The council’s consultation on the future of the Floral Clock, in Hove, has come under fire for failing to include an option of keeping it.
Conservative councillor Alistair McNair questioned the council’s wisdom in carrying out a consultation after stating that it would scrap the historic landmark as part of a revamp of the top end of Palmeira Square.
When Brighton and Hove City Council announced the consultation in August, it said that the clock had not worked for many years and wanted to hear people’s suggestions for replacing it.
Councillor McNair said: “If they’ve made that decision already, just be quiet and say ‘here’s a consultation’ and then make the decision.
“Don’t say, ‘we’re not going to have a floral clock,’ and then have a consultation because people then think: ‘What’s the point?’
“It’s politics 101. They’ve caused a lot of bother for themselves.”
At the meeting of the full council on Monday 13 October, Councillor McNair said that Labour councillor Alan Robins appeared to have shifted his position.
Earlier in the meeting, a petition signed by more than 3,000 people urged the council to save the Floral Clock.
Councillor Robins, the council’s cabinet member for sports, recreation and libraries, said – in response to a question from Conservative councillor Carol Theobald – that there was a possibility of having a floral clock.
Councillor McNair said: “He really rowed back a bit from the petition debate and said we have asked the company to look into it.
“Whereas before he was saying there is no floral clock. I don’t think there will be. But he suggested there would be.”
Councillor Theobald asked whether the clock could be replaced with an electric one and Councillor Robins said that the existing clock was electric.
He said: “Swifts of Derbyshire who made the original clock were the people we met down there a few weeks ago who came to tell us the current clock could not be restored.
“What was left underground is not workable but they could give us a price for fitting a new clock which is what they’ve gone away to do now.
“We’ve got a proposition that they’re going to price up a new clock. There’s another proposition that we might have some sort of sculpture there, perhaps a sundial. There’s another proposition to have a mini-tower clock.
“We might put back just the hands and face as it was, although that would need to go on to a solid dial rather than the carpet planting which we won’t be involved with.”
In response to the petition presented by campaigner Laura King, Councillor Robins said that a working group had been set up to consider the consultation results but any potential replacement would not include planting.
More than 1,100 people responded to the consultation but a sixth of those did not respond to the question asking what they wanted to see in place of the clock.
Almost half of the 870 who did respond were in favour of either a traditional or contemporary sundial.
The consultation should have been sent to every household in Hove and yes there should have been an option to keep it.
I agree with the Tories on this one. It was a skewed and meaningless consultation which did not give keeping the Floral Clock as an option and the council didn’t even make the whole city aware of it! Scrap this undemocratic consultation and start again. Or better still, scrap the project and fix the clock now former Tory Councillor Ken Norman has offered to pay towards it! Now the council are paying more attention to the results of a fatally flawed consultation of over 1,000 misdirected respondents who weren’t given a choice to keep the Floral Clock than over 3,000 people who signed the petition to save the Floral Clock!
How can this be right?
Again, I think this is because of a flawed perception of what a consultation is aimed at achieving, and this primarily comes from council’s history of weakness in communicating with the public, compounded with the Cons desperate attempts to attack Labour however they can on anything they can.
As I’ve described before, with a lack of budget to maintain a floral clock, this effectively excluded retention, which looks undemocratic but is rooted in budget reality. Maybe the option could have been in there, subject to external funding, but if it’s not possible, wouldn’t that be equally or even more frustrating when it isn’t done? You’d be replacing the current feelings with false hope, and that seems worse, in my opinion. What do you think?
And whilst we should recognise the kindness of Mr Norman, a one-off donation isn’t likely to change that financial reality significantly enough to ensure the long-term future of a floral clock which looking at others, looking at the region of £20,000 a year.
Let’s also ground ourselves and note that many local gardening groups and friends of groups have also declined an offer to take over this project, because it is not financially viable for them either, despite typically having a wider recourse to fundings compared to council – admitted by Ms King on Latest TV, whilst bitterly calling them “sham” groups, although, I understand she might have a chip on her shoulder from a poor deputation from a few years ago.
The only group in partnership with BHCC according to the billboards around the Floral Clock is Friends of Palmeira and Adelaide, so what other gardening groups are you talking about? Funding and sponsorship are almost always available for special projects and not necessarily only on a one-off basis. What was preventing FOPA in asking for help to obtain special or outside funding if they lacked this fundraising expertise within FOPA? They cannot be this ignorant of their conservation area surroundings, surely?
Ditto BHCC, who should be leading by example.
