A historic building near one of Taunton’s swimming pools could soon be torn down and replaced with communal green space.

Somerset West and Taunton Council owns Flook House on Belvedere Road, opposite its Deane House headquarters and a short distance from the Taunton Pool.

The building was used occasionally to hold council meetings before the ongoing pandemic, and has a small number of commercial tenants.

The council is proposing to demolish both Flook House and the nearby disused public toilets, arguing the cost of repairing or upgrading the buildings is unjustifiably high.

The proposed demolition was debated at a virtual meeting of the council’s scrutiny committee on Wednesday evening (December 2).

Councillor Marcus Kravis, portfolio holder for economic development, said: “If we look at who the tenants are, the state of the premises that they are occupying and the rent they are paying, the income on the building is not great at all.

“Obviously if we made a lot of repairs to the building, we would be looking at increasing rents as well.”

One of the existing tenants, domestic abuse charity The Mankind Initiative, issued a statement on the proposals which was read aloud at the meeting.

Charity manager Lori Busch said: “We feel we have been disenfranchised from the democratic process.

“There is a public expectation that those impacted will be involved in the process; however, it appears that this is being pushed through during lockdown with no public scrutiny or tenants’ involvement.

“Flook House is mentioned in historical documents, stating that John Trenchard MP resided there during the election of 1715, and it was the site of many weddings and registrations of births and deaths while it was a registry office.

“It therefore beggars belief that this council is happy to wilfully let historic buildings fall into disrepair through lack of maintenance, and then vote to demolish them, removing yet another part of Taunton’s history.”

Mr Kravis said both he and the council’s officers had apologised to the existing tenants for the lack of consultation prior to the scrutiny meeting.

Flook House and the disused toilet block provide the council with a combined annual income of £14,810.

The council estimates it will cost £22,000 to carry out short-term repairs to Flook House and then a further £220,000 to modernise the building to ensure its long-term survival.

By contrast, demolishing both the toilet block and Flook House (which is not listed) would cost the council only £110,000.

Chris Hall, the council’s assistant director of climate change, regulatory services and asset management, said: “The area can then be utilised as an extension to the public space, removing the opportunities for antisocial behaviour through activities no longer being shielded by the buildings.

“The current continuing vein – of neither investing and keeping up with the maintenance requirements, nor removing the financial liability – can’t continue.

“It is bad for the asset, bad for the council, and is ineffective for the tenants. There is a very poor rate of return.”

Councillor Dave Mansell said he was “not at all happy” with the demolition proposals, describing it as a “quirky” workplace when he was based there in the mid-2000s.

He added: “Organisations looking for low rents often find themselves in buildings like this, and I think there still would be a demand for this as illustrated by the fact that there are indeed occupying tenants now.

“I’ve got absolutely no problem with the toilet block going – in fact, that’s a big plus. I have a feeling that is what is related to a great deal of the antisocial behaviour – if that goes, I think that will improve the situation.”

Flook House is currently valued at £274,743, based on a 2019 valuation, with the land itself being estimated at £120,150.

Councillor Norman Cavill added: “This is a property of character – it adds something to Taunton.

“I am sure there are many other uses, whether it’s shops or housing, that would be a great asset to the area. I would be quite against taking it down.”

The committee voted that a decision on the building’s should be taken by the full council in light of the building’s “historic importance”.

The council’s executive will discuss the issue further on December 16.