Opposition councillors said that they had been kept in the dark about a number of key licensing matters since Brighton and Hove City Council set up its cabinet two years ago.
They no longer received the formerly routine and regular details of enforcement action taken against cabbies, for example, or information about premises licences reviews.
Complaints about a “lack of transparency” linked to the switch from decision-making by committees to decision-making by cabinet have prompted a U-turn from the council.
One councillor said that it was important, not least because the Licensing Committee was a statutory committee – one that the law required the council to have.
The Licensing Act says that the council, as a licensing authority, must appoint 10 to 15 members to the committee and those members are required to take certain decisions.
At Hove Town Hall on Thursday 18 June, the committee met for the first time since last November – to discuss just one brief four-page report. The meeting lasted less than 10 minutes.
Green councillor Ollie Sykes took the opportunity to ask why members were receiving so little information.
He said that a meeting scheduled to take place in February had been cancelled because of a “lack of agenda items”.
Councillor Sykes said: “We no longer seem to be considering important regulatory matters that previously came to this committee such as updates on hackney carriage and private hire enforcement and monitoring, what’s happening in reviews and appeals concerning licensed premises – last seen in March 2023 – and not least the licensing authority’s annual report which we haven’t seen since June 2024.”
Later, he said: “I asked the question at the meeting today about what’s happened to these reports.
“Our concern is that this is another example of the difficulty even councillors have accessing information and a general lack of openness in this administration. We look forward to getting some answers.”
Independent councillor Samer Bagaeen said: “We cannot have a statutory committee meeting without a single item on the agenda when it has not met since November 2025.
“It’s not acceptable and careless on behalf of this administration which is not taking this seriously. Something is going on.”
Conservative councillor Ivan Lyons said: “We are still awaiting the 2025 annual report and there has been no hackney carriage and private hire enforcement report since October 2022 or any update on recent appeals.
“We may be in the last throes of this Labour administration but businesses and daily lives continue.”
The council said that the reports were no longer part of the committee’s work on the advice of officials.
But after the issue was raised at the meeting last week, Labour councillor Andrei Czolak, the new chair of the Licensing Committee, agreed to look into the lack of reports – and the position changed.
The council said: “The requirement to bring reports to committee were changed in 2023 following discussions with council officers and were not formally included in the committee work programme.
“Extensive consultation with the taxi trade did continue, including the Taxi Forum, which opposition councillors are invited to attend.
“A comprehensive report was also published following the review of the council’s statement of licensing policy.
“Having revisited this decision – and taking into account LGA (Local Government Association) guidance – these reports will be taken to future licensing committees.”
Green councillor Kerry Pickett said: “Opposition councillors welcome the news that annual reports covering hackney carriage and private hire enforcement and monitoring, among others, will once again be heard by the Brighton and Hove City Council Licensing Committee.
“The realisation that such reports had been quietly abolished was shocking, showing a lack of respect for the concerns of taxi drivers within the city, as well as a lack of transparency around process.
“The Licensing Committee is a cross-party board of councillors and it is essential that we are all party to all information related to licensing.
“Finally, we would like to question as to why it was thought necessary to abandon these reports and whose decision was it to do so?”
