One of the first major battles I fought on behalf of my constituents after being elected a councillor in 2004 was to stop a plan to “develop” the green land at Benfield Valley in my ward.
Benfield Valley is a wedge of green land that runs north-south from the A27 on the city’s northern boundary down to the Old Shoreham Road, sitting between the suburbs of Portslade and Hove.
The land, referred to as a “green lung” for the city, incorporates a nature reserve, golf course and playing fields, providing a continuous green strip amid homes and other buildings for nature and public space.
At the time Benfield Valley had started to come under pressure from potential developers.
In the 1990s the land at the bottom of Benfield Valley – part of the old West Hove Golf Course – had been released for development. It’s now a Sainsbury’s and petrol station. And it was clear that other parts of the green wedge were now going to be under pressure from developers.
The building of the Sainsbury’s superstore at the southern end in the early 1990s was linked to restrictive covenants which sought to protect the rest of valley for outdoor recreation.
The proposal we fought in 2006 centred on the golf course land further north in Benfield Valley. The proposal put forward was a mix of hotel and chalet buildings including a plan to replace parts of the ground with synthetic turf.
The golf course had been rented from the council on a long-term lease and the leaseholders were upfront in the local paper about their need to make money from the site.
One of the five co-directors at the time said: “I have to make money from it. If I don’t, there’s no way I can find funding for the barn, lights for the pathways or pay for the upkeep of the course.”
But residents raised concerns about badger setts and several species of lizards and the impact on what at the time was considered a “site of nature conservation importance” that the council wanted included in the South Downs National Park.
We fought hard on behalf of residents who valued nature and wanted to stop the erosion of any more of Benfield Valley – and we were successful, with councillors rejecting the scheme at a meeting of the council’s Planning Committee.
Residents were delighted that this valuable green space had been saved. But this was not the end of it and over the coming years we have had to fight many times more to keep the land from being developed – and today we have been called upon to fight again.
Residents stand firm
In 2007 the Conservatives were elected to run Brighton and Hove City Council and as a councillor in that administration I made sure Benfield Valley was kept safe.
But in 2014, under the first Green administration, residents were called upon to act once again. This time plans for 380 new homes on Benfield Valley were put forward and these plans were unveiled at an exhibition at Hangleton Manor. The plans once again centred on the Benfield Valley Golf Course.
Residents who had fought the plans years earlier activated once again. One resident said that he had council papers to say nothing could be built on the land for at least 20 years. I supported the residents wholeheartedly on the council and we were successful with the plans not going forward.
Then, three years later in 2017, during that Labour administration, a proposal for a mega-project was floated including a massive 800 homes on the site.
The number of proposed homes had doubled and residents were aghast at this proposal from Futureform Homes. It was a plan that would have cut Benfield Valley in half and ended the continuous green wedge as we know it.
The plan did not go forward as residents voiced their objections once again and Futureform Modular Limited went bust, with liquidators appointed in February 2018.
A new threat: City Plan Part 2
Now in 2020, residents have been called upon to fight again – and myself and my ward colleague Nick Lewry are once again taking up the fight on our constituents’ behalf.
This time the matter is more serious than ever before as the proposal to build on the Benfield Valley land comes not from developers but from the council itself.
The council has earmarked two Benfield Valley sites for 100 homes. The two development sites sit on either side of Hangleton Lane.
The proposal is part of a 10-year strategic development plan for Brighton and Hove known as the City Plan Part 2 – currently the subject of a public consultation until Friday 30 October.
Councillor Lewry and I are standing up on behalf of residents to oppose this proposal. We started a petition calling for Benfield Valley to be removed from the City Plan Part 2 which has been backed by over 2,000 residents. This petition will be brought before the council for debate on Thursday 22 October.
Here, ahead of that meeting, we spell out our case to remove Benfield Valley from the City Plan Part 2.
It’s bats – Benfield Valley has ecological value
Benfield Valley has been described as a “green lung” for the city. The council’s own website describes it as a “green wedge”.
The council has also noted that the earmarked sites provide “green wedges” into the urban area, acting as wildlife corridors and important routes for people wishing to access the South Downs.
With statistics in July showing that Brighton had recorded the third most polluted street in England out of 1,300 sites tested, it is more important than ever that this city has a green lung to generate some clean air.
But it is also important for wildlife and nature – and it is bats that show us why this site is so ecologically important.
Glenn Norris, of the Sussex Wildlife Trust, wrote in the October edition of the Hovarian Magazine that the presence of bats indicated healthy invertebrate-rich habitats.
He said: “In Hove, bats are most likely to be seen in the few remaining green spaces: Hove Park, Hove Cemetery and Benfield Valley Nature Reserve.
