Proposals for more than 100 homes on Benfield Valley have been given planning permission – but as it stands, they cannot be built.
Campaigners gathered outside Hove Town Hall on Wednesday 2 April, to protest against the application by Benfield Investments Ltd and Benfield Property Ltd to build on the site just north of Hangleton Lane and east of the A293 link road.
Before the Planning Committee meeting, Brighton and Hove City 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.
But councillors were told this was not a planning consideration when they voted – eight for and one against the plans.
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.
Part of the site was also allocated for some housing in an official strategic planning blueprint known as the City Plan after a government planning inspector gave the council little choice but to include a number of “urban fringe” sites across Brighton and Hove.
Benfield Valley is also a designated a special area, a local wildlife site and green space.
Site leaseholders Benfield Investments Ltd and Benfield Property Ltd, working with family-run developer Hollybrook Home, plan to build 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 with 40 per cent designated for affordable homes for rent or joint ownership.
They also sought listed building consent to turn the Grade II listed Benfield Barn into a community hub with a café.
Land to the south would be protected by planning restrictions to remain as green space.
Benfield Valley Project chair Helen Forester spoke against the application, raising concerns about the loss of trees, vegetation, closed pathways, fly-tipping and the demolition of a listed flint wall in the Benfield Barn Conservation area.
Ms Forester said accepting the plans would “diminish trust” in the council.
To cheers from the public gallery she said: “Now is the time to create something unique for our residents. Something that looks to the future of the city.
“Building on any part of Benfield Valley will not, as the developers maintain, ‘help to solve the housing crisis’ in the city.
“Once any part of this space is gone, it will be gone forever and we will never know what could have been.”
Councillor John Hewitt reminded the committee the council is not prepared to change the terms of the lease which states the land is restricted for outdoor recreational purposes and is protected by a covenant.
He also said the public engagement events held in November 2023, presented only two options to residents, build both north and south of Hangleton Way or just north.
Councillor Hewitt was applauded as he said: “I respectfully urge the committee to reject this application on the grounds that it doesn’t conform with planning policy.
“The covenant restricts residential buildings and that this proposed development will destroy the character of the whole valley, which is a precious amenity for all.
“There could be a bright future for Benfield Valley- and this application is not it.”
Councillors were advised that the covenant was not a material planning consideration and must not be a factor in the decision.
David Godden, from Hollybrook, said 90 per cent of Benfield Valley would remain undeveloped under the scheme, which would add 238 new trees and retain 100 already on site.
Mr Godden said: “Delivering housing is always difficult, however at the detailed planning stage where we are now, the opportunities available to shape the development according to local circumstances.
“That is what we have done by consolidating the development into one location on the private foot golf and car park land.
“In addition to providing community parkland to the south, this safeguards over 100 trees, protects wildlife habitats and provides a reduced carbon footprint.”
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald was the lone voter against the project, but said there were good points, particularly the affordable housing.
Councillor Theobald said: “The City Plan designated this area for 60 not 101, which encroaches on the green land.
“It does seem to have rather a lot of flats, and the City Plan part two does state they do not need to be higher than three storeys and not four, and I thought it didn’t look very nice.”
Labour councillor Tobias Sheard wished there was more affordable housing on offer as the rent for a one-bedroom flat in the city is 75 per cent of the average wage.
He noted the shortage of family homes in the city has resulted in falling numbers of pupils in primary schools.
Councillor Sheard said: “I understand those who have had their homes for a long time, the absolute desperation for housing is not fully understood.
“You have professional people on £40, £50, £60 thousand a year forced into living in HMOs (house in multiple occupancy) because they are not able to afford the price of this city or the price of the south east even.”
Green councillor Sue Shanks said she walks in Benfield Valley regularly and knows it is a lovely place, but did not think the proposed development would destroy it.
Councillor Shanks said: “Where it’s been built is on a bit I’ve never been walking through because you can’t. It’s an old car park.
“I think using the barn, the foot golf will stay, the area in the south where kids have built a (BMX) track and the recreation ground there will stay. It’s a nice place to walk up.”
The committee’s vote is to be “minded to grant” subject to legal agreements. The committee unanimously granted listed building consent to create a community hub and café.
