1 week Ago
Plans to create a new leisure facility in a town will likely be “not progressed at this time”, council leaders have heard. On Monday, Rother District Council’s cabinet backed a range of proposals connected with plans to redevelop the former Bexhill High School site, a project which had been expected to create housing and a new leisure facility for the town. A report considered by cabinet members sets out how a combination of factors — including inflation in construction costs, the council’s financial pressures and uncertainty around local government reorganisation — means the project is considered to be unachievable in the short term.
If proposals are agreed in an upcoming full council vote, the authority would instead be expected to spend £2 million on structural repairs and refurbishment of Bexhill Leisure Centre and Ravenside Pool. This spending would be expected to come alongside a new contract with leisure operator Freedom Leisure, as the council’s current contract is due to expire next year. Council leader Doug Oliver said: “This is a very disappointing report, I think we would all consider.
It is unfortunate that we are where we are with this, because this was not part of what we wanted to bring forward. Read more: City centre pool will not open this summer in 'absolutely terrible' decision “Local government reorganisation has caught up with us and therefore decisions needed to be reassessed, options reviewed, otherwise these funds would be taken away from us by way of the Levelling Up Partnership.” He added: “I would add that we are not boarding up the leisure centre, we are not boarding up the Ravenside Pool.
“We are spending money on those to extend their life, so that these facilities will continue until such a time as the fallout from the local government reorganisation is settled and we will then be hopefully able to readdress these things, because it is an important part of what we look to provide.” The report says the project was originally estimated to cost around £15.5 million.
The council says the same plans are now expected to cost around £26 million. Even the original figures involved a shortfall, as the council has only identified a £13.4 million funding package for the project.
Within its capital programme, the council has already earmarked £9.8 million for the project, with £9 million coming from Levelling Up funds. Government expectations are for this Levelling Up money to be spent by March 2026.
In light of this, cabinet members backed proposals to reallocate the Levelling Up funds. Of this £4.8 million is expected to go to the council’s temporary accommodation programme, while £4.
2 million is expected to go to the Blackfriars housing development scheme. Officers said this reallocation had been agreed by the government. The proposed reallocation saw support from Conservative councillor John Barnes, who said: “We are clearly not going to be able to spend the Leveling Up money in time and therefore to reallocate it is important.
“What has changed my mind quite considerably over this item is getting the assurance from the department that we are not putting the funding at risk by switching its purposes. “Top priority for me in the switch is very much around affordable housing for the homeless. We have had a great success with that programme but we need to keep it going much more strongly.
“I am slightly disappointed that we are having still to find money for the infrastructure at Blackfriars. I still think we were, to some extent, taken for a ride by our managers and contractors there and I am not sure they are not getting away too lightly with their ineptitude. “But to leave that on one side for the moment, the provision that you’ve made does seem to me the most sensible short term provision and I give it my support, even though I really bitterly regret the blow to our health and wellbeing strategy.
” During the debate, Liberal Democrat councillor Richard Thomas began to express a dissenting opinion on the proposals. He was prevented from airing his views by Councillor Oliver, who argued that he had discretion on who could speak at cabinet and wanted to move to a vote. Cllr Thomas described Cllr Oliver’s decision as “undemocratic” but did not expand on his reasons for opposing the proposals.
.
