Pride Village Party is to move from St James’s Street to Marine Parade this year because of safety concerns and complaints from residents.
Venues in St James’s Street and George Street are unhappy they will potentially miss out on their most lucrative weekend of the year as a result.
The council says they will be offered the chance to participate in the Marine Parade area – but it’s not yet been decided how.
An email from Ian Baird, seen by Brighton and Hove News, says: “It has become clear from these meetings that Brighton and Hove City Council can not continue to allow the full closure and fencing of a large number of residential properties in confidence that we have the popular support to do so.
“As such we are going to have to make a change. We are also clear that, in consultation with other statutory authorities, we cannot in good conscience entertain the return to a full open access event in the area as the potential risk profile of such action is too high.
“In order to address these issues and still be sure to mark the really significant role that Kemptown has in the history and development of the LGBTQ+ community in Brighton, the council in partnership with Brighton and Hove Pride CIC is proposing a limited street party that will encompass a number of seafront venues and stretch to New Steine Gardens along Marine Parade.
“While this footprint does bring the event away from St James Street, all venues within the Kemptown area will be contacted to participate in the new footprint. The scale and detail of this offer will be developed in consultation with those venues in the coming weeks.”
Some venues have been in touch with Robert Brown, who was the Liberal Democrat candidate for Kemptown in 2023’s council elections. They told him the news was given to seafront bars at a private meeting with Brighton and Pride yesterday, to which they were not invited.
He said: “Many LGBT+ businesses outside of the ‘seafront’ will be furious as it means they may lose the majority of earnings for the year. They were not invited to the meeting where this was announced and as such have found out third hand
“Pulling the street party off St James’s Street will not work as hundreds will still congregate in that area as that is where our venues are located. You will then be left with the situation where police may find themselves being forced to move people on, causing additional issues.
“What is being suggested in a no-win for everyone concerned and a serious rethink needs to take place.”
Councillor Birgit Miller, cabinet member for culture and tourism, explained: “Pride is an integral part of Brighton and Hove’s identity. While most residents celebrate and recognise the benefits Pride brings to the city, there were mixed views around access, safety and locals feeling excluded.
“As a result, we have adapted this year’s event, putting residents’ needs at the forefront and supporting our local businesses.
“Some of the changes are major, and over the coming weeks we will be working closely with Brighton and Hove Pride CiC to communicate with residents and businesses.
“We will also be monitoring the feedback to help make future decisions on the shape and scale of the event.”
Pride Village Party began as an unofficial event on the Sunday of Pride weekend in St James’s Street but after tens of thousands of people started regularly attending, Brighton and Hove Pride took over organising it, charging an entry fee, in 2014.
Residents were initially posted free wristbands through their door so they could access their homes over the weekend – but by last year, these were restricted to four per household, and had to be collected at specific times and locations.
The legality of preventing people from freely accessing their own properties has been challenged by some residents and businesses.
This is a ridiculous decision.
The street was closed off in the first place to restrict numbers because of safety concerns with unrestricted access.
This decision means the return to those dangerous days.
Why would someone pay for a wristband to enter Marine Parade when for free you will just be able to go to St James’s Street?
I appreciate that some residents and businesses had issues with access and disruption but do they really want to leave the streets previously closed off to be left open with no extra toilets etc available to the crowds that will undoubtedly congregate there? Were they asked about this?
And it’s all very well ‘offering the chance’ for venues to set up bars on Marine Parade but that increases their costs because they won’t have their venue available to store stock and provide a rest space to their staff and so on.
I am concerned about safety, too. Martin’s Law is an important consideration here too, and I am unsure if this has been the case, with it being very new legislation.
This is a knee jerk reaction from the council in response to a small vocal nimby group of residents.
A council that will do anything to avoid criticism in order to further the career of certain individuals.
It will clearly backfire, with people gravitating to St. James Street anyway, as they have traditionally done. What you take with one hand you will give back with the other.
To be fair, the arrangements were illegal, and even this council has to abide by the law sometimes!
When was the street party / residents issue declared illegal?
