Campaigners calling for a public vote on the future of an 85-year-old seafront leisure centre want the King Alfred restored to its former glory.
One of the campaigners, Laura King, presented a petition signed by 664 people to Brighton and Hove City Council last week.
The petition, calling for a referendum on whether the art deco sports centre should stay on Hove seafront, was handed into a meeting of the full council on Thursday 28 March.
The council started a public consultation in January on a new “state of the art” leisure centre to serve the west of Brighton and Hove.
The proposals include a 25-metre swimming pool which has disappointed those who have previously highlighted the lack of a 50-metre competition length pool in the area.
The proposals also include a separate learner pool and splash pad, a sports hall and a health and fitness centre, with a gym and cycling studio.
The options are to build a new leisure centre at the existing King Alfred site, in Kingsway, Hove, or at the Old Shoreham Road end of Benfield Valley, in Hangleton.
More than 3,500 people had responded to the consultation when it closed in mid-February.
The petition called on the council to restore the existing building – as has happened with the art deco 1930s Saltdean Lido.
And the petition also called for the restoration to include the full indoor sports facilities, community facilities and a re-opening of the roof garden plus the underground bowling alley and 450-space underground car park.
Laura King said: “It wasn’t in the Labour Party manifesto to demolish the King Alfred.
“A new leisure centre … in Hangleton has also been sprung on residents, not appearing in any previous ‘consultation’, rendering the 2020 Your Sport, Your Vision, Your City, undertaken in lockdown, outdated.
“In fact, it would not be the King Alfred and it would not serve the same community.
“The removal of a public asset from its public beach home is at stake and the second option of building a smaller King Alfred on the current car park is clearly not a serious option.
“The cheapest, greenest and most obvious option remains missing – a complete retrofit of the existing King Alfred.”
Ms King told councillors that many people who supported the Keep the King Alfred on Hove Seafront Facebook group could not access the petition on the council website.
She asked for the petition to remain open to see if it could reach the 1,250 threshold required for a debate.
A straw poll of the group found that many of its members had not seen any leaflets about the public consultation.
At the same meeting, Gerry Walden told councillors that the King Alfred questionnaire was “slanted” in favour of a move to Hangleton.
He asked why the council was not looking again at a mixed commercial and leisure centre scheme on the existing site.
Mr Walden also said that the seafront site was well served by public transport, with many people walking or cycling to the pool, whereas the Hangleton site was served by few buses and would not be as accessible by bike.
Labour councillor Alan Robins said that no decision had been made yet and that the current site was not ruled out. But the results of the public consultation would be put before councillors in the summer.
Councillor Robins said: “The decision will be informed by the outcomes of the recent consultation and by the work we’ve been doing over the last nine months with experts in sport and leisure to examine value for money implications of the delivery options.
“The work has shown us that delivery on the existing site would be more complex, more expensive, more constrained and will carry a greater risk.
“The past three attempts to deliver the new facility on the site using mixed commercial and leisure development have all failed, highlighting the challenges of the site.”
I think a bi-election costs £200K so a referendum must be a lot more. I don’t know who Laura King is but she was in the Daily Mail article complaining about something else and regularly turns up in local media complaining about other stuff.
Laura King is a Journalist, and a local lady, who is passionate about her area, and can, like a growing number of us, see the total squandering of public money on Vanity Projects, and Green Agendas. Which are anything but Green as far as protecting the environment goes.
Having seen her presentation at the recent Council Meeting, I have to say, it was clear that we have the wrong people sitting on our Council. Some of which, it recently turned out, don’t even live in the area, and were clearly only in it for the money! I wonder how many more are like that?
Time to clean up our Councils, and get people in who really care!
Laura King wants to bring back common sense into local politics. She is also passionate about ensuring that our freedoms are maintained, instead of being steadily eroded as they currently are. We need more like Laura King
Laura King just doesn’t want flats at the KA site, and that is at the expense of a sizeable population who reside in other parts of the city who require better facilities.
Laura has some quite bizarre concepts if you starting looking into her socials. Exudes that “I’m a sovereign individual meaning I can break laws” energy.
She’s an attention seeking conspiracy theorist who was firmly rejected by the electorate in the last local elections.
I attended both the consultation at The King Alfred, and Hangleton Community Centre. The first was poorly attended due to the fact that few people, even members of the leisure facility, were even aware of the consultation taking place. There were no prominent posters up, and when speaking to members, it became apparent, that they hadn’t even received an email or letters regarding these proposals.