The issue isn’t competency or laziness; it’s cost. Everyone loves the idea of a floral clock, but no one can sustainably fund it. Ongoing maintenance/costs are actually notoriously hard to secure grant funding for especially when, beyond sentiment, there’s little tangible public benefit compared to a lower-maintenance garden.
It’s as if the council deliberately waited for the Queen to die to rip her Coronation Clock out. What a disgusting lack of respect! I’ve loved that clock all my days. It is Hove.
I just asked ChatGPT for a definition of a sham consultation and this is what it came up with.
A sham consultation is a meeting or process that appears to seek input, feedback, or consent, but in reality, the decision has already been made or the input will not genuinely influence the outcome.
In other words, it’s a fake or token consultation — done to create the illusion of participation or transparency without actually engaging in meaningful dialogue or change.
Here’s how it typically looks in practice:
🏛️ In government or policy: Authorities might hold a “public consultation” on a new law or development project, but the policy is already finalized and feedback won’t change it.
🏢 In organizations: Management might “consult” staff or unions about workplace changes, but the decision has already been approved.
🏥 In healthcare or academia: A “consultation” might be staged just to meet legal, ethical, or procedural requirements, not to truly consider professional input.
Key characteristics of a sham consultation:
The outcome is predetermined.
Feedback is ignored or selectively used to justify the decision.
The consultation is mainly for appearance, compliance, or public relations purposes.
Participants are misled into thinking their views matter.
Sounds like a typical Bhcc consultation
That’s the problem with AI answers, you forget to think critically. They aren’t good at context.
That definition doesn’t actually apply here. A sham consultation means the decision’s already made and feedback won’t matter. In this case, the council did seek input on what could replace the clock, not on whether to keep it, because they’d already costed repair as unaffordable. That’s poor communication, as I’ve already explained, but not a sham. The distinction matters.
AI doesn’t get nuance, James.
It sounds like your definition of democracy is communism, Benjamin. The council most certainly did not seek any public opinions or put out any public appeala to help save/rejuvenate the Floral Clock BEFORE making this decision. Please link to such if I am wrong. FOPA is not an elected body and does not own North Palmeira Sq so do not count. So who is responsible for deciding this dire act of cultural vandalism on Hove?
That’s quite a leap, James. Pointing out that the council framed the consultation around financial limits isn’t “communism,” it’s just acknowledging financial realities, and once again, why would you include an option that wasn’t viable? Because heaven knows, you’d be one of the first to cry wolf in such a scenario.
The consultation was live for weeks, and anyone could respond – over a thousand did. Try to put as many labels on it as you want James, the reality is just because you don’t like an outcome, doesn’t make it a conspiracy.
Sundial, cheap to maintain and service,, wiping off the bird poo
The trouble is….. The so called residents of the area won’t actually fund keeping the clock! It costs over 2000 English pounds to hire a digger to dig it up and fix it. The actual mechanism is in the ground! If the local community actually offered to fund This, it would stay! How do I know you ask? I am the person who fixes the clock!
I read no council appeal for help before the Council decided to destroy the floral clock. Do you have a link to one? A former Councillor is now being ignored with his offer of help.
Jamesk the reason for them ignoring the counsellor is because it’s not about money.It’s about their plans and what they already decided is going to be happening in that area.
You have to remember they like to make it look like they’re in a process that is fair and open and honest for the public to see.
Realistically the decision’s already been made unless there is so much pressure on them , they buckle and have to change.
I’ve already explained by one guy’s small donation doesn’t make a difference when it’s £20,000 a year to maintain one of those. You’re clever enough to not get sidetracked by performative gestures he’s clearly never going to have to follow through with, aren’t you?
The clock is past it’s ‘sell by date’. Change it to a modern sculpture sundial and dedicate it to the late Queen and King …..
They seem to complete be trying to confuse all of the people that would like to keep this clock.
The money would be available and is available only if Brighton and hove city council stops protecting individuals that are involved in wrongdoing and misconduct in the organisation.
They spend vast amounts of public funds on trying to mislead external authorities. once they have been caught doing something wrong still continue in the same behaviour they seem unable to change their conduct.
If they followed the policyswhich is when identifying something has gone wrong, they hold their hands up and admit the the wrong doing and take the appropriate action to put things right for those affected by the wrong then the cost to the public would be dramatically reduced.
They spend probably hundreds of thousands of pounds in trying to wear individual complainants down so they look like that they are not wasting your money.
Just needs more members of the public telling those in charge this practice needs to stop.
There are a few of us trying to do this we need more members of the public and readers of this article and website to be more engaged in hold Brighton and Hove city council accountable for the spending habits.
Different accounts I’m afraid, Lee.