to be removed, so allowing a new stairwell to be built

that would allow room for a lobby.

4.32 Unless the rear storage unit is demolished there can be no rear court. This would require to




be agreed with Development Management. A more feasible option would be co-

development with 22 High Street and 17 School Wynd to allow the opening up of the rear

courtyards to provide amenity space and/or parking. The new lift and stair could be shared

between 22 and 17 High Street, so reducing costs. The storage of bins is problematic: they

may need to be contained in the ground floor close so that they can be accessed by bin men.

If rear access is obtained via a rear court, the bins could be stored outside in the courtyard.


22 High Street

4.34 Potential for conversion to 2 ground floor commercial units, two

1-bedroom flats and four 2-bedroom flats.

4.35 Conversion will not be attractive unless obsolete steel-framed

area to rear of ground and first floors is demolished. The

estimated cost of this enabling work is approximately £120,000.

This figure assumes all demolition work would have to be carried

out with limited machinery. If it were possible to use the

adjacent gap site at 17 School Wynd to allow plant and machine

access, the figures could be reduced by approximately 50%. These levels of expenditure are

likely to render the scheme unviable. Although a development appraisal was beyond the

scope of this commission, it is likely that grant assistance would be required to subsidise at

least the majority of these enabling works for the scheme to be viable.

4.36 If implemented in tandem with the gap site at 17 School Wynd, there is potential for linking

through to School Wynd for rear access and possibly vehicular access. There is potential for

20 High Street to be combined also.

4.37 If sole access is from rear, with access via the School Wynd gap site, a lift may not be

necessary as top floor would be less that 10m above ground floor level. If access is retained

to High Street, a lift would be required. If both 22 and 20 High Street are developed

together, a communal access could be shared.


29 High Street

4.39 Creation of usable flat unlikely to be viable.

4.40 This top floor with dormers is already internally fitted out as a

flat – but it has no dedicated street access or internal staircase,

and a poor fire escape route. The original common stair has

been removed. Creating a usable flat would require the creation

of a new entrance in the shop front - which would be

prohibitively expensive and unacceptable to the existing

business. Similarly, realisation of the flat would require creation

of a new internal staircase, which would remove space from the

shop floor and shop storage, all of which is required for the business.




4.41 The cost of creating the flat is unlikely to be viable – quite apart from undermining the

viability of the existing retail business.

4.42 The adjacent upper floors at 27 High Street (above H Samuel) are also underused. The owner

is reluctant to release for residential conversion due to security concerns. Even without this

reluctance of the current owner, physically conversion of these upper floors would present a

similar problem to no.29 of lack of dedicated street entrance and staircase.


40 High Street

4.44 (Please note that this site also forms part of the larger key site 3, which is the subject of more

comprehensive proposals contained in Chapter 5.)

4.45 Potential for new build for 1 ground floor commercial unit, two 1-bedroom flats and six or

seven 2-bedroom flats.

4.46 The building is in very poor condition, particularly the upper storeys, and is possibly a fire

risk. It was previously used as workshop space.

4.47 Access to the vacant upper floors is by ladder from the back yard

as the internal stairs between ground and first floors have been

removed as part of works to create 2 separate retail units on the

ground floor.

4.48 The rear court can only be reached through Perfect Chicken and

has been land-locked by car park serving flats to rear. It would be

possible to keep ground and first floor storeys and rebuild above,

but the poor architectural value of façade/building means that demolition and new build is

the most appropriate solution. A new build could provide 1 retail unit to the ground floor

and 2 or 3 x 2 bed, 3 person flats.


52 High Street

4.50 Most appropriate for retention in commercial use.

4.51 A concrete building, purpose-built as an office. Conversion to

residential purposes would require major internal changes,

particularly re-arrangement of staircases and additional windows

to rear. The design of the building is unsustainable with high

running costs. Poor insulation, services and columns all render

the building unsuitable for residential use. The flat roof leaking

in several places. In terms of townscape, the banal 1960s facade

does not merit retention.

4.52 The site is highly visible as the termination of the view along Storie Street and deserves a

more contextually appropriate building. It may be appropriate to retain in commercial use.




However it is not DDA compliant and the heating bills will be very high without internal

insulation being installed. It may be more appropriate to demolish and incorporate in new-

build scheme on adjacent ground towards Library and Museum.


4 Johnston Street

4.54 Potential for conversion to one 1-bedroom and one 2-bedroom

flats.

4.55 Three traditional ground floor commercial units in tenement

block, all simultaneously advertised as being for let during the

study (although one may now have been let). Over-supply of this

sort of commercial property suggests that residential conversion

could be considered. This appears to be a sensible way forward

in this particular location, and would be technically and

aesthetically feasible.

4.56 Some enabling grant assistance may be required. A similar conversion of commercial units to

residential appears to have been undertaken at the corner of Johnstone Street opposite the

site. Ramps may be required to meet HVA requirements as there are presently steps up the

close entrance.

4.57 Although access was not gained during survey, it is likely that the creation of 1 single

bedroom flat and 1 2 bedroom flat would be possible. The tenement block appears in need

of a general upgrade, which could be included as part of works to convert the units.


