Return of the Rev
Well-known member
Looks like its days are numbered,the council are looking to build a mixed development,could have had a footie ground there after all
What would you like to see there?
What would you like to see there?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
toads hole valley?
- Thread starter Return of the Rev
- Start date
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Toads Hole Valley has been defended from development for years, by green-minded politicians of ALL parties. Except, it would seem, the Green Party.
Looks like its days are numbered,the council are looking to build a mixed development,could have had a footie ground there after all
Could never have built the ground there, as the highways agency vetoed the suggestion immediately, refusing to consider any additional slip roads onto / off that section of the A27 (rightly).
Also no train line.
Return of the Rev
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #5
Looks like there will be plenty of traffic to deal in the future,three stations all in walking distance from toads hole.
Not 20,000 people leaving at once, scale of traffic, there won't be.
And where are these three stations, of which you speak? Hove, Aldrington and Portslade? What is your definition of 'walking distance? The distance that YOU can walk?
Return of the Rev
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #7
Welcome back.
zzzzzzzzz.
zzzzzzzzz.
The Large One
Who's Next?
This is the 'Business Forum and the Economic Partnership in Brighton & Hove's take on it...
Why we should build on this green field.
Of all the political parties that one might imagine would propose building on a green field, the Green Party would probably be bottom of the list. And yet that is precisely what they are proposing to do at Toads Hole Valley. Opponents have jumped all over them pointing out the apparent hypocrisy of pouring concrete over grass. The reality isn’t quite that simple.
The 47 hectare green field in question was once connected to the wider South Downs but was left stranded by the construction of the bypass which rendered it difficult to access and unviable to farm. When the boundaries for the new South Downs national park were determined, the valley wasn’t included because it was not deemed to be of sufficient landscape quality.
From the air, it is easy to see why; apart from its western bank it consists mainly of unexceptional scrub deeply scarred by the tracks of joy riders who use it as a motocross course. It contrasts sharply with the lush, green rolling Downs on the other side of the A27.
Of course, bikers using it as an unofficial motocross are breaking the law because it is private land. As the “no trespassing” signs around the perimeter testify, anyone who sets foot on it is guilty, whether scramble bikers or dog walkers or ramblers. Many people think that it belongs to the city but it has actually been privately owned by the Cook family for over seven decades.
It is a shame that, apart from a tiny patch with SNCI designation, access to such a large expanse – the equivalent of 64 football pitches – is denied to the people; even more so because the Brighton & Hove Sports & Recreation Study highlights this as a location that requires more publicly accessible open space. And that isn’t the only type of space that is in short supply; the need for a new primary school in the area is becoming increasingly desperate.
The Greens are proposing to include the valley in the Core Strategy (now renamed the City Plan) so that part of it could be developed to provide about 700 much needed homes and a new school; all with the impressive environmental credentials that the city demands. It could also possibly accommodate some employment space linked to the universities just five minutes along the bypass. Well over a third of the site wouldn’t be developed at all becoming parkland, open to visitors and properly managed to encourage biodiversity.
Some people have already started to lament the loss of a green field but in truth we don’t have one to lose. Toads Hole Valley no more belongs to the city than your back garden does; it belongs to the Cook family.
If we play our cards right the city could gain a green space but if we do nothing we may see one disappear anyway. If the coalition government’s draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is adopted and Toads Hole Valley isn’t included in our City Plan there will be nothing to stop the owners from submitting a planning application for as many houses as the site can carry. The NPPF’s “presumption” to give consent as long as the development is sustainable (and there is no legally binding definition) would guarantee approval.
Fortunately the owners have no desire to do this preferring instead to work with the local authority to provide a comprehensive mixed use scheme to meet the long term needs of the city. They have owned this site for 70 years; no one could accuse them of having short-term interests.
Those who are busy compiling petitions to “save” the site need to ask themselves who they are saving it for; perhaps the 11,000 people on the Council’s housing waiting list or the 6,000 additional people who will be looking for a job by 2014 or the 150 children who will be shoehorned into already overstretched primary schools this year.
Why we should build on this green field.
Of all the political parties that one might imagine would propose building on a green field, the Green Party would probably be bottom of the list. And yet that is precisely what they are proposing to do at Toads Hole Valley. Opponents have jumped all over them pointing out the apparent hypocrisy of pouring concrete over grass. The reality isn’t quite that simple.
The 47 hectare green field in question was once connected to the wider South Downs but was left stranded by the construction of the bypass which rendered it difficult to access and unviable to farm. When the boundaries for the new South Downs national park were determined, the valley wasn’t included because it was not deemed to be of sufficient landscape quality.
From the air, it is easy to see why; apart from its western bank it consists mainly of unexceptional scrub deeply scarred by the tracks of joy riders who use it as a motocross course. It contrasts sharply with the lush, green rolling Downs on the other side of the A27.