Please cite the relavant court case.
Just because some people belive it doesn’t make it so.
*relevant (sp)
Hmm, it became ilegal the moment a public highway was closed and an entrance fee charged. Read up on the highway laws.
The Road Traffic Regulation Act (1984) details the reasons why it can be closed. It also explains that highway authorities may permit third parties to charge for access to an event. So, unfortunately, your legal assertion is incorrect.
Important not to get caught up in confirmation bias!
I’d love to be in a cauldron of nwver ending debauchery.
Please post where we can find that!!
Highways, which include footpaths, bridleways, restricted byways and byways open to all traffic, are protected by legislation under the Highways Act 1980. Every Highway authority has a duty, set out under section 130 of the Highways Act 1980, to:
assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the highway authority, including any roadside waste that forms part of it, and to
prevent, as far as possible, the stopping up or obstruction of the highways [in their area].
Road closures for events is one thing, charging for entering a public street is something different.
The Road Traffic Regulation Act (1984) details the reasons why it can be closed. It also explains that highway authorities may permit third parties to charge for access to an event. So, unfortunately, your legal assertion is incorrect.
No, they weren’t Lev. I’ve seen you rebutted on this with the actual wording of the law several times over the past several years. Why do you continue to choose to disingenuously ignore factual information? Trying to score a free holiday?
Benjamin, it’s really not clear whether putting restrictions on people being able to access premises – i.e. visiting homes and businesses – is legal. This very similar case in Manchester suggests there’s very differing views on it, and if residents were to take the council to judicial review on it, I certainly wouldn’t like to confidently state which way it would go:
https://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/lgbt/30082014-did-manchester-city-council-and-pride-act-outside-the-law-over-gay-village-access-during-big-weekend/
After your confident assertions about the ACV regulations were proved wrong, I thought you might be a bit more wary about stating what’s legal and what isn’t?
Respectfully Jo, my legal understanding on the requirements of updating the ACV list, and notification requirements remains correct.
What had been clarified through discussion was that that it hadn’t been updated until it was challenged, information which I didn’t read properly on your article.
I will continue to confidently express my understanding of the law, and others will confidently express theirs, and we will have discussion around it – and we all become a bit more informed
‘The Road Traffic Regulation Act (1984) details the reasons why it can be closed. It also explains that highway authorities may permit third parties to charge for access to an event. So, unfortunately, your legal assertion is incorrect.’
Of course you’re correct to quote RTRA, however I quoted the regulations 1980 in relation to closing of footpaths. As I said, closing a road is one thing, charging MOP to enter a public highway/Footpath is another.
A residential area is not considered a public space like Preston Park, therefore a grey area in the charging of fees.
It’s an interesting point. Closing of roads and footpaths being two separate aspects in law does complicate things. Might do a little bit of case law reading to see if this has ever come up.
They should ban the whole thing – it’s outgrown itself and the meaning has been lost.. what was once a family-friendly and nice event has been ruined by many hissy-fitting individuals that seem to want to descend in to a chaotic cauldron of never ending debauchery
Didn’t realise that chaotic cauldrons of never-ending debauchery were illegal, Andrew? Is “I don’t like it” a good enough argument?
Dreadful decision by the Council which will result in chaos on St.James’s Street and surrounding roads.
Even during Covid when Pride was cancelled, thousands of people arrived on SJS and it was carnage for the bars. This decision is a stupid move to end the LGBT+ part of the awful music festival Pride has become.
I don’t want to pay to see bad lip syncing from Mariah and mates, I want to be with ACTUAL LGBT+ people and celebrate with them. The park is now just a blown up festival and has buggerall to do with Pride.
Bars on SJS can’t afford to run 2 separate venues – their actual premises and an outdoor bar on Marine Parade. It will mean no access to their venue’s stored stock if there’s a problem.
This is a blatant attempt to shutdown the Village Party by causing as much disruption as possible.
Follow through on your thought process, because it sounds conspiracist. What possible reason would anyone have to attempt to shut down the Village Party by causing as much disruption as possible?
