Protesters rally against plan for 100 new homes in Ovingdean

Protesters rally against plan for 100 new homes

Protesters rally against plan for 100 new homes

First published in News by , local government reporter

Nearly 500 protesters rallied against controversial plans to build hundreds of new homes on green fields on the edge of the South Downs National Park.

Developers want to build up to 100 houses between Ovingdean and Woodingdean, with plans expected to go to Brighton and Hove City Council within weeks.

But the proposals have caused uproar in neighbouring villages and on Thursday evening hundreds attended a rally to voice their concerns, organised by members of the Save Our Deans campaign.

Speakers included MP Simon Kirby, who said he was willing to take the fight to the Government if the council failed to block the plans.

He told the crowd: “If the council in Brighton and Hove don’t see sense I will approach the Secretary of State and I will ask for the planning application to be called in and press the case of how important this is.”

Rottingdean councillor Mary Mears said she was concerned failure to block the proposals could cause a precedent for future developments on green fields.

She said: “This site is so important.

It is the one that has to be stopped. By stopping this one we protect the other areas.

“It’s really important everyone gets behind this campaign. If we don’t and this gets through we’ll have great difficulty stopping everything else.”

Last year Brighton and Hove City Council was criticized by the Government after drawing up plans for 11,300 homes – thousands belowthe expected demand of 20,000.

An online petition has already gathered 195 supporters, and campaigners were busy collecting signatures during the event at Longhill School.

Labour’s parliamentary candidate for the area, Nancy Platts, said councils were being forced to find in favour of developers while the Green’s candidate Davey Jones said the National Planning Policy Framework – which requires councils to identify green spaces for development – was a major reason for concern.

Those who live close to the development said they were concerned about the strain so many new houses could have on the local amenities and infrastructure.

Resident Neville Stott said: “It’s already limited here and if we’re going to have a full lump of houses from the Downs to the seafront it’s going to take away the green areas.”

David Johnson from the Sussex Campaign to Protect Rural England, added: “It’s going to be a campaign that needs to go on and on because it’s a valuable site.”

Ken Parker, who lives close to the site, added: “There’s a big concern in the local area with urban sprawl.”

Comments (33)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:52am Sun 20 Apr 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

If you think the Greens will protect the environment you must be crazy.
Ms Lucas spends her time protecting the environment of Balcombe while our parks are under siege from diesel vans owned by hippies, travellers and anyone else who fancies parking up for free and key development sites such as Preston Barracks being offered for student homes with 500 free parking spaces for the kids instead of local families. This is just months after telling us the Lewes Road scheme was to lower car use. Lies and rubbish. It's all about buying votes.
The Greens don't give two hoots about green spaces and the environment hence the city falling down the carbon table, the recycling levels being at their lowest since 2007 and being the lowest in the UK.
If you think the Greens will protect the environment you must be crazy. Ms Lucas spends her time protecting the environment of Balcombe while our parks are under siege from diesel vans owned by hippies, travellers and anyone else who fancies parking up for free and key development sites such as Preston Barracks being offered for student homes with 500 free parking spaces for the kids instead of local families. This is just months after telling us the Lewes Road scheme was to lower car use. Lies and rubbish. It's all about buying votes. The Greens don't give two hoots about green spaces and the environment hence the city falling down the carbon table, the recycling levels being at their lowest since 2007 and being the lowest in the UK. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 41

1:16pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

It really isn't as simple as saying the nasty developers shouldn't be allowed to build housing on our green fields. There are some difficult decisions that need to be made; look at the planned population growth for the south east of England and then tell me where the new homes should be built.

I know, I know: 'somewhere else'.
It really isn't as simple as saying the nasty developers shouldn't be allowed to build housing on our green fields. There are some difficult decisions that need to be made; look at the planned population growth for the south east of England and then tell me where the new homes should be built. I know, I know: 'somewhere else'. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 10

1:18pm Sun 20 Apr 14

NathanAdler says...

The Greens hate Ovingdean. Because you wicked. wicked. wicked residents have all done quite well for yourself, you are the Devil incarnate.

**** you for being law abiding, decent people who contribute to society. **** you so much!!
The Greens hate Ovingdean. Because you wicked. wicked. wicked residents have all done quite well for yourself, you are the Devil incarnate. **** you for being law abiding, decent people who contribute to society. **** you so much!! NathanAdler
  • Score: 14

1:30pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Numptyone says...

NIMBY's
NIMBY's Numptyone
  • Score: -8

2:44pm Sun 20 Apr 14

FatherTed11 says...

No doubt all the people 'rallying' against this are elderly residents who are fortunate to already own a house or two.
No doubt all the people 'rallying' against this are elderly residents who are fortunate to already own a house or two. FatherTed11
  • Score: -3

3:00pm Sun 20 Apr 14

nkwbtn says...

FatherTed11 wrote:
No doubt all the people 'rallying' against this are elderly residents who are fortunate to already own a house or two.
Not at all - I am in my 40's and live in an ordinary house 3 miles away. Sometimes things just 'wrong' and this is one of those.

The proposed site is a beautiful space which separates the 3 distinct areas of Rottingdean, Ovingdean and Woodingdean and is just not the right place to build over 100 more houses.
Our City is a fantastic place to live because it has a bit of everything. Let's keep it that way by making good choices.
[quote][p][bold]FatherTed11[/bold] wrote: No doubt all the people 'rallying' against this are elderly residents who are fortunate to already own a house or two.[/p][/quote]Not at all - I am in my 40's and live in an ordinary house 3 miles away. Sometimes things just 'wrong' and this is one of those. The proposed site is a beautiful space which separates the 3 distinct areas of Rottingdean, Ovingdean and Woodingdean and is just not the right place to build over 100 more houses. Our City is a fantastic place to live because it has a bit of everything. Let's keep it that way by making good choices. nkwbtn
  • Score: 14

3:03pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Steptoe5 says...

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
It really isn't as simple as saying the nasty developers shouldn't be allowed to build housing on our green fields. There are some difficult decisions that need to be made; look at the planned population growth for the south east of England and then tell me where the new homes should be built.

I know, I know: 'somewhere else'.
I understand houses need to be built, but as a resident of Rottingdean I'm very concerned the detrimental effect, this will have on the already overcrowded and over stretched public services.
[quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: It really isn't as simple as saying the nasty developers shouldn't be allowed to build housing on our green fields. There are some difficult decisions that need to be made; look at the planned population growth for the south east of England and then tell me where the new homes should be built. I know, I know: 'somewhere else'.[/p][/quote]I understand houses need to be built, but as a resident of Rottingdean I'm very concerned the detrimental effect, this will have on the already overcrowded and over stretched public services. Steptoe5
  • Score: 1

4:32pm Sun 20 Apr 14

footykid says...

How many of you want extra homes to be built in your street? .... You are all NIMBYs.

Why is it that you never hear of a ward councillor campaigning for more homes in their area? That's because they are hypocritical and just interested in chasing votes rather than what is best for the city in the long term. If you fee that you have an exceptional case for saying these home should not be built near me then you should ask your ward councillor to agree with one of their fellow councillors that they will accept them in their own ward. I agree we should not building on our green fields so ask your politicians to force their colleagues who represent wards in built up areas such as Portslade , Wish or Hove Park to stand up to their residents and refuse to appose developments in their area. Why don't you refocus your efforts in lobbying the ward councillors representing the areas which you feel could take more development and this will alleviate the pressure on your own.

