A new leisure centre for Hove and Portslade is set to be built on the site of the King Alfred, a report out today says.
Brighton and Hove City Council has been consulting on plans to either keep a leisure centre at the Hove seafront site, or at an alternative site in Benfield Valley.
Today, a report set to go in front of the council’s cabinet, where it is expected to be rubber-stamped, recommends it should be built on the seafront.
Although the Benfield Valley site would have been a much better financial investment, the seafront site is preferred because the Benfield site is a designated green space, and the consultation overwhelmingly favoured the seafront site.
The report says: “Refurbishing the facility represents a poor investment, returning just 47p in value for each £1 invested. This reflects the relatively high costs (£13.98 million) and the very limited benefits that would be realised in terms of increased participation and improved health outcomes for the city.
“Both delivery options examined for the existing site [a low rise development and a stacked one, with basement parking and taller blocks] represent acceptable investment options, with the more costly basement parking version representing a better overall investment proposition, returning £1.74 for each £1 invested.
“This is largely due to the increased capital receipt received from the disposal of more of the existing site for development, reducing the need for borrowing.
“The [Benfield Valley] site offering a very good investment option, returning £3.12 for each £1 invested. This is in part due to the greater health and wellbeing benefits expected to be generated, in part due to the greater land value uplift achieved, and in part due to the option enabling the maximum capital receipt to be achieved for the existing site.
“However, there are planning, legal, and other factors which favour the existing site.”
The report said these factors include the designation of the Benfield site as green space, and the legal delays in removing a covenant on the land preventing it being built on.
It added: “An alternative ground for Portslade Cricket Club would need to beprovided. Sport England are expected to be sensitive to the loss of a playing field, even though the planned development is a sports and leisure centre, and an objection from Sport England could also result in the application being ‘called in’ for determination by the Secretary of State.
“Whilst the results of the public engagement reflect differing views from different parts of the community, the most recent survey work showed a clear preference for the existing King Alfred site.
“Seven in ten respondents indicated that a new facility at the existing site would be part of their active and healthy lifestyle, compared with 37% for the [Benfield] site.”
The report says the new centre is expected to cost £47.4 million, and asks for permission to borrow £2.7 million to progress the project as far as a planning application.
This will include appointing a lead architect and design team.
Work is not expected to begin on site before early 2026 and the facility is not expected to open before Spring 2028.
The intention is to keep the current facility open and operating for as long as is possible.
Just hoping they actually do the rebuild and the locals actually approve of the new design. I recall they objected to all previous proposals.
How long will Hove and Portslade be without a leisure centre whilst they old one is demolished and the new one built (which would not have been an issue with the financially more beneficial Benfield option)?
At least until Spring 2028.
Although locals have objected to all previous plans it has always been the finances that have brought them down, not objections. I guess this is going to happen again.
The draft plans on the council website envisage building the new facility on the carpark, meaning that the old centre could remain in operation until the new one is built – as happened in Worthing.
Finally – someone has seen sense!! Excellent news!
At a doubling of the cost though, and the original plans was going to pay for the new facilities with the selling of original site, so I’m not clear on how this is to be financed.
Well we could have just not run the old one into the ground – this place has an amazing history and I bet you could do an incredible refurb and restoration for what they will ultimately spend on a replacement.
I didn’t know until recently that the pool used to use filtered sea water, and, that there were 3 water slide tubes that ran outside the building
This is good news. It surely makes good sense to have a sport and leisure facility to complement the other provision in the new Hove Beach Park – and access to the proposed alternative site would have been a nightmare.
We have been pushing for a rebuild for the King Alfred for years. Hopefully this can now progress. Look at Splashpoint in Worthing. Several years onward still looking fresh. Sympathetic accommodation & great facilities.
But at a much greater cost and no longer receiving income from the sale of the original site, councillor. I believe your expertise is in city planning, right? What would you do to finance this most effectively in the current climate?
Most people using the King Alfred facility actually walk there hence used often, having it moved to the Benfield site would make people having to get in a car to get there , so not very practical !
You’d capture a different group of people that wouldn’t travel to the original site on balance.
