A MILLION pounds of public money has vanished — and all that’s left is a hole in the ground. Conservative controlled Fenland District Council has now spent £1,121,880.08 on the former Barclays Bank site in March, only to put the cleared land up for sale at £295,000, a shock Freedom of Information response has revealed.
The newly released figures, issued today (28 January 2026), confirm that £371,880.08 is being spent demolishing the building — on top of the £750,000 purchase price paid just two years ago.
That means taxpayers are staring at a shortfall of £826,880 — and counting.
Buy high. Demolish. Sell low.
The figures read like a case study in how not to handle public money.
- Bought: £750,000
- Demolished: £371,880
- Total spent: £1.12 MILLION
- Now for sale: £295,000
That’s more than £3 spent for every £1 the council now hopes to recoup.
And that’s before fencing, security, maintenance and professional fees are even considered.
All for nothing
When Fenland District Council snapped up the former Barclays Bank in 2023, councillors hailed it as a bold regeneration move — a “fantastic opportunity” and a “defining step” for March town centre.
The reality today?
- No building
- No developer
- No approved plans
- No timetable
Just a fenced-off void on one of the town’s most prominent corners — next to the war memorial, in the heart of the conservation area.
Warnings brushed aside
Planning officers had begged councillors not to demolish the building without a replacement scheme ready.
They warned:
- the structure was not beyond repair
- reuse had not been properly explored
- demolition risked leaving a long-term “missing tooth”
Councillors ignored them.
The building was flattened anyway — despite officers warning the town could be left staring at an empty plot for years.
That is exactly what has happened.
FOI lays bare the bill
The FOI response confirms the demolition costs included:
- demolition works
- traffic management
- equipment and contractors
All funded through the Government’s Future High Streets Fund — money meant to revive town centres, not erase buildings and walk away.
Now it’s someone else’s problem
Instead of delivering a flagship development, the council is now quietly stepping back, marketing the land and hoping a private developer will pick up the pieces.
The glossy sales brochure talks about “new beginnings”.
What it doesn’t mention:
- the £1.12m already spent
- the demolition councillors pushed through
- or the fact the site is being sold for less than 40 per cent of what the council paid
Council defence
Fenland District Council says the project was never about turning a profit and insists the money came from central government grants, not council tax.
It argues the site:
- enabled wider public realm works
- delivered “socio-economic benefits”
- and was approved by government
But to many residents, that will sound like semantics.
Public money is still public money.
The £1.1m question
Across the country, former bank buildings have been transformed into cafés, homes, clinics and community hubs.
In March, it was demolished.
Now, after more than £1.1 million has been spent, the council is asking the market to decide what happens next — while taxpayers absorb the loss.
As residents pass the empty plot on Broad Street, one question refuses to go away:
How did a regeneration project end up costing over a million pounds — and delivering nothing but rubble?
CAMBS NEWS OPINION
1.1 MILLION SPENT — AND MARCH IS LEFT WITH NOTHING
There are many ways to regenerate a town centre.
Spending £1.1 million of public money to end up with an empty hole in the ground should not be one of them.
Yet that is exactly where March now finds itself.
Thanks to a Freedom of Information response released this week, we now know the full scale of what has happened at the former Barclays Bank site on Broad Street. Not rumours. Not estimates. Cold, hard numbers.
£750,000 to buy it.
£371,880 to demolish it.
£1,121,880 gone.
And now?
A “For Sale” sign — £295,000.
That is not regeneration. That is financial vandalism dressed up as vision.
Ignoring the warnings
This outcome was not unforeseeable. It was warned about — clearly and repeatedly.
Council planning officers cautioned against demolishing the building without a replacement scheme ready. They warned of a “missing tooth” in the conservation area. They warned of a long-term void. They warned that reuse had not been properly explored.
They were ignored.
Councillors pressed on regardless, confident that demolition was the answer — confident, it seems, that something would “turn up”.
It hasn’t.
From bold vision to shrug of the shoulders
When the council bought the site, the rhetoric was grand:
“Defining step.” “Fantastic opportunity.” “Exciting regeneration.”
Two years later, the ambition has quietly evaporated.
No developer.
No design.
No planning consent.
No timetable.
Instead, the council has retreated — pushing the problem out to the open market and hoping a private buyer will succeed where public strategy failed.
That is not leadership. That is abdication.
“It’s not council tax money”
We are told, again, that this was central government funding. As if that somehow makes it different.
It doesn’t.
That money still belonged to the public. It could still have been spent elsewhere. It was still meant to deliver visible, lasting improvements — not erase a building and walk away.
Regeneration may not be about profit, but it is about outcomes. And right now, the outcome is stark: £1.1 million spent, nothing built.
A town left holding the consequences
March residents were promised renewal. What they got was disruption, demolition and delay.
They now walk past a fenced-off void beside the war memorial — a daily reminder that bold decisions, made without a plan, can leave scars that last far longer than any building ever did.
This was a gamble.
The dice were rolled.
And the town is the one left paying the price.
The question councillors must answer
The question is no longer why the building was demolished.
The question is this:
How did Fenland District Council allow a flagship regeneration project to burn through more than a million pounds — and leave March with absolutely nothing to show for it?
Until that is answered honestly, no glossy brochure, no talk of “future potential”, and no carefully worded defence will fill the gap on Broad Street.
Or the growing gap in public trust.