4-6 Silk Street

4.59 Potential for new-build of 2 ground floor commercial units, five

2-bedroom flats and five 3-bedroom flats.

4.60 Potential for infill scheme to rear of existing buildings, possibly

demolishing older building to rear and retaining main frontage

building at 4 Silk Street. Potential for combining a 3 storey flat

development to Silk Street and 3 storey flat development to rear

if existing buildings are demolished as part of works; 4 storey

development may be possible if basement parking is provided in order to provide sufficient

parking. A larger scheme such as this is likely to generate sufficient finance to render the

scheme as a whole viable.

4.61 Upper floors of main frontage building could be converted without infill to rear, but may

require public sector intervention to be viable.

4.62 Phasing the construction, by developing the gap site (including new restaurant unit to ground

floor) prior to demolishing 4 Silk Street to minimise disruption to the existing restaurant,

would make the project less viable.





Intelligence from owners and agents

4.64 During the process of establishing ownerships and arranging/taking part in site visits, we had

many conversations owners, leaseholders and their agents. We would emphasise that the

information gathered in this way is purely anecdotal. It does however reveal that there could

be benefit in greater dialogue between the Council and the private sector – essentially an

opportunity for the Council to explain existing grant availability and this commission, and

encourage local businesses to come forward with proposals. Practically, this could be as

simple as a facilitated workshop session involving local traders and businesses and relevant

Council officers.

4.65 For the record, common themes which emerged anecdotally included:

• Landowners and long leaseholders are not necessarily averse to development – but

market uncertainties and low returns (even when the market was buoyant) mean they

are not rushing to implement schemes.

• Concerns that the current state of the market is not conducive to development –

although there are different opinions as to whether residential or office development is

the better option at the moment.

• A perception that the Council could take more practical action to facilitate development

in the town centre, or to support regeneration of the town centre in a wider sense.

• The need for financial incentives to facilitate development, particularly for conversions of

existing properties in the heart of the town centre.

• A fear that the planning authority may be overly restrictive when it comes to proposals

for demolition and replacement of existing buildings.

• Requests for better accessibility into the heart of the town centre, both by bus and car,

so that shops are more easily accessible to bus stops and car parks.


5555 Key sitesKey sitesKey sitesKey sites

Introduction

5.1 After discussing the proposals contained in Chapter 4 with the Council, the commission was

extended to prepare initial proposals for residentially-led redevelopment of three groups of

properties. These groups, referred to as key sites, were selected for a number of reasons:

• They are clusters of properties which are either under-utilised or in particularly poor

condition, often with adjacent gap sites.

• Redevelopment could significantly improve townscape quality.

• Existing owners are not actively preparing development proposals.

• Ownership is divided among several parties, and it appears unlikely that redevelopment

would progress without some external facilitation such as by the Council.

• Physical constraints prevent piecemeal redevelopment of individual component sites – so

a more comprehensive approach is needed for redevelopment to proceed.

5.2 The three key sites are shown in the plan overleaf. They are as follows:

• Key site 1: Causeyside Street between New Street and Browns Lane

• Key site 2: Causeyside Street / Canal Street corner

• Key site 3: High Street / Orr Square

5.3 In each case, our intention was to establish whether a wider redevelopment scheme could

provide benefits in terms of quality of townscape and floorspace provision in the town

centre, whilst also being both physically and financially viable.

5.4 This chapter contains the proposals for these three key sites. The proposals differ from those

for individual sites in Chapter 4 primarily in that they also include a first-cut assessment of

financial viability – an indicative rather than full development appraisal, with the aim of

providing an indication of the uplift in value and the total cost of the proposals. We would

emphasise that these assessments must be treated as indicative because of the outline

nature of the design proposals that they are based on.

5.5 For each key site, initial discussions have taken place with a number of key agents, owners

and leaseholders to assess their appetite for redevelopment. Their aspirations and attitudes

towards redevelopment have influenced the development proposals contained in this

chapter. None of the owners of any of the sites proposed for redevelopment has expressed

any objection to the principle of redevelopment, provided that the details and finances are

acceptable to them.

LOCATION OF

KEY SITES


Key site 1: Causeyside Street between New Street and Browns Lane

Context

5.6 Key site 1 occupies part of the block defined by Causeyside Street, New Street, Shuttle Street

and Browns Lane (see photos overleaf and plans on A3 insert). The main buildings of concern

within this block are those which are derelict, underutilised and/or make a negligible

contribution to townscape quality. The building at 44 Causeyside Street (ground floor

occupied by Your Move) is a particular concern; proposals for that specific site are proposed

in paragraphs 4.14 to 4.19.

5.7 By considering the redevelopment potential of neighbouring properties around no.44, our

intention was to establish whether a wider scheme could help the town centre in terms of

townscape quality and floorspace provision.

5.8 This block contains a complex pattern of uses, townscape quality and ownerships:

Street

frontage

Uses Townscape quality Ownership

Causeyside

Street

Mixed commercial

ground floor uses

(derelict shop at no. 40

and vacant bar at

no.46). Mix of

residential, retail

storage and nightclub

uses on upper floors

(derelict at no.44).

