Should eco-homes be built on Toads Hole Valley in Hove?

2:50pm Tuesday 10th July 2012 in News By Tim Ridgway, Local government reporter

GREEN LUNG: Toads Hole Valley GREEN LUNG: Toads Hole Valley

Battle lines have been drawn over the potential development of a green space.

Brighton and Hove City Council’s planners have identified Toads Hole Valley in Hove as a key place to provide homes and other facilities for the growing area.

The triangular 47 hectare site, which borders King George VI Avenue, the A27 and Downland Drive, has been included in the draft city plan, which will guide development in the city until 2030, as a place to build.

But with hundreds of residents campaigning against the plans to build on the “green lung”, the inclusion in the key document is unlikely to be simple.

Time is now running out for others to have their views before the consultation closes on July 20.

Council leader Jason Kitcat said: “Land for development in Brighton and Hove is scarce and we want to make the best possible use of this site.

“As privately-owned land, the only way we can influence the future use of Toads Hole Valley is through the planning process and that’s why your views are so important.”

In the document the council recommends the site is used for an eco-development following the “One Planet Living” principles of a reduced carbon footprint.

This includes 700 new homes, half of which will be family sized, a new secondary school, work spaces and a gateway to South Downs National Park.

The local authority added it would include community facilities and transport links, as well as making improvements to the Site of Nature Conservation Interest on the western embankment.

Tony Mernagh, of Brighton and Hove Economic Partnership, has previously said developing the site is a “no brainer”.

But Conservative councillor Vanessa Brown said she and her colleague Jayne Bennett had collected nearly 1,000 signatures opposing the plans.

Coun Brown said: “The residents are horrified although I think the majority don’t know how big it will be.

“The biggest concern is the traffic. We all know how busy King George VI gets.

“I appreciate we need to provide homes but I think we should focus on developing the brownfield sites in the city.

“Toads Hole Valley is the gateway to Hove. All those views of the sea will be lost and it’s our last piece of urban fringe before the A27 bypass. It’s our green lung.”

The local authority is holding two consultation events on Thursday for local residents at West Blatchington Windmill in Holmes Avenue, Hove.

They will run from 2pm to 5pm and 6pm to 7.30pm.

For more details or to comment email ldf@brighton-hove.gov.uk, visit www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/comment-cityplan or call 01273 292505.

Comments(34)

rolivan says...
3:04pm Tue 10 Jul 12

Cllr Brown, the Green Lung as you like to call it should be with the rest of the Body which is on the other side of the Bypass.As for spoiling the views of the sea from what vantage point are you talking?

Report this post »

Joshiman says...
3:04pm Tue 10 Jul 12

How many voted in the local council elections and if you didnt then why?The majority of actual voters voted them in.

Report this post »

Ligand Fields says...
3:05pm Tue 10 Jul 12

If Cllr Vanessa Brown has a "green lung" dare I suggest she stops smoking so much 'wacky-baccy'?

At the moment the site is just a scrubby dump, it's not exactly an area of outstanding natural beauty. I imagine that a sensitive development could include a lot of trees and greenery.

As for access - er, it's adjacent to the existing multimillion "Seafront to the Downs Cycle Freeway", aka Sustrans "National Cycle Network" RR82. Perhaps Cllr Brown needs to take a lesson from Norman Tebbit and get ON HER BIKE instead of just waddling in and out of her car.

Report this post »

Fight Back says...
3:31pm Tue 10 Jul 12

Just as long as the transport links are properly planned ( many a new link to the A27 ? ) then this is a good idea. It's long been scrap land. Nice to see, as usual, the nimbies are out in force and still trying to stop any development in the city.

Report this post »

Ligand Fields says...
3:49pm Tue 10 Jul 12

Yes, how ironic that it's the Green party who are trying to provide sustainable eco-development, and some ludicrous Tory bisms are going stark-raving-NIMBY about it. And WHERE, I'd like to ask, just WHERE in all of this are the TOADS??? Won't somebody PLEASE give us the amphibian agenda on this one?

Report this post »

pwlr1966 says...
4:00pm Tue 10 Jul 12

What is wrong with developing housing on the Black Rock site & areas of Shoreham harbour before destroying green field sites?

