The jury that selected Zaha Hadid`s groundbreaking but now hugelyover-budget plan for the London Olympics aquatics centre raised worriesabout its cost and design before it was chosen as "the jewel in thecrown" of the 2012 site.

The panel warned the building would havea timber ceiling prone to maintenance problems, and that details wereso sketchy there could be unforeseen costs involved in converting itafter the games. Nevertheless, officials picked her "seductive" designover five other options.

Details of their concerns, released tothe Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act after the cost of thebuilding has more than trebled to £303m, show that from the outsetHadid`s design faced "clear technical and organisational issues" and"the detail of the scheme was not as well developed {as itscompetitors}".

The newly released reports from the 2005 jurysessions show the building`s use as a community facility after theOlympics was "not well thought-through" and there was "a costly stepmissing in {identifying} the true cost of changing modes {from Olympicsto community use}".

They cited "maintenance concern over {the}timber ceiling in an aggressive pool hall environment". This element ofthe design is now being rethought because of fears it may warp in themoist conditions. The Olympic Delivery Authority said it was testingdifferent woods over the next six to 12 months and was "determined tokeep within" the budget.

The aquatics centre has become theemblem of soaring costs at the London 2012 games. The National AuditOffice is under pressure to investigate the procurement process. InApril the House of Commons culture, media and sport select committeesaid spiralling costs for the centre showed Olympic organisers "arewilling to spend money like water".

The account of the jurysessions, which took place at the Cumberland hotel in central London inJanuary 2005, show that the decision-makers were dazzled by thewave-like curves of Hadid`s proposal. The panel was jointly chaired bythe architect Lord Rogers and Lord Carter, then chairman of SportEngland, and included Keith Mills, now deputy chairman of the London2012 organising committee, Ricky Burdett, design adviser to theOlympics, and Tony Winterbottom, then chief executive of the LondonDevelopment Agency.

Hadid`s design would be "an exceptionaladdition to the architecture of London", they said. "The quality of thearchitecture clearly separated the scheme from the other fivecompetitors," they added.

But by April this year the cost hadrisen from the original budget of £73m at 2004 prices to £242m, with anadditional £61m for a footbridge that will form part of the building`sroof.

Four of the rejected proposals caused no concern to thejury over their cost. A design by Bennetts Associates, which isrebuilding the Royal Shakespeare theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon, wasdismissed for its "practical approach". Another, designed by FaulknerBrowns, the architects of the Commonwealth Games pool in Manchester,was dismissed as "functionally mundane". A plan by French architectDominique Perrault to build the Olympic aquatics centre as an islandwas the only other scheme considered a cost risk.

Hugh Robertson,the shadow Olympic minister, said: "It appears there was a clearwarning in 2005 that the design of the building was unsuitable forbeing transformed to community use, so they must have known there wouldbe cost overruns."

Paul Farrelly, a Labour member of the Commonsculture, media and sport select committee, said: "The history of thecentre shows a disregard for proper budgeting and the stewardship ofpublic money.

"They allowed Zaha Hadid to have her head forthis iconic Olympic statement but it was only six months ago that itactually got a firm price ... The extra millions being spent mean thereare swimming pools not bei
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/15/olympics2012.olympicgames2012