Great news. Most residents are just sick of this event. It has grown too big and is too intrusive. Businesses affected should get the best positions on the seafront but people in the area don’t want to live in a live entertainment venue. The way they treated residents by hemming them in with this event and expecting them to queue for hours to get passes was simply too much.
For a long time now Brighton Pride has been little more than yet another music festival. It’s lost all of its LGBTQ+ identity and stands for absolutely nothing. In recent years I’ve been to a couple of smaller events around the country (Bournemouth & Cardiff) and it was beautiful to actually spend time celebrating with my own people for once. Brighton Pride is no different these days to when the football is on, just a bunch of coked up straight people binge drinking & trashing the city. It’s grown out of control and even us LGBTQ+ people are getting sick of how it’s run.
Always the straight people ruining everything, LGBTQ+ people don’t drink, do drugs, piss & vomit in the streets or drop litter right?
Of course we do, but straight people rocking up to Pride and treating it as a piss up is a LARGE part of the problem. Anyone who has been to it will tell you this.
I don’t get your point, lots of LGBTQ+ just rock up and treat it as piss up or an excuse to do as many drugs as possible too, especially the younger generations.
I think the point is supposed to be that it doesn’t matter who you are, your origins, and your preferences. The point is that everyone can get together and have a good time. Surely that’s a good thing right?
Wow.
Wasn’t pride started because of the want for equality and inclusion?
You don’t seem to be at all inclusive in your views.
well said its 1 weekend a year its going to be such a nightmare why pay to go into a reduced sized area when u can go to a street for free its such a shame im a local in the area and we bare it for 1 weekend a year and to be honest we even have started to enjoy it but there is the odd few people that do spoil it for others but why ruin it for all the whole lgtbq+ has been victimised over these as pride weekend just doesn’t benefit them it brings out more people to celebrate the amount of revenue that is going to be a shame as pride weekend brings in a lot to the city what a shame just due to some haters Brighton is well known for its pride heritage again what a shame
Went to last year’s Brighton pride for the weekend and to see my daughter flourish in her environment for the first time was lovely to see.
But even she doesn’t want to go this year due to them choosing to have Miss Frosty this year and the tickets have doubled in price.
Went on Brighton pride Facebook and all they could talk about was Miss Frosty and what tiers they could get for there tickets so it’s going to be empty from lunchtime onwards until she comes on stage so loads of revenue is going to be lost!
If they had kept the drunk straights out in the first place it wouldn’t have become such a problem. Unfortunately that’s what we have to accept if we want “equality”. But you’re deluded if you think you’re going to be able to stand on St James Street with buses going past every few minutes. Unfortunately the street party has become a victim of its own success and this will be the death of it. We didn’t stay long last year as it no longer feels safe with that many people in such a small place.
Ah, so it’s ‘drunk straights’ is it? Is everyone else there sticking to soft drinks?
I am deeply disappointed by the dangerous proposal to keep St James’s Street open during Pride. I have made my concerns clear to councillors and city leaders, and tonight I secured an ally MP to submit parliamentary questions on the issue.
We all want the Pride street party to improve—to change for the better. I attended the consultations, and at no point was this proposal suggested by residents of businesses – its was presented at the last meeting and roundly condemned. Residents and businesses have been left shocked and alarmed.
I see three major issues:
1. Public safety and terrorism risk – Keeping the street open to traffic while it is filled with intoxicated people is inherently dangerous. More alarmingly, we have seen terrorist attacks in recent years where vehicles have been used to target high-profile street events. This is why protective bollards have always been in place at the street party. Removing them makes us a target.
2. Crowd control – With no security in place and the largest crowds expected since Kylie, there is a serious risk of dangerous overcrowding. Without proper measures, we could see crush incidents.
3. Environmental health and clean-up – No toilets or clean-up provisions have been proposed, despite large numbers of people still expected to gather in the area. In previous years, a lack of facilities led to serious hygiene issues.