What about asking the owners of already approved sites to renegotiate with the planers and add a couple of extra floors to each of their buildings? After all most of Brighton is sill only 2 storey, another couple of floors will be less damaging than building on green fields
How many of you want extra homes to be built in your street? .... You are all NIMBYs. Why is it that you never hear of a ward councillor campaigning for more homes in their area? That's because they are hypocritical and just interested in chasing votes rather than what is best for the city in the long term. If you fee that you have an exceptional case for saying these home should not be built near me then you should ask your ward councillor to agree with one of their fellow councillors that they will accept them in their own ward. I agree we should not building on our green fields so ask your politicians to force their colleagues who represent wards in built up areas such as Portslade , Wish or Hove Park to stand up to their residents and refuse to appose developments in their area. Why don't you refocus your efforts in lobbying the ward councillors representing the areas which you feel could take more development and this will alleviate the pressure on your own. What about asking the owners of already approved sites to renegotiate with the planers and add a couple of extra floors to each of their buildings? After all most of Brighton is sill only 2 storey, another couple of floors will be less damaging than building on green fields footykid
  • Score: 2

4:33pm Sun 20 Apr 14

den2il says...

There seems to be a sense of "I'm alright Jack" coming across from the local residents.
There seems to be a sense of "I'm alright Jack" coming across from the local residents. den2il
  • Score: -1

4:47pm Sun 20 Apr 14

dingdong2 says...

Bet none of these people complained when their own houses went up in that area.

The young people of this area need places to live - the council should ignore these objections and build as many new homes as possible
Bet none of these people complained when their own houses went up in that area. The young people of this area need places to live - the council should ignore these objections and build as many new homes as possible dingdong2
  • Score: -1

4:48pm Sun 20 Apr 14

HJarrs says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
If you think the Greens will protect the environment you must be crazy.
Ms Lucas spends her time protecting the environment of Balcombe while our parks are under siege from diesel vans owned by hippies, travellers and anyone else who fancies parking up for free and key development sites such as Preston Barracks being offered for student homes with 500 free parking spaces for the kids instead of local families. This is just months after telling us the Lewes Road scheme was to lower car use. Lies and rubbish. It's all about buying votes.
The Greens don't give two hoots about green spaces and the environment hence the city falling down the carbon table, the recycling levels being at their lowest since 2007 and being the lowest in the UK.
You do spout some nonsense Maxwell.

Here we have a hypocritical Tory MP happy to vote through planning legislation that benefits developers making a quick buck and destroying the ability of local people and councils to resist. It is scandelous that he is desperately trying to shift the blame to the council, when he and his crony Tories are responsible.

Kirby has been almost invisible since being elected and done little for the city. Vote him out!
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: If you think the Greens will protect the environment you must be crazy. Ms Lucas spends her time protecting the environment of Balcombe while our parks are under siege from diesel vans owned by hippies, travellers and anyone else who fancies parking up for free and key development sites such as Preston Barracks being offered for student homes with 500 free parking spaces for the kids instead of local families. This is just months after telling us the Lewes Road scheme was to lower car use. Lies and rubbish. It's all about buying votes. The Greens don't give two hoots about green spaces and the environment hence the city falling down the carbon table, the recycling levels being at their lowest since 2007 and being the lowest in the UK.[/p][/quote]You do spout some nonsense Maxwell. Here we have a hypocritical Tory MP happy to vote through planning legislation that benefits developers making a quick buck and destroying the ability of local people and councils to resist. It is scandelous that he is desperately trying to shift the blame to the council, when he and his crony Tories are responsible. Kirby has been almost invisible since being elected and done little for the city. Vote him out! HJarrs
  • Score: -10

5:51pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

This council is allowing 5,000 additional students into the town and is offering up planning permissions for key sites to be given to student housing when these people could easily study from home thanks to the internet, webcasts, etc
There is no longer need to travel as many people in business are fully aware yet the Greens want more student voters physically moving into town without any money to supporting infrastructure such as doctors,hospitals etc I work for a UK business and we work remotely with clients across the world. There's no need to travel.
These key sites, such as the old co op and Preston barracks could be used to help the city reach its housing target enabling the council to protect its green areas yet instead we allow an industry to bring more people in.
Madness and lack of strategy and the cynic in me actually believes that the cronies in the Green Party are manipulating the vote.
As for Kirby HJarrs, he will have to go back to his party and tell his bosses that the Tory party is making a mistake about policy And If he and Caroline Lucas hadn't had a clutch of kids each, the Uk wouldn't have such a housing shortage.
They are both cheeky devils.
This council is allowing 5,000 additional students into the town and is offering up planning permissions for key sites to be given to student housing when these people could easily study from home thanks to the internet, webcasts, etc There is no longer need to travel as many people in business are fully aware yet the Greens want more student voters physically moving into town without any money to supporting infrastructure such as doctors,hospitals etc I work for a UK business and we work remotely with clients across the world. There's no need to travel. These key sites, such as the old co op and Preston barracks could be used to help the city reach its housing target enabling the council to protect its green areas yet instead we allow an industry to bring more people in. Madness and lack of strategy and the cynic in me actually believes that the cronies in the Green Party are manipulating the vote. As for Kirby HJarrs, he will have to go back to his party and tell his bosses that the Tory party is making a mistake about policy And If he and Caroline Lucas hadn't had a clutch of kids each, the Uk wouldn't have such a housing shortage. They are both cheeky devils. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 6

7:10pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Wageslavemum says...

