Conservation groups have criticised the design of a proposed new £65 million King Alfred swimming pool and leisure centre, saying that it looks more like a shopping centre.
But planning officials from Brighton and Hove City Council have given the scheme their backing, advising councillors to do the same.
At the same time, the council received 49 letters of support for the project.
The report to the Planning Committee includes official statements from council departments and external bodies on heritage, sports facilities and environmental considerations.
The Brighton and Hove Conservation Advisory Group (CAG), which was set up by the council, has objected to the application.
CAG said: “The proposal fails to realise the exceptional architectural opportunity presented by this landmark seafront site and would cause harm to the character and appearance of adjoining conservation areas, the setting of designated and non-designated heritage assets and important seafront views.
“The design is considered architecturally unambitious and insufficiently responsive to its highly sensitive heritage context.”
But the council’s heritage team said that the scheme would result in “less than substantial harm” to the neighbouring Pembroke and Princes and Old Hove conservation areas.
The heritage statement said that there were grade II listed buildings in St Aubyns as well as Barford Court, in Kingsway.
Locally listed assets include Western Lawns, the seafront shelter, seafront railings and St Aubyns Mansions.
On heritage, the report to the Planning Committee said: “The site forms part of the wider seafront setting of these assets.
“But due in part to the distance between the site and the assets and existing built form, the proposal is not considered to detract from the ability to experience their significance.”
The proposed use of Western Lawns as a car park is considered harmful but the plan is to do so only for only two years and then to restore the area.
Both the Regency Society and Hove Civic Society have criticised the design.
The Regency Society said: “The exterior shows little imagination. Just a collection of boxes with a motley collage of façade elements in, it appears, an attempt to meet an interpretation of the City Plan.
“The end result might easily be mistaken for a shopping centre. It is hard to understand why the façade designs have become worse following the intervention of a design review panel.”
Hove Civic Society said: “The seaward elevation is relatively successful – it’s quite transparent in places and should offer an interesting vista and experience for pedestrians along the promenade. But the same cannot be said about the land-side elevations.
“We believe additional design efforts are needed to make those landward sides more interesting and appealing.
“This is an important public building that will define the western end of development along the seafront for many years to come.
“The city deserves not only a modern, functional and effective new leisure centre on this site – but also one with an external appearance that impresses all who see it and that expresses civic pride and confidence in the city.”
The council’s Planning Committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 2pm on Wednesday 29 July. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast.
It no longer matters what it looks like. Look at what is there now. A worn out eyesore unfit for purpose. Ugly, inadequate and expensive to maintain as well. Objecting to everything is a Brighton mental disease. The King Alfred has been in a terrible state for *decades*. Decades! It has even had to close for long periods because it has so many problems. It must be replaced. Self-important idiots should stop bleating and moaning and let the city get on with a desperately needed *improvement*.
The design is poor and so are the facilities that are going to be provided.
How anyone could walk down st aubyns and argue about architecture is genuinely hilarious. Biggest dump in the city
The design is crap and the facilities inadequate.
That’s the bottom line.
It’s all about BHCC trying to make money by selling off part of the plot
That fact should be obvious to even the meanest of intellect
Totally agree , unfortunately perfections doesn’t exist and right now we risk doing another west pier and letting it go to rack and ruin whilst all sides are being appeased.
The Brighton Society and Save Britain’s Heritage have also objected to this horrific shipping container design surrounded by three Conservation Areas. This architectural abortion has no place anywhere near Hove Sea front and how a modestly-sized structure of this quality is projected to cost £65 million is worthy of a suspected fraud investigation. There is an opportunity to nip this in the bud before it becomes the new i360 scandal. Restoration is the way forwards. Particularly for a near-bankrupt council.
This has been over 25 years in the making.When more architecturally adventurous proposals were put forward these very same groups objected.They seem unable to say yes to anything and they make me sick.Fussing about while the existing structure is a national disgrace.All these nebulous and subjective claims about harm.If we lisyened to these groups nothing but nothing would ever get done.Let’s get on and build this damn thing.
The existing King Alfred has been deliberately neglected by successive city council administrations so that people like you will clamour for something, ANYTHING, to take its place. Cue the greedy developers to come in and gobble up Hove’s greatest public asset under market value and privatise it. Be careful what you wish for. This new leisure hub will end up being a private complex to service the new six new tower blocks which will have no facilities of their own with the public excluded, if we are not careful. That’s why it’s not geared up for families and schools in the new design.
A puddle in some rubble would be better than the current pool, which was due for demolition when I was a kid, 30 years ago…
The same people bleating about this, are the same people who bleated on about vally gardens and no doubt the ones who wanted Brexit. Get a life, the rest of the country is sick of hearing your nonsense.
But Vally Gardens is a crock of sh1t!
Make it bigger. Brighton and Hove hasn’t got any large pools.
Ugly it may be but that has little importance compared to that of functionality. It’s what’s inside that is of greater importance.
I feel that only ‘lip service’ has been used to include the disabled, less- able, poor sighted, pregnant mums and those with small children.
There is no intention to install a lagoon entry to the pool, meaning the above named groups will be unable to enter the water. A ‘pod’ entry system is to be used…..great if they’re going to install about 10 of them- and then, would a pregnant woman with a toddler be able to use that? Would she want to?
There are so many bad decisions about to be made!
If you are spending millions on a new leisure centre it must, absolutely MUST be suitable for everybody, instead of a boy-scout, one size fits all attitude.
The current King Alfred pool is great inside. It has lots of pools, most of them not boring rectangles. Kids can splash each other in their own pools – being kids, they splash the adults as well, but not as much as they will in the new but smaller replacement pool. The current pool is interestingly colourful, the new pool is bland and boxy. The current pool has gynormous changing rooms. What’s above all wrong with the current pool is the hideous exterior, but what it needs is an exterior decorator, not an architect to knock it down and replace it. That’s also what the planet needs – upgrading and improvement of buildings, not replacement. Have mercy on your town! If you are going to build anew, make it wonderful.
You understand this isn’t just about the pool don’t you, I also have to question you definition on what ‘great’ means
Heritage tend to disapprove of everything though. That’s kind of their thing. It’s just to what degree they disagree.
If we’re all making changes, is it worth the windows with the sea view going all the way to the floor? Any wall space below the windows will very likely get tagged or urinated on from the start.
I agree, can we make the widows in the changing rooms bigger too, love a good peek
There won’t be many windows with a sea view once the six tower blocks are built because they will have to be blocked off to prevent overlooking.
Whilst I have fond memories of swimming lessons there in the late 80’s & indeed my daughter is having lessons there at the moment, it is quite clear that the facility is no longer fit for purpose and needs to be raised to the ground. What I do not understand is given that this is a prime site why both the council and the local population cannot get behind an imaginative and creative design. B&H is allegedly a creative (& technological) hub in the UK and all that can be created is a a rectangular box. Make the building sympathetic to the local environment but also make it eye catching, and a real focal point – something to be proud of. If land has to be given over for flats then so be it, but at least make it better then what is there currently. Loads of famous buildings were originally hated but are now loved and this is the chance for B&H to do the same. It isn’t like the seafront doesn’t need it when you have a rundown marina, decaying ironworks along the whole front, collapsing arches in Brighton and the promises of what could have been with the remaining carcass of the West Pier. If we are not careful we will end up with another pigs ear like Hove Town Hall.