News RSS Feed


Crucial £1.5m repairs for King Alfred


Urgent repairs are to be carried out on the King Alfred leisure centre at a cost of up to £1.5 million.

Ted Kemble, cabinet member for major projects, said the investment was needed to ensure the Hove seafront facility meets basic health and safety standards before a long-term plan is devised.

It was confirmed at the weekend that the £290 million redevelopment of the King Alfred centre would not go ahead.

In July, financial backer Dutch bank ING, pulled out of the scheme, leaving it hanging by a thread.

When planning permission was granted in March last year, it was expected developer Karis would give Brighton and Hove City Council a three-month notice to leave the building, known as a vacant possession notice, by November 9.

Without a backer, Karis was unable to do this and the contract between the developers and Brighton and Hove City Council expired at midnight on Sunday.

Councillor Kemble criticised the previous Labour administration, which backed the King Alfred scheme, for not preparing a “plan B”.

But Gill Mitchell, Labour group leader on the council, said her party could not draw up alternatives while tied into a contract with Karis.

Coun Kemble said: “The closure of the King Alfred at this stage would be a huge mistake given that this is the largest wet and dry sports facility in the city.

“Increasing participation in sport for all our residents is a major priority for us and that is why we are investing up to £1.5 million in urgent works to keep it open.

“But the reason we are now having to invest so heavily in basic health and safety and maintenance measures is that the previous Labour administration failed to plan responsibly for this eventuality – there was no ‘plan B’.

“Now we have ensured the King Alfred centre remains open, we need to ensure that we have a full and frank discussion on what the options are for the future since the current funding package is not the long-term solution for the site.”

Karis said last week ING was willing to come back on board if the scheme was reworked so it was profitable and any proposal was mothballed until the economy improved.

Ms Mitchell said: “We could not have a ‘plan B’ because it would have undermined the agreement.

“That the Conservatives, who have been campaigning against the scheme for a number of years, do not have a fully worked alternative is surprising.”

A report on the redevelopment of the King Alfred site and urgent works is due to be discussed on November 20 at Hove Town Hall.

Comments(13)

King from Hove says...
11:46am Wed 12 Nov 08

Get on with it.1.5 million is nothing to what the council have in bank deposits especially their shrewd accountants who took taxpayers money out of the Icelandic banks.Monies were wasted on stupid bus lane and cycling lane schemes so now make up for the mistakes and get the KA sorted

Dave At Home says...
12:17pm Wed 12 Nov 08

Well cheaper than the 16 million that was mentioned the other day, crack on I say

jack reagan says...
12:28pm Wed 12 Nov 08

Just make do and mend eh? Why not knock down this grossly outdated eyesore and build somthing more modern?

6LXB says...
12:39pm Wed 12 Nov 08

It's about time they restored the three closed flumes. There is all this talk of childhood obesityy, it kept me fit running up the stairs all the time to have a go on the black hole flume. How I long for the green light and to go plunging through the darkness again!

quedula says...
12:47pm Wed 12 Nov 08

jack reagan wrote:
Just make do and mend eh? Why not knock down this grossly outdated eyesore and build somthing more modern?
Not nearly as much as an eyesore as the Gehry towers would have been, and visible for miles. The KA is shabby I grant you because of decades of neglect. If they got rid of or renewed those awful fumes it would help.

Fight Back says...
1:04pm Wed 12 Nov 08

So Cllr Mitchell and her colleagues thought having a plan B would undermine the deal ??? Well by NOT having one you've shown what a bunch of incompetent fools you really are. ALL major projects should have risk assesments and plans in place for any failures. It is a prime example how councillors are not capable of running major projects and should not be trusted to do so. Strange how she seems to think the Tories should have had a plan B though - pot, kettle and black Cllr Mitchell. I'm fed up seeing your pathetic moaning quotes in the Argus blaming anyone except her and her fellow Labour councillors. You sound like a spoilt six year old who has had their toy taken away - STOP IT.

