Should eco-homes be built on Toads Hole Valley in Hove? (From The Argus)
Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
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
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)
Joshiman
says...
3:04pm Tue 10 Jul 12
Ligand Fields
says...
3:05pm Tue 10 Jul 12
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.
Fight Back
says...
3:31pm Tue 10 Jul 12
Ligand Fields
says...
3:49pm Tue 10 Jul 12
pwlr1966
says...
4:00pm Tue 10 Jul 12
graham_Seagull
says...
4:17pm Tue 10 Jul 12
pwlr1966 wrote:Brighton council arent responsible for Shoreham harbour, or at least the areas where homes could be built - Adur council is
What is wrong with developing housing on the Black Rock site & areas of Shoreham harbour before destroying green field sites?
Ligand Fields
says...
4:23pm Tue 10 Jul 12
pwlr1966 wrote:Unless they are amphibous submergable homes (which I concede would be pretty cool), I think you're being a little reckless there.
What is wrong with developing housing on the Black Rock site & areas of Shoreham harbour before destroying green field sites?
Fercri Sakes
says...
4:25pm Tue 10 Jul 12
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.
ray ellerton
says...
5:02pm Tue 10 Jul 12
Fight Back
says...
5:06pm Tue 10 Jul 12
ray ellerton wrote: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.
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...
PETE OF QUEENS PARK
says...
5:07pm Tue 10 Jul 12
rolivan
says...
5:21pm Tue 10 Jul 12
Fight Back
says...
5:21pm Tue 10 Jul 12
Fight Back wrote:And here's ther text from an article at the time ( note no mention of badgers ! ).
ray ellerton wrote: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.
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...
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.
kmhove
says...
6:34pm Tue 10 Jul 12
Mind you, on second thoughts, you could probably squeeze 700 caravans on there but even that would be a pinch!!
rolivan
says...
6:51pm Tue 10 Jul 12
kmhove wrote: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.
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!!
BrightonHoveboy
says...
7:08pm Tue 10 Jul 12
Fight Back
says...
7:15pm Tue 10 Jul 12
BrightonHoveboy wrote:I guess that's a consice arguement if somewhat lacking in detail !
Enough. No to this rubbish
george smith
says...
8:15pm Tue 10 Jul 12
That would make a better feature to be prefixed eco. Iam now highly suspicious of anything prefixed eco or green
deanaprior
says...
8:21pm Tue 10 Jul 12
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
HJarrs
says...
8:31pm Tue 10 Jul 12
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.
rolivan
says...
8:48pm Tue 10 Jul 12
HJarrs wrote:What about Sussex University isn't that in an area of outstanding natural beauty as well as the South Downs Park?
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.
Fight Back
says...
8:50pm Tue 10 Jul 12
HJarrs wrote:There was also a lot of opposition ! And it was an AONB not green belt.
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.
HJarrs
says...
9:37pm Tue 10 Jul 12
Fight Back wrote:I stand corrected.
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.
Bristol VR
says...
10:46pm Tue 10 Jul 12
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
12:45am Wed 11 Jul 12
There is no such thing as Eco housing developments only Eco building techniques.
Pebbles
says...
2:35am Wed 11 Jul 12
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... ;)
mimseycal
says...
8:09am Wed 11 Jul 12
What are the proposals for ensuring that the additional stress on the existing infrastructure will be addressed?
happyinsussex
says...
10:15am Wed 11 Jul 12
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.
nigeyb
says...
10:31am Wed 11 Jul 12
Fercri Sakes
says...
11:06am Wed 11 Jul 12
george smith wrote: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.
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
redwing
says...
2:30pm Thu 12 Jul 12
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:Just getting over the shock of agreeing with you.
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.
Members of this so called Green council are hell-bent on attracting yet more people to a city bursting at the seams.
Eco idiots!
Techno3
says...
8:47pm Fri 13 Jul 12
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.
Helena Handcart
says...
1:15am Tue 17 Jul 12
rolivan says...
3:04pm Tue 10 Jul 12