Scrapping proposals for a new leisure centre to replace the King Alfred in Hove could be extremely costly for council taxpayers, it has been claimed.

Opposition leader Brian Oxley told The Argus that if his party controlled Brighton and Hove City Council after the spring elections it would scrap the planned King Alfred redevelopment.

Three consortiums have submitted proposals for a new centre funded by about 400 flats.

However, council officials are worried that if the project was suddenly scrapped the council could be left with a huge bill for compensation.

It is possible the council would have to pay up to £1 million and there would also be big costs in keeping the ailing centre going in its current state.

Council leader Ken Bodfish said: "Coun Oxley is proposing that we throw money down the drain, deny local people the leisure they deserve and do nothing about the city's housing crisis.

"The King Alfred currently costs more than £100,000 a year to keep sticking plasters over the cracks. It is subsidised by a further £500,000 a year.

"It badly needs redeveloping, not another 25 years of neglect. The council cannot provide the millions of pounds needed.

"Each of the developers has identified how to fund a superb multi-million-pound sports and leisure scheme through the provision of housing.

"The whole city would benefit. This kills two birds with one stone and it costs local taxpayers nothing.

"The alternative is too awful to contemplate. Should the Conservatives ever be in a position to stop the development of the site, it is possible that the developers would seek to recover their not insubstantial investment in the project to date.

"You also wonder who else would want to risk investing in the future of a city with such small-minded leadership."

Coun Oxley said there was enormous opposition to each of the schemes which proposes skyscrapers on the King Alfred site to contain the housing.

He said: "If Coun Bodfish is right, then his administration is doing a great disservice to local people by trying to bind a successor council so close to an election, especially on such a controversial issue.

"The developers now know what our position is. If they carry on, that is up to them.

"What we are saying is not that we don't want housing but that we do not want it on the King Alfred site."