Opposition councillors have called in a decision to build Brighton and Hove’s new swimming pool and leisure centre at the King Alfred site.
Cabinet members last month voted to rebuild the centre at its current Hove seafront site instead of Benfield Valley, and backed spending up to £47 million on the project.
But a group of Green and Conservative councillors are arguing that the evidence publicly put before the Labour cabinet members was not sufficient to make a decision.
They have requested the decision is debated by the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee – which under the new cabinet system, can send decisions to full council, back to cabinet or take no action.
In requesting a decision go to scrutiny, councillors must state why they think the decision does not comply with council policy or with the budget.
Green councillors Steve Davis, Ollie Sykes, Kerry Pickett, Chloë Goldsmith, Raphael Hill and Sue Shanks, and Conservative group leader councillor Alistair McNair, laid out their issues with the decision made in an email to council chief executive Jess Gibbons, which will go before the scrutiny committee next Monday.
Only one – Councillor Pickett – is on the committee.
They argue the evidence put before cabinet was “very high level” and was insufficient for members to understand the decision.
They say the proposals are classed as a “standard building” but the demolition and construction process is potentially complex as it involves swimming pools.
A complex building would mean capital spending should increase by £8 million to cover contingency.
Opposition councillors are also putting the case for the detailed business case to be made public.
Cabinet member for sports and recreation councillor Alan Robins said the business case is not being shared beyond cabinet members due to commercial sensitivity.
However, in the call-in statement the Greens and Conservatives argue there is no “inherent reason” why the detail business case cannot be shared.
At this stage just the location is decided, there is no design, contractor or tender estimates yet, and any individual figures can be redacted.
The seven signatories are also concerned about the treatment of proposals for refurbishing the King Alfred, which were presented to the cabinet with a 10-year-life span.
They said: “The 10-year lifespan appears to be an arbitrary figure as no reason is given why a £14m refurbishment need last only 10 years.
“There is potential for this chosen 10-year lifespan to be seen as a way of favourably skewing options benefit-cost ratio ranking, unless further details are provided on the basis for the figure, or additional sensitivity analysis is presented that shows investment required in a refurb for a 20 or 30 year lifespan.
“Clearly a 20 or 30-year benefit period for a refurbished building could alter the conclusions of the economic options appraisal.”
The cabinet report said that building a new pool and leisure centre in Benfield Valley would have been the best economic or financial investment for the council.
But more than 3,600 people responded to a public consultation with most in favour of building a new pool and leisure centre on the seafront site.
The Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 5pm on Monday 12 August.
Where did council get the figure of £47m from?
They have been quoting £6m per pool for the new swimming pools at Whitehawk and Withdean,
They are also planning to cram the ‘new King Alfred’ leisure centre into only twenty percent of the current footprint so they can build their revolting 700-flat tower blocks. A vastly compromised leisure centre will result with no ballroom, no public space and lot of other sacrifices including parking.
Like we said before, this was what the people pressured the council into going for, rather than the more cost effective and better designed alternative which would have been partially funded by the sale of the site.
Absolute nonsense. Residents never asked to lose the King Alfred or have it compromised in the first place. A full refurbishment/restoration is all that is needed and to open up all the shut off spaces there for new uses.
A ballroom? So when was the last time you dressed up and went to the ball ,Cinders?
The multiple objections to the alternative site beg to differ, Barry.
Unless you’re arguing that Joe Public wasn’t really sure about what they were objecting too, and that raises a question of how effective is our current kind of consultation.
The details of why it costs that have been explained in the documentation produced regarding this, which I note you’ve been directly linked to previously.
No ballroom? So when did you last get dressed up to go to the ball , Cinders?
Good – major decisions like this need proper scrutiny and transparency, and if there are concerns and questions that Labour have failed to answer it’s important they address these before vast amounts of public money are committed to the project.
I’m not saying the project is unsound, and it may be the right move to go ahead with what was agreed at Cabinet, but it’s right and proper that opposition councillors push the administration to be open, clear, and that there is sufficient evidence that figures and plans stack up before pushing ahead.
Very reasonable comment to make Fletch. It’s important to get that second perspective, even just to cover the blind spots.
I am the Conservative councillor on the committee, so it will not just be the Green representative present. Not against redevelopment or development of the King Alfred, but there are questions to be asked as to the cost and funding. It is imperative that the Administration are open about the figures.