Hedges on the lawns opposite the King Alfred are to be removed this week as work to replace it continues.
Brighton and Hove City Council has voted in principle to build a new leisure centre on the car park next door and knock down the existing one.
A planning application for the design and layout of the new centre is set to be submitted at the end of this month.
The council says it will include a green roof, sand baths and vegetation to the north of the current car park to replace ecological features lost elsewhere on the site, such as the hedges due to go this week.
This work is being done before the nesting season to avoid disruption to breeding birds.
A planning application to demolish the bowling alley underneath the car park has been approved. Another planning application for a temporary car park on the lawn is due to be submitted in the coming weeks. This space is currently being used as a site compound for the coastal protection work being undertaken on the beach.
The planting, removal of vegetation and soft landscaping work can take place while the application is being finalised as it comes under permitted development and does not require planning permission.
Cabinet member for sport Alan Robins said: “There’s real momentum to the project now and it’s crucial to get the timing right.
“Over the coming weeks and months, we’ll start to see more activity on site to prepare for the things to come. It’s important residents understand what this work involves and why it’s needed.
“Planting is an essential part of our environmental commitment to protect local wildlife and prepare the site in a responsible way. We need to replace vegetation that will be removed later in the project, and it needs to start now so we can safely remove hedgerows ahead of the nesting season.
“We need to demolish the old bowling alley to make the site safe for future construction. Now we’ve got prior planning approval, this can start in the spring.
“Final refinements are being made to the designs based on resident feedback and these will be submitted later this month. Then you’ll get to see the exciting plans for the new leisure centre and have a chance to share your views on the final design.”
The council says the planting mix has been carefully designed in partnership with landscape architects, council ecologists and its parks team and includes species best suited to the location that will include a mix of grasses, shrubs, hedgerow and wildflowers.
How are these works right and proper before the actual King Alfred Planning Application is submitted?
Will they have to rebuild the Bowling Alley and replant the hedge again if planning permission is declined?
The King Alfred redevelopment should be declined on financial grounds if the city is about to go bankrupt and the scheme is saddling the city with decades of further debt, debt already being used as an excuse to cut basic services such as children’s art facilities. As I understand it, the new centre is smaller with fewer family activities, so how is that an improvement, particularly for local families and children? There is already a shortage of youth clubs and community centres in the city. £65 million pounds for a smaller leisure centre seems like a crazy waste of money and not beneficial to residents who will lose the large and affordable leisure centre that we have.
That’s democracy!…. BHCC style
The King Alfred is a life-expired dump.
You should read the full design, Tracy, it explains a lot of your questions.
Maybe read the article before the comments start.
But I think the vast majority of the city would rather have a swimming pool that isn’t absolutely truly disgusting over ‘children’s art facilities’.
King Alfred regardless of a replacement is 20 years past bulldozing stage.
The large hedge right next to the pool building on the seafront attrack’s hundreds of sparrows each night to roost. Walking past early evening you can hear them.
It also attracts large numbers of junkies unfortunately
Such lovely little sparrows, where are they going to go? And why is there no mention of the exclusive, expensive flats that I understand will be built on the King Alfred site?
They shouldn’t be doing anything without full planning permission. Or an Environmental Impact Assessment for the full, less-than-transparent, site. These are not optional extras, but legal requirements. Destroying hedgerows full of sparrows says it all about this council’s commitment to the environment.
In the private sector, demolishing a building in such a position including all flora would have the council down on you in a flash. Surly with finances in a crucial near bankrupt state, (insufficient funds to keep Middle St school operating as just one example) is this project going to even start to build from the rubble or leave yet another eyesore on the landscape, West Pier style? How can this council ask for government financial assistance with one hand whilst proposing this hugely overpriced folly with the other. Is this just another example of Labour mismanagement in times where their own government appear to be ‘Skint’.
Copied from a Bluesky post —
WHAT IF?
What if the King Alfred replacement gets approval but the housing alongside doesn’t?
Does this make the KA economically unviable?
What if the Council is declared bankrupt via a 114 during any part of the redevelopment?
How many millions will have been spent on Consultants and Contractors?
What will then become of the existing KA?
The millions of ponds wasted in fees could have been put towards a lower cost refurbishment option.
Who will be accountable for the unwelcome outcomes?
In answer to the first two questions, it is highly unlikely that you’d get approval of one without the other because they are part of a single hybrid planning application and viability model. The scheme has been designed as one integrated development.
S114 doesn’t automatically stop all capital projects. It restricts new spending. Capital schemes funded through borrowing or ring-fenced mechanisms can continue. Of course, if it hadn’t started by that point, then it’d likely be mothballed until it could continue. The good thing is that it’s unlikely at the moment that the council is heading towards S114.
The business case, which can be viewed here, gives you a bit of a breakdown of costs: https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/documents/s209933/King%20Alfred%20Leisure%20Centre%20Regneration%20Project%20Cabinet%20Report.html?CT=2
Originally, an alternative site was being considered as a lower-cost development option, but residents heavily objected to this, so the higher-cost development site at KA was chosen instead, as residents asked for. Refurbishment has been constantly stated as unviable in all reports, all agreeing that the existing KA building is end of life.
Does anyone actually use it? My gym ( and every one I’ve visited) seems full of unfit people spending more time texting their imaginary friends than actually working out.
I thought this was going to be a lovely new swimming pool
The proposed specification is as follows:
a 25m 8 lane short course competition pool with spectator seating.
a 25m 6 lane learner pool with a moveable floor.
a splash pad/’leisure water’ for younger children.
a minimum 6-court sports hall.
health and fitness facilities, including a minimum 100-station gym and interactive cycling studio.
studios and group exercise space.
on-site car parking
a cafe.
https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/city-regeneration/major-developments/king-alfred-development/proposals-new-leisure-centre
Pathetic compared to the existing King Alfred. How can a single sports hall be used for 5-a-side football or basketball if other users want to play badminton or table tennis in it simultaneously? Where will the roller discos happen? Where will young boxers go?
Because, like I just said, that single sports hall can be divided into six courts. And, like I just said, there are group exercise spaces. It’s also described in that microsite I linked.
Have a read.
20m 4 lane learner pool now.
And the 8 lane pool isn’t the Sport England 2.5m lane width. It’s really a 6 lane competition pool.
No family child fun water space.
The 6 court sports hall is a 4 with 2 running along the side which has an issue with sight lines when 6 courts are playing.
It’s the £110m < £150m public debt from borrowing the £65m which is a problem and the 500 -700 housing deveelopment is the other problem.
We deserve something much better than what we are being offered. Don't be fooled this is a debt funded downgrade with glitter on top.
The next i360 in the making. Poor B&H
I would like to see the tender and procurement for this. It is not on any council website. So is this fraudulent?
Is this what you’re looking for? It also contains links to the references used within the primary document. https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/documents/s209933/King%20Alfred%20Leisure%20Centre%20Regneration%20Project%20Cabinet%20Report.pdf
Do you work for the council Benjamin? Something is up…..
Nope! I get accused of that a lot. I’ve been following the KA development for a while; city development interests me. I like to read and learn about projects in depth so I have meaningful discussions.