Hove in the Past: Benfield Valley, Hangleton

Judy Middleton 2002 (revised 2024)

copyright © G. Osborne
West Hove Golf Course in the early 1920s, to the right is Benfield Barn and Benfield Cottages
In the background is the line of the Devil's Dyke Railway. (This view is from Foredown Hill, Portslade)
(With thanks to Mr G. Osborne for granting permission for the reproduction of the above photograph from his private collection)

In 1908 Benfield Valley Estate was leased to West Hove Golf Club, and subsequently a golf course was laid out over some 130 acres; it opened in 1910. Therefore the valley remained a green oasis while housing sprang up on either side. However, with the passing of time, the pressure to build on this land grew. By the 1950s some of the land was already in the hands of hopeful developers who must surely have thought it was only a matter of time before they could cover it with bricks and mortar. It seems that their contemporary councillors were also of the same opinion. The 1950s Town Map reveals that there was already provision for residential development on the central part of the golf course north of Hangleton Lane, while the notion of a county college was favoured for the southern part.

But ordinary folk living in the vicinity came to value their ‘green lung’ more and more. Therefore there was the inevitable uproar when plans for Brighton Bypass secured approval. This entailed a link road passing right down the valley from the bypass to Old Shoreham Road. It also meant that the Golf Club had to shift their links further north.

copyright © D. Sharp
A view from Portslade's Foredown Hill of the Brighton Bypass. On the right is the nine-hole Benfield Golf Course and Benfield Barn, and in the background are Hangleton's housing estates.

In 1986 the Benfield Valley Plan was approved by Hove Council and East Sussex County Council. But it seems the authorities had listened to people’s concerns, and they tried to leave as much of the valley as they could as a green space. But they did propose four areas for housing – two next to the Golf Course and Greenlees Recreation Ground, and on the Foredown Hospital site. However, in 1987 the Benfield Valley Plan came under fire from county councillors who objected by eight votes to three the amount of housing proposed – a startling 300 homes.

Protest Groups

Jack Arscott and Wilf Martin formed a group in 1980 called the Benfield and Hangleton Valley Emergency (BEHAVE) to fight against the construction of the link road; it was their proud boast that their actions had delayed the building of the Brighton Bypass by ten years. They then joined forces with a new group called Leave Our Valley Evergreen (LOVE). It is interesting tp note that in February 1990 Bob Hunt from Hove, a former RAF meteorologist, stated that the proposed Hangleton link road could prove hazardous to users because there were around eight fogs every summer in that area. The mist rolls up the valley and condenses with fog at the narrowest part of the valley. The phenomenon is known as a Venturi tube.

Tesco

In September 1987 it was stated that Tesco wanted to build a superstore on a site between the by-pass, Hangleton link road, and the Downs Park housing estate. The proposal was for a 67,500 sq-ft superstore with a filling station. Brighton owned the piece of land in question, but it was not situated in Brighton, and Hove councillors refused to grant planning permission.

In August 1989 Tesco had another shot at their project with plans for a superstore and parking for 720 cars. It was said that Hove councillors were fuming because Brighton Council was backing the scheme.

In May 1990 Tesco submitted re-vamped plans, but Hove Council again turned them down.

In October 1990 there came the surprise announcement that Tesco had withdrawn their plans, having secured a site at Holmbush Farm, Shoreham.

Then Brighton Council threatened to build their own superstore on the site. However, in October 1991 an independent inspector recommended that a second superstore should not be built. Brighton Council decided to appeal, and a date for another Public Inquiry was fixed for January 1992. But in November 1991 the council changed its mind, and decided not to proceed.

Sainsbury

By June 1989 Sainsbury’s had purchased a 12.5 acre site in the south part. Then they proposed a development of both a superstore and a Homebase store, together with parking space for 800 cars. BEHAVE vowed to fight the plans.

It is amusing to note that in May 1990 – the very same month in which Tesco had produced new plans – Sainsbury also submitted new proposals. Hove Council deferred their decision on this so that councillors and officials could hold talks on the subject.

Meanwhile, the Government had entered the controversy, and Cecil Parkinson, Transport Minister, decreed that neither option could be approved until the traffic impact had been properly assessed.

