The £4.9 million cost increases and delays for Cranleigh Leisure Centre are astounding — and deeply concerning. As news articles confirm, the project budget has now nearly doubled from £20 million in 2021 to £36 million. Our concern is that costs may well rise further. Given delays already incurred, the construction timescales also look very optimistic indeed.

The latest increases were examined at Waverley’s Overview and Scrutiny meeting before Christmas. Officers confirmed that £36 million is not the final budget and that costs may well continue to increase, in part because of the Passivhaus specification chosen.

We are seeking clarity on exactly how much of the additional cost is attributable to the top-spec Passivhaus standard, which the Lib Dem-led Executive has strongly promoted. While Passivhaus has laudable environmental credentials, a price tag of this scale demands robust and transparent justification. I have yet to see anything close to that.

It is estimated that Passivhaus will deliver annual energy savings of around £125,000. But on a project now approaching £36 million, that suggests a payback period of more than 52 years. I remain unconvinced that this represents good value for taxpayers.

The argument for the additional £4.9 million appears to be that it is now too late to change course. Councillors have not been provided with the financial analysis that would clearly demonstrate why that is the case. I believe this is the time for a big rethink — so Cranleigh will get a new leisure centre which fits its needs.

Officers also confirmed that part of the £4.9 million increase has arisen because Passivhaus is relatively new technology, with additional costs emerging as the project progresses. This raises a critical question: should Waverley residents be paying a premium for the construction industry’s learning curve?

As Independent councillor Maxine Gale observed at the meeting, Passivhaus is a “gold standard” specification. She and other councillors went on to question whether that was the right choice, given the spiralling costs. It is entirely reasonable to ask whether a lower-cost, low-carbon leisure centre — still environmentally responsible but more affordable — would represent better value for money.

In my opinion, Waverley Borough Council’s recent press statement on Cranleigh Leisure Centre fails to give the full picture. Officers confirmed that they were aware of additional budget pressures as far back as October, yet councillors and residents are only now able to understand the scale of the increases.

The council statement refers to “social value”. Of course, a new leisure centre will deliver social value — but that does not explain or excuse a spiralling budget.

Cranleigh Swim Club has warned that the new leisure centre layout may mean the end of galas and competitive swimming in Cranleigh, because poolside capacity could be halved. That would significantly reduce social value.

Greater social and financial value could be delivered across Waverley if the Executive exercised tighter cost control, worked within agreed budgets, and delivered projects on time. Money saved could then be redirected to benefit communities across the borough.

It is also notable that when the news is unwelcome, comments are attributed to “a council spokesperson” rather than the ward councillor and portfolio holder, Liberal Democrat Cranleigh councillor Liz Townsend. Equally telling is that only one of five Liberal Democrat councillors attended the recent scrutiny committee meeting to debate this item.

A new leisure centre can and should deliver real benefits for Cranleigh residents. But it must do so with honesty, transparency, and rigorous financial control.

At present, serious questions remain unanswered, and I fear this project risks following a familiar pattern seen elsewhere in the borough — becoming significantly more expensive than planned while failing to deliver what communities were originally promised.

Cllr Jane Austin, Conservative Opposition Leader, Waverley Borough Council