Workers clearing asbestos from the King Alfred’s basement in preparation for the later demolition of the leisure centre are being harassed, the council says.
A planning application was submitted earlier this month for the demolition of the basement which used to house a bowling alley and then a Laserzone next to the Hove leisure centre.
This is the latest stage in a major project which will eventually see a new leisure centre built next to the existing one, and the old one knocked down.
These plans will be the subject of fresh planning applications due to be submitted in the new year.
However, misinformation is spreading online that the current application is to knock down the existing building – and that work has started on that before it’s been approved.
The council says as a result, “disruptive behaviour” is stopping work to prepare the site.
Councillor Alan Robins, cabinet member for sports, said: “While most residents are sharing their views through appropriate channels, there are a small minority spreading misinformation and creating a hostile environment for people doing their jobs.
“I want to make it clear, abuse or harassment of staff and contractors working on any of our projects will not be tolerated.
“Everyone on site is doing their job to keep the project moving forward safely and efficiently, and they deserve respect.
“There’s a misconception that demolition has started ahead of planning being approved, but it hasn’t.
“The only activity on site is essential work in closed off basement areas to strip interiors and remove asbestos so it’s safe for the future development.
“There’s also misinformation circulating about the proposed use of the site. To reiterate, the redevelopment of the site has already been approved as part of the local plan.
“While there will still an opportunity to comment on the detail of the final design, a new leisure centre will be built on this site.
“We are also aware that an application has been made to list the building. Previous applications have been rejected, and we don’t expect this request to be successful.
“Progress to make the building safe can continue while we wait for the decision by Historic England.
“I want to thank the team for their hard work in driving this complex scheme forward to make sure residents will get the modern, accessible and sustainable leisure centre our city deserves.
“We’ve waited a long time for a new leisure centre for the west of the city, and this year we’ve made real progress – appointing Alliance Leisure, assembling the project team and securing Cabinet approval to demolish the existing facility to make way for a new one.
“I know how much this matters to the community and the impact it will have in the area, so there’s rightly a high level of ongoing public interest and feedback.
“The response to the first look proposals was fantastic, and that feedback is now shaping the look and facility mix of the final designs. When the planning application goes in next year, there’ll be another chance to have your say.”
Contractors are currently stripping the walls, ceilings, floor coverings and soft furnishings to safely remove the asbestos, clear the interiors and reduce the risk of fibres spreading.
While that work is carried out, the council says there’s no risk or disruption to the existing facility’s day-to-day use.
Kindergargen noddys on the loose again, punish the clown who let them out.
It’s the Boomerati.
This is what happens when conspiracy theorists who spread utter nonsense via Facebook like Laura King are given constant uncritical coverage every time they rant at Council meetings.
100%. Sites like this need to stop giving airtime to Laura King. It seems nowadays you just need to shout angrily and loudly and it becomes headline news.
Journalist on the site support Laura King and Adrian F in make up lies! They read it on-line ….. melt up the brain!
I find people being disruptive from a place of ignorance particularly irksome.
I find people being disruptive from a place of ignorance particularly irksome.
Ho ho ho
Why would anyone want to list the king Alfred, it’s absolutely grim and 30 years past when it should have been knocked down
I can see the logic, thinking that would protect the building from being redeveloped. But I think I’m leaning more towards your thoughts on the matter. It’s a really old building, which is functionally end-of-life, and needs a regeneration to allow it to continue to be an asset that can be used for years to come.
Some people not wanting it to be redeveloped isn’t a reason to list it though.
Having some historical and / or artchitectural merit is though.
But does the KA have either?
I know it was used in the war as a training facility but it that enough to merit a listing?
And is it enough to prevent the redevelopment? Being listed isn’t an automatic bar on redevelopment (including demolition) but it can raise the bar for gaining approval and that can cause delays and increase costs. And then no doubt people will complain about that too!