“The bats found in Hove are probably the aerobatic common pipistrelle and heavy-duty noctule as these bats are tolerant of artificial lighting from streetlights and have even adapted to feeding on the moths and insects that have been attracted by the artificial glow. Pipistrelles are so small they can fit in a hole the size of your thumb.”
So, according to the Sussex Wildlife Trust, the presence of these pipistrelles proves what many locals know – that Benfield Valley is a rich ecological environment. Locals will also tell you about the badgers, foxes, dormice, birds’ nests, slow worms and lizards.
Benfield Valley needs to be retained for ecological reasons.
Open space and mental health
There is also strong argument to retain Benfield Valley for open space as well – for families and for children and their mental health.
With all the high-rise flats going up across Hove, many families don’t have gardens for their children to play in. Children without access to open space as they are growing up could well face mental health problems in the future.
We have seen the benefit of open space during the coronavirus pandemic and lockdown and its benefit to mental health. With all the shops, restaurants and other facilities closed, families took to places like Benfield Valley and now they value them more than ever. Many families explored the area and the community has come to value our green spaces even more than before.
A number of residents have told me that they were amazed with what they found – the animals and nature right on their doorstep. Many residents said that they would have gone barmy without it. They have rediscovered Benfield Valley with nature hikes and dog walks.
With local schools also taking children to Benfield Valley to show them nature in the city, it is vital that we maintain this green message. What a bad example it would be to our children if we built on Benfield Valley.
Historic significance
Benfield Valley also has a significant historical value. Benfield Barn is designated a conservation area of almost one and a half acres (0.58 hectares).
As the conservation listing states, this small conservation area takes its name from the late 18th/early 19th century listed barn, of typical Sussex barn construction in timber and flint, with red brick dressings and quoins and a large wagon entrance.
Benfield Manor House, dating from 1611, originally stood to the south of the barn, but this was demolished in 1871. The area is all that remains of Benfield Manor Farm which was at the heart of the Norman manor of Benfield, the boundaries of which are still visible today in the remains of a pre-Norman bank and hedge to the east and west of Benfield Valley.
The character and appearance of the conservation area, which it is important to preserve and enhance, is its leafy setting and the rural farm atmosphere, which includes low out-buildings, flint walled enclosures and rough cart tracks.
Although this grouping is surrounded almost completely by open land, it is set very close to the more recently built-up area and the busy bypass, making its character all the more remarkable and important to preserve.
The immediate setting of the listed barn and the views of the barn from a distance need to be protected. The retention and use of materials such as flint, clay tiles, slates and stock bricks are important.
The areas listed for development in the City Plan were assessed as having moderate to high archaeological potential, mostly relating to Bronze Age settlements and possible lynchetted field boundaries.
Our history and heritage must be protected. They are more reasons not to develop on Benfield Valley.
The changing face of the Greens
The Conservatives are dead against building on Benfield Valley. We always have been and always will. But with Labour obsessed with building low-cost homes on green space, the fate of Benfield Valley will come down to the Greens.
The Greens used to be a party that would lead environmental protests with members willing to lie down in front of bulldozers to save trees.
They are in danger of joining Labour as a party obsessed with building tower blocks on the urban fringe – this time at the expense of Benfield Valley.
As someone who has lived in Brighton and Hove almost all my life and seen the changing face of politics in our city, I can make some observations about the Greens.
The Greens used to have councillors who cared deeply about the environment and nature – but that changed when Caroline Lucas was elected in 2010.
Within a year she took a turn away from environmentalism and was backing Occupy Brighton protesters camping out on Victoria Gardens.
This marked a turning point for the Greens and they have steadily become more and more obsessed with building cheap housing and student flats wherever they can get their hands on the land.
Their social projects are a pull-factor for people wanting social housing from across the country – and residents are often upset when local people are bypassed for housing and stuck on council waiting lists for years.
The result is that the Greens and Labour have to build more and more social housing to meet their social commitments – but where does it end?
It will not end until every urban fringe site in Brighton and Hove has gone. So Benfield Valley needs to be the point at which we say: “No more!”
Since the initial City Plan Part 2 vote, the Greens have taken over the council from Labour. The Greens have a chance to change tack.
But if they vote this through, the Greens in Brighton and Hove are finished. They may as well just call themselves the Labour Party and drop all pretence about the colour Green.
A solution to end the perpetual battles
The residents have shown time and time again how much they value this site. The ecology, open space and historical value speak for themselves. Each development application that has come forward has been roundly defeated.
Now more than 2,000 residents have signed a petition to have the sites taken out of City Plan Part 2 – more than ever before, showing the feeling among residents is getting stronger.
