Search
Generic filters

The majority of respondents (61%) agree with the proposed approach to The Pyramids Centre; 24% ‘strongly agree’ (194 respondents) and 37% ‘agree’ (299 respondents). However, this is the lowest level of support seen amongst all eleven sections of the area guidance.

Almost a quarter of respondents (24%) do not agree with the approach; 17% ‘disagree’ and 7% ‘strongly disagree’.

The following chart shows agreement for The Pyramids Centre. Disagreement levels are the highest seen in the area guidance at 24%.


The following in-depth analysis has been undertaken in the interest of the council wanting to be thorough and transparent of the issues at hand.

Proposals to change the use of the Pyramids Centre are met with the most resistance.

‘Scope for an element of residential development if required as an enabling use’ is the least popular aspect of the proposed approach, selected by 83% of this cohort.

Over half of respondents in this cohort disagree with ‘Opportunity to have a building or collection of buildings which could accommodate a mix of uses (e.g. high-quality hotel with spa and swimming facilities, concert and events venue, art gallery space, and food and beverage)’ (53%).

The following chart shows which elements of The Pyramids Centre respondents disagree with. ‘Scope for an element of residential development if required as an enabling use’ is the main response, selected by 83% of respondents.


The majority of comments talk about the need to retain public access to the centre, and concerns about the loss of the leisure and recreational space.

Others criticise that the seafront is not a suitable location for residential properties, some mention the precedent it might set whist others are more concerned about the aesthetics of the seafront area.

The following table expands on the responses of the previous chart.

wdt_IDProposed approachCommon themes
1Scope for an element of residential development if required as an enabling useNeed to retain public access to the area. Wrong location, do not build residential buildings directly onto the seafront. Keep open space, proposal would ruin the scenery. Any residential homes here would be too expensive. Oppose over-development, risk setting precedent for more development. Against more residential developments in Portsmouth generally. Would encourage cars and require more parking. Would increase pollution and be bad for the environment.
2Opportunity to have a building or collection of buildings which could accommodate a mix of uses (e.g. high-quality hotel with spa and swimming facilities, concert and events venue, art gallery space, and food and beverage)Do not want over-development, keep open space. Do not want a hotel. Need to remain as public facilities which are low cost and accessible to all. Not needed. Demolish The Pyramids, in bad condition. Wrong location.
3Building or buildings should have strong frontages onto the promenade and Clarence EsplanadeKeep open spaces, this would be too imposing. Not needed or wanted. Proposal is too vague. Disagree with 'strong' frontages.
4Public space around the Pyramids buildings should be enhanced as part of any development, including consideration of how it integrates with new sea defencesThe Pyramids should be demolished. Leave the area as it is, as open as possible. Do not destroy the rock gardens. Make it accessible for wheelchair-users. Concern about local wildlife. Develop the area in line with the rest of Southsea.
5Creation of a physical and/or visual 'green link' between Castle Fields and Rock GardensNo need for this, the area should be left as it is.
6Something elseKeep The Pyramids, need for a pool that is affordable. Get rid of The Pyramids, demolish it entirely. Upgrade The Pyramids. Concern about where additional visitors would park. Redevelop the sit into a hotel/conference centre.