Three councillors have said that they will submit a formal objection to plans to build 101 homes in their ward – in Benfield Valley, just north of Hangleton Lane.
A consortium of two companies, Benfield Property Ltd and Benfield Investments Ltd, have now lodged their plans with Brighton and Hove City Council.
And the three Labour and Co-operative councillors for Hangleton and Knoll ward – Faiza Baghoth, Amanda Grimshaw and John Hewitt – have issued a joint statement in response.
It said: “We were notified on Friday evening (2 August) that a planning application had been submitted outlining plans to build houses in Benfield Valley.
“We have been clear in our position that we do not support this development and as such will be submitting objections to planning application BH2024/01720 and will encourage other residents to do likewise.
“While we understand the need for housing in the city, jeopardising the fabric of the Valley is not something we will support.
“The Valley is a valued amenity and is one which we will fight to protect.
“We will continue working with groups and individuals to ensure that Benfield remains green, for future generations to enjoy.”
Benfield Property and Benfield Investments said that, if their plans were approved, 90 per cent of Benfield Valley would remain undeveloped.
The consortium also said that 40 per cent of the proposed homes would be classed as “affordable” in line with council policy.
It owns land to the north and south of Hangleton Lane on a long lease from the council – part of what has been described as a green lung between Hangleton and Portslade.
The southern part of the site would be released as community parkland, the consortium said.
And, after comments from local wildlife groups, the housing planned for north of the road would be built slightly further east than shown in earlier plans. This would double the size of the propose wildlife corridor.
The developer said that these changes would strike the right balance between protecting the local environment and providing much-needed housing.
Benfield Barn would be restored and become a community hub with space for community events, wildlife interpretation, exhibitions, educational use and a community café.
In October 2022, the Labour MP for Hove, Peter Kyle, took part in a demonstration to “Keep the Valley Green” and spoke to a crowd of more than 200 on a rainy day.
Mr Kyle said: “We need new homes in in our community so kids growing up here can afford to live here into adulthood if that’s what they want.
“But we also need to protect our green spaces too because they are so precious. Once they’re gone, they’re gone forever.
“That’s why I joined Hangleton residents this afternoon to show my support for Benfield Valley remaining a small green spot for families to enjoy.
“The fact that so many amazing dogs were in attendance too shows just how important this kind of space is, especially for pet owners.
“I’ve been your MP long enough for you to know that I don’t oppose development often. In fact, just yesterday I visited the Hove Gardens construction site by Hove station.
“But we need balanced development that keeps the local character intact as communities evolve over time.
“Huge thanks to wonderful campaign organisers Helen Forester, Carla Blackman and Kayla Potter-Jones. This is a campaign that adds up to more than the sum of its parts and I was proud to be a part of it today.”
To view the plans for the two-acre site north of Hangleton Lane – or to comment – click here and search for BH2024/01720.
Good for them. We need to see more backbone in our Councillors.
NIMBY!
We need some green spaces left for heavens sake. It’s not nimbyism to want space for dog walkers, children to be able to explore, trees to grow, wildlife to live and survive.
Benfield is not in my back yard or even that close to where I live so it’s definitely not a case of my view being spoilt etc. it’s an unselfish wish to have a green, unspoilt space for many people to enjoy. The feeling of being in the middle of nature it gives is irreplaceable.
Don’t know if you’ve noticed but we live on the South Downs. Lots of space to do your activities, and only a bus ride away.
As for this objection, nimby nonsense.
Well said.
Why shouldn’t people have green space within walking distance of their homes, not to have to get buses just to take dogs for a walk etc. Especially applicable to disabled and older people.
Albeit there is Greenleas, the rest of Benfield Valley, St. Helens, East Hill, Victoria Park, and the entire SDNP within walking distance.
Wasn’t this area previously a golf course?
NIMBYs trying to keep their pockets lined as usual.
This city is heading to the gutter and the only way to change course is to build houses.
The councillors haven’t really explained their reasoning here, unless that was from a previous statement that I am unaware of?
The worry for me is that central government have expressed they are minded to force developments there are deemed critical. In which case, Benfield may very well be developed further than what is proposed here should it go to an appeal process.
Compromise might be the name of the game here.
Too many wrong influences from people being paid to MANAGE not block, get things moving, more housing, more/improved infrastructure, improve the building QUALITY, get the cowboys barred from any and all public contracts,,, for life. Not everyone can have everything so some realistic compromises with realistic management needs to come into play. Clear the seafront from industry and re-develop lots of space there, like at present in Shoreham. Councillors should be evicted for lack of performance, even quicker for poor and costly decisions. They should also be barred from voting on anything that is connected to them or their families, Nepotism at its finest, look at the bin men spectacle, the fallout will take years to clear out. “Elected” Councillors at their best.
I was with you at the first part of that. Managed compromise is a good term. I strongly believe that if we don’t consider a compromise, we may get a forced deal where we have no say in the matter at all. The councillors here haven’t described their objections or compromises comprehensively here, and I think that’s an important aspect.
However, councillors do get evicted for a variety of reasons…at elections. Which is why voting is very important.
Councillor eviction is hindered by main party policies, despite elections, look at them 2 from up North, never wanted never elected by locals and still claiming their rights and money, not just Labour at it.
I’m pretty sure they were, in fact, elected by locals. Hence the election, Stan.
Councillor eviction however is hindered by council policy and national legalisation because it excludes termination of the role unless in very limited circumstances.