The Sobell Centre in Islington is set to be demolished after the local authority's executive committee agreed to pursue plans to replace the centre with a new facility.

A public consultation, based on four development options, was held by Islington Council during June to decide the future of one of the largest leisure facilities in north London. Possible options for the redevelopment, which will be subject to planning permission, include a new swimming pool with spectator seating, as well as an upgrade for the site's ice rink, and a sports hall.

A spokesperson for the council, however, was unable to confirm exactly what facilities would be included at this stage. Each of the options for the new centre also included housing, to help fund the project, as well as increasing the amount of green space at the site. Ruth Polling, the council's executive member for leisure and equalities, said: "For the time being, it's business as usual at Sobell. But it was opened in 1973 and been much used, inevitably showing its age.

"We are investing £24m to create leisure centres worthy of the Olympics, to help young people enjoy sport and develop their talents. What the public want the centre to provide will shape its design. We will have a fit-for-purpose building that will be flexible enough to meet the needs of future generations." However, the council's plans have come under fire from campaigners who believe there is no need for a new facility and that the current centre should be refurbished. Islington Council rejected the refurbishment option at an early stage for being too expensive, but Gordon Kerr, a director for England Squash, believes that the rationale for redeveloping the centre is misleading.

"The existing building is sound and in good condition," he said. "We accept that a 35 year old building needs lifecycle upgrades, and are preparing costings for a refurbishment plan that Peter Baird of planning consultant, Nathaniel Lichfield, has produced. This will be by far the lowest cost option. "No evidence has been produced by the Council to corroborate their assertion that the building is past its useful lifespan. If refurbished, the building would have a similar, if not longer, life expectancy than a new build."

Kerr also said that, despite more than 1,400 responses to the consultation, a further 3,500 local residents and centre users wanted either refurbishment, or consultation with refurbishment as an option.