Councillor loses bid to stop properties being built in Hove valley

1:40pm Thursday 31st January 2013 in News By Tim Ridgway, Local government reporter

Toad's Hole Valley, Hove Toad's Hole Valley, Hove

 A green valley will be marked for development after an 11th hour bid to save it collapsed.

The City Plan will guide the development of Brighton and Hove until 2030, mapping out housing targets, transport aims and land to build on.

As councillors prepare for a crunch debate tonight, The Argus can reveal that one of the key issues – whether to build or not to build on Toad’s Hole Valley in Hove – has already been resolved.

The Green administration believes the 47-hectare site could provide a carbon neutral “One Planet Living” development, consisting of 700 properties, a secondary school, a business park and a hub for transport.

But Hangleton and Knoll councillor Brian Fitch, who spearheaded the Save Our Valley campaign, could not find a seconder for his proposal to completely protect the site from development.

The Conservative group was also prevented from delaying building until 2020, as this was ruled “unsound” by town hall planners.

Conservative group leader Geoffrey Theobald added: “It is extremely disappointing.

“While I accept that planning officers are entitled to give their professional advice on matters, they should not be entitled to stifle democracy in this way.”

Opposition

A series of other amendments were revealed yesterday (January 30) ahead of the crunch meeting in Hove Town Hall at 4pm today (January 31).

Coun Fitch, who has collected more than 2,000 signatures against building on Toad’s Hole Valley, said: “I will be defending my residents.

“There’s far too much planned for the site and it will not happen.

“At this stage developers promise the earth and then when the realities of finance hit they start chopping away.”

Labour group leader Gill Mitchell said: “We have always allowed ward councillors to have their own views and Brian’s view from day one was to oppose it.

No alternative

“One the basis that jobs and homes are needed in the city, Labour will be supporting it.

“However we’re aware that whether what is proposed in the conceptual drawings will happen, we do not know.”

Deputy council leader, Phélim MacCafferty, said: “No one would opt to develop greenfield sites if there were alternative options available.

“Toad’s Hole Valley is privately owned, so plans could come forward at any time.

“Its inclusion is important because identifying it in the City Plan gives us the opportunity to guide development on the site.”

The City Plan

The City Plan will guide the development of Brighton and Hove until 2030.

Tonight councillors will set key housing targets and eight major areas for redevelopment will also be identified.

The document includes six special areas which the council wants to protect, including the seafront and the South Downs.

The local authority also wants to protect Brighton city centre to ensure it remains the focal point for offices and retail.

To avoid “studentification” of areas, quotas will be enforced on the number of student houses in areas such as Coombe Road, Bevendean and Hanover.

However, in a move opposed by some in the private sector, the local authority has ruled out a park and ride scheme claiming there is not enough space.

At the meeting tonight, both Conservative (18 councillors) and Labour
(13) will present amendments to the plan.

The Green administration (23) is not proposing any changes.

It will be published for a six week formal consultation before being submitted to the Government in April.

It is expected that a planning inspector will examine the plan in the autumn before possible adoption in February 2014.

CONSERVATIVE AMENDMENTS
1) Zoned approach to car free housing - should be restricted to city centre with good public transport links
2) Affordable housing - revert back to current policy of 40% affordable housing on sites of ten units of more
3) Housing densities - flexible targets for locations across city

LABOUR AMENDMENTS
1) Brighton station - recognise importance of area as major transport hub
2) Support for Brighton Main Line 2 project, opening up direct line from the city to London via Lewes and Uckfield
3) School places - work with groups to ensure sufficient provision either through new or expanded schools
4) Relax sustainability aspect in new builds to not hinder development
5) Edward Street/Eastern Road - re-route traffic away from area before Royal Sussex County Hospital revamp
6) Further protection for urban fringe, the green spaces inside bypass
7) Reinstate park and ride
8) Call for extra care housing

See the latest news headlines from The Argus:

More news from The Argus

Follow @brightonargus

Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Comments(11)

melfromhove says...
2:26pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Bitterly disappointed that Councillor Fitch was unsupported in his fight! Another green area going to the wall to build a few more houses, whilst we prepare to open the gates to millions more immigrants that we cannot house. I dread to think of the impact this will have on the local wildlife, and to the current residents of Hangleton. Is there really nothing that can be done to stop this?

Report this post »

BornInBrighton1968 says...
2:42pm Thu 31 Jan 13

melfromhove wrote:
Bitterly disappointed that Councillor Fitch was unsupported in his fight! Another green area going to the wall to build a few more houses, whilst we prepare to open the gates to millions more immigrants that we cannot house. I dread to think of the impact this will have on the local wildlife, and to the current residents of Hangleton. Is there really nothing that can be done to stop this?
The Green party's hypocrisy is unbearable; on one hand they support uncontrolled mass-immigration, but on the other, refuse to acknowledge the environmental damage that excessive levels of immigration causes.

Same for their policies on gypsies; the Environment Agency are extremely vocal on the damage that gypsy camps are doing to areas of special scientific interest, yet the Greens have proposed building TEN gypsy camps on the South Downs (a National Park)

Report this post »

melfromhove says...
3:22pm Thu 31 Jan 13

BornInBrighton1968 wrote:
melfromhove wrote:
Bitterly disappointed that Councillor Fitch was unsupported in his fight! Another green area going to the wall to build a few more houses, whilst we prepare to open the gates to millions more immigrants that we cannot house. I dread to think of the impact this will have on the local wildlife, and to the current residents of Hangleton. Is there really nothing that can be done to stop this?
The Green party's hypocrisy is unbearable; on one hand they support uncontrolled mass-immigration, but on the other, refuse to acknowledge the environmental damage that excessive levels of immigration causes.

