Anybody live nears Toad's Hole Valley

[perseus]

Can any local people give the low-down why Toad's Hole would not be good for a football stadium?

I videoed a football match there one time and the mist rolled in a got caught in a mist trap and I could not see anything through the camera. Going back a long time.

I know that public transport would be difficult, and the policing costs would be upped when London fans come down by train.

On the map and from what I remember it would not be beyond the realms of possibility to put new roads in. It would be expensive and ugly. And there would be no room for extra shops etc to pay for the roads?

I doubt if any offices built there would be filled and many of the spin-offs from the University site could be lost.

I do NOT like Toad's Hole as I prefer to travel by train to matches. However, lets face it only about 10% fans travel by train, perhaps 20% if it really was the best way to get to the matches. So the train station option is to be strongly preferred and will make Falmer a better than Toad's Hole, it is not imperative.

Toad's Hole is in private hands, but I dare say the owner will sell.

But there is always local knowledge that plays a part. What would be the attititude of the locals? How do they see the future of Toad's Hole evolving? e.g.

If they see houses, the owner would never sell as he will make more from houses than a football stadium.

Is there a enough jobs to justify more houses? (not that such a minor inconvenience would stop them building houses).

 

[perseus]

e.g.

To avoid the need of me trying to find the Brighton & Hove Local Plan: what is Toad's Hole zoned for?

 

[Superseagull]

I think Brighton and Hove council have some sort of technology park earmarked for the site. However as far as i know whoever owns it has never applied for planning permission for any sort of development. I guess the owner is holding out to sell to a property developer as building houses = more £££'s in the value of the land. I reckon it would cost the club £25+ million to buy the whole site. A whole load of extra development would be needed to help finance the deal.

 

[perseus]

On the face of it, this would would seem to rule out a stadium. But it is not enough on its own.

Point One: there is no guarantee that any technological operators would want to move out to such a site (despite the road links being good). Really under any sensible planning policy, industrial (technology is just a fancy name) parks should be put on brownfield sites.

It all depends on what the zoning is.

It is still possible that the land owner will not find any industry to rent out the land to, will not be allowed to build houses, and could see a stadium as a possibility.

However, short of the land owner actually appearing at the reconvened Public Inquiry and actually saying as much, I cannot see it carrying any weight as an alternative. That and the highways department actually confirming that the installation of a junction(s) would be possible/desirable.

If all this happened, then it would be reasonable to consider. I certainly, I am NOT about to do it. If the land was given away for nought, I cannot see the figures stacking up. The road junctions would be prohibitively expensive.

It is a non-goer but the facts could be twisted.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Toads Hole Valley is currently designated as AONB. But it's not recommended for inclusion in the National Park. There is some opposition to this de-designation of protected status and, no doubt, the issue will be considered at the National Park Public Inquiry that is currently in progress at Worthing. It might even have happened already.

I can't find any specific reference to Toads Hole Valley in the Second deposit Draft 2001 version of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

There were objections to the omission of the site from the draft Local Plan and these were dealt with at last year's Public Inquiry. Charles Hoile's Report has this to say:-

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTION: OMISSION SITE AT TOAD’S HOLE VALLEY

Objections and Key Issues

0554/001/O Stiles Harold Williams
0560/002/O JW Cook Estates Ltd & Pecla Investments
0560/003/O JW Cook Estates Ltd & Pecla Investments
0560/004/O JW Cook Estates Ltd & Pecla Investments
0560/005/O JW Cook Estates Ltd & Pecla Investments
0560/006/O JW Cook Estates Ltd & Pecla Investments

• given the shortfall in employment land provision of between 11-25 ha, include this site of grassland and scrub, extending to c.40 ha under EM2, adjusting the built-up area boundary
• describe in EM2 as “Area: 11 ha; Indicative Uses: high tech business and office uses”; alternatively allocate a 15 ha area either all for employment or, if housing need is found, 11 ha for employment and 4 ha for housing
• other two fringe sites at Patcham Court Farm and Hangleton Bottom very small, and Toad’s Hole Valley the only site south of the Bypass big enough to attract significant employer/s to Brighton and Hove and deliver significant job numbers
• review the designation of the site as one of Nature Conservation Importance under policy NC4, so as not to prejudice potential development

Appraisal

6.81 The Council has identified certain green field sites for office/high-tech development to meet a range of aspirations, in line with definite though qualified encouragement from text
in the adopted Structure Plan. However, the Council’s main thrust in identifying general,
high-tech and office employment sites is to re-use the much larger stock of brownfield
sites, in accord with the emphasis on sustainability in national, regional, and structure plan
policy guidance.

