The council has pulled the plug on plans to build more than 100 homes in Benfield Valley in response to overwhelming public opposition.
More than 300 responses have been received by Brighton and Hove City Council since the plans were submitted by a consortium of two companies, Benfield Property Ltd and Benfield Investments Ltd.
The site is understood to be held on a lease by Benfield Investments, which had been working with Hollybrook Homes, a respected developer, on plans for the site. The freehold is owned by the council.
The planning application, which was submitted last July, is due to go before the council’s Planning Committee in just under a fortnight – on Wednesday 2 April.
But the outcome may prove to be academic.
Among the hundreds of objectors are the three Labour councillors for Hangleton and Knoll ward – Faiza Baghoth, Amanda Grimshaw and John Hewitt.
They were delighted to learn that, regardless of the decision of the Planning Committee, the council was unwilling to grant its consent as the landlord.
In part, this is because a covenant has restricted the use of the land for leisure and recreation since it was gifted by the Sainsbury family more than 30 years ago.
They gave the land to what was then Hove Borough Council when the superstore was built at the southern end of the valley by the old entrance to West Hove Golf Club.
But perhaps more importantly, a prolonged campaign by neighbours, dog walkers and nature lovers, has also highlighted the potential loss of ecology, wildlife and biodiversity.
This week, Alan Robins, the council’s cabinet member for sports and recreation, wrote to David Godden at Benfield Property.
Councillor Robins said: “As you know, the current lease restricts use of the land to outdoor recreational and leisure purposes.
“And the council as landowner would need to consent to the implementation of the development where this is outside the terms of the lease.
“We have not received an application from you in this respect. While the council is keen to facilitate the building of housing in Brighton and Hove, as landlord we are not minded to agree to vary the lease relating to this land.
“The site is of great importance to the city and our residents and we are keen to continue to preserve and maintain the use of the whole of the site in its current form for the benefit of our residents.”
Peter Kyle, the Labour MP for Hove and Portslade, has turned out to support campaigners at the site in the past.
Mr Kyle said: “The councillors, the community and myself always said that this area is a valuable social, leisure and outdoor space so I’m over the moon that there is a legal document which proves this.
“Thank you to all the residents who have contacted us and stood firm with us on this issue.”
Councillor Hewitt said: “We understand the importance that Benfield Valley has to our community so this decision will help secure keeping Benfield green.”
Councillor Grimshaw said: “During the election campaign we made it clear that we didn’t support building on Benfield and that will always be our stance.”
Councillor Baghoth said: “While we know that there is a need for housing in the city, Benfield is not the place for it to go as we would be losing a valuable amenity.”
The council reluctantly allocated some housing on the site in the City Plan, a strategic planning document, under pressure to meet the huge demand for new homes in Brighton and Hove.
The Conservative councillors at the time, Dawn Barnett, Tony Janio and Nick Lewry, unsuccessfully tried to prevent the land from being earmarked for housing.
But the Greens said that a government planning inspector had in effect given the council no choice but to include Benfield Valley and a number of other urban fringe sites as potentially suitable for housing.
When Labour won the three seats in Hangleton and Knoll, they did so having pledged – like their Conservative opponents – to fight any housing plans in what was described as a vital green lung.
Thank you labour councillors
Does Angela Rayner know that Peter Kyle Starmeroid has gone off and malfunctioned?
I thought Labour now accused anyone of blocking planning applications of being NIMBYs, but it seems they don’t actually like it when it’s their own back yard.
Pleased for residents that there’s been an about turn, but can’t help but note the hypocrisy of Labour politicians pointing fingers at others opposing planning applications elsewhere and name-calling (Nimby feels like Keir Starmer’s favourite word he uses it so much).
National Government ≠ Local Government.
Thank you to the lawyers! How did it get this far when the land use does not permit housing? Lots of money and time spent (and wasted) on both sides. How did the council include the area in housing plans when it wasn’t allowed to build there?
A bit of common sense has prevailed here,but it shows that those whom kept it on the table are not in the proper position to adjudicate for one and all ,not understanding legally binding documents is paramount to perform in this environment of consultations only fools would commit to try to overturn a covenant.
I thought it looked a good scheme, hope the council can now look after the land. As a rule these areas become a dumping ground.
It was an awful scheme and only designed to make money for the Boon Brothers. The Boon Bothers have already blocked a footpath, removed a protected flint wall and felled perfectly healthy, protected, elms in their pursuit of getting the planning permission. It’s good news the Labour councillors, who campaigned for local votes based on it never happening under a Labour controlled council, have backed up their promises. The Boon Brothers and Laxley Pennant (a particularly repugnant individual who likes to threaten elderly councillors ) must be seething. The result is worth a glass of fizz tonight.
You could say it turned out to not be such a boon after all!
This tired “green lung” metaphor is old hat: the council should get phlegmatic and put people’s houses over everything (working in progress)
Hmm, I can appricate the stance of a pragmatic and stoic approach to house building, the need is very clearly defined in Brighton, however, on balance, the benefits and needs of green outdoor spaces are also overwhelmingly researched as well globally.
I also think just putting “houses over everything” comes with significant risks, Overdevelopment, or rather indiscriminate development, risks straining already stretched infrastructure. These are things that we are already seeing, if we talk about roads, healthcare, and schools in particular — leading to declining public services. Brighton is a unique place.
There’s also the risk of exacerbating social inequalities. Development proposals, like the Gasworks, prioritise luxury flats offering no social or affordable housing; pricing out local residents, and furthering gentrification.
Additionally, disregarding environmental considerations—such as flood risks, biodiversity loss, and sustainable building practices could make developments unsustainable in the long run, particularly given Brighton’s coastal location and vulnerability to climate change.
I do agree with proactive (affordable) housing development, but also in conjunction with a measured response.
Fantastic news! Benfield Valley is a beautiful location.
Thank goodness for the Covenant and local residents and community groups fighting to prevent the development of this land.
Recent research has confirmed the positive impact, (specifically the analgesic/pain reducing effect of watching nature scenes), and necessity of having accessible places of nature in our daily lives: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56870-2. Such evidence shows that in this modern era it is more important than ever to protect healthy and functioning natural environments, encouraging people to spend time in nature for the benefit of both the planet and people.
Academia is pretty overwhelming when it comes to the positive effect of having access to green spaces and using them regularly, it’s very true, Penny!
Does this mean that the Council will have to make its decision on 2 April under planning law, ignoring the fact that as landlord it won’t give consent , meaning that if it grants planning permission then Benfield will apply to Court for a judicial review of its decision as landlord not to give consent ? One for the lawyers!
It’s fairly standard practice for developers to appeal any planning permission that doesn’t go their way. It’s why there is usually a heavy focus on making strong legal argument by campaign groups against developments, rather than an emotive one.
Councils, in the grand scheme of things, don’t have as much control over what gets built somewhat ironically given the perception.
Had the Council looked back at the Sainsbury’s planning application they would have seen the agreement between Sainsbury’s and Hove Council. The details of the agreement were negotiated at an evening meeting between senior officers of Hove Council with myself as Chairman of the planning committee, and Sainsbury’s.The planning gain for Hove was quite extensive and included the Dyke Railway trail, the sports pitch and pavilion to the south of Sainsbury’s, an exchange of land enabling Greenleas to be removed from the local development plan and , of course, the covenant preventing development in the area of the Benfield Barn and the freehold of the Benfield Valley.
Peter Martin, Mayor of Hove 1993/4