Outline plans for hundreds of new homes on a greenfield site in Hove were approved by councillors at a meeting on Wednesday 25 May.
They agreed to the broad principles of a scheme to build 880 homes in Toads Hole Valley, off King George VI Avenue, known locally as Snakey Hill.
The consortium behind the scheme – Toad’s Hole Valley Limited, Pecla Investments Limited and Robert Simon – submitted a planning application for the 91-acre site in late 2018.
Earlier this year, the developer lodged an appeal because Brighton and Hove City Council had not made a decision. At the same time, it submitted a duplicate planning application to the council.
The council said that it was awaiting expert information from National Highways about the transport and air quality effects of the scheme for the site just south of the A27 Brighton bypass.
In March, the council’s Planning Committee voted against the scheme at a special meeting but, since then, National Highways has said that the effects would be acceptable, subject to mitigating measures.
And on Wednesday, the plans for the privately owned land – the largest greenfield site in Brighton and Hove – came back before planners at Hove Town Hall.
Conservative councillor Vanessa Brown, who represents the neighbouring Hove Park ward, said that the proposed scheme would be an overdevelopment.
It would, she said, have a “seriously detrimental effect” across Hove – and she was concerned that the developer would sell off the land in parcels.
She said: “We strongly oppose the splitting up of the land and the phasing. The complete infrastructure should be in place first.
“How can the many road changes in King George VI Avenue be put in place safely in a piecemeal fashion?
“This will cause disruption and confusion for residents and visitors for the duration of the project, which could be 10 years or more.”
Goldstone Crescent resident Gareth Hall said that the council had had four years to draw up plans to deal with the congestion generated by the Toads Holes Valley development.
Mr Hall said: “Despite warnings from hundreds of Brighton and Hove residents, and their concerns being confirmed in the report from the developers, which shows local roads will see traffic increase up to 80 per cent, nothing has changed.
“The planning department appears to be ignoring the developers’ report and the residents’ comments.
“They’re asking you to approve the development saying if there are issues on local roads, these will be dealt with at some unspecified date in the future. There is nothing mentioned about how this will be achieved.”
Martin Carpenter, director of planning consultancy Enplan, spoke for the developer. He said that the application complied with all the relevant council policies. And 40 per cent of the houses would be classed as “affordable”.
David Bird, director of transport consultancy Vectos, spoke about improvements to the nearby A27 junction a proposed bus service from the site to Hove Station.
He said: “We think that balance is about right as there’s a high level of sustainability provided through improved walking and cycling routes alongside King George VI Avenue, toning down the road to reduce the width and allow people to cross the road and therefore walk and cycle.
“Equally, we have had to provide for the level of traffic that is expected. This is due to the requirement of National Highways who have safety as their paramount requirement.”
Labour councillor Daniel Yates said that the plans were “policy compliant” but this was a 20th century scheme for a 21st century city.
He said: “It does seem to me that it means we get to the position where lots of people are questioning the relevance of the development for modern times and needs of the city, let alone the future needs of the city.
“At the same time, it meets what we thought the future was going to look like 10 or 15 years ago, which is great. But as Tomorrow’s World shows, they don’t always come off, those sorts of things. Where’s my flying car?
“At the same time, we’ve got what is kind of a tarmac-based 1980s development.”
Councillor Yates said that he felt that his hands were tied when voting for the scheme because it complied with policy.
Green councillor Sue Shanks said that, back in 2011, the ideas were for a sustainable model development, adding: “We have to vote with what is there rather than what we’d like to see there.
“The idea that traffic is going to increase everywhere and people are going to drive more than they ever did is wrong. There is a downward trend in traffic.”
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald said that the proposed scheme would add to traffic jams in the area, adding: “Up to 880 dwellings is a lot. It seems an overdevelopment to me.
“The ‘City Plan’ suggested 700, so it’s already crept up. Nearly half are flats, not houses. It would be nice to see more houses.”
The committee voted seven to two for the plans which include a school, sports and community space, offices, shops and other business premises, a doctors’ surgery and a wildlife site.