I find myself agreeing with you quite often, Chris! I understand the sentiment and how people might see that as a tool for achieving what they may want, but as you say, does that create a compelling case for listing?
Interference with asbestos removal is dangerous. I can’t believe people would be so stupid.
I have just searched this article for alleged examples of harrassment. Where are they?
Is this council ‘misinformation’ because they are trying to get a highly contentious public beach full of tower blocks through on the back of promising a new leisure centre and want to silence any questioners?
Perhaps the council could also explain why these asbestos works are not due to begin until April 2026 according to the signage, yet they seem to have started them already – BEFORE the planning application for the demolition of the King Alfred has even been submitted. And is this hazardous to the much-used King Alfred leisure centre next door?
Meanwhile questions around the validity of the cabinet council, seemingly bulldozed through without a shred of valid public consultation, let alone a referendum, and against the publicly stated wishes of the Greens and Conservatives, apparently remain unanswered..
It’s literally in the article, James. As others have said earlier, disruption from a place of ignorance or misinformation. The planning application for the basement demolition was submitted earlier this month, as explained in the article.
Nah. I still can’t see what all the fuss is about Benjamin. Contractors can walk away from projects for all kinds of reasons. Company reputation if it’s controversial, insurance issues if there is any doubt about permissions or legalities and their insurance won’t cover them. or just to finish another project whose deadline has come up. Most of their sub-contractors or employees will not be local to have a clue what is going on with the King Alfred. It is just another job to them. It will be their bosses calling the shots.
Well said James
You can’t see the fuss of some random person coming onto a worksite for the sole purpose of getting in the way and to harass workers who have nothing to do with the decisions, and literally earning a paycheck?
Where in the article does it mention ‘some random person coming onto a worksite’ and asking questions? Not that it would be a crime if they did, being a local public asset owned by the public, who have every right to know what’s going on with their leisure centre. We are not getting straight answers from the council after all. Or are you just making stuff up?
Seriously? Councillor Robins’s statement strongly implies that the disruption is both direct and operational, that staff and contractors are being abused and harassed. The context clearly points to direct and misguided action.
You’re also ignoring the practical issues of dealing with hazardous materials like asbestos, which absolutely is a legal issue, since a random being on-site like that is clearly unsafe and unacceptable.
You’re not that silly, James.
It looks like the only hostilities going on here are a PR war between council and campaigners and the council is losing. Perhaps they should offer the campaigners jobs and scrap the lacklustre PR department. Public money saved and better news stories pumped out about how the council are nice people really who want to serve us and do only what is best for the city and its finances, even if that means, shock, horror, saving the King Alfred rather than borrowing and spaffing £65m!
Benjamin; you state ‘Councillor Robins’s statement strongly implies that the disruption is both direct and operational,’ But why would he need to ‘imply’ anything? Either these incidents have happened or they have not, which would explain why there are no details given. What has not been explained is why no contractors wearing asbestos hazmat gear have yet been seen on site if that is what they are meant to be doing.
That’s just a clear case of personal incredulity, James.
James makes a valid point from a professional point of view .
Not cut and paste ben
…apart from not making a point, just expressing a logical fallacy. Best not speak for others, Rupert.
Waffle
Benjamin; You wouldn’t let anyone else off with ‘implying’ something happened without evidence. Why lower your standards and burden of proof for a Councillor? Who should actually be held to more exacting standards than a private individual.
Lyons, Bruno, and even candidates might disagree with that assessment historically. The former gave me the term of endearment, Attack Poodle, after all. An evidence-base or reasonable logic both work! I agree with you that it would have been easier to just directly say something along the lines of trespassers entered the site and used abusive language and harassing behaviours; very clear. So logically, one can assume the choice of words is deliberate, clear in what it is intending to convey, but legally safe. Spectulatively, perhaps some legal action is being brought into play, so it’s undergoing an investigation, so the Ward Councillor is limited by what they can say?
What a load of waffle. Are you feeling ok, Benjamin?