Hove: Concerns raised over projected King Alfred costs

Green Councillor Ollie Sykes said forecast costs of the plan, which would see the crumbling leisure centre in Hove demolished and replaced with a new facility on the existing site, could come back to “bite” the council.

His comments came at Monday’s place overview and scrutiny committee.

A group of seven Green and Conservative councillors called in Brighton and Hove City Council cabinet’s decision to rebuild the leisure centre on its current site rather than in Benfield Valley, made last month, saying that not enough information had been published to back it up.

Under the new cabinet model opposing councillors can “call in” decisions made by the leading party in order to scrutinise them and call for changes.

The merit of the decision was not being scrutinised at the meeting but rather the way the decision was made.

Cllr Sykes highlighted concerns the project was not compliant with HM Treasury guidance, questioning the council’s decision to define the redevelopment as a standard project.

He said government guidance states that developments on brownfield sites and involving demolition should be classed as "non-standard".

Read more: Council fears people wouldn't use leisure centre if disrepair was made public

The Green Party said if the council had used this definition the projected budget for the scheme could potentially have been millions of pounds higher.

Overall, the project is expected to cost between £39.8 million and £47.4 million.

Cllr Sykes queried if the costs had been under estimated and if the council had applied the wrong “optimism bias”.

Cllr Taylor, cabinet member for finance and city regeneration, said cabinet had not.

“Swimming pools and leisure centres are quite a standard thing for local authorities to build,” he said.

“That’s what local authorities have been building for decades.”

Asked by Councillor Bridget Fishleigh if he could guarantee the project will not exceed £47 million Cllr Taylor said he could not.

Read more: Claims opposition councillors want to delay seafront leisure centre plans

“No councillor or public official in the history of Western democracy can guarantee that any project will never go over cost and if they do they’d be very foolish to do so,” he said.

“I’m not going to attempt to be a fool in this committee so I can’t give you that guarantee.

“What we can give you is that the estimates and business case are made on very sound footing and are on the basis of experts in the field.”

Cllr Sykes also queried if enough had been done to embed sustainability at an early stage, not only in terms of net zero ambition but also to help keep future energy costs down.

He said the call-in was not about “frivolous opposition and delay” but rather about “legitimate scrutiny”.

The councillors who called in the decision asked for clearer policy on transparency and access to documentation.

They called for the detailed business case to be made public.

It had been presented in what is known as “part two” papers, which are debated in private session.

The cabinet said this was because of commercial sensitivity as it contained detailed information about the finance and economic model and land valuation.

The meeting heard it would not be “appropriate” to share the documents with non-decision-making members of the committee.

Cllr Taylor agreed to look into improving mechanisms that would enable interested parties to access sensitive documentation that would enable them to make better informed decisions without jeopardising possible tender options.

Following a vote, it was decided that no further action would be taken and for the decision to be implemented in accordance with the cabinet’s original decision.

Cllr Sykes said following the meeting: “The city expects a robust and compliant basis for developing the King Alfred, with eyes open about possible cost overruns.

“To my mind concerns remain about costs and this could come back to bite us. The scrutiny meeting yesterday was positive in that it allowed members to air and debate their worries.

“What was less positive was the difficulty in accessing critical information about the project. How are we supposed to do our jobs of scrutinising administration plans if we can’t see key documents? Labour need to revisit the way they are implementing the cabinet system if they really want to streamline decision-making.”