6.82 My conclusions in this report on the green field sites allocated in EM2 are that Patcham
Court Farm is unobjectionable. As to Hangleton Bottom (considered under policy SR28
below), I find it has a visual quality that should exclude it from this type of development
even if, as seems likely, its AONB status is removed and it is not included within the
National Park. I consider that Village Way North should not lose the status it possessed in
the Brighton Borough Local Plan: a site to be developed only in very special
circumstances, and for purposes related to Falmer’s higher education establishments.
Falmer Business Park is dogged by practical problems of access and the need to develop
around inconvenient existing water utility premises. I accept the objectors’ conclusion that
the problems there limit likely development to no more than 7,000 m2, with a real
possibility of only negligible progress.

6.83 Consequently, the actual green field opportunities on offer from Brighton and Hove, to
attract the new type of top-range employment it seeks, are limited and not in prime
locations. If a site not mentioned in the Local Plan is to be a candidate for employment
development, I consider that none is more suitable than Toad’s Hole Valley. It has been
considered before for development by the Council, and I sense that it is regarded rather like
the family silver: an asset to be realised/developed at some time in the future, but only
when absolutely necessary, and only in order to obtain a top-class asset for the City. This
is of course a sensible conclusion because, once Toad’s Hole Valley is developed, no other
large site of the same development quality exists in the City outside the emerging National
Park area.

6.84 I consider that Toad’s Hole Valley would be the only site in Brighton and Hove likely to
attract the commercial market for high tech and modern office accommodation, without
reservations. This is because of its position at the City edge, reachable both from the
centre and the main road system, its size (even if the valley slopes are left undeveloped),
and the lack of major site development problems. Of course, despite all these benefits, the
market may still find Brighton and Hove a less desirable place to market top quality high
tech/office floorspace than the areas nearer the M25 that have grown so much more in
recent decades.

6.85 It is not at present a site that has reasonable public transport access, and there would have
to be a sophisticated new road junction connection to the A2038 and A27. However,
neither of these current deficiencies is insoluble. It is merely a truism to say that pedestrian
and cycle access would be less easy than for other more central locations. The nearest train
station, Hove, is 2 km distant. However, the site is directly on the edge of solidly
residential areas to the south, east and west. Looked at from any strategic planning stance,
the site appears very likely to fall to development sometime in the next half century, as it is
no longer a natural piece of countryside, or very attractive physically.

6.86 In terms of environmental status, Toad’s Hole Valley is no different from Hangleton
Bottom, which the Council wants to allocate. It is now in the AONB, but set for exclusion
from the National Park in the current thinking (CD 9.10) of the Countryside Agency, and
thus very likely to lose the AONB status as well. The Agency views the site as not meeting
natural beauty criteria, being open rough ground dominated visually by the A27, severed from
the wider Downs and with poor physical connections to the wider landscape.

6.87 Toad’s Hole Valley is a large open space. It is not public open space, though it is open to
what I would call benign trespass. The hope value of the site makes it impossible to see a
management agreement about formal public access for recreational uses being concluded.
Topographically it is a bowl with sides, definitively severed from the downland to the north
by the high raised embankment of the A27. It has not been farmed since 1992, and the
land is nowhere better than Grade 3b. Its complete cut-off from open countryside makes
any resumption of commercial agriculture inconceivable.

6.88 Development here, seen from the countryside beyond the A27, would be set against the
backdrop of urban development. However, it would be idle to pretend that the loss of an
area of open land, acting as a foreground to the City south of the A27, would not entail
some real visual loss. I acknowledge that the likely removal of AONB status would still
leave the land with a strong protection as open countryside/downland, protected by policy
NC6 in the first instance. It is a measure of the shortage of good employment land that
leads me to question how long it can expect to keep that status.

6.89 I find no case for an allocation of all or part of this land in advance of formal definition of
the new National Park boundary, with the likely concomitant of the exclusion of Toad’s
Hole Valley, and removal of its AONB status. That state of affairs is unlikely to come
about before some time in 2005 at the earliest. I consider that it would be wise to make a
formal review of the progress on employment allocations in the Local Plan very soon after
that time, and to consider if some or all of the c.15 hectares of developable land within the
site are needed for high tech/office use.

