Subject: Deputations from members of the public
Date of meeting: 18 December 2025
A period of not more than fifteen minutes shall be allowed at each ordinary meeting of the Council for the hearing of deputations from members of the public. Each deputation may be heard for a maximum of five minutes following which one Member of the council, nominated by the mayor, may speak in response. It shall then be moved by the mayor and voted on without discussion that the spokesperson for the deputation be thanked for attending and its subject matter noted.
Notification that three deputations have been received. The spokesperson is entitled to speak for 5 minutes.
1. Filming in the City
Supported by:
Jo Whitehead
Ali Halliday
Callum Morrison
Robert Ellwood
Janet Smith
Joe Sweeney
Amelia Rowe
Summary of Deputation:
In the last week of July parking suspension signs were put in place in Springfield Road suspending parking from 4th to 9th August. The suspension reason was stated as “filming”. On further investigation via questions to the council website, I was unable to gather any more information. My ward Councillors were not aware of any plans.
During the week of 4th to 9th August, myself and my neighbours were kept awake every night by “filming”. Multiple large vehicles with several people loading and unloading equipment all night. People talking, lights, reversing alarms at 3am onwards and parking on double yellow lines. Stretches of road were bollarded off so residents couldn’t park, and security guards were there all day. Filming was undertaken throughout the afternoon, blocking off pavements, making us walk in the road and completely invading our privacy.
Despite many e mails to the Council and Councillors, the only response I had was from my own, excellent, ward Councillors Hill and West. The former who posed a question to committee on 13th October 2025. The response:
We have clear guidance for night filming to minimise impact, including:
No lighting into windows: Keeping noise to a minimum when not filming: Positioning equipment away from homes or securing agreement with
residents: Ensuring respectful behaviour from all crew, including security and marshals
Production companies must consult residents in person, usually by door
knocking and logging concerns. We stay in close contact with them to ensure
issues are addressed. Multiple letter drops are also required to keep residents
informed.
None of the above happened. There was no consultation, information or any respect shown to residents of Springfield Road. We didn’t sleep for a week and were not allowed to park in the spaces we paid for via our permits.
Councillor Miller continued on 13th October that Brighton & Hove is proud to be a film-friendly city and that Filming brings economic and cultural benefits, we work hard to balance supporting creative industries with protecting residents’ wellbeing.
I am asking - 1. Why there was no consultation with Residents? 2. How can a Council protect residents wellbeing if it does not monitor and ensure the filming companies follow its stated council guidance and rules? 3. In the absence of consultation and monitoring, by what lawful authority did the council stop residents parking in their own parking bays to accommodate a private enterprise? 4. In the absence of consultation and monitoring by what lawful authority did the council sanction a night nuisance when it is an enforcement authority entrusted with preventing public nuisance?
The lack of policy enforcement of the council is clearly working against residents’ rights, and I would ask you to review and revise in the light of this occurrence. I would also like residents affected to have part refunds on their parking permits from the money the filming company obviously paid for our parking spaces. Springfield road residents deserve compensation for a week of no sleep, no privacy, no parking and no consultation.
2. Brighton & Hove Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles
Supported by:
Kevin Thomas
Mohammed Shahjahan Ahmed
Mejanoor Rahman
Fazlul Haque
Robin Oram
Salif Alam
Summary of Deputation:
Brighton and Hove licensed drivers are integral to the infrastructure and economy of Brighton and Hove. Since the Covid lockdown the number of licensed drivers has reduced in the region of 40%. The most significant cause of this is economic. Drivers have been hit by a 'double whammy' of rising costs and the huge influx of Out of Town (OOTs) private hire vehicle licensed by other Local Authorities diluting the income of BHCC vehicles.
Predominantly these are vehicles licensed by either Lewes or Chichester but also Portsmouth, Havant and other LAs on the South Coast. These vehicles will mostly be working for Uber facilitated by the deregulation of cross border operation.
Whilst there are moves nationally to reverse this deregulation the GMB seeks the support of BHCC for its drivers now.