Generally low quality

with inconsistent storey

heights & low

architectural merit.

Dereliction at no.44

(upper floors) and no. 40

(retail unit). Poor quality

at no. 42 (FADS), part of

no.38 (single storey

element of Dantes) &

no.36 (Mr Kebab).

Complex. No.36 (Mr Kebab) is

owner-occupied. No.38-40

(Dantes, Duffy hairdressing,

residential above) have

separate owner-occupiers;

owner of vacant retail unit

unknown. No.42 (FADS) is

leased. No.44 separate

ownerships for ground & upper

floors. No.46 (vacant pub on

ground, nightclub above) is a

single ownership with 4-8

Browns Lane.

New Street Pubs/catering on

ground and upper

floors.

Gap site at Shuttle Street

corner.

Nos.40-42 (Moloko) and no.38

(Imperial Bar) are each leased

and have different leaseholds &

ownerships. Gap site at Shuttle

St is Council-owned.

Browns

Lane

No.4 is a vacant bar,

no.6 (former ice cream

factory) is used for

storage. No.8 is a

vehicle workshop &

yard.

Very narrow lane (<4m

between building lines),

buildings are stone,

roughcast or brick and of

limited architectural

quality.

Nos.4-8 are all in single

ownership with no.46

Causeyside St.

Shuttle

Street

Entertainment uses at

nos.7-15, religious

building at no.5.

Mixed architectural

styles, little of great

quality.

Nos.7-15 are all owner-

occupied, various ownerships.

No.5 is leasehold.


5.9 These oblique aerial images show the site and context:

Images courtesy of Live Search Maps

Proposals for key site 1

5.10 Clearly, the more ownership/leasehold interests that are involved, the more complex the

situation becomes, and the greater the risk of failure. This particular group of sites has a

number of owners. We have therefore prepared two alternative layouts which provide

differing levels of risk and reward.

5.11 The proposals are shown in detail on the accompanying A3 plan inserts (overleaf) and are

summarised below:

• Option 1: 36/38 & 42/44 Causeyside St + New St / Shuttle St corner This option

proposes redevelopment of the Causeyside Street sites on a phased basis. Phase 1

would be demolition and 4 storey new build (6 flats and 2 commercial units) at 36/38

Causeyside Street, and phase 2 would be demolition and 4 storey new build (6 flats and 2

commercial units) at 42/44 Causeyside Street. If only the first phase proceeds, less

parking would be required as indicated on the plan in Appendix 7.

The proposal relies on the creation of a pend through the existing stone building at

no.40, with retention of the existing ground floor hairdresser and first floor residential

use in that building.

In case there are difficulties obtaining approval from the roads authority for this pend

arrangement, we have proposed an alternative layout which brings in 6 Browns Lane

(indicated in blue on the plan in Appendix 7) to allow the formation of a vehicular access

from Browns Lane. However, as this site is in separate ownership, its inclusion increases

Key site 1 from the north

Key site 1 from the east

Key site 1 from the west

Key site 1 from the south


the risk of the proposals foundering.

The proposals also include 3 storey new build (12 flats) on the gap site at the corner of

New Street and Shuttle Street. The constricted nature and location of this site means

that it is impractical to provide parking within the site: given the location of on- and off-

street car parking in the vicinity and the good availability of public transport, we feel

there is an argument to be made for providing no parking.

• Option 2: as option 1 + 8 Browns Lane By demolishing the existing garage and yard at 8

Browns Lane and replacing with 3 storey new build (11 flats), more residential

accommodation can provided – but at the expense of an existing operating business

which has no desire to relocate.

Option 2 also demonstrates how the number of flats on the New Street/Shuttle Street

gap site could be increased from 12 to 18 by incorporating the New Life Church premises

at 5 Shuttle Street.

5.12 Both options combine land in different ownerships to facilitate development. This enables

the creation of sufficient space for car parking and rear servicing, which would be difficult to

achieve if the sites were redeveloped on a site by site basis. It also potentially provides

economies of scale to assist with financial viability.

5.13 Rehabilitation of the vacant shop unit at 40 Causeyside Street could be included as part of

each option, although this is dependent on establishing ownership.

5.14 A number of properties have been excluded from both options, on the basis that their

inclusion is unnecessary to produce workable proposal, they are already in active and

productive use, and they do not detract from the townscape. These properties are 7-15

Shuttle Street, 38-42 New Street, 40 & 46 Causeyside Street and 4 Browns Lane.

Viability for key site 1

5.15 The following paragraphs summarise the financial viability of the development proposals

described above. The information has been provided by surveyors J& E Shepherd; a full

version can be found in Appendix 7.

5.16 Option 1: in arriving at their opinion of Gross Development Value, J&E Shepherd have applied

the following range of values to the subjects where adjustments have been made to reflect

the size, layout and positioning of the unit within the development.

• One bedroom, two person flat £75,000

• Two bedroom, three person flats £80,000

• Two bedroom, four person flats £85,000

5.17 The total gross developable area of the residential component of the proposals is 1,895.25m2

(see Appendix 7 for breakdown). For indicative valuation purposes, J&E Shepherd have

arrived at a total gross development value of the residential accommodation of £1,975,000.

