A bid to scrap plans for a multi-million-pound Roman baths museum in Chichester, after disclosures about the rising cost of the project, has been defeated.
Members of the district council voted 26-11 to reject a proposal by Liberal Democrat group leader Cllr Andrew Smith not to go ahead.
Instead, they supported an outline design for the iconic building, which will display the remains of the 2nd centu
ry baths in Tower Street.
A financial cutback was ordered, to keep the cost down.
A total of £1m will be axed from the exhibition budget, reducing it to £400,000, but the council is hoping to restore the cut by seeking support from the Heritage Lottery Fund and private sponsors.
Members heard the cost of the museum was set to rise from the original £6.6m estimate to more than £8m, unless action was taken.
Following newly agreed steps the figure now stands at £6.9m.
Supporters of Cllr Smith's motion claimed the cutback would mean the scheme was being 'dumbed down.'
But the council's decision means the museum looks set to go ahead, with hopes of a start during next year.
Its backers maintain it will be a spectacular new attraction for visitors and residents, in the heart of the city, just yards from the cathedral.
Costs will be partially offset by the sale of land next to the museum for 26 flats, and the sale of the present museum site, in Little London.
Council leader Cllr Myles Cullen told the authority: "The objective is to provide a museum that does justice to the city and the district, both inside and out, and is also an experience worth remembering."
The council had approached the project in a progressive and thorough manner over the past two years, with a search for a visionary architect – eventually choosing Keith Williams, one of the finest in the country.
Cllr Smith expressed concern about the increased cost of the scheme. He said if it went ahead, other capital schemes might be struck out by default.
It had proved impossible to contain costs within budget without compromising the design of the public exhibition space and significantly reducing the museum experience.
Seconding the motion, Cllr Stephen Quigley said he was concerned about the viability of the project within the budget. There was also evidence of an over-run and risks ahead.
"There are areas over which we have no control which may overshoot," he declared. If they kept to the budget, they would be left with a 'stripped-down building' which was not worth proceeding with, and the council should cut its losses.
Cllr Adrian Moss said spending money on a dumbed-down scheme was not the right way of spending money. They should be looking to spend it on infrastructure and facilities for local people.
The full article contains 484 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
