WHEN new homes were built for heroes after the First World War, spacious houses in the suburbs replaced the slums of central Brighton.

Each council house in areas such as Whitehawk and Moulsecoomb was given an allotment sized back garden in the hope that hard up tenants would grow their own vegetables and fruit.

But not everyone was fit enough to maintain a vegetable garden, especially if they did manual work, and many gardens became unkempt.

In the 1970s Brighton Council rebuilt Whitehawk and 1,000 council houses were replaced by 1,600 housing association and private homes.

Much the same happened in Hove where council houses at Ingram Crescent were replaced by flats.

Whole new estates were built from the 1920s to the 1960s as Brighton and Hove sought to meet constant demand for housing.

Areas once downland such as Hollingdean, Hollingbury, Hangleton and Mile Oak were covered with houses.

As the land available ran out, so homes were built at greater densities. Many new homes had gardens which were little more than yards.

Brighton and Hove has become one of the most landlocked cities in Britain. Expansion is blocked by the sea to the south, downland in the north, Southwick in the west and Peacehaven in the east.

Yet demand for houses grows ever greater. The city council is being asked by the Government to build 30,000 new homes by 2030.

Where are they all going to go? Not many more can be squeezed into the city centre which already has in the Hanover and Elm Grove area the most densely populated square mile in the south outside London.

The city plan, out once again for public consultation this week, shows many sites where homes could be built, nearly all in the suburbs.

But public reaction earlier this year to plans for a few dozen homes in Ovingdean shows how strong local feeling will be.

There are also two major obstacles for house builders. One is that much of the potential building land is on hills in the South Downs National Park.

The other is that the Brighton bypass, built as closely as possible to existing housing, is a development line that should not be passed.

Peter Gavan, the former Argus journalist who headed the campaign against the bypass, decried it as a concrete corset.

But the bypass still contains several possible building sites on the city side. The biggest of these is Toad’s Hole Valley in Hove.

This is earmarked for 700 homes. But some planners say there will have to be double that number to make any real dent in the Government’s housing demands.

Brighton University’s planning school head Dr Samer Bagaeen says that higher densities are needed in nearly all new developments.

He has called on councillors to pack more housing into sites. He knows how hard this will be but says it is vital.

He has said the urban fringe of Brighton and Hove is the only realistic place for housing and the council will have to push the boundaries of the National Park.

I can see the case for Toad’s Hole Valley, down in a dip and currently with no public access. Hangleton Bottom, near a major junction on the bypass, is another site that may have to be sacrificed.

There are more sites on the east side of Brighton because the constraints of the bypass end at Lewes Road. Ovingdean, Woodingdean and Sheepcote Valley must all be vulnerable.

But the planners will have to keep their hands off some precious pieces of downland on the urban fringe such as Green Ridge at Westdene, highly prized locally and very visible.

They will also have to accept that high density housing that can look handsome in the city centre is out of character in the spacious suburbs.

When the Guinness Trust rebuilt most of Whitehawk, red bricks seemed to be everywhere whereas the old houses were like a garden suburb with green, even if from weeds, the dominant colour.

Yet it’s a sign of the times that the Whitehawk development seems spacious compared with many schemes planned today.

I’m afraid we will have to accept that some land will be developed on the urban fringe. But if that happens we should make sure it is sensitive to its position in the Downs.

Some existing flats on the urban edge in Hangleton and Hollingbury are remarkably ugly.

New development in these downland sites will provide much-needed homes and be pleasing to the eye as well.