Report this post »

graham_Seagull says...
4:17pm Tue 10 Jul 12

pwlr1966 wrote:
What is wrong with developing housing on the Black Rock site & areas of Shoreham harbour before destroying green field sites?
Brighton council arent responsible for Shoreham harbour, or at least the areas where homes could be built - Adur council is

Report this post »

Ligand Fields says...
4:23pm Tue 10 Jul 12

pwlr1966 wrote:
What is wrong with developing housing on the Black Rock site & areas of Shoreham harbour before destroying green field sites?
Unless they are amphibous submergable homes (which I concede would be pretty cool), I think you're being a little reckless there.

Report this post »

Fercri Sakes says...
4:25pm Tue 10 Jul 12

I consider myself pro-environment yet even I can see that development here should be allowed. Obviously north of the A27 should still have its blanket ban but this is a prime place to build. As long as the homes are eco-friendly.

But that 'Seafront to the Downs' cycle lane has a real problem at this point when it crosses King George VI Ave. I can never see where to cross this busy road so it's quite dangerous.

Report this post »

ray ellerton says...
5:02pm Tue 10 Jul 12

Funny how it was rejected as a site for a new Albion ground a few years back on environmental grounds, citing badgers nesting there....but now its ok for the Greens to propose housing be built there...

Report this post »

Fight Back says...
5:06pm Tue 10 Jul 12

ray ellerton wrote:
Funny how it was rejected as a site for a new Albion ground a few years back on environmental grounds, citing badgers nesting there....but now its ok for the Greens to propose housing be built there...
No it wasn't - it was rejected because the owner wanted to charge too much and also wanted permission to build commercial buidlings as part of the deal.

Report this post »

PETE OF QUEENS PARK says...
5:07pm Tue 10 Jul 12

Typical of some people, not in my back yard.We keep being told housing is in short supply and to be quite honest it isn't really a beutifull sight is it,just covered in motor cycle tracks and very unatractive we have already been through this saga before when all the talk of the new Albion stadium was in it's early stages and this was one of the designated sights.

Report this post »

rolivan says...
5:21pm Tue 10 Jul 12

There is enough space at the bottom of King George to build a junction with either lights or roundabout and a subway.The City Planners need to get down to serious business with Transport infrastructure throughout the City even if it means the Demolition of Major Buildings.At the moment it is just a Hotch potch.it is all very well saying there are lots of Brownfield sites that need to be used first but all that can be built on Most of them is Flats in most cases.Oh and one more thing isn't Hove Park and the Rec and the 3 cornered copse big enough?

Report this post »

Fight Back says...
5:21pm Tue 10 Jul 12

Fight Back wrote:
ray ellerton wrote:
Funny how it was rejected as a site for a new Albion ground a few years back on environmental grounds, citing badgers nesting there....but now its ok for the Greens to propose housing be built there...
No it wasn't - it was rejected because the owner wanted to charge too much and also wanted permission to build commercial buidlings as part of the deal.
And here's ther text from an article at the time ( note no mention of badgers ! ).

The owners of Toad’s Hole Valley would be prepared to grant a substantial part of the valley for a football stadium for Brighton & Hove Albion but they expect planning permission in return for a business park on the rest of the site. Otherwise the land carries a £4m price tag for the Albion. Toad’s Hole Valley is one of several sites that the ODPM has insisted should be revisited as potential
sites for the stadium. The owners are of the opinion that it could be over £8m cheaper to build in the valley rather than the preferred site at Falmer.

But Brighton & Hove Albion are firm in their views that Toad’s Hole Valley is not suitable because, being sandwiched between two fast moving transport routes, it has access problems which make it
unsuitable for a football stadium. The A27/A2083 roundabout to the north of the site operates at, or close to, capacity and the Club questins whether it could accommodate match day traffic. Also the close proximity of Falmer to East Brighton and the Universities of Sussex and Brighton make it eligible for grant assistance that Toad’s Hole does not.

Report this post »

kmhove says...
6:34pm Tue 10 Jul 12

All other considerations apart, I am struggling to imagine how on earth you would fit 700 new homes... half of them family size, a new school and work spaces, not to mention the infrastructure needed to support them on what is really such a tiny site! Unless, of course, our Green friends are considering the re introduction of high rise buildings and the creation of future slums! There would clearly be little or no green left in the area . The Council don't own the land so I imagine that what they will do is to refuse planning permission for "ordinary" homes with gardens contunually until skyscrapers are proposed.

