A proposed new leisure centre at the King Alfred site was granted planning permission by councillors at a meeting lasting more than five and a half hours today (Wednesday 29 July).
About 50 campaigners objecting to the application gathered outside Hove Town Hall before the special Brighton and Hove City Council Planning Committee meeting.
The campaigners stood in a chalked-out space representing what they said was the modest size of the proposed splash pad children’s play area.
Councillors put a series of questions to experts on transport, leisure centres, design, sustainability and disabled access during the marathon meeting.
They heard from a barrister, three campaign groups and a beach hut owner who spelt out their various concerns about the plans.
Labour councillor Alan Robins, the council’s cabinet member for sport, leisure and libraries, spoke in support of the project along with council officials.
The new pool and leisure centre is due to be built on the western part of the existing leisure centre site, with a temporary public car park with 107 spaces on the lawn to the west of Hove Street South.
The new leisure centre includes a 25-metre, eight-lane swimming pool, a learning pool with movable floors and splash pad, a sports hall, gym and fitness suite, soft play, event space, café and undercroft car park with 122 spaces, accessed from Hove Street South.
A locally listed seafront shelter will be moved as part of the scheme.
The council has not applied to build any housing as part of the current application but planning official Maria Searle said that the City Plan strategic blueprint suggested up to 400 homes there.
An illustration of the masterplan for the site was presented to councillors. Ms Searle said that the leisure centre and housing scheme were separate – and the leisure centre could work with a future high-density housing scheme.
There were 613 objections and 1,917 people signed a petition, also objecting to the proposal.
Kerry Herbert, a disabled beach hut owner, said that the temporary car park backed on to the hut she bought with her disabled partner to give them outside space during the covid-19 lockdowns.
She said that the disabled spaces were on uneven ground and the temporary car park was too far away from the leisure centre.
Ms Herbert was also critical of the undercroft car park plans, describing the structure as “too low” for the high-sided vehicles often used by wheelchair users.
Labour councillor Joy Robinson asked about the temporary car park surface and access and was told that the details were still being refined but the surface would be gravel.
Architect Chris Roche, of the Friends of King Alfred (FOKA), said that he had several criticisms of the plans but focused on the entrance and roof.
Mr Roche said: “The entrance would be exposed to wind-blown dust and debris. I believe the entrance strategy is critical and should be reconsidered before approval.”
He noted how nearby Rockwater and Babble had roof terraces which would be more attractive for the new building’s neighbours.
Specialist barrister Rebecca Sage, of Landmark Chambers, representing Laura King, of the Facebook group Keep and Retrofit the King Alfred Leisure Centre, said that complying with the City Plan strategic blueprint did not require demolishing the existing building.
She said: “This is the most heavily used leisure centre in the city. It will only become more so if the wider side 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’?”
Emma Andrews, representing the Facebook group King Alfred Community Leisure Hub: Save and Expand, urged the committee to defer its decision to allow for an independent structural survey on the existing 1930s building.
When criticising the reduced size and facilities, she said: “The council’s proposal is a publicly funded housing enabler which falls short of the expanded and diversified sports provision envisaged by both the City Plan and the Sports Facilities Investment Plan.”
She said that the King Alfred ballroom had one of the last four sprung floors in East Sussex which would be lost in the redevelopment.
Councillors shared concerns about the loss of the sprung dance floor, with Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Mark Earthey questioning where any replacement would go.
He was told that it was not particularly well used at the moment and there were other sprung floors in Brighton and Hove.
The council’s planning agent, Lizzie Whithall, of DHA Planning, said that there were no objections from the council’s technical consultees including urban design, heritage, highways and public health.
She said that the existing building was fragmented and inefficient with duplicated circulation space and under-used areas.
Council head of place making Sam Smith said that people should not have to wait another generation for a new leisure centre to replace the King Alfred.
Mr Smith said: “Will it be well designed and meet the needs of the city today and for many years to come? Yes.
“Will it be a joyful building that people will love to use and that will help inspire healthy living and active living? Absolutely.”
Labour councillor Alan Robins, the council’s cabinet member for sports, recreation and libraries, said that – as someone who had lived his entire life in Hove and Portslade – he and his family had a strong personal connection with the King Alfred.
