Approval Given for New Cranleigh Leisure Centre Despite Cost Reservations

Published on: 6 Mar, 2026
Updated on: 7 Mar, 2026

Visual Of The New Cranleigh Leisure Centre. Waverley Borough Council

By Chris Caulfield

local democracy reporter

Cranleigh’s new £36 million leisure centre has been given the go ahead after getting its “eye-watering” budget approved.

The designs are said to save about 60 or so per cent in energy usage every year as well as giving residents a top-of-the-line new facility.

Money, however, will be saved over the long term via cheaper bills and a reduced reliance on the “volatile” energy markets, councillors were told.

Concerns were raised over the lack of consideration given to alternative proposals – which may have brought similar energy savings with a lower up-front cost.

Particular scorn was saved for the sheer lack of evidence shared with councillors over the finances of the project, save for three sheets of colour-coded A4 paper, said opposition members.

Ultimately, the budget was approved by Waverley Borough Council at its meeting on Tuesday, March 3, including £14.8 million in total borrowing with the payback period pushed back to 52 years.

Cllr Liz Townsend

Cllr Liz Townsend, portfolio holder for planning and deputy leader of the council, blamed inflation as the primary reason the budget had almost doubled since the project was first put forward and any further delay could be its death knell.

She said the “passivhaus” design [a rigorous, international, energy-efficient building standard that slashes space heating/cooling demand – Google] was not a gold-plated addition but in recognition of efficiencies that should cut energy usage by at least 60 per cent.

Conservative estimates estimate it would  create £125,000 in guaranteed energy savings from year two, amounting to millions over the building’s life.

She said: “This delivers a financially viable, environmentally responsible leisure centre that supports our climate commitments, reduces operating costs and transforms a deficit facility into a positive revenue generator, at a time where many councils are being forced to close their leisure centres.”

Cllr George Murray

Cllr George Murray (Bourne), leader of the Farnham Residents’ Group, which had recently split from working in coalition with the Liberal Democrats on the council to become the official opposition group, said: “The upfront cost is high, an eye-watering £36 million, but the running costs are dramatically low over its lifetime.

“The building doesn’t just break even, it performs better financially year after year.

“So the core reality we need to focus on is the running costs. It shows the cost of not looking ahead or planning ahead.”

He said the only thing we don’t know is what the running costs would be for a non-passivhaus new build?

He added: “We don’t know that figure.

“If we chose the cheapest option today, we are not saving money, we are locking this council or any future authority into high energy bills and higher risk for the next 50 years.

“This is not prudence, that is postponing the bill and handing it to the next generation.”

Cllr Paul Follows

Cllr Paul Follows (Lib Dem, Godalming Central & Ockford), leader of Waverley Borough Council, said: “The business case materially improves over time as the cost base is more and more secure.

“You know you are moving away from a volatile energy market, its volatile now, who the hell knows what it is going to be like in 60 years.”

The budget was approved by 33 votes in favour, with none against and six abstentions led by the Conservative group who had raised questions over the ever-spiralling budget and the lack of any public evidence over alternative designs.

Cllr Jane Austin

Cllr Jane Austin (Con, Bramley and Wonersh) said “ Full council is being asked to approve this £36 million commitment but as I’ve set out in my note to councillors as Overview and Scrutiny chair, members have just not been provided anywhere near enough required information to justify that decision.

“Councillors have repeatedly requested proper financial detail, not just a one-page options and analysis with nice red, green and blue.

“We wanted a full comparative options analysis, cash flows, benchmarking, robust modelling of alternatives, including the lower cost, low carbon non-passivhaus option.

“Instead we were just referred to those three sides of A4, some historic reports and given one-line answers to what I believe were very serious questions.

“On a project of this scale and cost to taxpayers I find it simply wrong that executive should simply brush legitimate scrutiny to one side.

Cllr Peter Martin

Cllr Peter Martin (Con, Godalming Holloway) added: “It may well be that passivhaus is the right design and the right solution, but we are simply not convinced…

“We haven’t got enough information, we need more, and it’s perfectly reasonable that we should have consistently asked for an alternative option but we haven’t been given it.”

Share This Post