Publishing details about the poor condition of the King Alfred Leisure Centre could put people off going there, according to newly released council papers.
The admission is included in a defence by council cabinet members of their decision to rebuild the Hove leisure centre on its current site rather than in Benfield Valley.
A group of seven Green and Conservative councillors called in Brighton and Hove City Council cabinet’s decision, made last month, saying that not enough information had been published to back it up.
The call-in will be considered at a special scrunity meeting on Monday, and the cabinet’s official response has now been published as part of the committee papers.
Among the opposition councillors’ concerns were that the case for refurbishing the existing leisure centre King Alfred assumed just a 10-year-life span.
According to the cabinet response this was based on a report by structural engineers Engegnuity (corr).
The response said: “Disclosure of the detailed information about the condition of the facility could also impact the council’s contracted leisure management operator Freedom Leisure.
“Disclosure could affect Freedom Leisure’s ability to attract and retain members at the existing facility, leading to fewer people using the centre, and therefore affecting income and the financial viability of the centre.”
Engegnuity’s plan involved removing asbestos, structural concrete repairs, reinforcing the foundations and renewing the roof.
The report included new information about repairs needed to concrete in the “beach” area of the swimming pool, revealing seawater flooding resulted in the need to close the pools and the loss of all heating for three months last year.
At the time the council and centre operator Freedom Leisure stated the issues were with the boiler’s heating panel – no flooding was mentioned.
Opposition councillors are also putting the case for the detailed business case to be made public.
It had been presented in what is known as “part two” papers, which are debated in private session.
The cabinet says this was because of commercial sensitivity, as it contained detailed information about the finance and economic model and land valuation.
The cabinet response papers said: “The business case report considered by cabinet members set out a detailed examination of the financial and economic costs and benefits of the replacement and refurbishment options, which were summarised in the Part 1 (public) report appendices.
“The cabinet members making the decision therefore had access to all the supporting information to ensure that their decision was properly and fully informed.”
Monday’s Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee will receive a copy of the business case for their deliberations.
Opposition councillors also say the plans are based on the leisure centre being classed as a “standard building” but the demolition and construction process is potentially complex as it involves swimming pools.
In response, the cabinet argues swimming pools, gyms and sports halls are not unique but well-established designs.
The cabinet said: “Whilst the new facility will have a custom design to fit the site and complement the surrounding area, all components of the design, such as the swimming pools, gym, sports halls, and studios are well-established design elements.
“None of these are unique. The new facility will be built on the western end of the site, so the demolition of the current building is not part of the project considered in the business case.”
The Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 5pm on Monday 12 August. The meeting is scheduled for webcast on the council website.
I find the gym now known as Fitlab, distinct from the Freedom one, very good. How would any proposed rebuilding include this, which occupies four floors on the east of the building?
Whilst opposition councillors putting the case for the detailed business case to be made public in principle is a reasonable one, I fear that many would struggle to understand it. Such a disclosure would definitely require a good explanation for laypeople.
Money could be raised in fines from those gym members at King Alfred who habitually park their cars on the foot paths around the gym.
The neglect has been deliberate to give succcessive Councils an excuse to sell off the ‘site’ to developers over the years.
There is nothing about the King Alfred which can’t be fixed and at fraction of the quoted £47m cost of rebuilding.
Instead of vandals and rioters, let’s see some useful urban guerrilla flash mobs going round with trowels and mortar boards to refix the pointing outside, some of which has clearly been deliberately chiselled out to undermine the structural integrity of the building, which was VERY STRONGLY BUILT, unlike the modern rubbish they throw up nowadays.
I hate to repeat the same thing we always tell you, but where is your evidence that the KA has been willfully neglected? Or that is has been deliberately vandalised?
You don’t know the details of the damage either, so you cannot claim the figure is incorrect either.
Seriously Barry, I thought we got past this?
the cafe was shut a lot and due to rat droppings i heard from an employee . This was two years back. I loved all the facilities there but it’s old.
Council meeting on Monday 12th August, Hove Town Hall at 5pm
https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/documents/s201684/Call%20in%20Report%20King%20Alfred%20Leisure%20Centre%20Regeneration%20Project.pdf
I live near the King Alfred and have used it weekly for 15 years to swim and attend ballroom events ( most recently last Saturday). Whatever works are required are not interrupting my use and enjoyment of the facilities nor it would seem those I witness alongside me. In spite of this works do continue to keep the building fit for purpose. I am one of many thousands of supporters evidenced in BHCC consultations, electronic, media and social media communications who wholeheartedly wish to keep all the existing facilities on the current site. The building has not been well maintained, however, it is clearly of sturdy construction despite that and we have plenty of skilled trades and professionals who can restore it and continue its serviceability for many years, possibly longer than a new build. We have many buildings in the country that have been successfully returned to sound, well maintained and well used, profitable facilities. Saltdean Lido being one. I can reference others if required.
I think the usage will fall dramatically if moved to the other site; for many people it would involve buses (and therefore more expense) and no time for after school swimming lessons. The amount of money spent on the totally unnecessary hove lawns “amenities” could have been better used towards the new KA
Yes, but the building has little architectural merit and if it has significant issues with asbestos and crumbling concrete, the argument in favour of replacing it with a functionally-superior new build must be strong.
Also, as it will be built on the car park land at the western extreme of the site, it may be possible for the existing facility to remain open while the new one is being built, which wouldn’t be the case with a major rebuild.
The great victory for the campaigners was to keep the sports centre at its present site, even though it might well have been more financially attractive for the Council to have built it at Benfield Valley.
As the current building’s mundane and dated style would appear to even greater disadvantage if a modern block of flats were built right alongside it, the decision does appear to have some justification.
The building is outdated, unsafe and a total eyesore. The space could be used for something much better. This city is in dire need of a proper modern leisure centre. Both KA and PR are disgusting. We need something like Splashpoint in Worthing and this is the ideal location. You’re always going to get a tiny vocal group of pensioners moaning because they don’t like change, but we can’t keep the city frozen in time forever. Not everything is worth keeping. This is a building which provides a service, much the same as the recent (long overdue!) demolitions at the Royal Sussex, we absolutely SHOULD be taking these buildings down to replace them with something better. I was born in this city and swim regularly, I’d love to see this knackered old relic torn down and replaced with a new centre!
Splash point seems to get mentioned regularly – but it’s really not a good analogy: it’s small, unambitious, no sports halls, parking is just as bad as KA, and it can’t hold events. It’s a reasonable utility pool, but Brighton should be able to do much better
It’s a very reasonable point. Graded buildings cripple developments both in terms of restrictions and expenses. They can certainly be delisted, and when we consider, as you say, this is a working building providing a service, why are we making things harder for ourselves, when we are in a time where frugality is an important aspect?
So is the pool a) full of sewage or b) very clean water. Simple question
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/gehry-seafront-towers-to-dominate-brighton-97582.html
Progress mmm
In today’s BHCC meeting council admitted they hadn’t even done a full structural survey on the King Alfred so they are making a £47m decision based on false premises.