The level of debate in some of these comments betrays prejudice and ignorance. Whom amongst your readers regularly uses the A259, or the B2123 aka Falmer Road, or Ovingdean Road. How often in the last 6months have you been stuck in tailbacks on these roads? Well with this new proposal tailbacks will look like heaven as it'll be gridlock. And forget about parking. That's before the air pollution gets you. How many readers went to the 'information' evenings held by Lightwood at Longhill School. Their level or ignorance and arrogance matches that of some of the comments. They refer to 'Meadow Vale' development whereas a Meadow Vale already exists right opposite where they propose to build. This suggests they haven't even read the road signs. The suited young reps had zero knowledge of....&zero interest or stake (except monetary) in the local area. There were factual errors on the most basic levels. For example that the area IS prone to flooding. As anyone living through this last winter can testify. The primary schools are over subscribed -with siblings split between schools. The developer response -oh we'll build/extend more. The South Downs National Park is on one side of Falmer Road and Longhill School on the other. Where and how exactly. Added to the massive presumption that larger schools are somehow a fitting response or 'outcome'. The whole development would lead to unnecessary and yes, unwanted, urbanisation of semi rural communities. Do you think the Council will grit any more of the few side roads it barely manages now. Are you aware of limited mobile phone reception -permission for a measly phone mast on Falmer Road was rejected by planning officers in recent history -and terrestrial tv transmission (no great loss really!) in parts of the Valley. The infrastructure is simply not there nor readily achievable. Have you tried to get a doctor's appointment recently? How would such services be impacted by several hundred more patients? What about the actual OWNERS of this land hiding behind the property developers. Perhaps they can explain why they are happy to decimate 3villages in one go and much more besides whilst living comfortably removed from it all. Do they really need that amount of money that much. Who else has an interest, perhaps a conflict of interests in promoting, or at least not objecting to this development.? What is Ivor Caplin's role? What do the local Rottingdean Parish Council have to say.? These are issues that the Argus and contributors should be investigating and exposing. The information is out there. New houses HAVE been built in the area and have sat empty because they are not affordable. As a reality check, the area is not just retirees. And even if it were, how is that relevant ultimately. The area is a mixture of families with children, the retired, young professional and many others. Some properties are owned others heavily mortgaged or rented. The main point is as stated in the article. That Councils are being pressured into green lighting unsuitable developments to satisfy dubious policy. This is a critical point, because many other areas stand to be similarly ambushed. The green corridor separating Woodingdean,Ovingdea
n,Rottingdean is essential for social, community and environmental balance. There is protected wildlife to consider . Let's have some real facts and figures and transparency of information.
The level of debate in some of these comments betrays prejudice and ignorance. Whom amongst your readers regularly uses the A259, or the B2123 aka Falmer Road, or Ovingdean Road. How often in the last 6months have you been stuck in tailbacks on these roads? Well with this new proposal tailbacks will look like heaven as it'll be gridlock. And forget about parking. That's before the air pollution gets you. How many readers went to the 'information' evenings held by Lightwood at Longhill School. Their level or ignorance and arrogance matches that of some of the comments. They refer to 'Meadow Vale' development whereas a Meadow Vale already exists right opposite where they propose to build. This suggests they haven't even read the road signs. The suited young reps had zero knowledge of....&zero interest or stake (except monetary) in the local area. There were factual errors on the most basic levels. For example that the area IS prone to flooding. As anyone living through this last winter can testify. The primary schools are over subscribed -with siblings split between schools. The developer response -oh we'll build/extend more. The South Downs National Park is on one side of Falmer Road and Longhill School on the other. Where and how exactly. Added to the massive presumption that larger schools are somehow a fitting response or 'outcome'. The whole development would lead to unnecessary and yes, unwanted, urbanisation of semi rural communities. Do you think the Council will grit any more of the few side roads it barely manages now. Are you aware of limited mobile phone reception -permission for a measly phone mast on Falmer Road was rejected by planning officers in recent history -and terrestrial tv transmission (no great loss really!) in parts of the Valley. The infrastructure is simply not there nor readily achievable. Have you tried to get a doctor's appointment recently? How would such services be impacted by several hundred more patients? What about the actual OWNERS of this land hiding behind the property developers. Perhaps they can explain why they are happy to decimate 3villages in one go and much more besides whilst living comfortably removed from it all. Do they really need that amount of money that much. Who else has an interest, perhaps a conflict of interests in promoting, or at least not objecting to this development.? What is Ivor Caplin's role? What do the local Rottingdean Parish Council have to say.? These are issues that the Argus and contributors should be investigating and exposing. The information is out there. New houses HAVE been built in the area and have sat empty because they are not affordable. As a reality check, the area is not just retirees. And even if it were, how is that relevant ultimately. The area is a mixture of families with children, the retired, young professional and many others. Some properties are owned others heavily mortgaged or rented. The main point is as stated in the article. That Councils are being pressured into green lighting unsuitable developments to satisfy dubious policy. This is a critical point, because many other areas stand to be similarly ambushed. The green corridor separating Woodingdean,Ovingdea n,Rottingdean is essential for social, community and environmental balance. There is protected wildlife to consider . Let's have some real facts and figures and transparency of information. Wageslavemum
  • Score: 26

8:24pm Sun 20 Apr 14

DCCCCCC says...

Wageslavemum wrote:
The level of debate in some of these comments betrays prejudice and ignorance. Whom amongst your readers regularly uses the A259, or the B2123 aka Falmer Road, or Ovingdean Road. How often in the last 6months have you been stuck in tailbacks on these roads? Well with this new proposal tailbacks will look like heaven as it'll be gridlock. And forget about parking. That's before the air pollution gets you. How many readers went to the 'information' evenings held by Lightwood at Longhill School. Their level or ignorance and arrogance matches that of some of the comments. They refer to 'Meadow Vale' development whereas a Meadow Vale already exists right opposite where they propose to build. This suggests they haven't even read the road signs. The suited young reps had zero knowledge of....&zero interest or stake (except monetary) in the local area. There were factual errors on the most basic levels. For example that the area IS prone to flooding. As anyone living through this last winter can testify. The primary schools are over subscribed -with siblings split between schools. The developer response -oh we'll build/extend more. The South Downs National Park is on one side of Falmer Road and Longhill School on the other. Where and how exactly. Added to the massive presumption that larger schools are somehow a fitting response or 'outcome'. The whole development would lead to unnecessary and yes, unwanted, urbanisation of semi rural communities. Do you think the Council will grit any more of the few side roads it barely manages now. Are you aware of limited mobile phone reception -permission for a measly phone mast on Falmer Road was rejected by planning officers in recent history -and terrestrial tv transmission (no great loss really!) in parts of the Valley. The infrastructure is simply not there nor readily achievable. Have you tried to get a doctor's appointment recently? How would such services be impacted by several hundred more patients? What about the actual OWNERS of this land hiding behind the property developers. Perhaps they can explain why they are happy to decimate 3villages in one go and much more besides whilst living comfortably removed from it all. Do they really need that amount of money that much. Who else has an interest, perhaps a conflict of interests in promoting, or at least not objecting to this development.? What is Ivor Caplin's role? What do the local Rottingdean Parish Council have to say.? These are issues that the Argus and contributors should be investigating and exposing. The information is out there. New houses HAVE been built in the area and have sat empty because they are not affordable. As a reality check, the area is not just retirees. And even if it were, how is that relevant ultimately. The area is a mixture of families with children, the retired, young professional and many others. Some properties are owned others heavily mortgaged or rented. The main point is as stated in the article. That Councils are being pressured into green lighting unsuitable developments to satisfy dubious policy. This is a critical point, because many other areas stand to be similarly ambushed. The green corridor separating Woodingdean,Ovingdea

n,Rottingdean is essential for social, community and environmental balance. There is protected wildlife to consider . Let's have some real facts and figures and transparency of information.
Very well written. I work at the top of Elm Grove and live in Rottingdean. Most nights it takes me at least 30 mins to travel just this short distance home. Unfortunately I can't cycle or walk as I have to use my car for work.
[quote][p][bold]Wageslavemum[/bold] wrote: The level of debate in some of these comments betrays prejudice and ignorance. Whom amongst your readers regularly uses the A259, or the B2123 aka Falmer Road, or Ovingdean Road. How often in the last 6months have you been stuck in tailbacks on these roads? Well with this new proposal tailbacks will look like heaven as it'll be gridlock. And forget about parking. That's before the air pollution gets you. How many readers went to the 'information' evenings held by Lightwood at Longhill School. Their level or ignorance and arrogance matches that of some of the comments. They refer to 'Meadow Vale' development whereas a Meadow Vale already exists right opposite where they propose to build. This suggests they haven't even read the road signs. The suited young reps had zero knowledge of....&zero interest or stake (except monetary) in the local area. There were factual errors on the most basic levels. For example that the area IS prone to flooding. As anyone living through this last winter can testify. The primary schools are over subscribed -with siblings split between schools. The developer response -oh we'll build/extend more. The South Downs National Park is on one side of Falmer Road and Longhill School on the other. Where and how exactly. Added to the massive presumption that larger schools are somehow a fitting response or 'outcome'. The whole development would lead to unnecessary and yes, unwanted, urbanisation of semi rural communities. Do you think the Council will grit any more of the few side roads it barely manages now. Are you aware of limited mobile phone reception -permission for a measly phone mast on Falmer Road was rejected by planning officers in recent history -and terrestrial tv transmission (no great loss really!) in parts of the Valley. The infrastructure is simply not there nor readily achievable. Have you tried to get a doctor's appointment recently? How would such services be impacted by several hundred more patients? What about the actual OWNERS of this land hiding behind the property developers. Perhaps they can explain why they are happy to decimate 3villages in one go and much more besides whilst living comfortably removed from it all. Do they really need that amount of money that much. Who else has an interest, perhaps a conflict of interests in promoting, or at least not objecting to this development.? What is Ivor Caplin's role? What do the local Rottingdean Parish Council have to say.? These are issues that the Argus and contributors should be investigating and exposing. The information is out there. New houses HAVE been built in the area and have sat empty because they are not affordable. As a reality check, the area is not just retirees. And even if it were, how is that relevant ultimately. The area is a mixture of families with children, the retired, young professional and many others. Some properties are owned others heavily mortgaged or rented. The main point is as stated in the article. That Councils are being pressured into green lighting unsuitable developments to satisfy dubious policy. This is a critical point, because many other areas stand to be similarly ambushed. The green corridor separating Woodingdean,Ovingdea n,Rottingdean is essential for social, community and environmental balance. There is protected wildlife to consider . Let's have some real facts and figures and transparency of information.[/p][/quote]Very well written. I work at the top of Elm Grove and live in Rottingdean. Most nights it takes me at least 30 mins to travel just this short distance home. Unfortunately I can't cycle or walk as I have to use my car for work. DCCCCCC
  • Score: 12

9:08pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Sussex jim says...

