CAMPAIGNERS have called for council bosses to break down a “fortress” of secrecy that has built up around the biggest development in Hove’s history.

Serious concerns have been raised about the transparency and the lack of public involvement in deciding the future of the King Alfred Leisure Centre.

Councillors will decide next week which of two competing bidders should be allowed to redevelop the seafront site and is deserving of £8 million of public money.

But residents remain in the dark about any level of detail for either project.

Council papers recommending one of the projects will not be made public ahead of the meeting and the decision will be made in secret behind closed doors next Thursday.

The public will first learn of the decision the following morning but will have to wait at least ten more days for the expiration of a standstill period.

The council claims it could risk a legal challenge from the losing bidder if it releases detailed information before contracts are signed.

But expert Dr Bagaeen, head of the University of Brighton’s planning school, questioned the risk identified by the city council that by publishing the detailed information ahead of the meeting would increase the risk of legal challenge.

He said: “The bidders would have gone into this knowing exactly what the risks are, these are not small-time players."

Also, we can today list several major public projects around the country where residents could view competing bids and in some cases even vote for their favourite.

Even in the previous process to find a King Alfred developer held a decade ago, residents were able to see plans and even models of the three shortlisted designs before a decision was made.

The project will be given to either Hove-based charity Starr Trust in partnership with developers Crest Nicholson or French-based Bouygues with designs drawn up by Brighton-based architect Nick Lomax.

Council papers released this week ahead of the meeting supply only scant details on either project, confirming that neither of the final bids will have a 50 metre swimming pool or diving pool and that developers will build more than 400 homes.

We also know that both bids should include a range of specific facilities for the leisure centre including a teaching and junior pool, a sports hall of six badminton courts, a three rink bowls hall, gym, workout studio along with parking for 180 cars.

Valerie Paynter, from the SaveHove group, fought the previous Frank Gehry-designed redevelopment project which fell through in 2008.

She said: “We have no way of knowing if this is the best project the city could have.

“The level of paranoia on the part of the council about the possibility of the losing bid mounting a legal challenge amazes me, it begs the question did something happen during the process to raise these concerns?

“Something has gone wrong with the process for them to have built up this fortress.”

A local planning professional, who wished to remain anonymous, said: “I don’t know why they can’t have that debate about what facilities each project has in the open and then go to a closed doors meeting if discussion turn to the finances.

“And I don’t see the point of waiting ten days, that’s just weird when the decision has already been made.

“If a company was planning a legal challenge, they would already have that underway.”

PUBLIC WILL BE LEFT IN THE DARK OVER DECISION PROCESS

RESIDENTS are never likely to know what the alternative future for the King Alfred could have been.

Unlike major schemes elsewhere in the country, the final choice for the Hove seafront site will be made before residents get to see one CGI image.

The process contrasts sharply with other council schemes The Argus has looked at across the country with the same high stakes for failure.

When Lancashire County Council held a competition to find a new multi-million scheme to enhance Preston’s renowned grade II listed bus station, residents actually got to vote from a list of five potential designs for the scheme.

A total of 4,215 votes were cast during a two-day exhibition and the public’s favoured design was chosen by a judging panel a month later.

Similarly, when two competing firms went head-to-head to breathe new life into the former Bradford Odeon, residents could see with their own eyes what the two alternate futures could be.

Both bids had multi-million pound plans to transform the disused site into a live venue and in June 2014 members of the public got to see both proposals and question bidding teams on their plans.

But residents in Brighton and Hove will be left in the dark about what alternative was ruled out by council officials and councillors and even the reasons why.

Almost 30 teams initially showed interest in the project but gradually these have been whittled down to just two. 

The council claims that secrecy around the process is necessary because of complex EU procurement laws.

Council leader Warren Morgan said: “Neither of the examples you cite (Bradford Odeon and Preston bus station) are comparable to the King Alfred situation as neither involved the ‘competitive dialogue’ procurement process that is regulated by EU procurement law.

“We are looking to deliver a new public sports centre, at a cost of around £40 million, which is to be funded by the enabling development. So we have been in detailed dialogue with two shortlisted developers to see which can come up with an appropriate and financially viable scheme, and give local people the greatest number of benefits in a new sports centre. 

“This involves complex, detailed financial negotiations of a kind which are impossible to hand over to residents.”

Cllr Morgan has claimed it would be unlawful under EU procurement law to share the relevant financial information with residents to use as the basis of any vote. 

But Dr Samer Bagaeen, head of the University of Brighton’s planning school, said that how much information councils made available to the public in such a process varied with each local authority’s interpretation.

He said: “Local authorities can take very different views on this.

“It seems that Brighton and Hove has taken one approach which simply says ‘we are not telling anybody anything except for the members of the policy and resources committee’.

“A different council could have gone with a completely different approach.”

Dr Bagaeen also questioned the risk identified by the city council that by publishing the detailed information ahead of the meeting would increase the risk of legal challenge.

He said: “I don’t think that is a risk on a project of this scale.

“The bidders would have gone into this knowing exactly what the risks are, these are not small-time players. I don’t think that would be very likely.”

Former Green councillor and original project board chairman Geoffrey Bowden said: “The whole process follows a rigorous and tried and tested format. 

“There is nothing underhand in the process, there are commercial issues that need to be kept confidential.

“There will come a time when the public will get a say when it comes to planning.

“If the public decide to make it really difficult for developers then we will end up with ten years of more decrepitude for the King Alfred which would be a great shame and will have to disappear off to Crawley to play sports which is not a great advert for this sports mad city.” 

Councillors being asked to vote next week on the site’s future agree that the current process is not without its faults but might be the only way to end the 15-year wait for a fit-for-purpose leisure centre in Hove.

Cllr Andrew Wealls, a Conservative policy and resources committee member, said: “I do appreciate the debate regarding the level of public consultation so far in the drive to ensure a viable, deliverable state-of-the-art sport centre to replace the King Alfred Centre. 

“I believe in an ideal world the whole of Hove would participate in determining need and design for the project, but the danger of such a process would be that the resulting project would be simply undeliverable. 

“There is no perfect solution, but I do believe that through this process it has a high likelihood of actually being delivered.”

RESIDENTS’ VIEWS SHOULD BE AT THE CORE OF PROJECT

EU PROCUREMENT law is not something most residents are familiar with.

What they care about when it comes to the future of King Alfred is what it will look like, what the facilities are and whether there will be a house for them.

That is all residents would like to see before a decision is made next Thursday on who the council will deliver the heavy responsibility of a major housing development and a much needed modern sports facilities.

Defenders of the current process claim the public will get their chance to air their views when the scheme goes to planning.

But effectively what they will be asked to choose between is a new development or continue with the same dreary and out-of-date block that was considered ready for the bulldozer more than 15 years ago.

At the moment there is still a choice between two alternate futures for the King Alfred.

While other projects elsewhere in the country may not match exactly the same circumstances, the principle that residents’ views matter should be at the core of public building projects.

In fact, the need for public involvement is greater with this project than with its northern comparisons because taxpayers’ money will be spent and council facilities will be included in any completed project.

Decisions made behind closed doors will always lead to more questions no matter how pure the intentions.