More than 120 students have met leading councillors to urge them to go further in addressing what we continue to describe as a youth mental health emergency.
The students, from five schools and colleges, celebrated a £600,000 pilot scheme to ensure that all secondary schools across Brighton and Hove can access counselling support.
And young people shared their testimony about the life-changing effects of this support for them and their peers.
They were delighted when Bella Sankey, the Labour leader of Brighton and Hove City Council, told them that the counselling “pilot” was no longer a pilot.
Councillor Sankey said that it was now an official budget line in the council’s finances – so the funding will be automatically included in the budget in future years.
Brighton and Hove Citizens, the alliance that brought the students together, said: “This is a huge step forward for young people.”
Students also spelt out some of the barriers that young people face in various parts of Brighton and Hove, with the most common themes including
- Activities are too expensive
- Many spaces feel unsafe
- Access to activities is too limited or inaccessible
Brighton and Hove Citizens said on Wednesday (13 May): “Today was one of those moments that reminds us why organising schools and colleges across our city matters.
“Today, to mark Mental Health Awareness Week, more than 120 young people from across Brighton and Hove reclaimed the council chamber at Brighton Town Hall and transformed it into a space for action, accountability, creativity and hope.
“Students from Varndean School, Varndean Sixth Form College, Cardinal Newman School and College, BHASVIC and Longhill High School came together as leaders within Brighton and Hove Citizens to celebrate major wins already secured – and to push our city’s leaders to go further in addressing what we continue to describe as a youth mental health emergency.”
“Young people invited Councillor Sankey to work with our alliance to address digital isolation and commit to making Brighton and Hove the most playful city in the UK.
“Over recent months, thousands of young people across our Alliance have shared stories about loneliness, social media and the decline of face-to-face connection.”
As one student said: “The virtual world might be easier. But I don’t want easy – I want real.”
Brighton and Hove Citizens said that Councillor Sankey had agreed to meet with young people again in December to hear their proposals in the run up to the local elections in May next year.
She also said that she would attend the Brighton and Hove Citizens “Election Accountability Assembly” next April.
Maybe they could blame the boomers!
I really do think that this country needs a hard recession for people to wake up.
No more freebies, and just enough money to buy food and heat your home.
The problem is that people don’t know the meaning of having to work hard to put something on the table, let alone having to deal with miserable circumstances that make it impossible to indulge themselves in 1st world victimhood and other nonsense, all brought on by idle hands and minds.
The civil service is out of control, the politicians, with a few honourable exceptions, are rotten to the core, and the whole edifice that underpins this nation is on the verge of falling over, but people worry about……………………….institutional racism? Being “triggered”? Feeling “unsafe” when someone says something you don’t like?
They have NO idea what harship others in this world really do suffer from, but who still get on with it, and I am so very tired of all of this useless claptrap permeating our schools, our work, and our general day to day life.
Perhaps real penury for many of them will make them realise how utterly stupid and vapid they are.
Offering counseling services is a sticking plaster for the bleak future that is on offer to you. If Bella really cared about you, she would be tackling the causes of why mental health issues affecting you. No amount of talking will make it cheaper to buy or rent a home, deal with climate crisis or ensure their are future jobs where you earn enough to enjoy life not just survive it.
Instead she offers a few thousands of pounds of talking whilst representing a party that will do nothing to tackle these causes. Don’t give her a photo op when she is selling your future.
Labour is one of the greenest governments we’ve ever had, and daresay does more for the climate than the Greens. Our Labour council has also built the most social houses of any other party in this council, and has done plenty to support adult learning and job opportunities, such as apprenticeships. Oh, and £600,000 towards making sure our children are looked after mentally as well, because social media and the world are a dark place these days, and it’s right that they are supported to make sense of it all.
Well done, Labour.
You haven’t talked to any teenagers recently have you?
I see you can’t defend your strawman argument, because it’s not defensible, so now you’re resorting to the classic tu quoque fallacy. Shame you can’t get behind supporting children’s mental health, Lyons.