In addition, the gross development value of the commercial units is £235,000 (£10.00/ft2

overall at 11%). This gives a total gross development value of £2,210,000.

5.18 Option 2 provides additional residential accommodation – a further 17 flats compared to

option 1, creating an additional gross development area of 845m2. On applying similar levels


of end values to the properties as in paragraph 5.22 above, J&E Shepherd have arrived at a

total gross development value of the additional accommodation on option 2 of £1,325,000.

5.19 The total gross development values and areas for options 1 and 2 together are:

Property Total gross development value Total gross developable area

Option 1 £2,210,000 1,895.25m2

Option 2 £1,325,000 845.00m2

Total £3,535,000 2,740.25m2

5.20 In the absence of detailed specifications and projected build costs (as anticipated), J&E

Shepherd have assumed an overall build cost of £1,100/m2 (which in their opinion accurately

reflects current build costs) and a minimum developers profit of 15%.

5.21 A very approximate appraisal on a residual basis indicates that the proposed development

for key sites 1 is not commercially viable.

Key site 2: Causeyside Street / Canal Street corner

Context

5.22 Key site 2 is focussed on the gap site at the corner of Causeyside Street and the north side of

Canal Street, and incorporates the existing buildings at 64 Causeyside Street.

5.23 The block within which these properties lie contains an adopted rear service lane (George

Lane), which is accessed from George Street. George Lane is separated from the gap site and

64 Causeyside Street by derelict single storey buildings to the rear of 62 Causeyside Street.

These buildings, a former butchers workshop, are in a poor state of repair (the roof has been

partially removed).

5.24 The use, townscape quality and ownership of the various buildings involved are summarised

in the table below:

Property Uses Townscape quality Ownership

Gap site Public open space Limited. Council owned

62

Causeyside

Street

Retail unit on ground floor,

residential above. Window-

less building to rear is a store.

Frontage building is in

poor condition and of

relatively small scale.

Single ownership

64

Causeyside

Street

Retail and commercial units

on ground floor, residential

above. Pend through to

derelict workshops at rear.

Frontage building is in

good condition,

buildings to rear are

derelict.

Upper floors and rear

workshops have one

owner, commercial units

are separately owned

5.25 All property owners at 62-64 Causeyside Street have indicated that they are keen to work

with the Council on redevelopment proposals.



Images courtesy of Live Search Maps


5.27 The proposals are shown in detail on the accompanying A3 plan insert (overleaf) and

summarised in the following bullet points:

• Retention of the two storey frontage building at 62 Causeyside Street

• Assembling a site by demolishing the two storey building and associated outbuildings at

64 Causeyside Street and derelict outbuildings at 62 Causeyside Street.

• Construction of 4 storey development of 24 flats on the cleared site, with rear access and

servicing via George Lane.

5.28 This site provides an excellent opportunity for a positive contribution to Paisley’s townscape,

aspiring to match the architectural quality of the tenemental corners on the south side of the

junction. It is also an important gateway to the town centre. Although we have based our

proposals on a four storey development, in urban design terms it could be possible to build

higher. This would however incur additional build costs as lifts, for example, would be

required.


Key site 2 from the south

Key site 2 from the west Key site 2 from the east




described above. Full details can be found in Appendix 7.

5.30 In arriving at their opinion of Gross Development Value, J&E Shepherd have applied the

following valuations to the flats:

• One bedroom, two person flat (16 no.): £80,000

• Two bedroom, four person flats (8 no.): £90,000

5.31 The total gross developable area of the proposals is 1,198m2 (see Appendix 7 for

breakdown). For indicative valuation purposes, J&E Shepherd have arrived at a total gross

development value of £2 million.




5.33 A very approximate appraisal on a residual basis gives only a marginal site value for these

proposals for key site 2.

Key site 3: High Street / Orr Square

Context

5.34 Key site 3 takes in a number of properties on the north side of the High Street between

Church Hill and Orr Square. These buildings are of varying quality and condition, as the table

shows:

Property Storeys Uses Building/townscape

quality

Ownership

36 High

Street

2 4 retail units on ground floor,

commercial above – all in use

Acceptable ?

38 High

Street

3 Bar on ground and 1st

floor,

related office/store above

Poor condition Single owner

40 High

Street

3 1 retail & 1 takeaway on

ground floor, vacant/derelict

above

Very poor condition,

possibly hazardous

Single owner

42 High

Street

3 1 retail & 1 office units on

ground floor, offices above –

all in use

Acceptable Multiple owners

44 High

Street

2 3 retail units on ground floor

(1 vacant), derelict/storage

above

Very poor condition Multiple owners

(unknown for part

of upper storey)

46 High

Street

2 1 retail & 1 takeaway on

ground floor,

storage/commercial above

Acceptable Multiple owners

5.35 The buildings at nos. 40 and 44 are in particularly poor condition and are in urgent need of


action. No.40 is in single ownership and the owner is not against exploring development

solutions; this property has already been referred to in Chapter 4 in some detail. No. 44 has

three ownership interests, one of them unknown; the known owners remain to be convinced

of the benefits of redevelopment.