Mind you, on second thoughts, you could probably squeeze 700 caravans on there but even that would be a pinch!!

Report this post »

rolivan says...
6:51pm Tue 10 Jul 12

kmhove wrote:
All other considerations apart, I am struggling to imagine how on earth you would fit 700 new homes... half of them family size, a new school and work spaces, not to mention the infrastructure needed to support them on what is really such a tiny site! Unless, of course, our Green friends are considering the re introduction of high rise buildings and the creation of future slums! There would clearly be little or no green left in the area . The Council don't own the land so I imagine that what they will do is to refuse planning permission for "ordinary" homes with gardens contunually until skyscrapers are proposed.

Mind you, on second thoughts, you could probably squeeze 700 caravans on there but even that would be a pinch!!
The site is about 100 Acres or just over 400,000 sq m.I think ou will find they will fit quite a lot into that space.Look how many houses the built up at Burgess Hill near the Triangle Leisure Complex.The majority of people do not have the money for large gardens let alone the time.

Report this post »

BrightonHoveboy says...
7:08pm Tue 10 Jul 12

Enough. No to this rubbish

Report this post »

Fight Back says...
7:15pm Tue 10 Jul 12

BrightonHoveboy wrote:
Enough. No to this rubbish
I guess that's a consice arguement if somewhat lacking in detail !

Report this post »

george smith says...
8:15pm Tue 10 Jul 12

How about building a large reservoir there, more homes need more water, we are having trouble supplying the present homes with water.
That would make a better feature to be prefixed eco. Iam now highly suspicious of anything prefixed eco or green

Report this post »

deanaprior says...
8:21pm Tue 10 Jul 12

It seems to be the first place people go to fly-tip As Brighton needs more homes it seems a likely place.
I object to the Eco-homes sales pitch.
The developer will still try and build as many flats as cheaply as possible.
There will be a SainsTesco who will promise to build a doctors surgery
There won't be any green space above that allowed for battery hens but there will be very heat efficient roofs

Report this post »

HJarrs says...
8:31pm Tue 10 Jul 12

There are thousands of people on ousing waiting lists and so few houses have been built over the years that prices are sky high despite a severe recession or two. All the major brown field sites are allocated for development and you can comment in the still open city plan consultation, but there is still need to build more housing.

Sadly, the piece of land was ruined by the building of the A27 and it is only a matter of time before one administration or another allows building here. Better that it is developed as environmentally as reasonably possible and hopefully it can still retain some of the better areas for amenity.

Interesting that there was a lot of support for a certain development at Falmer despite being on green belt.

Report this post »

rolivan says...
8:48pm Tue 10 Jul 12

HJarrs wrote:
There are thousands of people on ousing waiting lists and so few houses have been built over the years that prices are sky high despite a severe recession or two. All the major brown field sites are allocated for development and you can comment in the still open city plan consultation, but there is still need to build more housing.

Sadly, the piece of land was ruined by the building of the A27 and it is only a matter of time before one administration or another allows building here. Better that it is developed as environmentally as reasonably possible and hopefully it can still retain some of the better areas for amenity.

Interesting that there was a lot of support for a certain development at Falmer despite being on green belt.
What about Sussex University isn't that in an area of outstanding natural beauty as well as the South Downs Park?

Report this post »

Fight Back says...
8:50pm Tue 10 Jul 12

HJarrs wrote:
There are thousands of people on ousing waiting lists and so few houses have been built over the years that prices are sky high despite a severe recession or two. All the major brown field sites are allocated for development and you can comment in the still open city plan consultation, but there is still need to build more housing.

Sadly, the piece of land was ruined by the building of the A27 and it is only a matter of time before one administration or another allows building here. Better that it is developed as environmentally as reasonably possible and hopefully it can still retain some of the better areas for amenity.

Interesting that there was a lot of support for a certain development at Falmer despite being on green belt.
There was also a lot of opposition ! And it was an AONB not green belt.

Report this post »

HJarrs says...
9:37pm Tue 10 Jul 12

Fight Back wrote:
HJarrs wrote: There are thousands of people on ousing waiting lists and so few houses have been built over the years that prices are sky high despite a severe recession or two. All the major brown field sites are allocated for development and you can comment in the still open city plan consultation, but there is still need to build more housing. Sadly, the piece of land was ruined by the building of the A27 and it is only a matter of time before one administration or another allows building here. Better that it is developed as environmentally as reasonably possible and hopefully it can still retain some of the better areas for amenity. Interesting that there was a lot of support for a certain development at Falmer despite being on green belt.
There was also a lot of opposition ! And it was an AONB not green belt.
I stand corrected.

