Controversial Takeaway Voucher Claims Spark Council Investigation in Brighton
Allegations of Bribery in Planning Application Process
Brighton faces a new investigation. The council now looks into claims that a landlord gave takeaway vouchers to tenants. The vouchers were for making good comments about a planning change. The claim starts with WSE Property Services Ltd. John and Holly Wright run this group. The council saw comments on its website about changing a family home on Eastbrook Road into a five-bedroom house for up to six tenants.
Previous Application History
WSE Property Services has tried twice to change the property. The first try came in March last year and was soon taken back. The second try has 43 objections and nine supporting remarks on the council website. Local people feel strong about the change.
Eyewitness Allegations
Some people, who claim to be tenants, wrote anonymous remarks. They say John Wright spoke with them. He asked them to write good remarks in exchange for takeaway vouchers. One remark says that evidence is ready if the council asks.
The council system hides names. This raises worries. Some say that hidden names can allow biased views if linked remarks go unchecked.
Calls for Council Accountability
Chris Ward, the Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven, wrote to the council. He fears the process may be at risk. He asks that the issue be looked into quickly and with care.
Labour councillor Liz Loughran, who leads the Planning Committee, made similar points. She said the council needs honest feedback during planning. She noted that planning remarks help shape the final decision. She made clear that planning is not simply a vote.
Public Impact of the Proposal
The debate shows worry about the effect of shared houses on the community. Some residents mention problems with parking and stress on pipes and waste systems.
On the other side, some back the change. They say that more housing is needed for students at the nearby Performers College. They claim that without nearby homes, students must travel far, which weakens their study time.
Conclusion
Brighton and Hove City Council now inspects claims of bribery tied to the planning change for a shared house in Portslade. What comes next could shape future plans by the developer and the trust in the planning process. This case acts as a strong warning about the need for clear and fair steps in local work. For those who think about shared houses, it is wise to check local rules and watch how council work stays fair.
