Brighton College is often lauded for its academic excellence and architectural presence in Kemp Town. Its gothic revival buildings line Eastern Road and its RIBA award-winning structures are visible symbols of its influence.
But beyond the prestige lies a growing tension: long-standing residents feel increasingly overwhelmed and, rightly, undervalued.
The latest planning proposal is a tipping point. The college intends to build a new teaching block at its St Mary’s Hall site and convert its existing prep school in Walpole Road into a boarding complex for up to 150 students and associated staff.
While framed as strategic expansion, local residents perceive it as overreach, an enterprise dumping more people, cars and noise into their streets. An expansion with sharp edges.
The college claims this will reduce day-pupil traffic by increasing boarding numbers. But it ignores a crucial fact that more boarders still mean more staff, coaches, deliveries, weekend activity and, ultimately, noise and congestion.
Kemp Town’s narrow streets are already choking under traffic from drop-offs, coach parking and double-parking.
Worse, the process has undermined community trust, with concerns regarding the legitimacy of many supportive comments to the planning application.
Previous attempts to convert adjacent houses in Walpole Road into boarding space have already met resistance and, ultimately, rejection.
The Planning Inspector emphasised heritage concerns, the threat to historic fabric and inappropriate intensification in a delicate conservation area. The new plan, while shifting locations, carries the same risks. Nothing has changed.
Kemp Town is listed for its Regency architecture and harmonious scale. Replacing modest buildings with new four-storey teaching blocks and a large boarding facility is not sensitive infill, it is urban sprawl by opulence.
I have spoken with many residents and they feel unheard. Consultation events have been described as disconnected exhibitions, not genuine dialogue.
Local residents groups like the Kemptown United group, Wild Kemptown and local councillors have raised consistent concerns, only to feel dismissed. This is a community feeling invisible.
Such frustration transcends politics. It’s about a community facing displacement, psychological and practical, where once-vibrant residential streets feel colonised by a corporate school.
If Brighton College genuinely cares about being part of Kemp Town, it needs to show it, not just say it. Its website touts “Make a Difference Day”, beach‑cleaning and community engagement. But public benefit projects aren’t a substitute for respectful urban planning.
The college could have rebuilt trust before any expansion by funding and implementing real coach drop‑off zones, pedestrian-friendly crossings and resident parking protections.
It could have engaged local residents, not just showcased plans by hosting workshops that influence the outcome, not just observe it.
It could have ensured that any buildings respected the scale, style and heritage of Kemp Town rather than overwhelm it.
There is a path forward. Brighton College can be an asset to Kemp Town, a centre of academic excellence that contributes economically, culturally and civically.
Or it can continue on a path of expansion that cheapens trust and bulldozes community bonds.
Its current planning push, steeped in procedural opacity, heritage risk and the threat of urban overkill, is a step too far.
If it insists on building, it must rebuild the bridge first, with genuine transparency, respect and shared vision. Otherwise, Kemp Town will remember this moment as the one when the college stopped being a neighbour and started being a takeover.
Councillor Gary Wilkinson represents Kemptown ward on Brighton and Hove City Council.
I’m a local resident (living directly behind Brighton College). This piece doesn’t reflect my views and couldn’t be further from reflecting the reality of most residents views. Yes, there are some noisy neighbours who hate Brighton College, but the vast majority of us see that the area benefits hugely from having the college at our doorstep, both as an architectural asset, but also because it’s a huge economic contributor and creates so many local jobs. Brighton College students, Brighton College parents, and Brighton College educators aren’t just embedded within the college but are also Kemptown residents, neighbours, and friends. Ironically, one of the people most opposed to the development and a figurehead for Wild Kemptown just sold her house to a lovely local family whose daughter attends BC.
Definitely not a good idea to speak for other people. Especially when it can be proven incorrect just from looking at the planning application comments.
We can also see evidence of BC manipulating through closed systems, such as their newsletter to demonise those with concerns, rather than engage with the process in a honest fashion.