FatherTed11 wrote:
No doubt all the people 'rallying' against this are elderly residents who are fortunate to already own a house or two.
For "fortunate" read- elderly residents who have spent their lives earning money and paying for their own house, rather than being a burden on the state and whingeing that their benefits do not cover their lifestyle.
[quote][p][bold]FatherTed11[/bold] wrote: No doubt all the people 'rallying' against this are elderly residents who are fortunate to already own a house or two.[/p][/quote]For "fortunate" read- elderly residents who have spent their lives earning money and paying for their own house, rather than being a burden on the state and whingeing that their benefits do not cover their lifestyle. Sussex jim
  • Score: 10

12:26am Mon 21 Apr 14

Camel54 says...

The decision will be made in Westminster. If N. Boles and Fat Eric Pickles want another load of little boxes to boost the housing bubble, that's what we'll get. It happens everywhere: the council consult, devise a local plan largely acceptable to residents, and then Fat Eric overrides it in favour of party donors and a quick profit. They laughingly call it "localism". We need new homes. But we even more urgently need to stop cramming them into the south-east. To all the above commenters, I doubt if the greens could stop this. The developers ALWAYS win on appeal. and then you'll all moan because the council spent money on the court case.
The decision will be made in Westminster. If N. Boles and Fat Eric Pickles want another load of little boxes to boost the housing bubble, that's what we'll get. It happens everywhere: the council consult, devise a local plan largely acceptable to residents, and then Fat Eric overrides it in favour of party donors and a quick profit. They laughingly call it "localism". We need new homes. But we even more urgently need to stop cramming them into the south-east. To all the above commenters, I doubt if the greens could stop this. The developers ALWAYS win on appeal. and then you'll all moan because the council spent money on the court case. Camel54
  • Score: -2

6:21am Mon 21 Apr 14

pearlygrey says...

Sussex jim wrote:
FatherTed11 wrote:
No doubt all the people 'rallying' against this are elderly residents who are fortunate to already own a house or two.
For "fortunate" read- elderly residents who have spent their lives earning money and paying for their own house, rather than being a burden on the state and whingeing that their benefits do not cover their lifestyle.
Seen the price of a house, lately, Jim?
[quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FatherTed11[/bold] wrote: No doubt all the people 'rallying' against this are elderly residents who are fortunate to already own a house or two.[/p][/quote]For "fortunate" read- elderly residents who have spent their lives earning money and paying for their own house, rather than being a burden on the state and whingeing that their benefits do not cover their lifestyle.[/p][/quote]Seen the price of a house, lately, Jim? pearlygrey
  • Score: -2

6:30am Mon 21 Apr 14

sound_man says...

It's all very well building more houses but it is no good if there isn't the infurstructure to support it. Not just roads but doctors surgeries and schools. Then also we need people to work in these places.....

We do need more more homes but could the locals use this as a chance to ask for more? Ask for road improvements and by this flyovers not roundabouts, ask for more services such as a new clinic.

I understand some of the sceptisim against these as there are many areas within Brighton & Hove that could be redeveloped.
It's all very well building more houses but it is no good if there isn't the infurstructure to support it. Not just roads but doctors surgeries and schools. Then also we need people to work in these places..... We do need more more homes but could the locals use this as a chance to ask for more? Ask for road improvements and by this flyovers not roundabouts, ask for more services such as a new clinic. I understand some of the sceptisim against these as there are many areas within Brighton & Hove that could be redeveloped. sound_man
  • Score: 4

7:14am Mon 21 Apr 14

Brightonlad86 says...

At 1 point this country wall all fields and no buildings. I'm sure it looked nice but how practical is it?

People need a place to live. Difficult decisions need to be made!
At 1 point this country wall all fields and no buildings. I'm sure it looked nice but how practical is it? People need a place to live. Difficult decisions need to be made! Brightonlad86
  • Score: 1

9:28am Mon 21 Apr 14

nkwbtn says...

Brightonlad86 wrote:
At 1 point this country wall all fields and no buildings. I'm sure it looked nice but how practical is it?

People need a place to live. Difficult decisions need to be made!
Absolutely right and those decisions cannot easily be undone which is why it's so important for the decision makers to take everything into account and make the right call - not just bend to the will of the current incumbents of Westminster demanding numbers of houses from afar.
[quote][p][bold]Brightonlad86[/bold] wrote: At 1 point this country wall all fields and no buildings. I'm sure it looked nice but how practical is it? People need a place to live. Difficult decisions need to be made![/p][/quote]Absolutely right and those decisions cannot easily be undone which is why it's so important for the decision makers to take everything into account and make the right call - not just bend to the will of the current incumbents of Westminster demanding numbers of houses from afar. nkwbtn
  • Score: 1

9:30am Mon 21 Apr 14

Quiterie says...

Wageslavemum wrote:
The level of debate in some of these comments betrays prejudice and ignorance. Whom amongst your readers regularly uses the A259, or the B2123 aka Falmer Road, or Ovingdean Road. How often in the last 6months have you been stuck in tailbacks on these roads? Well with this new proposal tailbacks will look like heaven as it'll be gridlock. And forget about parking. That's before the air pollution gets you. How many readers went to the 'information' evenings held by Lightwood at Longhill School. Their level or ignorance and arrogance matches that of some of the comments. They refer to 'Meadow Vale' development whereas a Meadow Vale already exists right opposite where they propose to build. This suggests they haven't even read the road signs. The suited young reps had zero knowledge of....&zero interest or stake (except monetary) in the local area. There were factual errors on the most basic levels. For example that the area IS prone to flooding. As anyone living through this last winter can testify. The primary schools are over subscribed -with siblings split between schools. The developer response -oh we'll build/extend more. The South Downs National Park is on one side of Falmer Road and Longhill School on the other. Where and how exactly. Added to the massive presumption that larger schools are somehow a fitting response or 'outcome'. The whole development would lead to unnecessary and yes, unwanted, urbanisation of semi rural communities. Do you think the Council will grit any more of the few side roads it barely manages now. Are you aware of limited mobile phone reception -permission for a measly phone mast on Falmer Road was rejected by planning officers in recent history -and terrestrial tv transmission (no great loss really!) in parts of the Valley. The infrastructure is simply not there nor readily achievable. Have you tried to get a doctor's appointment recently? How would such services be impacted by several hundred more patients? What about the actual OWNERS of this land hiding behind the property developers. Perhaps they can explain why they are happy to decimate 3villages in one go and much more besides whilst living comfortably removed from it all. Do they really need that amount of money that much. Who else has an interest, perhaps a conflict of interests in promoting, or at least not objecting to this development.? What is Ivor Caplin's role? What do the local Rottingdean Parish Council have to say.? These are issues that the Argus and contributors should be investigating and exposing. The information is out there. New houses HAVE been built in the area and have sat empty because they are not affordable. As a reality check, the area is not just retirees. And even if it were, how is that relevant ultimately. The area is a mixture of families with children, the retired, young professional and many others. Some properties are owned others heavily mortgaged or rented. The main point is as stated in the article. That Councils are being pressured into green lighting unsuitable developments to satisfy dubious policy. This is a critical point, because many other areas stand to be similarly ambushed. The green corridor separating Woodingdean,Ovingdea

