Opinion: Cranleigh Deserves a New Leisure Centre – But Costs and Timescales Are Spiralling

Published on: 18 Dec, 2025
Updated on: 21 Dec, 2025

CGI of the new Cranleigh Leisure Centre Waverley Borough Council

By Jane Austin

leader of Waverley Council’s Conservative Group and chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

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 group’s concern is 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 on Tuesday evening (December 16). 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.

Cllr Jane Austin

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 we are facing a payback period of more than 52 years. I need persuading this stacks up for taxpayers.

The argument for the additional £4.9 million appears to be that it is too late to change course (councillors have not been provided with financial analysis which would back this up). I believe this is 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 new technology – so additional costs are 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, rightly observed, Passivhaus is a “gold standard” specification. She and other councillors went on to question whether that was the right choice, considering 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 is disingenuous. Officers confirmed on Tuesday night that they were aware of additional budget pressures as far back as October, yet we are only now able to understand the scale of the increases. The Waverley Executive knew this dire news was coming but has allowed months to go by before making it public.

The council statement then refers to “social value”. Of course, a new leisure centre will deliver social value – but that does not explain or excuse a spiralling budget. Perversely Cranleigh Swim Club warns that the new leisure Centre layout may mean the end of galas and competitive swimming in Cranleigh, because the poolside capacity will be halved. That significantly reduces social value.

But greater social and financial value could be delivered across Waverley if the Executive exercised proper cost control, worked within agreed budgets, and delivered projects on time. Money saved could benefit communities across the borough.

It is also notable that when the news is bad, comments are attributed to “a council spokesperson” rather than the ward councillor and portfolio holder, Liz Townsend [Lib Dem, Cranleigh West]. Equally telling; only one of five Liberal Democrat councillors attended a Scrutiny Committee meeting to debate this item on Tuesday.

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 that – like 69 High Street in Godalming and Broadwater Park – this risks becoming another expensive vanity project that fails to deliver.