Report this post »

Bristol VR says...
10:46pm Tue 10 Jul 12

The plain answer to this question is no.. we should not be building any new homes on the outskirts of Brighton until ALL of the vacant properties which have been uninhabited for over 12 months have been compulsorily purchased from their negligent owners and rented out to those who need somewhere to live at a decent and affordable rent. Brighoton & Hove council.. sort out what we have before building what we dont want!

Report this post »

Maxwell's Ghost says...
12:45am Wed 11 Jul 12

You can build 700 new homes but you cannot guarantee they will be inhabited by local people, they may just encourage a few thousand new people from London into the 700 homes, therefore, can they really be called Eco if they encourage more people into the city or even if they are bought as second homes for holiday makers.
There is no such thing as Eco housing developments only Eco building techniques.

Report this post »

Pebbles says...
2:35am Wed 11 Jul 12

One major factor that need engineering input is the strong possibility of flooding. The back of Bevendean has experienced flooding into peoples homes in the past and so any new development that is sandwiched within a valley would of be of the same possible risk.

On another note.. didn't we all live in an area of natural beauty at one time?

Look at the back of Mile Oak/Hangleton Valley.. look at the Goldstone Crescent/Shirley Drive areas... all land taken to provide for the growing population.

Land is for the living.. and with careful consideration and modern methods we should not be held back and afraid of providing homes for people.... which is why I think cemetery's are wasteful...but thats not for now... ;)

Report this post »

mimseycal says...
8:09am Wed 11 Jul 12

This proposed increased conurbation will make additional demands on the existing infrastructure.

What are the proposals for ensuring that the additional stress on the existing infrastructure will be addressed?

Report this post »

happyinsussex says...
10:15am Wed 11 Jul 12

I remember 20 yrs ago there were rumours the land owner wanted to build houses on this land as we used to play near downlands drive end. The train links are not there for it to have been a suitable site for the amex stadium.
If it is developed to housing, how many will actually be council/housing association & how many will be affordable homes for local people. Lots of trees will need planting round the edges as screens & noise filters from the road. The infrastructure needs to be improved & a new infant/junior & senior school needs to be provided. I grew up in hangleton, I moved to lancing when I wanted to buy a house.

Report this post »

nigeyb says...
10:31am Wed 11 Jul 12

Of all the options for development this seems pretty sensible. I'm all for it. The city desperately needs more housing and school space. This is private land so the public cannot access it. Let's put it to good use. Well done to the council for a coherent City Plan with many sensible proposals.

Report this post »

Fercri Sakes says...
11:06am Wed 11 Jul 12

george smith wrote:
How about building a large reservoir there, more homes need more water, we are having trouble supplying the present homes with water.
That would make a better feature to be prefixed eco. Iam now highly suspicious of anything prefixed eco or green
Are you joking? If we do need more reservoirs then we can build them north of the A27 like most of the others we have.

Report this post »

redwing says...
2:30pm Thu 12 Jul 12

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
You can build 700 new homes but you cannot guarantee they will be inhabited by local people, they may just encourage a few thousand new people from London into the 700 homes, therefore, can they really be called Eco if they encourage more people into the city or even if they are bought as second homes for holiday makers.
There is no such thing as Eco housing developments only Eco building techniques.
Just getting over the shock of agreeing with you.
Members of this so called Green council are hell-bent on attracting yet more people to a city bursting at the seams.
Eco idiots!

Report this post »

Techno3 says...
8:47pm Fri 13 Jul 12

I love this. The Greens are the party of concrete and destruction.

Beneath the talk, they are a bunch of Orwellean doublethinking hypocrites, as vain, stupid, authoritarian, dishonest and unreasonable as any ideologues have ever been. Their MEPs have turned out to be greedy troughing parasites.

Report this post »

Helena Handcart says...
1:15am Tue 17 Jul 12

Build on it and give the Cooks the living they deserve. So what if a few ex council houses lose their view of a Motorcycle Scramble Course......WE NEED HOUSES.........(and water! and a better Police Force, A proper Council and a decent Newspaper.......)

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