n,Rottingdean is essential for social, community and environmental balance. There is protected wildlife to consider . Let's have some real facts and figures and transparency of information.
The nearest Primary school (a mile away) is not oversubscribed. It's massively undersubscribed. As is the nearest Secondary school (Longhill). It's ridiculous to say that a mere 100 houses will suddenly cause 'gridlock' on the roads. Lots of green areas will remain in this area which is much less built-up than most areas of Brighton and Hove. It seems a sensible development to me. Of course the local residents don't like it, but if we always gave in to local residents nothing new would ever be built.
[quote][p][bold]Wageslavemum[/bold] wrote: The level of debate in some of these comments betrays prejudice and ignorance. Whom amongst your readers regularly uses the A259, or the B2123 aka Falmer Road, or Ovingdean Road. How often in the last 6months have you been stuck in tailbacks on these roads? Well with this new proposal tailbacks will look like heaven as it'll be gridlock. And forget about parking. That's before the air pollution gets you. How many readers went to the 'information' evenings held by Lightwood at Longhill School. Their level or ignorance and arrogance matches that of some of the comments. They refer to 'Meadow Vale' development whereas a Meadow Vale already exists right opposite where they propose to build. This suggests they haven't even read the road signs. The suited young reps had zero knowledge of....&zero interest or stake (except monetary) in the local area. There were factual errors on the most basic levels. For example that the area IS prone to flooding. As anyone living through this last winter can testify. The primary schools are over subscribed -with siblings split between schools. The developer response -oh we'll build/extend more. The South Downs National Park is on one side of Falmer Road and Longhill School on the other. Where and how exactly. Added to the massive presumption that larger schools are somehow a fitting response or 'outcome'. The whole development would lead to unnecessary and yes, unwanted, urbanisation of semi rural communities. Do you think the Council will grit any more of the few side roads it barely manages now. Are you aware of limited mobile phone reception -permission for a measly phone mast on Falmer Road was rejected by planning officers in recent history -and terrestrial tv transmission (no great loss really!) in parts of the Valley. The infrastructure is simply not there nor readily achievable. Have you tried to get a doctor's appointment recently? How would such services be impacted by several hundred more patients? What about the actual OWNERS of this land hiding behind the property developers. Perhaps they can explain why they are happy to decimate 3villages in one go and much more besides whilst living comfortably removed from it all. Do they really need that amount of money that much. Who else has an interest, perhaps a conflict of interests in promoting, or at least not objecting to this development.? What is Ivor Caplin's role? What do the local Rottingdean Parish Council have to say.? These are issues that the Argus and contributors should be investigating and exposing. The information is out there. New houses HAVE been built in the area and have sat empty because they are not affordable. As a reality check, the area is not just retirees. And even if it were, how is that relevant ultimately. The area is a mixture of families with children, the retired, young professional and many others. Some properties are owned others heavily mortgaged or rented. The main point is as stated in the article. That Councils are being pressured into green lighting unsuitable developments to satisfy dubious policy. This is a critical point, because many other areas stand to be similarly ambushed. The green corridor separating Woodingdean,Ovingdea n,Rottingdean is essential for social, community and environmental balance. There is protected wildlife to consider . Let's have some real facts and figures and transparency of information.[/p][/quote]The nearest Primary school (a mile away) is not oversubscribed. It's massively undersubscribed. As is the nearest Secondary school (Longhill). It's ridiculous to say that a mere 100 houses will suddenly cause 'gridlock' on the roads. Lots of green areas will remain in this area which is much less built-up than most areas of Brighton and Hove. It seems a sensible development to me. Of course the local residents don't like it, but if we always gave in to local residents nothing new would ever be built. Quiterie
  • Score: -5

10:38am Mon 21 Apr 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Maybe the new development will cater for the 5,000 new students being planned for the city.
The only people who can afford homes in the city are property investors.
Three homes in my street have been sold in the past three months to landlords from outside the city, one being from India.
There's money in UK property for foreign investors and the returns are far better than from other investments.
Maybe the new development will cater for the 5,000 new students being planned for the city. The only people who can afford homes in the city are property investors. Three homes in my street have been sold in the past three months to landlords from outside the city, one being from India. There's money in UK property for foreign investors and the returns are far better than from other investments. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 1

10:39am Mon 21 Apr 14

HJarrs says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
This council is allowing 5,000 additional students into the town and is offering up planning permissions for key sites to be given to student housing when these people could easily study from home thanks to the internet, webcasts, etc
There is no longer need to travel as many people in business are fully aware yet the Greens want more student voters physically moving into town without any money to supporting infrastructure such as doctors,hospitals etc I work for a UK business and we work remotely with clients across the world. There's no need to travel.
These key sites, such as the old co op and Preston barracks could be used to help the city reach its housing target enabling the council to protect its green areas yet instead we allow an industry to bring more people in.
Madness and lack of strategy and the cynic in me actually believes that the cronies in the Green Party are manipulating the vote.
As for Kirby HJarrs, he will have to go back to his party and tell his bosses that the Tory party is making a mistake about policy And If he and Caroline Lucas hadn't had a clutch of kids each, the Uk wouldn't have such a housing shortage.
They are both cheeky devils.
Ah! I see! There is a sneaky Green plot to bring thousands of students to vote Green. It's a conspiracy! Do the students know?

Maxy, you get more bonkers by the day. One minute you complain about students living in residential houses, next minute complaining about student accommodation being built that in the medium term will free up housing. The council has little say over what the unis do as they have now become commercial businesses under past and present administrations (did you vote Labour or conservative? ). In this paper, Bill Randall expressed concern that 5000 additional students may be on the way when there is already great pressure on the housing stock. All this is irrelevant to the article, which is nothing to do with students and all to do with decades of shambolic housing policies.

Councils and communities have little say to resist development, following the government's savaging of planning law. Kirby is trying to deflect attention from his own actions of his party being in the pockets of the developers.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: This council is allowing 5,000 additional students into the town and is offering up planning permissions for key sites to be given to student housing when these people could easily study from home thanks to the internet, webcasts, etc There is no longer need to travel as many people in business are fully aware yet the Greens want more student voters physically moving into town without any money to supporting infrastructure such as doctors,hospitals etc I work for a UK business and we work remotely with clients across the world. There's no need to travel. These key sites, such as the old co op and Preston barracks could be used to help the city reach its housing target enabling the council to protect its green areas yet instead we allow an industry to bring more people in. Madness and lack of strategy and the cynic in me actually believes that the cronies in the Green Party are manipulating the vote. As for Kirby HJarrs, he will have to go back to his party and tell his bosses that the Tory party is making a mistake about policy And If he and Caroline Lucas hadn't had a clutch of kids each, the Uk wouldn't have such a housing shortage. They are both cheeky devils.[/p][/quote]Ah! I see! There is a sneaky Green plot to bring thousands of students to vote Green. It's a conspiracy! Do the students know? Maxy, you get more bonkers by the day. One minute you complain about students living in residential houses, next minute complaining about student accommodation being built that in the medium term will free up housing. The council has little say over what the unis do as they have now become commercial businesses under past and present administrations (did you vote Labour or conservative? ). In this paper, Bill Randall expressed concern that 5000 additional students may be on the way when there is already great pressure on the housing stock. All this is irrelevant to the article, which is nothing to do with students and all to do with decades of shambolic housing policies. Councils and communities have little say to resist development, following the government's savaging of planning law. Kirby is trying to deflect attention from his own actions of his party being in the pockets of the developers. HJarrs
  • Score: -2

11:22am Mon 21 Apr 14

clubrob6 says...

