More details of what a new King Alfred leisure centre could have to offer families have been published as the council responds to fears there won’t be much.
A planning application submitted this month for a replacement leisure centre on Hove seafront showed plans of the layout of the swimming pools – but with little other detail.
Hundreds of people have commented, with many saying there doesn’t seem to be enough for children.
Today, the council said while the final details are still being finalised, they will include interactive play, a slide or small enclosed flume along with jets/fountains aimed at younger children.
It has shared pictures of features at Britannia Leisure Centre in Hackney and Center Parcs Park Bostalsee in Germany as examples of what could be installed here.
And it says the main pool could be used to host the same type of inflatables which are on offer at the Prince Regent.
It also says the pools having separate filtration systems will avoid the current situation where if there is a contamination incident in one pool, all the pools need to be closed.
It hopes to provide more information about the exact specifications in the coming weeks.
Cabinet member for sports and recreation Alan Robins said: “The new King Alfred will be a fantastic space for families, children, young people and residents of all ages from across the whole city to enjoy.
“The new facility will provide a better experience for people in the city. There will be more space for sport and activities, more variety on offer and a more inclusive experience for all.
“Hundreds of people have already shared their views, and I’d encourage people to explore the plans and make a comment on the planning application if they’d like it to be considered.”
To view and comment on the planning application, click here.
These are just stock photos you can buy from a photo agency. Are they going to glue them around the new King Alfred to decorate it?
Well I’d be impressed if the Council was able to go forward in time and take photos of the actual pool.
But at this rate the level of misinformation and sheer stupidly by people trying to derail the project, the King Alfred will stay a crappy run down mess for ever.
“It has shared pictures of features at Britannia Leisure Centre in Hackney and Centre Parcs Park Bostalsee in Germany as examples of what could be installed here.”
The Council have suggested that there could be a slide or small flume. However, the submitted planning drawings do not show a launch platform, run‑out area, or the structural or spatial provision needed to accommodate a slide or flume. These are not things that could be simply added later. If they were going to exist they would be part of the plans.
The floor plans indicate a small leisure water area (maybe 4m by 8m) adjacent to the teaching pool, and the section drawings show a low roof height with no elevated platform or void space that would be necessary for even a modest flume. There is also no plant capacity or circulation space shown that would support such an installation. You might get a little toddler slide installed.
The council sharing stock photos of Centre Parcs in Germany or a leisure centre in Hackney doesn’t actually mean anything.
Just highlighting that Tracy was making a disingenuous bad-faith argument.
I’m not sure why you think Tracey’s argument is disingenuous or in bad-faith. Can you explain?
The council has published stock images of childrens leisure water play areas saying that this gives ‘more details of what… the leisure centre could offer to families’.
From the plans that are currently in front of the planning committee it is clear that features like slides and flumes that have been promised by Councillors, and are illustrated in these pictures, wouldn’t be able to fit into the space allocated.
That seems like the Councillors are being disingenuous or acting in bad faith rather than Tracey. They are putting out media briefings which are giving the impression that the facilities at the King Alfred will be better for families than they actually will be.
This is particularly worrying given planning decisions are quasi-judicial processes, and consultations should be on the basis of the actual proposed development.
I can. Tracy frequently knowingly makes comments that are in bad faith, lacking nuance, incomplete, and come across as being mostly performative and adversarial, without supportive explanation or logical justification. A stark difference from yourself, Toto, and you’ve only posted once or twice!
I’m fairly amateur when it comes to floor plans, but I’m reading them as having a 5.5m ceiling over the water play area. Reading the original statement, there’s an example displayed of a plume that would work within that space; it also appears that there isn’t a finalised design yet, but it seems very much with very little kids in mind. Personally, I’d like to reserve judgment until an actual design is shown; otherwise, I fear we are simply speculating?
Photos help people visualise ideas. There are plenty of people who would find a floor plan nonsensical, so I think they are a helpful tool to help people engage with the process, like Tracy, who has criticised that not enough has been done on that front previously. And, it offers a space for points like yours to be explored. That’s a good thing, right?
