Agenda item - BH2025/00264 - Brighton College Preparatory School, Walpole Lodge, 2 Walpole Road and Pre-Prep School, Eastern Road, 2 Belle Vue Gardens and 141 & 143 Eastern Road Brighton - Full Planning

1.       The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.       Eve Vamvas addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that they represented Kemptown residents. The application was not considered to be planning policy compliant, and an approval would be contrary to other refusals. An exhibition was held at Brighton College to present the scheme; however, this was not a consultation. Brighton College say they are prestigious, we say bad neighbour. The college expansion means more pupils, and more fees, the equivalent to £9.4m. Profit is taking precedence over education. The proposed buildings mean more profit. The council should not be encouraging private schools when others are closing in the city. The council should put an end to housing being bought, which a planning inspector agrees with under a previous refusal. The planning report refers to the area around the college as a campus, it is not, it is Kemptown and Walpole Road is protected. Most housing in the area is in family use and a previous application was refused as it would change the character of the area. 150 new boarders will change the area and be against policy. This will not be a balanced neighbourhood. The institutional development will harm the quality of life with a loss of amenity open space, which is protected by national policy. Amenities are for all, once it’s gone, it’s gone. There will be traffic and parking issues, particularly with the East Sussex County Hospital so close. There is zero confidence in Brighton College being able to manage traffic. The support received has come from college student parents. The committee are requested refuse the application.

3.       Ward Councillor Burden addressed the committee and stated that the streets in Kemptown are narrow and crowded. Reducing inequality is in the council plan and this application will not benefit the area. The college is not suitable for 150 new boarders and will be against planning inspector decisions which have been rejected before. One institution should not dominate an area against City Plan Part Two policy. The previous application was dismissed, and the same concerns are raised here. Kemptown is not the Brighton College campus.

4.       Ward Councillor Williams addressed the committee and stated that they considered the application did not improve local school provision. An approximate £63,000.00 will be earned from boarders who come from outside Brighton. This will not help the city by providing good education for local children. The access to sports facilities by locals is a concern. The councillor has lived opposite the college and watched the expansion. The homes owned by the college should be for families not the college in the current housing crisis. The application will be detrimental to local residents’ wellbeing, where too much expansion has already happened. The committee are requested to refuse the application.

5.       Neighbouring Ward Councillor Wilkinson addressed the committee and stated that they were concerned about transport issues, access and road safety. Residents are concerned about traffic congestion particularly at opening times. The application is against planning policy. The sustainable transport is not sufficient, and traffic will delay ambulances into East Sussex County Hospital at peak times. The narrow local streets will be blocked with traffic. There is not enough parking on the roads and the application will bring more pressure to the streets. Footways will also be an issue. The planning inspector refused the previous scheme, and this application fails on key policies. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

6.       The applicant, Steve Patten, addressed the committee and stated that they were director of projects at the school, which been in existence for 180 years. The school takes 12,000 students from BN post codes and is proud of the impact on the city, with support for local businesses and charities, which the pupils support. The college is a Brighton institution. The application will make better use of open space. The boarding house will remove pressure on local housing. The drop off and pick arrangements will be improved by the scheme. The school supports local soup kitchens and care homes. The sports facilities will be available for after school use by others as the school wants to be part of the community. The school has some of the best results in the world and they are proud of the culture. The impact on the local community is not treated lightly. Sports England and the Heritage team have no objections to the application and conservation officers agree. Local businesses benefit from the college. The transport officer has agreed the road schemes. Most pupils and staff are from the Brighton area. The proposals understand the issues in this conservation area led design. The scheme was amended after public consultation. It is predicted that the traffic measures will lead to a 25% reduction in traffic. The college understands residents’ concerns.

7.       The Head of Planning stated that the planning policies relating to schools applied to both private and council schools and did not distinguish between the two. There is not a loss of residential floorspace in this application as the floorspace is already in educational use. It is recommended that the travel plan is to be requested by condition should the committee decide to grant planning permission.

Answers to committee Member questions

9.       Councillor Nann was informed that the application is different from the previously refused scheme, with the proposals on school land and not outside the existing site. The school travel plan will increase sustainable transport usage. The application is not considered to be contrary to planning policy SA6 regarding sustainable neighbourhoods.

There will be no reduction in pupil numbers. The policy refers to all schools and does not distinguish between private or council schools. The 150 boarders will be less than currently at the college on a daily basis.

10.      Councillor Sheard was informed that the closure of council schools in the city was irrelevant to the application before the committee. Changes have been made to the travel plan including the removal of coaches in favour of minibuses, bus discounts for staff, car sharing scheme for staff and parents. Looking at reducing Eastern Road use with travel being free for 1 to 4 years. BN1 and BN2 families to use a proposed double decker bus.

