Proposals for a new swimming pool and leisure centre in Hove is due to go before councillors next month.
Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet forward plan for July states that a report setting out the options for a new leisure centre will go before councillors for a decision on Thursday 18 July.
The cabinet will also consider the leisure operator’s contract, currently held by Freedom Leisure, which expires in the spring of 2026.
The new centre will either be at the King Alfred site, in Kingsway, Hove, or at the Old Shoreham Road end of Benfield Valley, in Hangleton.
More than 3,500 people responded to a public consultation in January and February for a new “state of the art” leisure centre to serve the west of Brighton and Hove.
King Alfred fans started a petition supported by 664 people, calling on the council to restore the existing building – as has happened with the art deco 1930s Saltdean Lido.
The existing 1939 building on Hove seafront is considered no longer fit for purpose and had to close at times over the past two winters when the boilers stopped working.
Previous schemes to build a new leisure centre and housing on the site have failed.
The current proposals include a 25-metre swimming pool, a separate learner pool and splash pad, a sports hall and a health and fitness centre, with a gym and cycling studio.
The full report is due to be released five working days before the cabinet meeting.
Brighton and Hove has a shortage of swimming pools, according to a report that went before the council’s now-disbanded Culture, Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Economic Development Committee in January.
At that meeting, councillors backed spending £6 million on a new 25 metre pool at the Withdean Sports Complex.
The council is likely to borrow the money to fund the project because it was classed as capital spending which was expected to bring in an income.
Councillors also asked for a feasibility study to look at options for a further swimming pool in the east of the city.
Moulsecoomb Leisure Centre is the leading option, with the Stanley Deason Leisure Centre, in Whitehawk, also under consideration.
The cabinet is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 2pm on Thursday 18 July. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
An example of what can be done with a 1930s ‘not fit for purpose’ leisure centre and £7.9m. The even more impressive fact is Saltdean Lido went from derelict building to award-nominated destination leisure centre.
https://www.saltdeanlido.co.uk/
Demolishing the King Alfred was not on Labour’s manifesto. it was previously the Greens pushing this with the very first pin the sticky note on the whiteboard ‘drop in’ consultations in early 2023.
The council’s own City Plan 2016-30 has a commitment to keeping the King Alfred where it is on Hove Seafront despite wanting to redevelop it. Portslade Cricket Club are not keen to have their pitch hijacked and built on either if council decides to build a replacement three miles away, meaning extra bus rides, bus fares and car use.
We really need to discuss your unwillingness to move away from the concept of a manifesto being rigid. Do you not agree with the logic that plans change?
Do you not agree that one should take a pragmatic view when new information comes to light?
Do you not agree that long term solutions and holistic plans that improve more Ethan one aspect of the city should be considered?
Any major project affecting thousands of residents should either have been in the Manifesto or subject to a public referendum before proceeding.
Name one thing more pragmatic than getting an art deco leisure centre restored to its former glory for a fraction of the cost and carbon footprint of demolishing it and building a new one elsewhere.
Each and every referendum will cost in the range of £ 200 – 250k if run on the same basis as a usual election – money which is better spent on the likes of social workers and weed clearers and filling pot holes.
Plus the turnout won’t be that great.
If you think a ~40% turnout (like the last council elections) is poor then a referendum will have a much lower participation rate
The answer is simple. No pet projects. Focus on looking after what we have and delivering goods and services and next time someone comes up with a grand public scheme, offer a public referendum. Most people could manage one a year and much better decisions would be made with public input. We pay your wages, allowances and expenses and are entitled to hold our local council responsible when it goes rogue.
Barry you won’t win any friends by calliing the replacement of the King Alferd a ‘pet project’ or ‘grand public scheme’
The centre needs either replacing or a major overhaul and decisions have been out off for over 20 years.
I completely agree with this statement!
Is there any evidence that KA could be redeveloped in a cost effective way? The last info from the council indicated that the underground section is full of asbestos and all the structural steel is in need of immediate replacement. I don’t think the Lido is a sensible equivalent, and there’s no reason to think that the damage there is equal to the damage here.
That being said, I hope the site isn’t moved. If we could have built on the site years ago this whole issue would be resolved, but nimbys gonna nimby and a handful of people’s sea view apparently outweighs the need of an entire community.