5.36 No.38 is in better condition than those at nos.40 and 44, but is poorly maintained and its

upper floors appear underused. It is in single ownership.

5.37 No.46, on the corner with Orr Square, is well-maintained and is in generally good condition.

Like no.44, however, it is the remnant of a building which once had 3 or 4 storeys. The

building has been reduced to 2 storeys and a flat roof constructed, with a false pitch created

on the elevation to the High Street.


5.39 Two physical constraints should be emphasised which are not immediately apparent from

these photographs:

• There is a substantial difference in levels between the front and rear elevations of each

building – approximately a full storey. The properties on the eastern section of the block

(nos. 36-38 High Street) have no external access or daylighting at ground floor level.

Those to the west (nos.40-46) do have rear yards, but for nos. 40-42 the only access is

through the building.

Key site 3 from the west Key site 3 from the south

Key site 3 from the east



• Quite apart from the levels difference, there is very limited space to the rear of the

western part of the block (nos. 40-46). This has been emphasised in recent years by the

construction of a car parking area for new residential development on Orr Street.


5.40 The constraints described above make it extremely challenging to find a design solution for

this site which resolves the problems at nos.40 and 44. The main difficulties are:

• Constricted sites which are difficult to link together, as they are separated by no.42 High

Street which is in relatively good condition.

• Lack of rear access and space for servicing and parking.

• Multiple ownerships, not all of whom appear to be immediately warm to the idea of

redevelopment.

5.41 To overcome these challenges, we have prepared an outline scheme which proposed

demolition and mixed use new build not only at nos.40 and 44 High Street, but also at nos.38

and 46. This increases the footprint of each development, and tackles buildings which –

although not in as poor condition as nos.40 and 44 – have a question mark over their

longevity as part of the urban fabric.

5.42 The proposals are shown in detail on the accompanying A3 plan inserts (overleaf). In

summary, the proposals provide 4 ground floor commercial units and 16 upper floor flats in

two 4 storey developments, separated by the existing building at no.42 High Street. The

eastern block could accommodate car parking on what is currently a rear service yard. The

constricted nature and location of the western block means that it is impractical to provide

parking: given the availability of car parking and public transport in the vicinity, we feel there

is an argument to be made for providing no parking.



described above. Full details can be found in Appendix 7.

5.44 In arriving at their opinion of Gross Development Value, J&E Shepherd have applied an

overall rate of approximately £10.00/ft2 to the ground floor commercial units. Similarly, they

have applied a yield of 11% and highlight the market values of each unit to be as follows:

Unit 1 £110,000

Unit 2 £185,000

Unit 3 £160,000

Unit 4 £195,000

Total commercial £650,000

(overall capital rate of £966/m2)


5.45 Similarly, J&E Shepherd calculate the gross development value of the upper floor residential

flatted dwellings to be as follows:

8 no. one bed, two person flats @ £80,000 £640,000

4 no. one bed, three person flats @ £85,000 £340,000

4 no. one bed, four person flats @ £90,000 £360,000

Total residential £1,340,000

Total Gross Development Value residential & commercial £1,990,000




5.47 A very approximate appraisal on a residual basis indicates that on such assumptions these

proposals for key site 3 are not commercially viable.

Key points

5.48 These feasibility studies reveal the potential for introducing significant numbers of residential

units with some ground floor commercial use into the town centre, with associated benefits

for improved townscape as well as demonstrating – in the longer term – that Paisley town

centre is appropriate for property investment.

5.49 As our market commentary explains, the credit crunch means that now is not a good time to

be implementing flatted residential schemes: borrowing is extremely difficult to access, both

for developers and potential property buyers. This situation feeds through to our

conclusions that the proposals for key sites 1 and 3 are not viable in current market

circumstances, and the proposals for key site 2 are only marginally viable.

5.50 This need not, however, mean that the sites are not viable in the long term: when the

investment and property markets recover, viability may increase. There are a number of

complex variables at play here: an uplift in property value of around £15,000 per residential

unit, for example, may render the schemes viable. Similarly, reductions in build costs would

improve the viability of the schemes.

5.51 In terms of relative difficulty of implementation, key site 2 is undoubtedly the most

straightforward:

• Approximate residual development appraisal indicates a marginal site value, which may

increase as markets recover.

• The Council has a significant ownership interest.

• The ownership pattern is relatively straightforward, and key owners are keen to see their

property redeveloped.

• The key private owners need adjoining land in order to realise their development

potential – with the Council’s ownership interest potentially playing a key facilitating

role.

• Access, parking and servicing are available via George Lane.


5.52 Key site 2 also offers great potential for a building of high quality to equal the excellent

architectural treatment of the two southern corners of the junction, and make a strong

positive impact as a gateway to the town centre.

5.53 Key sites 1 and 3 are more complicated – in terms of ownerships and servicing arrangements

– and therefore have greater risk. Nevertheless, the reward is potentially substantial: both

schemes would result in the removal of derelict properties, undoubtedly an additional

benefit compared to key site 2.

