Sussex beauty spot "cut out" of South Downs National Park (From The Argus)
Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
Sussex beauty spot "cut out" of South Downs National Park
12:00pm Thursday 7th May 2009 in News By Andy Chiles
Green Ridge
Residents have reacted with horror after an area of outstanding natural beauty was “cut out” of the planned South Downs National Park.
People living around Green Ridge, a thin band of meadowland between the Westdene area of Brighton and the A27, have launched a campaign to urge officials to change the boundary.
All areas inside the national park, which is due to come into operation next year, will be protected against future development.
Those excluded will have no such protection.
Hailey Sellins, whose home backs onto the Green Ridge AONB, said: "Ever since the national park was first considered in 2001 that area has been in it. It has been in every draft until all of a sudden now it is dropped at the eleventh hour.
"We are all horrified. We've had no chance to protest or make a case because there has never been a need."
The residents led by Maureen Holt have now formed a group called Keep The Ridge Green and are lobbying the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the boundary to be re-altered.
Mrs Sellins said: "It is an absolutely beautiful area up there and it is used by a lot of people for walking. It is a meadow with a lot of butterflies and other wildlife. David Bellamy went to visit it when he was in Brighton last year. It would be awful if it was lost."
Their cause has been backed by Brighton Pavilion MP David Lepper and Brighton and Hove City Council, which is expected to pass a resolution tonight to write to Environment Secretary Hilary Benn.
Mr Lepper said: "Local people in the area have worked hard to conserve and protect this unique piece of the South Downs. We hope the secretary of state will think again before a final decision is made."
In a report on the issue that will be reviewed by Councillor Geoffrey Theobald, Brighton and Hove City Council's cabinet member for environment, council officers suggest the situation needs to be drawn to Mr Benn's attention urgently and raise the possibility Green Ridge was cut from the park by a clerical error.
They suggest the area may have been accidentally removed at the same time as Toads' Hole Valley, between Hangleton and the A27.
They add that Green Ridge met all the necessary criteria for being included in the national park.
Comments(32)
Arriseme
says...
2:28pm Thu 7 May 09
Charismatic Andrew
says...
3:03pm Thu 7 May 09
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
says...
3:41pm Thu 7 May 09
Arriseme wrote:I'm guessing you're being sarcastic which is a shame as the gist of what you say is true! We can't afford to be precious about every bit of land, especially if it's south of the A27.
Ming is dead right, let’s build there. All AONB land next to the national park should have intensive housing, industrial or, better still, recreational development built on it, like, say, a football stadium. After all, that is the policy of the city council. This patch of land is only another field on the outskirts of Brighton, so why should it be treated any differently?
Voice of the silent Majority
says...
3:52pm Thu 7 May 09
Ming
says...
4:29pm Thu 7 May 09
for about 5 days
ABC1
says...
5:39pm Thu 7 May 09
Except of course, for the fact that politicians have no shame as long as there's a potential vote in it for them.
ABC1
says...
5:39pm Thu 7 May 09
Except of course, for the fact that politicians have no shame as long as there's a potential vote in it for them.
chilledmum
says...
7:16pm Thu 7 May 09
Arriseme
says...
7:33pm Thu 7 May 09
On_the_Level
says...
7:53pm Thu 7 May 09
Jim BB
says...
7:54pm Thu 7 May 09
Now, even Green Belt isn't sacred and that parcel of land is going to be built on.
If we don't make a stand, then what will be left for future generations except for bland housing estates and nowhere for nature, peace and quiet or just space? This is obviously a beautiful strip of land and, once gone, we'll never get it back.
On_the_Level
says...
7:56pm Thu 7 May 09
chilledmum
says...
8:00pm Thu 7 May 09
chilledmum
says...
8:12pm Thu 7 May 09
scaffolder
says...
8:18pm Thu 7 May 09
EasyBeaker
says...
8:23pm Thu 7 May 09
EasyBeaker
says...
8:23pm Thu 7 May 09
stan bailey
says...
8:31pm Thu 7 May 09
ABC1 wrote:I am amazed that the football stadium appears to be a company, but it can get funding right left and centre to fund it.
I am gobsmacked that a member of the local Labour party that supported the Falmer soccer stadium can be so hypocritical as to oppose the re-zoning of this piece of land.
Except of course, for the fact that politicians have no shame as long as there's a potential vote in it for them.
stan bailey
says...
8:32pm Thu 7 May 09
ABC1 wrote:I am amazed that the football stadium appears to be a company, but it can get funding right left and centre to fund it.
I am gobsmacked that a member of the local Labour party that supported the Falmer soccer stadium can be so hypocritical as to oppose the re-zoning of this piece of land.
Except of course, for the fact that politicians have no shame as long as there's a potential vote in it for them.
Dave in Hastings
says...
9:58pm Thu 7 May 09
chilledmum
says...