Saltdean Lido was previously derelict for many years. The King Alfred is not. The KA has deliberately been neglected with areas locked off and the asbestos plans show that much of it has already been removed from the building over the years. Not that the asbestos wouldn’t need removing either way, whether the King Alfred was demolished or restored, which makes the presence of asbestos irrelevant in any debate about the King Alfred’s fate.
Very concerning our now closed cabinet council is looking to sell off for property development. Even more concerning if you look at BHCC on companies house, you will notice all the Officers/Directors listed for our council are property and holding companies: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/OC420045/officers
I would say that this warrants further investigation from @Brighton and Hove News and @TheArgus
This was in the pipeline way before the cabinet was even announced though.
Well done Benjy boy. You’ve covered all the bases there!
Benjy is a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect
…that’s not what the Dunning-Kruger effect is, but congratulations on an interesting insult, heh.
The irony!
Hardly. It’s the first issue with this statement though, and I like to tackle things one at a time.
Yes, it was. The Cabinet has simply cut us an even thiner slice of local democracy than the measly morsel was previous. Also the total contra of the Code of Conduct on BHCC website and Principles of Public Office: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life–2
A lack of transparency – ‘More than 3,500 people responded to a public consultation in January and February for a new “state of the art” leisure centre to serve the west of Brighton and Hove,’ but sadly the Council has not so far made public the results of this consultation.
Which it will do when the FULL report is published a week before the July Cabinet meeting.
I feel you’ve been needing to make that point fairly often recently.
Indeed
And thanks to the requirement that the council has to publish a forward plan of cabinet decisions to be taken we get far more notice of what will be discussed instead of the week before a committee meeting under the old system
No doubt B&H news will do more articles like this one because of the forward plan – which is publically available and on the websire.
Given what happened with the 2020 consultation I would rate it as unlikely that the results of the public survey will be made available in a full and honest manner. The only figure that got trotted out from 2020 was that 83% of responders wanted new facilities. Of course they do! But quite possibly, not at the expense of existing ones.
Rather, the responses will be cherry-picked for material that supports what the council leadership wants to do, which is flog the seafront site for heavy development and plough up a cricket pitch for a very bog-standard sports facility that most people will find very inconvenient to get to. Complete madness, but it’s where we are, sadly.
Everyone I’ve spoken to regarding this proposal supports keeping the King Alfred where it is. Perfect spot for a leisure centre. A revamped spot here would be perfect.
Chucking it further inland above Old Shoreham road will make it inaccessible for many, especially without a car. Will be watching carefully as I’m not convinced this Labour council will be listening to the many residents who care so much about the King Alfred.
How would it be inaccessible? There are multiple buses that stop there already. How many buses go to the KA? It’s more accessible if anything and would boost the area. Hove folk can be so self obsessed, as if you aren’t spoilt for choice already.
The King Alfred Centre must be saved! Don’t let the Council get away with knocking it down and selling the land to developers who will build luxury flats that’ll be unoccupied most of the time. That’s the last thing we need! Replacing it with a new leisure centre that is miles away from the community it serves is not a sane option!
Personally, I’d like to see a senior housing scheme to free up council housing.
I’m always keen to take a balanced view on difficult matters that the council face:
1) In this case, the King Alfred’s inevitable decline, being a building from an earlier age, has always been a problem for the council, whatever their political affiliations.
2) The current KA building has a nostalgic following, from those of us who have lived in Brighton and Hove for most of our lives, but it is not a building to house a modern swimming pool, and is no longer fit for purpose as a local sports and leisure complex.
3) One example of the problems is the high cost of running and heating a large swimming pool, with the current building being very badly insulated.
4) Restoring a 1930s building or no architectural merit is not something the council can get extra funding for. It’s maybe important to separate your love for an old building, and the need for a modern swimming and leisure facility.
5) On the plus side, this is a key seafront site, which is worth a lot to a developer, and the hoped-for deal has always been that the developer gets the broad plot of land as long as they finance the building of a new council owned swimming pool and leisure centre on one section of the plot.
6) There are also high costs in demolishing such a badly-built building, which contains all sorts of hazardous materials to be disposed of.
7) For those simply wanting a new swimming pool, the council is right to identify other council-owned land where that pool might be built, and with no demolition costs. Funding is then available for a capital project which is arguably creating a future income for the council. Each locality should have easy access to sports and exercise facilities.