6.90 Unless the Council decided to delay the adoption of the Local Plan until the National Park
issue was settled, it seems to me best to make any mention of Toad’s Hole Valley as a
possible future option only in supporting text pertaining to policy EM2. I would
understand and not seek to oppose a conclusion by the Council that it would not entertain
the prospect of any development at Toad’s Hole Valley until it next formulated a local
plan/local development framework. However, it would need to be frank in the wording of
policy EM2 and the supporting text about the real prospects for substantial development of
the kind envisaged by Structure Plan policy E10(a), in the light of my conclusions about
the other green field employment sites allocated in the Second Deposit Draft. Any wording
in support of future development at Toad’s Hole Valley should, in my opinion, seek to
preclude a site of this value and uniqueness falling to any other use than employment. This
is because any delay in getting high tech/office use on to the site would bring concerted
attempts from housebuilders to change the future of the site to a housing location, with
only a token area of non-housing uses in addition.

6.91 The validity of the SNCI allocation under policy NC4 has been raised by the objectors.
The Council’s case for this is set down most clearly in CD 7.18. It is described as a site of
about 9 ha of rough grassland, scrub and woodland. It seemed to find acceptance from the
Council Panel because it has a range of habitats and is close to the urban area. It has what
is called a medium species score, with records of such species as devil’s-bit and field
scabious, and pyramidal orchid, and is naturally considered more valuable ecologically
than the abandoned arable field occupying the other part of Toad’s Hole Valley. However,
the site summary information in CD 5.26, seems to make much of the public recreational
value of a site that has no public access rights, and there seems to have been no formal
species survey since 1995. Overall, I have not enough information before me to give a
properly informed view on its real merits as a designation. It would not seem to inhibit a
future allocation of the overall site that envisaged a development area on the valley floor,
within a landscaped setting occupying the higher sloping ground. Thus I see no strong
reason to recommend against the designation, although the chosen site appears to me to
have no very great nature conservation merits.

Recommendation

6.92 I recommend that the Local Plan be modified to incorporate the actions and altered
wording suggested in my paragraphs 6.89-6.91 above, but that no other modification be
made to the Second Deposit Draft of the Local Plan in respect of these objections.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The City Council is, of course, still considering Hoile's recommendations.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

In other words ...

Build a stadium at Toads Hole Valley and you are throwing away the opportunity to develop "the only site in Brighton and Hove likely to attract the commercial market for high tech and modern office accommodation".

 

[perseus]

Lord Bracknell.: thanks for going to the trouble of cutting and pasting this information, in this heat to.

Hoile could be talking out of his arse again. At a guess this high technology business park could at best turn out to be a depot.

 

[Sergi Gotsmanov]

But he does describe it as grass land and scrub.

I bet the NIMBYs pick up on this. No mention of villages , country fetes the sound of the lark on a clear blue morning,

(translated as the thundering noise of the lorries racing along the A27)

 

[Curious Orange]

On the face of it, having read through Collyer's report, it seems to me that Toads Hole Valley is no worse than Falmer in terms of the effect of the A27 running past it, and being surrounded by urban development. However it seems to me crucial that the ENTIRE site is in an AONB (Falmer being part brownfield) seeing as how this seems to be the main reason Collyer rejects Falmer, therefore I can't see why he seems to think Toads Hole is an option. When you consider the criteria set by the ODPM Falmer suddenly becomes a better option.

 

[perseus]

To be fair to Collyer, he rejects Toad's Hole Valley:

(iv) Alternative sites within the AONB
Beeding Cement Works; Toad’s Hole Valley; Waterhall;
6.90 As previously stated [see paragraph 6.47], the effect of PPG7 is to require consideration of alternative sites outside of the AONB. Those sites put forward by objectors which fall within the AONB may be considered as alternatives, but do not carry the benefit of the policy presumptions which non-AONB sites can claim. The effect of this is that the mere existence of viable alternative sites which are within the AONB does not militate against the choice of the Falmer site. Only if, on their merits, they were superior should any weight be given to them. But the evidence shows that the three AONB alternatives are clearly inferior to Falmer.
6.91 While Beeding Cement Works is on previously developed land, it should as stated [see paragraph 6.58] be immediately ruled out by the remoteness of its location and its poor accessibility by both public transport and road.
6.92 Toad’s Hole Valley has already been the subject of the refusal of permission for a stadium, at the time of the closure of Goldstone Ground. This site, next to and south of the A27, is wholly undeveloped and has never been allocated for development in either the adopted Hove Borough Plan or the BHLP. It is identified in the adopted Plan as providing important views and a significant part of the site is “best and most versatile” agricultural land, while land at the western edge is designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Doc CD7.04 - para 7.8.1 and Proposals Map).
6.93 Its development would have major impact on amenity for local residents, especially on occupiers of those residential properties which border 2 sides of this site and directly overlook it from windows of living rooms and from gardens.
6.94 Additionally, development of this site offers no potential for dual-use car parking which accordingly would mean a less efficient use of land. Nor is there any possibility of providing a railway link; the public transport choices are narrower than at Falmer and, in terms of its PTAL rating it is a level 1 site only, as compared to Falmer’s higher level 3 status (Docs BHA/8/A - paras 5.2.7, 5.2.10 and 5.2.13 and BHA/8/B - Appx 4). Also since this site is neither close to any public transport interchange nor accessible by public transport its development would conflict with PPGs 17 (paragraph 22) and 13 (paragraph 20).
6.95 Furthermore, there is no prospect of co-location with existing community or educational facilities since there are none nearby. It is also remote from the Universities. It is not within or next to any area which has been identified as being particularly deprived, indeed adjacent wards are relatively affluent (Doc BHC95). There are thus no evident regeneration benefits which would arise from its location on this site.
6.96 In effect, on every indicator, Toad’s Hole Valley is inferior to Falmer and there is no reason or justification for its promotion as an alternative.