They need to get used to being ignored by mps.
So young BH residents are telling the council:
Activities are too expensive
Many spaces feel unsafe
Access to activities is too limited or inaccessible
And the Council’s response is to knock down the largest affordable leisure/community centre in the city, leaving almost nothing for children in the overpriced replacement hub to privatise public land for tower blocks on the sea front?
Counselling is all well and good as far as it goes but it is no substitute for childrens’ activities to keep them physically and mentally healthy, making new friends and out of trouble. All of these factors save the council a lot more money in the long term than they cost in the short term.
It is a well-established fact that King Alfred needed replacing, else the city would have lost this facility, so personally, I’m glad it’s finally being done after 30 years of it being in limbo. The King Alfred will remain open for as long as possible whilst the work is being done.
The students make three specific points: activities are too expensive, access is too limited, and spaces feel unsafe. A well-designed public leisure centre addresses all three, affordable access, wide-ranging activities, safe indoor environment.
Which makes it worth noting that the King Alfred replacement, currently before the planning committee, removes the city’s only leisure lagoon and enclosed slide for children over 8 – the one provision that serves this age group for recreational swimming. What replaces it is a toddler splash pad, a teaching pool, and inflatables in the main pool at the operator’s discretion.
The students say access to activities is too limited. That’s hard to disagree with. It’s also hard to see how removing the only leisure water provision for older children in the city makes that better rather than worse. It is good that you are glad Benjamin – but personally the whole thing just makes me really sad that the Council’s proposals on the King Alfred seems to be all we can offer the older children of the City – particularly when they are making such a heartfelt plea about mental health and the need for third spaces.
It certainly gives the Labour council a strong mandate to do more to create more sports and leisure spaces, and in particular for younger people. When looking at things like the new youth centre that has recently opened, their actions seem to be following the right path.
There’s always more to do, and with a variety of potentials, like Pride in Place, upcoming, and a council willing to support and achieve this goal, as seen in their actions so far, I think this council is heading in the right direction.
I agree more leisure spaces for young people would be welcome. But pointing to things that might happen in the future doesn’t address what is being decided now. The planning committee will shortly determine an application that, on the submitted plans, removes the city’s only leisure water facility for children over 8 and replaces it with a toddler splash pad.
That’s a concrete loss, happening now, not offset by potential future provision that may or may not materialise. I’d say that is very clearly the wrong path.
The students specifically said access to activities is too limited. The King Alfred replacement reduces, not increases, what’s available for their age group. The question remains unanswered: what in the submitted plans replaces the lagoon and enclosed slide for children over 8?
A better, modern facility, with a dedicated family entertainment zone, a modern pool with inflatables for fun swims, designed with accessibility in mind, and one that is more resistant to things like “accidents” in the pool, so the whole thing shuts down. It’s designed for all ages.
The main pool can be easily reconfigured into a superior play space around fun swims rather than just lane swimming; that’s just a question of scheduling. Your argument for a dedicated lagoon assumes that the recreational water experience must be a permanent, fixed feature. However, modern design philosophy, as embodied in the new King Alfred plans, is that flexibility and efficient use of space are more valuable, and I agree.
The same applies to the teaching pool, which is a bit of a misnomer when you look at what it can and will likely actually do, especially with the movable floor. Again, the modularity lends itself well to easy reconfiguration into play spaces for children, hydrotherapy, and, of course, teaching!
In contrast, a “lagoon” is just a poor man’s modern pool by comparison, without the ability to be flexible quintessentially. So, I think I’ve directly answered and explained your question at this point! Of course, you’re free to disagree. I believe they are still accepting written feedback from what I read recently, and a stakeholder group met just a few weeks ago on this very topic, so they may very well have read what we’ve discussed, so it’s been a worthwhile discussion.