8) The mistake for petitioners was perhaps to claim a need to restore the existing King Alfred building, which is dumb idea, given the high costs and with no long term benefits or council revenue to be gained.
9) What is clear however, is that all Hove locals do want the replacement pool to be on the existing KA site. It is no like for like swap to build a new pool on the edge of a distant football pitch.
10) My thinking is that this latest council will never be forgiven if they choose to build a replacement swimming pool and leisure centre elsewhere. That would be a new scandal, on a par with the i360 and with the demise of the Madeira Terraces.
11 ) With the decision still not yet made, or so we are told, there is still time for the council to make the right choice.
I always enjoy your comments Billy, really well articulated, balanced and thought out from multiple perspectives.
On the contrary the King Alfred is a very strongly built building, possibly built with dual wartime use in mind as happened. It has served the community for 85 years and counting.
No developer nowadays will offer a building with more than 50 years predicted lifespan and there is a dire shortage of skilled building trades left in the industry. Almost all projects are shoddily constructed and reliant on illegal labour for completion. There is also the catastrophic carbon footprint of all this demolition and new construction to be factored in which is ignored. Yet this city is in an ongoing self-declared ‘climate emergency’ from the previous Labour administration in 2018. What a joke.
There is nothing greener and cheaper than full restoration. The profit comes in cheating the public out of a major public asset on a public beach and opening up Benfield Valley for development.
Regarding the existing building, apparently the cabinet will be presented with costings for a refurbishment option, according to an FOI response I had recently.
What is frustrating is that infomal and formal FOI requests for information on refurb estimates and present running costs have been met with blanket refusals on the grounds of ‘commercial confidentiality’, which feels more like an excuse than a reason.
The 30s part of the original KA is solidly built, for sure. I would say that while it’s not up there with Saltdean Lido it does have some merit, architecturally and it could look very impressive if restored. If the surveys and the sums really don’t permit that then I would hold my hands up. But the council needs to be honest and show the basis for its thinking. The public are not fools and it is unwise to treat them as such.
Agreed.
Good post. I especially agree with point 10.
Unfortunately I think that Benfield Valley is pretty much a done deal – partly because of the tone and content of correspondence I have had with one of my councillors (a cabinet member) and partly because of what’s on the council’s own website here:
https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/city-regeneration/major-developments/king-alfred-development/proposals-new-leisure-centre
The option for the existing KA site does not even meet the spec of the council’s own Sports Facilities Investment Plan (owing to site constraints that have been artificially imposed – the proposal envisages only building on the carpark, even though the project team admit that it would be possible to extend beyond this).
So it’s a straw man, basically. They have come up with two options, and one of them is (deliberately?) unviable. The term ‘stitch-up’ is much overused, but seems to be about right here.
It makes sense for a new King Alfred to be built on the seafront. And for there to be a gym as comprehensive and affordable as Cheetahs.
Let’s hope BHCC does not miss a once in a lifetime opportunty to develop a 21st Centruy leisure centre integrated with Hove Beach Park. Such a great opportunity that will never come again.
You think there wouldn’t be other chances? But I agree, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
Keep KA where it is, madness to move it way out there where way less people can access it
I don’t believe they would be so stupid. Although after they gave us cycle lanes and made things harder for all road users nothing should suprise us. It’s the most used sports facility there is. So needed for our young and older residents to stay fit and active. The sea isn’t suitable for all esp with the sewage issue.
The Benfield site would be perfect for a leisure centre, lots of buses already pass it, Boundary Rd, just down from it, it would be great for Brighton. If the king Alfred building is an important heritage asset then any developments could be sympathetic to that. I don’t understand why anyone would object when fully thinking through the pros and cons.
One bus (the 6) goes to the Benfield Valley site. It is right by busy road, making it difficult to get to via sustainable transport. It is miles away from the areas of densest population in the city. It would involve building on a cricket pitch.
It is hard to see why anyone would think this was a good idea, unless they were solely looking at bottom-line costs and not bothering to consider the needs of the majority of residents. Unfortunately that seems to be exactly where the council leadership are on this.
Sounds like Jonno speaks with council or developer forked tongue. No normal resident and current user of the King Alfred wants to travel three miles to a compromised leisure centre pretending to be the King Alfred.