The talks between Hove Council officers and Sainsbury proved productive. If the council allowed the superstore to be built, Sainsbury would undertake to keep most of the rest of the valley green, Greenleas Recreation Ground would be retained, Benfield Barn would be restored, and moreover they would donate the south part of the old golf course, including the Clubhouse, to Hove Council for recreational use. The following month Sainsbury increased their offer by saying they would donate 77 acres to Hove Council.

copyright © D. Sharp
Portslade Cricket Club's cricket ground and clubhouse, with Sainsbury's petrol station and superstore in the background.

At this point, it might be relevant to include some information about Sir Tim Sainsbury, Hove’s M.P. from 1973 to 1997. During his political career he held no executive post with the firm, but his family was incredibly wealthy. It is pleasant to note that he made a generous donation to Hove Museum, but only after he ceased to be Hove’s M.P. so that nobody could accuse him of bribery. The money came via the charitable Hedley Trust to the Friends of Hove Museum and involved some £85,000. It was thus possible to purchase the Barnes Collection of early photographic equipment to strengthen Hove’s important position in the history of early film making.

According to Adam Trimingham (Argus 23/12/20) Sir Tim Sainsbury was involved in saving Benfield Valley from a deluge of housing. It seems that house-builders Wimpey owned most of the valley that was used for a golf course but ear-marked for housing, and Sir Tim purchased the land from them, and apart from the superstore, donated the rest of the land to Hove Council. We have became accustomed to the term Planning Gain, but surely this gift far exceeded any moral obligation. (However, instead of hanging on to the land, Hove Council later leased it back to R. Green Properties, the original freeholders. This only resulted in more battles to keep the valley green. By 2000 the lessee was Steve Callow.)

Hove Council decided that they were never going to receive a more generous settlement, and gave planning permission for the Sainsbury superstore. Then East Sussex County Council threw a spanner in the works by turning down the plans. The matter was then returned to Hove Council where it turned out to be a more closely-fought battle than expected. The final vote was twelve in favour, eight against, and three abstentions. Leslie Hamilton, junior, stated the superstore would take up 22 acres (the equivalent of fourteen football pitches) and occupy the best part of the valley.

On 23 October 1990 a Public Inquiry was held before Charles Hoile, Government Inspector, with David Keene QC acting on behalf of Sainsbury’s, and the Government gave its approval for the superstore in March 1991. But Hove Council’s permission was not forthcoming until September 1991 after further talks resulted in Sainsbury agreeing to plant more trees in the car park, and provide a wider footpath to the store.

Benfield Wildlife Group

This group was formed to help protect the wildlife in the green parts of Benfield Valley with particular reference to Benfield Hill, which is home to historic chalk grassland, a comparative rarity these days. Benfield Valley certainly needs people to be vigilant, particularly when it transpired that a new track made to bring building material to the new site of West Hove Golf Club had wiped out a rare colony of glow-worms – there are fewer than one hundred colonies in the whole of the country, and conservationists were furious.

In 1999 Hove Council produced a special report on the wild life to be found in Benfield Valley, as follows:

The bird-life included dove, wren, dunnock, chaffinch, greenfinch, linnet and yellow hammer.
There were some rare species of butterflies, and a high number of grassland plants.

In January 1993 Benfield Wildlife Group wanted a right-of-way order put on the footpath around Benfield Farm south paddocks. The group produced evidence from 47 people who have used the path regularly, including one man who had walked upon it for 80 years.

Hove Council produced an Environmental Audit in 1994. It stated that the south-west paddock area of Benfield was identified as a wildlife corridor. The four northern fields have very short turf, but further south there is a large field with some ancient anthills that indicate the grassland has been undisturbed. It was an important area for butterflies such as the meadow brown, gatekeeper, small copper, common blue, small white, and the uncommon brown argus. There was also a small area of woodland in the south.

In the winter of 1992/93 some 6,335 trees were planted in the valley, and in the winter of 1996-97, some 500 more trees were added.

In 1992 Benfield Wildlife Group were again in the spotlight. In October 1992 they opposed a proposal to create a new tee and fairway on a paddock north of the superstore. Unfortunately, the site was close to a badger sett and it would be right across a footpath from Hangleton Lane. But in March 1993 Hove Council decided they were in favour of the proposal.

Hangleton Link Road Tunnel

More Threats

In June 1992 there were plans for 62 parking spaces near Benfield Cottages.

