The council is planning how to get around a legal ruling restricting parks being used for events for longer than four weeks at a time.
A high court judge ruled last summer that any event which used public spaces for more than 28 days per calendar year, including set up and clear-up time, would require planning permission.
Brighton and Hove City Council says it is now preparing planning applications so several city parks can be used as events spaces. It’s not yet decided whether the applications will be just for this year, or for permanent permission.
It says it will recoup the costs from event organisers through site fees.
The exact list of parks has not yet been finalised, but is likely to include most of Valley Gardens and The Level, where residents complained about not being able to use their parks last summer.
After a Brighton Fringe beer garden pitched up in the northern half of Victoria Gardens a few metres from residential front doors and opening until 2am during May, the council told residents at one of it regular outreach meetings it was clear this was not a suitable place for such an event.
According to a provision list shared with residents, the Spiegelgarden is now earmarked to be held in the southern part of Victoria Gardens next May.
That area is also earmarked for four other events over summer, leaving just nine weeks in the five months from May to September when it won’t be used.
The council said it would apply for a licences covering the whole of Valley Gardens and The Level to reduce the opening hours from the current 2am finish currently allowed on weekend nights during the May festival.
A spokeswoman for the Friends of Valley Gardens said: “Why is the council putting itself in a position where residents who don’t want these events are effectively paying for the costs of applying?
“It’s the organisers who should be putting in for planning permission. The council says they’re going to retrospectively charge the event organisers but they’ll just say the rental costs will cover those planning costs as well – but they just won’t.
“It’s gamekeeper turned poacher.
“It’s got to stop. It’s exactly the same as happened over the licence when they just knocked that through.
“If they award themselves perpetual planning permission they can do whatever the hell they like and to hell with residents. “We will lose the only space and our gardens for the entire summer.
“I don’t get how they are getting away with it.”
Councillor Birgit Miller, cabinet member for culture, said: “We are in the process of preparing planning applications for sites where the total use exceeds the 28 day limit. This will be carried out by the council with assistance from planning consultants.
“As with all our event planning, we are continuing to look at how we minimise any potential disruption caused, and how event spaces are maintained and successfully restored.
“We know this is important to our residents and we’re keen to balance this with the undoubted cultural and economic benefits which come from having such a vibrant and thriving events programme.
“We will also be making the applications for the revised Valley Gardens licences in the coming weeks.”
Glad that the council are doing this. It would be tragic if Brighton lost the outdoor events that makes it such a special and vibrant place. Not sure if the claim they are “getting round” the events ruling is strictly correct – they are simply applying for planning permission in accordance with what the ruling states.
I agree with you. I think the title is a bit of a tabloid flourish. It insinuates avoidance rather than compliance.
Something needs to pay for councils squandering of money
Perhaps the money they are spending on planning consultants could be better used for the reinstatement of the venues still suffering from the damage of their last events?
I do think that this is an abuse of the public purse and could be subject to judicial review as it is absurd and possibly ultra vires.
Nothing here is ultra vires. The ruling said “apply for planning permission if you exceed 28 days”. So the council is…applying for planning permission. That’s not an abuse of power, it’s compliance with the judgment.
The use of public funds is certainly questionable and thus could be deemed ultra vires. It seems inequitable that one side is using public funds whilst not following their own policies on saturation of drinks licences. At the very least, it is irrational and thus could be subject to judicial review.
Think it’s time for you to move to Eastbourne…
Why? Born and raised in Brighton and just want some common sense & legal rules applied to running the City.
Doubling down on your argument doesn’t make it less correct I’m afraid, Ann. It’s following the letter of the High Court ruling, and using standard practice in preparing a planning application. None of that meets the tests for ultra vires or irrationality. Judicial review can’t be used simply because someone disagrees with a policy.
I’m glad you seem to agree with me Benjamin. Using public funds to pay private consultants for something that goes against the Councils own policy is just irrational. There is no consensus for this not has there been any consultation on the issue. If an operator wishes to hold an event, they should be the ones applying for these permissions using their own money.
Ann, you’re still mixing up two separate issues. Using consultants isn’t irrational or unlawful; councils do it all the time for planning work. And applying for planning permission when the High Court says they must is simply compliance, not misconduct.
The sentence you’ve written about consensus and consultation doesn’t really make sense as written, but if your point is that there’s been no consultation, that actually happens through the planning process itself.
So again, none of this meets the threshold for irrationality or ultra vires.
Benjamin. Repeating yourself doesn’t make sense. No matter how you want to dress it. This is a cumulative impact zone and the places used to be public gardens. Indeed the council now describe them as parks or green spaces. You have agreed that my comment ” doesn’t make it less correct” then proceed to disagree with it. Where is the rationality in your argument. The council are spending money on consultants on something that they don’t have a mandate to do meanwhile closing libraries. Please explain in simple terms without appearing supercilious how this is a proper course of action.
