Hi,
This is a very important email for people concerned about the King Alfred and the current application for demolition of the Tenpin Bowling area.
It’s clear that we have a real battle ahead. Demolition is the first irreversible step in a much larger redevelopment, and once it happens, many alternative futures for the site are effectively taken off the table.
At moments like this, apathy is the Council’s best friend. If people don’t engage early, decisions get locked in quietly and momentum becomes very hard to reverse later.
This demolition application for the Tenpin Bowling area objection; is therefore an important practice run ahead of the full planning application for the proposed new leisure centre. It’s a chance to get active, get familiar with the planning system, and show that there is serious public concern before the bigger decisions land.
What follows is simply a helper note to inspire objections and help people frame their own concerns in their own words.
Get registered, make your personal objection and be prepared for the full council proposal.
Please share, share share and read below!
This list is only to help inspire objections.
Please do not copy it word-for-word.
Pick one or two points that genuinely matter to you, your friends or your family, and write in your own words.
You do not need to be technical or legal. Personal, reasoned concerns carry weight.
Register - Comment - Object here: https://publicaccess.brighton-hove.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage
Why demolition of the King Alfred matters
• Demolition is not neutral. Once parts of the site are demolished, reuse or improvement options disappear and one future outcome becomes much harder to challenge.
• It predetermines the future. Clearing the site first shapes all later decisions and stacks the deck in favour of the Council’s preferred scheme before residents have had a real choice.
• It leads to a reduced leisure offer. The current proposals already show a smaller leisure centre, less water space and fewer flexible community facilities than exist now.
• It removes long-standing independent and community uses. Existing gyms, boxing clubs and grassroots groups rely on the current structure and may never return once demolition happens.
• It opens the path to a very large housing development. Demolition is the first irreversible step towards hundreds of flats on a sensitive seafront site, even though the scale and impact of that housing have not been properly debated.
• It locks the city into a risky financial model. Once demolition occurs, the Council becomes committed to a high-debt redevelopment model that relies on housing to subsidise leisure, with long-term financial risk falling on the public.
• It forecloses better alternatives. Retrofit, phased improvement or expansion of the existing building remain possible now. Demolition removes those options permanently.
• It causes irreversible harm to the seafront. This is a prominent, exposed and valued coastal site. Clearing it without certainty about what replaces it risks long-term blight and loss of character.
• It prioritises speed over good decision-making. Granting demolition first pressures future planning decisions and reduces meaningful scrutiny.
How to use this
• Choose one or two points that genuinely concern you.
• Write in your own words.
• Explain why it matters to you personally (as a resident, user, parent, swimmer, sports player, neighbour, taxpayer, etc.).
• You don’t need to agree with every point — sincerity matters more than volume.