Almost all the costs of creating an elected mayor for Sussex and making big changes to councils will have to be paid for by local taxpayers, according to a new report.
The government pledged to provide “capacity funding” but a report to members of Brighton and Hove City Council gave an indication of how little help the council will receive.
A report to the council’s Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee said that the council was one of 21 local authorities that would receive £7.6 million between them.
The average – just over £360,000 for each local authority – is dwarfed by the costs estimated by the consultancy PwC in a 2020 report for the County Councils Network.
At that time, PwC said that the same sort of reforms would cost 25 counties about £400 million – or an average of £16 million each.
The same report forecast potential savings of £2.9 billion over five years – or just over £23 million a year in each county area. Much of the savings would come from job cuts, targeting duplication.
The report to the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee said: “There will be significant financial implications for Brighton and Hove City Council as a result of both local government reorganisation and devolution.”
The report also included the government’s response to a request for financial support: “We expect that areas will be able to meet transition costs over time from existing budgets.”
The government called for “the flexible use of capital receipts” – or the money made by selling assets – to support “transformation and invest-to-save projects”.
In the council report, devolution refers to the creation of an elected mayor for Sussex, supported by a “mayoral strategic authority”.
Local government reorganisation refers to the proposed scrapping of county council and district councils to be replaced by unitary councils like Brighton and Hove City Council.
The government wants the new unitary councils to serve a population of at least 500,000, sticking to existing district boundaries where possible. This would mean three new unitary councils to serve Sussex.
Brighton and Hove has a population of almost 280,000. West Sussex has a population of just over 880,000 and East Sussex about 555,000. Overall, Sussex has more than 1.7 million people.
East Sussex County Council and the five districts in East Sussex have proposed becoming one of the new unitaries and would match the size proposed by the government in its devolution “white paper”.
Brighton and Hove City Council proposed splitting Sussex into five unitary areas while remaining open to changes around its edges – such as absorbing the eastern half of Saltdean and possibly Peacehaven and even Newhaven.
A public consultation also gave some support to Southwick and even Shoreham coming into the Brighton and Hove council area. People in Worthing appeared less keen on the prospect of joining Brighton and Hove.
But Worthing has a population of about 113,000 and Adur, including Southwick and Shoreham, serves about 64,500 people.
To complicate matters, Crawley Borough Council recently proposed joining forces with a local authority in Surrey – Reigate and Banstead Borough Council – focused around Gatwick.
There is still a great deal to be decided in a short time and ministers want councils to work together to come up with proposals that they all support – a big ask!
The report to Brighton and Hove City Council’s Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee reported feedback from the government and noted that population size is only one factor, with local identity also important.
But, according to the report, the government said: “Unitary local government must be the right size to achieve efficiencies.”
The government also said: “It would be helpful to see … which option best delivers value for money for council taxpayers … total borrowing and debt servicing costs and what options may be available for rationalisation of potentially saleable assets.”
The report to the council’s Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee also outlined the timescale for communications and consultations and legal changes, leading to a mayoral election next May.
Shadow unitary councils would be elected a year later, in May 2027, with the existing councils being scrapped and the new unitary councils taking over formally in 2028.
Much remains to be discussed and decided – most of it out of the public gaze despite the goal in the white paper last autumn of “improving accountability and scrutiny” – and ensuring “transparency of decision-making”.
But the council’s Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee will have the chance to air some of the issues. It is due to meet at 4pm on Thursday (5 June) at Hove Town Hall. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast.
This really is change for changes sake and smacks of a deflection tactic by Labour nationally and locally.
What local authorities actually need is to be properly funded, they have seen funding cuts for years and years. Rather than committing to addressing the impact this has had Labour’s answer is to twiddle with boundaries and present it as if it will improve local decision making. The reality in Sussex though is that decision making will be made in ways which don’t reflect different areas uniqueness, as it is sounding likely that Brighton and Hove council will have to merge with Shoreham, Saltdean or Lewes (or possibly all) so on paper it’s the size that will meet the government’s criteria. This will actually dilute local voices an ‘localism’.
Rather than pushing through this change that nobody seems to really want and no one asked for, Labour should concentrate on just properly funding public services. That would help no end rather than this distracting and costly exercise for bureaucratic purposes.
All this change and public expense with no public consent or referendum. With NO proof it will improve anything for Brighton and Hove residents. Monstrous.
I can see this directly leading to an early national election. Mr Starmer’s ratings are falling like a stone, particularly among his former fans.
No proof would be if it hasn’t happened anywhere else before. You want to try that again, Mike?
I think that most councils are already hard pushed to deliver services as they are. Consolidating businesses to realise savings in terms of salary bills only works if staff are underutilised. Arguably some savings might be made at the higher level of seniority but not at ground level. I just don’t see the savings being spoken about. It rather seems like a case of the consultants making the desired answer fit a solution.
