More than 220 people have shared their opinions on the proposed redevelopment of the King Alfred Leisure Centre since the plans went public.
At the time of writing there were 203 objections and 23 supporting comments for Brighton and Hove City Council’s £65 million plans.
The council wants to build new swimming pools and sports facilities on the current car park and former tenpin bowling alley site in Kingsway, Hove.
The building design has come under fire for being “blocky” and families have criticised the lack of a lagoon-style leisure pool.
There are comments welcoming the scheme but critical of the design and facilities while others want to see the existing 1930s building refurbished.
One anonymous objector, whose details were redacted by the council, said: “I am in support of the development as a whole but I do not feel the current design is adequate.
“The current pool has a leisure area for small children and families. This does not appear to have been included in the new design.
“If you compare it to Splashpoint, in Worthing, which has a leisure pool area and diving pool, or the Pavilions in the Park, in Horsham, which has a lazy river and leisure area, there is definitely scope for better facilities.”
Another anonymous objector said: “This current design offers nothing that isn’t already available at Sea Lanes or the Prince Regent.
“Residents will still have to travel to Burgess Hill or Worthing for slides, etc.
“Brighton needs this – slides, a lazy river and a lagoon area for small children.”
An anonymous supporter, whose details were also redacted by the council, said: “I’ve lived in the city since childhood and, in my view, the current facility is no longer fit for purpose.
“It feels outdated and the layout and overall condition don’t meet what people expect from a modern leisure centre. It’s not somewhere I would currently choose to use.
“The proposed design is a big improvement. In particular, the upgraded gym stands out – a larger, better-equipped space would make a real difference to me. It’s the kind of facility I would actually use on a regular basis.”
Another anonymous supporter said: “The existing leisure centre has no architectural merit. It is a tired, utilitarian structure that has long since passed its useful life.
“Claims that it represents part of Brighton and Hove’s architectural heritage are not made in good faith and should be treated accordingly.
“The planning authority should scrutinise these assertions carefully rather than accept them at face value.”
Campaigners have organised a protest outside the King Alfred Ballroom on Saturday 28 March at 11.45am.
To view the application, search for BH2026/00490 on the council’s website. Registration is required to comment.
Why do you not mention the fact it will be a fraction of the site and most will be used on multiple tower blocks !!!!!
This planning application should be withdrawn as there has been council misrepresentation concerning the size of the new leisure facilities being offered and it appears to be ‘salami slicing’ of the site with no transparent full development plans or full site impact assessments such as an EIA. Anyone living around the King Alfred will face living in an unsaleable property owing to noise, disruption and dirt for up to 5 years including the skyscraper construction. They will also lose up to £150k on their property value if they currently have a sea view. Nearby residents are saying on social media that they have not heard anything directly from the council and some are only finding out about the plans now. The plans are shockingly amateurishm considering the £65million cost of the project and look like a storage container from certain angles. The plans do not even specify the construction materials and their suitability for a marine environment. The new hub is not a patch on the existing King Alfred leisure centre and what it provides to the community, despite its current run-down appearance. But who has any faith that BHCC would look after a replacement any better?
But BHCC said 90% of residents supported the plan!
Have they been fibbing….again?
I saw that Laura King was whipping up people to post objections on social media. As a reminder, though, it’s quality comments, related to material planning grounds, that have weight here. Quantity has been frequently noted to not be a strong material factor; see the Gasworks.
Benjamin’s right that planning decisions aren’t based on numbers alone — but dismissing 200+ objections as social media “whipping up” misses the point.
Many of the concerns are valid: lack of family facilities, uninspiring design, and whether the new scheme actually improves on the current King Alfred Leisure Centre.
People aren’t objecting for the sake of it — they’re questioning why a £65m project doesn’t include features already available at places like Splashpoint Leisure Centre.
If anything, the volume of objections suggests the council hasn’t got the proposal right yet — not that residents should be ignored.
Brighton and Hove city council Labour adminstration may have shot themselves in the foot by commissioning the recent report on the £51m failure of the i360 to stitch up the Blues and the Greens.
https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2026/03/06/costly-lessons-of-i360-spelt-out-in-independent-report/
Reading the conclusions of how not to make the same mistakes again, it is possible to observe an absolute council DETERMINATION to make the ALL same mistakes again, this time with the £65m King Alfred redevelopment. And this time there will be no other political blame monkeys.
Read the following list of lessons obviously NOT learnt! Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. The list goes on.
The report included a “Summary of Lessons Learnt”
Strategic Planning and Alignment
The project was conceptually aligned with regeneration and tourism goals but lacked clearly defined success criteria and measurable outcomes.
Strategic ambitions were not translated into robust performance indicators, making it difficult to assess progress or impact over time.
Economic Forecasting and Market Assumptions
Visitor number projections and market penetration figures were significantly overestimated, and not focused enough on local regional comparators which may have provided a better comparator.
The assumptions failed to reflect Brighton’s actual market dynamics, leading to unrealistic expectations and financial shortfalls.
Optimism bias was evident throughout the business case, with insufficient adjustment for downside risks or external shocks.
Financial Modelling and Resilience
Revenue and EBITDA forecasts were overly ambitious and not supported by realistic secondary spending assumptions.
The financial model lacked sufficient stress testing and scenario planning, which would have revealed vulnerabilities in debt servicing and operational sustainability. Later business plan medium and low ‘constrained’ number assumptions were still highly overstated.
The absence of post-launch review mechanisms meant that financial underperformance was not addressed in a timely or adaptive manner.
Commercial Governance and Risk Management
The risk register was well-structured, but failed to capture key financial, reputational and governance risks. While later additions included financial risk these were not given enough emphasis or mitigation strategies.
There was no modelling of loan repayment risk or contingency planning for default scenarios, despite the council’s exposure as lender.
Optimism bias and external shocks were not adequately considered, limiting the robustness of risk mitigation strategies.
Benchmarking and Validation
Comparison to global attractions distorted expectations. A greater emphasis on more appropriate comparators like regional UK attractions would have provided more grounded insights.
The business plan lacked independent market validation and relied heavily on a single forecasting source, reducing confidence in its assumptions.
Governance and Management Oversight
Governance structures lacked agility and clarity. Roles and escalation routes were poorly defined, and stakeholder communication was inconsistent.
There was limited use of rolling forecasts, KPIs, or adaptive management frameworks to monitor and respond to performance issues.
Internal commercial acumen was insufficient, contributing to weak oversight and a lack of challenge to key assumptions.
The leadership team for i360 Ltd lacked financial depth.
The report also included “Recommendations for Future Projects”
Apply Optimism Bias Adjustments
Use standard adjustments to temper projections and ensure financial realism, especially in revenue forecasts.
Conduct Scenario and Sensitivity Testing
Model best-case, base-case, and worst-case scenarios to understand financial resilience and inform risk mitigation strategies. Whilst a later iteration to the Business Plan included a ‘constrained’ medium and low attendance demand, these were still considerably overstated.
Benchmark Appropriately
Compare intended outcomes with similar market profiles to ensure projections are grounded in realistic data.
Commission Independent Market Validation
Use multiple sources to validate demand, pricing, and positioning, and engage local stakeholders for contextual insights.
Implement Pilot Testing and Pre-Opening Engagement
Use data and social media analytics to gauge market appetite and refine offerings before full launch.
Stress Test Financial Models
Evaluate cash flow under adverse conditions and include contingency plans for refinancing or restructuring debt.
Establish Post Review Mechanisms
Use rolling forecasts and performance triggers to monitor progress and enable timely strategic adjustments.