Hundreds of people have objected to plans for a new housing estate on a greenfield site in Hove but no one is listening, according to neighbours.
One of the objectors, Gareth Hall, asked councillors to step in after accusing the developer of dodging questions about plans to build more than 1,000 homes in Toads Hole Valley.
Mr Hall said that the Labour MP for Hove, Peter Kyle, was willing to chair a meeting where residents could quiz the developer’s representatives.
The current measures aimed at slowing the spread of coronavirus were, though, adding to the challenges of arranging a public meeting.
The developer, Toads Hole Valley Limited, submitted a planning application in 2018 for homes, shops, offices, industrial space, a sports centre and school at King George VI Avenue, known as Snakey Hill.
The application is expected to be considered by Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee next year.
This year, the company held two online meetings where its representatives gave presentations but asked for questions to be sent to them by email.
At one of the meetings, earlier this month, the developer said that its revised plans no longer included a secondary school because it was not needed.
Instead, the developer plans to build an extra 180 homes on the site, taking the total to 1,062.
After the public meeting, two Conservative councillors, Samer Bagaeen and Vanessa Brown, who represent Hove Park ward, submitted an objection, citing concerns about the scheme’s effect on traffic in neighbouring streets.
Mr Hall spoke out at a virtual council meeting on Thursday (16 December). He said: “Their (the developer’s) website may as well not exist.
“They don’t respond to email questions despite committing to do so at consultation meetings where they won’t take any questions.
“What are the council going to do to persuade the developers to consult properly with the public as outlined in the Brighton and Hove statement of community involvement?”
Mr Hall is worried that his neighbours may not be aware of the potential effect of housing on the volume of traffic in the area and the risk to wildlife, particularly dormice.
It has been estimated that Goldstone Crescent could have 40 to 60 per cent more traffic if the Toads Hole Valley plans are approved as they are.
With dozens of documents and hundreds of comments opposing the plans on the council’s website, Mr Hall fears that many people will struggle to find their way through the scheme’s details.
Green councillor Martin Osborne said that council officials had “strongly encouraged” the developer to carry out comprehensive public consultation with the community.
Councillor Osborne said: “Unfortunately, there is no requirement for developers to consult with residents, but we agree this should be happening.
“In response to these requests, the developer has undertaken various rounds of consultation and had meetings with residents. I know officers and councillors have attended those meetings.”
Toads Hole Valley Limited said that the company had held public engagement sessions since 2017.
A representative, David Shetcliffe, head of operations at public engagement specialists Curtin and Co, said that before the application was submitted a public exhibition took place and community newsletters were delivered to nearly 7,000 homes in the area.
Mr Shetcliffe said that about 100 residents attended each of the virtual public meetings held this month and in July.
He said: “At these events, residents were able to ask questions – of which many did and questions were either answered at the event itself or followed up and individuals were sent responses.
“We are still following up with written responses to the questions raised by residents from the December event.
“By holding virtual events, those who were unable to attend were able to view the same material at a convenient time as the event was recorded and the recording is available on the dedicated project website.”
Greenies not listening to residents?
Whoever would have thought it.
Housing development would harm Dormice?.Really?
Objections at this stage are pointless as the building is part of the City Plan to meet the government’s housing targets for the area. The time to object per se would have been when the Plan was being consulted upon. The details are now what matters, such as the eco status of the buildings, including their being fitted with heat pumps and the arranging of ‘bus route(s). Who, though, would want to live beside that motorway I cannot imagine, although this might of course change with the increase in electric automobiles.
Yes that’s correct and that’s what we are objecting to ie where the entrance / exit will be the plans for Snakey Hill the effect on local roads etc this is an outline planning permission so the questions regarding housing standards etc will come later
I’d take issue that they’re pointless whilst there’s no doubt the site will be built on there are still issues to be decided that will have an enormous effect on residents living near the site, future residents living in the site , the road network , wildlife and loads more so it’s still important for B/H residents to know what’s being proposed and have their voices listened to .
Well put. Important to keep at it.
Thank you I know you’re a well read mover and shaker in the city so maybe you’d consider signing my petition and perhaps sharing it with sone of your contacts ? https://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=806&RPID=50331128&HPID=50331128
I’m a motorist, a cyclist and a pedestrian. When I look a any new developments I’m more interested in the provision for pedestrians and cyclists. Motorists don’t need short sensible routes because an extra mile in a car doesn’t take long and doesn’t use much effort. The old grid plane layout for streets was great for pedestrians particularly if there were breaks or twittens at intervals in the terraces. The layout shown on the plan is horrible for pedestrians because there are long roads with no short cuts. My other criticism is that there is no provision for access to the Downs for pedestrians. With any development of this scale we should be looking for additional public access to open spaces. The crossing from Dyke Road Avenue is terrible and needs a footbridge. Perhaps the developers could be required to provide one.
Please ensure Samer & Vanessa get this comment. Cut & paste to an email! And bravo! Gareth!!
I am not in a fit state to be involved but so heartened by clear scrutiny other people now undertake!
Thank you Valerie
Hard to disagree with the sensible comments from Old Taff. And well done Gareth Hall for continuing to bang the drum about this scheme. My suspicion is that the principle ahs been decided and that it will go ahead, but the devil is in the detail and it’s worth getting those right.
The developers might be able to tick the boxes for consultation, but the Council really should be doing a better job of holding their feet to the fire on this. Answering questions is a basic. Moda, in Sackville Road, are similarly guilty of the kind of sham consultation the Council itself excels in (see the highly skewed questions in the cycle lane consultation).
The traffic planning is critical here, and with schemes like the Sackville Road and Hove Station flats, it should be ‘holistic’. It’s hard, though, to have confidence in the Council or the developers to reach the right solution.
Thanks Paul perhaps if you get a chance you’d sign my petition
https://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=806&RPID=50018531&HPID=50018531