The second, at Hangleton Community Centre was a fiasco. The Council chose, what appeared to be the smallest room in the centre which clearly couldn’t hold the large number of people who had turned up.
When I enquired about the potential of Option 3. Restoring the King Alfred to its former glory, as outline by Laura King during her excellent presentation at the last Council Meeting. I was met with a blank look, and a rather lame dismissal. I was told that it would cost £18 million and would require the replacement of steels and the removal of asbestos. And would last for 10 years. With no further explanation.
Considering both Option 1 and Option 2 would also require this, and I’m certain would cost a lot more, both financially, and environmentally, what is wrong with Option 3?
Is there any wonder why the public are concerned about these proposals?
We have seen the state of these New Builds, which seem to go up almost overnight, and only have a guarantee of 10 -20 years. You only have to visit Shoreham to see the state of the developments along the banks at the mouth of the River Adur. The first, on the former Royal Mail site, started to subside before completion. Due to this, the measly 10 year guarantee isn’t even given. Yet developments in this area continued at great speed. Now the one opposite Halfords has brickwork falling out, and the cream brickwork is already turning green with mildew. Before it’s even been completed!
With excess flooding locally, is it wise to concrete over yet another Green Site in Hangleton? Benefield Valley is a Green Lung in the area, not only providing a space for exercising ( currently used by Portslade Cricket Club), dog walking etc, but is also a habitat for wildlife. It is also a natural soakaway during wet weather. Do we really want to see in Portslade what is happening in Southwick and Lancing due to the developments on the Old Brook in Southwick and the flood plain by Shoreham Airport? Which has resulted in excess flooding and sewage in the areas due to Brooks being diverted and flood Plains and natural soakaway being destroyed!
We are constantly being bombarded with ‘Climate Change’ yet the councils appear to be the ones who are adding to the chaos with their obsession for developments!
There are already commercial businesses running from the King Alfred.
The coffee shop in the entrance is run by a staff gym member, who also runs as a private Personal Trainer and owns the coffee shop. He will not only, potentially be out of a job, he would also have to find alternative venues for his other two businesses.
This whole thing looks like another Land Grab, with Public Assets being sold and destroyed under our very noses!
It’s time for the Council to hold an Open, Transparent, and Honest Public Referendum. With clear Plans for All Options. Which is something they haven’t been able to do so far.
Can’t help but wonder what’s really behind this.
Is it mere Stupidity of our Council? In which case they need to Go.
Or is it being controlled by Greed? In which case they have to Go!
Significantly better return of investment for Options 1 & 2 vs Option 3, I would imagine.
Repairs are at the point where they’d need major replacements, at a significant cost, to the point it is financially more viable to build a new building, with better returns, as you say.
So, getting to substance of that unfocused comment; fillibusting being a skill I note you employ often, and has gotten you kicked out of places on at least one occasion, you didn’t get your own way regarding consideration of restoring the King Alfred.
Mainly because that discussion had happened last year, deemed unviable, and no-one wanted to rehash old ground.
For someone who is passionate about their community, you would really benefit from being focused in your words.
Could you provide a link to reports of the discussion about whether the existing KA building is viable? I tried to get at the basis for this decision by emailing the project team and was told it was confidential.
Yeah absolutely, most of the information is collated in this part of the BHCC website that goes into the details around the decision making on this, there’s quite a bit backed from 2016, so it’s been in the works for a long while: https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/city-regeneration/major-developments/king-alfred-development
There’s also a discussion of it in City Plan Part 1; which I’m afraid is a bit of a long read as a 241-page document, but puts KA into a wider strategic approach aligned with the city holistically.
https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/city-plan-part-one
Thank you for the links, that’s helpful.
Well said 👏🏻👏🏻
Any big city decision not coming from the residents but affecting thousands of residents should be subject to a referendum.
BHCC have offered one for some projects but not others.
If they stuck to serving us rather than inflicting their own projects on us, that would reduce the number of public referendums necessary.
The King Alfred is not any old building either but a building of national maritime importance because of the role it served in winning WWII.
Don’t tell us the intelligence and skills do not exist to restore it to its former flagship glory as the South Coast’s destination leisure centre when it was first built.
What referendums has the council offered for other projects?
Please give chapter and verse.
