The city council’s bid to become an arbitrator between councils and events organisers across the country could end up costing taxpayers money, an industry expert has warned.
Brighton and Hove City Council has applied to become the primary authority in relation to events industry safety guidance – known as the Purple Guide.
The guide is used by local authorities when imposing conditions on licences, leases and planning permissions for events. As primary authority, the city council would provide advice if any disputes arose.
The council says the scheme will cover its costs – but event and safety consultant Nick Love says it will add extra red tape and costs for events organisers – and could also end up costing the council money and tie it up in legal challenges.
Mr Love, who lives in Brighton, said: “It will add cost if an organiser wants to challenge the decision of a local authority. Durham, Liverpool and Leicester have already declined to take part due to cost and liability. The process is worthless and not legally binding on any party.”
He also has concerns about the way the proposal has been developed by the Events Industry Forum (EIF), which produces the Purple Guide. The city council’s outdoor events manager Ian Baird sits on the board of the EIF and has been leading the scheme.
Mr Love said: “The agreement is widely thought to be useless as it is legally unenforceable. It fails to understand the nuances of different types of event, location and local authority.
“It seeks to impose a generic consistency when a more specific approach is required. It will also add cost to organisers seeking advice.
“Brighton and Hove City Council has come late to this and are pushing it through without real consideration of its validity.”
The council’s cabinet member for culture Birgit Miller said: “By working as a primary authority with the Events Industry Forum, we would provide a single source of advice on compliance with the nationally recognised guidance, instead of having multiple councils giving different interpretations of the rules.
“This will save money and time and give event organisers clearer, nationally consistent advice, removing the need for them to discuss the same issues with multiple local authorities – something which is particularly valuable in an industry where each event is unique, and new approaches often fall outside existing frameworks.
“This is an innovative approach. Use of a primary authority normally applies to regulations, offering businesses a single point of advice when operating across multiple council areas.
“Applying the scheme to guidance rather than legislation would be a first of its kind in the UK and is a great example of the creativity regularly shown by colleagues throughout the council.
“The agreement to progress this work was made as part of our budget planning for 2024/25. Further public consultation is planned for the coming months, and we’re keen to hear from residents and people working in the events industry.
“Importantly, this scheme would recover its costs, ensuring no additional burden on local taxpayers, while helping improve efficiencies within the events space.”
The proposal is currently awaiting approval from the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Hove MP Peter Kyle.
B & H CIty Council lol they couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery, need to get the own city in order before messing up other cities.
Purple Guide is also a core piece of documentation for every single medical cover provider for events to justify the level of medical cover required, based on a variety of considerations and risk factors. It is an important framework used to ensure medical risk is mitigated.
If this were to go ahead, I would like to understand more about the roles and expertise of the members who are providing advice.
Its not needed and the residents of Brighton and other cities with outside events will suffer and not benefit. The only people benefiting from this are event organiser of which Ian Baird is one.
The Purple Guide is definitely needed, Derek.
Ah. “The agreement to progress this work was made as part of our budget planning for 2024/25. ”
Well at least this explains the lastminute.com chaos of current BHCC events planning. All too busy working on this hairbrain scheme.
Cllr Birgit Miller really does seem incapable of the most basic due diligence.
This administration should concentrate on getting the basics right – bins, potholes, antisocial behaviour, homelessness – before embarking on wasting more taxpayers’ money.
Yes, let’s get all Councils building i360 towers.
BHCC – Share the Incompetence
But Robert, bins are a different department, roads are a different department, ASB is a different department, and housing is a different department. As an ex-candidate, I’d expect you to know this, beyond the average commenter. DM and LB did you no favours in the by-election, might be wise not follow their approach if you’re serious?
BHCC should not be allowed a voice on how to run events across the UK. All they have to offer is sleaze and incompetence. Over the last few years we have seen the council…
* Run fake ‘consultations’ where decisions are already made before they speak to residents and local businesses
* Ignore regulations and law, from noise regulations to planning permission to data protection to rights of access.
* Give away public land for pennies in secretive deals with small circles of chums who make millions
* Abuse and harass residents
We need a professional events team. The city deserves much better than this….
Once again, you have absolutely no evidence of illegality. This is the fourth time I’ve challenged you this year to substantiate your claims, not to mention the countless times over the last several years. And yet again, you show nothing other than disingenuous comments and defamation, then proceed to be abusive to the council and other members of the public during meetings when you’re called out on your unacceptable behaviour.
Ah. “The agreement to progress this work was made as part of our budget planning for 2024/25.”
So that explains why event planning for Brighton is in utter lastminute.com chaos. All the time and effort spent on this hairbrain folly. Cllr Birgit Miller seems incapable of a scrap of due diligence.
And Ian Baird should be made redundant, before he messes up Brighton’s open spaces for good.
The architect and design teams I worked with up until circa 2010, utilised the Purple Guide as the most reliable resource of Health & Safety Guidance. It was then produced and published by the Government Health and Safety Executive.
That is until David Cameron, Tory PM, decided to cut red-tape for large corporations and make it faster and easier to circumnavigate due process.
I am surprised that BHCC would even want to become a primary authority under current conditions when the entire events process seems to be planned, monitored and controlled by one individual.
Since 2022 post COVID there has been a lack of event or licensing information and when it arrives, invariably last minute, it only comes once commercial agreements have been reached.
