A Brighton school has been accused of trying to manipulate the planning system by an anonymous accuser who appears to be a teacher there.
Brighton College wants to build a new teaching block at its St Mary’s Hall site, in Kemp Town, and turn a prep school building, off Walpole Road, into a boarding house.
The school has submitted a planning application to Brighton and Hove City Council setting out its proposals in detail.
More than 300 comments about the application had been sent to the council at the time writing, with some of them fuelling the controversy.
One anonymous commenter, whose details were redacted by the council, alleged that staff at the independent school were asked to send in positive comments.
The commenter said: “As a teacher at Brighton College I must warn everyone to take these positive comments with a pinch of salt.
“On Monday (3 March), all teaching staff were requested to write positive comments in support of this application.
“We were explicitly told by the headmaster (to) start your comment with ‘As a local resident …’ or ‘As someone who works in Kemptown …’ and given an explicit list of positive comments to write so all comments with that as the introduction can be easily identified to be due to staff coercion.
“What I don’t think has been made clear to the public is that, for the next two years, prep school pupils would be moving to the main college campus while the new prep school is constructed.
“All of these will be day pupils which will massively increase traffic levels by the college due to parent daily drop-offs and pick-ups.
“As staff turnover is so high at the college, with many staff leaving after one or two years, it is unlikely that many of these comments would be seen to be from ‘permanent residents’.”
The planning application was published on the council’s website on Tuesday 11 February, with the claim of “coercion” appearing last week.
The date of the head’s alleged email – Monday 3 March – coincided with almost 150 comments appearing on the council website followed by about 70 more the next day.
At the time of writing, more than 232 comments had been sent to the council in support of the plans compared with 86 objections.
The anonymous comments in support included one saying: “As someone who travels regularly to the Kemp Town area, we are happy to see that Brighton College is building this purpose-build building for accommodating (expanding) their capacity.”
Another anonymous comment said: “As a local BN6 resident and frequent visitor to the area, I fully support the proposal for a new prep school and boarding house in Kemp Town.”
The planning statement, included as part of the application said: “The college has been experiencing huge demand for boarding accommodation over many years.
“An appeal to increase the volume of boarders by extending into the roof spaces and amalgamating numbers 8, 10 (and) 12 Walpole Road was recently dismissed.
“During discussions with the council, it became clear that there was a preference for the college to avoid using residential housing stock for boarding purposes.
“Reflecting on this, the college considers the conversion of the prep school back into boarding accommodation is a strategic solution that significantly addresses its current boarding needs.”
Brighton College said: “As the MP for Kemptown and various local community groups have also done, we have explained to the many employees who live locally how they can contribute to the planning proposal if they wish to.
“The particular comment is a case in point where an employee has chosen to object to the proposal.
“As regards the wider issue, we believe that this project is well designed, well considered, with clear support from Historic England and is a major investment in Kemp Town at a time when the UK economy and Brighton’s are struggling.
“It is also worth emphasising that Brighton College is a not-for-profit school so every penny received from fee-paying parents goes back into what is a very significant Kemp Town business, employing 700 people and supporting numerous local shops, cafés and businesses.”
The council redacts the names and addresses of commenters on its website, citing data protection, although those details are available to applicants.
They are also available on many other councils’ websites so that the process remains – as Parliament intended – open, transparent and accountable, enabling public scrutiny to help ensure that decisions are above board.
Three ward councillors have commented, all objecting to the proposals, although the council even redacted one of the their names – believed to be Labour councillor Gill Williams, who represents Whitehawk and Marina.
Labour councillor Liz Loughran, who chairs the council’s Planning Committee, said: “We would not comment on specific planning applications but, as a planning authority, the council would have no way of knowing whether a response to a planning application has been submitted under pressure.
“If we do become aware of potential fraud or have other significant concerns over the validity of comments, we would remove them.
“We withhold the addresses of respondents to our applications in line with our data protection policies but anyone can comment on an application.
“We also do not ask what capacity someone is commenting as it is the issues raised which matter in planning terms, not who is raising them.
“It is important to remember that planning is not a referendum. Comments received as part of the application process, both for and against, are used as part of the wider, comprehensive decision-making process.
“We would, however, always encourage people to respond to applications in good faith.”
The other two ward councillors who commented, both also Labour, have also objected to the latest plans from the school.
Councillor Tristram Burden said: “Since becoming councillor for Queen’s Park in May 2023, I’m increasingly contacted by residents complaining about the college creating excessive traffic issues and overdeveloping.
“This latest development has sparked strong opposition, with residents deeply concerned about the college’s continued expansion and disregard for the negative impact.”
Councillor Gary Wilkinson said: “As a councillor in Kemptown ward, I have been contacted by many residents regarding this planning application.
“They have shared concerns that the proposed buildings are overbearing in bulk, with insufficient open areas and inappropriate to their neighbours on both sites.
“The buildings will diminish access to natural light, increase overlooking and infringe on residential privacy.”
To view the plans on the council website and to comment on them, click here and search for BH2025/00264.