5.54 The table below summarises the outcomes of the feasibility exercise for the three sites:

Development

potential

Townscape

impact

Financial

viability

(Sept. 2008)

Ownership

complexities

Council’s

land interest

Site 1

Causeyside

St/New St

Causeyside St:

12 or 23 flats &

4 commercial

units

New St: 12 or

18 flats

Replacement

of a number

of poor quality

buildings, one

of which is

partly derelict

Not

commercially

viable

Complex: a

number of

owners

(included

subdivided

buildings).

Varying levels

of interest.

CPO may be

required.

New St gap

site is mostly

Council-

owned.

Causeyside St

sites are

private.

Site 2

Causeyside

St/Canal St

24 flats Potential for

high quality

building on

prominent

node/gateway

to town

centre

Marginally

viable

Two private

owners, both

of whom are

interested

Key land

ownership

which would

release

development

potential

Site 3

High St/Orr

Sq

36-38 High St:

8 flats & 2

commercial

units

40-46 High St:

8 flats & 2

commercial

units

Replacement

of a number

of poor quality

buildings, one

of which is

partly derelict

Not

commercially

viable

A number of

owners

(included

subdivided

buildings and

one unknown

ownership).

Sites are all

privately

owned

5.55 Finally, we should note that a number of existing commercial tenants expressed concern at

the proposals, not only at the prospect of losing their premises but also because of the likely

increase in rents following redevelopment of commercial units. A common issue was that

their businesses were marginal and could be adversely affected by any increase in rents.

Whilst we would not suggest this is a reason to stop redevelopment, we would encourage

early dialogue with existing businesses involving economic development officers/Scottish

Enterprise as necessary.


6666 ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions

6.1 We believe that this commission provides useful insights at a number of levels:

• A snapshot of the current pattern of use and external condition of buildings in Paisley

town centre, with a particular focus on vacant premises and gap sites. The summary

information in Chapters 3 and 4, and the more detailed data contained in the

appendices, capture this information in detail. This provides a useful comparison with

the previous study in 2001, and can be used as a comparator for mapping trends if the

Council wishes to repeat this study in a few years’ time.

• Independent assessments of the potential for conversion of specific vacant upper floor

properties to residential purposes. For the ten properties to which the study team has

gained access, we have looked at the potential scope and ease of conversion (see

Chapter 4 and Appendix 6). Where it appears to us that conversion is unlikely to be

viable – perhaps because of the poor condition and heritage value of the building – we

have clearly said so. We believe this impartial assessment of conversion potential will be

helpful for the Council in deciding what interventions to make, both on individual sites

and across the town centre.

• More thorough (but still outline) assessments of the potential for redevelopment of a

three clusters of key sites which, if implemented, could make a significant difference to

the town centre. One of these sites – the corner of Causeyside Street and Canal Street –

emerges as being worth progressing.

• Intelligence and recommendations on wider strategic interventions that the Council

could make to support greater use of vacant property in the town centre, garnered from

discussions with owners, leaseholders and agents. Our recommendations on this aspect

of the study are contained in the following paragraphs.

6.2 This chapter contains our recommendations on wider strategic interventions as the basis for

an action plan. These recommendations fall into a number of areas:

A: Grant assistance for enabling works .

B: Condition surveys and site assembly.

C: Compliance with regulatory frameworks.

D: Fostering a spirit of partnership working with the private sector.

E: Demonstration project.

6.3 The chapter explores each of these issues, then draws them together in an action plan and

identifies some key implementation issues.


6.4 We also feel it is worthwhile including a brief comment on the current state of the housing

market, given the current state of the economy. At the time of writing, the credit crunch is

undoubtedly having an impact throughout the housing market. It is taking longer to sell

properties than in recent years and mortgage availability is poor. It is beyond the scope of

this commission to predict what will happen to the economy and the housing market in the

short to medium term. However, we believe that now is the time to lay the foundation for

action in anticipation of the markets becoming buoyant again in the next couple of years.

A: Grant assistance for enabling works

6.5 It became apparent during our site visits and subsequent analysis that grants are likely to be

necessary for conversion of the majority of properties, irrespective of condition, in order for

them to be financially viable. This confirms a view frequently expressed by owners and

agents during the course of the study that grant funding is necessary.

6.6 Many of the conversions in the heart of the town centre face immediate heavy costs for

removing dilapidated structures, clearing out old rear extensions and so on in order to create

rear courtyards, which are pre-requisites for residential conversion in terms of daylighting

and access. Assistance with the physical costs of site preparation – demolition and other

enabling works – could then allow owners to bring forward viable proposals. As the results

of our site visits in Chapter 4 and Appendix 6 show, the levels of grant funding required could

be quite substantial – for example, 22 High Street (enabling costs of up to £120,000 are

anticipated, see paragraph 4.35) and 40 High Street.

6.7 Sites with substantial amounts of redevelopment land attached (such as 4-6 Silk Street) or

where buildings are generally in good order (such as 20 High Street) are likely to require less

financial assistance, but may still need other forms of support in order to find flexible

solutions to planning requirements or facilitate co-operation between owners where more

than one ownership is involved. The property at 2-3 County Square (see paragraph 4.20) is

another where limited financial assistance could be sufficient to encourage the owner to

progress a scheme, as we understand that his main concern related to a difficulty in

obtaining a financial contribution from the ground floor shop unit towards communal roof

repairs.

