More than 220 people have shared their opinions on the proposed redevelopment of the King Alfred Leisure Centre since the plans went public.
At the time of writing there were 203 objections and 23 supporting comments for Brighton and Hove City Council’s £65 million plans.
The council wants to build new swimming pools and sports facilities on the current car park and former tenpin bowling alley site in Kingsway, Hove.
The building design has come under fire for being “blocky” and families have criticised the lack of a lagoon-style leisure pool.
There are comments welcoming the scheme but critical of the design and facilities while others want to see the existing 1930s building refurbished.
One anonymous objector, whose details were redacted by the council, said: “I am in support of the development as a whole but I do not feel the current design is adequate.
“The current pool has a leisure area for small children and families. This does not appear to have been included in the new design.
“If you compare it to Splashpoint, in Worthing, which has a leisure pool area and diving pool, or the Pavilions in the Park, in Horsham, which has a lazy river and leisure area, there is definitely scope for better facilities.”
Another anonymous objector said: “This current design offers nothing that isn’t already available at Sea Lanes or the Prince Regent.
“Residents will still have to travel to Burgess Hill or Worthing for slides, etc.
“Brighton needs this – slides, a lazy river and a lagoon area for small children.”
An anonymous supporter, whose details were also redacted by the council, said: “I’ve lived in the city since childhood and, in my view, the current facility is no longer fit for purpose.
“It feels outdated and the layout and overall condition don’t meet what people expect from a modern leisure centre. It’s not somewhere I would currently choose to use.
“The proposed design is a big improvement. In particular, the upgraded gym stands out – a larger, better-equipped space would make a real difference to me. It’s the kind of facility I would actually use on a regular basis.”
Another anonymous supporter said: “The existing leisure centre has no architectural merit. It is a tired, utilitarian structure that has long since passed its useful life.
“Claims that it represents part of Brighton and Hove’s architectural heritage are not made in good faith and should be treated accordingly.
“The planning authority should scrutinise these assertions carefully rather than accept them at face value.”
Campaigners have organised a protest outside the King Alfred Ballroom on Saturday 28 March at 11.45am.
To view the application, search for BH2026/00490 on the council’s website. Registration is required to comment.
Why do you not mention the fact it will be a fraction of the site and most will be used on multiple tower blocks !!!!!
This planning application should be withdrawn as there has been council misrepresentation concerning the size of the new leisure facilities being offered and it appears to be ‘salami slicing’ of the site with no transparent full development plans or full site impact assessments such as an EIA. Anyone living around the King Alfred will face living in an unsaleable property owing to noise, disruption and dirt for up to 5 years including the skyscraper construction. They will also lose up to £150k on their property value if they currently have a sea view. Nearby residents are saying on social media that they have not heard anything directly from the council and some are only finding out about the plans now. The plans are shockingly amateurishm considering the £65million cost of the project and look like a storage container from certain angles. The plans do not even specify the construction materials and their suitability for a marine environment. The new hub is not a patch on the existing King Alfred leisure centre and what it provides to the community, despite its current run-down appearance. But who has any faith that BHCC would look after a replacement any better?
Yes needs diving pool plus childrens area and bigger main pool.
Old building needs oulling down as out dated full cockroacges in walls
But BHCC said 90% of residents supported the plan!
Have they been fibbing….again?
I saw that Laura King was whipping up people to post objections on social media. As a reminder, though, it’s quality comments, related to material planning grounds, that have weight here. Quantity has been frequently noted to not be a strong material factor; see the Gasworks.
Benjamin’s right that planning decisions aren’t based on numbers alone — but dismissing 200+ objections as social media “whipping up” misses the point.
Many of the concerns are valid: lack of family facilities, uninspiring design, and whether the new scheme actually improves on the current King Alfred Leisure Centre.
People aren’t objecting for the sake of it — they’re questioning why a £65m project doesn’t include features already available at places like Splashpoint Leisure Centre.
If anything, the volume of objections suggests the council hasn’t got the proposal right yet — not that residents should be ignored.
Most of the people objecting are homeowners that are concerned about losing their seaview when the flats are built. Their concerns about the new leisure centre, and the suggestion that the council retro fit the existing one, are absolutely not valid or made in good faith. They are a back door way of trying to get the council to abandon the overall scheme.
Where is your evidence for that?
Interesting that you have insight into who has commented and from where, do you work for the council by any chance?
