Doubts cast over figures behind King Alfred’s £47m cabinet decision – Brighton and Hove News

One of the first decisions taken by the new Labour cabinet – whether to proceed with a £47m scheme to replace the King Alfred Leisure Centre – could be “called in” for review.

The move comes after opposition councillors said the decision was made on little evidence, false assumptions and distorted options which could add £8m to the budget before work even starts.

The council’s cost estimates, they said, were too low because they ignored key government guidance, showing the risks of confining such important decisions to a handful of councillors.

And important information was withheld from opposition members of Brighton and Hove City Council, they said, and those councillors were unnecessarily prevented from asking further questions.

They added that the £8m error is a sign of how costly the decision to ditch cross-party committees and move to cabinet decision-making could be for local council tax payers.

Before what has been described as a “power grab”, it would have been easier for opposition councillors to ask questions at committee meetings, allowing the ruling Labour group to refine its proposals.

Now a “call” could mean a delay that adds “construction inflation” to the £8m error resulting from a bad initial decision.

And that delay, council members said, was a direct result of the shift from committees to a cabinet system, with power concentrated in the hands of a small number of council members from one party.

Seven councillors from the Green and Conservative parties have written to the council’s chief executive, Jess Gibbons, to ask her to communicate the decision in the King Alfred case.

The Labour Party said it welcomed the scrutiny and was confident it had made the right decision to reflect the views and needs of residents.

A letter to the chief executive said: “The evidence provided… to cabinet on Thursday 18 July was of a very high standard and, on its own, insufficient for members to fully understand the decision.

“Following a comment about insufficient information and subsequent questions raised by Councillor Ollie Sykes to the cabinet… additional information was shared directly with Councillor Sykes.”

The extra information suggested the council had chosen the wrong measure to estimate the potential costs of demolishing the King Alfred swimming pool and leisure centre and building a replacement.

The project was treated as a “standard construction” project, like a simple dwelling rather than a swimming pool on a site where complexities had defeated previous developers.

Councillors said if the £47m budget had been drawn up in line with government guidance, the projected cost would have been around £8m more.

And that would have made a renovation a more attractive option. Furthermore, they accused the council of wrongly suggesting that a renovation would only have a useful life of 10 years.

This was an assumption and, they said, no reason had been given to show why a renovation would not last 20 or even 30 years, which would make it much better value for money.

Opposition councillors were keen to see the “business case” so they could better understand the calculations and ask appropriate questions on behalf of council tax payers.

But while the business case was shared with cabinet members, it was withheld from other councillors for commercial sensitivity reasons.

Councillor Sykes said this was spurious, particularly as the council could share the reasoning and, if absolutely necessary, redact or hide the exact figures.

And it went against Labour’s promise that the move to cabinet decision-making would be more transparent.

He said the Labor administration may have perfectly good reasons for choosing demolition and construction, even if it is not the best cost-benefit option.

But a genuinely democratic council must be open, transparent, accountable and prepared to explain its decisions and show alternatives – as was the case when decisions were taken by cross-party committees.

The council’s recently adopted constitution says: “Members have the right to have sufficient information to enable them to perform their duties properly and the courts will protect this position.”

It adds that any restrictions are “without prejudice to any right members may have to access information and documents under the common law principle of ‘need to know’”.

The letter to chief executive Jess Gibbons was sent by Green councillors Steve Davis, Ollie Sykes, Kerry Pickett, Chloë Goldsmith, Raphael Hill and Sue Shanks and Conservative leader Alistair McNair.

The decision on whether or not to suspend the project and request a review should be made public within a few days.

If the request is accepted, the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee should ask a cabinet member and a senior official to provide evidence on the decision.

This would likely take place at a specially called meeting – and the cabinet would formally respond at its next meeting in late September or at a special meeting before then.

The timing of the cabinet’s response is likely to be affected by the findings of the scrutiny committee and whether the £47m budget may need to be increased.

If the Labour Party uses its majority as a party political means to ignore government guidance, opposition councillors would have the right to raise the issue with the council auditors.

Councillor Sykes, shadow cabinet member for finance, said: “The papers presented to cabinet on Thursday 18 July did not present the full picture of this major project, which carries with it significant expense and risk.

“We want to make sure the right option for King Alfred is chosen, but where it is possible that the preferred option could cost more than £8m more than projected, we need to make sure the council has the money to pay for it.

“It is worrying that this has happened in the first major draft of the cabinet system and highlights the lack of scrutiny that the Greens have warned about.

“It is right that this decision is now properly scrutinised by all councillors, but – due to Labour’s changes to our system – this could cause months of delay.

“Under the previous committee system, these concerns could have been raised and addressed at the same meeting where the decision was made.”

Councillor Jacob Taylor, Labour’s deputy leader of the council, said: “We welcome scrutiny of major decisions, which is an important part of our system of local government.

“We are confident that our decision to build a new King Alfred leisure centre on the existing site is the right one and reflects the views of residents and the needs of the city.

“We are very happy to defend this decision against opposition from the Greens and the Conservatives.”