DEVELOPERS are hoping for a successful end to a three year bid to build homes on land residents want to see put in the South Downs National Park.

Lightwood Strategic will find out tomorrow whether it has been successful with modified plans to build 45 homes in a field off Ovingdean Road, Brighton.

The firm’s director James Sorrentino said policy was strongly on their side and any refusal would be appealed against “avidly” and could establish a case to take planning powers away from the city council.

Residents strongly oppose the scheme with more than 600 objectors. A host of wildlife and civic groups have also raised objections to plans they say will destroy the green boundary between Brighton’s suburban villages.

The developers first made public plans to build up to 315 homes in February 2014.

The scale of the project was reduced but failed to get consent for 85 homes, rejected in January 2015 and on appeal in March 2016.

The latest bid is for 45 one to five bedroom houses with 18 affordable rent and shared ownership homes meeting the council’s requirement.

Since submission in October, the plans have been amended to reduce the development site, increase open space and remove a food growing and play area.

More than 600 objections have been raised stating the urban sprawl will rob neighbours of views and light and aggravate existing traffic problems.

Brighton Kemptown Conservative candidate Simon Kirby said he did not believe the site was suitable for housing and risked removing the village feel of Ovingdean, Rottingdean and Woodingdean.

More than a dozen groups have objected, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, and ecology groups have warned about the impact on rare species including Red Star Thistle.

The South Downs park authority has not objected, citing the appeal decision in which the planning inspector backed the principle of residential development on the site. The previous plans were rejected on the grounds of overdevelopment.

Mr Sorrentino said the Planning Inspectorate and the council’s own assessment established it was necessary to build homes on suitable fringe sites to meet housing demand.

He said: “If these plans were refused, we would be pursuing an appeal avidly because the political aspect of the planning would be out of kilter with the council’s planning policy and planning officers. A rejection would not just be about this application, it would raise the question whether Brighton should have their decisions about plans taken away.”