In March 1993 R. Green Properties produced plans for 28 driving-range bays for golfers, together with lighting and an administration annexe on land south of Hangleton Lane. Hove Council threw out the scheme the following month. In 1994 Green’s decided to launch an appeal against the council’s decision, and then applied for permission to build 100 parking spaces.

The appeal resulted in a Public Inquiry held in April 1995. Councillor Ivor Caplin stated that 85 per cent of local people were opposed to the driving-range, which would entail high fences being built. In July 1995 John Gummer, Environmental Secretary, threw out the appeal. However, he also ruled that the car park for 100 cars could go ahead.

copyright © D. Sharp
The 'blot on the landscape' car park that John Gummer (Environmental Secretary) allowed to be built.

Meanwhile, in May 1995 Sainsbury submitted plans for a warehouse at the south end of the car park, and in November 1995 Amey Homes were said to be interested in building 30 homes on a site north of Benfield Barn. About the latter project, the Chalkhill Badger Group wanted that development would affect an active badger sett. Hove Council said they would call in an independent expert from English Nature.

In August 1995, Ivor Caplin, by then leader of Hove Council, appealed to Sainsbury to not contest the council’s refusal to grant planning permission for a new store. He said attempts by developers to encroach on Benfield Valley must stop now.

In September 1996 Sainsbury applied to put a car wash centre near its garage at the superstore.

In the winter of 1998 Benfield Wildlife Group organised a public meeting because developers wanted to build eighteen houses on the Benfield Farm site. The meeting was held on 10 December, and people voted unanimously against the proposals. Ken Fines, former Brighton Planning Officer, said this green finger of land must be kept as an open space. There were some ancient hedgerows and elm trees.

There had already been a scheme put forward by Sainsbury in April 1994 for 22 houses north of Benfield Barn.

Benfield Wildlife Group were soon in action again when horrified neighbours discovered workmen clearing the site. Council officers were obliged to apologise, but people feared the development might take place by stealth.

In 2000 Steve Callow, lessee, stated that maintaining the valley was very expensive; for example, it cost £120,000 a year to keep the nine-hole Benfield Golf Course in good order. He would like to see the lower half of the valley used for outdoor leisure, and he would be happy to discuss Hove Park Lower School’s ideas for sports pitches; there were seventeen acres of land, and he would sooner help the community rather than the birds, bees and butterflies.

In September 2000 Callow announced that the plans to build five houses, and to turn the Barn into a pub and restaurant were being dropped. Instead he proposed that the Barn should be used as a countryside centre, and that Benfield Cottages, and three other derelict listed buildings should be restored. Moreover, he was prepared to offer five acres to Hove Park Lower School for a playing field.

In December 2000 Brighton & Hove City Council said they were spending some £30,000 on preparing A Vision for Benfield Valley. Happily, the money came from part of the compensation deal for the disruption caused by the new gas pipeline installed by South Coast Power. Some of the money would be spent on a survey to find out what local people thought should be the future of the valley.

A Sad Threat

Local people came to believe that this precious green space was going to remain basically as it is, and would continue being the ‘last green lung of Hove’. Not so it seems, and the dreaded threat of the house developer hangs over some of the site. Now we learn that the new owner of Benfield Valley is Hollybrook Homes, and also that building 100 new homes north and south of Hangleton Lane was part of Brighton and Hove City Council’s local plan for the next ten years, having been approved by councillors in October 2022.

Hollybrook Homes have allowed a two-week consultation period for the general public. But that is a very short space of time, and so near Christmas too. It ends on 14 December. Perhaps the developers are aware of how unpopular house-building in the valley will be, and hope to sweeten the pill by saying they will invest in ‘local recreation areas’ and keep the housing to the area north of Hangleton Lane; the restoration of Benfield Barn and other derelict structures are also promised. David Godden, project director of Hollybrook Homes, states happily that they have a ‘high-quality design team’ but that is no consolation to local people who resent loosing scarce green spaces.

Naturally enough, the Benfield Valley Project group are absolutely horrified, and maintain that Benfield Valley should never have been on the table in the first place. Helen Forester chairs this group and says stubbornly, ‘We will keep going until the diggers come.’ It is strange when we are all supposed to be supporting ‘green’ initiatives that such house-building is even being contemplated here. Indeed the group maintain that Benfield Valley is the largest piece of urban woodland in Brighton and Hove.(Argus 1/12/23)

Another Threat?