There’s a referendum for the Hove Gardens development
So it was used as a training facility for reservists – seems you are trying to inflate its importance during WWIi – looks like the swimming pool was an after thought – https://www.mybrightonandhove.org.uk/topics/armed-forces/royal-navy-1939-1945/the-royal-navy-6
You put a lot of stock into referendums, even though they have no power, Barry. Also, if every decision was run through a comprehensive referendum, nothing would happen, because every action would get bogged down, you’d be constantly writing opinions, and you’d ultimately get tired of participating. It would have the complete opposite effect on what you are trying to achieve.
You’d end up with less engagement from community, and a much slower responsiveness from council.
Not if referendums were done properly Benjy boy. The council threatening to be even slower than they are if democracy is insisted upon are is a good thing if it applies to the KA. They are the only ones in an indecent haste to get rid of the KA and sell off Hove public beach for high priced tower blocks.
What is your understanding of a “proper” referendum would be a useful question here?
King Alfred’s refurbishment has been on the table since before 2016; that’s over eight years. I’m not sure I would label that “indecent haste” personally. I’d also refer to you the City Plan Part 1 published in March 2016 as well, because, what you’re trying to articulate is already being done. Once again, I fear you’re going in half-cocked, and lacking core background information.
Where is the documented decision to sell the KA land for the latest 2 proposals?
If the KA was sold and the site used to build flats it would be criminal. No consideration for the locals and all those that use it.
Why would it be criminal? Housing is sorely needed. I like the idea of senior housing for our older residents, and moving those eligible from council flats would free up some social flats for those struggling to find a home. Our older residents would benefit from being in a purpose-built property as well, so they can stay independent for longer.
Good to see all Laura’s supporters posting here.
Was there a similar petition for those in the city who are in favour of a new facility in Hangleton better serving residents of Hove and Portslade with better public transport access?
Perhaps we need referendums on every decision the council makes – but isn’t that what ward councillors are elected to do?
I think if you had referendums on every decision, you’d have an absurd situation where democratic fatigue would quickly set in, and you’d have less engagement.
I think you make a good point though, your Ward Councillors are elected. One assumes you vote for one that broadly aligns with your views. This isn’t always going to be perfect, and those who voted someone else might not have their minority views represented at all.
Referendums should only be necessary for big decisions outside of everyday city running. They shouldn’t be needed that often in a well run city serving its residents. Cool your beans Mr B..
Yeah, but this would be a referendum held purely for a bunch of NIMBYs horrified of losing their sea view.
And leisure centre.
And public beach.
“Big Decisions.”
I think that is kind of where your argument starts to fall apart in this context. As I mentioned above, this was part of a process back in 2016. Furthermore, referendums are effectively pointless in this context, as a “well-run city serving its residents” will have a long-term strategic plan already in place. I feel all you are doing is arguing for non-specific communicative methods for the minutia of the strategic plan.
And once again, referendums have loads of downsides to them, some of which are against what you have challenged previously on here and against the spirit of what you’re articulating. Referendums can undermine representative democracy by bypassing elected representatives and decision-making processes. Referendums can be manipulated. Complex issues are often reduced to a simple yes or no questions, which can lead to oversimplification of important matters. This can result in voters making decisions without fully understanding the complexities involved.
You are scared of a yes or no answer because that would expose the residents don’t want to lose the KA, whereas a consultation can be manipulated. Which it was.
Pretty much explained why yes and no questions are a bad idea. You’ve proven my point with your own oversimplification interpretation of my explanation, Barry.
Agree completely.
Redevelopment of King Alfred has been talked about for decades so starting a petition now aimed at saving the current building seems about 20 years too late.
Proposed site next to Sainsburys is far better connected to public transport with links to all parts of the city.
Residents in the west have long been forgotten when it comes to council facilities. Residents in central hove will still easily be able to access the proposed Hangleton, Prince Regent and Withdean sports centers whereas residents in Portslade, Hangleton , Mile Oak and Fishersgate currently face a lengthy trek to any leisure centre.
The population in Hangleton and Portslade is far less well off than the population in central Hove and thus will have poorer health.
Because of this moving it East makes sense, as it will have the chance to uplift more people’s health, further.
There’s more need of recreational facilities at the Portslade end of town. In the center you’ve already got the Prince Regent pool, why be greedy (fighting to keep two sites), rather than sharing facilities more fairly across the City?
