A “lessons learnt” report about Brighton and Hove City Council’s decision to broker a loan for millions of pounds to the i360 was not listed for debate this week, as previously promised.
Green councillor Pete West, who chairs the council’s Audit, Standards and General Purposes Committee, was accused of “sulking” about the report’s content by the Labour deputy leader of the council Jacob Taylor.
But the long-serving Green councillor and former mayor said that he did not consider the report to be complete and would not accept it on the committee’s agenda today (Tuesday 21 April).
In March, the council said that the independent report from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy would be presented to the committee.
Councillor West said that he raised his concerns about “thoroughness and accuracy” with the CIPFA author at the “draft” stage.
One of his concerns was that the report was written without contacting those involved in the original decision to broker a £36 million loan from the Public Works Loan Board to the i360 developer Marks Barfield.
Councillor West said: “While the author received the feedback and took some of this on board, many major criticisms remained unaddressed in the amended ‘final’ version.
“Still, none of the key informants were approached by the authors for their views. Further substantive feedback on the amended version was passed on but it was not acted upon as the administration decided to publish the report.
“It is vital to the process of learning lessons about the i360, or any other important matter, that those lessons are based on objective sound evidence.
“I maintain concerns that this report is not yet complete, not yet well-informed and not yet factually correct. I would welcome the administration commissioning further work to address these deficiencies.”
And because the committee had a regulatory role rather than a policy-making role, Councillor West said that it was vital to maintain integrity and impartiality.
Councillor Taylor, who is also Labour’s finance lead, has called on Councillor West to bring the report before the committee for debate.
Councillor Taylor said: “This is an important report from the independent Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) and should go to Audit, Standards and General Purposes Committee for review.
“My understanding is that the Green chair of that committee is sulking about the contents of the report and doesn’t want to discuss them.
“I think it’s a real shame that the Greens are hiding from the important lessons, given it was them who made the initial mistake.”
The council has never owned the seafront tourist attraction but brokered the £36 million loan from the Public Works Loan Board to the developer Marks Barfield.
The i360 ceased trading in December 2024 when the company that owned the seafront tower filed for administration, leaving more than 100 people jobless just before Christmas.
The council is repaying the Public Works Loan Board about £2.2 million a year over the next 15 years until 2041.
The total debt had gone up to £51 million, including interest, when the council wrote off the amount owing early last year. This enabled the administrators of the business to sell the i360.
The CIPFA report said that the council was sold “over-ambitious” projections of visitor numbers, revenues and profits.
The council kept the business case secret from the public when it decided to approve the £36 million loan to Marks Barfield, citing commercial confidentiality.
The report said that the council agreed to make the loan at a time when councils were being encouraged to “think commercially” and borrow at low interest rates from the Public Works Loan Board.
The report said: “While councils were encouraged to behave more like private sector entities, they were often not equipped with the necessary skills, experience or governance frameworks to manage complex commercial investments.
“In many instances, decision-making was driven by ambition rather than robust financial analysis and oversight mechanisms were not sufficiently developed to challenge assumptions or monitor performance effectively.”
When the terms of the loan were agreed in 2014, the minority Green administration voted through the proposals with support from some but not all of the opposition Conservative group.
But the Labour group – who were the smallest party at the time – voted against the loan.
Leisure operator Nightcap bought the i360 for £150,000 from the administrators at Interpath Limited in February last year.
In May last year, Nightcap said that it would honour the condition attached to the i360’s planning permission that 1 per cent of ticket sales paid to the council.
Why does Green Cllr. West think it is appropriate to gatekeep an independent report from the scrutiny committee? That’s for the committee to decide, not him.
It’s exactly why they were voted out, they don’t listen, don’t care about anyone but themselves. Call them out and they gas light, perfect example is this nonsense about the report not being ready, sad
Funny that Benjamin — one minute you’re telling everyone you’ve got close relationships with councillors and insight into how things are discussed behind the scenes, and the next you sound annoyed you’re not involved in the process.
Which is it? Are you in the room, or stuck outside commenting on it like the rest of us? 😄
Labour’s fingerprints are all over the i360 saga, yet they were allowed to set the terms of reference for the report, which conveniently left out all of their involvement prior to the Green administration back in 2011.
IMO Labour also continued the saga by practically giving the i360 away to a private company, a company who probably in the not too distant future will start returning a healthy profit which won’t now go towards repaying the loan – as Labour left residents saddled with it, with no realistic way of paying it back now they sold the ‘asset’. Their decision was the equivalent of making a secured loan, like a mortgage where there is at least an asset acting as surety, into an unsecured loan. Really not good financial management on their part if you ask me!
So you agree that it is not appropriate for Green Cllr. West to gatekeep an independent report from the scrutiny committee?
Cllr West should resign if he continues to hide behind lame reasons for avoiding scrutiny. He and the Green Party can kick the can down the road and hope to engineer a more favorable report but it’s never going to happen.
You can run but you cannot hide.
Are the Greens trying to delay real discussion and debate about the £51Million loss making i360, which they supported the public funding for, until after the elections on May 7th? This IS an embarrassing situation for the Greens in Sussex!
Agree100%. We have long memories.
Bad as the i360 was and continues to be, the current Labour majority council’s naked ambition is even worse. They appear to think they can ‘re-imagine’ and redevelop the whole the city however they like and rules don’t apply to them. This level of arrogance and contempt for residents means they are making many, many mistakes.
Well, no council can do that, James, so is that just personal incredulity?
When can we see the proof that all lessons have been learned from the i360 disaster?
We residents will still be paying the £51m debt off for decades to come. It’s the least the council owes us.
That, and a GUARANTEE that such a bad financial decision will never, ever be made again and residents will be listened to when they raise alarms about the cost, necessity and viability of a shiny new project before it is approved. There were no shortage of residents, and even some Councillors, raising red flags and pointing out the optimism-biased figures could never work pre-i360 and all were ignored. What has changed since then? What evolution in council decision-making have we seen?
Well, the way to ensure that the Greens’ bad financial decision can never be made again is to prevent them from getting into a position where they can, which means voting for Labour.
Jason KitKat seems to have got off very lightly on this. After all, it was his baby.
The Police need to finger his collar