You are talking out of your hat, Benjamin. Most buildings are restorable and we live in a city where even Brighton Pavilion was deemed ‘old hat’ and almost demolished more than once. The King Alfred already provides MOST of what these youngsters want yet the council plans to replace it with a much smaller leisure hub with almost nothing for children and maybe something else, somewhere else, in the dim and distant future, presumably long after Bella and her colleagues have handed in their council lanyards and these children are grown up.
“Jam tomorrow” won’t wash when youngsters are suffering mental health issues NOW and are appealing to Bella for help. They are not asking her to reduce facilities, make them dearer and give them dodgy “changing villages”, which even many adults find offputting.
You’ve already been told it is a well-established fact that King Alfred needed replacing. It is not economically viable to restore, which, if you read even the summary before going off on another one of your mostly ignorant, low-quality rants, you would know; it’s almost 90 years old and failing. As I’ve previously said, if nothing is done, there won’t be anything functional. Completely dismantles your argument, doesn’t it? Want to try again without the performative outrage this time?
Benjamin, calling someone’s argument ‘low quality’, ‘ignorant’ and a ‘rant’ is rude and not the same as answering. Tracy Ward made three specific points – the King Alfred already provides most of what the students want, the replacement provides almost nothing for children, and future promises are not the same as current provision. You haven’t addressed any of them.
On the economics, since you raised it with Tracy, the council’s own Green Book calculated the refurbishment BCR of 0.47 on a 10-year lifespan. The council says that reflects the building’s condition, that is fair as far as it goes. But that BCR was then compared directly against a 40-year new build BCR of 1.74, without the council modelling what a more comprehensive refurbishment, specified to last 40 years, would actually cost or return. The £13.98m scope was deliberately limited to life-extension only. A comprehensive refurbishment targeting 40 years would cost more, but it would also be compared on equal terms over equal time. That comparison was never done and has never been published.
Meanwhile the 1.74 BCR of the project the council is pushing ahead with was calculated on a project cost of £47.4m. The project now costs £65m, borrowing rates have risen by over 1% since the analysis was done, and no updated BCR has been published. The financial case is weaker than when it was made, and the alternative was never properly tested.
The contempt in your reply to Tracy is also notable. It’s a pattern you seem to have – defend the council, dismiss the person, avoid the substance.
Sorry, Toto, I should explain, “Tracy Ward” is but one alias used by this particular person, depending on how spicy they want to be. There are several years of patterned disingenuous behaviour from this person.
Anyway, back to your substantive point on economics, you’re correct, the original BCR for a limited refurb, but that same report also confirms that it was never intended to be a long-term fix. The building is structurally failing, and a full 40-year refurb wasn’t modelled because the engineering surveys within that report showed it wouldn’t be viable, so naturally, there would be no point in wasting taxpayers’ money in creating one, right?
You also have to consider that the specification of the building is significantly better, which also means the revenue potential has increased, which offsets additional costs; this was also detailed in the report to the cabinet. So, respectfully, it is not accurate to say that the financial case is weaker.
Gordon Bennett…….
the responses above are rather cut and dried innit?? How about inspiring folk to get it together for themselves. c’mon c’mpn pesky doom sayers. in my opinion you need to be gagged for suggesting such trashy tosh. carbolic mouthewash might help you out…….so might a spot of cyanide.
where i come from you need to have grit in the blood init. All the lovely people i have known thus far have not been blinded by the light. 2 days ago eating brekkie. lower jaw molar fractured as the dog and I shared giabbatta and seville marmalade. I did not notice until I froze in front of this screen………………I called the Dentist. Mon 18th was placed due to canx. Fing is when your face falls flat then you will be old. Brittle teeth are normal. more so when like me eating radishes and celery with Huomous. All I could do was take myself to bed and wonder how I was going to get to Monday.
We all need to see profs from time to time. This is called self care….getting the best advice free. Students don’t have money. Nor do their parents. I magine paying for 4 sets of work when it all goes wrong. Education is a lifelong objective innit? Everything costs. Drugs have a lifespan too. There are too many cooks in many kitchens you see. What is needed everywhere is more information. No one cares if your teeth are not fixed that you walk with a limp do they??
