The prospect of an elected mayor for the whole of Sussex could move a step closer this week.
The government is expected to tell a number of councils that they will be part of a “priority programme” for devolution.
Brighton and Hove City Council submitted an expression of interest in the priority programme earlier this month jointly with East Sussex County Council and West Sussex County Council.
If successful, they could be given funding towards the costs of setting up a new Sussex-wide strategic authority led by an elected mayor.
And the proposed strategic authority for Sussex could take responsibility for some of the biggest political decisions as early as May next year – on an “accelerated time-frame”.
If the mayor and strategic authority are given the go ahead, it looks likely that the borough and district councils across Sussex will be scrapped in favour of bigger “unitary” councils.
Brighton and Hove City Council, which is already a unitary, has a smaller population than the ideal number – about 500,000 – indicated by the government in a policy document known as a “white paper”.
As a result, Brighton and Hove may have to merge with one or more of its neighbours or, despite having a population of fewer than 300,000, could be left as it is.
The latest news emerged at a meeting of Greater Brighton Economic Board today (Tuesday 28 January) when Brighton and Hove City Council leader Bella Sankey gave members an update.
Councillor Sankey said that she expected to hear the government’s decision by the end of the week.
She said that the English devolution white paper empowered local government, enhanced autonomy and allowed regions to tailor policies to their own needs.
She said: “This board was of course born from the city deal in 2014, which was a form of devolution.
“As this new devolution chapter evolves, this board will keep a close eye on developments in Sussex and work to support collaboration to drive economic growth which is part of our mandate.”
The board is made up of seven councils – Adur, Arun, Brighton and Hove, Crawley, Lewes, Mid Sussex and Worthing – as well as the South Downs National Park Authority.
Other members include Sussex University, Brighton University and the Chichester College Group, NHS Sussex, the Brighton and Hove Economic Partnership and the Adur and Worthing Business Partnership.
After a brief formal meeting of the Greater Brighton Economic Board at the Marine Workshops, in Newhaven, this morning, members met informally to discuss the potential effects of devolution on the board.
In a government “white paper” on devolution, a number of areas were identified where new strategic authorities could be expected to drive growth and shape public services.
The list, which may expand, includes
• Transport and local infrastructure
• Skills and employment support
• Housing and strategic planning
• Economic development and regeneration
• Environment and climate change
• Health, wellbeing and public service reform
• Public safety
One might ask why this time around there is not a referendum on a subject which brings many questions.
Would the mayor be a political figure? In any case, how could such a person magic the claimed effects? What happens to local mayors? With whom would Hove and Brighton further merge as their population is just over half of the required number expected of an authority which would a part of all this?
There are so many questions about this that one must question how, in the meanwhile, Hove and Brighton can deal with the prospect of such further large-scale matters as would be a part of a pan-Sussex remit.
The other Metro Mayors all came into existence with our a referendum. Only the Mayor of London & GLA were approved by a referendum
Where there have been referenda it has been for an executive Mayor of an individual council see for example Liverpool City Council.
As an elected MetromMayor of course they would be a political figure.
Where a council remains in existence then their civic mayors also remain. Civic Mayors don’t have any executive powers.
Whilst for example Greater Manchester and Tees Valley have executive Mayors all the local councils within those areas still have their own Mayors. Andy Burnham is Mayor of Greater Manchester. He’s not the Mayor of Manchester City Council or Salford or Trafford councils – they still have their own,
As to anything else perhaps we should best wait until the government makes it’s decisions and announcements. But when other metro mayors were created there was no change to the underlying councils. The 5 boroughts that form the Tees Valley Combined Authority still exist with their own councillors and powers.
Just what we need, another layer of clueless people wasting taxpayers money.
I was under the impression the number of layers would be reduced, or is the rhetoric another disguise for what comes next ??
No, you’re right Stan. Some discussions appear to be around centralising some services where it makes sense to do so, reducing layers.
Does highlight to me the need to clearly communicate. The difference in knowledge about the subject creates narrative that aren’t based on any facts or reality, which isn’t helpful for informed discussion.
Every single district council opposes the fast track, the majority of Labour councillors and MPs across sussex oppose delaying elections. The LibDems (4 MPs) and Greens oppose the delaying of elections and fast track as do many Torys.
Maybe this should be reported not just puff pieces about it.
Most want devolution but if we get it wrong it will kill growth in our area for a generation.
Interesting, thanks Lloyd – the article gives no sense of the politics of this. I think the proposals in the white paper look mainly sensible, but agree, why the rush? (Labour seem generally determined to go at things at too high a pace, and are making errors as a result – one need only look to the current B&H schools proposals for another example.)
A decision this major requires a Sussex-wide referendum.
No taxation without representation.
I certainly agree there needs to be good communication about what devolution actually means in real terms. I’d gently suggest that unless you are specifically interested in the topic, most people are not informed about it in any real detail, not to mention how this could look is very varied.
The devil is in the details.
Just another layer of expensive government. We need less not more. Vote was strongly against it last time now it is being forced on us.
That was for an elected, executive Mayor of the city council.
This is a totally different position.
… demonstrating how easily it is to misunderstand the concept.
The problem here, after 20 years of cuts and poor management decisions at national and local levels, is that trust in government is at an all time low.
So this is not the time for such a major change.
If voters have no say in this then it just adds to the pile of things that seem so negative right now.
And they are running out of other people’s money to waste.
As long as the multiple layers get reduced and a serious overall management comes into effect then the costs of all these mini empires should be less, too many council authorities in Sussex, 320 + I believe, and all of them desperate to hang onto bygone days of being in control of little or nothing, mainly basic interference at best, cut them down like the deadwood they are.
I’m glad that the various councillors get to have a say on this, rather than us the residents. In my opinion these new “mega” councils will just mean even more council tax expense and therefore even more money for them to waste on our behalf.
No public consultation! And just like the calamitous i360 any councillor that votes in favour will not be around to clear up the mess!
However, unlike the i360, devolution has happened many times before, so there is a reliable evidence base to pull knowledge from in regards to what works well, and what doesn’t work well.
Personally, I find this more convincing than Steve down the pub having a say – although I recognise allowing that discussion to happen is also important to people on balance.