Options for the King Alfred have raised some key questions in The Argus in recent weeks, since the announcement that a large development of flats could pay for a new sports centre.

Patricia Ginman said Brighton and Hove City Council should propose a bigger centre for leisure. It is - a complete rebuild will provide a centre 50 per cent bigger than at present. She said a centre would attract more Lottery funds than anticipated. The council has talked to Sport England and is making a realistic assessment of what might be achievable.

J Teague and Sam Tulis made comparisons with the Triangle and Spectrum centres. When we have new facilities at the King Alfred, I hope they will be even better quality than those centres. However, we have to recognise that increasing numbers of sports centres are closing because they fall below acceptable safety standards or are uneconomic to maintain. We must accept most councils look to either the sale of land or commercial development to fund new sports facilities.

Paula Jones accepts the principle of flats to help fund a new centre but is concerned we don't "ruin the seafront".

I agree with her. The council is only seeking to secure sufficient development to fund the sports facilities and will insist on the highest design quality for the site.

B Bayliss criticised the council for not exploring all the options. Surely taxpayers expect the council to look at all possibilities before taking a decision? That is the responsible thing to do. He said the schemes "seem to be totally opposed by the majority of Hove residents". How does he know? The council will consult widely on the options for the King Alfred to try to establish what people think.

Even if we were to refurbish the King Alfred as Mr Bayliss and Peter Savage think, we would still need millions of pounds. While partial or complete refurbishment is an option, it has to be recognised this will not give the community the level and quality of facilities most people expect.

Contrary to what Dierdre Barclay said (Letters, April 3), we don't need an Eden Project. We want a good family sports centre. An Eden Project would not pay for it but would draw visitors from across the country to a site that couldn't handle them. The council has acknowledged it could keep the building going indefinitely but has pointed out it would cost £1 million a year in subsidy. This isn't being unimaginative, it's being realistic.

-Coun Mike Middleton, Brighton and Hove City Council