Plans for more than a hundred homes in Benfield Valley are set to be submitted after more tweaks were made.
Last year, Hollybrook Homes Ltd put forward two options to build on the northern half of the valley, north of Sainsbury’s.
The first option saw homes spread across the north and southern parts of the site, and the second a denser development only using the northern half.
Another two companies, Benfield Property Ltd and Benfield Investments Ltd, have now submitted plans to Brighton and Hove City Council, based on the second option.
The southern half would be released as community parkland.
It is also proposed, in response to comments from local wildlife groups, to move the northern housing area to the east to double the size of the wildlife corridor.
The developer says these changes will strike the right balance between protecting the local environment – 90% of Benfield Valley will remain undeveloped – and providing very much needed housing to help solve the housing crisis. Four in ten of the homes will be affordable.
Benfield Barn would become a community hub with space for community events, wildlife interpretation, exhibitions, educational use and a community café.
The Brighton and Hove City Plan allocates space for approximately 100 homes in Benfield Valley on sites both south and north of Hangleton Lane.
David Godden, of Benfield Property Ltd, said: “We have listened to the local community and have adapted our proposals so that all homes are placed on an area to the northern side of Hangleton Lane, on private golf course land, using the old car park and some of the Footgolf holes as the main construction area, though the Footgolf can also continue next to the site.
“We are proposing a community parkland to the south of Hangleton Lane, which was allocated for housing in the city plan, and will invest in landscaping, protecting the BMX track, created by local young people, and improving footpaths, play areas and signage.
“We commit to help set up a community Parkland Trust, with funding for its ongoing protection and maintenance.
“We have paid special attention to feedback regarding local wildlife, including dormice, slow worms, birds and butterflies, and we are proposing to move the original proposed northern housing allocation in the city plan to the east, to double in size the proposed wildlife corridor.
“We submitted the scheme to the South East Design Review Panel for an independent audit and have taken on board their comments about providing Benfield Barn as a community hub and ensuring that the important views from the barn remain unobstructed and the historic hedgerow lines are not impacted.
“Our landscape architects have included an orchard and productive garden as part of the proposals providing an attractive and productive buffer between the Barn and the new homes.
“We have ensured there is enough car parking spaces around the homes to avoid spreading into surrounding streets and have proposed moving the central crossing island on Hangleton Lane to make the crossing for pedestrians between the public pathway and park areas safer.
“We have also commissioned experts to undertake a traffic assessment, and it shows the site will have a minimal impact locally.
“We want to thank the many people who have shared their feedback with us and helped us evolve our proposals.
“It is always difficult to bring forward new developments, however, our goal is to create a scheme which is better for the landscape and wildlife; and better for existing and new residents – a sustainable community living in harmony with nature.”
Once again 4 in 10 (40%) of the houses will be “affordable”. Affordable to whom? Who sets the price of affordable homes? How do they calculate the “affordable” figure ?
If building homes is the priority why not reverse the percentages with 60% being VERY affordable or preferably social housing. I trust the infrastructure will be put in place to suit this development, including dental and medical practices.
BBC Says:
“The government’s definition when it comes to renting is that affordable homes should cost no more than 80% of the average local market rent.
When it comes to home ownership, it is a little less clear-cut.
The government definition of affordable housing, external states it must be provided at a level at which the mortgage payments on the property should be more than would be paid in rent on council housing, but below market levels.
That is clearly a very broad range.
It must also be able to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households.”
But… as with all developments they will promise 4 in 10 and get permission. Once they have started they will come back to the council and say that they can not make a profit at that number so will reduce the number of affordable or remove them altogether, and the council will let them.
It was ever thus.
In housing terms, “affordable” typically refers to housing costs that do not exceed 30% of a household’s gross income.
Nice to see the council’s rewilding project in full flow here…
Surely there must be other areas you can build on. Not areas of green … we’re supposed to be helping wildlife
Not helping to kill it off
Another really sad day looming when those developments get thrown up
It’s not just houses going up it’s a massive loss of needed green space