It’s a pretty astute point regarding savings, the cost and savings are going to be a difficult aspect to argue against, and is definitely going to lean people one way. Collective bargaining and regionwide departments is where I think we’d see the most on that front.
I think we have to look at the pros and cons holistically though, there are also benefits there that are not as easy to quantify, and qualitative reasons that forms a more long-term planning and strategy. But, I also find myself keeping coming back to we need more detail.
Locally, I think the choice of if this should be done was realistically taken out of our hands by national government, and it seems like the local authorities have done their best to ensure they have control of the how as much as possible.
There is more work to be done.
It’s an interesting point and part of the issue with the proposals is you’re unlikely to see any realistic savings as local authorities struggle to recruit as it is for day-to-day staff. You’ll also see the number of staff increase as councils merge so simply cutting back office will lead to more work put on fewer people.
The current restructuring at Brighton Council has led to payouts to senior members of staff in the six figures. They are then replaced with interims on day rates as the jobs still need doing. I understand a few interims are currently paid £1,000 a day which is hardly value for money.
I dont believe inherently reducing the amount of council is a bad thing but they barely function as it is. It is lack of proper funding which is the main issue and these proposals don’t address that.
Funding is definitely a concern, even as is right now. Councils having to do more with less is going to be even more difficult when considering devolution as well. It’s a really good point.
Staff will reduce as duplication is taken out, W. Sussex has 166 council and parish authorities, 90% of that is the equivalent of junk mail
We really should be given a vote on these sorts of changes. It’s to Labour’s eternal shame that either they don’t have confidence in the merits of what they’re proposing or they don’t trust the people.
These changes will take decisions further away from the people they affect. Those taking the decisions will have less local knowledge as they end up running a bigger area.
We will be taxed more too. And time, energy and focus will be spent by public servants jockeying for jobs in the new organisations and angling for pay-offs from the current ones.
They’d be better off spending that time, energy and focus on tackling the many current shortcomings. And that way, those pay-offs wouldn’t be needed.
You did have a vote for it. Very clearly in the manifesto for the election.
You state people will have less knowledge because less local. Are you therefore suggesting that Westminster is more local than Sussex?
Labour councillors said a lot in their manifesto they’ve u-turned on though – so whether or not they mentioned devolution in their manifesto they definitely aren’t living up to their “Labour will Listen” promises, or many others!
They said they would: “keep our schools open wherever possible” – yet so far they’ve closed St Bart’s, St Peter’s, St Jospeh’s and also Bright Start nursery.
They promised: “better rubbish collections” – yet missed collections have skyrocketed and are something like 140% up. The situation was so bad that last week national media were covering the diabolical situation in the city.
They said “we won’t return to the use of harmful glyphosates” yet that’s exactly what they’ve done.
They promised “a real person on the phone” yet the council’s phone lines haven’t been working properly for about a month now
They also said things it seems just weren’t true – like “all of your Labour councillors will be residents who understand the challenges of inequality in our city. We live alongside you…” Anyone remember the Leicester Two saga just months after the election!! With Labour pushing through harmful cuts impacting on pensioners and disabled people and the language the Prime Minister has used on immigration has been appalling too and makes clear Labour don’t seem to have any handle on the understanding inequality but of that manifesto line. Or worse, they do understand but are happy to go ahead and allow such harmful policies to go through.
That’s just a short snippet.
Let’s cut through the noise here.
Chloe’s comment is long on outrage, and short on truth. Yes, Labour’s made tough decisions; that’s what happens when you inherit a decade of underfunding, broken systems, and falling school rolls.
School closures? Driven by a 22% drop in under-5s across the city. You can’t keep half-empty schools open with no pupils.
Rubbish collections? Labour’s tackling long-standing issues from contracts signed years ago. They’ve increased staffing and brought in new kit: no one’s pretending it’s fixed overnight, but it’s moving.
Glyphosate? Paused, reviewed, trialled alternatives, and returned in limited use where needed. That’s called evidence-based policy.
Council phone lines? Everyone agrees it’s frustrating… and being fixed. Pretending it’s a broken promise instead of a technical failure is just dishonest.
Might be better to stop twisting facts, and start engaging with reality.
It’s undemocratic. Don’t forget Bella Sankey’s outrage when Sunak’s Tory Government pushed for closer working between Brighton and Hove and West Sussex. And now she’s fawning over Starmer and Rayner as they push for Brighton to go much further than sensible collaboration.
What’s worse is, thanks to this idiocy, we’ll end up with a Tory mayor or even a Reform one. And for what? All that money going on the organisational changes would be better spent on building council houses and funding care homes.
It was in the 2024 Labour election manifesto. People voted for Labour. Facts don’t support the statement that it is undemocratic.
Will CEOs still be needed ?
Most likely, but the role will be different, working within the CCA, if we base it on other devolutions.