A business owner has cast doubt on the legality of the Pride Village Party road closures and wristband scheme.
Catherine Lane quoted senior Department for Transport (DfT) civil servants saying that a similar scheme in Manchester fell foul of the law.
The issue came to light at a Brighton and Hove City Council meeting at Hove Town Hall yesterday (Thursday 9 November).
At the council’s Culture, Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Economic Development Committee, she said: “During the Pride Village Party in 2023, tourists entering any guest accommodation business in a large area of Kemp Town where the event took place were forced to pay for a ticket to allow them to enter the properties in which they were staying.
“Residents were also forced to pay for a ticket if they wanted to have more than three adults enter their properties during the three days of this event.
“If this event is recurring in 2024 could the committee confirm if they expect this ticket/toll charge to be allowed and, if so, by what legal authority would Brighton and Hove City Council be allowing this charge?”
Labour councillor Alan Robins, who chairs the committee, said: “We have powers under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 section 21 to put in place road closures for events such as the Pride Village Party.
“The wristband scheme was introduced a few years ago following significant safety concerns with over 40,000 attendees coming to the St James’s Street area with little or no management control.
“This represented a severe risk to public safety and also represented an insurmountable challenge to emergency services.
“We consider both the Pride Village Party road closures and the wristband scheme to be proportionate, reasoned and justified – and therefore lawful.
“Under our agreement with Pride, residents and business owners are given the opportunity to receive free access to the Pride Village Party area through the wristband scheme.
“However, visitors to the city can be charged for the wristbands.
“The detail of how the wristband scheme is managed with regard to residents and businesses – including local visitor accommodation providers – is a matter for Pride but will form part of the ongoing reviews of the Pride celebrations in the city.”
Catherine Lane said: “I’ve seen the legislation you’ve quoted. Are you aware of the exact law because I have a letter from the head of the Department for Transport national casework team that says the law is unambiguous on this matter?
“The orders you mention cannot be made if any such order shall be made with respect to any road which would have the effect of preventing at any time access for pedestrians to any premises situated on or adjacent to the road or to any other premises accessible for pedestrians from and only from the road.
“Manchester Pride were told not to do this. I have a document from the Department for Transport saying this is illegal.”
The council’s head of Elizabeth Culbert said: “It would be really helpful if you could send that in.
“We do have clear advice in relation to the Town Police Clauses Act distinguishing it from other powers that other authorities may have used in the past which may not have had the same ability to charge.
“So we are confident in relation to these proposals but we are also very interested to see what you’ve got and to have a conversation.”
What the law says
The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 section 21 is headed: “Power to prevent obstructions in streets during public processions, etc.”
Section 21 says: “The commissioners may from time to time make orders for the route to be observed by all carts, carriages, horses, and persons, and for preventing obstruction of streets, within the limits of the special act, in all times of public processions, rejoicings, or illuminations, and in any case when the streets are thronged or liable to be obstructed, and may also give directions to the constables for keeping order and preventing any obstruction of the streets in the neighbourhood of theatres and other places of public resort, and every wilful breach of any such order shall be deemed a separate offence against this act.”
The DfT said that the relevant law was the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 section 16(9) which says: “No … order shall be made with respect to any road which would have the effect of preventing at any time access for pedestrians to any premises situated on or adjacent to the road or to any other premises accessible for pedestrians from and only from the road.”
A DfT letter headed “Road closures for Manchester Pride”, dated Thursday 21 August 2014, said: “This legislative requirement is not ambiguous. It means pedestrians wishing to access premises that can only be accessed from the restricted roads must be granted entry to those roads.
“While the TRO (traffic regulation order) … may have included the intention to close roads to pedestrians not wearing a wristband or carrying resident accreditation, this goes beyond the powers available to them.
In relation to Manchester Pride, the DfT letter said: “The third party organiser officials are required to allow pedestrians to enter the restricted area to enter premises that can only be accessed from those roads.
“Should access to the area be restricted on safety grounds, this should apply to all pedestrians regardless of whether they present wristbands, resident accreditation or neither.
“There is no provision within the act or TRO to support a ‘two-tier’ system of entry.”
This event now needs to be moved. Ideally to the level, Madeira Drive or Preston Park where it doesn’t disturb residents and close down a main shopping thoroughfare for three days. It has become too large and too commercial for this location. In previous years it was smaller and more manageable but on their own admission, Pride organisers have said they cannot manage this event without what appears to be illegal ticketing.
I’m afraid just like Transpride in Brunswick Square it has simply outgrown its current location and if this is a sign of its success it’s also something to be celebrated.
The other issue that has not been touched on is a health and safety assessment for children who live in this area. At Preston Park, Stanmer Park, The Level anywhere it is far easier to manage crowds and who enters an area and ticketing can be introduced which doesn’t break the law, and the long-held protected rights of access to properties along a public highway not breached.