Supposing all of us received a budget for our worth?? We then could choose what we wanted to do with it could we not. Looking at the worn out policals on telly. I am delighted that they are shifting the argots from the houses. Aparrel will look best if your bod can take it. If you have nasty face you can fake it.
JC is not bovved about your fizog. The deeds you make are the ones that will offer the 2 keys to Heaven.
Maybe we should all take a break and sleep for 3 months then reconvene. Britain has always been in debt so what then? There is always a so what question. Just shut up and show your worth by parting the seas of Gallillee.
Ah, but respectfully, we’ve moved on from bottling everything inside and accepted that’s not a healthy way of being. And considering children are being exposed to the world earlier and earlier through social media, the internet, and access to news, it’s right that we evolve the way we support children to reflect the realities of growing up in modern times.
I would not trust Bella Sankey regarding children’s mental health.
You do realise Bella doesn’t do the counselling herself, right? I feel I need to check…
These issues are affecting everyone on minimum wage in Brighton not just young people.
The council prioritises the wealthy.
Where are they going to get all of the mental health specialists required to administer counselling? Successive governments have sold mental health to the highest bidders.
Another gust of hot, ill informed air .
Speaking of ill-informed air, in what way does the council prioritise the wealthy by introducing a service that hasn’t existed before for children in state schools? That’s a bit of a silly thing to say, isn’t it?
Thanks Benjamin, you’ve actually attempted to answer the question this time, so let me engage with it properly.
Your argument is that the main pool can be reconfigured for fun swims through scheduling, and that flexible multi-use space is preferable to a dedicated lagoon. However, the council’s own survey in 2020 showed the majority of residents wanted dedicated leisure water. The design you’re describing – flexible multi-use over dedicated provision – was never put to residents as a trade-off. They were asked if they wanted dedicated leisure water. They said yes. They’re not getting it.
A fun swim session in a competition pool with inflatables is a different product from a permanent freeform lagoon. A lagoon is available whenever the facility is open. A scheduled fun swim session means lane swimmers are excluded when it runs, and family swimmers are excluded when it doesn’t. We already have an example of exactly this in the city – the Prince Regent currently offers inflatables in its pool for 45 minutes, once a week. That is not an enhancement.
Meanwhile Worthing Splashpoint and Burgess Hill Triangle both have permanent dedicated leisure water with slides – available every day, no timetable required. They are extremely popular, including with families from Brighton & Hove. The families who currently use King Alfred’s lagoon and slide are being told that a 45-minute weekly session with inflatables is the equivalent. It isn’t.
On the lagoon being ‘a poor man’s modern pool’ – I would again point to Worthing and Burgess Hill and many other leisure centres across the county. A lagoon is not trying to be a competition pool. It serves children aged 5-15 who want to play in water freely, not swim lengths. The new King Alfred’s competition pool is not a replacement for that. Although the lack of ambition in the plans does make Brighton & Hove seem like the ‘poor man’ compared to our neighbours.
On the ‘dedicated family entertainment zone’ – that doesn’t appear anywhere in the submitted planning drawings. I assume you mean the ‘Soft Play and Party Space’ – approximately 100–160 square metres of internal, double-height room with no natural light. Soft play is for children under 8. So, again, nothing for older children.
Brighton & Hove is now great if you want to swim lengths – but will have little to offer those who want to have ‘water based fun’, as Cllr Bella Sankey put it in her recent article. It is just all a little sad.
Thank you for that N, and I appreciate the genuine concern behind your points.
You’re absolutely correct that the 2020 survey showed strong public support for dedicated leisure water. However, the final design reflects, in my opinion, a difficult balance between what people want and what is viable within a constrained coastal site, budget, and long-term operational cost. Remember, this has been in limbo for about 30 years.