Minimum, if any, advanced consultation from any parties. In most instances information is presented as a fait accompli. This is not a shining example of best practice.
It seems that the play for Primary Authority has followed the same path – zero consultation (with residents or the events industry), lack of due process; under the radar actions and a fait accompli announcement at the point the sign-off sits on the desk of Peter Kyle Secretary of State.
Birgit’s statement seems clear that local councillors were not consulted. If the timeline is correct 24/25 budget sign-off, Councillor Miller’s duties were being covered by colleague Mitchie Alexander – and Ian Baird reported to Chenine Bhathena, a London based highflier whose multi-million City Cultural programmes are an opposite spectrum to Brighton.
Perhaps Bhathena failed to provide adequate oversight to Ian Baird or maybe steered him into chaos. She has since moved on. Pesky residents need for sleep, enjoyment of their own homes, access to green spaces, were not going to get in the way of the commercialisation of our city.
Councillors need questions answered – how did one Officer, who has a duty to residents of Brighton and Hove, put himself in the position of committing our Council and our money to a position of Primary Authority to laud it over other County Councils when we do not have the infrastructure, means nor credibility to do so?
This is a much more interesting comment. I think there are some good questions in there, especially around process, and ensuring strategic decisions involve political scrutiny and multi-disciplinary input, such is the nature of The Purple Guide – it requires experts from various aspects, and certainly not just one person.
Thanks. This is yet another scandal which has been brewing for some time and needs full investigation. Why has one officer been given so much power and how is he using/abusing it for non-resident gain?
Careful what you wish for…
Being a Primary Authority means that a local authority take the lead on a topic and advise on how to comply with the law. In this case the primary authority is proposed to be Brighton & Hove City Council and the topic is event safety. If successful, anyone with questions or disputes about event safety, principally event organisers, council Safety Advisory Groups and licensing officers from any English or Welsh local authority will be able to obtain qualified guidance from B&HCC.
The existing examples of Primary Authority include Fire Safety, Environmental Health, Trading Standards, Workplace Health and Safety and Licensing. The primary Authority interprets and advises on compliance with the legislation covering these areas. Legislation includes Acts of Parliament and Regulations. These have been debated and scrutinised by the Commons and the Lords. They have been chewed over at length by Parliamentary Committees taking advice and guidance from specialists. And government lawyers check the final wording for ambiguities, consistency with other legislation and, as far as possible, unintended consequences arising from the wording and misinterpretation. The result is a definition of what it means to comply with the law. And even then disputes end up in the courts, usually at considerable cost for the losing side.
The Purple Guide, good and useful as it is, is guidance. It has not been through the same exhaustive process as legislation – and more to the point it does not define the law.
Birgit Miller says “Further public consultation is planned for the coming months…” On a personal note, the EIF claim to have consulted widely with the industry already. As a contributor to several sections of the Purple Guide over the last 20 years I have not been consulted and I don’t know of any colleagues who have.
This is new, and untested territory. Before committing to taking on this role, Birgit Miller and the council’s lawyers might want to take a close look at this major difference between the existing examples of Primary Authority based on legislation and this proposal with respect to the costs and liabilities they may be exposing themselves to by going ahead.
This all feels very premature and B&HCC should be careful what it wishes for.
Thank you Richard for your very experienced explanation of the impact this role could potentially have on the finances and risks therefore to BHCC and to residents. Good to gain first-hand experience that EIF has not widely consulted even its own contributors to the Purple Guide.
I fear Councillor Miller has been hoodwinked by someone who should have had her back whilst she was unwell (and stepped down) during 2024/25. Her role was covered by an over-stretched Mitchie Alexander.
Let’s hope Peter Kyle does the right thing and calls a halt to these misguided shenanighans, subject to more research, consultation with event industry and residents, due process, risk analysis and so forth.
And the Events Development Officer responsible ought to be significantly reigned in and required to step down from the EIF Board. He needs arms length distance to avoid inevitable conflicts or accusations thereof – which in itself bring BHCC into disrepute. It also answers why he has become so emboldened over the last two years, causing great upset to residents who have been hoodwinked, misled, non-consulted, and worse, insulted in public meetings. I expect the outdoor event industry feels much the same. Best practice most certainly has not been exercised
How does this benefit BHCC? It’s irrelevant to local event organisers. it’s irrelevant to residents. Why are non-Brighton based commercial event organisers being put before the needs of Brighton residents rights to the enjoyment of their own homes, sleep, well-being and access to green spaces that were designed for residents? Is Ian Baird working for the private sector events organisers or the public sector residents of BHCC? Surely it can’t be both without a conflict of interest.
A very worthy and interesting debate. But my question is, why have I not heard of any of this, when the final decision that my local taxes may be spent on is on the desk of the Secretary of State. Whatever happened to transparency and consultation?
Hmm
Who watches the watchers?
If (when) b&h ends up in a protracted and complex dispute over outdoor events management, who will *they* turn to?
Or will Ian be marking his own homework?
Let’s recall the new Fringe SpigelBeergarden 2025.
All the toliets overflowed as they had been connected to an obsolete storm drain. A marquee stake was driven through the gas main at the installation and stayed there all event
Blunders severe enough to invalidate all Public Event Indemnity insurance. Heads should roll!
Literally, why insurance exists, Tracy. 🙄
https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2025/06/17/gas-main-damaged-during-spiegelgarden-take-down/
and so many noise complaints that all the licences have had to be restricted.