I would like to try to explain why the proposed redevelopment of one of the council's existing sites is in the financial interests of Council Tax-payers.

The buildings the council owns in Great Malvern are mostly converted Victorian schools and gentlemen's residences. They are wasteful in terms of space per employee, costly to run and maintain and are not appropriate as 21st Century working environments.

The Gazette is right to ask what has changed since the Liberal Democrats in opposition rejected a proposal for a new council HQ on a single site. Well, most importantly, we have conducted the first comprehensive and professional survey ever of the condition of all the council's buildings. The results were worse than anyone imagined, for example there is a serious and immediate danger that a breakdown in the Portland House heating system could close the building down for days, resulting for one thing in delays in benefit payments to the most needy members of the community.

The first question we asked was how much it would cost to put the stock into a reasonable state of repair. The answer was that we need to spend £5 million on just the most urgent repairs, without any upgrading of facilities. Even then, we would still face the inherent high running costs of older buildings unsuited to office needs.

The council last week approved the further investigation of a number of options which would result in a net expenditure of between £244,000 and £1.3 million following the disposal of most non-operational property - the minimum repair figure mentioned above would be £1.23 million on this basis. We are, however, proposing to retain the Council House for strategic reasons, given its pivotal role in the history of Malvern.

Quite rightly, many people ask why we should be considering this step when there is such a question mark over the district council's future in the light of possible reorganisation of local government. Well, that question mark has been around for at least 15 years, and indeed it was a factor in the Liberal Democrat opposition to the schemes proposed in 2002/03. However, these proposals were for a single-site HQ outside the centre of town, on a greenfield site or on the site of the old depot, where instead we are developing a health centre and affordable housing. We want to anchor jobs in the town centre.

If we have efficient, modern offices, not only will they save money for this council's taxpayers, they will offer a base for whatever form of local government succeeds it, or if sold by a future authority, an attractive proposition for a prospective purchaser.

The council's decision last week was not the last word, it was very much a first step which gave authority to investigate a range of options. I would like to give your readers an undertaking that when possible ways ahead have been more thoroughly investigated and costed, we will consult with both our staff and members of the public before any irrevocable decisions are taken.

coun Jon Rayner, finance and resources portfolio member, Malvern Hills District Council.