Practical steps would include: -
- Restricting use of Bus Lanes to Taxis and BHCC licensed Private Hire Vehicles
- Enforcement of 'ranking' regulations against OOTs
- Requirement of Operators to provide transparency of fares to both drivers and customers of all prepaid journeys similar to that applied in several cities in USA (i.e. both driver and customer know what the customer is paying and how much the driver will receive).
- Home to School Transport - application of Blue Book standards to all taxis and PHs tendering for this work.
- Duty of Care for night-time workers
- Clarification of Red Route regulations
This is not an exhaustive list but would be best addressed by meeting with the various departments impacting on our members.
We request this is arranged at the earliest opportunity before the end of January 2026.
3. Lack of Maintenance Budget for Major/Planned Works on Sylvan Hall Estate
Supported by:
Catherine Eden
Hugh Barney Miller
Christopher Ferguson
Alessandra De Santis
Janice Tilley
Alexandra Paterson
Ailsa McWhinnie
Aurelie Elder
Kelly Wilson
Abigail Smith
Katie Knight
Cleo Dibb
Summary of Deputation:
This deputation is addressed to the council administration. Sylvan Hall Estate is currently undergoing planned and major works, which include roof and window replacement, repair of main front and back doors to buildings, cavity wall and loft insulation and concrete and masonry repairs. We have been informed by council officers that there is no maintenance budget for these works once they have been completed; only responsive repairs will be carried out. This means, for example, that no gutter cleaning will be carried out as part of routine maintenance.
Residents on the estate find this unacceptable, and have noted the damage that lack of routine maintenance has caused to buildings on the estate throughout the years. Gutters have been left uncleaned and have eventually fallen off on several blocks on the estate, with ensuing damage to the brickwork and increased risk of dampness in the buildings. There have been failings in the responsive repair approach also, as even when gutters have eventually fallen off, they are not necessarily replaced/repaired. This has notably happened at the Lindens, along with other blocks. Please see the attached photographs to this deputation.
The dangers of the responsive repair approach have also been shown with regard to windows. Last year, SHRA requested an emergency inspection of all windows on the estate, following several windows falling out. This is a clear risk to life. Initially, council officers said that individual residents would have to approach them for windows to be inspected, in line with the responsive repair approach. After several months, the council finally agreed to offer a more general maintenance inspection, which revealed several unsafe windows – some of which actually fell out during the inspection process.
We have significant concerns over cavity wall insulation being carried out without a maintenance programme being in place. The Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency (CIGA) regulate cavity wall insulation in the UK. In a 2020 Times article, CIGA state: “The terms of the guarantee stipulate that the home owner should maintain their property to ensure the cavity wall insulation remains effective. Damage to the property due to lack of maintenance or poorly installed renovations can invalidate the guarantee.” Willows residents have already had black mould issues from recent cavity wall insulation installation.
The council leaseholder handbook states at paragraph 4.2: “The council is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure, exterior and shared parts of your block of flats.” Residents on the estate feel that this statement is, to say the least, misleading if the council has no maintenance budget.
Supporting Information:
Sylvan Hall Residents Association would like to ask the following questions:
1. Do the council feel that they are acting reasonably, responsibly and in accordance with the leaseholder handbook by having no maintenance budget for major/planned works?
2. Reference has been made by council officers to potential 2030 legislation which may oblige the council to carry out cavity wall insulation. What is this legislation?
3. Cavity wall insulation has already been carried out at the Willows and Maple House as part of planned works. Was the lack of planned maintenance discussed with installers before agreeing to go ahead with the installation at the Willows and Maple House? What was the installers’ response?
4. Cavity wall insulation is planned to be carried out in the blocks undergoing major works. Has/will the lack of planned maintenance be discussed with cavity wall insulation installers before going ahead with the installations?
5. Can the council seek a response from an industry body such as CIGA as to the general advisability of cavity wall insulation being carried out without a maintenance plan being in place?
6. Can the council commit to an annual gutter cleaning programme on Sylvan Hall Estate?
7. Can the council commit to regular windows maintenance inspections on Sylvan Hall Estate when windows are reaching the end of their serviceable lives?