Of course, bikers using it as an unofficial motocross are breaking the law because it is private land. As the “no trespassing” signs around the perimeter testify, anyone who sets foot on it is guilty, whether scramble bikers or dog walkers or ramblers. Many people think that it belongs to the city but it has actually been privately owned by the Cook family for over seven decades.
It is a shame that, apart from a tiny patch with SNCI designation, access to such a large expanse – the equivalent of 64 football pitches – is denied to the people; even more so because the Brighton & Hove Sports & Recreation Study highlights this as a location that requires more publicly accessible open space. And that isn’t the only type of space that is in short supply; the need for a new primary school in the area is becoming increasingly desperate.
The Greens are proposing to include the valley in the Core Strategy (now renamed the City Plan) so that part of it could be developed to provide about 700 much needed homes and a new school; all with the impressive environmental credentials that the city demands. It could also possibly accommodate some employment space linked to the universities just five minutes along the bypass. Well over a third of the site wouldn’t be developed at all becoming parkland, open to visitors and properly managed to encourage biodiversity.
Some people have already started to lament the loss of a green field but in truth we don’t have one to lose. Toads Hole Valley no more belongs to the city than your back garden does; it belongs to the Cook family.
If we play our cards right the city could gain a green space but if we do nothing we may see one disappear anyway. If the coalition government’s draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is adopted and Toads Hole Valley isn’t included in our City Plan there will be nothing to stop the owners from submitting a planning application for as many houses as the site can carry. The NPPF’s “presumption” to give consent as long as the development is sustainable (and there is no legally binding definition) would guarantee approval.
Fortunately the owners have no desire to do this preferring instead to work with the local authority to provide a comprehensive mixed use scheme to meet the long term needs of the city. They have owned this site for 70 years; no one could accuse them of having short-term interests.
Those who are busy compiling petitions to “save” the site need to ask themselves who they are saving it for; perhaps the 11,000 people on the Council’s housing waiting list or the 6,000 additional people who will be looking for a job by 2014 or the 150 children who will be shoehorned into already overstretched primary schools this year.
Return of the Rev
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #10
Interesting piece.
Vegas Seagull
New member
- Jul 10, 2009
- 7,782
Incorrect, I spoke to the Highways decision maker (he was based in Surrey at the time) about 3 months after the decision (he said I was the only person to have done so from either the fanbase or the club) & he said an extra exit from the roundabout at the top of the hill was all that was required but no'one had called to discuss & the issue was solvable from their point of view
that's absolutely NOT as I recall it, and anybody who knows the site / area at all, would know that this would be UTTERLY unworkable. Carnage.
skipper734
Registered ruffian
It could be great.
queens park pete
Prog off!
It could be great.
It would be interesting to get some genuine locals views. As a visitor it always looks a shocking mess and a mix of housing and cleaned up open space might get rid of the bikers, old sofas and burnt out cars, as well as providing some local housing for local people. Stuff any executive home nonsense- lets have some cheaper stuff our kids might be able to buy.
Any chance of popping a few flats on Sheepcote while we are at it?
queens park pete
Prog off!
It could be great.
Did you nick Palace's new ground blueprint without permission?
honey boy zimba
Member
That used to be our home pitch for two seasons in late seventies Hove Colts U13/14 , very stoney I seem to recall ,also thought that land belonged to the Cook family and they wanted to develop it for more housing .?
Poyetry In Motion
Pooetry Motions
THV is at the end of my road and I have to say, I'll be very disappointed if it gets built on
Another victory and big fat bonuses all round, for the council and developers it would seem
Another victory and big fat bonuses all round, for the council and developers it would seem
What about people who need somewhere to live?
skipper734
Registered ruffian
In the late 40's the Council built an Estate on the top of the hill. ( I was brung up there for 20 odd years.) In the 60's Mr Cook built an estate on the adjacent hill. The better off and upwardly mobile Council Tenants paid approximately £4000 and moved into the new cooks estate.
In those days there were Cows in the field that is now called Toads Hole Valley, we had made occasional forays to the abandoned scary tin barns and sheds in the middle but our main hunting grounds lay further up the valley following the line of Long Hedge.
As Kids we expected Cooks to build more houses on the field imminently, so there is the true meaning of the word again. Just a land bank and scrub because as all over the Downs the sheep have gone!
In those days there were Cows in the field that is now called Toads Hole Valley, we had made occasional forays to the abandoned scary tin barns and sheds in the middle but our main hunting grounds lay further up the valley following the line of Long Hedge.
As Kids we expected Cooks to build more houses on the field imminently, so there is the true meaning of the word again. Just a land bank and scrub because as all over the Downs the sheep have gone!