The proposal though does the exact opposite. It destroys the football and cricket facilities we have in portslade
I worked in construction for 40 years, 1 building restored to contain, 1 Olympic size 50metre swimming pool, 1 learner pool, 1 splash pool, cycle training, gym, sports hall, health and fitness centre, add to which there has to be changing rooms, showers, cafe. Because it will be a “new” build it should include on site parking but probably not. Not an engineer but someone should do a print out comparison showcase expo, maybe then peoples expectations could be shortened by reality. Unless of course it can be multi storey and under ground to allow for all of it, mmmm height restrictions, unless the council waives this rule,, and allow extending the site down to the water, built on a pier extending in the direction of France maybe,,,, Immigration might object to giving easy access to boat people but apart from all that I think it works,
Sarcasm aside, I think proposing models for various options might be very useful for helping people visualise options.
Maybe there is also a larger lesson in how layman public are facilitated to make informed comments on a project, rather than purely relying on their own experience and knowledge, which may be limited with that particular field.
Sarcasm ?? You would be shocked at the amount of monkey and muppet opinions and ideas that appear when trying to build by a plan and drawings that are already approved and priced. I’ve walked away often enough because of it.
Unrealistic wants and targets? I can imagine on principle that must mind boggling.
It’s generally ok when everything is priced, agreed, approved, then some bright spark arrives with ideas and demands outside of everything. My first answer to them is the cost of re-design and that would generally be the end of it but as you may know,,,, there’s always one. That’s when I step away, it’s usually down to greed, trying to include get something not included in the price. I step away because 100% fore sure that one will cause payment problems as well.
Is the petition on the council website still open? I feel as if we’ve been left in the dark deliberatley. I’m a member of the KA and know nothing of its future (no information).
Well done Laura king,and all the other commentators, it’s about time this concern about the kind ALFRED leisure centre was given it’s time to go to the people ,because it’s for the many,and it should be given over for public consultation, I can only guess as to why not and that is,they are afraid of the result, IT MUST STAY,AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THE THE PROPOSED COSTS,ITS SCARE MONGERING AT BEST, BUT AS ALWAYS THEY BELIEVE IN THE DREADED DEVELOPERS, THIS PREVIOUS LABOUR COUNCIL HAS HISTORY, WE STILL DO NOT KNOW THE REAL COST OF THE REFURBISHMENT OF THE TOWN HALL UNDER MR MORGAN.
Nothing makes me not feel like it’s unhinged quite like a comment that descends into all capitals. You not believing in something is hardly a winning argument. If you have some experience to challenge a figure, then do so.
Saying “I don’t believe it” is the equivalent of sticking ones fingers in their ears, shutting their eyes, and going “Lala, I’m not listening.”
You really think talking down to commentators is going to win them over?
They are going to lose their leisure centre if they listen to you.. Not that hard to understand. We have every right to fight back. You don’t have to approve of how we do it. Got That?
Nope, I’m just pointing out the fatal flaws in their arguments and methods. Up to them if they choose to continue ineffectually; certainly hasn’t improved your debating so far Mr Johnson.
I know Sean has thick skin, and is more than capable of having a debate with me, and I hope he works on the way he presents his arguments. Grammar makes a difference.
The whole KA plan is built on a pack of lies.
That is the fatal flaw that worries you most.
Unfortunately, saying something is “a pack of lies” doesn’t qualify as anything other than unsubstantiated paranoia. As I have asked you before, be better in your comments.
What’s your purpose on here?
I like to challenge alternative points of view for some debate and occasionally challenge people to be better at it. My purpose is that I enjoy both; it helps me improve my thoughts, even if it’s just metaphorical sharpening against a blunt object.
Building a new sports and leisure center to replace the King Alfred on the empty land and car park next door to the current KA would be a wonderful enhancement to this the new Hove Beach Park development. Opportunity to create a wonderful integrated leisure/health/sport venue for all right next to our famous beach and the sea. Something for everyone. What an opportunity. Let’s hope that the so-called “community consultation” is not used as an excuse to build the KA replacement at Sainsburys on Old Shoreham Rd so that mega-money can be raised from the sale of the sites to make Hove look more and more like Alicante. Time to give the whole city and wider area a fantastic facility and legacy. The new leisure centre integrated with the new Hove Beach Park. Opportunity like this comes once in a lifetime.
Just to say that there are residents who would like it to move to Hangleton.
About 3% in last sm straw poll as I recall. On Portslade Cricket Ground? Yeah. Right.
