Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

(a)           Petitions: 

To receive any petitions presented by members of the public.

(b)           Written Questions:

To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 17 April 2026.

(c)           Deputations:           

To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 10am on the 13 April 2026.

(b)      Public Questions

1)            The King Alfred Leisure Centre Regeneration Project

163.1   On behalf of Diane Montgomery, Carol Wilson read the following question:

After detailed review, it appears that the current proposal conflicts with the City Plan, the Sports Facilities Investment Plan, the Stakeholder Engagement Report, and the Urban Design Framework.

Given this, will the Council grant permission for a full independent structural inspection of the existing building to be undertaken, and agree to pause any demolition, funding, or enabling works prior to the grant of planning permission and until the findings are completed and published?

We would be willing to fund or facilitate this independently, subject to access being granted. This would ensure that any final decision is based on a complete and transparent evidence base.

163.2   Councillor Robins provided the following reply:

Thank you very much and thanks for the question. To be clear, the King Alfred project does not conflict with the City Plan Sports Facility Investment Plan or any other documents cited. As explained at previous Cabinet meetings, the condition survey of the existing facility has been completed, as well as a wider assessment of the suitability of the existing facility to meet current and future needs.

All of that work informed the Green Book business case, the key findings of which were summarised in the July 2024 Cabinet paper. The business case, the condition and condition survey were examined in detail by the cross-party scrutiny committee who agreed with the paper's recommendation that refurbishment was neither practical nor represented a viable investment option.

That is explained in the Cabinet papers, with details provided in Appendix One of that paper.

2)            Asset Strategy

163.3   Malcolm Spencer read the following question:

Section 3.21 states that the land is to be sold for residential development and section 3.20 states that there are issues with access. In light of the ongoing issues with planning application BH2025/01597 (the non council owned part of the site) where it is being argued that access to this site does not meet the National Planning Framework requirements for safe accessibility for all, how can the council justify a proposal to create a situation where more people will need to access this site?

163.4   Councillor Taylor provided the following reply:

Thank you, Malcolm, for your question, for coming in. And from one Ovingdeanian to another, as I grew up in Ovingdean and know very well, although I no longer live there.

I just wanted to take you through the response to your question. First of all, I won't comment on a live planning application, because that's tricky to do and I'm not on Planning Committee, and that's for that to be worked through, although, as you say and imply, access and accessibility are an important part of the overall planning framework and the consideration of any individual site. We should say that this site is allocated in the City Plan for residential development.

In terms of what this report is doing, it is, as you say, recommending

for the council as landowner to dispose to try and enable residential development. However, the next stages of that and the working through of any proposal and then any planning application will be for the person that acquires the site, not for the council themselves.

And how they address that, all the different planning issues and considerations, including access, will obviously go through the full planning process and that's where they will be aired out.

So, I get the thrust of your question, but really, they are sort of two distinct processes. There's us choosing to dispose of it because of all the reasons set out in the report and because it is allocated for residential development. And then there's any future residential development, which will go through the separate planning process.