I thought I’d save Mark Fry time on commenting and do it for him;
Boomerists, boomerists, boomerists, boomerists, boomerists, boomerists, boomerists,
Boomerists, boomerists.
I wish all old people were dead.
Boomerists, boomerists, boomerists, boomerists, boomerists, boomerists, boomerists,
Boomerists, boomerists…
Wasn’t it a Labour Council which declared a Brighton and Hove city ‘climate emergency’ in 2018??
Now here they are deciding to concrete over a major city ‘Green Lung’ and sucks boo to the covenant protecting Benfield Valley in perpetuity in return for permission to build the Sainsburys superstore around 30 years ago.
Shame on you Labour. Nothing is sacred and the stench of environmental hypocrisy will follow you to your political downfall.
Its an overgrown car park… hardly a greenlung like the site south of Hangleton Lane. More NIMBYism
An old car park, a kids BMX track hardly sounds worth preserving. Saving a hundred trees probably means scrubland filled with litter. Perhaps the friends of Benfield Valley will now make the area more loved and raise some money to plant 238 proper trees. Personally I hope the government over rules and the development goes ahead as it was a good plan.
Bet you wouldn’t feel like that if it was in your back yard.
Did you welcome the agreement to relocate the post Office sorting office etc to Patcham? Was that a good plan for the neighbourhood?
It’s good that this application has stalled and residents voices are making a difference, but I can’t help but notice how two faced it is of Labour politicians locally – when it came to Patcham Court Farm multiple Labour councillors criticised anyone speaking out about the environmental risks and labelled them Nimbys because its an easy trope.
It comes from the top in Labour, with Keir Starmer who talks about blockers and red tape and talking about how he’s “taking on the Nimbys” who stand in the way of growth by using the law to oppose planning applications. Labelling communities as Nimbys when they object to planning applications is a school playground tactic of name calling – it’s disrepectful and downplays valid community concerns. Which is why it’s interesting to see Labour councillors locally bow down to community pressure when faced with issues that may affect their own vote – when they’ve name called others for doing the same in the past.
Good that Councillor Hewitt spoke out – but let’s hope he reminds his Labour colleagues they should be more respectful of community campaigns and others who speak out on planning issues in the future in the city, rather than the easy tactic of name-calling and labelling people as Nimbys that they so often default to.
Didn’t Labour MP Peter Kyle also promise no development on Benfield Valley? Doubtless his constituents no longer matter now he’s Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology!
Well Peter, you can fall as well as rise in the political world. As a certain political friend of yours said only the other day.
How can Peter Kyle, as MP, stop a local council decision?
Councillors can respect local campaigns, but it doesn’t mean they have to totally accept them.
my understanding is that all the environmental risks and flooding risks were assessed and ruled as not being severe – meaning planning committee would be on shaky legal ground to object on those points. Maybe you shouldve tried harder or articulated your concerns better?
““taking on the Nimbys” who stand in the way of growth by using the law to oppose planning applications.”
Perhaps he would prefer that they oppose planning applications outside of the law? That could make life interesting.
So, where is the infrastructure coming from; water supply and sewage, gas, electricity…..
I’ll just skip ahead for everyone…..
….. “Developers ‘challenged’ BHCC regarding the legal undertaking they entered into before works began on the site. Citing ‘changes in economic circumstances and increased costs’ as the reason they can no longer provide X properties for affordable rent otherwise the entire development would become ‘uneconomically viable’.
Council officials did not respond in time for publication regarding the increase in brown paper envelopes seen flying around the city”
So can we all ignore covenants now then ?
No generally you cannot and in theory the council could go to court, {although would it not be against itself as the planning committee gave consent}. Living close to this the ‘green lung’ argument does get tiresome the South Downs are literally 50 yards away.
Just come back to this Atr, and yes I do welcome the development of Patcham court farm by the post office as the plot of land is an absolute eyesore. Probably like parts of Benfield valley. These developments just tidy up the uncared for bits of land, and provide homes for people. As for the covenant I guess that was rescinded when they built the bypass and then Sainsbury’s, on which West Hove Golf course used to be. I hope the developers appeal.