The Brighton Society objects – King Alfred Proposal

The Brighton Society objects to this proposal in its current form due to a number of concerns.

Financial: Projected costs have increased from £47m to £65m which suggests a proposal that could be financially unstable. From calculations that we have seen, the projected net income could be over optimistic and needs revisiting bearing in mind the recent report by CIPFA which stated that the council should ensure that investment decisions are underpinned by rigorous due diligence, realistic financial modelling, and a clear understanding of market dynamics. This is significant as the business case developed for the i360 overestimated projected annual visitor numbers. If financial assumptions are overstated, the scheme risks being run at a loss.

The setting and links to heritage: the site sits within the setting of the Old Hove, Pembroke & Princes and Cliftonville Conservation Areas. Demolishing an existing building has a significant environmental impact. The existing building is not derelict – it is lack of maintenance that has caused its run-down appearance. The Society considers the King Alfred a heritage asset which can be brought back to life for a c£20m refit that would last for many years. Reasonable alternatives to total demolition should be explored, such as repair, adaptation or partial retention which would save £45m if this option was used.

Design: The proposed site has a smaller footprint than the current site.
Disability access is poor throughout.
The café is larger than the small pool.
There are fewer facilities for young children, particularly those between 8 – 15yrs.
There are too many gym stations.
It is not “cutting edge” or “state of the art”, rather a mimic of art deco at the front (the beach side) and overwhelming and unwelcoming blank walls on the west and north sides. The east side will face what appears to be six tower blocks.
For the applicant to add that ‘the proposed design and layout has been carefully and efficiently designed with reference to the existing character of the surrounding area’ is an affront to local residents and heritage groups.