Plans to build more than 100 homes in Benfield Valley are due before councillors next week even though Brighton and Hove City Council – as landlord – has pulled the plug on the project.
A report to the council’s Planning Committee supports the scheme, subject to legal agreements, although the committee – made up of nine councillors – must reach its own decision.
The site is just north of Hangleton Lane and east of the A293 link road and includes part of the foot golf course and designated local green space.
But part of the site was also allocated for some housing in an official strategic planning blueprint known as the City Plan.
It was included when the Greens ran the council after a government planning inspector gave the council little choice but to include a number of “urban fringe” sites across Brighton and Hove.
But last week, the council said that it was unwilling to grant landlord’s consent because of a covenant on the land, requiring that its use be restricted to leisure and recreation.
The restrictive covenant was drawn up when the land was gifted to the people of Hove by the Sainsbury’s family more than 30 years ago.
The land was entrusted to the old Hove Borough Council when planning permission was granted for the superstore towards the southern end of valley.
The council retains the free hold but has leased the land – and the application was submitted by the leaseholder Benfield Investments Ltd and Benfield Property Ltd, working with family-run developer Hollybrook Homes.
Their plans include building 62 houses and 39 flats and maisonettes in three blocks up to four storeys high. Most of the housing would be three or four-bed family homes.
They have also sought listed building consent to turn the grade II listed Benfield Barn into a community hub with a café.
The application proposed a legal agreement, yet to be signed, for 40 affordable homes, with just over half of those to be let to tenants for a “social” – or low – rent.
Seven of the homes would be fully wheelchair accessible including four of the affordable homes.
The developer said that, in response to public comments, the new homes would be built on land north of Hangleton Lane, giving over a site on the opposite side for community parkland.
The initial plans were also amended to double the size of the proposed wildlife corridor and preserve more of the protected trees on the site. The site is rich in flora and fauna.
David Godden, from Benfield Property, said: “We believe these changes have struck the right balance between protecting the local environment – 90 per cent of Benfield Valley will remain undeveloped – and providing very much-needed housing to help solve the housing crisis.
“In addition to the housing and parkland, it is proposed to refurbish Benfield Barn as a community hub, providing flexible space for community events, wildlife interpretation, exhibitions, educational use and a community café.
“We listened to the local community and 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 foot golf holes as the main construction area, though the foot golf can also continue next to the site.”
The council has received 278 objections to the scheme, mostly from local residents, but also from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), the Benfield Valley Project, Sussex Wildlife Trust and Brighton Downs Alliance.
The three Labour councillors for Hangleton and Knoll – Faiza Baghoth, Amanda Grimshaw and John Hewitt – have also objected to the scheme, as did the former Conservative councillors Dawn Barnett, Tony Janio and Nick Lewry.
The Labour MP for Hove and Portslade, Peter Kyle, has also previously given his support to campaigners holding protests to protect what they described as the area’s last green lung.
Councillor Hewitt wrote that Benfield Valley brings physical and mental wellbeing to Hangleton and Knoll residents.
He raised concerns about road access and traffic, saying that the A293 link road and surrounding residential roads were already busy at peak times.
Councillor Hewitt said: “The site is chalk grassland which accommodates wildlife and vegetation. This proposal would jeopardise the biodiversity in this area.
“This proposal fails biodiversity net gain targets, as even if offset at another site, there will be a negative impact here.
“As is widely known, there is a covenant on this site which prohibits the land being used for domestic residential use. This could be a consideration and (should be) respected when assessing the planning application.”
The council received 10 supporting comments including from the Regency Society and Hove Civic Society.
In a joint response, they said: “This proposal is on a site identified for housing within the Brighton and Hove City Plan. We do not think that is contentious.
“The proposal shows great sensitivity to the context, to the existing buildings and in the treatment of the spaces within.
“The approach to the conservation area, specifically Benfield Barn, also deserves praise both for the way it is imaginatively repurposed and for its integration into the proposed development and sequence of spaces within it.”
The Brighton and Hove Conservation Advisory Group also backed the plans, saying that the application was “well presented”.
The Planning Committee is due to meet at 2pm next Wednesday (2 April) at Hove Town Hall. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
I think if this planning application goes ahead I PERSONALLY will take it to parliament