NB: this is just in accordance with the information brought before Collyer. Collyer is assumed either not to know or not to deem it within his remit that there were plans to remove the protected status from Toad Hole. (Hoile must have known this though.)

 

[Lord Bracknell]

perseus -

That extract is NOT Collyer's conclusion. It's his summary of the evidence presented on behalf of the Albion.

 

[BUTTERBALL]

Toads Hole was the site put forward before Falmer. It was ruled out for logistical reasons.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Toads Hole was the site put forward before Falmer. It was ruled out for logistical reasons.

As someone who worked on the Toads Hole Valley application (when ESCC still had responsibilities in Brighton & Hove), I can report that one of the main reasons it got ruled out was that Bellotti never responded to the requests for either an Environmental Impact Assessment or a Traffic Impact Assessment.

That, and the fact that the site was unsuitable and the nature of the commercial and retail development that he wanted bolted on to the stadium.

And it was AONB.

And the fact that the Highways Agency didn't like it.

Bellotti being a scumbag didn't help either. Although that was not a relevant planning consideration.

 

[perseus]

For what it is worth: it could be argued that Toad's Hole was ruled out because the vested interests of the Hove traders were threatened by an outside supermarket plan by Archer. However, the AONB was already in place and it was not politically sensible or feasible plan.


It had no chance from the start because the political fix was not in.

 

[perseus]

Whoops! I should have double-checked!

Did Collyer reckon that Toad's Hole was in the frame ?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

For what it is worth: it could be argued that Toad's Hole was ruled out because the vested interests of the Hove traders were threatened by an outside supermarket plan by Archer. However, the AONB was already in place and it was not politically sensible or feasible plan.


It had no chance from the start because the political fix was not in.

I don't think so. Hove Borough Council had already had its fingers burnt by allowing this sort of consideration to determine its attitude to planning applications.

The Council originally rejected the redevelopment of the Goldstone ground because they were influenced by Hove traders who feared that retail development on Old Shoreham Road would damage town centre businesses. Only after a big campaign by Albion supporters and the threat of a Planning Appeal did the Council give way and grant planning consent.

This was, of course, before Archer took control of the Club and withdrew the promise that the Goldstone redevelopment would only take place after the Club had relocated.

 

[John Dorian]

no. its obvious falmer is the best site anyway......

 

[perseus]

The "Gee Whizz" high technological company is looking for a second world country to build a new factory (or depot). I expect they will look at the map and say, "Look there is a green space right next to the road in Hove, lets tarmac it over for a huge car park and move there. They've got nice low wages down there in little ole England."

It is not the fashion to build supermarkets on the edge of the town any more. Build them in the town centres to encourage the vibrancy (i.e traffic jams) of the town centres. And to keep the real estate prices up, or course.

But there is no room in central Hove for a new supermarket or offices in a central area near the public transport. Whisper: there is some little used space near Eaton Road, I have heard.

 

[BensGrandad]

As someone who worked on the Toads Hole Valley application (when ESCC still had responsibilities in Brighton & Hove), I can report that one of the main reasons it got ruled out was that Bellotti never responded to the requests for either an Environmental Impact Assessment or a Traffic Impact Assessment.

That, and the fact that the site was unsuitable and the nature of the commercial and retail development that he wanted bolted on to the stadium.

And it was AONB.

And the fact that the Highways Agency didn't like it.

Bellotti being a scumbag didn't help either. Although that was not a relevant planning consideration.

Without wishing to sound as if I am supporting Greg Stanley but did he not once go on BBC SCR after an evening match was played at the Goldstone about the time that Toads Hole was being talked about that it wasn't suitable for a football stadium because of the mist and fog and that the game that evening would not have taken place at Toads Hole and been cancelled due to the weather as indeed would numerous matches during the winter months.