BC actions lends itself to one that really doesn’t care about the local area, but a selfish one, that obviously it only about increasing it’s profits.
The cost? The creation of Kemptown Campus.
Hmmmm…. speaking for other people as Gary claims to do? BC wasn’t manipulating anything. I was one of numerous residents who engaged in the process to write in support of the planning application. Advertising it in a newsletter wasn’t any different from the initiatives like Wild Kemptown (which as previously noted is hypocritical, given one of the loudest objectors sold her house to a BC parent, thus personally benefitting significantly from BC’s positive local impact).
I won’t be swayed by red herrings or tu quoque fallacies, unfortunately, Mrs S. Likewise, throwing out an ad hominem directed at someone who has only moved around the corner, as mentioned elsewhere, adds no weight to your argument. It’s the tool of someone avoiding the core issues rather than addressing them.
It’s misleading to claim majority support without presenting evidence, especially when the formal planning feedback clearly shows a more contested picture. Comparing closed institutional messaging with grassroots campaigns is not a fair equivalence; it misrepresents the difference between coordinated messaging from within a private institution and open community-led responses. As for the private sale of one objector’s house, it has no bearing on the legitimacy of wider public concern. That’s a textbook strawman.
It’s a matter of public record, submitted to the planning portal by a teacher at Brighton College, that staff were instructed to pose as local residents and submit pre-scripted supportive comments that potentially couldn’t be argued against. That isn’t community engagement; it’s manipulation by very definition. When you also consider the high staff turnover, misleading traffic projections, and repeated design failures in previous builds, the community’s concerns are not just reasonable, they’re vital to ensuring responsible planning and development, not to mention the planning inspectorate has already judged that BC is overdeveloping in Kemptown already on its last application to bloat further into the city’s already struggling housing situation.
You’re absolutely entitled to say that you support the development and that you personally benefit from Brighton College’s expansion. That is your opinion. I’ll gladly challenge it with evidence and a different perspective. But what you’ve presented here is not a reasoned argument; it’s a bundle of logical fallacies dressed up as one.
There is nothing reasoned about your argument and to be clear, I don’t personally benefit unless you consider living in a nicer neighbourhood thanks to the presence of BC a personal benefit. And the point I was making was not an attack on an individual, it was to point out the hypocrisy that even some of the most vocal opponents are benefiting from Brighton College. But the biggest argument in support of the development is that BC is one of the biggest local employers in Brighton and surely the biggest in Kemptown (to be clear I don’t work there!!), so surely the community relies on it continuing to thrive in order for the community as a whole to thrive.
I find it curious that you accuse my argument of lacking reason when I’ve directly referenced published planning comments, a whistleblower statement from within Brighton College itself, and specific prior issues with traffic and design. That’s a far cry from unreasoned opinion, would you agree?
If you believe the presence of Brighton College makes the neighbourhood “nicer,” then yes, you do benefit personally, even if indirectly. That’s not a criticism, just a reflection of your own statement.
As for the suggestion of hypocrisy, it’s not hypocrisy for someone to object to expansion while still selling a home. Planning concerns are about policy and process, not individual transactions. Criticising someone for that is still an ad hominem; it seeks to discredit a person instead of engaging with the issue.
Brighton College’s economic contribution is not in dispute, but being a major employer does not exempt it from scrutiny or community accountability. Thriving as an institution should never mean overwhelming the local infrastructure or silencing legitimate concerns. The community thrives when all voices are heard, not when objections are swept aside as inconvenient.
Benjamin, I respect that you hold strong views, but at this point it’s clear we’re talking past each other. I’ve shared my perspective as a local resident who supports the development for reasons grounded in lived experience, not coordinated messaging. Some of your points read more like something generated than genuinely engaged—which, ironically, mirrors how some local objectors were encouraged to draft responses using tools like ChatGPT. I won’t be continuing this back and forth, but I do hope future discussions around Kemptown’s future can make space for a range of voices—not just the most persistent objectors.
