A business owner has cast doubt on the legality of the Pride Village Party road closures and wristband scheme.

Catherine Lane quoted senior Department for Transport (DfT) civil servants saying that a similar scheme in Manchester fell foul of the law.

The issue came to light at a Brighton and Hove City Council meeting at Hove Town Hall. At the council’s Culture, Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Economic Development Committee, she said: “During the Pride Village Party in 2023, tourists entering any guest accommodation business in a large area of Kemp Town where the event took place were forced to pay for a ticket to allow them to enter the properties in which they were staying.

“Residents were also forced to pay for a ticket if they wanted to have more than three adults enter their properties during the three days of this event.

MOST READ:

“If this event is recurring in 2024 could the committee confirm if they expect this ticket/toll charge to be allowed and, if so, by what legal authority would Brighton and Hove City Council be allowing this charge?”

Labour councillor Alan Robins, who chairs the committee, said: “We have powers under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 section 21 to put in place road closures for events such as the Pride Village Party.

“The wristband scheme was introduced a few years ago following significant safety concerns with over 40,000 attendees coming to the St James’s Street area with little or no management control.

“This represented a severe risk to public safety and also represented an insurmountable challenge to emergency services.

“We consider both the Pride Village Party road closures and the wristband scheme to be proportionate, reasoned and justified – and therefore lawful.

“Under our agreement with Pride, residents and business owners are given the opportunity to receive free access to the Pride Village Party area through the wristband scheme.

“However, visitors to the city can be charged for the wristbands.

“The detail of how the wristband scheme is managed with regard to residents and businesses – including local visitor accommodation providers – is a matter for Pride but will form part of the ongoing reviews of the Pride celebrations in the city.”

Catherine Lane said: “I’ve seen the legislation you’ve quoted. Are you aware of the exact law because I have a letter from the head of the Department for Transport national casework team that says the law is unambiguous on this matter?

“The orders you mention cannot be made if any such order shall be made with respect to any road which would have the effect of preventing at any time access for pedestrians to any premises situated on or adjacent to the road or to any other premises accessible for pedestrians from and only from the road.

“Manchester Pride were told not to do this. I have a document from the Department for Transport saying this is illegal.”

Elizabeth Culbert, assistant director, legal a democratic Services, said: “It would be really helpful if you could send that in.

“We do have clear advice in relation to the Town Police Clauses Act distinguishing it from other powers that other authorities may have used in the past which may not have had the same ability to charge.

“So we are confident in relation to these proposals but we are also very interested to see what you’ve got and to have a conversation.”

What the law says

The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 section 21 is headed: “Power to prevent obstructions in streets during public processions, etc.”

Section 21 says: “The commissioners may from time to time make orders for the route to be observed by all carts, carriages, horses, and persons, and for preventing obstruction of streets, within the limits of the special act, in all times of public processions, rejoicings, or illuminations, and in any case when the streets are thronged or liable to be obstructed, and may also give directions to the constables for keeping order and preventing any obstruction of the streets in the neighbourhood of theatres and other places of public resort, and every wilful breach of any such order shall be deemed a separate offence against this act.”

The DfT said that the relevant law was the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 section 16(9) which says: “No … order shall be made with respect to any road which would have the effect of preventing at any time access for pedestrians to any premises situated on or adjacent to the road or to any other premises accessible for pedestrians from and only from the road.”

A DfT letter headed “Road closures for Manchester Pride”, dated Thursday 21 August 2014, said: “This legislative requirement is not ambiguous. It means pedestrians wishing to access premises that can only be accessed from the restricted roads must be granted entry to those roads.

“While the TRO (traffic regulation order) … may have included the intention to close roads to pedestrians not wearing a wristband or carrying resident accreditation, this goes beyond the powers available to them.

In relation to Manchester Pride, the DfT letter said: “The third party organiser officials are required to allow pedestrians to enter the restricted area to enter premises that can only be accessed from those roads.

“Should access to the area be restricted on safety grounds, this should apply to all pedestrians regardless of whether they present wristbands, resident accreditation or neither.

“There is no provision within the act or TRO to support a ‘two-tier’ system of entry.”