Cyclists and pedestrians will be at greater risk from increased traffic if a disused school is turned into a charity hub, councillors have been warned.
The warning follows a planning application from Brighton and Hove City Council to change the use of the old Homewood College, in Queensdown School Road, Brighton.
The council has applied to itself for planning permission to turn the school, which closed in December 2024, into a charity hub to serve the local community.
But one objector said that even drivers working for the council were struggling to keep to the speed limit on a narrow road with a blind bend and no verge or pavement in places.
One council official, transport planning officer Michael Berry, said: “The site is accessed via Queensdown School Road. This is a narrow, mostly private road with no segregation of pedestrians from other highway users.
“This means pedestrians, and potentially wheelchair and buggy users, would need to use the edges of the road / verges.
“Part of the route, on the southern side of the tunnel / railway bridge is public highway. There is concern that the risk to pedestrian safety will increase due to the change of use which may generate increased pedestrian and vehicle trips across the day.
“There are also areas of limited visibility along the private road but as this is a temporary proposal (for six years) and also a section of private road, we advise only that the site owner / occupier should consider audits and amendments to reduce the road safety risk to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.”
A neighbour echoed the concerns, saying: “I am registering my concerns about the speed of vans and vehicles currently visiting the site ahead of proposed major developments. The speed (limit) is 5mph.
“The route is single vehicle access and there is a blind bend at the railway tunnel and access to the site.
“There is no pavement and the tunnel is regularly accessed by students, rail passengers, dog walkers, hikers, adults and children from schools.
“The site is not suitable for heavy vehicles due to potholes. Constant traffic will also increase the risk of traffic accident as drivers maybe unaware of pedestrians.”
Another objector, whose details were redacted by the council, said: “I have tried to engage with (the council) but have received limited response. To date I have emailed … and their replies have been vague.
“The roads leading to the site are poorly maintained and certainly not appropriate for plant machinery to travel up and down.
“The road passes through Moulsecoomb railway bridge and it is inadequately lit or signed. The road can only allow one-way traffic. The tunnel and surrounding roads have no pavements.
“The tunnel is used by many different types of people from very young children, parents, schools, colleges, dog walkers, employees, rail users, cyclists.
“Rightly or wrongly the public often traverse the road with little awareness. The road has a 5mph limit which even (council) security is failing to adhere to as well as on-site workers.”
The plans to create a charity hub are due before the council’s Planning Committee next week when they are recommended for approval.
The council said in its application: “The existing locations of these charities are in Moulsecoomb therefore causes minimal disruption to their community service.
“It is worth noting multiple charities will occupy the space and this will become a community hub to maximise accessibility and help the community as a whole.”
No external alterations are proposed and the inside of the building would have a mix of workshops and admin space and potentially a café and shop.
A report to the committee said that the charities looking to use the site included an organisation working with vulnerable people and timber recycling and restoration.
One anonymous objector raised concerns about the effect on wildlife in the area and the narrow single-width access road.
The objector, whose details were redacted by the council, said that the wildlife included buzzards, greater spotted woodpeckers and several types of butterfly including small blues.
The Planning Committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 2pm on Wednesday 1 July.
Is that an argument to improve the road safety, rather than speaking to the planning permission?
There is limited space- the road runs under a railway bridge and there are steep banks on either side. Improving the road and creating pavements would be a major civil engineering project and cost millions
Can planning permission be granted with the condition that pavements be built?
And it had no traffic as a school presumably?
Does the objector think this building can just be left empty to suit them?
Now would seem to be the time to add a pavement.
Very little traffic. It was a special school with a very small number of pupils and staff, so there were a handful of cars just before 9 and after 3.
There’s little space for a pavement as the road passes under the railway, and there are steep banks further down. It would be a huge and expensive project to widen it.
You can’t add pavements there as the bridge is too narrow. The sharp corner already acts as a way to slow down traffic. It has natural traffic calming. Nothing needs to change for the traffic.
It would have had more traffic as a school as pickup\drop off times of schools means traffic is always concentrated at specific times. The proposed use will have much lower traffic. Also there is a large electrical substation there that no doubt has bigger vehicles without issue.
I am someone who goes up there for the wildlife. The new use would have less effect that the old use.
This is just a nimby response. Some people just don’t like charities.
The school created little traffic. The issue here is that no one can conceive of not having unfettered access for cars.
What a complete load of NIMBY twaddle….
The council’s transport planning expert is hardly a NIMBY. The hub is expected to mean more traffic than a small special school, notably delivery vans, and too many vehicles already go unsuitably fast along a road where uni students and mothers with buggies walk, among many others, and there are almost no paved or verged sections. It is dangerous. The Planning Committee will have to balance the risks and hope, if they approve the change of use, that no one is seriously injured or killed. The official transport planner was commenting responsibly on quite proper road safety concerns.