11.      Councillor Shanks was informed that the net increase in open space at the Convent site was some 80sqm and the partial loss of the playing field area has been approved by Sport England and the remaining pitch will be maintained and improved by condition. The applicant stated the college was diverse and 20% of the pupils come from BN2. The design is acceptable in the Walpole Road area of different styles and when considered as a whole within the planning balance. The Urban Design Officer considered the St Mary’s Hall structures to be suitably anchored in the site context and to preserve the views of St Marks Church. The grouping and form were considered reflective of the whole area. The Walpole Road design was considered excellent as it removed the 20th

century additions, resulting in a strong coherent layout. The breach of planning at Walpole Road is being considered at a submitted Pre-application to find the right way forward, with an ongoing investigation.

12.      Councillor Theobald was informed that the drop off traffic will be managed by a one-way system exiting onto Bristol Gate as well as maintaining the existing exit onto Eastern Road. Minibuses form part of the draft travel plan, which will be negotiated by condition.

13.      Councillor Loughran was informed that the school being private was not relevant to the application. The Head of Planning confirmed that an equalities assessment was not required from the Applicant.

14.      Councillor Thomson was informed that the disparate sites are not good for pupils and 150 was less than currently on the Convent site on a daily basis. The school is running at less than capacity and is smaller than other schools in the city. The applicant stated they were keen to increase sustainable transport and there was no increase in capacity.

Following public consultation and engagement with planning officers, the scheme was moved south on the plot and the proposed planting was improved to keep the sea view for residents. The façade of the new buildings at St Mary’s Hall was changed to terracotta following consultation. The college cares about noise and considers boarders to be less intrusive and the landscaped areas are not play areas.

15.      Councillor Winder was informed that there was a public liaison officer at the college, and they were part of a group that meets regularly to discuss issues. The college will be obligated to plant trees with 6 elm trees to be sited at St Mary’s Hall and maintained by existing grounds staff. By condition the trees will need to be replaced if they die within the first five years. The previously granted theatre has been a huge success as an example of community use of the college facilities. There will be a staff travel plan and a five-year travel plan.

16.      Councillor Parrott was informed that the new buildings would be accessible, and support would be provided for neuro divergent pupils.

Debate

17.      Councillor Theobald noted there had been no objections from outside bodies and the double decker bus was a good idea as was the reduction of traffic. The neighbouring East Sussex County hospital is a modern building, and the application proposals look better than the existing. If the buildings were houses there would be more cars. It was good that the unsightly cages are to be removed. The application is a sensible scheme for the school, which is first class. The scheme is considered excellent. The councillor supported the application.

18.      Councillor Cattell considered they could not refuse the application on non-planning grounds like pupil location and they were only looking at planning issues. The design was good, and the heritage team had no objections. The use of the sports hall by the community was good, security was good, and they were struggling to object. Should the application be refused they considered the council could lose at appeal.

19.      Councillor Loughran was concerned with the background to the application. The planning inspector considered the previous application would have noise issues, and this application would have more pupils. The layout of the site resulted in poor quality space. The design & massing of the convent site proposed building was a concern, as was the effect on the public realm. The sites cannot be separated and there are equality concerns.

20.      Councillor Shanks did not consider the design of the convent site to be an enhancement. It was noted at the site visit that the neighbours would be impacted, and community cohesion would be an issue. If the boarding building was a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) there would be concerns. The councillor did not support the application.

21.      Councillor Parrott was concerned at the long-term monitoring of conditions. The community use of facilities was a good idea; however, a culture change would be required. The increase in traffic was a concern during drop off and pick up.

22.      Councillor Thomson was conflicted and asked the applicant to engage with the community if they were granted planning permission. The councillor was convinced the traffic flow would improve and supported the application.

Vote

23.      A vote was taken, and by 5 for and 5 against, with a casting vote from the Chair the committee granted planning permission.

24.      RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to:

A) Completion of a s106 Agreement and secure the Heads of Term as set out below:

·       Contribution for monitoring obligations relating to Biodiversity Net Gain (£TBC)

·       Travel plan monitoring obligations (£7249)

·       Submission of an agreed scope and schedule of works to the western Boundary wall along Walpole Road to be implemented within 18 months of the details being agreed.

·       Employment and Training Strategy

·       Contribution of £6360 for Employment and Skills Training

B) The Conditions & Informatives set out at Appendix B SAVE THAT should the s106 agreement not be completed on or before 4th October 2025 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in Appendix C of the report.