Tonight, I have explored the option of the community itself applying to close the road—not for ticketing or outdoor stages, but purely for public safety. We would need agreement from 66% of residents and businesses, as well as a fund for clean-up costs, which I believe many businesses would support. If you would like to help, please contact me via Facebook or email lloyd@russell-moyle.co.uk.
I have raised key questions with the cabinet member responsible and have been offered a meeting. I will await their response, but I want to be fully prepared.
I am assuming the police will just close the road to anyone arriving for Pride. So normal shoppers let through and the rest diverted to Madeira Drive. That way everyone wins. No terrorist attack and residents won’t get charged a bandit fee for entering their own homes. The police have experience. If this isn’t the case and St James street turns into a dangerous party zone then the next step will be to look at really scaling back Pride in 2026.
Hmm, I don’t often agree with you Lloyd and to be honest, glad you’re no longer my MP…
But on your three concerns.
1. I agree with you on this one to a point.
2. Crowd control, agreed.
3. Environmental health and clean-up, always a problem year on year so no different, perhaps the fees charged should be spent on providing toilets don’t you think.
Lloyd, I wonder if you have considered whether the new Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 that came into Royal Accent last month will be a useful discussion point to have?
I never understood how closing off public streets for paid events was legal. Back to the good old days of free open access and not being forced to pay pride prices for every drink. If people prefer the more controlled option with restricted numbers then they can go to the seafront and anyone that isn’t worried about that can go to St James Street. They should probably divert the buses though!
they should just keep everyone in preston park and make it the pride village and have all club and bar just have tents for parties
it solve both problem of traffic and security as it already close during the day
The problem with the St James’s St street party is that it’s a victim of its own success – and now oversubscribed by Pride weekend party goers.
St james’s St is a mixture of retail outlets, cafes, supermarkets, and bars, and it’s unfair to let the bars dominate with a drinking weekend. At the same time, many of those bars would not be there the rest of the year, were it not for their Pride weekend take.
The residents of nearby flats and houses also need to be listened to. I have lived with that party area myself, and I was grateful my flat was on the fringes, so I didn’t have to suffer the noise that some people did.
(I would however congratulate Pride on how quickly they tidy up the area, so the disruption IS only two days and evenings of the year.)
With the above in mind, I can see why the council want to restrict the party to the seafront, because there are fewer people to be affected. Several of the biggest gay bars already overlook that seafront road, and that’s the biggest area to set up outdoor bars, stalls, and to bring in extra loos.
The suggested compromise for the St James’s St bars is that they set up stalls on the seafront, to trade from there. But if course that is not the same, and they would require duplicate staff and extra technology to keep beer cold. This plan also stops the St James’s St bars from having their own stage areas – and normally there are two or three of those, usually running a programme of drag cabaret. It’s having those stages that keeps the street party atmosphere a ‘more gay’ one.
The additional issue with this new plan is that St James’s St remains open as usual, and the obvious flaw in that proposal is that it’s still Pride weekend. So you’ll have a security issue in an area that is no longer fenced off. Plus those not wanting to pay to get in the seafront street party will just mob St James’s street as usual.
Pride keeps its unique feel if we whoopsies still feel safe, even when our straight friends join in. So the mix of people, and the security issues, are fundamental for the success of this weekend.
This whole issue needs a rethink, and the bar owners certainly need consulting if we want them to survive the recession they are already facing.
It’s a really good point Billy. Over two venues, even if one is now becoming informal, is going to cause a much greater stretch of resources to cover a wider area. Either way, a comprehensive review of how this lands after the event will be very useful.
Excellent news for the residents that are routinely denied access to their own homes. The management of this event only have themselves to blame.
Stop making things up, Chris. No one has ever been denied access to their home.
To be fair Billy, there was one instance where someone was delayed in getting into their home two years ago. They had also partaken of the festivities quite heavily allegedly, so he wasn’t being particularly coherent in articulating his address. Very self-inflicted situation, you can imagine.
Basically, venue security is doing its job in protecting people. Guy was inconvenienced, but wasn’t denied. I imagine it would have been easier if he didn’t drink to excess.