Just 15 of the 45 state infant and primary schools in Brighton and Hove have a full complement of pupils due to start in reception in September.
The information was released by Brighton and Hove City Council on Thursday (16 April) as families learnt where their children had been offered primary or infant school reception places.
Councillor Jacob Taylor, deputy leader of the council, said: “Starting school is a big milestone so national offer day is an important time for families.
“We’re pleased to see that 93 per cent of families received their first-preference school – an increase from last year’s 91 per cent.
“Brighton and Hove has a strong and diverse educational offer, with all schools working hard to give children the best possible start to their learning in a supportive, inclusive environment.”
There were 2,059 applications this year, down from 2,117 in 2025. Of these 1,921 pupils were allocated to their family’s first-choice school, 99 to their second-place school, 21 to their third choice and 1 to their fourth choice.
Just 17 children, less than 1 per cent, received a “direction”, meaning they were not offered a place at any of their preferred schools. Last year 25 children – or 1.2 per cent – were directed.
Fewer than half of the available places have been filled at seven schools – and the council said that those with just a few places left were likely to be full by September.
Just two families applied for a place at Middle Street Primary School. Although it is likely to close in August, nearby schools in the centre of Brighton seem set to have spare places.
The next lowest number of places offered was nine – at St Mary Magdalen Catholic Primary School, in Spring Street, Brighton.
Queen’s Park Primary School has offered places to 18 children in its reception class, despite having an intake – or published admission number (PAN) – of 60.
The school in Park Street, Brighton, was one of seven to resist having its intake reduced by a class for last September.
St Paul’s Church of England Primary School, in St Nicholas Road, has offered places to 20 children. It has a PAN of 30.
The number of children in Woodingdean appears to have increased. Councillors approved an increase in Rudyard Kipling Primary School’s PAN from 30 to 45 to cater for the extra pupils expected in the area come September.
It has prompted the council to allow Rudyard Kipling, in Chalkland Rise, to accept 60 reception pupils in September to ensure all youngsters in Woodingdean can attend a local school. The school received 56 first-choice applications.
Nearby Woodingdean Primary School was also oversubscribed, with 42 families putting it down as their first choice and 30 being allocated a place.
All the schools in the Deans will have full reception classes or just a few places available.
Twelve schools across the city were oversubscribed with first-choice applications, with a further three filled with second and third choices.
West Hove Infant School, in Portland Road, Hove, received the most applications as 129 put the school down as their first choice, with 120 places available.
The popular school also had the highest number of applications for existing pupils’ younger siblings, with 50 securing places.
Balfour Primary School had the second highest number of applications, with 119 families applying for the 90 places – and 46 of the children had older brothers or sisters at the school in Balfour Road.
In September 2022, the school cut the number of forms of entry from four to three – or from 120 children to 90.
The Bilingual Primary School, in Hove, has filled 89 of its 90 places, with 83 of those being first choices.
The council has been trying to tackle the falling number of pupils in Brighton and Hove since 2019, with the 2021 census finding a 21 per cent drop in the number of children since 2011.
The council has already closed two small primary schools. St Bartholomew’s, in Ann Street, Brighton, and St Peter’s, in St Peter’s Road, Portslade, closed in 2024.
And the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton closed St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School, in Davey Drive, Hollingdean, last year also because of falling numbers.
Not a suprise as many families are moving out of Brighton due to it being too expensive – hence why Woodingdean there is such a demand for places.
Bevendean (which is a very good school) continues to have low numbers as student HMO landlords continue to be allowed to build or extend (what were originally designed to be family homes) into cramped, money grabbing student HMO. Despite student rent numbers and demand falling due to the sky high rent that HMO landlords charge to make a profit.
So the council is looking into the lack of pupils.
Given the planning decisions which encourage development of flats and sub- division of family houses, where do they expect young families to live.
Without policies protecting family housing and encouraging new build houses rather than flats, the problem can only get worse.
Absolutely, I know I bang on about the global trend of declining replenishment seen most acutely in Brighton, but you’re right that we also need the housing infrastructure to support families at affordable levels. Schools are a symptom of housing shortages and affordability.
Tightening up of C4 and the new C5 class will be a start, devolution will give the opportunity for a regional strategy to housing, and the benefits of economy of scale, and considerations of different ways of housing, like CLTs and via ALMOs are all potential levers that can, and should, be used.
