When 'protected' doesn't mean protected

By Jess Price

Conservation Officer

Tomorrow, Brighton & Hove councillors will likely approve the adoption of the City Plan Part 2 at their full council meeting. Part 2 supplements the existing Part 1 Plan by setting out more detailed planning policies – but it also designates more sites for housing in the City, including five that are important wildlife havens and vital local greenspaces.

The Sussex Wildlife Trust has tried to influence the City Plan since it was first drafted in 2018: we responded to all the consultations, attended the public hearings and supported the local community groups trying their hardest to protect the greenspaces that they love and cherish. It is soul-destroying to know that for many of the City’s wildlife sites, we didn’t win the fight.

The City Plan Part 2 allocates housing development on five ‘protected’ sites that are designated Local Wildlife Sites or Local Nature Reserves, including Whitehawk Hill and Benfield Valley. These sites, most of which are Council-owned, are supposed to be protected by planning policy and we are horrified that the Council has put them forward for development despite irrefutable evidence of their environmental importance and value to local people.

We know that the Council is required to plan for the housing numbers agreed by the Planning Inspector when the Part 1 Plan was agreed. These housing numbers, thrust upon local places through the central government’s algorithms with no consideration of environmental capacity to deliver them, do make it difficult for local authorities to push back - but they can do it. Especially when they have concrete evidence of how important these greenspaces are for wildlife and people.

Despite this awful outcome, we did manage to save two Local Wildlife Sites from development with their respective allocations now completely removed from the Plan. We also did our best to strengthen policy wording so that the rest of the City’s Local Wildlife Sites are better protected from speculative planning applications in the future. This is definitely something, but I know it’s not enough.

In the end, this is what so called ‘sustainable development’ currently is. Building on sites designated for their importance to wildlife, that national policy says should be ‘safeguarded’. For Brighton & Hove, it’s likely this is just the beginning. National policy says local plans have to be reviewed every five years, so once this Plan is adopted, the council officers will have to start again with Part 1, looking for more sites to squeeze in even more homes. Of course homes are important, everyone deserves to have a safe roof over their heads, but what about our other needs? What about the benefits to our health and wellbeing that being out in nature brings? What about the value of the greenspaces for sucking up carbon and soaking up rain water to protect us from flooding? When will we realise that perpetual growth will never work? Eventually you run out of space and run out of resources.

Although we are bitterly disappointed in the Council and the Planning Inspectorate, we will continue to fight for these designated sites. We will be looking out for any planning applications affecting them - allocation in the Plan is a blow, but it doesn’t guarantee their destruction.

I’d also like to thank all the hard-working volunteers from local campaign groups such as the Benfield Valley Project and Friends of Whitehawk Hill. Their passion and determination to give their local wildlife a voice is inspiring.