Leisure Centre Will Be Lost If Council Does Not Approve Extra Funding, Says Leader

Published on: 16 Jan, 2026
Updated on: 17 Jan, 2026

CGI of the new Cranleigh Leisure Centre Waverley Borough Council

By Chris Caulfield

local democracy reporter

Not replacing Cranleigh Leisure Centre will inevitably force its closure, said the leader of Waverley Borough Council. But the opposition leader his threat that Cranleigh will loose the centre if it does not approve increased costs, is holding the facility to ransom.

The stark warning came during the Tuesday, January 13, meeting of its Executive Committee as it agreed to push ahead with its £36 million redevelopment.

The project has come under intense scrutiny following delays that caused its cost to spiral but the council remains adamant its plan for a new super-eco “pasivhaus’ facility will be fully self funding – and drastically reduce the borough’s carbon footprint.

Passivhaus standard buildings are designed to meet the highest levels in energy efficiency.

The environmental certification is a critical, the council said, and would reduce energy costs by around 60 per cent compared to a standard leisure centre.

It says the building would last well into the 2080s,  be designed to withstand climate change,  and suffer less from wear and tear –  extending its lifespan and avoiding expensive refurbishments.

Keeping the existing site operational would cost £7.3m over the next five years with no improvements to the facility, no increase in income, and no return on investment.

Councillor Liz Townsend (Lib Dem, Cranleigh West), the newly appointed  deputy leader of the council, said: “Let’s be clear about the alternatives.

Cllr Liz Townsend

“Halting the project at this stage would be a reckless waste of the significant public funds invested and could leave Cranleigh without a leisure centre altogether.”

“Removing the Passivhaus element would require costs and still require additional borrowing.

“It would marginally reduce the initial costs but  it would remove £125k in energy savings and extend the payback period to 50 years undermining the business case.”

2026 is the last full year Waverley Borough Council will exist before it is merged with its neighbours, some of which are the most debt ridden authorities in the country, to because West Surrey.

The financial position of this new council has many worried over how future projects could be funded   – leading to fears the leisure centre improvements could be jettisoned by the new financially distressed body.

Cllr Paul Follows

Borough leader Cllr Paul Follows (Lib Dem, Godalming Central & Ockford) said: “It either needs to be replaced or shut down.

“I think even an outsider’s non-accountant’s view of the balance sheet of the West Surrey unitary, is that it is unlikely to be able to bear… any kind of project like this in Cranleigh.

“I just don’t think its going to be remotely viable under the unitary, and so if we don’t do it, we are effectively looking at Cranleigh having nothing.”

He added: “As long as this remains self financing, a vote against this is effectively a vote to close the leisure centre in Cranleigh and all the consequences that go with that.

“Simply, as long as this is self financing that is an unacceptable option.”

Cllr Jane Austin

But, Conservative leader of the opposition at Waverley, Jane Austin (Bramley & Wonersh) did not agree. She said: “In December, Waverley’s scrutiny committee recommended a rethink.

“Instead of engaging constructively with those concerns, the response from the Leader has been to threaten the closure of the leisure centre altogether. Trying to justify multi-million-pound cost overruns by holding a vital community facility to ransom is no way to lead a council.

“The Liberal Democrats have pushed ahead with experimental Passivhaus technology, which is now clearly driving costs up enormously – and further increases still to come. A stated 51-year payback period does not represent value for money for residents.

“Good leadership means taking responsibility for decisions, listening when serious warnings are raised – not using them as leverage to excuse poor financial management.”

Share This Post