The council’s new cabinet has backed a £47 million scheme to build a new swimming pool and leisure centre at the King Alfred site on Hove seafront.
Cabinet members were asked about refurbishing the 1930s building, carbon emissions and the design concepts outlined in a report published before the meeting at Hove Town Hall yesterday (Thursday 18 July).
One resident, Laura King, asked about protecting the King Alfred’s heritage as a “coastal land ship” where 22,500 men and woman trained during the Second World War.
Councillor Alan Robins, Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet member for sports and recreation, said that the King Alfred was a purpose-built leisure centre that was requisitioned during the war as a training base.
After the leisure complex was demolished and replaced, the history of the site would be commemorated in some form, he said, adding: “That piece of history we will be keen to remember.
“However, that short period it was used as a naval training place I don’t think prevents the city from having a modern sports and leisure facility in the area.
“We’re going to employ an archivist to bring all the parts of the history of the last 100 years into focus and make sure the artefacts are collected and preserved.”
To refurbish the existing facilities would cost £14 million and last 10 years so that a rebuild would be needed by 2034.
Portslade Cricket Club chair Anne Nickolson had been ready to object to building a new pool on the Benfield Valley Sports Field, between Old Shoreham Road and the West Hove Sainsbury’s.
She said that a proposed alternative base for the club at Greenleas would have been unsuitable – and Councillor Robins was happy to assure her that the club could stay where it was.
The cabinet report said that building a new pool and leisure centre in Benfield Valley would have been the best economic or financial investment for the council.
But more than 3,600 people responded to a public consultation with most in favour of building a new pool and leisure centre on the seafront site.
The Labour leader of the council said: “I think, like many people who live in this city, there’s a feeling that this is so long overdue people are desperate for us to get on with rebuilding the King Alfred.
“I know many people have very fond feelings about the King Alfred. I learnt to swim there when I was a pupil at Summerhill School, now Brunswick.
“And my children are currently learning to swim there but I think it’s really clear it no longer meets the needs of our residents.”
Councillor Joy Robinson, cabinet adviser for contract management and procurement, said that in the 19 years since she moved to the area, this was the third proposal for the site.
Councillor Robinson, who represents Central Hove, said: “We have learnt lessons from the past as to why the other two versions didn’t go forward and we’re approaching this in a different way.
“The sports centre is being designed and built by us and we’re not at the whim of developers.”
Councillor Robinson said that she hoped that the new scheme would be like Splashpoint, in Worthing, with homes built on the remaining land.
![](https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/FCC213A5-75D6-47D1-A649-FA10C44321EA.jpeg)
Labour councillor Emma Daniel, who also represents Central Hove, said that she had received several emails a day urging the council to listen and keep the leisure centre at the King Alfred site.
Councillor Daniel said: “There’s a genuine amazement that we came out and said ‘we’re listening to the people who use it’. That’s a sad indictment of politics but hopefully locally and nationally that will change.”
One public question, from resident Mary Sandal, asked about the rough costings and what was meant by a “low rise” “stacked” site.
Councillor Robins said that the stacked scheme, with a nominal capital cost of £47 million, would include an underground car park, possibly over two levels.
It would also include three levels of leisure facilities above ground, with a footprint covering 20 per cent of the site. The rest would be sold for housing.
The alternative low-rise scheme would nominally cost £40 million and include a surface car park and up to two storeys for the leisure centre, covering half the site, with the rest sold for housing.
The cabinet agreed that design work for the scheme could start with a view to bringing the project to the planning application stage. This alone was expected to cost £2.7 million.
The aim is to draw up plans by the end of the year and to open the new sports complex four years from now, in 2028.
Great. Yet another new development, which no doubt will lace the pockets of councillors with a vested interest, and start showing signs of decay before it’s completed! Much like all the other, new developments that have gone up at great speed over the last few years, and are already not fit for purpose.
These councillors really should be ashamed of themselves.
Also. Please can we have an explanation as to why £14 million on regenerating the old King Alfred, would only last 10 years?
The proposed new development would be 4 times this amount, and, again, going back to the other new builds, given that they are not made to last, this surely wouldn’t be the best way of spending the money would it?
Makes you wonder doesn’t it!
In answer to your question, the £14 million investment in regenerating the old King Alfred is projected to last only 10 years primarily due to the facility’s underlying structural issues and outdated infrastructure. This sum would likely address only immediate and critical repairs, rather than a comprehensive overhaul needed for long-term sustainability. The building’s age and the extent of wear and tear mean that such an investment would serve as a temporary fix, rather than a permanent solution, requiring further substantial investments or a complete redevelopment in the near future.
This was one of the reasons why a rebuild on a modernised site would have been preferable, however, the council listened to the mass of people who wanted it to stay where it was. Perhaps people came to this idea without fully understanding the reason, and perhaps that is a failure to explain it comprehensively enough.
I don’t think the councillors should be ashamed of anything in this instance because of this, but I do agree this way around is far from optimal financially.
“Lace the pockets of councillors”
If you have ANY evidence of corruption then go to the police with your evidence.
Oh but you don’t have any do you? So stop the muck raking.
As to your other questions please read the papers that are published as part of the agenda for the cabinet meeting available for all to read on the councils website.
Fantastic news,well done bhc.
Only 20% of full site to be used for new leisure centre. This is a
disgusting theft of public property for council profit.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. This will be the fourth attempt to build a sports centre on the KA site over the last 30 years. None has come to fruition. The report clearly indicates that the green field option is far better value for money than rebuilding on the seafront site. It would be far more accessible for those living in the west of the city than the present site which has only 180 degree catchment area. It will also be significantly cheaper to build on a greenfield site or a much better centre could be built for the same amount of money.
Anyone who reads the report – https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/documents/s201081/King%20Alfred%20Leisure%20Centre%20Regeneration%20Project.pdf. – can see there is an open and shut case for at least doing further work on the site adjacent to Sainsburys.
I wish the council well with building the new centre and hope that there is not yet another failure, but this is a missed opportunity.
I honestly think BHCC will face criticism regardless of what option they go with.
The pool should be 50 metres. Why is our council so lacking in ambition? Other areas have shown how it’s possible to have a sensible mix. There’s enough space given the various elements the council wants to include. Or are Labour as against opportunity as the Greens were for our competitive swimmers and youngsters with potential? The difference in cost is not as great as you might think. Time for genuine ambition and foresight!
The capital cost of building a 50m pool may not be double that of a 25m pool but the day in day out operating costs certainly are.
Is there the demand for a 50m pool within a suitable catchment area of potential paying users to support those extra revenue costs? Probably not.