£200 charge for an interview on the seafront

It's something I occasionally do when I need time to think.

But the sea air also does wonders for inspiration - and this particular walk helped me formulate the idea for these few words.

No harm in that.

Except, of course, providing this fact did not fall across the desk of a particular stern, po-faced bureaucrat in Brighton and Hove City Council.

That's because somebody in the authority's events office decided last month that a journalist doing work on the seafront should actually pay £200 for the privilege.

It all dates back to an agreement signed off by councillors last year.

Prompted by the large number of film and television crews coming down to the city and using its public spaces as a backdrop, the local authority drew up plans to introduce charges for commercial filming.

The aim was to cover the cost of administrating things such as road closures, permission forms and navigating elf 'n' safety guidelines.

When council budgets are becoming squeezed like a Seville Orange, not many would argue against that.

But there was a caveat - that those filming things related to news, current affairs, the weather and "anything that contributes to boosting the city's tourism economy" should be spared the fee.

Quite then why somebody thought a journalist for a national newspaper should be charged the equivalent of a day's salary for conducting an interview on the beach is anyone's guess.

It was only when an article was published this week that the issue came to light.

Thankfully the general view has been that the official's take on things was wrong - it was put down to a simple "misinterpretation" of the guidelines.

But the negative publicity to the council and the city as a whole has been extensive.

Quite why the Guardian journalist felt the need to ask permission in the first place I do not know - most of the fourth estate would simply just get on with what they needed to do.

But the fallout hardly does much for the city's image as a friendly liberal place where free-thinking and doing is encouraged.

It also raises a spotlight on the transformation our town halls are going through.

With the cuts to spending of recent years, councils are now at a crossroads.

It's clear that they no longer have the money to do everything they used to.

And so, choices have to be made about what sort of role they have to play in wider society.

Some, such as Barnet, have adopted the "easy council" approach, where basic services are provided and if residents want any more then they have to pay for it.

Others, such as the "John Lewis council" in Lambeth, have asked residents for help in running some of its business.

Most have also adopted a more commercial approach to things, introducing charges for "non-essential services"- such as obtaining permission to film on public land - previously offered for free.

I've got no beef with that.

But getting people who've worked in the public sector all their lives to try to think like a business is like asking a mouse to start chasing cats - it's illogical, difficult and will often result in them getting eaten alive.

Regardless of the branding, the underlying theme is that councils will no longer be bodies which hold everything under lock and key; they are becoming more like public guardians.

Like all good parental figures, they need to learn to take a step back. Once they do, then things will flourish.

And it should only intervene when it sees something going drastically off-course.

An exact case in point is the proposal to ban smoking from parks and open spaces.

At the minute it's just a consultation.

But if introduced this will have a positive impact on tens of thousands of people across the city.

Sure, a handful of pig-headed people might have the hump.

But they should take their head out of the smoke and realise that their nasty habit is an irritant, not just to themselves but to others around them.

It's not cool, it's not clever and it's completely selfish.

Every time they blow smoke in the air, someone sat nearby is suffering as they breathe in the remnants of their five minutes of pleasure.

I'd go a step further too and ban it from public streets too. And cars. And especially while people are supposed to be at work. In fact I'd ban it from everywhere except people's homes and private social clubs.

It's not just the health benefits either; it's the littering too, with cigarette buts and packaging strewn across places where people want to enjoy themselves.

Even on my short seafront walk which inspired this column, I encountered more than a dozen people sparking up on the beach.

To all those smokers, here's a short message - it's nasty, it's disgusting, and it should be saved for when you are in your own home away from everyone else.

And if anyone should be charged £200 for doing their business on the seafront, it should be you.