Independent councillors criticised the council’s proposed toilet tax on the seafront and roadworks in front of the Palace Pier where the Aquarium roundabout is being removed as the budget was set.
Councillor Peter Atkinson said that the 50p charge would not only prove unpopular but was “simply wrong”.
His former party, Labour, proposed the charge for “high traffic” public toilets on the seafront, with a view to bringing in £70,000 a year although that doesn’t include the associated costs.
Councillor Atkinson said that he had read a great deal online debate on the topic, with some citing the toilet tax in Eastbourne.
The North Portslade councillor did not believe that Brighton and Hove should do something wrong just because it was being done elsewhere.
He said: “The equality impact assessment on this proposal focuses mainly on young and disabled people.
“But, as has been mentioned by groups such as the Older People’s Council, this will hit elderly people just as much. And being a gentleman of a certain age, I totally agree with that concern.”
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Bridget Fishleigh, who represents Rottingdean and West Saltdean, arrived late for the council’s annual budget council meeting at Hove Town Hall yesterday (Thursday 26 February).
She said that her bus was delayed in a traffic jam on the A259 seafront road caused by the final phase of the Valley Gardens project, which involves replacing the Aquarium roundabout with a T-junction and traffic lights.
Councillor Fishleigh said: “It’s very hard explaining to residents why their council tax is going up when they know that the chaos of Valley Gardens was partially funded by a £5 million loan that has to be paid back, with interest, of course, and £1.8 million of council money that could and should have been spent on improving roads.”
Councillor Fishleigh also highlighted missed rubbish collections in her ward. At a council meeting last month, she said that she had champagne on ice ready for the day when there were no complaints from residents about missed collections. It’s still on ice, she said.
Her fellow Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Mark Earthey, who also represents Rottingdean and West Saltdean, raised concerns about the amount held by the council in financial reserves.
He accepted the need to borrow £15 million from the government – in exceptional financial support – to top up reserves to £12 million, as recommended by Brighton and Hove City Council’s external auditors.
He said: “We calculate that a reserve fund of nearer £18 million is required, larger than the number put forward by the external auditors and Councillor Taylor.”
But Councillor Earthey said that the root of the financial challenges were “demographic and macroeconomic trends” with an ageing baby-boomer population, poverty and homelessness.
One focus of the Labour deputy leader Jacob Taylor in the budget for 2026-27 was a plan to spend about £113 million on new homes for people on the council’s waiting list and in temporary housing.
The aim is to reduce the £20 million cost of short-term emergency and temporary housing.
Councillor Earthey said: “We have few short-term options to increase the supply of temporary accommodation.
“While the exit of private landlords may allow us to transfer more capacity in from the private sector, it doesn’t actually increase total capacity.”
The council’s £1 billion budget was voted through, with a 4.99 per cent council tax increase, of which 2 per cent is ring-fenced for adult social care.
The average band D property in Brighton and Hove will face a £2,579.44 council tax bill, of which £281.91 goes to the Sussex police and crime commissioner and £117.49 to East Sussex Fire Authority.
My question to the Council which I believe many Council Tax payers would ask is “Are we receiving value for our payments?” My view is no, money appears to be squandered on virtu signalling projects!
There’s a very clear focus on housing in this budget. Many are going to want to see the successful delivery of this intention.
Who are the “many” you reference, and is this the view of Brighton and Hove City Council who you are obviously employed by?
This may come as a surprise to you, but many people live in Brighton & Hove, and it doesn’t just consist of your bubble. Jokes aside, we can start with all those on the waiting list, those in inappropriate housing situations such as overoccupancy, those who believe in social justice, Labour & Greens Party Members, and anyone who complains or experiences homelessness. Many people.
Imagine trying to argue against the most basic of human needs…weird.
Benjamin, no one is arguing against housing as a basic human need. The question is whether this specific strategy, at this scale and cost, is the best and most financially responsible way to meet that need in Brighton & Hove.
Committing £113 million is a huge capital outlay for Brighton & Hove City Council, especially in a year when it is also borrowing to shore up reserves. Residents are entitled to ask whether this level of spending exposes the council to financial risk if build costs rise, projects are delayed, or projected savings on temporary accommodation don’t materialise as expected.
It’s also reasonable to question opportunity cost. Every pound tied up in long-term housing development is a pound not available for road maintenance, waste collection reliability, adult social care pressures, or keeping council tax increases down. Not everyone who lives here is on the waiting list, and many struggling households just above eligibility thresholds won’t directly benefit from new council homes but will still pay higher taxes.
Support for housing investment certainly exists among members of the Labour Party and the Green Party of England and Wales, and among those in acute housing need. But that doesn’t automatically mean there is a consensus on scale, funding method, or delivery model. Some residents may prefer a stronger partnership approach with housing associations, planning reform to unlock supply more broadly, or tighter financial safeguards before major borrowing.
So the debate isn’t “housing vs. no housing.” It’s about proportionality, financial resilience, delivery credibility, and whether this plan truly represents the best balance of priorities for the whole city.
Again, GPT is constructing a position I didn’t actually take. And for the third time this week, I really want you to consider not relying so much on AI to generate a comment verbatim, but as a tool to enhance your own thoughts and elevate them.
Brighton and Hove is now just business fronts for drug dealers, If you have been here a while you quickly see any new genuine small businesses go under to be replaced by empty building or vape shop/barber shop that is fully kitted out but never has a single customer or any deliveries of stock (yet somehow manage to cover the rent and rates). The crack pipes and bongs in the shop windows on western road are just out in the open on display, what message is there to the young people in the city when the only people succeeding here are drug dealing. Tourists used to come to B+H because of the small indie businesses and start ups here, now they will be lucky to find anything different to any other town. The council talks about a few hundred houses here and there for distribution but why is it if you look for a full premises on air bnb on any given day in this same area you will see hundreds of aparently empty whole apartments. I wonder if the owners of those air bnbs are paying anything additional to the councils budget because they are costing them a lot more than your average 9-5 worker who resides here.