10:18pm Thu 7 May 09
ABC1
says...
8:06am Fri 8 May 09
I hope that the residents of Green Ridge get their way, but actually, why should they? There are plenty of schemes encroaching onto green belt land right now, so why should these people be exempt from their effects? There is no doubt that the South East needs more homes and that there is more demand for housing than supply. On this basis, it is less than community minded of the Green Ridge residents not to give up their land. I'll bet also that a number of them voted in favour of the Albion scheme at Falmer. And so they reap what they sow. The so-called referendum on Falmer, far from being a uniting agent, actually showed the divide in Brighton, with more than 65% of available voters not voting in favour of the scheme.
For me, the Falmer debate polarised the community and threw up some fantastic hypocrisy that is relevant to this debate. As an example, I don't expect much in the way of principle from the main parties, but the Greens sell themselves differently. However, they exposed themselves as having as little in the way of principle as anyone else. The Word Green in "Green" party should really have italics round it.
Falmer also highlighted the fact that the usual quasi-judicial processes are meaningless if the political circumstances are right. The Green ridge residents have suffered from this, but so have the residents of Falmer. It also demonstrated that communities are quite happy to **** on each other if they feel threatened. For example, there was no community in Brighton and Hove that wanted the stadium in their location, only in someone else's.
So the residents of Green Ridge will get support only for as long as there are potential votes in it for the politicians. And crucially, only for as long as it takes other residents to realise that development may be coming their way instead.
leebha
says...
8:52am Fri 8 May 09
leebha
says...
8:52am Fri 8 May 09
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
says...
9:18am Fri 8 May 09
Also part of the footprint of the stadium is replacing some old 1960s buildings - and the land was earmarked for development anyway.
PS - Stanmer's north of the bypass, so even if it is a 'muddy field' (made better since they've stopped cars driving onto it) it probably won't be built on in the foreseeable future.
ABC1
says...
10:06am Fri 8 May 09
There were two public enquiries. One specifically dealt with the Falmer site and rejected the application out of hand. FACT. The other dealt with other potential sites and found there were none suitable. FACT. Therefore, under planning guidelines, the stadium should have been canned after the first enquiry, let alone the second.
The SoS in her permission letter stated that the stadium would be harmful to the nvironment for all the reasons given by the first inspector. FACT. The car parking provision that was allowed was also found to be well over what they should have allowed. FACT.
The system exists to protect the ordinary people who don't have a voice that reaches to Govt. level, and to protect ordinary people from being exploited. You talk about democracy, but given the time, trouble and money spent on the enquiries, what evidence that didn't appear at the enquiries swung the decision in the club's favour? Obviously conversations outside of the public domain which were subsequently published as a decision. All this show is that if you don't have a voice that reaches the right people, you won't get anywhere.
So good luck to the people of Green Ridge, you never know, you may even win. But to say that they are more deserving than the Falmer residents is clearly a crock, and to find in their favour after lobbying from the very people destroying AONB via the football club is just hypocrisy of the highest order.
chilledmum
says...
12:43pm Fri 8 May 09
dlife enthusiasts?children
?families?mountain bikers? joggers? every day, come rain or shine? was there benches? a pond?an ancient saxon hedge surrounding it? Had it been lovingly maintained by a local wildlike group for years? A BIG FAT NO, it was a field. Please do not insult me by saying it is the same - it clearly isn't. SAVE GREEN RIDGE
pw08
says...
1:47pm Fri 8 May 09
And it's about time the Falmer supporters had the guts to realise the consequences of what they have done.
EasyBeaker
says...
3:42pm Fri 8 May 09
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
says...
4:49pm Fri 8 May 09
I agree with Easybeaker inasmuch as I think the stadium IS related to this. I was always vaguely opposed to development in greenfield sites (which Falmer ISN'T) but the pig-ignorant oppositon to the stadium (and the sewage treatment works) and the unbelivably convoluted planning process made me change my mind. Now I think the planning laws should be relaxed to presume in favour of development - and not just in fields but in the heart of the city as well. You can't make an omlettee without breaking eggs.
And anyway aren't we getting ahead of ourselves? All that's happened is this field isn't going to be in the NP. No one's yet suggested it will be a suitable site of a nuclear waste dump. Let's wait and see eh?
stan bailey
says...
9:35pm Fri 8 May 09
EasyBeaker wrote:spot on
I’m afraid Mrs. Chilledmum, the Falmer saga has lots to do with your predicament. If there’s a lesson here for you Green Ridge people, it’s to get one, or better still several, of your people sleeping with the key decision makers. Then you must invite the Secretary of State down for a day out while he or she is supposed to be independently assessing your case – just remember only to give them a meat pie and a warm cup of tea, mind. Lastly, don’t involve the Greens, as they are particularly fond of allowing stadiums on AONB sites like yours. That’s how it’s done, I understand.
Ming says...
1:47pm Thu 7 May 09