CAMPAIGNERS say the fight to save two downland sites is not over, despite warnings that keeping the land in public ownership could harm a multi-million pound restoration project.

Environmentalists remain unconvinced the sale of land at Poynings and Plumpton Hill is the best option to fund the restoration of Stanmer Park.

Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth (BHFOE) has called for a greater vision for the future use of the city council’s 12,000 acres of downland while Green councillors said the sale of downland should be the “absolute last resort”.

An urgent review of the sell-off claims the sale of the two cherished sites remains the best option to fund the Stanmer project. Council officers have attempted to reassure critics the land will still be protected from inappropriate development in private ownership.

The council is struggling to fund through land sales the £1.42 million it needs to raise as part of the £5.8 million Stanmer Park restoration, with just £25,000 secured so far.

The majority of the funds will come from the sale of Park Wall cottages in Falmer but is reliant on redevelopment of the site receiving planning consent.

The sale of Poynings and Plumpton Hill sites will raise £180,000 – a figure environmentalists say is “pathetically” low.

Council officers have advised policy, resources and growth committee members to stick with the original plan ahead of Thursday’s meeting, ruling out alternatives to sell less controversial sites or commit a larger proportion of receipts to the Stanmer project.

Councillor Ollie Sykes said: “These downland sites are our reserves of absolute last resort. They are critical to this city and I am not convinced by the financial case. With the uncertainty in the planning system and the weakness of bodies that are supposed to enforce and protect these sites, who knows what they will be used for in the future?”

Councillor Tony Janio, Conservative group spokesman, said: “If there is any social or environmental value in the land, in addition to its monetary value, then there is a good case for the council to retain ownership in order to give absolute protection.

“Putting a covenant on the land is all very well but it is challengeable in court.”

BHFOE’s Chris Todd said more importance needed to be given to the site’s environmental and social value as well as its potential in the future.

He said: “I don’t think council officers really understand what they are managing. We need to have a much better vision for what we are doing with our downland.

“It is a fantastic asset that has been bequeathed to us and we shouldn’t be flogging it off or using it as a cash cow.”

CAMPAIGNERS ARE MORE DETERMINED THAN EVER

LIKE the waters that run beneath the downland sites currently being fought over, the proposed sales were moving along silently with little attention for more than two years before environmentalists started to raise merry hell in November.

The sale of the “non-core agricultural assets”, the biggest sell-off of council downland in more than 20 years, was approved in committee meetings in July 2014 and again in February and July this year.

Ironically councillors who agreed to those sales are now campaigning against them, claiming they received insufficient information.

In total 14 sites have been identified for sale totalling more than 110 acres with some sold even before the campaign got started.

Within weeks the council had agreed to a “pause” in the process which became a “halt” to the sales of land at Plumpton Hill and Poynings last month, thanks to a joint intervention from Conservative and Green councillors calling for an urgent report into alternative options.

The two sites are considered by environmentalists to be among the most precious among Brighton and Hove City Council’s impressive downland holding of around 12,000 acres.

The land owning was built up by city founding father Sir Herbert Carden in what is considered by many to be his greatest legacy in a lifetime of achievements.

His vision, 80 years before the South Downs National Park was created, was to preserve the Downs for the enjoyment of its residents and protect the city’s water supply.

But the ecological and archaeological value of the 25-acre Poynings site is disputed by the council.

The authority said it had not commissioned a formal archaeological survey because the site has no statutory designations.

Council officers said the potential buyer, son of the existing tenant farmer, has given assurances there are no plans to change the way the land is farmed.

The land sales are required to help fund the £5.8 million restoration of Stanmer Park.

There was success earlier this month with the news the city council had been successful in its Heritage Lottery Fund bid for a project aimed at lifting the historic park off Historic England’s at-risk register. The successful bid however does require the authority to uphold its half of the bargain in finding the rest of the money, including £1.42 million from its own coffers.

Land at Devil’s Dyke, Plumpton Hill, Poynings and Park Wall Cottages have all been marketed but only the Devil’s Dyke Farm land has so far sold for £25,000 in 2014.

That is a small slice of the £2.5 million of land sales needed for the Stanmer Park project as half the sales will be going towards a separate council pot – for improvements in the city’s schools, roads, houses and regeneration projects.

The land at Plumpton Hill and Poynings are both currently under offer while Park Wall cottages has a bidder signed up to an exclusivity agreement with discussions ongoing with assured shorthold subtenants of two cottages set for sale Concerns remain over what will happen to the sites once in private hands. The council believes their future is safeguarded because of their presence within the South Downs National Park, “statutory designations” including Plumpton Hill’s classification as a site of special scientific interest, the fact the land is under long-term agricultural tenancies and the added protection of proposed restrictive covenants.

Conservative councillors remain unconvinced. Previous sales of publicly owned nature sites do not necessarily bode well. A report by campaigners revealed more than half of Forestry Commission land sold in and around Sussex had been made inaccessible to walkers after passing into private hands.

It has made campaigners even more determined to preserve their beloved sites this time around.

ANGER OVER FURTHER SALE

PLANS to sell a third of a council’s downland holding remain on course in spite of public opposition.

Eastbourne Borough Council has confirmed it remains committed to the ssale of four farms covering almost 3,000 acres of downland.

It is hoped the process could be completed within the first half of this year although the sale is complicated by pre-emption rights for landowners with right to first refusal.

Environmentalists have criticised the lack of transparency in the sale and raised concerns about the future management of the land under private ownership.

The council said it was unlikely that changes to the current farming of the land would change once the sale had been completed.

The decision to sell the land was made behind closed doors in October 2015.

Scores of protesters took part in a protest at Beachy Head last month in opposition to the plans, warning of the impact the move could have on the rich biodiversity of the Downs’ chalk grassland.

The sale will earn the council between £15 million to £30 million, which will be reinvested into projects supporting job creation, town centre improvements, housing, replacing the Sovereign Centre and investing in the Devonshire Park Quarter.

The council has also made assurances that £1 million will be spent improving right of way access on the open downland the council is retaining.

The authority said it would still retain freehold of 1,000 acres, including Beachy Head.

An Eastbourne Borough Council spokesman said: “There has been a lot of misinformation in the public domain about the sale of the freehold of the Downland working farms that is misleading people.

“The farms will remain farms, access across them will remain unchanged, as will the strict protection and controls that are enforced by the South Downs National Park Authority.”