It is time for the council to put an end to these perpetual attacks on our green space and send a strong signal that Benfield Valley must not be developed on.
It can do this in two ways. First it can take the two development sites proposed for Benfield Valley out of the City Plan. The Conservatives have been clear – there is no need to build on the land. The statistics clearly and unequivocally show this.
The City Plan Part 2 document is required to meet a minimum housing target for the city of 13,200 additional homes.
Deleting the greenfield urban fringe sites from the City Plan and developing only on brownfield sites listed in the plan would still leave Brighton and Hove City Council more than 1,900 homes above the minimum target.
There is therefore absolutely no need to build on our precious green land. The Sussex Wildlife Trust has said that it is disingenuous for politicians to say otherwise.
Second, it is time for the council to investigate buying back the lease of Benfield Valley Golf Course – now a “foot golf” course – to keep it open space for the public.
The leaseholders have been upfront since 2006 – they have said they have to make money. They have been upfront about this from the start and are straight with you when you ask them – as I have done.
Fair enough – but is this what the residents want out of this green space? The answer is no. The council should buy back the lease. The site should be included in South Downs National Park and be protected once and for all.
This council has wasted enough money on other things. The disastrous decision to take the housing repairs contract “in house” has wasted £10 million alone. Labour is paying £1,200 a day for a temporary housing director to fix the issues around this. And the home to school transport debacle has wasted £1 million. These are just a few examples.
Then there was scandal of the £3 million parking meter money owed to the council by a cash collection company – Coin Co International (CCI) – when it went bust in November 2014. This money was never recovered despite calls for legal action by Conservatives.
And what about the i360 which has been given a pause on all its loan repayments which are due to the council. The full amount loaned to the i360 totals £36.2 million.
We could have been buying the lease back for Benfield. I have spoken to the owners of the golf course in recent weeks and they have said that they would be happy to discuss a buy-back of the lease with the council.
The council is re-wilding other golf courses, why not save Benfield Valley?
Fighting on
Since I have been a councillor, I have fought to retain Benfield Valley many times. And the fight goes on. Fortunately, my fellow Conservative councillor in Hangleton and Knoll, Nick Lewry, feels just as passionately as I do and the residents do.
It is time to end the constant battles and for the council to listen to the residents. Take it out of the City Plan, buy back the lease to the golf club and protect the space for future generations.
I would like to retire at some point but if I am required to keep standing as a councillor to defend this green land into my eighties – I will do!
The residents keep encouraging me to stand again. I have lived in Brighton and Hove since I was seven years old. But it would be nice to retire at some point in the knowledge that Benfield Valley is protected and will be safe forever.
And it would be nice if Nick Lewry didn’t have to keep fighting into his eighties as well.
Each time we have come together as a community and fought the threat of development. Now we must do it once again for the residents of Hangleton and Knoll present and future.
Dawn Barnett is a Conservative councillor and represents Hangleton and Knoll ward on Brighton and Hove City Council.
Thank you Dawn for making a passionate relevant fact filled plea for the Benfield Valley. Please would the Council preserve this green space as a wildlife valley for our future.
I have read your story with great interest and admire your passion and drive to keep this valuable piece of open space for the residents and friends of Hangleton.
You are a very hard working person Dawn, on hand to help anybody who needs it.
We all know the council waste so much money, but this is an easy target for them.
Why dont they turn unused buildings and empty office blocks into housing first before taking valuable open spaces to build more.
Good luck
Despite people wanting a home this benfield valley should be preserved for eternity good luck dawn I’ve signed all petitions and will continue to do so
Thank you Dawn for all your hard work and effort I am sure you will get the support you need
Thank you Dawn for your continued support for a green Benfield Valley. We need this green lung for our wellbeing and the wildlife. I have walked this area since 1975 and feel very strongly that it should be protected. Well done.
And in the real world, a quote from another article by Labour….
“Unfortunately, the National Planning Policy Framework is restrictive and forced us to identify some urban fringe sites to meet our housing target. Sites like Whitehawk Hill, Benfield Valley and Horsdean where we shouldn’t have to build.
In our letter to government, Labour and Green councillors expressed “increasing frustration from local residents and communities wondering why we have to lose some of the city’s valued green spaces just to show we can make up the general housing numbers set by a government appointed planning inspector several years ago while not meeting the genuine housing needs of local people”.”
Did you see the bit about LABOUR and the GREENS opposing building on these areas?
Try telling Boris to change his NPPF policy, then we wouldn’t have to, after all, he is YOUR party leader.
You should form a conservation corporation with private funding to buy the land and sell shares to the public so they can use the land as nature trails.