Background: Why Dartmoor’s void lease drew scrutiny
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) released a report criticizing a £4 million-a-year lease for HM Prison Dartmoor, a facility that has remained empty for around 18 months. The lease, arranged by the HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), was intended to secure occupancy, stability, and potential future use. Instead, it has been described as a flagrant example of public money being spent without delivering tangible benefits to taxpayers.
What the PAC found
The PAC concluded that continuing the lease represented a “needless waste of taxpayers’ money.” The committee highlighted a broader pattern of decision-making that prioritized short-term fixes over value for money and long-term planning. The report indicates that the costs associated with the lease, maintenance, and related obligations continued to accumulate even as the prison sat deserted.
Key findings
- The lease cost around £4 million annually, with no active resettlement or operational plan for the site.
- There was insufficient consideration of alternative uses for the building and location within the regional prison network.
- Governance and due-diligence processes did not fully account for the financial risks of outstanding leases when occupancy prospects were uncertain.
Financial and policy implications
The eviction of a building that could have served as a functional asset instead became a cost center. The PAC argues that public funds would have offered greater value if redirected toward programs that genuinely reduce reoffending, modernize prison capacity, or improve staff welfare. The critique extends to the risk management approach of HMPPS, suggesting that better, clearer criteria for entering and exiting leases could prevent similar scenarios in the future.
What needs to change: Recommendations from MPs
The committee laid out several recommendations aimed at tightening oversight and improving value-for-money in major property arrangements. These include stronger business cases before committing to long-term leases, more robust demand forecasting, and enhanced transparency about the financial consequences of unused assets. The MPs also called for clearer accountability on who signs off on tenancy agreements and who monitors ongoing performance against original projections.
Response from the department
HMPPS has acknowledged the concerns raised by the PAC and signaled a commitment to learn from the experience. While the department defends the strategic intent behind securing the Dartmoor lease, it recognized the importance of ensuring that future contracts deliver demonstrable public benefit and align with broader objectives to modernize the estate and support rehabilitation efforts.
What happens next for Dartmoor and similar properties
With MPs pressing for reforms, the department is likely to revisit lease governance, demand planning, and asset management across the prison estate. Lessons from the Dartmoor case may drive tighter controls, including more rigorous exit strategies for underutilized properties, and clearer pathways to repurpose or dispose of assets when occupancy does not materialize.
Bottom line: taxpayers deserve better value
The Dartmoor lease episode serves as a cautionary tale about balancing asset security with prudent public spending. As Parliament intensifies scrutiny of major property decisions, the focus will be on ensuring that every lease, maintenance cost, and off-balance-sheet obligation translates into real benefits for front-line services and, ultimately, safer communities.
