Subject:
Honorary Freedom of the City
Date of meeting: 10 July 2025
Report of:
Elizabeth Culbert, Director Governance & Law
(Monitoring
Officer)
Contact Officer:
Victoria Simpson, Senior Lawyer – Corporate
Law
Victoria.Simpson@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Ward(s) affected: All
For general release
1.
Purpose of the report and policy
context
1.1
This Report describes the powers the Council has
to award the honorary Freedom of the City and recommends that
Council formally approves the policy attached at Appendix
1.
1.2
Publication of a transparent and clear policy
which explains how the Freedom of the City can be nominated to
aligns with the Council Plan priority to ensure our services are
easy to access, that customers are kept informed and that their
view are listened to.
2.
Recommendations
2.1 That the Council
approve the Policy attached as Appendix 1 with immediate
effect.
3.
Context and background information
3.1 The award of the
Freedom of the City is an honorary one, which local authorities may
choose to award to those people who, in the opinion of the Council,
have rendered eminent service to the council or the
city.
3.2 The legal framework
which provides for the award of the Freedom of the City is outlined
in paragraph 8 below. The framework gives Councils leeway to
determine their own selection process and to make such appointments
to this honorary award as they see fit.
3.3 Brighton & Hove
City Council’s existing arrangements have been in place since
2012. A list of former recipients is attached as Appendix 2. There
is currently not a published policy in place which clearly sets out
the criteria for the award and the award has therefore been managed
on an ad hoc and reactive basis.
3.4 Officers have
therefore explored options for making the process for nominating
someone for this award more inclusive and transparent, as a means
of acknowledging a more diverse range of people who have made a
significant contribution to this city. This report is the outcome
of that work
A Policy which encourages an inclusive approach
3.5 As noted above, the legislation which
governs this award is silent on how nominees might be selected. As
a result, local authorities are free to exercise their discretion
as they see fit.
3.6 The criteria included in the updated
Policy aim to encourage consideration not just of reputational
impact but also the actual contribution made by nominees to the
people of this city: a contribution which could involve (for
instance) improving the lives of residents day to day. The
suggested wording aims to be as wide as possible to recognise those
with a local connections whose achievements may provide others with
inspiration and/or enhance perceptions of this city.
3.7 It is proposed that
the process by which nominations for this award may be made is
published and clearly sets out how
residents and other stakeholders may make nominations for
consideration by filling in a single form. Information about this
will be published on the Council’s website – including
the deadlines for nominations.
4.
Analysis and
consideration of alternative options
4.1
The Council’s only statutory means of recognising services or
significant contributions to the city is that of conferring the
Freedom of the City. For this reason, no alternative options have
been considered.
5.
Community engagement and consultation
5.1
Consideration of community engagement is at the heart of this
proposal, which seeks to open up the process for awarding the
Freedom of the City so that nominations can be made by anyone and
everyone can understand and access the process and criteria.
Leaders Group has been consulted on the proposal, with the draft
policy shared for comment.
6.
Conclusion
6.1
Conferring the honour of Freedom of the City has
potential to be a means of acknowledging key contributions made by
residents and stakeholders of the city across any number of
spheres. This proposed update to the Council’s approach aims
to open up its potential as a tool for acknowledging achievement,
in a way which provides inspiration for the future.
7.
Financial implications
7.1
There are no direct financial implications arising
from this report. The costs arising from the award of this title is
expected to be met from within existing resources.
Name of finance officer consulted: Haley Woollard
Date consulted: 26/06/25
8.
Legal implications
8.1
Section
249 (5) The Local Government Act 1972 (as amended by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009) enables the councils of cities to confer the status of honorary freeman/freewoman on "(a) persons of distinction and (b) persons who have, in the opinion of the council, rendered eminent services to the local area”. The award of the title of Honorary Freeman must be
approved by a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the
Members voting at a meeting of the council specially convened for
the purpose. The Freedom of the City confers no rights: while it is the highest honour a
Council may award, it is largely of symbolic importance.
Name of lawyer consulted: Victoria Simpson Date consulted:
12/06/2025
9.
Risk implications
9.1
The only risk identified is the potential
reputational risk of the Council conferring the Freedom of the City
on a person who is subsequently found to have acted in a way which
is inconsistent with the Council’s values. This risk is
considered likely to manifest only rarely, and where it does arise
then a mechanism exists for revoking the honour.
10.
Equalities implications
10.1
The Freedom of the City is a civic honour that can
be granted by the Council on deserving recipients and has in the
past been awarded sparingly to maintain the significance of the
award. It is recognised that the way in which the Freedom of the
City has been awarded historically was not as inclusive at it
should have been, as a policy, criteria and timescales were not
published on the Council’s website. The proposed arrangements
aim to allow for an approach which is more inclusive, including in
relation to how nominations may be made.
11.
Sustainability implications
11.1
There are no sustainability implications arising
from the report.
12.
Other Implications
12.1
No other significant implications have been identified as
arising from the report.
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Policy on awarding the honorary title of
Freedom of the City
Appendix 2 – List of past recipients of the title