I was very encouraged to read Rowan Dore's article about the new sports complex being built at the Dorothy Stringer School under a private-public financial project with Jarvis Accommodation.

This is good news for the pupils of the school and nearby residents, who will be able to use the new facilities when completed.

I was also interested to read that sport and leisure have been two of the fastest-growing industries in the past decade and that Brighton and Hove has poor sports facilities for a city of its size and status.

So it amazes me Brighton and Hove City Council proposes to build 300 to 400 flats on the site of the King Alfred leisure centre. Surely it should be giving residents the option to secure the site of the King Alfred wholly for sports and leisure provision for both themselves and the thousands of visitors who come to stay each year.

Young mothers with their toddlers drive to the Triangle leisure centre at Burgess Hill because the facilities are much better, even though entry costs more than the King Alfred.

Young people play football on Hove Lawns every Sunday because there are no other suitable open spaces in the area. Children skateboard in busy streets and car parks because there is no proper amenity for them. People such as me, who want that extra incentive to do more exercise, are put off by the poor facilities Brighton and Hove offers.

If the council can't find or attract the funds to improve the King Alfred, why does it not follow Dorothy Stringer School and get a public-private finance initiative, or follow Greenwich Leisure, the not-for-profit, employee-owned social enterprise?

If towns such as Burgess Hill, with a population of 28,525, can manage a new leisure centre, why can't Brighton and Hove do the same for its population of 259,914?

-Gill Siddle, Vallance Gardens, Hove