We’ve seen, especially with AirBnB, what happens when it is not checked and regulated.
Benjamin, this reads like a jumble of buzzwords rather than a clear argument grounded in what’s actually happening on the ground.
You’re talking about “global trends” and governance structures, but the issue here is pretty straightforward: Brighton is becoming unaffordable for families, and housing policy is actively skewed away from them. Schools aren’t some abstract “symptom” — they’re a direct reflection of local decisions that prioritise short-term rental yields, dense flat developments, and student HMOs over stable family housing.
Throwing in acronyms like C4, C5, CLTs, and ALMOs doesn’t make the point stronger — it just muddies it. The reality is that unless there’s a serious shift toward building and protecting genuinely family-sized, affordable homes, none of those mechanisms will make a meaningful dent.
Also, blaming things like Airbnb in passing feels a bit convenient. It’s part of the problem, sure, but it’s nowhere near the whole story. Planning policy, land values, and a lack of political will to prioritise families are the core issues.
If anything, your comment highlights the problem: too much abstract policy talk, not enough focus on the obvious — families can’t afford to live here anymore, so of course the schools are emptying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsl46vGpMNU
Benjamin, you comment frequently and at length on a wide range of topics, often presenting your views with a high degree of certainty. However, it’s important to be clear for the sake of transparency that you do not hold any official role with Brighton and Hove News, nor are you a journalist or representative of the council.
Given that, it would be more honest to frame your contributions explicitly as personal opinion rather than implied authority. You’re entitled to your views, of course, but presenting them as if backed by institutional knowledge or expertise can be misleading.
At times, your tone and level of confidence come across less like informed analysis and more like a kind of Walter Mitty-style self-assumed authority. Acknowledging the limits of your position would make discussions more grounded and constructive for everyone involved.
🙃🙃🙃Obviously!? No-one is thinking I’m a journalist, lol.
Just demonstrating your flawed reliance on AI, yet again. Especially since you made GPT complain that “you always make it about you” (Your verbatim words), whilst constantly making it about me. 🤦
Oh good, the triple upside-down smiley defence — the last refuge of someone who’s got nothing substantive to say.
“No-one is thinking I’m a journalist” — right, except the part where you routinely write like you’re filing a council briefing note with absolute certainty on things you clearly don’t have direct knowledge of. But sure, everyone else is the problem for noticing.
And the AI point? That’s a bit rich. You’re trying to dismiss criticism by… talking about someone else using AI, while completely sidestepping the actual point being made about *your* behaviour. That’s not an argument, it’s a deflection.
As for “making it about you” — pointing out a pattern in your comments isn’t the same as obsessing over you. It just means your pattern is… very noticeable. If anything, this response kind of proves it.
But by all means, keep waving it off with emojis and “lol” — it definitely gives the impression of someone confident in their position, rather than someone who’s been called out and doesn’t quite know how to respond.
Rupert (or whatever your name really is), let’s be clear.
Your obsession with Benjamin (and yes it is an obsession) was borne by him having the temerity to ask you for evidence to your original outlandish claims regarding paternity. Since then it’s been a personal vendetta to try and discredit the man.
Maybe this is you unconsciously trying to lash out at the wrongs you felt you received in your original posting? I don’t know, but if this is the approach you take to feedback in the rest of your life, perhaps this also explains why you were dismissed in that way in the first place.
For the record, I don’t always agree with Benjamin, but I feel he responds to the topic at hand and engages with fellow commentators in a reasonable way. You on the other hand, produce a jumble of AI nonsense, often off topic, and almost always directed personally at Benjamin.
You seem to feel you speak for everyone but you don’t.
It’s clear Benjamin doesn’t work for the council, the Labour party, a newspaper and isn’t some right wing politician simply because they share the same first name!
Also many of the schools just aren’t very good in Brighton. Families often choose areas based on the quality of schools. Brighton college doesn’t have a subscription problem. The cost of housing is only part of the picture as if the schools were good people would move from elsewhere to Brighton.
https://youtube.com/shorts/MvsMCNUL2Ok?si=F6h4F4tswT8bkv4M
This isn’t a surprise. Queens Park received a dreadful Ofsted rating. No responsible parent with a choice would send their child there.