March’s most controversial building bust-up erupted after Fenland District Council’s (FDC) own scheme to demolish the old Barclays Bank in Broad Street was sensationally slapped with a recommendation to REFUSE.
Yes, you read that right: the council applied to knock down its own building – and its own planning team turned around and said, “NO DEAL!”
However, when it came before today’s meeting of the council planning committee, councillors had a different view. And unanimously agreed to demolish it.
Cllr Charlie Marks said: “I think it’s a blot on the landscape compared to what is now an updated town centre. It is out of character – my biggest concern is security.”
He feared homeless people or squatters would try living in there “and doesn’t bode well for leaving it like that”.
Cllr Elizabeth Sennit Clough said it was a case of public benefit versus harm and as far she could see was not offering any public benefit. She feared anti-social behaviour if left as it was.
Cllr Dave Connor, planning committee chair, said: “This needs to come down as quickly as possible. It is a blot on the landscape as far as I am concerned.”
Cllr Roy Gerstner said it would be difficult to market as it is because of the asbestos and needed to come down to enable a buyer to be found.
The building at the centre of the row? A 1970s brutalist lump that once housed Barclays Bank, standing on a prime corner site between Broad Street and Grays Lane. Some locals say it’s an ugly eyesore that needs flattening. Others argue it’s part of March’s quirky character – a rare surviving slice of brutalist architecture.
FDC, backed by a Government “Future High Streets Fund” grant, bought the site for £750,000 after it been on the market for 18 months without a buyer. The purchase was made with a portion of the £6.4 million FDC was granted by the Government from its Future High Streets Fund in 2021.
The idea was to clear the way for shiny new development.
But here’s the kicker: there is no new development lined up.
Instead, the plan now approved it to demolish the bank and throw up a giant 2.4-metre timber fence around the empty plot. That’s it. No shops. No offices. No plan. Just a big wooden box in the middle of March.
HERITAGE HEADACHE
Planning officers were scathing. Their verdict? Demolishing the bank without a replacement would leave March with a toothless grin – a gaping hole in the high street.
The site sits right in the heart of the March Conservation Area, sandwiched between the Grade II listed War Memorial and the grand old Bank House. March has just had a multi-million pound facelift on Broad Street – new paving, smart public spaces, spruced-up heritage.
Planning officers feared a boarded-up wasteland in the middle would undo all that hard work.
The officer’s report didn’t mince words:
- The old bank isn’t so bad it needs urgent demolition.
- There’s been no attempt to market it for other uses.
- There’s no guarantee anything new will be built soon.
- And worst of all – the fenced-off void could last indefinitely, dragging down the look, feel and business life of the town centre.
As the report by officers said: “Although a vacant building does nothing for the vitality and character of a streetscene, a long-term ‘missing tooth’ in terms of a vacant site has the potential for much greater impact. This is evidenced by the harm caused by a number of long-term vacant sites in both March and Wisbech.
“Although there is a clear wish from the applicants that the demolition is simply a building block to getting the site sold and redeveloped, there are indeed no guarantees. Permission to demolish without a future plan, essentially renders the site vacant, with risks to the character and appearance of the conservation area for an unknown period of time.”
SUPPORTERS SAY: TEAR IT DOWN!
Not everyone agrees. March Town Council waved it through, saying the old Barclays is indeed a blot on the landscape.
The Designing Out Crime Team of Cambridgeshire Police even welcomed the idea of robust fencing, saying security would help prevent vandalism and fly-tipping.
And in fairness, the building is described in March’s own Conservation Area appraisal as a “negative frontage” – ugly, awkward, unloved.
But officers pointed out a bigger problem: demolishing without a future plan is a planning gamble. Once it’s gone, it’s gone – and if no developer bites, the town centre could be staring at a boarded-up bomb site for years.
BATS, ASBESTOS & BRUTALISM
Of course, no planning saga is complete without some quirky subplots:
- Bats: Surveys confirmed no furry lodgers in the bank, so wildlife won’t stop the bulldozers.
- Asbestos: There’s plenty of it in the old building, meaning demolition won’t be cheap or cheerful. Licensed specialists will be needed.
- Brutalism comeback: Conservation experts note that, love it or loathe it, brutalist architecture is vanishing fast across the UK. Once considered “ugly concrete carbuncles”, these stark 1970s designs are suddenly being appreciated as an architectural movement in their own right. Some even argue March should treasure its Barclays block rather than bin it.
THE OFFICIAL REBUKE
So, despite Government cash earmarked for demolition, the planning team tried, unsuccessfully, to draw a line in the sand. Their recommendation: REFUSE PERMISSION.
Their conclusion?
- Demolition + Fence = Harm.
- Harm + No Benefit = Refusal.
Or in their own words: “There are no benefits to the proposal which outweigh the harm identified, and no planning mechanism to secure the site’s future.”
In other words, the council could knock it down, fence it off… and leave March with a boarded-up void for years.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Because FDC itself is the applicant, the final call went to the planning committee, made up of councillors who decided to reject the expert advice.
OUR TAKE
March is at a crossroads. Demolition can be bold, but demolition without vision is reckless.
Right now, the council’s “fence plan” looks more like a cover-up than a comeback.
The people of March deserve better than a boarded-up void at the heart of town.
The Barclays block may not be pretty – but until there’s a real plan, leaving it standing might be the least ugly option.
FOOTNOTE: In the short term it continues to be let as a site office to Octavius Ltd, the lead contractor on the Broad Street and town centre regeneration works.
