Over 220 individuals have submitted feedback on Brighton and Hove City Council’s £65 million proposals to revamp the King Alfred Leisure Centre since the plans were unveiled.
As of publication, there were 203 expressions of opposition alongside 23 statements of backing for the scheme.
The authority intends to construct new swimming pools and sports amenities on the existing car park and former tenpin bowling venue located in Kingsway, Hove.
The architectural approach has faced criticism for its blocky, simple appearance. Parents have voiced concern about the absence of a lagoon-style leisure pool.
Some respondents have welcomed the overall project while expressing reservations about the visual aspects and amenities, while others have advocated for renovation of the existing 1930s structure instead.
One objector, whose personal information was removed by the council, expressed support for the development in principle but argued the current design falls short. This respondent pointed out that the existing pool provides a dedicated leisure zone for young children and families, an element that appears absent from the new proposal. The individual noted that facilities such as Splashpoint in Worthing, which features a leisure pool and diving pool, and Pavilions in the Park in Horsham, which includes a lazy river and leisure area, demonstrate that superior amenities could be incorporated.
Another objector observed that the proposed design does not provide anything unavailable at Sea Lanes or the Prince Regent. The individual noted that residents would still need to travel to Burgess Hill or Worthing for attractions such as water slides. This respondent argued that Brighton requires slides, a lazy river, and a lagoon area designed for young children.
A supporter, whose details were also redacted by the council, indicated having resided in the city since childhood and expressed the view that the present facility no longer serves its intended purpose. The individual described the centre as outdated, with its layout and general condition failing to meet contemporary expectations for a modern leisure facility. This respondent expressed that it was not somewhere they would currently choose to visit. However, the proposed plans were presented as a substantial upgrade, with particular emphasis on the improved gymnasium as a larger, better-equipped space that would make a meaningful difference and represent a facility they would use regularly.
Another supporter argued that the current leisure centre possesses no architectural significance, describing it as a worn, utilitarian structure that has long exceeded its functional lifespan. This individual dismissed assertions regarding its status as part of Brighton and Hove’s architectural heritage and suggested such claims should be treated accordingly. The respondent urged the planning authority to examine such assertions rigorously rather than accepting them without question.
Activists have arranged a demonstration outside the King Alfred Ballroom on Saturday, March 28 at 11.45am.
To examine the application, search for reference BH2026/00490 on the council’s website. Users must register before submitting comments.