6.8 The scale of a grant scheme could therefore be highly variable, from between £5,000 and

£10,000 in the case of 2-3 County Square to £60,000–£120,000 for 22 High Street. If the

Council is unable to offer the upper levels of grant required from its own resources, it may

need to approach an external funder (such as Historic Scotland’s Conservation Area Renewal

Schemes, and other Scottish Government or European Union initiatives) to finance the

scheme.

B: Condition surveys and site assembly

6.9 Assisting with condition surveys and feasibility reports could also contribute to projects being

taken forward. These should be seen as a complement to grants for enabling work rather

than a substitute.

6.10 No up-to-date condition surveys existed for a number of the buildings that we visited – rot

surveys, structural surveys and so on. The costs involved in this kind of work can mount up.


Grants towards their cost (even up to 95%) could spur owners on to starting work on

schemes where nothing is happening, demonstrate the Council’s intent, and give the Council

a lever to keep pressurising for continued action.

6.11 Individual owners will be reluctant to commit expenditure on joint feasibility studies where

they have no guarantee of any return. The Council, on the other hand, can take a more

strategic view and facilitate and encourage site assembly. This could be particularly effective

where there are clusters of buildings with potential for conversion or redevelopment – such

as the three Key Sites explored in Chapter 5 and the site at 18-22 High Street/17 School

Wynd discussed in Chapter 4.

C: Compliance with regulatory frameworks

6.12 Many of the sites we visited were constrained town centre sites. Meeting regulatory

requirements (fire, building control and planning) will be challenging and costly – which

makes town centre developments less likely to happen than new build, all things being equal.

6.13 For example:

• Meeting increasingly tight fire regulations is a challenge, particularly on higher buildings

which have original narrow close entrances and tight staircases (such as along the High

Street). We are not suggesting that safety requirements are breached, but we would

suggest that developers and regulatory authorities work together to solve these difficult

issues.

• There is no spare land to provide car parking on any of the town centre sites we looked

at in detail (except possibly Silk Street) – nor, arguably, is there any need given the public

transport accessibility of the town centre and the modern transport planning policy

context. The Council should consider waiving parking provision and commuted sums on

town centre sites.

6.14 We would encourage Council officers in both to work proactively with developers, architects

and agents with the aim of finding solutions to problems. Many officers already do this: we

would urge that this spirit be fostered across the roads, planning, building control and

estates functions, and – equally importantly – that it is communicated proactively to the

development sector. There appears to be a widespread perception, however mistaken, that

Council officers are not willing to be proactive in securing development solutions.

6.15 Successfully challenging these negative perceptions needs proactive contact from the Council

– and could encourage landowners and developers that it is worthwhile investing their

energy and funds in the town centre. This is explored more below.

D: Working in partnership with the private sector

6.16 A recurring theme in many of our recommendations outlined above is the relationship

between the public and private sectors. We are not saying those relationships are bad: more

that fostering those relationships further could provide significant benefits. Implementing

the interventions we have described above would provide positive signals to property

owners and developers that the Council is keen to support redevelopment, helping to

counter some of the negativity expressed by a number of agents and owners about the


Council’s efforts to regenerate the town centre, however partial those views may be.

6.17 The potential significance of sending the right signals to the private sector is huge:

demonstrating that you are prepared to sit alongside and support motivated landowners in

negotiations with more truculent co-owners, where co-operation could avoid lengthy legal

delays and costs, could persuade an owner to push forward with a scheme rather than shelve

it for a few years. (And, of course, if the Council ever needs to move to use of legal powers, it

will also provide supporting evidence.)

6.18 As a team, we believe that extending this spirit of positive partnership working is the key to

success. Property regeneration will be totally dependent on the private sector, and all our

discussions with them have indicated that they are reluctant to commit energy and resources

to projects which are complex and will provide uncertain returns. Many owners we spoke to

were considering moving projects forward, but were in no rush to do so. To encourage them

to invest energy and funds, they need to be actively welcomed with positive signals – whilst

at the same time giving a clear message that developments must match the design quality

that has been achieved with recent new buildings in the town centre.

E: Demonstration project

6.19 Implementing a demonstration project in partnership with the private sector would not only

prove to the town’s residents that the town centre is turning round, it could also be used by

the Council to galvanise other landowners to move forward with schemes for their particular

sites as the market recovers in the future – including sites where owners have not yet seen

the potential.

6.20 Whilst there will be no such thing as an easy win, we suggest focussing on a scheme which

has high townscape impact and low risk to the Council. (Indeed, the demonstration scheme

need not be one of the sites that we have proposed: it could be a property where a

developer is already working up a scheme, a number of which are identified in Appendix 4.)

The aim should be for the Council to work with the private sector to produce a really great

project that would act as a catalyst for future action – by registering this approach to town

centre regeneration on developers’ radar and demonstrating to the public that change is

happening.

