By John Baron
Council chiefs have agreed to proceed with the sale of historic Pudsey Town Hall to an unnamed highest bidder.
Leeds City Council is in talks to finalise the sale after considering offers for the building.
It’s understood the successful bidder is proposing a residential and mixed use conversion of the town hall.
Cash-strapped Leeds City Council received a number of bids as it looked to sell the building to help balance its books following 15 years of underfunding from central government and rising costs in departments such as adult social care.
The council also said the four-storey building, built around 1890, was costing too much to maintain. The town hall had not been open to the public since 2016 and had been partially used by Pudsey and District Civic Society for storage.
The move comes despite despite significant local opposition, including local councillors and two petitions each with more than 1,000 signatures.
The council’s decision has been met with disappointment by the Pudsey Town Hall CIC, which had been hoping to use the building as a mixed-use community and enterprise hub.
In a statement, the CIC said: “After creating a sustainable future plan for our Town Hall, and working so hard over several years, the decision is incredibly disappointing.
“We are aware that there were at least two credible bids on the table that would have seen Pudsey Town Hall returned safely to the people of Pudsey — including our own fully considered and financially costed bid. Both of those community-focused proposals have now been rejected in favour of a residential conversion.
“It is difficult not to reflect on the position in 2023, when we were given an assurance that the future of the Town Hall was secure. At that time, the CIC was issued by the Council with a key-holding agreement and Pudsey & District Civic Society was granted a licence for the civic floor. That pathway could and should have been progressed.
“Unfortunately, shortcomings and interference in the wider process meant it stalled, and the opportunity to unlock the multi million pound heritage-led investment was lost.”
The CIC said members were happy to work with the new owners to protect historic features inside the building.
“Despite our deep disappointment, we want to be clear: our priority has always been the protection of Pudsey’s civic heritage,” they added.
“We are prepared to open constructive dialogue with the new owners to explore whether there is any possibility of safeguarding the historic civic floor — particularly the Council Chamber and associated heritage features. If there is an opportunity to work collaboratively to preserve at least part of the building’s civic legacy, we will do everything we can to support that outcome.
“As heritage guardians, our responsibility does not end with this decision. We remain committed to protecting Pudsey’s historic assets and ensuring that the Town Hall’s story is not lost.”
According to public records on Companies House, the Town Hall CIC has five trustees, including James Denton, Tom Donnelly, Daniel Holah, Trish Smith and Damon Sugden.
Any proposed future use of the building will be subject to planning consent.
Earlier this month WLD reported the council rejecting Pudsey Town Hall CIC’s application to have the building registered as an asset of community value.
Pudsey councillors Dawn and Simon Seary (Cons) and Trish Smith (Reform) all objected to the the Town Hall’s sale, along with Calverley & Farsley Councillor Andrew Carter (Cons, Calverley & Farsley).
The council appointed property firm Lambert Smith Hampton (LSH) to seek offers for the building with a February 12 deadline.
The council report agreeing to proceed with the sale of the building – and draw up a timetable for the completion of the sale – can be found here.
The report said: “The agent conducted four viewing sessions for multiple interested parties. The property received a good response from the market and numerous bids were submitted. LSH were consulted to support and advise the selection of a preferred bidder.”
Sponsored content
Caption under the photo illustrates the “Elephant in the room” …..it was the Pudsey councillors who moved the library to new building and built Dawson’s Corner to empty the coffers before the perceived Leeds “takeover”. You reap what you sow”
The council also lied about selling it to save costs. They said it was costing “£30k a year in maintenance”. I was involved in one of the bids and as part of due diligence we asked for a breakdown of the 30k annual spend over the past 3 years. Their answer: “We haven’t spent anything – no maintenance has been done”.
I don’t think anyone is lying, it seems reasonable to budget £30k per year for maintenance on a building of that age. If the building needed any major work in the future e.g. a new roof, I don’t think a community group would be able to fund such maintenance unless they had a clear business plan to make the building extremely profitable.
If the council stated that it was £30k a year in maintenance, then where was their cost breakdown. Surely they could have supplied this. If they hadn’t spent anything, then where does their £30k figure come from? All Ian was saying was that they had asked for a breakdown which was not given, because no maintenance was done. Possibly Rachel from accounts had some input with the figures and the cost breakdown?
But it doesn’t sound unreasonable for a building that size regardless of how much transparency there is or isn’t.