The Benfield site is well away from the areas of densest population in the City. In terms of ‘greatest good of the greatest number’ it just doesn’t work, on balance.
That’s a fair point, Howard. Although, I would suggest that is an excellent argument for more leisure facilities rather than just one?
At last, some sort of decision. King Alfred has not been fit for the purpose for decades, mainly because of developers trying to get all the profit out of the site. Remember those wobbly blocks of flats? A decent swimming pool and associated fitness facilities is all that’s needed, preferably by 2050!
King Alfred
We have been pushing for years for a rebuild of the King Alfred at its current venue. Sympathetic accommodation & a great modern facility will work – look at Splashpoint in Worthing. 🤞 this time it will happen.
Hopefully the new refurb includes diving boards like Worthing ( Splashpoint) and tubes and a wave pool! At the least diving boards
I suspect the design will need to be conservative to account for the overall increased costs of the site.
This should happen i dont get why brighton doesnt have a decent pool with flumes and slides everywhere else has a cool leasure centre all that gets built these days are blocks of flats everywhere
I would gently suggest it is because we’ve chosen the most expensive way of refurbishing it based on the current ideas.
The value to the city as a whole and context support for the seafront is the biggest variable that has to be the biggest consideration.
Big blocks of flats add no value to visitors (apart from airbnb, second homes, empty chunks of investment). Sale to developers would get exactly that outcome.
The city needs an image uplift, something to counter its current squalor, drugs and alcohol image as a hen and stag, party and student playground.
A huge sports development ON ITS OWN, capable of hosting – say – competion swimming, indoor tennis, basketball etc events would serve image, reputation, visitors & residents, with sea-facing food and drink facility that could replace the ballroom hosting weddings and other community events and service the thousands that flock to the esplanade just to walk there.
In short, a city-wide, area-wide service benefit as the basic site use, that means it earns its keep, over and above just council tax revenue generation.
agreed
Like the Sea Lanes?
Very happy to hear that the new leisure centre will be built on the king Alfred site…i will definitely use the new centre, cant wait! Its good to have the seafront regenerated continuously all the way along to the lagoon making it an attractive healthy active seafront for all of the population. I don’t think I would go to the other site.
The logical option but the Council does not need to sell off parts of the site as this is a long term investment benefitting locals both in financial and health terms. Central funds and lottery money should be available. Don’t forget there already exists underground development there in the form of the bowling alley. Keep it as a prized public asset.
Excellent news at last the king Alfred is a hove icon & needs to be a centre of sporting excellence for all Brighton and Hove residents & beyond.
We want an increase in social services, we want schools to stay open, we want cuts in council tax, we want social housing, we want the most economically inefficient redevelopment of king Alfred.
When will people realise that, like it or not, there is a finite budget pot, you cannot have it all. Pretending this is not the case isn’t going to change the way the system works. Regardless of how you view the system.
This selfishness will deprive other council services of funding, which will be squarely pitched as the council’s fault by those who campaigned most vocally for what they’ve got.
Turkeys voting for Christmas, it’s like that little referendum in 2016 all over again, little Britain at it’s best.
The survey done was so biased for a move to Hangleton it was shameful. I would not be surprised if more people were against the move but the info wasn’t easy to extrapolate from the survey.
Keeping the site where it is will make a huge difference to residents and visitors to central Hove. There are schools that use that site and many children and young people who would not have been able to easily, safely and affordably access the site if it had moved. Thanks yo everyone who lobbied for this. A good result.
Well im glad that the wildlife at benfield valley still gets to keep there homes! And aren’t disturbed .
Also people can just use the prince regent swimming pool while the king Alfred is being rebuilt and also it
Would be nice if they put some flumes in again like they did in the nineties made it more fun .
Great news!
What are plans for the King Alfred in terms of the building itself? I’ve read that it will be a “stacked” design with underground car park. Will it be taller than the existing footprint? Curious what will happen to trampolines and mini golf area and if this will be sold off to fund the project or if they will expand into this plot. For folks who cherish their views on the seafront a tall structure could be very concerning…