Night time Brighton – an investment or a disgrace?

From reports of residents installing security gates across alley entrances to stop revellers urinating in gardens to abandoned high heels on the route back to the station, the night time economy of Brighton is always up for debate. The Chamber’s recent Big Debate took a look at whether Brighton really is the Sodom and Gomorrah of the UK or if our reputation is built of stronger stuff.

Hosted at City College, Brighton & Hove and chaired by Rob Shepherd from Press Dispensary Ltd, the debate’s motion was: “This house believes that Brighton’s night time economy is tarnishing the city’s brand” - a motion that itself caused debate over whether Brighton even had a specific brand and what that brand really meant for its citizens.

Millions invested in Brighton’s night-time economy
Rob Shepherd started proceedings by asking us all to vote with our feet – moving around the room, those Against the motion were in the majority for the rest of the night.  Rob then opened with some astonishing statistics from Visit Brighton’s 2011 Economic Impact Assessment report:

• Over 7 million day trips were made to Brighton and Hove;
• Nearly £1 billion of turnover including expenditure made directly by tourists and indirectly on goods and services purchased by friends and family who visitors were either staying with or visiting, as well as second homes;
• Over 1 million staying trips;

All this in a city with a resident population of around 273,000 people.

So, the impact of the visitor economy and therefore the night-time economy can’t be ignored but is it all good or bad was the question the Debate speakers moved on to.

What to do about ‘front-loading’?
First up was Andy Winter from the Brighton Housing Trust, speaking in favour of the motion. Andy acknowledged the massive investment in tourism and leisure that’s happened in the city in the past ten years and the diversity of current tourism options, including the Brighton Festival and the Festival Fringe. He also pointed to the intellectual growth of the city and quoted Evan Davies who described the City’s economy as an
‘Ideaopolis’ with many great ideas being spawned from local businesses and the local universities. However, Andy went on to note the growth of alcohol fuelled anti-social behaviour and asked the audience to think about the victims of the night-time economy – victims of sexual assault, violence, drug rape and robbery. Andy brought up ‘front-loading’, in other words, getting drunk before you even set foot in a pub or nightclub through cheap supermarket alcohol which he likened to “bucket shops”. He noted that these visitors’ spending power is limited and alcohol driven. Andy finished with two powerful comments from his blog including a mum’s account of the harassment of her and her young daughter on an evening visit to Brighton.

Reduction in crime
Arguing against the motion was Nigel Liddell from the Business Crime Reduction Partnership. His speech hinged on three areas: brand; perception; and legislation. Nigel asked us to really think about the brand of the city and if it’s an intangible notion. Regarding perception and, specifically the perception of lots of ‘hens and stags’ crammed in to the city, Nigel noted that they’re all walking around as they can’t get in to the pubs and clubs as those establishments now as we have a well regulated night-time economy. Quoting a 22% reduction in public place violent crime since 2007, Nigel stated that West Street was no longer  ‘worst street in Sussex’ so is it all just perception? Nigel rounded off his speech by looking at legislation with the smoking ban and the change in licensing laws and questioned how we can tackle the rise in alcohol related health issues and noise nuisances.

What exactly is a ‘party house’?
It was interesting to hear a business owner’s take on the motion, especially one in charge of a hotel. Justin Manning, from the Queen’s Hotel, was for the motion and surmised that front-loading was one of the biggest problems as supermarkets and off licenses do not have the same duty of care to their customers, with regards to the sale of alcohol that pubs and clubs have. Justin questioned where the extra funding has come from to police the new problem area of East Street and questioned the validity of so-called “party houses”. His understanding is that many of these “party houses” are correctly licensed and clearly run to a correct set of guidelines, and suspects that all the problems arise from unlicensed ones. As there were a number of hen and stag hosting companies and holiday home business owners in the audience, the issue of what a party house actually constitutes took over the debate for some time.

How to help those in need
The final speaker was Ian Chisnall from Street Pastors. Speaking against the motion, Ian noted that the Cumulative Impact Zone has had some effect. He also pointed out that the issue of front-loading is a debate to be sought at a national level with the issue of minimum pricing. Ian spoke about the work of the Street Pastors, from handing out lollipops to clubbers, to flip-flops to those young women who have abandoned the aforementioned high heels. Ian voted for ‘reclaiming our streets’ and this phrase was hotly debated by some of us after the debate, for example, White Night was a great example of reclaiming the night-time streets but has been cancelled this year due to funding problems and, many of us felt, was tarnished last year by the behaviour of drunk young people.

Tolerance is the key?
Opening up the debate to the audience created more for and against discussions around ‘party houses’ with the majority agreeing that the business owners present ran very well regulated houses and event companies and that the few ‘bad eggs’ were to blame for the scourge of the ‘party house’.  A very pertinent speech came from Umit Ozturk, from MerNet (Mediterranean Resources Network), who noted that we shouldn’t forget the forgotten victims of the night-time economy, the night-time workers who are often earning money to send back to their home country as well as trying to support themselves in the UK and who are often the first line of abuse from night-time visitors.

Rachel McCaffery, from Green Case Consulting, pushed for tolerance and pointed out that these are national problems, not just Brighton’s. She and others noted that we have a very diverse nightlife so people do have options of how they spend their Saturday night. Lynette Lowndes from International HIV/AIDS Alliance also argued for balance but did point out that there’s nowhere to go for a coffee after 6pm! (as a regular café customer, I can attest to that – where is our late night café culture beyond a couple of cafes?).

Partnership working for a safe and vibrant night-time Brighton
Discussions came up several times about alcohol related anti-social behaviour and drink/drug related health issues and how to make sure those areas are looked at while still encouraging what is an exciting and vibrant nightlife. What became clear from the debate was that there’s no magic answer to how to have a safe and vibrant night-time economy but here’s what I took away from the debate:

• Problems caused by alcohol and drugs are being dealt with by some very admirable services, including Safe Space and business partnerships with the police;
• There’s still more work to be done with regard to these problems but alcohol and drug related behavioural problems are also a national issue, not just a local one;
• Brighton has a wide variety of choices for nightlife and should continue to advertise its vibrant nightlife as part of the city brand;
• And, finally, that businesses in Brighton will continue to work together with the public and voluntary services to ensure that everyone has a safe and enjoyable night out in Brighton & Hove.

By Susan B. Bentley, Comms with a Conscience