The term “flexible multi-use” wasn’t explicitly tested in public consultation, and that’s a fair point, but the concept of a pool that can host both lane swimming and family fun was discussed in the July 2025 sports clubs surgeries and with operators, according to the cabinet report. The same adaptable and flexible logic was also applied to the family entertainment zone, which does appear in the cabinet report. Maybe there are documents and reports available that you haven’t seen?
You’ve said you’ve seen the report, so I think you’ll agree the feedback was clear. A permanently dedicated lagoon is expensive to staff, heat, and maintain, and it reduces overall programming flexibility. Flexible usage allows for both competitive swimming and scheduled fun swims, maximising access across user groups. A design that suits everyone.
Is it the same as Worthing or Burgess Hill? No, and I won’t pretend it is. Different footprints, funding models, and catchment areas mean it’s difficult to make reasonable comparisons. But we should be sincere; the new King Alfred will have scheduled fun swim sessions, improved accessibility, and a leisure water offer, just not a permanent lagoon. The analysis in the report shows this approach generates more overall usage and revenue, which helps keep the facility open and affordable.
I share your feeling that more can be done to deliver more for children. But the truth is, this project had to prioritise core accessibility, sustainability, and long-term viability. The new facility will be open longer, be easier to access for disabled users, generate more revenue to reduce council subsidy, and last 40+ years, all while meeting net-zero targets, again as referenced in the report to cabinet.
It just means we need to be honest: this hub wasn’t designed to do everything. Other parts of the city, like Splashpoint, serve that need nearby. You agree that replicating every feature everywhere is not financially astute?
On this site, even with constraints, this is a really good, balanced outcome. And it’s still a massive improvement on the current failing building.
Benjamin the problem with your replies is that you consistently substitute confidence and condescension for evidence.
Whenever someone raises a detailed concern — whether it’s about youth facilities, the King Alfred plans, or the actual experiences of young people — your pattern is the same: dismiss the person, declare the council “right”, and then move the goalposts.
The students themselves said:
• activities are too expensive
• access is too limited
• spaces feel unsafe
Yet the flagship leisure proposal removes one of the few genuinely affordable, informal recreational spaces older children actually use. Replacing permanent leisure water with “maybe there’ll be scheduled inflatables sometimes” is not an upgrade in any meaningful sense to families who rely on it now.
You keep describing flexibility as though it automatically equals improvement. It doesn’t. A competition pool that occasionally becomes a play area is not the same thing as dedicated leisure provision. Residents understood that distinction perfectly well in the consultation, which is why they overwhelmingly supported dedicated leisure water.
You also repeatedly appeal to “the report” as though citing a document ends the debate. But people have already pointed out that:
* the refurbishment and rebuild business cases were not modelled on equal terms
* the project cost has significantly increased
* borrowing costs have worsened
* no updated BCR has been published
Those are substantive points. Calling critics “ignorant” instead of answering them just makes it look like you don’t actually have a rebuttal.
And frankly, telling people worried about children’s mental health that losing youth spaces is acceptable because “other towns nearby have them” is politically tone-deaf. Brighton & Hove should not be benchmarking itself against travelling elsewhere for basic youth recreation.
You say the council “supports young people”, but young people themselves are literally standing in the council chamber saying they feel isolated, priced out, unsafe, and lacking places to go. If the response to that is reducing accessible leisure provision while insisting everyone should be grateful for “flexibility”, then perhaps the criticism is deserved after all.
Specifically, show me one thing I’ve said that’s factually wrong in this comment section.
Nobody can know for certain whether Benjamin ™ using AI unless he admits it, but the style does have some tell-tale features people often associate with AI-assisted posting:
extremely long replies in comment sections
repetitive phrasing (“respectfully”, “it’s a well-established fact”, “to be sincere”)
overuse of debate-club language (“strawman”, “tu quoque”, “dismantles your argument”)
oddly formal structure for a local newspaper comments section
very rapid, high-volume responses
polished verbosity without always directly answering the core criticism
I’ve already told you that I don’t several times, so I’ll take that generated comment as a compliment to my writing skills, so thank you.
https://share.google/iuCdm8aN0HaLHXoaz