That’s on me. I meant to say it doesn’t make is less incorrect. I thought the rest of my comments had made that clear. I’m sorry I’ve confused you. In simple terms my underlying point remains the same though: the council applying for planning permission and using consultants to do so is normal, lawful practice. Disagreeing with the priority or the policy is fair, but it does not make the process irrational or ultra vires.
A number of residents in each of the areas want events limited and won’t be happy if planning permission is given for over a month of events per year. Our taxpayer money is being used to fund planning consultants to help get planning permission. How about the residents who don’t want this? They don’t have access to taxpayer-funded consultants to make their case. Hardly a level (excuse the pun!) playing field!
If the case is simple, then events staff can apply for planning permission. If it is complex, as I think it is, then a consultation should be the way forwards with local residents listened to. The output of that would form the basis of the planning submission
This does look like our council isn’t wanting to listen to residents and is willing to spend our money to outside consultants to make sure that they win.
There was a element of the Gasworks appeal justification that struck me. Paraphrasing, just because people make a lot of noise, pardon the pun, doesn’t mean their objections are of a quality worth considering. Take some of the conspiracy we see on these comments over the years for example.
But, in countenance, it’s perfectly reasonable to ask for a balance, consideration around the noisy parts away from residential areas, limiting hours on certain days, and having clear expectations on remedial and preventative aspects so the parks don’t because damaged.
There’s nuance, and I don’t think that requires a high-paid professional. Just a logical and reasoned explanation, based in facts, reality, and evidence.
Don’t know how they are getting away with this when last yr speigelgardens kept the whole neighbourhood awake fenced off the whole of the green space and capped it off by putting a tent peg through the gas mains which kept the area closed off for further weeks !
They let the spaces out on the cheap (around 2-4x less than any other UK city) for reasons they refuse to discuss or disclose. Most events are run by the same circle of friends (linked companies through shared directorships) and get the contracts without tender. The council have refused to consult with residents and have consistently lied about the legal premise in a number of cases. All very sleazy.
You’ve claimed that conspiracy many times before over at least the last two years, and failed to produce any evidence when challenged…ever. I know for a fact they have, because we were in the same room several times, along with your partner in crime, so the question is, why are you lying?
I know quite a few bar owners who despise the Spiegel tent. Every year it sucks thousands of drinkers out of the lanes and north lane area and they always say to me when I ask why it’s suddenly so quiet what’s going on, that’s the reason.
it’s not an event the draws people in that wouldn’t otherwise be in the area.
It also makes the Brighton fringe feel a bit them and us. Instead of using a tent in a park, local venues should be used more. I’m sure they could do with the footfall.
That’s a much more reasonable take than Lev’s conspiracy, Dave. A drinking-based event is always going to potentially pull people away from their regular drinking holes. The substitution effect, I believe it’s called, if I’m remembering economics correctly!
Fringe as a whole still brings a net uplift in visitors, spend and overnight stays citywide though, we can see that in touristic data. I think you make a great point that better links and incentives for local venues might help spread the economic benefit more evenly.
So The Council are marking their own Homework by applying to themselves for approval.
Yeah, it’s a reasonable take, and certainly is easily seen like that. I guess the key point is that the application isn’t decided by the events department, it’s decided through the normal planning process with statutory consultation and an independent planning committee, and that process is public for the majority and that reasoning can be audited. Is that enough of a degree of separation though, is certainly a debate.
Why for example couldn’t the fair that takes over the Level so frequently be put in Wild Park or Hove lawns?
I have less sympathy for those complaints about the Festival although clearly last year things wemt too far for some residents.
Valley gardens not finished yet and already the council are planning to ruin it, again.
The surprising thing about this thread is that no one seems bothered that these are parks, not venues. Parks were set up in response to the need for industrial cities to have communal green spaces. There is nothing wrong with holding a fete, or a section hosting a fair, because these are brief and do not exclude anyone from the parks. Monetising the parks and using them as arenas etc excludes the community who use them. Ironically the cost of excluding the community with huge Berlin Wall like fences can then lead to pressure to extend the exclusion period to make its own cost more viable.
If the city wants outdoor events spaces, or just extra indoor space temporarily, it should provide that, not use parks.
That’s fair and well-put. Parks were absolutely created as public green space, and no one wants them fenced off all summer. But historically they’ve also hosted events, fairs and festivals for well over a century. I agree with you about a balance. Brighton doesn’t really have many dedicated outdoor event spaces, so some pressure ends up on parks by default. Getting planning permission in theory creates that balance instead of the rather loose system we’ve had until now.
The planning process is the right place to hammer out where that line sits.
All these events are attended by a bunch of noisy Airbnb crowds from out of town who cause havoc in Brighton whenever they land here. The Laine Brewery who had exclusive rights to these venues is possibly the worst tasting and overpriced beer in Brighton. Their Rippa ale is more accurately described as Rip Off.
Here’s a thought why not use Black Rock to host these events.. It is an open space without many nearby residents and after all the improvements to the roads that have been made by BHCC surely it is fully accessible.
Please tell your councillors before Cabinet meeting in January