The new King Alfred swimming pool offers little for older children and young adults, according to objectors.
Hundreds of people have objected to the plans and among the complaints are that the proposed family leisure water space would be less than half the size of the existing pool.
Last month, a layout for 75 square metres of “splash pad” was added to the application that is due to be decided by Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee next Wednesday (29 July).
The existing King Alfred pool, which opened in 1982, has 180 square metres of “leisure water play” with a gently sloping walk-in lagoon, a slide and water play facilities.
From 1986 to 2000, the pool also had three water flumes.
The new splash pad design shows a slide, pool bubblers, a rain feature, palms, a water cascade and helico birds water feature.
Objectors have raised concerns about the small size of the leisure water area and the lack of fun elements for older children and teenagers.
An anonymous objector, whose details were redacted by the council, said: “What is described as a ‘leisure pool’ is, in effect, a very small splash-based area (approximately 4 metres to 8 metres of feature water space with limited depth and circulation).
“The inclusion of themed elements such as pirate ship features does not compensate for the absence of genuine free-swimming leisure space.
“This is not comparable to a functional leisure pool capable of supporting mixed-age, informal recreation.”
Another anonymous objector, whose details were also redacted, said: “This is meant to be a family facility but there is very little here for teenagers and young adults.
“Under-18s make up a significant part of Hove yet the offer drops off after early childhood.
“There is provision for younger children but not much for older age groups even though participation often declines during the teenage years if there is nothing aimed at them.
“A new centre should support people across all stages of life.”
Another anonymous objector criticised the loss of a “beach entry pool”.
The objector said: “I am very disappointed with the removal of the large leisure pool and slide which includes a beach entry pool perfect for babies, small children and those with mobility issues.
“It helps increase confidence in the water for those that cannot afford swimming lessons. However, the new very tiny ‘splash pad’ that is being introduced in a windowless area is terrible.”
Sport England has not objected to the application but has noted the reduced size of the proposed new leisure centre.
Swim England has also offered its support in a letter to the council.
In a report, officials advised that councillors should be “minded to grant” the application for the £65 million leisure centre when it goes before the council’s Planning Committee next Wednesday (29 July).
The meeting is due to start at 2pm at Hove Town Hall and is scheduled to be webcast.
I’ve been living in Hove all my life. I’m 60 years old now. Over the years the talks of reinventing the King Alfred have come and gone . Don’t let this be another let down for all of us. The quicker works start the better. I despise delays and arguing . Sometimes it’s better to move forward rather than standing still debating and arguing.
There isn’t an area for spectators to sit so the pool cannot host galas – absolutely pathetic
Since the plans show that children, the disabled and the elderly have almost been designed out, who is the new King Alfred actually for?
Thank you- at last someone is listening !
Expect none of that is true, Tracy.
I was born and raised in Brighton and Hove, and learnt to swim at the King Alfred.
I have a child who loves swimming, but would be too old for the 75m2 (the size of a double garage) splash pad deep in the building. I just find it really sad that this is all we can offer the children in our city.
Across our city is plenty of lane swimming, gym space and spin studios – but there will now be nowhere local for leisure swimming. This is a leisure centre that was designed entirely for adults.
I also find it concerning that the planning report, just a week before planning permission is likely to be granted, is the first time that the council has published a full comparison of the existing provision and what the new proposal offers. With 250sqm more gym space and 105sqm less leisure swimming. It is pretty clear what the priorities were.
Instead of being transparent during the consultation about what was being proposed, Councillors have repeatedly reassured people that ‘there absolutely will be slides and other water play equipment in the leisure pool’ and ‘watch this space’ whilst providing images of Centre Parcs facilities in Germany that will never be delivered at the King Alfred.
I have no doubt that the councillors on the planning committee will approve this next week – but I think both the process and the end product are deeply disappointing.
The King Alfred is the next i360 disaster waiting to happen. I am surprised the Public Loans Works Board will lend the council any more money until the 1360 debt is fully paid back to be honest. It was only ‘written off’ for the new operator they gave the i360 to in return for peanuts. The rest of us are still paying. How dodgy was it to borrow £36.2m public money to lend a private contractor for a private venture in the first place?
You don’t swim in a splash pad.
No you don’t. Good point. We seem to be agreeing on a few issues today!
Although it was disappointing that Cllr Robbins didn’t seem to understand that when he told the Cabinet meeting at the end of April that there was three pools, when there is only two – a main pool and a teaching pool – plus the splash pad. You’d really hope the lead councillor would be familiar with the plans he was responsible for.
It really is a very disappointing offer for all our children. Even if your child is a suitable age for the splash pad it is deep in the building, with no outside windows, and on the direct path between the spacious new changing rooms and the training pool – not like Splashpoint in Worthing where the leisure pool takes full advantage of the sea views and the lane swimming pool is on the other side.
His email in response to your correspondence, which was added to the consultation, seems to indicate that he did understand.
Hopefully it won’t be infested with cockroaches though. I wouldn’t use the current pool or take children there. It’s disgusting.
The only reason they are rebuilding is to free up the space for tower blocks. This “pool” is of secondary consideration and the public are being seriously short changed
So pathetic. Bring back flumes and add a wave pool to wear the beach bit is.
Pool provisions in B&H are basically poor. The KA needs to be raised and a proper provision put in. If the council are saying that they don’t have the funds then guess what, they will have to save (or better still get Peter Kyle to lobby for some central funds now he is no longer in government). What we cannot have is a sub par leisure centre yet again. I have fond memories of KA as a kid but when you compare it to other pools in the area it is just poor. Would Portsmouth or Southampton put up with this mess? The answer is no so why should B&H? The KA should be a leading leisure facility on the south coast.. The plot of land is huge, give some of it up for a residential block (where the old bowling alley used to to be & ensure underground public parking), and then redevelop the existing site with an Olympic/diving pool, training pool and leisure pool/activities. Make it a site to host galas etc. so it can pay its way. Get rid of those god awful cheap attractions next door, put in a saltwater lido/summer pool & build a gym or what not there whilst accommodating the boxing gym etc. Future proof the site & make it sympathetic to the local environment so it will last 20-30 years+ & then ensure that there is decent public transport down there (extend the 7 bus route?). Yes it will cost, yes it will take time but just get it right first time rather than giving a botched up mess that no one is happy with.
The metropolis that is Burgess hill managed to build a leisure pool why not brighton?
Exactly. It’s like so many provisions in B&H. Despite paying some of the highest council taxes in the country everything is run down and decrepit. The roads, the parks, the leisure provisions, libraries, the list goes on and on. All councillors, regardless of the shade of colour, have massively let down for B&H since it became a city & seem to be satisfied with ‘managed decline’ whilst investing in various white elephant projects. It is a struggle to think of any success stories which the council have been involved in. Just plain inept.
Is that just an argument that government should give more to councils, then?