Closing off Preston park, and any additional streets, would perhaps have an equal onerous impact on those residents. And that’s quite apart from the thugs Pride use for security to enforce that. Suggesting alternatives really only carries weight if you suggest being inconvenienced yourself as opposed to others. It’s a very short period and frankly in the context of the terrible suffering imposed on ‘Pride communities’ historically- and sadly now- it’s no big deal. I don’t hear anyone calling for restrictions on Christmas shopping, Bon fire night or Bank Holiday visitors. I’m in no way impugning your motives, I’m simply saying we tolerate habitually other types of events that objectively involve very high demand on infrastructure and changes to normal routines.
The Pride Street Party takes place at the same time as the main Pride event in Preston Park, so Preston Park is not a suitable alternative. Pride already has activities in Preston Park that restrict access to parts of the park for up to 14 days during the Pride period (vehicle movements, construction works, deconstruction works etc). I think Preston Park local residents already do their bit for Pride.
The council and pride have pushed this whole issue way too far and at this point beyond the bounds of legality. In the process they have annoyed residents and business owners and no wonder. Legally it is the property owners decision on who can access their property for free using public roads, not that of the council or pride.
This has all gone way too far. Time for Pride and the Council to start behaving sensibly and reasonably, stop annoying residents and local businesses, and find an alternative venue that is suitable, not use an unsuitable one and then try to get others to pay the costs that arise
Well said.
This appears to be another example of certain groups attempting to ‘bend’ a law to suit their purposes and trample over the rights of local residents.
I think this event has outgrown the area. It has become a headache for residents and a safety risk for all including children who live in the area. It needs to be moved to an official private designated area with proper safety controls and enough toilets such as the Brighton Centre or The Dome. The event was such a wonderful idea when it started in helping gay rights. But the event has now become about everyone turning up (from all over the country) for a massive outdoor street drinking party whoever you are with no consideration for local Brightonians. Stop the road closures as this will certainly help.
If the event cannot be made safe legally, it isn’t an appropriate venue. The council should at least try to run events in a lawful and professional way…no wonder the event management plan is so secretive. When companies owned by council employees make secret profits with no accountability, people get greedy and things go wrong.
At the last road closure I assisted a blind person wanting to navigate the extensive road closures. I wanted to go to a local pub in Manchester Street and was refused entry.
It looks like the Council are acting Ultra Vires (beyond their legitimate legal powers) here. Not the sort of thing a well run Council should do if they want to keep the trust of residents and voters.
Would not be the first time – watch the beach hut saga !
Well there is an answer to that – Judicial Review – and a judge can decide.
And it’s not a cheap process either.
And there will be a difficulty in launching one given these charges have been in place for almost ten year and the question will be asked “why did you delay bringing the action?”
The charging is relatively new. Originally they would post as many wristbands as you requested through the door. It is only in recent years the organisers have started getting greedy and tried to take advantage of the tolerance and goodwill we gave them. This is why we have all had enough of this and in fact many of us of the whole event now so this needs a full rethink. Also, breaking the law over ten years doesn’t make it legal.
This charge was wrong on so many levels. I wanted to visit friends staying in a guest house down from London and they wanted a £35 toll charge for me to enter a public road. I always thought this charge sounded dodgy. Notting Hill Carnival and other similar festivals are always free. Not a good look for the council treating tourists and residents this way. It is a private profit making event which is rumoured to pay the two directors over a £100,000 salary. This event now needs to close down, be run through commercial sponsorship (assuming residents still want it to take place) or go to a private venue.
Pride is not for profit organisation
A not for profit organisation that pays its two directors a combined salary of £100,000. Not bad. In fact, it would be good to see where this money went forensically.
What would be a reasonable salary to run such a huge event out of interest?!! Do u want it to be less well organised? I wouldn’t take that job on for less!
Paying them nothing would be reasonable whilst they are expecting other people to pay for their party on public streets. As they have been fleecing residents, tourists staying in Brighton and business owners for this event it is only right that we start scrutinising this whole event. Historically, they relied on our goodwill to run it but now they have taken this for granted. No one cares how much they pay themselves if they are selling tickets to Kylie Minogue in Preston Park. Now they are using our money to pay for bouncers to restrict our long-held access right to properties everything about this event should be looked at forensically starting with who exactly is making money from the money that many people feel was in fact stolen from us to run the Kemptown Village Party. I feel so sad that the residents and business owners welcomed this event to Kemptown when we all felt aligned with the unfair battle LGBT people faced and now they have won their rightful equality rights they wish to take away the rights of residents and businesses in Kemptown.
