Potential changes to local government from 2027 will be good value for money, the leader of Brighton and Hove City Council said.
Labour councillor Bella Sankey made her comments as councillors grilled her and cabinet adviser for devolution and local government reorganisation, Councillor John Hewitt, at a special Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
At the end of this month, Sussex councils are due to learn if the government has agreed to move forward with proposals to set up a “mayoral strategic authority” and restructure local government across the county.
Currently, Brighton and Hove City Council is the only unitary authority in Sussex, running 700 services from education and adult social care to planning and rubbish and recycling collection.
But East Sussex and West Sussex both have a two-tier system. The two county councils are responsible for services such as education, social care and highways while 12 district councils are responsible for services such as planning, housing and collecting rubbish.
After the meeting at Hove Town Hall on Thursday (5 June), Councillor Sankey said: “What we are proposing through local government reorganisation is to really rationalise that so there will be economies of scale and residents will be getting more value for money from their council tax.
“What we are proposing is five unitary authorities for the whole region and we are now going to gather data and evidence and test that proposition.”
Councillor Sankey said that although the council’s proposal sent to the government in April differed from the county councils’ ideas, Brighton and Hove still had time to develop its proposals
Brighton and Hove City Council proposed the creation of five unitary councils serving areas with populations of between 300,000 and 400,000.
She added: “We’re on the right timeline. We’ve responded to government. We have a response back. We have several more months to set out our proposals.”
The size and shape of Brighton and Hove would either stay the same or neighbouring areas such as Peacehaven to the east and Shoreham to the west could be absorbed.
Should the process move forward, the council would carry out public consultation events with online surveys and public meetings.
Councillor Hewitt said that the council would continue the consultation as an open-ended process beyond the potential September deadline for the final proposals.
If the government approves proposals for Sussex, mayoral elections would be due to take place in May next year and local elections to the new unitary councils in May 2027. Councillor Sankey ruled herself out of the running to be mayor.
So there are going to be “savings by economy of scale” yet we are proposing to replace 3 authorities with 5… Really? You couldn’t write it.
You need to read this again – there are also 12 district councils that will be replaced in addition to the county councils.
It makes sense Ann if you consider the synergetic contracts and relationships between them as apposed to the silos we see now. That’s economics of scale by definition right?
Think we all know by now that everytime a councillor says something is “value for money” they mean residents are being screwed over and it’s shorthand for cuts.
Yea, because why would you pay for something that isn’t good value for money? That’s just common sense, isn’t it, Bill?
We didn’t vote for this. Why is it being foisted on us? Beware agreeing to it – it won’t save money – more will be spent in the name of “economy” – there is NO such thing in local government. You’ve rread it here: you will end up paying even more for unwanted services.
We do not waqnt to be government at any level by facless ones from miles away who have no idea about what the local residents want and need.
The thing is, yes, we did vote for this. It was in the local election manifesto and has been on the table since 2016.
Devolution unlocks additional funding, cost cutting is not the right way to look at it. Funds that are normally controlled by central government, that’s giving more local control.to tackle challenges that have been persistent because of funding.
You claim that powers move away, but in reality, they become closer. If you don’t like a policy, you have the ability to vote someone out, unlike now, where centralised unelected Whitehall departments make those calls.
A good way of sweeping any BHCC financial shenanigans under the carpet, hoping they will be forgotten in the chaos. And land and control grabbing for Bella. What’s not to like? We are scarcely an afterthought in their minds.
Might be good for Brighton, a disaster for everyone else. Brighton is only looking to expand to shift it’s problems elsewhere. Hardly a shining example of efficiency now..
I suspect it is more a case of give and take. Devil will be in the details.
Take and take, more likely
Will we still need a CEO on £200K?