I objected too, but live 5 miles away from the site so would not be directly impacted if the view of the sea was ruined for locals (however wrong that actually is to do).
Like many others I am concerned with what we are getting for our ever increasing council taxes, less for more like with other services unfortunately and the council are not actually listening to those that would want to use the facilities, only the older adults that want yet another sports facility aimed at their needs when there are no decent family leisure facilities in the City.
Worthing, Burgess Hill etc put us to shame and it feels like this council has no plans to address this with their investment in blocks of flats and a token facility for a minority of residents that ticks the boxes so they can redevelop most of the site at a profit.
Again, not the point I was making; it’s a reminder to include quality comments that reference material planning grounds to ensure your voice has weight.
Architecture may be a bit standard but hopefully that has helped with costs and will mean a quicker build.
The old King Alfred had nothing Architectural going for it and is an ongoing money pit if you try to keep it running.
Shame so many objected to it being built next to Sainsburys as they could have built an additional tower block on the seafront and used the money for the sale to a developer to partly fund a bigger and better one at the new site.
Brighton and Hove city council Labour adminstration may have shot themselves in the foot by commissioning the recent report on the £51m failure of the i360 to stitch up the Blues and the Greens.
https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2026/03/06/costly-lessons-of-i360-spelt-out-in-independent-report/
Reading the conclusions of how not to make the same mistakes again, it is possible to observe an absolute council DETERMINATION to make the ALL same mistakes again, this time with the £65m King Alfred redevelopment. And this time there will be no other political blame monkeys.
Read the following list of lessons obviously NOT learnt! Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. The list goes on.
The report included a “Summary of Lessons Learnt”
Strategic Planning and Alignment
The project was conceptually aligned with regeneration and tourism goals but lacked clearly defined success criteria and measurable outcomes.
Strategic ambitions were not translated into robust performance indicators, making it difficult to assess progress or impact over time.
Economic Forecasting and Market Assumptions
Visitor number projections and market penetration figures were significantly overestimated, and not focused enough on local regional comparators which may have provided a better comparator.
The assumptions failed to reflect Brighton’s actual market dynamics, leading to unrealistic expectations and financial shortfalls.
Optimism bias was evident throughout the business case, with insufficient adjustment for downside risks or external shocks.
Financial Modelling and Resilience
Revenue and EBITDA forecasts were overly ambitious and not supported by realistic secondary spending assumptions.
The financial model lacked sufficient stress testing and scenario planning, which would have revealed vulnerabilities in debt servicing and operational sustainability. Later business plan medium and low ‘constrained’ number assumptions were still highly overstated.
The absence of post-launch review mechanisms meant that financial underperformance was not addressed in a timely or adaptive manner.
Commercial Governance and Risk Management
The risk register was well-structured, but failed to capture key financial, reputational and governance risks. While later additions included financial risk these were not given enough emphasis or mitigation strategies.
There was no modelling of loan repayment risk or contingency planning for default scenarios, despite the council’s exposure as lender.
Optimism bias and external shocks were not adequately considered, limiting the robustness of risk mitigation strategies.
Benchmarking and Validation
Comparison to global attractions distorted expectations. A greater emphasis on more appropriate comparators like regional UK attractions would have provided more grounded insights.
The business plan lacked independent market validation and relied heavily on a single forecasting source, reducing confidence in its assumptions.
Governance and Management Oversight
Governance structures lacked agility and clarity. Roles and escalation routes were poorly defined, and stakeholder communication was inconsistent.
There was limited use of rolling forecasts, KPIs, or adaptive management frameworks to monitor and respond to performance issues.
Internal commercial acumen was insufficient, contributing to weak oversight and a lack of challenge to key assumptions.
The leadership team for i360 Ltd lacked financial depth.
The report also included “Recommendations for Future Projects”
Apply Optimism Bias Adjustments
Use standard adjustments to temper projections and ensure financial realism, especially in revenue forecasts.
Conduct Scenario and Sensitivity Testing
Model best-case, base-case, and worst-case scenarios to understand financial resilience and inform risk mitigation strategies. Whilst a later iteration to the Business Plan included a ‘constrained’ medium and low attendance demand, these were still considerably overstated.
Benchmark Appropriately
Compare intended outcomes with similar market profiles to ensure projections are grounded in realistic data.
