The county town of Kent will have to wait until 2031 before it gets a new swimming pool and leisure complex – and it may not even happen then.

Conservative councillors on Maidstone council voted against a motion from Labour’s Cllr Paul Harper that would have committed the local authority to either opening a new leisure centre or carrying out a major revamp of the existing centre that year.

Cllr Harper said: “It’s incredibly disappointing. We need a date and commitment to when this will happen.

"We’ve already had to allocate an extra £1 million in the annual budget to cover the increasing cost of repairs to the 50-year-old centre.

“We can’t keep putting this off – there will come a time when the decaying building will have to be closed on health and safety grounds.”

This week the centre came under fire after it emerged lots of the facilities, including flumes, slides and the wave machine, were regularly closed to visitors due to lifeguard shortages.

The council has been worrying about the state of the Maidstone Leisure Centre at Mote Park, built in 1970, for at least five years but it has been unable to agree on a permanent solution.

Built in a different era, the complex was described by one councillor as “the most polluting building in Maidstone”.

Large areas of glazing and open space lead to huge energy bills and wasteful carbon emissions, with the council acknowledging the centre was having a negative effect on its aim of achieving zero carbon emissions.

In addition, it is expected to face increasing repair bills as the ageing plant wears out.

Everyone agreed the ideal solution would be a new complex built to the latest exacting energy standards but the cost is prohibitive.

Members of the economic regeneration and leisure policy advisory committee, which meets to guide the decisions made by the relevant cabinet member, Cllr Claudine Russell (Con), were presented with a number of options:

• Building a new leisure centre.

• Carrying out a major refurbishment of the existing centre.

• Making no changes and sucking up the costs.

• Making “minor improvements” that might go some way towards mitigating the ill-effects.

The need for a decision has been hastened by the expiry in August next year of the council’s current contract with the Maidstone Leisure Trust and its contractor Serco, which manages the complex on a day-to-day basis.

Officers advised that unless there was some certainty about the pool’s future, it would be difficult to place a new contract since no company would want to take on the risk associated with uncertainty.

The council had last year considered the possibility of creating a new leisure centre behind the existing one, which would have the advantage of allowing the public continued access to all leisure facilities until the new centre opened.

But the council’s finance director Mark Green said that since this had first been mooted the likely cost had risen from £35m to £41m for a standard centre – and to £53m for a state-of-the art Passivhaus centre, built to the highest environmentally-friendly standards.

But that did not allow for financing costs.

Over the life of a 50-year loan, assuming interest rates remained at 4%, such a centre would cost the council £92m.

Similarly, a major refurbishment of the centre was previously costed at £30m. That cost had risen to £35.25m, with repayment costs taking it to £82m.

The figures shocked Cllr Bob Hinder (Con), who said: “I dread to think what the public reaction would be if we were to spend that sort of money in the current economic climate when we are asking people to pull in their own purse strings ever tighter.”

Cllr Russell said she was inclined to follow officers’ advice and opt for the “minor improvements” route which would cost £2m and could mean full or partial closures of the centre over a 36-week period while the work was carried out.

The idea would be to create a new cafe area, closer to the entrance, and to glaze off the pool from the rest of the building to prevent heat loss. The cafe move would also allow the introduction of some new indoor play areas.

Officers estimate this would save 10% on energy bills compared with the “do-nothing” scenario and could bring in an extra £367,000 a year.

Cllr Maureen Cleator (Lab) described the proposals as “us moving things around a bit”.

Leisure manager Mike Evans explained that the council had the option to extend the contract with the current operators for seven-and-a-half years, until 2031.

He said: “That will allow us time to develop a plan – but we don’t yet know what that plan is.”

Cllr Paul Harper (Lab) was concerned about the constant time slippage.

He said: “When I was chairman of this committee back in 2019, the proposal then was for a new centre that would open this year – 2023.

“Obviously things have been delayed by Covid but we need a timetable.”

Cllr Fay Gooch (Ind) described the minor amendments proposal as “trying to make a a silk purse out of a sow’s ear” but nevertheless urged the council to start work as soon as possible.

Cllr Dave Naghi (Lib Dem) was in favour of grasping the nettle and opting for a new centre.

He said: “Building a new leisure centre is always going to be one of the biggest things the council will spend money on – but this council was prepared to spend £25m to buy back the Lockmeadow Complex – that would have gone some way towards a new pool.”

Cllr Russell said she felt she was experiencing Groundhog Day.

She said: “I am not saying that we won’t build a new centre. I am just saying that now is not the time.”

Officers recommended the committee accepted the proposal for minor improvements, plus an extension of the contract with Maidstone Leisure Trust and Serco until 2031 “while feasibility work on the long-term future of the centre and all alternative options and provision continues”.

Cllr Harper proposed adding the words: “With a view to opening a new leisure centre or a fully refurbished centre in 2031.”

His proposal split the committee four in favour and four against and his motion was lost on the casting vote of committee chairman Cllr Patrik Garten (Con).

The committee then voted to accept the officers’ recommendation without any commitment as to what would happen after 2031.