A council member has faced allegations of trying to prevent a report on the i360 from being published, after correspondence indicates it was prepared as far back as October of the previous year.

Previously, a review examining lessons to be learned from Brighton and Hove City Council’s involvement in arranging a multi-million pound loan for the i360 was scheduled for discussion.

Back in March, the council announced that the independent assessment prepared by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy would be submitted to the relevant committee.

However, long-standing Green party representative and former mayor Pete West declared that he did not believe the document was finished and refused to include it on the committee’s agenda for April 21.

Mr West stated that he communicated his concerns about the document’s thoroughness and accuracy to the CIPFA writer while it remained in draft form.

The i360 welcomed its first visitors in 2016.

One issue he highlighted was that the assessment had been produced without seeking input from individuals who were part of the original decision to arrange a £36 million loan from the Government’s Public Works Loan Board to the i360 developer Marks Barfield through Brighton and Hove City Council.

Now, in email correspondence reviewed by The Argus, it demonstrates that the assessment appeared to be finished as early as October 2025.

The emails, distributed to senior council figures, included the document and indicated it could be placed before the Audit Committee in January.

It is understood this arrangement did not proceed because of proposed changes and objections put forward by Mr West.

Deputy council leader reaction

Jacob Taylor, deputy leader of Brighton and Hove City Council, charged Mr West with attempting to prevent the report from being examined because it could prove uncomfortable for his own political legacy.

Mr Taylor expressed that it was almost unbelievable that one of the most senior Green representatives, who formed part of the Green administration that backed the i360 funding, was using his chairmanship position to obstruct the examination of this significant document. He questioned what Mr West was concealing and why he was preventing the cross-party Audit Committee from reviewing the document, as had been agreed months earlier.

Mr Taylor commented that the Greens repeatedly emphasised their commitment to openness and proper governance, yet they were misusing their position in chairing this vital committee to prevent proper examination of a disastrous financial decision.

He continued that it was particularly striking that Mr West himself supported the budget that sanctioned the i360 funding. He questioned whether Mr West was obstructing this document to spare himself embarrassment and whether this represented a conflict of interest.

He suggested that if Mr West found the document’s content too difficult for his committee to assess, perhaps a different Green representative should preside over the committee, one with less personal involvement in the original decision.

What did Councillor West have to say?

In response to these accusations, Mr West stood by his view that the document remains incomplete.

He expressed that he considered the drafted version to be insufficiently researched and lacking the robust evidence needed to support its conclusions.

He elaborated that the Audit, Standards and General Purposes Committee operated as a regulatory body independent from the council’s political leadership. He noted that among its duties was overseeing the council’s governance procedures, and preserving the committee’s integrity and impartiality was essential.

He explained that the i360 Lessons Learnt document was commissioned by the cabinet to examine decisions made more than a decade ago by the council to assist in funding the construction of the i360 by the i360 company, and to evaluate how well-informed those decisions were and their quality. He said the cabinet asked for the completed document to be reviewed by the AS&GP Committee.

He stated that regrettably, the CIPFA draft that was shared with him lacked sufficient research and failed to establish the firm evidence base needed to support its conclusions. Several shortcomings were apparent, including the failure to consult any of the principal individuals involved in the original decisions.

He said that verifying with some of those key individuals corroborated his