Pointless taking the fight to the government as they are at it too,My friend who lives in Lincolnshire said Camerons wife and father Sir Reginald Sheffield bought a farm called Conesby,since Cameron has relaxed planning laws now its worth a fortune and has planning permission for a housing estate,plus the 5% deposit will make sure they sell them.So going to the government wont work as they are using the relaxing of planning laws to benefit themselves.So im afraid you will just have to accept these houses will be built.
Pointless taking the fight to the government as they are at it too,My friend who lives in Lincolnshire said Camerons wife and father Sir Reginald Sheffield bought a farm called Conesby,since Cameron has relaxed planning laws now its worth a fortune and has planning permission for a housing estate,plus the 5% deposit will make sure they sell them.So going to the government wont work as they are using the relaxing of planning laws to benefit themselves.So im afraid you will just have to accept these houses will be built. clubrob6
  • Score: 2

12:23pm Mon 21 Apr 14

[Sigh] says...

Quiterie wrote:
Wageslavemum wrote:
The level of debate in some of these comments betrays prejudice and ignorance. Whom amongst your readers regularly uses the A259, or the B2123 aka Falmer Road, or Ovingdean Road. How often in the last 6months have you been stuck in tailbacks on these roads? Well with this new proposal tailbacks will look like heaven as it'll be gridlock. And forget about parking. That's before the air pollution gets you. How many readers went to the 'information' evenings held by Lightwood at Longhill School. Their level or ignorance and arrogance matches that of some of the comments. They refer to 'Meadow Vale' development whereas a Meadow Vale already exists right opposite where they propose to build. This suggests they haven't even read the road signs. The suited young reps had zero knowledge of....&zero interest or stake (except monetary) in the local area. There were factual errors on the most basic levels. For example that the area IS prone to flooding. As anyone living through this last winter can testify. The primary schools are over subscribed -with siblings split between schools. The developer response -oh we'll build/extend more. The South Downs National Park is on one side of Falmer Road and Longhill School on the other. Where and how exactly. Added to the massive presumption that larger schools are somehow a fitting response or 'outcome'. The whole development would lead to unnecessary and yes, unwanted, urbanisation of semi rural communities. Do you think the Council will grit any more of the few side roads it barely manages now. Are you aware of limited mobile phone reception -permission for a measly phone mast on Falmer Road was rejected by planning officers in recent history -and terrestrial tv transmission (no great loss really!) in parts of the Valley. The infrastructure is simply not there nor readily achievable. Have you tried to get a doctor's appointment recently? How would such services be impacted by several hundred more patients? What about the actual OWNERS of this land hiding behind the property developers. Perhaps they can explain why they are happy to decimate 3villages in one go and much more besides whilst living comfortably removed from it all. Do they really need that amount of money that much. Who else has an interest, perhaps a conflict of interests in promoting, or at least not objecting to this development.? What is Ivor Caplin's role? What do the local Rottingdean Parish Council have to say.? These are issues that the Argus and contributors should be investigating and exposing. The information is out there. New houses HAVE been built in the area and have sat empty because they are not affordable. As a reality check, the area is not just retirees. And even if it were, how is that relevant ultimately. The area is a mixture of families with children, the retired, young professional and many others. Some properties are owned others heavily mortgaged or rented. The main point is as stated in the article. That Councils are being pressured into green lighting unsuitable developments to satisfy dubious policy. This is a critical point, because many other areas stand to be similarly ambushed. The green corridor separating Woodingdean,Ovingdea


n,Rottingdean is essential for social, community and environmental balance. There is protected wildlife to consider . Let's have some real facts and figures and transparency of information.
The nearest Primary school (a mile away) is not oversubscribed. It's massively undersubscribed. As is the nearest Secondary school (Longhill). It's ridiculous to say that a mere 100 houses will suddenly cause 'gridlock' on the roads. Lots of green areas will remain in this area which is much less built-up than most areas of Brighton and Hove. It seems a sensible development to me. Of course the local residents don't like it, but if we always gave in to local residents nothing new would ever be built.
At those that think that extra housing will not cause gridlock I can only assume that you do not live in the area. Every night I take my life in my hands at the Falmer slip road where the traffic coming out of town clashes (and almost crashes) with that trying to get back in. Once on the Falmer Road there is a queue often all the way back to the Stadium. The narrow roads in this area are actually in Air Quality reports held by the Council. The infrastructure of the area is just not geared up for this.

Re. comments on local schools being under subscribed - I find this hard to believe and would be interested to know where I should look to double check this information as this conflicts totally with what I have previously been told (not arguing - just asking out of interest so I can take a look at this).
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wageslavemum[/bold] wrote: The level of debate in some of these comments betrays prejudice and ignorance. Whom amongst your readers regularly uses the A259, or the B2123 aka Falmer Road, or Ovingdean Road. How often in the last 6months have you been stuck in tailbacks on these roads? Well with this new proposal tailbacks will look like heaven as it'll be gridlock. And forget about parking. That's before the air pollution gets you. How many readers went to the 'information' evenings held by Lightwood at Longhill School. Their level or ignorance and arrogance matches that of some of the comments. They refer to 'Meadow Vale' development whereas a Meadow Vale already exists right opposite where they propose to build. This suggests they haven't even read the road signs. The suited young reps had zero knowledge of....&zero interest or stake (except monetary) in the local area. There were factual errors on the most basic levels. For example that the area IS prone to flooding. As anyone living through this last winter can testify. The primary schools are over subscribed -with siblings split between schools. The developer response -oh we'll build/extend more. The South Downs National Park is on one side of Falmer Road and Longhill School on the other. Where and how exactly. Added to the massive presumption that larger schools are somehow a fitting response or 'outcome'. The whole development would lead to unnecessary and yes, unwanted, urbanisation of semi rural communities. Do you think the Council will grit any more of the few side roads it barely manages now. Are you aware of limited mobile phone reception -permission for a measly phone mast on Falmer Road was rejected by planning officers in recent history -and terrestrial tv transmission (no great loss really!) in parts of the Valley. The infrastructure is simply not there nor readily achievable. Have you tried to get a doctor's appointment recently? How would such services be impacted by several hundred more patients? What about the actual OWNERS of this land hiding behind the property developers. Perhaps they can explain why they are happy to decimate 3villages in one go and much more besides whilst living comfortably removed from it all. Do they really need that amount of money that much. Who else has an interest, perhaps a conflict of interests in promoting, or at least not objecting to this development.? What is Ivor Caplin's role? What do the local Rottingdean Parish Council have to say.? These are issues that the Argus and contributors should be investigating and exposing. The information is out there. New houses HAVE been built in the area and have sat empty because they are not affordable. As a reality check, the area is not just retirees. And even if it were, how is that relevant ultimately. The area is a mixture of families with children, the retired, young professional and many others. Some properties are owned others heavily mortgaged or rented. The main point is as stated in the article. That Councils are being pressured into green lighting unsuitable developments to satisfy dubious policy. This is a critical point, because many other areas stand to be similarly ambushed. The green corridor separating Woodingdean,Ovingdea n,Rottingdean is essential for social, community and environmental balance. There is protected wildlife to consider . Let's have some real facts and figures and transparency of information.[/p][/quote]The nearest Primary school (a mile away) is not oversubscribed. It's massively undersubscribed. As is the nearest Secondary school (Longhill). It's ridiculous to say that a mere 100 houses will suddenly cause 'gridlock' on the roads. Lots of green areas will remain in this area which is much less built-up than most areas of Brighton and Hove. It seems a sensible development to me. Of course the local residents don't like it, but if we always gave in to local residents nothing new would ever be built.[/p][/quote]At those that think that extra housing will not cause gridlock I can only assume that you do not live in the area. Every night I take my life in my hands at the Falmer slip road where the traffic coming out of town clashes (and almost crashes) with that trying to get back in. Once on the Falmer Road there is a queue often all the way back to the Stadium. The narrow roads in this area are actually in Air Quality reports held by the Council. The infrastructure of the area is just not geared up for this. Re. comments on local schools being under subscribed - I find this hard to believe and would be interested to know where I should look to double check this information as this conflicts totally with what I have previously been told (not arguing - just asking out of interest so I can take a look at this). [Sigh]
  • Score: 5

12:58pm Mon 21 Apr 14

[Sigh] says...

