KING Alfred was a patient old soul.

A deep-thinking, pious man, it was he who sat in the marshes of the West Country biding his time, thinking of ways in which to regain his kingdom from the Danes.

Legend goes he was so preoccupied with the end game that he burnt a few cakes on the way.

But history tells us when the time was right, he struck hard and fast – defeating the Danes, uniting England and being elevated to sainthood in the process.

Fast forward a thousand years and the residents of Brighton and Hove are having to display the patience of a King Alfred over a building named after him.

The leisure centre, some of which dates back to the 1930s, should be at the heart of the western part of our city. It should be a beacon, an inspiration, something that people are proud of.

As it is, it’s literally falling apart, with the only thing thriving being a group of cockroaches who like to make occasional appearances in the changing rooms.

Time and time again efforts to revamp the prime plot into something the city is proud of have fallen by the way side.

The most recent bid was Frank Gehry’s towers, a bold, forward-thinking design which left all those involved feeling battered and bruised by the time it received planning permission. Soon after it was ultimately doomed by the financial crash.

Fast forward another near- decade and there’s another opportunity to develop this increasingly embarrassing site.

When the markets picked up in 2013 Brighton and Hove City Council tried again.

And after months of behind-closed-doors discussions, a preferred partner has been chosen in the shape of Crest Nicholson with Hove-based businessman and charity leader Rob Starr.

Within hours of the designs being revealed last week, the comments began flying on to The Argus website.

“Dull”, “uninspiring”, “1960s Stalinist brutalism”; they were just some of the nice ones.

And The Argusto their credit, has been asking the question which many out there are thinking: is this really as good as it gets?

Mr Starr has admitted he’s surprised at the backlash but reminded people the plans will change.

But city leaders so far have preferred to bury their heads in the sand. They appeared to have adopted the approach that after years of neglect, something on the King Alfred site is better than nothing.

If that is case, why the delay?

Let me take you back to 2013.

At the point the council took the decision to try something new and chose a new approach in deciding the King Alfred’s future. They could have gone down the route of an open competition and thrown it over to the public.

They could have head- hunted the cream of the crop and equipped them with a stern brief. They could have or written to Santa and seen what came down the chimney.

But town hall lawyers said in order to get the best deal for the taxpayer, the best way forward was for the authority to invite bidders forward.

A cross-party board chaired by an independent member would then meet in secret, choose two potential developers and pitch them against each other to get the best deal.

The official reason for being behind closed doors was to protect commercial interests.

Once one was chosen, the council said a planning application could be submitted in April 2015 at the earliest, with work starting on site between April 2017 and July 2018.

It may have looked good on paper but in hindsight, it seems the council made a bit of a whoopsie.

For a start we are already past the first of those dates.

And given the track record the council has in dealing with planning applications, it would be a brave betting man to presume any application this big and this contentious could be dealt with in just over a year.

The discussion in secrecy too has backfired.

By signing up to a behind-closed-doors process, important discussions affecting a large proportion of the 270,000 people living in the city have been made by, at most, six people.

This means something that needs public support to get off the ground in the short term and become a success in the long term has got off on completely the wrong foot.

But the big question is, what has the pitching of two groups against each other actually delivered?

Back in 2013, one of the ideas put forward was for the council to pick a partner there and then.

The hope was by having a single developer the council could work with them and control the pre-planning process.

As the owner of the land, the council would always have the upper hand in negotiations. Plus it meant any discussion could have been made public, giving those who actually have a stake in the site – the general public – a say.

The firm put forward to design the leisure centre was Lewes-based LA Architects. One of the potential housing providers mentioned was Crest Nicholson.

Fast forward three years and that combination is exactly what the city council has got.

The only addition is Mr Starr, who originally came in to the project wanting to create an auditorium for the arts to support his charity work – something that appears to have been sidelined on the initial plans.

As one influential figure in the city mentioned to me this week, his addition appears to be merely for PR purposes, as a wagon to carry home the Crest bid.

Perhaps that is a little harsh.

But, while he is a credible front man, those taking the risk ultimately are those at the council and the firm funding the building, Crest Nicholson. That agreement could have been done in 2013 with no secrecy or delay.

Rather than giving the wider public the confidence that the chosen plans are the best for the city, even council leader Warren Morgan himself has admitted that what’s been presented is not the most beautiful building he’s seen.

He went on to say that what matters is the leisure centre, not what it looks like. Sorry Warren, you’re wrong.

As The Argus said earlier in the week, if this was somewhere in the centre of town or in the suburbs then he would be absolutely correct.

But this is the King Alfred.

Councillor Morgan’s comments sum up the entire process really, a process that seems to have crippled with the fear of failing and the fear of public opposition.

No one I have spoken to is clear why the council took this approach in the first place.

Every other major development process in the city in recent years – Circus Street, Falmer, Preston Barracks – has seen the authority go along the traditional route of picking a partner then working with them in a very open and public way.

The King Alfred is arguably more important than all of the above – and I include the American Express Community Stadium in that (sorry Albion fans).

The reason is that the King Alfred is an essential integral part of Brighton and Hove’s window to the world.

It needs to reflect everything that’s great about our city, not be a practical building that wouldn’t look out of place in Crawley or Burgess Hill or Haywards Heath.

The mere minimum should be a destination building that is not only practical but also looks great.

Worthing managed it with Splashpoint, Bexhill managed it with the De La Warr.

People living in Brighton and Hove will openly mock those living in both of those towns.

But if the plans for the King Alfred go ahead as planned, who’s laughing then?

I can understand the jittery-ness from local politicians, particularly from the ruling Labour party.

After all, it was the Gehry Towers plan, and subsequent fall out, which saw it lose many seats in Hove at the 2007 election meaning the Conservatives took charge.

It’s taken Labour eight years to recover to regain a presence in areas like Wish and Westbourne. And they don’t want to throw that away in King Alfred mark two.

The Labour leaders locally in 2015 will say this time round is different. For a start, politicians from all sides are signed up to the process and signed up to backing the Starr/Crest bid.

A lot of time too has gone into wooing key individuals who made a fuss last time round to making sure history doesn’t repeat itself.

But that is just a handful of people.

They need to remember the future King Alfred will stand tall and proud on our seafront long after those people are dead and buried.

To those making a decision I urge them to look further back in time, to someone who had a vision while everyone else around him was worried about getting hurt.

King Alfred himself – the very man the new building will be named after – knew when it was time to sit back and bide his time. But he also knew that when it was time to go for it, you had to think big, be bold and achieve what no one thought was possible.

There’s no reason why the approach to the 21st Century King Alfred should be any different.

  • Tim Ridgway is an Argus columnist and head of news at Latest TV.