He said: “The current building is ageing, increasingly expensive to maintain and no longer fit for the needs of a modern city.
“If we do not act now, we have a very real risk of it needing to close and residents not having access to any facilities in this part of the city.”
Conservation Advisory Group representative Michael Doyle said that the design was shown to harm the three nearby conservation areas and affect two listed and five locally listed buildings.
On changes to the design, Mr Doyle said: “The heritage impacts remain unchanged so, while the design has changed, there’s been no material shifting in the dial in terms of reducing or removing that harm to heritage.
“Obviously this is the most significant civic building of our generation. It’s a prominent landmark site.”
Labour councillor Paul Nann recognised the concerns raised by objectors who wanted to see the King Alfred refurbished.
Councillor Nann said: “I think it’s fair to say that even if we felt strongly about refurbishing the King Alfred and we rejected this application, that wouldn’t be a message to the officers to go back and start to prepare to refurbish.”
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Mark Earthey said that there had been many comparisons with the Saltdean Lido, which went “massively over budget”. He wanted to see the King Alfred undergo scrutiny.
Councillor Earthey said: “I did have some misgivings. I still do. I’m not happy about the ballroom and the loss of amenities (but) I will vote for it.”
Green councillor Kerry Pickett said that the council did not want the costs to go higher than they were already.
Councillor Pickett said: “We do realise that there are a lot of people here who love the building that’s currently there and the redevelopment is kind of worrying for them but we do have to move forward.
“I appreciate that this design has worked really hard to include what people want to some extent.”
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald voted against the scheme, saying that there should have been one planning application for the whole site, including the future housing plans.
Councillor Theobald said: “The scheme does seem on the small side – 30 to 40 per cent smaller than what is there now – and for a growing population.
“I’d have liked to have seen a 50-metre pool so that we could have had some competitive swimming and the splash area is very small and there’s not enough really for teenagers.”
Despite her vote, the committee approved the scheme by eight to one.
What debate? They just all pretended to be oh-so-confused when they started the meeting but 6 hours of unsubstantiated waffle from 13 council officers and 11 architects, all with vested interests, had convinced them the King Alfred redevelopment was a good idea, despite its severe space constraints and designing out of emergency and other high sided vehicle access and they voted for it. Except for Councillor Carol Theobald, the one Councillor who showed any integrity whatsoever. It was particularly disgusting that the Chair asked one leading question after another. And made the poor CAG man wait right until the end to do one of the best presentations of the lot. Their paid heritage stooge seemed to have no knowledge of the local area and claimed that refurbishing a Victorian lamp post and a storm shelter would tick the heritage consideration box.
What would you do instead?
Refurbish the existing King Alfred. it is a load of BS this option would only last another 10 years. How dare they expect us to go to Moulscoomb hall, about to be demolished as well, if we need to use a ball room.
So, you’d ignore the information you’re given, claim it’s lies and deceit, then ultimately cause the failure of the project? Reminds me of several Reform council stories.
I am concerned, these access to King Alfred’s Leisure Centre hasn’t plans in this proposal for local bus routes. Focus is mostly about parking cars. The nearest bus route is on Blatchington Road, Several streets away, then across a busy seafront road. Not good enough for Brighton and Hove residents with mobility issues. There ought to be a seafront bus service to access area.
It gets worse. It came out that the undercroft car park entrance into the building will only be 1.2m high which will exclude access to the front of the building underground for emergency vehicles, contractor vehicles, disabled vehicles and any school mini buses etc wishing to park while groups of pupils use the leisure centre, who would be expected to go and park elsewhere. What if the teacher is driving though and is not supposed to leave her pupils unsupervised? At ground level, there will be no drop off area at the actual front entrance which starts off as public realm but eventually becomes a building site for six tower blocks, though that wasn’t mentioned. Nothing has been thought through properly and the application should have been turned down on emergency and disability access issues alone.
No mention of the loss of the huge 1160 sq m fitlab gym whose size was listed as 280 sq m in the report…. the biggest and best-equipped gym in the area will be lost.
Work has yet to commence on the Withdean swimming pool. BHCC said it would start in spring 2026.
Doesn’t augur well
What are the delays with the Withdean swimming pool?
Rumours are a pool for East Brighton
You mean they are not going ahead with Withdean swimming pool?