Some of those who use the King Alfred have welcomed news that Brighton and Hove City Council is to draw up detailed designs for a new swimming pool and leisure centre on the seafront.
The council’s cabinet agreed to include the £65 million project in its capital programme at a meeting at Hove Town Hall last Thursday (25 September).
As well as a learner and main swimming pool, the site will include a gym, café, soft play area and clip and climb attraction.
Chris Adams, who takes his granddaughter to the King Alfred regularly, said that it was about time the leisure centre was replaced.
He said: “It needs it. There’s some of the fabric breaking down. It’s not in a good condition. I don’t think it can be cured just by cleaning and upgrading.”
Ellen Dacey, who plays badminton at the King Alfred, was not keen on the initial designs presented by the council but believes that the leisure centre would need replacing soon.
She said: “We’ll have to wait and see, maybe looking at the plans again with the council. I’ve only been in Brighton for eight years but this has been talked about for 20 years. When is it going to happen?”
After the cabinet meeting last week, Labour councillor Alan Robins, the council’s cabinet member for sports, recreation and libraries, said that replacing the leisure centre was the only option.
The much-loved building first opened in 1939 but Councillor Robins said: “The current building, apart from the fact it can’t ever become as sustainable as a new one, is coming towards the end of its life despite what people tell you.
“There’s major problems with it. The boilers are so old they all need replacing anyway. The danger is that we get to a stage where we have to close the building because it’s no longer safe to keep it open.”
Since the business case was presented to the cabinet in July last year, the estimated cost of the new King Alfred has gone up from £47.4 million to £65 million.
A report said that this was the result of a “more realistic view” of the cost of an “undercroft car park”, better facilities, a new entrance plaza and inflation in the construction sector.
But the revised budget also included more money from the sale of part of the site for housing – and the revised headline cost included £9.8 million for contingencies and inflation.
The council plans to borrow between £38.6 million and £47.7 million from the Public Works Loan Board.
The cost of repaying the debt over 50 years would be between £1.95 million and £2.4 million a year.
A swanky new building will require a require a far more professional and inspirational management approach. Freedom Leisure seems incapable of managing the current King Alfred operation, with a patchy class timetable, a gym frequently left without any staff in attendance, broken equipment not fixed for months if at all, and classes frequently cancelled because of staff absence.
Alex, I agree but withdean is also run by freedom leisure and is fantastic. I really think it’s to do with staff morale. This will change when refurb comes. If not, new management please
Can’t wait!
And relieved to hear that there’s going to be a pool (there were rumours that the pool wasn’t being replaced!).
Have these users been told how much space and how many facilities will be lost and what the prices and parking will be for the replacement leisure ‘hub’? And that the real reason for replacing the KA is to fill the beach with unaffordable tower blocks? They will soon realise that none of this is for the residents’ benefit if they were told the whole story by Councillors not in breach of their Code of Conduct with the King Alfred.
Where’s the love James? Maybe try out king Alfred and release some endorphins?
Incorrect. By reading, one can learn that the age of the building and utilities meant that it suffered frequent breakdowns and that repairs were unsustainable. Further reading would reveal that the location was chosen by residents, changing the initial location proposal to develop it on a cheaper site.
If you have evidence of a breach of the CoC, report it to the Returning Officer; otherwise, it’s just conspiratorial hearsay.
The volte-face on moving the leisure centre to Benfield Valley really was remarkable for its speed, and quite a success for those who campaigned against it.
People are very trusting considering how this Council can’t even run two seaside paddling pools which are not frequently closed for repairs, depriving visitors and families of these facilities on the hottest days of the year.
It’s hard to see where the £65m is going looking at the plans for the new KA. Ok, it’s smaller but why is the Withdean swimming pool priced at less than £7m? Doesn’t the council already own the land at both locations?
The £65m quote for the new KA sounds like a land plus construction price. The council also has a duty to obtain best value for money which does not seem to be happening here.
On a project this major, you’d expect the council to obtain a range of quotes and prospective designs. How else will they do their public duty of best value for money?
You mean…like through a consultation? Oh Elaine…have I got news for you!
Please design the pool with the gentle slope for little kids to play in, this is imperative for them learning to love and play in water and great for kids whos parents cant afford swimming lessons, as being dunked in a deep pool can be very scary. This is the only indoor pool i know that shelves in like the beach.
Before clapping like seals over a shiny new bauble, any naive individuals who believe this little ‘hub’ is being constructed because the council cares about them should do some digging. It won’t even match Splashpoint in Worthing. Not even any diving provision. Will that even be the guaranteed view out of the window from the pool?
Essentially what Alan Robins says here is that the existing King Alfred building has to go because the boilers needs replacing.
Imagine what would happen if everyone applied that kind of logic!
A while ago I tried an FOI on what the cost of refurbishment would be, as I couldn’t get an answer by just asking. I was told this was commercially confidential. Even though, evidently, they’d already decided not to do it.
I think I know what’s happening here. The council is skint. To balance the books, they absolutely need to flog this off as building land to the highest bidder. So why don’t they just tell us?
Accusing the council of both caving to campaigners and secretly pursuing profit cannot coexist. You’re being contradictory.
I’ll believe it when I see it. This has been going on for years.