It explains clearly why they believe it is better for families. Disagreement with their stance and having the chance to further input evidences a good faith engagement.
https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/news/2026/king-alfred-proposals-major-improvements-children-young-people-and-families
Imagine if there were a site in West Hove that could be utilised, at the heart of the area real people actually live with kids, that could be have been developed to provide a new 50m pool, plus a fun pool with proper flumes at a fraction of the cost of this farce. What a pathetic legacy the loud luvvies of Hove have created in this compromised scheme that generations will be sadled with.
We are being asked to believe the word of a council trying to hide six tower blocks from us on the current King Alfred site.
Blatantly, this is all about the land and who cares about families, children and future generations? Sick.
How would you propose the new centre be paid for?
Reminder that you voted for this more expensive site to be used.
Ah yes, Benjamin, our resident oracle of truth and elections, here to remind us all how we personally cast our ballots. Incredible that you’ve managed to track everyone’s vote so precisely—must be exhausting being the sole voice of authority in every comment section.
Remind me again, which official position do you hold? Or is this just a hobby between correcting strangers and declaring victory in arguments no one appointed you to referee?
Don’t be ‘disingenuous’
There is not enough space in the proposed plans to accommodate anything approaching what is being suggested as possible. There needs to be a radical redesign on a larger scale. If we are going to saddle future generations with this burden then make it worth it. This is not a vanity project but investment in the infrastructure of the city. If you get 50 children in this pool, it will be crowded. Surely the residents deserve better and the architects and councillors should deliver something fit for purpose.
Benjamin Thanks. I agree that it’s helpful to look closely at the plans and the council’s own descriptions.
One of the central concerns people have raised, though, is that there is no leisure pool suitable for children older than about five. The link you shared actually reinforces that point: the council explicitly describes the new leisure water as being aimed at younger children, and the footprint shown on the plans is only large enough for a small toddler slide, not the kind of features that cater for older kids or mixed‑age families.
That’s where the contrast with recent public statements from senior councillors is quite stark.
Cllr Bella Sankey’s article in The Argus talks about ‘major improvements for children, young people and families’, and Cllr Jacob Taylor has said there would be ‘slides and other water play equipment… pirate ships etc.’ But none of that is reflected in the actual proposals or the spatial constraints shown in the plans. The available area simply can’t accommodate the kind of larger‑scale, family‑oriented water play they have implied.
I also learnt to swim at the King Alfred and have taken my son there many times while he got confident in the water. Cllr Bella Sankey said ‘we are… developing options for children’s leisure play – which will mean that the water fun I remember… can be experienced once again. So watch this space!’
I’m sorry to say that I just don’t think that is true – and I think councillors should be more open about this.
So the criticism isn’t speculation for its own sake; it’s about the gap between what was publicly promised and what the plans make physically possible. That’s why I’d like to see more clarity – not to be adversarial, but because the design as presented doesn’t deliver a leisure offer for older children or teens, despite the political messaging around the project.
It’s a really well articulated point. I’m wondering if the slightly older and teenager range of ages are to be more accommodated in the training and main pools with inflatables? It’s a good question.
We’ve only seen floor plans and concepts so far, is that right? There’s an opportunity for them to provide that clarity in the final design, and if it’s not there, it should be challenged, I agree.
It is the final plans that are being consulted on now – these are the documents going to the planning committee, with construction due to start later this year once permission is granted.
At this stage, only cosmetic elements can change. The structure and footprint of the water areas are fixed, so there isn’t scope to add a larger leisure pool later on.
The link you shared earlier does mention inflatables in the main pool, but that wouldn’t amount to much of a leisure offer. Prince Regent already runs inflatables sessions – the Aquarun is 45 minutes on a Saturday – and I’d expect something similar at the new King Alfred. That’s fine as an occasional activity, but it’s not a substitute for dedicated leisure water that older children can use freely and safely.
When my son was learning, it was the time in leisure water – alongside lessons – that really built his confidence. In a seaside city, that feels especially important. Losing that space for older children is a real missed opportunity.