Same for their policies on gypsies; the Environment Agency are extremely vocal on the damage that gypsy camps are doing to areas of special scientific interest, yet the Greens have proposed building TEN gypsy camps on the South Downs (a National Park)
Very well said indeed!

Report this post »

Fight_Back says...
4:20pm Thu 31 Jan 13

As a Hangleton resident I support the development of the Valley. It's a cut off piece of scrap land. It needs putting to good use and to bring local jobs. The problem with this city is there's too many Nimbys.

Report this post »

alyn, southwick says...
4:29pm Thu 31 Jan 13

The photography did well to stand with the houses right behind him, good spot to make this truly a green site (even with the busy a27 running right by it)

Report this post »

HJarrs says...
5:27pm Thu 31 Jan 13

melfromhove wrote:
BornInBrighton1968 wrote:
melfromhove wrote:
Bitterly disappointed that Councillor Fitch was unsupported in his fight! Another green area going to the wall to build a few more houses, whilst we prepare to open the gates to millions more immigrants that we cannot house. I dread to think of the impact this will have on the local wildlife, and to the current residents of Hangleton. Is there really nothing that can be done to stop this?
The Green party's hypocrisy is unbearable; on one hand they support uncontrolled mass-immigration, but on the other, refuse to acknowledge the environmental damage that excessive levels of immigration causes.

Same for their policies on gypsies; the Environment Agency are extremely vocal on the damage that gypsy camps are doing to areas of special scientific interest, yet the Greens have proposed building TEN gypsy camps on the South Downs (a National Park)
Very well said indeed!
So what would you have built on Toad's Hole Valley?

This is private land and, while you were asleep, the government changed the planning rules to make it almost impossible to resist development.

This site was already condemned by being the wrong side of the awful gash in the landscape that is the A27 and it will be built on come what may, whatever the council or local people say.

I am glad that the council is being proactive to get the most out of any development at Toad's Hole Valley and it seems to have cross-party support.

Also, I think that the Labour amendments are sensible but Conservative amendments seem to tend towards encouraging the building of big houses suprise, suprise.

Report this post »

Indigatio says...
7:51pm Thu 31 Jan 13

I don't see what the problem is. It's a bit of scruffy land and its inside the bypass. It's going to get built on whatever anyone says. Stop campaigning against the development and just make sure that it is developed properly.

Report this post »

Fight_Back says...
8:12pm Thu 31 Jan 13

HJarrs wrote:
melfromhove wrote:
BornInBrighton1968 wrote:
melfromhove wrote:
Bitterly disappointed that Councillor Fitch was unsupported in his fight! Another green area going to the wall to build a few more houses, whilst we prepare to open the gates to millions more immigrants that we cannot house. I dread to think of the impact this will have on the local wildlife, and to the current residents of Hangleton. Is there really nothing that can be done to stop this?
The Green party's hypocrisy is unbearable; on one hand they support uncontrolled mass-immigration, but on the other, refuse to acknowledge the environmental damage that excessive levels of immigration causes.

Same for their policies on gypsies; the Environment Agency are extremely vocal on the damage that gypsy camps are doing to areas of special scientific interest, yet the Greens have proposed building TEN gypsy camps on the South Downs (a National Park)
Very well said indeed!
So what would you have built on Toad's Hole Valley?

This is private land and, while you were asleep, the government changed the planning rules to make it almost impossible to resist development.

This site was already condemned by being the wrong side of the awful gash in the landscape that is the A27 and it will be built on come what may, whatever the council or local people say.

I am glad that the council is being proactive to get the most out of any development at Toad's Hole Valley and it seems to have cross-party support.

Also, I think that the Labour amendments are sensible but Conservative amendments seem to tend towards encouraging the building of big houses suprise, suprise.
A mixture of amendments should be used. The Conservatives are right to want big houses - or at least proper family size houses with reasonable sized gardens rather than the small boxes with postage stamp gardens that developers try to pass off as "family homes".

Report this post »

nosolution says...
8:33pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Hats off to couns.Fitch & Theobald for their sterling efforts in trying to protect this resource for the residents but I think it's too simplistic for the Labour group to back the development for "much needed jobs and housing" houses are like roads the more there are the more they fill up and exactly what jobs will there be?Part time work in the corner shop,great.I certainly will not be voting Tory in the next general election because of their slimming down of the planning laws and everyone I know who is passionate about wildlife is following suit.In order to offset the substantial habitat loss to wildlife perhaps a similar parcel of farmland over the by-pass could be bought and left to wild over.Although farmland is valuable to wildlife the unique mix of sheltering thorn scrub and rough grassland in the valley has become home to all sorts if interesting and rare wildlife like the endangered lizards that are mostly absent across the road.The land could be connected to Hangleton by a bridge like elsewhere.It would take decades to become as wildlife rich though...

Report this post »

Maxwell's Ghost says...
6:53am Fri 1 Feb 13

Be very careful when councillors say we need homes in the city. Unless all of the properties are council homes there is absolutely no guarantee that the homes are sold to local people.
700 homes built in Hove could bring 700 families (two adults plus 2.4 kids) to the city from London and the South East.
So anyone using the term local jobs and local homes is using spin to lever support for development.
I've been waiting for the scruffy Lewes road barracks to be developed for more than 10 years but nothing has happened. It was supposed to be mixed used with small business units but what business will want one on that inaccessible route.
Beware of the nonsense politicians speak.

Report this post »

Hovite says...
11:48am Fri 1 Feb 13

700 residential properties at Toad Hall, and 400 at the King Alfred?

Even though Toad Hall is at least 5 times the size of the King Alfred site. 2+2=3

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree