A 10-year blueprint for housing, work space and leisure sites in Brighton and Hove is due to go before councillors for a final vote.
It includes controversial proposals to allow up to 900 homes to be built on 16 “greenfield” sites on the urban fringe around the area.
Brighton and Hove City Council is required to draw up the blueprint – a strategic plan setting out policies to help guide decisions on planning applications.
And the document – known as the City Plan – was “examined” by an inspector appointed by the government to ensure that it was “sound”.
Now, the final current version – the City Plan Part Two – has to be ratified at a meeting of the full council which is due to take place in the coming week.
The plan contains tough housebuilding targets, with the Whitehawk Hill nature reserve and Benfield Valley among the most controversial sites.
Campaigners are due to present a petition containing more than 3,000 signatures to the council on Thursday (20 October). The petition is a last-ditch attempt to prevent about 100 homes from being in Benfield Valley.
A separate campaign called for Whitehawk Hill and the racecourse to be retained as green spaces but failed to win over the government planning inspector.
Residents in Patcham had better luck. They persuaded the inspector that land next to Horsdean Recreation Ground should not be allocated for housing, with the loss of habitat outweighing the benefits of the proposed 10 homes.
Conservative councillor Samer Bagaeen, a professor of planning, said that the greenfield sites could be removed from the plan when the council’s Tourism, Equalities, Communities and Culture Committee met last month.
Councillor Bagaeen said: “It is clear to me, as a councillor, as a planner and as someone who reads data, if these were taken out of City Plan Part Two, the plan would remain intact and above housing target.
“This council does not need to take the position that it is taking on allocating land for a small number of dwellings in the urban fringe. It is a conscious choice to do so.”
But Green councillor Leo Littman, who chairs the council’s Planning Committee, defended the City Plan, saying that the policies would “protect what needs protecting” in the years ahead.
He said: “I’m not saying that the plan is perfect. Sadly, in at least one respect, I consider it to be far from perfect.
“I would love for us to be able to protect every single blade of grass on the city’s urban fringes from development – but we can’t.
“We need to face reality as it is a choice between protecting some of our green urban fringe sites or none of them.”