Ah ok, so hate being in the dark, did some quick research and found the following info re. school applications - which was as my previous understanding was. Quiterie would be interested to find out what data you were referring to as obviously our understanding is different:
Our lady of Lourdes – 85 applications – 30 places
St Margarets CE – 97 applications – 30 places
Rudyard Kipling – 84 for 48
Saltdean Primary (has had to increase one extra class this year) – 114 for 90 places
Woodingdean Primary – 107 applications for 60 places
Longhill High – 261 for 209 places

So strain on schools, strain on roads, removes our beautiful countryside - not great.
Ah ok, so hate being in the dark, did some quick research and found the following info re. school applications - which was as my previous understanding was. Quiterie would be interested to find out what data you were referring to as obviously our understanding is different: Our lady of Lourdes – 85 applications – 30 places St Margarets CE – 97 applications – 30 places Rudyard Kipling – 84 for 48 Saltdean Primary (has had to increase one extra class this year) – 114 for 90 places Woodingdean Primary – 107 applications for 60 places Longhill High – 261 for 209 places So strain on schools, strain on roads, removes our beautiful countryside - not great. [Sigh]
  • Score: 5

2:32pm Mon 21 Apr 14

NickBrt says...

Nice to see Mary mears in the picture. Although I hate Tories Mary was always available for people to contact her. Our green councillors are never around except for election time. They are invisible they don't respond to emails, useless bunch.
Nice to see Mary mears in the picture. Although I hate Tories Mary was always available for people to contact her. Our green councillors are never around except for election time. They are invisible they don't respond to emails, useless bunch. NickBrt
  • Score: 4

2:34pm Mon 21 Apr 14

NickBrt says...

Dear hjarrs sorry I said something against greens. I realuse in your eyes that is evil. Sorry.
Dear hjarrs sorry I said something against greens. I realuse in your eyes that is evil. Sorry. NickBrt
  • Score: 2

7:30pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

Steptoe5 wrote:
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
It really isn't as simple as saying the nasty developers shouldn't be allowed to build housing on our green fields. There are some difficult decisions that need to be made; look at the planned population growth for the south east of England and then tell me where the new homes should be built.

I know, I know: 'somewhere else'.
I understand houses need to be built, but as a resident of Rottingdean I'm very concerned the detrimental effect, this will have on the already overcrowded and over stretched public services.
But everywhere else can make exactly the same arguments, Ovingdean isn't 'special' in that respect.
[quote][p][bold]Steptoe5[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: It really isn't as simple as saying the nasty developers shouldn't be allowed to build housing on our green fields. There are some difficult decisions that need to be made; look at the planned population growth for the south east of England and then tell me where the new homes should be built. I know, I know: 'somewhere else'.[/p][/quote]I understand houses need to be built, but as a resident of Rottingdean I'm very concerned the detrimental effect, this will have on the already overcrowded and over stretched public services.[/p][/quote]But everywhere else can make exactly the same arguments, Ovingdean isn't 'special' in that respect. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: -1

8:24pm Mon 21 Apr 14

76robmac says...

Stop building for Students who don't pay council tax use the buildings for our local families
Stop building for Students who don't pay council tax use the buildings for our local families 76robmac
  • Score: 1

9:06pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Quiterie says...

wrote:
Ah ok, so hate being in the dark, did some quick research and found the following info re. school applications - which was as my previous understanding was. Quiterie would be interested to find out what data you were referring to as obviously our understanding is different:
Our lady of Lourdes – 85 applications – 30 places
St Margarets CE – 97 applications – 30 places
Rudyard Kipling – 84 for 48
Saltdean Primary (has had to increase one extra class this year) – 114 for 90 places
Woodingdean Primary – 107 applications for 60 places
Longhill High – 261 for 209 places

So strain on schools, strain on roads, removes our beautiful countryside - not great.
Hi, Thanks for your question. You have clearly gone to the right place (google "Allocation Factsheet for Year 7 places September 2014" and "Allocation of Infant/Primary School (Reception) places September 2014", but you have totally misinterpreted the data on those factsheets.

261 is the total number of 1st, 2nd or 3rd preferences for Longhill. But remember you have to put 3 preferences on your admissions application form so even if you don't want to attend your 2nd or 3rd preferences you still have to put them down.
209 is the total number of children actually allocated Longhill. However the number of places available is actually 270. So instead of your 261 for 209 places it's actually 209 for 270 places, i.e. massively undersubscribed. For the coming September Longhill can actually accommodate an eye-watering additional 61 children.

The nearest Primary School (Rudyard Kipling) has 60 places each year. For this coming September only 48 of these have been taken up. i.e. it is again massively undersubscribed.

If you don't believe any of the above, phone the admissions team at the Council and they will confirm it for you.
[quote][p][bold][Sigh][/bold] wrote: Ah ok, so hate being in the dark, did some quick research and found the following info re. school applications - which was as my previous understanding was. Quiterie would be interested to find out what data you were referring to as obviously our understanding is different: Our lady of Lourdes – 85 applications – 30 places St Margarets CE – 97 applications – 30 places Rudyard Kipling – 84 for 48 Saltdean Primary (has had to increase one extra class this year) – 114 for 90 places Woodingdean Primary – 107 applications for 60 places Longhill High – 261 for 209 places So strain on schools, strain on roads, removes our beautiful countryside - not great.[/p][/quote]Hi, Thanks for your question. You have clearly gone to the right place (google "Allocation Factsheet for Year 7 places September 2014" and "Allocation of Infant/Primary School (Reception) places September 2014", but you have totally misinterpreted the data on those factsheets. 261 is the total number of 1st, 2nd or 3rd preferences for Longhill. But remember you have to put 3 preferences on your admissions application form so even if you don't want to attend your 2nd or 3rd preferences you still have to put them down. 209 is the total number of children actually allocated Longhill. However the number of places available is actually 270. So instead of your 261 for 209 places it's actually 209 for 270 places, i.e. massively undersubscribed. For the coming September Longhill can actually accommodate an eye-watering additional 61 children. The nearest Primary School (Rudyard Kipling) has 60 places each year. For this coming September only 48 of these have been taken up. i.e. it is again massively undersubscribed. If you don't believe any of the above, phone the admissions team at the Council and they will confirm it for you. Quiterie
  • Score: 2

9:15pm Mon 21 Apr 14

[Sigh] says...

Quiterie wrote:
wrote:
Ah ok, so hate being in the dark, did some quick research and found the following info re. school applications - which was as my previous understanding was. Quiterie would be interested to find out what data you were referring to as obviously our understanding is different:
Our lady of Lourdes – 85 applications – 30 places
St Margarets CE – 97 applications – 30 places
Rudyard Kipling – 84 for 48
Saltdean Primary (has had to increase one extra class this year) – 114 for 90 places
Woodingdean Primary – 107 applications for 60 places
Longhill High – 261 for 209 places

So strain on schools, strain on roads, removes our beautiful countryside - not great.
Hi, Thanks for your question. You have clearly gone to the right place (google "Allocation Factsheet for Year 7 places September 2014" and "Allocation of Infant/Primary School (Reception) places September 2014", but you have totally misinterpreted the data on those factsheets.