I appreciate that we may not agree. You’re right that lived experience matters; I’d just argue that includes mine, too. Claiming we’re “talking past each other” only makes sense when both sides are engaging in good faith. Dismissing my points through ad hominem and sidestepping the evidence I’ve raised isn’t disagreement; it’s evasion. Silence isn’t neutrality, and persistence isn’t manipulation.
However, I wish you well, S. and I appreciate the discussion.
Hello there, Mrs S
I think you might be speaking about us selling our house? We moved around the corner and are still Kemptown residents.
Best wishes
Eve and family
The point is not that you are no longer a neighbour, rather that you benefitted greatly that you live near Brighton College.
Irrelevant local politician? Sideline by his party. Will he say anything for a bit of a spotlight? Clearly it does not reflect the residents’ views.
I can see a lot of comments on the planning consultation, that’s all on the public record, so evidently, it does reflect residents’ views. What an odd and easily rebutted thing to say?
Some residents views. Now take those numbers and look at how many people live there, it’s clearly a very small minority of people who care about this nonsense. Id imagine you were one of them
Dismissing public feedback as a “small minority” misses the point. Planning officers have previously stated that while quantity is noted, it’s the substantive issues raised that carry weight. A single well-reasoned objection based on planning grounds can outweigh dozens of generic comments.
Particularly if those are shown to be prompted by institutional manipulation.
Public consultation isn’t a popularity contest, and this isn’t a referendum. It’s about whether development proposals align with policy, infrastructure capacity, and community needs. That’s where scrutiny matters, and why informed objections should be welcomed, not brushed off as “nonsense.”
Gary has done it again, foot in mouth. Hearsay nonsense article using big words he clearly doesn’t understand like urban sprawl. Gary, please mate stop writing these articles after having a pint with a mate.
I think actually the college is a great thing as it provides jobs. Their minibus drivers are the only thing I have to moan about as to many of them speed. But on the whole, kemptowns issues are the infestation of junkies and zero police patrols.
You can have more than one thing wrong with an area, Dave. It’s not a zero-sum game here.
Driving standards, in fairness, are really bad across the board. The luxury coaches that double park and block up the road outside the bingo hall certainly rile up people; the reasoning for having an ANPR camera to catch them and start enforcement is very clear, in my mind, or at the very least, wardening the area.
Several people have expressed that Brighton College gets a free pass on its drivers’ behaviour purely by virtue of being a large organisation. When people see these patterns repeated, it reinforces the view that there’s a double standard at play.
Can I just point out that Brighton College provides many local families an absolute lifeline for at least 10 families a year by providing Full scholarships including food and support. These recipients are often too embarrassed to come forward to advertise so it’s not very well known. They Help the local community in ways you would never hear about and are very low key about that help to be sensitive which is an incredibly rare quality. Most importantly they are helping to sculpt children who some have come from a very privileged background to prioritise kindness at all times which is what we certainly need more of in this world!
I don’t doubt that some families have benefited from Brighton College’s scholarship programme, and I’m genuinely glad they have. But we need to be honest about scale. Offering support to “at least 10 families a year” in a city facing a housing crisis, education inequality, and social polarisation is not the same as being a net positive for the wider community.
Offering support to “at least 10 families a year” sounds generous until you consider that BC charges over £50,000 per pupil per year and holds vast assets. For a school of that scale, these scholarships represent a negligible cost, and in many cases, they’re likely part of the minimum expected for retaining charitable status or accessing tax benefits. That doesn’t make the scholarships bad, but it does mean they’re likely strategic more than altruistic.
BC are masters at being misleading through omission and inexcatitudes. In this case, the idea that these gestures cancel out the school’s wider negative impact, with a growing presence that drives up inequality in an already divided city. Even BC staff have admitted to submitting pre-scripted comments in the planning process, posing as local residents, which is purely reputational management.
When privilege is marketed as generosity, we shouldn’t be grateful for table scraps.
There are a lot of relevant and very strongly held views on show here, but am I alone in thinking that this is all very well but when is Mr Wilkinson going to dispense with that ridiculous syrup he is wearing?