A totally valid point Nick and I am led to beleive that in the consultation an overwhelming majority living in Hangleton/ Portslade/ West Hove were pro a move. I’m not saying that it should be done but if you are having a consultation you need to listen.
What we do not need is another campaign whose only result is to prevent anything ever happening.
I think we have a few examples of that being the case in Brighton, don’t we Malcolm?
Are you suggesting we all roll over and let the council sell off Hove beach for tower blocks without protest ?
You must be a beneficiary of this outcome.
I’m suggesting arguing without a plan, half cocked, is a terrible way of facilitating change, regardless of how you stand on an issue.
It’s a bit like ad hominems; all they evidence is a lack of substance to one’s arguments, especially if the most impactful thing you can think of writing is a fictional insult.
Do better Barry, be a better debater. You clearly have some interest in Brighton. Just focus that into insightful, intelligent, and educated thoughts.
Rebirth of existing King Alfred is the plan. The most sustainable and sensible of all plans. Nothing ,’half-cocked’ about it. Developer’s wet dream at electorate expense denied.
It’s been several days Barry, have you not looked at the paperwork yet?
Interesting to read the comments above.
One thing that is not mentioned, is what the Councill expects to get for selling the existing site – money talks!
However as is well documented, the current site is in a good location, where it will be used by residents and visitors alike.
Its a huge site, if you take the complete foot print from Hove Street to St Aubyn’s, there is ample space for a phased re-development, which should keep as much of the original building as is strategically possible.
As for replacing it with a facility by Sainsburys off Old Shoreham Road, this would be a complete White Elephant.
It would not be used by Visitors/Holiday Makers and would be less accessible to residents.
Ah, finances are mentioned in the City Plan, I linked it above – it’s part of how they budget for a new build.
They had their chances back in 2004 and everyone moaned soooooo much that by the time they did finally get planning permission the 2008 crash happened
And reconfirmed as part of the strategic plan back in 2016!
No Hangleon option mentioned in 2016 plan so obsolete.
It’s not even a great building or of any interest architecturally. Get rid of it and build something decent. People need to get a grip and concentrate on saving buildings of value.
I have met no one that wants this is Hangleton. Its laughable to build over a green field protected site tgats used for football and cricket and a sports facility in Benfield to put a sports facility on it , and stop football and cricket on the site ……
Why don’t the council just admit they want to build blocks of flats on the existing sea front site. At least be honest as it’s obvious thats what they want having attended one of their rediculous “consulations”
Below is what I got from the project team in response to questions about 1) publication of the responses to the recent survey 2) present running costs of the King Alfred and 3) whether I could see structural surveys etc. that deemed the current building to be unviable.
They are being very secretive, aren’t they? It is looking as if the public will be allowed to turn up at the cabinet meeting at which this decision will be taken, but without the benefit of any of the background information that ought to inform this decision. Can’t be right, can it?
——-
Survey results
Once the responses to the recent survey have been analysed the results will be compiled into a summary report. That will form part of the decision paper that will be considered by cabinet in the summer, where a final decision on the choice of site will be taken. The decision paper will also be informed by the business case which we have been developing over the last nine months with specialist experts Continuum Sport and Leisure and their architects Faulkner Brown. The business case has been developed using the HM Treasury approved ‘Green Book’ approach which assesses each option from a value for money perspective. Guidance on the Green Book methodology can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-government/the-green-book-2020. Cabinet will take both into account when making their decision.
The cabinet paper will be published ahead of the cabinet meeting, which will be a public meeting, and there will be scope for residents to make deputations in a similar way as for committee meetings. The schedule of cabinet meetings is expected to agreed later this month and published early next month. Once we have confirmed the date for the cabinet meeting to consider the King Alfred proposals that will also be published on the council website here: Committees, council meetings and decision making (brighton-hove.gov.uk)
Running Costs for the King Alfred Sports Centre
This is commercially sensitive information which we would not be able to share.
Structural survey
A detailed survey of the site has been completed which will inform the business case mentioned above. The implications of that report are presently being considered, and it would not be appropriate to share that publicly at this stage of the project. As with the survey results and business case, the survey will inform the decision paper to be considered by Cabinet later this year.
—-
I mean, I would have told you instantly you weren’t going to get commercially sensitive information regarding costs. That’s a very standard rejection reason for an FOI request. Sounds like a wait for the full information to be available, which is perfectly reasonable, then attend the public meeting, which is also perfectly reasonable!