Large Charities can be in the region of £85k-£100k for a CEO.
Just because an organisation says it is “not for profit” does not mean it will not overly pay the directors and senior managers. It will therefore meet its goal of “not for profit”.
Greed can take many forms and be dressed up as something else quite easily.
I have always had a huge problem with these closures and the subsequent charging of a fee to enter those areas. The reaction from council is just as you’d expect ,” it may be illegal elsewhere, but this is The City of Brighton and Hove…. we do what we like…. sod the residents(sic).”
So grateful to Catherine Lane and others for raising this injustice. The festival is a victim of its success which we should all take pride in but it is surely time to move to Preston Park especially given attendance is likely to grow in.future years.
Hopefully our concerns will be taken notice of
Error
1847 not 1947. Carriages was a big clue that the date was likely wrong.
On language powers to the commissioners vs the unambiguous regulation should require the commissioners (council or police) to use powers within the regulations
We don’t want any more large events in our parks and as pride is already taking over Preston Park at this time, guess the answer maybe is to cancel? As somebody said it is only a massive drinking party anyway, and is part of the reason why Brighton is so unattractive……
Stick it down maderia drive no inconvenience to anyone no road closures apart from the entrance at pier put in multiple toilets then the venues can bring thier own bars like the do in St James’s street all sorted town runs as normal not Rocket science is it my wife is constantly inconvenienced every year as she’s on nights and has to drive miles out of her way to get home
To be fair, that’s pretty reasonable considering that’s where all the major events in Brighton tend to go. Simple enough solution!
Totally agree !
👌
Paying to enter Preston park pride I can understand as they have acts that need paying for ect ect.
Paying to have the privilege to go for a pint in kemptown just because it’s pride weekend is completely ludicrous.
Obstructing public highways is an offence if we do it.
Calls to cancel pride, an event which not only gives a lot of people a well deserved day off, but in terms of prides, Brighton Pride led others nationally and internally in terms of size, diversity and inclusivity.
The wider benefits to our economy and community far outweigh some disruption. However to exclude locals from living a family life, excluding people from being able to visit family especially during pride weekend, only serves to divide.
In recent years diversity & inclusivity has diminished, the events today whilst including superstar acts just dont feel like pride, more an LGBTQ+ Concert in the park, and an expensive one at that.
Talent issues, questions around transparency on Talent Spend, and general set up remain, I do have some sympathy for the main organisers, it must be stressful organising this annually, which is why the organisation needs to change into a charitable model and one which more trustees and community members have involvement, atm its a private members club with plans to go even more commercial.
With black rock opening soon could pride change?? Take over the seafront and marine parade….
They already do concerts in the summer down there, why not look at alternative options??
When it first started many years ago it was a pleasure,we use to meet up with friends and family the kids would go on the small fair rides in Preston park and it was really enjoyable.but unfortunately now it has become to big and unmanageable and charging people to get into a private event is fine but charging the people to use public roads is totally wrong and has always been said that it was unlawful but councils over the years have chosen to ignore it because it suits.and that is all councils regardless of which party they belong too.
So the answer then is not too close off the streets. No fences, no tickets, no toilets etc. Then 20 000 people can just turn up and party in the streets, bring their own booze and music, urinate in alleys and doorways. Then instead of paid for security managing a well organised event you will have hundreds of police officers trying to manage unruly crowds. Some complainers really haven’t thought this through have they.
The whole reason for the streets bring closed and the event managed is that previously thousands of people naturally flocked to the streets of kemp town on Pride day to party and it became unsafe.
Scrooge(s) is alive & well & living in Kemptown it would appear. Just do wot I do my luv & don’t go out the damn door. But then, why not move it to Lewes? It’s only up the road & they’re well used to closing whole streets down when they celebrate the torture & murder of innocent Catholic priests, every year…. what, what.
Interesting that Companies house does show they have about 10k in the bank accounts, although there is an outstanding charge relating to HSBC.
Though they’d have more in reserves given the scale of the operation.
BRIGHTON PRIDE COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY
Company number 08405357
You must be misreading it. Their latest HRMC account statement show they have £631k in cash.
The LGBTQ community in Brighton see Kemptown as the hub of their community. This is because most of the bars such as affinity and bulldog have a mostly LGBTQ customer base.
This is why st James street is used for the pride village party and it always will be even if the event gets bigger and the numbers of people who attend the PVP gets larger the event won’t get moved out of Kemptown and the pop up bars that appear on st James street are run by the various bars,pubs and restaurants within the PvP exclusion zone last year i noticed that restaurants that don’t normally serve alcohol were and they were charging between £9.00 and12.00 for a pint of beer.
If the event was moved to the seafront all the pubs would have to apply for a separate drinks licence to be able to serve alcohol there.