6.21 Of the sites that we have looked at in this study, we would suggest that key site 2 is the most

appropriate to take forward. As we have explained in paragraphs 5.58-5.59, it offers a

number of advantages:

• The approximate residual development appraisal indicates a marginal site value, which

may increase as markets recover.

• The Council has a significant ownership interest.

• The ownership pattern is relatively straightforward, and key owners are keen to see their

property redeveloped.

• The key private owners need adjoining land in order to realise their development

potential – with the Council’s ownership interest potentially playing a key facilitating

role.

• Access, parking and servicing are available via George Lane.


• It offers great potential for a building of high quality to equal the excellent architectural

treatment of the two southern corners of the junction, and make a strong positive

impact as a gateway to the town centre.

6.22 Although current market conditions are not conducive to seeking development finance or

selling property, now is the time to prepare for an upturn in the property market. We

suggest that this is an ideal time for the public sector to start to prepare the demonstration

project so that it is ready for implementation when finance becomes more available.

The action plan

6.23 The recommendations described above are drawn together in the action plan below, with

indicative programming:

2008 2009 2010

A Grant assistance

for enabling

works

Explore possibilities of

grant funding, internally

and externally

Begin to implement

grant funding

Full implementation

of grant funding

B Condition surveys

and site assembly

Offer tailored assistance on a case by case basis, focussing on sites visited

as part of this commission (see Chapters 4 and 5) and other sites where

architects have already been engaged (see Appendix 4 – especially 4-6

Forbes Pl, 18 High St and 13 Moss St)

C Compliance with

regulatory

frameworks

Encourage solution-focussed attitudes amongst roads, planning & estates

officers dealing with development proposals – foster understanding of the

Council’s overall aims in the town centre and encourage a facilitative

approach

D Partnership

working with the

private sector

Prepare strategy for

systematic

communication with

local landowners and

agents – co-ordinated

messages to boost

interest in investing in

the town centre, linked

with other

Council/partner publicity

for the town centre

Planning and estates officers implement

strategy, focussing on owners/properties

identified in ‘B’ above

E Demonstration

project – key site

2

Gain in-principle

commitment from

estates and roads

colleagues, then owners

of 62/64 Causeyside St

Begin procurement process (e.g. RIBA Plan of

Work Stages)

6.24 We recommend that the effectiveness of the action plan be reviewed annually – a light touch

qualitative analysis should be sufficient, with the aim of refining delivery of the various

actions.

Conclusions

6.25 Implementing the action plan will require staff resources, and in some cases financial


resources. We realise that the Council may already wish to implement many of these

suggestions but be constrained by resource availability.

6.26 To ensure success, we suggest the Council should either consider realigning internal

resources to prioritise these issues (for example within the planning and estates functions)

and/or seek external support from Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government (possibly

through the creation of a URC or other initiative which might bring additional dedicated

resources). First and foremost, this means allocating more staff time to developing positive

working relationships with the private sector and developing potential grant programmes.

6.27 The difficulty of agreeing site visits with owners and agents that we experienced (see Chapter

4) should not be taken as indicating that the private sector are not interested; more that they

need to see commitment, and be encouraged to invest, before they can be persuaded there

is something in it for them. Those owners and agents who we met were positive about this

study – direct contact from Council officers would be a clear statement of intent from the

Council, a step up from the indirect contact via consultants that we represented.

6.28 The strongest demonstration of commitment is financial support: ultimately, that is what will

make schemes happen. But there are other ways of the Council making clear that it wants to

work in partnership with the private sector for the good of the town, such as proactively

supporting the schemes of well-intentioned landowners in negotiations (e.g. land assembly).

6.29 It is important to be aware that the properties that we visited during this commission

represent a sample of the projects which could be taken forward. A number of other owners

have told us that they are progressing their own proposals independently (particularly 4-6

Forbes Place, 13 Moss Street and 18 High Street). This is evidence that the private sector is

willing to take forward developments projects if they are viable. We believe the key issues

are:

• Bridging the viability gap, where it exists.

• Encouraging and supporting owners and long leaseholders to accelerate their schemes,

co-ordinating with other adjoining landowners where necessary.

• For those few owners who do not act responsibly and fail to invest in their property and

promote development, be prepared to step in and use compulsory powers.

6.30 Paisley town centre has much to offer the residential market – not only in terms of location

(a mile from Glasgow Airport and less than 10 minutes from Glasgow city centre) but also the

quality of flats that could potentially be created. However attractive the location, the only

realistic way that residential schemes are likely to be delivered in any quantity in the

foreseeable future is through the private market. Yet town centre sites are challenging,

complex and potentially more costly than new build projects to deliver. Supporting the

private sector to bring these schemes forward therefore needs positive actions to level the

playing field.

6.31 Our recommendations are challenging: that is simply a reflection of the nature of the task.

But the potential rewards are substantial. Successfully facilitating the private sector to

deliver new housing could provide significant improvements in townscape quality,

investment confidence and town centre activity, supporting the Council’s aim of regenerating

the town centre as the bustling and active heart of Paisley.




Paisley town centre vacancy study

Documents

approach key points

introduction site

study chapter

introduction page

key sites page

approach site visits

agents chapter

focus of chapter