Meeting report. A Green Beacon: How to deliver Climate Compatible Development in Brighton and Hove
This meeting was held on 12 June 2025, at the Brighthelm Centre in Brighton. The purpose was to launch and interrogate the Climate:Change Briefing Paper on climate compatible development in Brighton and Hove (here). The speakers are listed above. Audio recordings are available at the end.
Simon Maxwell introduced the discussion, reminding the audience that Climate:Change was an independent and non-partisan think-tank, not a platform for campaigning. He made three points to frame the discussion. First, citing Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, that growth is not just an addition of sameness, but rather about change and transformation. De-growth, an alternative some favoured, would also entail change. Second, that a climate compatible outcome is not guaranteed. The Green Beacon outcome is one in which incomes rise, inequality is reduced, emissions fall, and resilience increases. However, other outomes are possible: ‘green retreat’, ‘green stagnation’, or ‘worst of all worlds’. Finally, it was worth thinking about the place of Brighton and Hove in the national conversation: what was our ‘offer’, and what was our ‘ask’? Simon’s Powerpoint is here.
Dirk Willem te Velde developed these themes. His Powerpoint is here. He addressed three issues:
Economic development & the Green Transition: what can we learn from the global literature on growth and economic transformation?
The economy of Brighton & Hove: now and planned; and
Becoming a Green Beacon.
On the first theme, Dirk introduced the idea of ‘transformation’ rather than just ‘growth’, raising productivity in both existing and new sectors, and prioritising the development of self-reinforcing business ‘clusters’. There were market and non-market frameworks for achieving this, often competing, but also providing a rich list of possible approaches. Dirk stressed the need for a combination of ‘menus’, ‘ingredients’, and ‘chefs’, in other words, having the right combination of strategies, policy instruments and, importantly, leadership. Growth, he emphasised, and as the Briefing Paper explored in more detail, need not be at the expense of the environment: indeed, green innovation could be at the heart of transformation.
On the second point, Dirk provided data to show that Brighton and Hove was a service-oriented economy, both growing and with rising productivity, the latter linked to the growth of financial services. Territorial emissions were falling, and the City had below average consumption emissions. It was currently a £10bn economy, with a population of 280,000. It was not unreasonable, given housing targets and continued modest growth, for the City to have a population of 400,000 by 2040, with an economy worth £20bn. Could this be managed in a way which contributed to the Green Beacon objective?
Brighton and Hove’s Economic Plan, reviewed in the Briefing Paper, had several positive features. Dirk cited particularly: the idea of capitalising on our digital competitive advantage; decarbonising and creating a more regenerative economy; welcoming outside investment; and building new knowledge partnerships. Building an inclusive labour market was also important if inequality was to fall in a Green Beacon future.
All this left the City with work to do. Building high productivity clusters was a priority. Dirk also emphasized the potential of the green transition as a source of jobs and inclusion. He wondered whether Brighton and Hove needed a Green Growth Board.
Opening the discussion, Sambit Bhattacharyya reiterated Dirk’s important conclusion that economic development and sustainability need not compete. There was potential for growth and environmental improvement in all Brighton and Hove’s key sectors: hospitality, entertainment, health, financial services, housing and construction, education, and so on. He emphasized particularly the scope for productivity-enhancing technical change, including by using artificial intelligence. There should be a ‘smart’ dimension in all these areas. Scientific innovation at the University of Sussex in the field of quantum computing could provide Brighton and Hove with a major opportunity for growth.
Gavin Stewart celebrated the dynamism of the Brighton and Hove business community, and also the environmental and circular economy priorities of the Economic Plan. However, he also emphasized the difficult business environment, with businesses very much focused on keeping their businesses going in the face of rising taxes and labour market costs, skills shortages, high office costs, and issues like the need to improve the attractiveness of the City. He pointed out that Brighton and Hove was generally a low wage economy, with a very small high productivity element: financial services, for example, were mainly in the area of back-office functions, rather than the higher value areas. House prices were high, graduate retention in the City was low, and although Brighton and Hove had a good record on business start-ups, the failure rate was also high. In these circumstances, climate action was not often seen as a priority by business: it had to be packaged carefully with other priorities.
Ana Christie made complementary points. The Sussex Chamber had great involvement with businesses engaged in international trade, as well as others. Trade was invaluable in building companies and in learning how to improve productivity. Problems frequently cited were barriers to trade, high costs of energy, high tax, and the cost of the rising living wage. Businesses also complained about the lack of talent, about planning constraints, and about the need for more investment in infrastructure. There were, however, opportunities for businesses to diversify and grow, She referenced particularly the opportunities provided by post-Brexit Free Trade Agreements, and new partnerships, for example on IT-related businesses with the Singapore Chamber. Climate and environment were obviously high priority issues, but had to be managed carefully, for example in relation to the power needs of new data centres.
There was a wide-ranging discussion, focused on the idea of a £20bn green economy by 2040, as well as the practical question, ‘what do we do on Monday morning?’. Among the points made:
The importance of being ‘purposeful about place’ i.e. encouraging more attention by all the Brighton and Hove stakeholders to the future of the City.
The need for more debate about the desirability of a resource-intensive growth model for Brighton. Would it be better instead to focus on a smaller, lower consumption, regenerative alternative?
In this connection, the importance of the circular economy, and the City’s new, revised action plan.
Inequality and low wages as an over-riding problem in the City. Any climate compatible model had to keep reducing inequality as a firm objective. Community wealth building options should be on the agenda, especially in lower income communities.
Beyond that, however, Brighton and Hove needed to recognize the value and contribution of its communities, and many voluntary groups.
The shortage and high cost of housing as a major constraint on development, not just social housing, but housing generally. In some cities, high housing costs were matched by high incomes. This was not the case in Brighton and Hove, where expensive housing co-existed with relatively low incomes. The housing targets imposed by central Government would be hard to reach in a City bounded by the sea and the national park, especially with local objections to high rise.
If the City were to grow, transport connections would need radical improvement, perhaps with a rapid transit system, or park and ride. Pedestrianisation should also be encouraged. A consultation had been launched
Tourism was a problematic sector, with large numbers of single day visitors, who spent little, and fewer people staying for longer and spending more. How could the sector be upgraded, and be made more sustainable in the process?
The need to attract private investment, for example to renew the arches on Marine Drive.
What were some practical options given especially the ambition, but also the likely paucity of central Government funding? Some were suggested: the rapid transit system, as noted; building out from science and technology research at the Universities; community wealth-building programmes; skills development, especially in relation to the green transition; well-planned housing development (also drawing on the Government’s new investment nationally in social housing) . . . Was there also scope for ambitious, large projects? A Guggenheim-type art gallery? An ice rink? A new concert hall? A new business park?
Jacob Taylor responded to the discussion. He was sympathetic to the idea of climate compatible development, and recognised the need for change. He gave high priority to inequality and social inclusion, and the need to deliver more social housing. He insisted, however, that the City did not need more plans and strategies, but rather a focus on implementation and delivery. He welcomed the opportunity to work with stakeholders in the room and across the City.
Closing the meeting, Simon thanked participants for their constructive contributions, and the panel for leading the discussion.
____________
Simon Maxwell
Simon Maxwell
Dirk Willem te Velde
Sambit Bhattacharyya
Gavin Stewart
Ana Christie
Jacob Taylor