I’m well aware that such requests (this one not done under FOI) are often refused, but since prohibitive running costs are frequently cited in relation to the KA it seemed very on-point to ask about it. And why would some rough ball-park figures be commercially sensitive? It sounds to me more like an excuse than a reason.
Similarly, if the existing building needs to be flattened (and perhaps it does) then it’s completely legit to ask why, and hard to see why this it is ‘not … appropriate’ to share the background on this, particularly if – as you suggest above – that decision was taken a while back (and I have asked you above if you could offer some links on that, and would be grateful if you could).
Key point for me is this: it is completely nuts to move Hove’s main leisure centre to a cricket pitch in Hangleton with terrible transport links, unless you drive a car. Everything else (including arguments over referenda) is just noise, really.
Hmm, I see what you mean there. A non-quantitative understanding of the prohibitive running costs would indeed be helpful to inform. Hopefully, those links I gave you give some more background reading into the project as a whole – I would have thought your request for information might have pointed you towards that initially, apologies for assuming this was the case.
Public transportation is a very important point; I’d be keen to challenge the council on that as well. Accessibility to sports facilities should be pretty high on the agenda, especially if they want to ensure successful use of the space if that is indeed the goal.
All the things they want – a pool , sports hall, gym etc is already there. The pool is excellent and needs no improvement. The building itself needs to be renovated /improved or knocked down & rebuilt with less non functional rooms .
Had it been maintained in the first place this wouldn’t be an issue!
Pools have had a hard time over the last couple of years, COVID-19, of course, was a big one, but also the lack of chlorine supplies limited it, increased running costs, and cost of living meant that people couldn’t afford them. A phantasmagoria of issues.
There’s perhaps a discussion to be had about making use of some of the space in a different way instead of knocking it down completely. A community asset perhaps taken on by a CBS, with some social rate housing on top, managed by the CBS as core funding for the asset?
Definitely a thought.
Oh just go and swim in the sea then! You have a natural open air swimming pool on your doorstep. You’ve had it good for so long. Let another area of B&H benefit for a change. Trying to get to the seafront from B&H’s northern estates takes for ages but as usual it’s all about the affluent, campaigning middle classes having to get in their cars for a change. It’s not all about you!
How about the not particularly affluent people who live in the centre who don’t drive cars? Such as me?
I’d agree that provision for sport and leisure needs improvement in the northern areas, but having just one facility (the Regent, which not so great) for the whole of the central city is mad for a place that is supposed to be England’s premier resort.
And swimming in the sea is not for everyone, especially given the pollution issues.
Metropole Hotel? Sea Lanes Kemptown? Both a short cycle away. Both on seafront.
Premier resort? LOL. And tourists swim in the sea, not the KA.
£11 a pop at Sea Lanes. Metropole pool is tiny – like a paddling pool!
So what is England’s premier resort if it isn’t Brighton?
Well the estate residents have been having to fork out for transport to get to the beach all this time anyway, which along with pool costs probably equates to the figure you quoted; there are always going to be folk who lose out.
I would hedge a bet on somewhere in Devon/Cornwall is more desirable than Brighton with it’s soiled nappies on the beach and San.Fran/LA type drug & tent city on the street – not somewhere I’d want to take children.
Bring on MAYOR ISABELLA and they can take all decisions without timewasting consultations.
Shame going. There are options though. Soho house gym good, sea lanes great and lots of good PTs in hove
I was one of those people unable to sign the petition for a ‘technical’ reason. I now understand what, from reading the above! What a nasty and sly move on the part of the Council.
As someone commented, why don’t the Council admit they want to sell the KA site to a building developer.
Hangleton is not accessible by public transport, has anyone considered how much more difficult this will be for anyone with disabilities to access. I have daughters who will never be able to drive. It seems to me this is another council objective which is exactly opposite of building an inclusive society. Will feel as a family we are being ‘pushed’ out of Brighton by multiple council decisions. We need easy public access to leisure facilities.
For historical information on Benfield Valley and all the various protest groups that have been against any developments may I suggest https://hovehistory.blogspot.com/2021/03/benfield-valley-hangleton.html?m=1
If the the Hangleton option finally gives a leisure centre that’s of modern standards, then please let that happen.
This small seaside town has a sizeable population that resides beyond the 500m distance of most KA users.
Their agenda is to avoid having flats being built there, and in the meantime the leisure facilities for the majority are an awful state.