A Landmark at Risk: Why the King Alfred Deserves Better

Brighton Society believes the current proposals for the King Alfred redevelopment raise serious concerns that must be addressed before the city commits to such a significant and long‑term decision.

The financial picture alone warrants a pause. Projected costs have already risen from £47m to £65m, suggesting a scheme that may be unstable before it even begins. From the figures we have seen, the projected net income appears optimistic and should be revisited—especially in light of the recent CIPFA report, which urges councils to ensure that investment decisions are grounded in rigorous due diligence, realistic modelling and a clear under-standing of market dynamics. Brighton & Hove has been here before: the business case for the i360 overestimated visitor numbers, and the consequences are still being felt. If the assumptions behind the King Alfred scheme are similarly overstated, the city risks inheriting another loss‑making project.

There are also significant concerns about heritage and setting. The site sits within the setting of the Old Hove, Pembroke & Princes and Cliftonville Conservation Areas. Demolishing the existing building would carry a substantial environmental cost, and it is important to note that the structure is not derelict – its tired appearance is the result of prolonged under‑maintenance, not inherent decay.

We consider the King Alfred a landmark heritage asset that could be brought back to life through a comprehensive refit and refurbishment for around £20m. This alternative deserves serious exploration, not least because it could save approximately £45m compared with the current proposal.

Design issues compound these concerns. The proposed building occupies a smaller footprint than the existing centre and offers poorer disability access throughout. The café is inexplicably larger than the small pool, facilities for children aged 8–15 are reduced, and the number of gym stations appears excessive.

Despite claims of a cutting-edge” approach, the design is neither state‑of‑the‑art nor contextually sensitive. The beach‑facing frontage mimics Art Deco styling, while the west and north elevations present blank, unwelcoming walls. The east side will look directly onto what appears to be six tower blocks. For the applicant to state that the design has been “carefully and efficiently designed with reference to the existing character of the surrounding area” feels dismissive of both local residents and heritage groups.

The city deserves a leisure centre that is financially sound, environmentally responsible and architecturally worthy of its setting. The current proposal does not yet meet that standard.                                       The Trustees