A councillor insists "it is wrong" that Warwickshire County Council is shelling out £265,000 per year on a disused office block and that the losses were preventable.

Cllr John Holland recently questioned the ongoing cost of the mothballed county office block at Barrack Street, Warwick. 

The eye-watering figure prompted disbelief on social media and while Cllr Holland was promised a breakdown of costs by deputy leader and portfolio holder for finance and property Cllr Peter Butlin, he says he has yet to receive it. 

Those numbers were requested by the Local Democracy Reporting Service with the council confirming that £217,000 of the annual costs related to business rates paid to Warwick District Council.

The other £48,000 is spent on essential maintenance, including accessibility and security work on the car park used by staff and councillors, plus minimal heating to mitigate deterioration and lighting.

The county's cabinet – the panel of Conservative councillors in charge of major service areas – deemed the block surplus to requirements in December 2020 after the offices became disused at the height of Covid. 

Emptying the building and closing the car park would see the county qualify for a one-off rebate of three months' worth of business rates – around £50,000 – but unless the building is leased, demolished or sold, the £217,000 bill must continue to be paid. 

Fielding the initial question at a meeting of the county council, Cllr Butlin said it could cost up to £600,000 "to bring the building back up to speed", a figure when added to increased energy costs that would make the option "unviable". 

Cllr Holland referred to talks held back in 2013 when it was agreed the tiring block would be demolished and redeveloped, potentially including flats, areas for start-up businesses and, at that time, retail too. 

He argues now that if those plans had gone ahead then the council would not be left with a building that is draining its finances and has prohibitive costs to put right.

"Clearly it is wrong that council taxpayers' money is being used to pay for an empty building," he said.

"The plan agreed in 2013 should have continued to progress. That would have led to a commercially viable scheme, there is no need for us to be in this position.

"We even got to the stage of a pre-application and diagram of the building. We had agreement. It should have progressed and if it had, that money would have been saved."