The rising cost of plans to build a new King Alfred Leisure Centre and the amount spent so far have prompted a series of questions.
Campaigner Laura King asked whether Brighton and Hove City Council was considering an “urgent and independent review” of the £65 million budget now the council has a new permanent chief financial officer Elizabeth Griffiths.
Ms King noted how the budget was increased from £45 million to £65 million during the September 2025 cabinet meeting under the interim chief financial officer John Hooton.
At a full council meeting on Thursday (23 July), Ms King said: “How can the council demonstrate that borrowing the necessary funds represents best value for public benefit, is affordable to repay and will not become another financial disaster even larger than the i360?”
The Labour deputy leader of the council Jacob Taylor said that all projects were subject to business cases and reviews, not least because of changes in the construction and borrowing environment. He said that the business case was being reviewed.
Councillor Taylor said: “Building big projects, building big infrastructure costs money. We acknowledge that. It is a large amount of money, of course it is.
“When we compare it to the i360, I think it’s a very interesting comparison, because on this side of the chamber, we take very seriously our responsibilities on public money and when we’re investing it.
“And the things that we’re thinking about investing money in are big housing schemes to tackle the housing crisis and leisure facilities that the public want and need, not big towers in the sky that go nowhere.”
Last year, when the cabinet approved the budget increase to £65 million, it was described as a “more realistic view”, taking into account the cost of an “undercroft car park”, better facilities, a new entrance plaza and inflation in the construction sector.
The council expects to borrow between £38.6 million and £47.7 million from the Public Works Loan Board. The cost of repaying the debt over 50 years would be between £1.95 million and £2.4 million a year.
The council expects to receive between £17.3 million and £26.4 million from selling 60 per cent of the existing site for housing.
And the aim is for 40 per cent of the homes to be classed as “affordable”, with the help of funding from the government agency Homes England. The council hopes that it would also fund demolition work at the site.
Green councillor Ollie Sykes asked last week how much had been spent on the regeneration project so far, up to the end of June.
Labour councillor Alan Robins, the council’s cabinet member for sports, recreation and libraries, said that £6.12 million had been spent so far from a budget drawdown of £8.5 million.
The money had paid for the professional team creating the designs up to Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) stage 4a standard and submitting the planning application.
The council had also spent money on asbestos removal, biodiversity planting on the Hove Lawns event space and relocating UK Power Network cables, he said.
The planning application is due to go before the council’s Planning Committee on Wednesday 29 July.
Should councillors be “minded to grant” – and the application is not called in by the Secretary of State – demolition is due to start early next year, with the aim of completing the scheme by autumn 2029.
Merry-go-round….
Next year it’ll be £100,000,000..
No doubt by the time it’s complete much much much more as well…
The King Alfred project not only stinks. It honks. Even stinkier than previous redevelopment attempts. Everyone involved should be investigated on suspicion of misconduct in public office.
I reckon that they will be repaying it in 100 years time because it won’t be there in 50 years time and the seafront flats will be built and lived in way before it is completed. Once sold, the seafront space has gone forever. The plans are inadequate, underfunded and myopic. The proposals are an absolute disgrace for this size of expanding city and the design is at best, anodyne. It will result in a corridor just like Shoreham.
The financials are fully explained in the documentation, so we don’t need to reckon anything!
What documentation? Where?
…how long have you been following this story? 🤦
I have read the papers, all of them, and this point isn’t covered anywhere. The BCR was never recalculated after the budget rose 37% from £47.4m to £65m. The officer report states twice that financial and business case concerns are not material planning considerations – but that doesn’t mean they aren’t important for the Council or local residents. And at full council on the 23 July, Jacob Taylor was asked directly whether the new permanent CFO is instigating an independent review and didn’t confirm it either way. He just asserted that big projects cost lots of money. Which did not fill me with confidence on his expertise in managing major projects.
So, which document explains why £65m represents best value against a facility roughly three times the cost of a comparable scheme? Can you give an actual answer to that question. You’re doing what you always do here, implying vaguely that the information is out there somewhere rather than pointing to it.
That’s a completely different point to what I responded to Ann about. Can you try not to generate a strawman in future, please?
That is not a valid answer. As you would be quick enough to point out if it came from anyone else.
It’s a valid answer to an invalid question, that’s the problem with fallacies in general, James.
If Council Deputy Leader Jacob Taylor were to get himself a new house built, would he accept a quote of over three times the market rate? Of coure not! So why does he assume the electorate should accept this for a new leisure centre? One which will actually be far smaller than the existing King Alfred. As a public servant he is in post to ensure best value and public benefit. This is not optional, but a duty.
If Tracy Ward were to make additions to a new house she was building to make it better, would she accept that this would cost more? Of course! So why does she assume that the new leisure centre be any different? It’s a silly thing to say.
You mean the new KALC hub wasn’t going to have an entrance lobby originally, Benjamin?
Please list all the other stunning additions which lift it above bog standard and make it worth £65m.
So you agree your logic is silly. 🙃
And I don’t want to deprive you the chance to improve your reading skills.
Tracey has asked a perfectly valid question about why the cost of the project is so much more than comparable projects. Instead of engaging with the question you accuse her of being silly and question her reading skills.
It seems like that is your go to response with anything from Tracey rather than engaging with the substance. I would say that was the definition of genetic fallacy to me – if someone was pompous enough to use the phrase. You did say I should call you out on it if I saw you doing it.
Unfortunately, that’s not a genetic fallacy. That’s the continuation of disingenuous performative rhetoric of over a year. Especially when this is an aspect she’s been directly engaged with multiple times before by multiple people. I quite rightly question her reading skills because often the answer is often clearly presented in the very materials she critiques with her asinine comments. It is a common pattern. We’ve had this conversation before.
We have. And I still think your approach is rude and counterproductive.
I’m sorry you feel that way.
Altogether now:” And the social housing element has HAD to be dropped from 40 down to four to keep the whole project financial viable” – So that’s that one dealt with. I’m EXACTLY the same way these things end up time and time and time again. I’ll wait. I won’t be shocked in the slightest.
Those brown envelopes always add costs – allegedly. So I once heard from someone. Just voicing aloud that same opinion. Of course I’ve no idea if it applies in this case as, again, I’m just wondering aloud about something that’s been known to happen generally speaking
What’s the betting BH council will end up with two leisure centres, run out of lending streams and then be able to find no developer willing to take on the risk of constructing six tower blocks of marine-resistant standard in a bottoming market? This is a HIGH RISK project and they are behaving as if they are on a coach trip to a casino with our council tax. Alternatively if they have already had whatever their incentive is by the time disaster strikes, maybe they’ll just abandon ship and go and assume rinse and repeat jobs elsewhere. Next May’s election can’t come soon enough.
Something that’s been known to happen. Apart from the fact it’s never happened.
And in the meantime is the building of a pool at The Withdean Stadium still going ahead?
A double wammie in expenses!!!
Let’s hope it doesn’t get build with PFI. The debt owed by the hospital is immense. The Royal Alex rebuild cost was £37 million but with the repay over 30 years the total comes to £180 million!