In January 2024 it was reported that the council had taken note of ten potential sites for the new swimming baths and had slimmed the list down to two. The possible places were to use the present King Alfred site or building on land north of the Old Shoreham Road, and south of of the car park at West Hove’s Sainsbury’s. Reading between the lines, it seems the council would prefer the latter because the old King Alfred site would entail too many challenges. However, the alternative site is also problematic because it is at present the cricket ground where Portslade Cricket Club play their matches. There is also the thorny problem that the new baths would destroy a designated green space, and there is the question of a restrictive covenant as well.

The public are invited to express their views, either on the council’s website or at public meetings as follows:

16 January at the King Alfred Leisure Centre

17 January at St Richard’s Community Centre, Egmont Road

17 January at Portslade Library, Old Shoreham Road

24 January at Hove Library, Church Road

As ever, it seems the public involvement will be of very short duration, especially since building work is scheduled to start in 2025. (Argus 11/1/24)

The Argus took note of the dismay of local people by heading an article ‘Outrage over leisure centre plan for beautiful space’. But it seems the council are determined to go merrily ahead, whether residents approve or not. For example, there has already been a meeting with Portslade Cricket Club who were informed that their cricket pitch could be transferred to Greenleas Park should the leisure centre plan go ahead.

However, there is a fly in the ointment and that is the restrictive covenant dating back to 1992 when 77 acres of land were gifted to Hove Council on the understanding that it would remain a green space for local people to enjoy. Curiously, should any building be suggested for this land, it would have to be approved by Sainsbury’s. This is because the land was given to Hove by Sir Tim Sainsbury, Hove’s Member of Parliament 1973-1997. Perhaps he considered the supermarket would safeguard his wishes. He was the great-grandson of John James and Mary Ann Sainsbury, founders of the firm in 1869.

Councillor Alan Robins did admit that they were aware of the covenant and were taking ‘legal advice’ in the matter. Would it not have saved time, money and effort to have sorted out the legality of the situation before stating Benfield Valley was their possible site? (Argus 31/1/24)

A Boost for Benfield

In May 2024 there came some amazing news about Benfield Hill, which shone the light on just how important it is to leave the area of Benfield Valley unmolested.

In a special survey conducted by experts, scientists, and conservationist, and within the space of single April morning, no less than 170 invertebrates, reptiles, and wild flowers were identified. In addition, there were six scarce species, including a rare spider and moth, with encouraging numbers of slow worms, common lizards and adders. Perhaps most astonishing of all was the finding of seventeen dormice, whereas in 2020 there had only been two, and this creature is in danger of extinction elsewhere.

The survey was not an isolated incident, but part of an international event to encourage the documentation of wild life called the City Nature Challenge 2024.

Leaving aside the legal question of building a swimming pool complex on a green space gifted to the people of Hove, surely Brighton & Hove City Council have a moral duty to leave Benfield Valley undisturbed in view of these important findings? (Argus 7/5/24)

In July 2024 it was admitted that councillors would have preferred the new swimming pool to be built in Benfield Valley by stating that would ‘deliver the greatest economic and health and well-being benefits’. Besides, the cost of refurbishing the present King Alfred was put at £14 million, and it would probably only be good enough for a few more years. At last it was admitted that trying to overthrow the legal covenant on Benfield Valley remaining a green space would cost time and money, and never mind the possible outcome.

It is interesting to note that out of the public response to the scheme, only 14 per cent opted for Benfield while a convincing 60 per cent plumbed for the King Alfred site. Altogether, there were 3,679 responses to the public consultations, and so councillors are obliged to take note of the strong public re-action.

The final decision will be made on 18 July 2024 by the cabinet – the new way Brighton & Hove City councillors now decide matters. A new swimming pool complex at the existing King Alfred site might cost between £39.8 million and £47.4 million. But first of all, the cabinet will have to vote on releasing £2.7 million to pay for the planning application, appointing an architect and professional team. (Argus 11/7/24 12/7/24)

Common Sense

At the cabinet meeting held on 18 July 2024 at Hove Town Hall the councillors finally decided that the new King Alfred should be built at the King Alfred site. Sighs of relief all round. (Argus 23/7/24)

See also the history of Benfield, Hangleton.

Sources

Argus

Encyclopaedia of Hove and Portslade

Mr G. Osborne

Links :-
Benfield Wildlife and Conservation Group

17 March 2021

Benfield Valley, Hangleton