Seven sites are to be considered as an alternative site for a replacement for the ageing King Alfred leisure centre.
Brighton and Hove City Council asked owners of land in the west of the city suitable for a new pool complex to come forward in January.
It said any site would have to have parking and be accessible by public transport.
The existing 1939 building is no longer fit for purpose and had to close last winter after its 50-year-old boilers stopped working.
After the failure of two previous schemes to redevelop it, the council had already started work on a strategy for replacing it, as part of a larger review of all the city’s public sports facilities.
The new leisure centre may yet end up remaining on the same site, or another council-owned site. But all options, including buying a site from a private landowner, are being considered.
A council spokesman said: “The process has received significant interest and we anticipate up to seven expressions of interest will be assessed.”
No details of which sites have been submitted for consideration were disclosed.
Whatever happens, it is likely housing will be built at the current site in order to pay for the redevelopment.
The council’s sports facilities investment plan, published in 2021, includes developing three large leisure hubs in the north, east and west of the city by 2031.
It’s intended the new west hub facility would provide a more modern, energy efficient building which would enable the city to host major competitions and events.
It should be on the same site. No good having to go miles for a swimming pool.
You’d benefit from reading the investment plan, Sarah. It states the answer to this very question!
Depends on where you are coming from! You presumably live close to the existing site, Sarah!?
Something to watch for here is that the existing pool is not demolished before new facilities are built.
Otherwise we risk what happened in the 1980s with the beautiful lido at Black Rock, which was torn down on the promise of new facilities at the Marina which never materialised.
Worthing managed to build a new pool next door to the old one, which was then taken down and flats put on it. That’s the order in which things need to be done and that ought to be a red line for the council.
Moulscoomb? – there is no pool in North Brighton. Or Portslade?
Prince Regent & St Luke’s already cater for central area.
To quote Sarah Starfish above “No good having to go miles for a swimming pool”
Oh wait, yes we northern city residents have to travel 4-5 miles to get to central ones already.
Excellent point, and you both agree with each other, albeit a little variation on the means. Swimming pools should be easily accessed as part of a healthy lifestyle for resdients.
The King Alfred site is big enough to build a large new facility in the car park area and then demolish the old building. No need to look at other sites.
That is likely one of the considerations, Ken. Standard practice.
Not going to that shithole for a swim. Come out and car will be gone or get lockers broken into.
Ah, you’re driving? Then really distance is not an problem for you, and the argument is a moot point!
With all the excellent redevelopment of Kingsway to the Sea project with its improvements to sporting facilities, it makes sense to keep King Alfred and other facilities (eg indoor sports halls, etc) on its present site to have a real sporting hub.
However, there’s a major flaw in that line of reasoning; the costs to repair are not reasonable, and this could be used to build new modern facilities in a fiscally responsible way.
I’m not into conspiracy theories but this one is a bit to obvious. Get the pool moved elsewhere. Then sell this site to a developer who then does not have to provide a penny to redevelop it. The looser us tax payers
Belinda, it’s not a conspiracy if they literally tell you they want to use the development of its current site to fund a new building.
Hey it’s Christian I thought brightion was getting a full time ice skating ring they want to buid it were the king Alfred is now
How much does the land value increase when you change land use from recreational to residential?
Does the city make the profit or the “lucky” developer?