Wiggsy says...
1:08pm Wed 12 Nov 08

Coun Kemble said: “The closure of the King Alfred at this stage would be a huge mistake given that this is the largest wet and dry sports facility in the city"

Doesn't that statement just goes to prove how p155 poor our facilities are in the city.

If they are willing to 'invest' £1.5m (just to meet basic Health & Safety standards?!?!) then one presumes the development (in whatever guise it'll be) will not be getting off the ground for at least 3+ years given the current climate.

Voice of the silent Majority says...
3:09pm Wed 12 Nov 08

£1,500,000.00,just to meet H&S for now. Does that meean that it dosn't meet basic Health and Safety requirements NOW?

Glenda says...
6:52pm Wed 12 Nov 08

Can't the council now sue Dosh Arghiros? He was prepared to sue us at one point (change of Council). So now can't we sue? Is it only developers who threaten?
I forgot Karis can hardly call themselves developers anymore.

Glenda says...
6:55pm Wed 12 Nov 08

If Karis go out of business, will ING and Josh Arghiros be given a second chance?

davyboy says...
9:35pm Wed 12 Nov 08

Voice of the silent Majority wrote:
£1,500,000.00,just to meet H&S for now. Does that meean that it dosn't meet basic Health and Safety requirements NOW?
obviously not, which is very worrying. i never liked the place anyway, bot the option they were offering was even worse. knock it down, and replace it with a modern leisure centre with spas, flumes etc, along with other sports facilities(indoor tennis, basketball,squash, gym etc)

TheInsider says...
11:35pm Wed 12 Nov 08

Perhaps the two universities would like to purchase the site to develop student accommodation and a top class sports centre.
The sports centre could be used by everyone in the city. The additional accommodation would enable the city's families and working people to move back into the family homes the students vacate. Some of the homes student vacate could be purchased by the council, now prices are dropping, to provide social housing for local people. This would help alleviate the growing disharmony in the city between students and residents whose lifestyles are simply incompatible.
With the offer of 21st century student accommodation with sea views, the universities could attract high flying overseas students who provide a higher level of income which could help fund the development and who may return years later as post graduates to invest in the city.
In addition to this, the universities could use the skills in their various faculties to carry out public consultation about any proposed development and even design a building which is both innovative yet is in harmony with the natural and the nearby built environment. It could at least have some world-leading green design to it...this does not mean throwing up a couple of council-style towers and adding some unusual cladding and planters in a paved square so the sales marketing can claim the structure/developmen
t is iconic or an example of urban chic in the hope that residents would accept that this was necessary for the city to be able to have a sports centre.
Now the dust from this collapsed property deal has settled, it is clear, that relying on a development of hundreds of "apartments" to fund the development of a council sports centre, is not going to work.
There are whole blocks of "urban chic apartments" which were built in former docks, canal banks and industrial wastelands across UK cities during the property boom under the guise of regeneration, which are now in total repossession and even basic maintenance costs are not being met. People are realising that the half million pound dockland apartments they purchased are really just £130,000 flats on former industrial sites.
Brighton and Hove can sigh with relief that we are not faced with the same situation.
The King Alfred may be tatty, but at least there are not towers of darkness sitting above it.

bug eye says...
4:27pm Thu 13 Nov 08

Theinsider, now i have heard it all, how ridiculous what a waste of an amazing site for student accommodation to be wrecked. how exactly will these students get to sussex and brighton uni. there maybe some antisocial students but that needs to be sorted by the useless council leaders. students provide elm grove and lewes road with business and life, you do not believe for one minute families are queuing up to rent the houses and are not allowed, because it is a free market and they can rent them if they wish to, no on is stopping them. the landlords provide a service that the governement and council never will so get used to it, unless you want even higher tuition fees. not many students want to live in expensive halls more costly than private renting, on their own miles away from uni and the town centre get real. it is also about time we stopped molly coddling all the nation and invite everyone to come here and have social housing at our expense, where would you rather be a layabout, Brighton, Middlesborough or Afghanistan, i do not want the dregs thanks i moved to the south coast for a civilised way of life, with good facilities. lefty idiots have got us in this messed i thought we had voted them out lets hope so.


Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses