I attended a public meeting about the King Alfred Leisure Centre last Friday, promoted by Mike Weatherley MP.

The assumption from the platform speakers – by no means reflected in the comments from the floor – was that the existing centre should be demolished and replaced.

But far from being “not fit for purpose”, to quote Councillor Geoffrey Theobald, the refurbished King Alfred is a clean, welcoming facility enjoyed by many people.

While the exterior needs some some care, it is intrinsically an attractive 1930s building, with an important history as a training facility during the Second World War.

Many would say the King Alfred is a far more pleasant place to swim than the Prince Regent pool, also in Brighton.

At the King Alfred, there is an unused existing bowling alley which could be reopened. There is no reason why the adjacent areas could not be put to use for other leisure facilities such as an ice rink and a 50m swimming pool.

There is also room for a modest housing development without demolishing the existing facilities – though not the 400-odd units contemplated by developers, which in any case could not be supported by the local infrastructure.

Mr Weatherley and the developers may not have wanted to hear it, but my message is this: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Let’s keep the King Alfred.

Howard Spencer, Somerhill Road, Hove

I hope Brighton and Hove City Council will note what Kevin Doyle of City Partnerships said at this meeting: “Ice rinks make money, swimming pools generally do not.”

Please listen to his expertise and that of Carolyn Dwyer and her success with the new Streatham Ice Rink and Hub Leisure Centre.

Let swimmers have a 50m pool by all means, but they do have a new pool in Worthing, within easy reach for us all while work is in progress at the King Alfred.

What Brighton and Hove has not had for 48 years is a proper-size ice rink.

There is enough space on this site to accommodate existing facilities and much more.

The Brighton Tigers ice hockey team could be resurrected and it could be a place of sports excellence for all.

Elisabeth Steen Woodroffe, Roman Road, Hove

The Argus (May 25) asserts that the council sent nobody to the King Alfred meeting.

In fact, I was there – and heard residents say there was too little time for questions as visiting speakers went considerably over their allotted time.

Meanwhile, on that panel, Tory councillor Geoffrey Theobald queried the need for the council’s King Alfred Project Board, which includes one of his own members.

I was able to ask three speakers from other councils what they thought of project boards. All three asserted that this is absolutely correct. All of them had set up project boards.

It is a means of establishing guidelines for those who, as your article puts it, might be “writing cheques”. Without such guidelines as a prelude to discussion, the situation would be similar to Mr Weatherley’s meeting: many sales-pitches for more than the site can hold without reaching for the skies.

I restrained myself from pointing out that Coun Theobald’s administration did nothing with the King Alfred for four years. I felt this would have been political point-scoring. But then Mr Weatherley’s intention was to make the King Alfred a political football – or a badminton shuttlecock, even a turn on the judo mat, not to mention a fiery foxtrot on the sprung dance-floor.

Councillor Christopher Hawtree, Green, Central Hove ward, Brighton and Hove City Council