A specialist barrister spelt out some of the concerns about plans for a £65 million new King Alfred swimming pool and leisure centre on Hove seafront.
Rebecca Sage spoke for objector Laura King, of Keep and Retrofit the King Alfred Leisure Centre, when Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee met at Hove Town Hall this afternoon (Wednesday 29 July).
The Planning Committee, made up of 10 councillors, had the task of deciding whether to grant planning permission for the project.
Ms King was one of more than 600 objectors to the scheme while almost 2,000 people signed a petition – also against the proposal. The council received more than 50 comments in support.
Key objections included
- the demolition rather than the reuse of the existing building
- too little sports, leisure and community provision and children’s water play
- adverse effect on local heritage
- inadequate accessibility, inclusion and equality
- traffic, parking and infrastructure concerns
- insufficient consultation
Ms Sage questioned whether the council’s Planning Committee had “adequate information and advice to decide this application properly”.
The plans were part of a wider masterplan, she said, that would “inevitably lead to the demolition of the existing King Alfred Leisure Centre”.
She said: “That is the necessary precursor to housing on the wider site … Yet none of the harms of demolition are weighed in the balance.”
Ms Sage cited national and local planning policies that “encourage the reuse of existing resources including the conversion of existing buildings” and “minimise the use of new materials”.
She said that council policy required the “replacement and enhancement of the sports provision currently provided at the King Alfred”.
But the proposed leisure centre would be smaller while “the swimming lagoon, one of two sports halls, the ballroom – one of the last in East Sussex with a sprung floor – and several community uses including the boxing club are all lost”.
Ms Sage said: “This is the most heavily used leisure centre in the city. It will only become more so if the wider site is developed for housing.
“And yet it is to be replaced with a materially smaller facility with fewer amenities and no comparable swimming provision for disabled people. Does this genuinely constitute an ‘enhancement’?
“There are many objectors, regular users of the current facilities, who say it does not. Those objections are weighty and further indicate conflict with policy.”
She also said: “The Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) – the council’s independent advisory body – found the public benefits insufficient to outweigh the significant heritage harm identified.
“That conclusion – reached on the correct understanding that the proposals are part of the wider development scheme for the site – is not addressed in the officer report.
“The officer report identifies remarkably few harms for a scheme of this scale and sensitivity. That itself is a reason to pause before accepting this recommendation.”
Ms Sage said that Ms King’s position was “that this scheme does more harm than good” and urged councillors to refuse planning permission.
She added: “If the committee is not minded to refuse, she invites deferral until the matters she has raised are properly addressed.”