Commission Independent Market Validation
Use multiple sources to validate demand, pricing, and positioning, and engage local stakeholders for contextual insights.
Implement Pilot Testing and Pre-Opening Engagement
Use data and social media analytics to gauge market appetite and refine offerings before full launch.
Stress Test Financial Models
Evaluate cash flow under adverse conditions and include contingency plans for refinancing or restructuring debt.
Establish Post Review Mechanisms
Use rolling forecasts and performance triggers to monitor progress and enable timely strategic adjustments.
A whole lot of nonsense to write in a comment section in a local newspaper. Time to check in to the doctor buddy
Nah, good on JamesK for referencing documentation!
Nail on head. Have the council been asked to demonstrate they have produced a Risk Assessment to measure all the failures of the i360 as per the report against the risks of the King Alfred redevelopment?
Surely that should have come before the planning application! Cart before horse?
Tower block No thanks
Slides lazy river lagoon area yes please
We should be looking to build an exceptional award winning Leisure Centre not just flats and pool because its prime real estate space.
Something we can all be proud of as a destination to go to for everyone. Not just the basic minimum.
Bridlington has an amazing leisure centre and it’s in a deprived area . Its cost to build was 25 million, 7000 square metres, and was designed by East Riding of Yorkshire Council architecture team. Built by BAM . Come on Hove Council .
BHCC don’t even have a proper Clerk of Works team to check building works are done properly and sign them off, never mind an architectural department capable of designing buildings. ironically it was the existing King Alfred which was designed by former Hove Borough Council Surveyor, Tom Humble and built at a cost of £170k in 1939, around £8m in today’s money and which has lasted nearly 90 years.
Seems once again the “gentry” of Hove will get some nice new facilities and the “peasants” of other parts of the city will once again get nothing or no investment.
A couple of things that I am thinking.
I wonder when the Council are considering taking over Peacehaven, Newhaven etc. if Hove will in fact apply to leave as it is too posh for the new area. It might become the People’s Republic of Hove for example?
And isn’t a Labour Council supposed to be investing and about key services for the most disadvantaged? It feels like the Council Leader and her team are secretly Tories in disguise. All about posh swimming pools and padel courts and Beach Clubs..
Ironically, if Hove separated from Brighton, it’d quickly drown in ASC bills. East Brighton does seem to be left aside when it comes to investment. Although Pride in Place is a good start, whatever ends up being done at Black Rock, and there’s the regeneration of Whitehawk. I think these are all good opportunities to make a difference, and opportunities us “peasants” can get involved in too!
Hove on its own would have a very different financial reality, especially with how much Adult Social Care eats into budgets—it’s easy to underestimate how much cross-subsidy happens across the city.
And yeah, East Brighton often feels like it’s playing catch-up, but you’re right that there are some genuinely promising things in motion. Pride in Place has real potential if it keeps momentum, and both Black Rock and Whitehawk could be proper turning points if they’re done with the community rather than just to it.
I actually think your last point is the most important—these are some of the few moments where residents can shape what happens next. Consultations, local groups, even just showing up and making noise when plans are being discussed—it all adds up. If enough people get involved, it makes it harder for things to be watered down or miss what locals actually need.
Feels like a bit of a “wait and see,” but also a “get involved where possible” moment.
I’m not sure why there isn’t more imagination. This is a new Leisure Centre in a major tourist area. It should have a : Pool, Leisure pool, Diving Pool, and a regulation sized Ice rink. From a green perspective the heat generated from cooling the ice slab can be used to heat the pools – efficient. The nearest Ice rinks are in Streatham and Guildford so an Ice Rink would be a real crowd puller and additional draw for visitors.
I’m not sure why there isn’t more imagination. This is a new Leisure Centre in a major tourist area. It should have a : Leisure pool, and a regulation sized Ice rink. From a green perspective the heat generated from cooling the ice slab can be used to heat the pools – efficient. The nearest Ice rinks are in Streatham and Guildford so an Ice Rink would be a real crowd puller and additional draw for visitors.
Why is the media whitewashing the Council’s building plans? Every article uses ‘hero shots’ of a shiny new leisure centre while hiding the massive tower blocks that will actually dominate the site. Let’s be clear: the leisure centre is only 40% of the build. The rest is a massive residential development designed to fund the project and line specific pockets. The public deserves to see the full picture, not a cropped version of the truth.
The editors of the website choose the photos, FYI.