261 is the total number of 1st, 2nd or 3rd preferences for Longhill. But remember you have to put 3 preferences on your admissions application form so even if you don't want to attend your 2nd or 3rd preferences you still have to put them down.
209 is the total number of children actually allocated Longhill. However the number of places available is actually 270. So instead of your 261 for 209 places it's actually 209 for 270 places, i.e. massively undersubscribed. For the coming September Longhill can actually accommodate an eye-watering additional 61 children.

The nearest Primary School (Rudyard Kipling) has 60 places each year. For this coming September only 48 of these have been taken up. i.e. it is again massively undersubscribed.

If you don't believe any of the above, phone the admissions team at the Council and they will confirm it for you.
OK, sorry if misinterpreted - still can't say I've got my head around it in any shape or form even after explanation.

It raises a lot of questions based on the troubles I know that parents (people I know - not have 'heard about') had getting their primary school kids a place at local schools this year. However, this is not the thread to discuss that one. Appreciate your response and direction to the admissions team at the Council.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold][Sigh][/bold] wrote: Ah ok, so hate being in the dark, did some quick research and found the following info re. school applications - which was as my previous understanding was. Quiterie would be interested to find out what data you were referring to as obviously our understanding is different: Our lady of Lourdes – 85 applications – 30 places St Margarets CE – 97 applications – 30 places Rudyard Kipling – 84 for 48 Saltdean Primary (has had to increase one extra class this year) – 114 for 90 places Woodingdean Primary – 107 applications for 60 places Longhill High – 261 for 209 places So strain on schools, strain on roads, removes our beautiful countryside - not great.[/p][/quote]Hi, Thanks for your question. You have clearly gone to the right place (google "Allocation Factsheet for Year 7 places September 2014" and "Allocation of Infant/Primary School (Reception) places September 2014", but you have totally misinterpreted the data on those factsheets. 261 is the total number of 1st, 2nd or 3rd preferences for Longhill. But remember you have to put 3 preferences on your admissions application form so even if you don't want to attend your 2nd or 3rd preferences you still have to put them down. 209 is the total number of children actually allocated Longhill. However the number of places available is actually 270. So instead of your 261 for 209 places it's actually 209 for 270 places, i.e. massively undersubscribed. For the coming September Longhill can actually accommodate an eye-watering additional 61 children. The nearest Primary School (Rudyard Kipling) has 60 places each year. For this coming September only 48 of these have been taken up. i.e. it is again massively undersubscribed. If you don't believe any of the above, phone the admissions team at the Council and they will confirm it for you.[/p][/quote]OK, sorry if misinterpreted - still can't say I've got my head around it in any shape or form even after explanation. It raises a lot of questions based on the troubles I know that parents (people I know - not have 'heard about') had getting their primary school kids a place at local schools this year. However, this is not the thread to discuss that one. Appreciate your response and direction to the admissions team at the Council. [Sigh]
  • Score: 0

8:27am Tue 22 Apr 14

Quiterie says...

wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
wrote:
Ah ok, so hate being in the dark, did some quick research and found the following info re. school applications - which was as my previous understanding was. Quiterie would be interested to find out what data you were referring to as obviously our understanding is different:
Our lady of Lourdes – 85 applications – 30 places
St Margarets CE – 97 applications – 30 places
Rudyard Kipling – 84 for 48
Saltdean Primary (has had to increase one extra class this year) – 114 for 90 places
Woodingdean Primary – 107 applications for 60 places
Longhill High – 261 for 209 places

So strain on schools, strain on roads, removes our beautiful countryside - not great.
Hi, Thanks for your question. You have clearly gone to the right place (google "Allocation Factsheet for Year 7 places September 2014" and "Allocation of Infant/Primary School (Reception) places September 2014", but you have totally misinterpreted the data on those factsheets.

261 is the total number of 1st, 2nd or 3rd preferences for Longhill. But remember you have to put 3 preferences on your admissions application form so even if you don't want to attend your 2nd or 3rd preferences you still have to put them down.
209 is the total number of children actually allocated Longhill. However the number of places available is actually 270. So instead of your 261 for 209 places it's actually 209 for 270 places, i.e. massively undersubscribed. For the coming September Longhill can actually accommodate an eye-watering additional 61 children.

The nearest Primary School (Rudyard Kipling) has 60 places each year. For this coming September only 48 of these have been taken up. i.e. it is again massively undersubscribed.

If you don't believe any of the above, phone the admissions team at the Council and they will confirm it for you.
OK, sorry if misinterpreted - still can't say I've got my head around it in any shape or form even after explanation.

It raises a lot of questions based on the troubles I know that parents (people I know - not have 'heard about') had getting their primary school kids a place at local schools this year. However, this is not the thread to discuss that one. Appreciate your response and direction to the admissions team at the Council.
No problem. I agree this isn't the place for this kind of discussion. Although having said that I'd be interested to know which schools the people you know weren't able to get places at.

At the 5 primary schools you mentioned only 3 children weren't allocated their first preferences this year (2 at St Margaret’s and 1 at Our Lady of Lourdes)... and it's possible that even they'll get in on appeal.

And I do sympathise with the 'Meadow Vale' development issue. I really do. If I was living there I wouldn't want it either. But with the planning laws as they currently are I fear you're probably fighting a losing battle. x
[quote][p][bold][Sigh][/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold][Sigh][/bold] wrote: Ah ok, so hate being in the dark, did some quick research and found the following info re. school applications - which was as my previous understanding was. Quiterie would be interested to find out what data you were referring to as obviously our understanding is different: Our lady of Lourdes – 85 applications – 30 places St Margarets CE – 97 applications – 30 places Rudyard Kipling – 84 for 48 Saltdean Primary (has had to increase one extra class this year) – 114 for 90 places Woodingdean Primary – 107 applications for 60 places Longhill High – 261 for 209 places So strain on schools, strain on roads, removes our beautiful countryside - not great.[/p][/quote]Hi, Thanks for your question. You have clearly gone to the right place (google "Allocation Factsheet for Year 7 places September 2014" and "Allocation of Infant/Primary School (Reception) places September 2014", but you have totally misinterpreted the data on those factsheets. 261 is the total number of 1st, 2nd or 3rd preferences for Longhill. But remember you have to put 3 preferences on your admissions application form so even if you don't want to attend your 2nd or 3rd preferences you still have to put them down. 209 is the total number of children actually allocated Longhill. However the number of places available is actually 270. So instead of your 261 for 209 places it's actually 209 for 270 places, i.e. massively undersubscribed. For the coming September Longhill can actually accommodate an eye-watering additional 61 children. The nearest Primary School (Rudyard Kipling) has 60 places each year. For this coming September only 48 of these have been taken up. i.e. it is again massively undersubscribed. If you don't believe any of the above, phone the admissions team at the Council and they will confirm it for you.[/p][/quote]OK, sorry if misinterpreted - still can't say I've got my head around it in any shape or form even after explanation. It raises a lot of questions based on the troubles I know that parents (people I know - not have 'heard about') had getting their primary school kids a place at local schools this year. However, this is not the thread to discuss that one. Appreciate your response and direction to the admissions team at the Council.[/p][/quote]No problem. I agree this isn't the place for this kind of discussion. Although having said that I'd be interested to know which schools the people you know weren't able to get places at. At the 5 primary schools you mentioned only 3 children weren't allocated their first preferences this year (2 at St Margaret’s and 1 at Our Lady of Lourdes)... and it's possible that even they'll get in on appeal. And I do sympathise with the 'Meadow Vale' development issue. I really do. If I was living there I wouldn't want it either. But with the planning laws as they currently are I fear you're probably fighting a losing battle. x Quiterie
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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