A packed and at times heated public meeting saw Brighton and Hove City Council’s leader grilled on potential expansion by Saltdean residents.
Councillors making up the panel gave up their seats to ensure as many people as possible could get into St Martins URC Church in Longridge Avenue to raise their concerns about a public consultation to bring parts of Lewes District into Brighton and Hove City Council control.
Most of the people attending the meeting on Friday, 1 August were from East Saltdean, with a smattering from Telscombe Cliffs, Peacehaven, Newhaven and Kingston, all areas included in four proposals for an expanded Brighton and Hove City Council.
During the meeting, the assembled people were told the government wants to abolish the two-tier council system as the devolution and local government reorganisation was part of the Labour manifesto.
Brighton and Hove City Council leader councillor Bella Sankey said: “One thing I really need to stress, because I think it has got a bit missed so far, is that if you live in East Sussex the councils that run your services will not exist in the future.
“You’re not being asked to consider the status quo versus merging with Brighton and Hove, you’re asked to consider what will serve your communities better.
“East Sussex County Council has put forward creating a unitary authority serving over 500,000 people. To my mind, as someone running a unitary authority for 280,000 people, doubling that is a huge challenge.”
After talking to other council leaders, she found 300 to 400,000 allows for better connections with the communities while still achieving economies of scale with the communities.
Brighton and Hove’s consultation looks to reach the 300,000 threshold through four options, which include absorbing East Saltdean, Telscombe Cliffs and Peacehaven, with other options including taking in Kingston and Newhaven.
Town and parish councils, known as the third tier of local government, will continue to operate.
Brighton and Hove’s chief executive Jess Gibbons explained the city is only allowed to engage with its own residents, but it will take into account responses from people living in East Sussex and Lewes District before submitting its proposals to the government on Friday, 26 September.
The government will then consult after reviewing the proposals put forward by the city and East and West Sussex County Councils.
Councillor Sankey said: “I think there is an idea that has grown up that this is all about housing building and that Brighton and Hove is looking to concrete over vast swathes of the coast.
“That is absolutely not the case, and I want to say categorically that this is not what is driving these proposals at all.”
She also addressed suggestions that Brighton and Hove is looking to share its debt.
Councillor Sankey said: “We actually have relatively low levels of debt for a unitary of our size. All councils have a certain amount of debt because we need to borrow money to invest in things.
“When we borrow, certainly under my administration, we put together a strong business case and we make an investment that we know will be the right thing over the longer term, and will sometimes bring money back into the council.”
To applause, Telscombe Town Council deputy mayor, councillor Neil Watts asked why Brighton and Hove was looking east rather than west.
Councillor Watts said: “What’s the problem with taking over Adur? We are perfectly happy with East Sussex.”
Labour councillor John Hewitt, who leads on devolution and local government reorganisation, said expanding west is not financially viable according to government tests, and West Sussex County Council found the same. He did not give any more detail.
West Sussex is currently consulting on three options: to have one unitary in the county footprint, or divide into two unitaries, with variations of Adur joining either with Horsham, Mid Sussex and Crawley footprint, or with Worthing, Arun and Chichester.
A woman from East Saltdean said one of the biggest problems with joining Brighton and Hove is the rubbish and recycling collections, as they hear the issues people in West Saltdean have with their service.
Councillor Sankey said she would take the view “on the chin” as services are not where they should be, but one of the first things she did on becoming leader was start “root and branch” reform of the service.
On a good note she highlighted how Brighton and Hove’s children’s services are outstanding, has no agency social workers, and the council is performing better than others on education health care plans (EHCPs) when compared with other councils.
Cheryl Wood from Peacehaven stated council tax is higher there than in Brighton and Hove, and questioned how payments would balance out.
Councillor Sankey received an outraged response when she explained the Lewes area tax would be frozen until the rest of Brighton and Hove “caught up”.
Ms Gibbons confirmed this is the normal situation when councils merge, as she experienced when working at Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, which formed a unitary authority in 2019.
Brighton and Hove City Council’s consultation on local government reorganisation is open on the Your Voice section of its website until Monday 25 August.
Following a cabinet meeting on Thursday, 25 September, Brighton and Hove will submit its proposals to the government on Friday, 26 September.
Bella didn’t “start” the “root and branch” reform of City Clean she refers to. It was the whistleblowers who came forward who were the catalyst for the independent KC report happening. It really bugs me that she keeps trying to take credit for this rather than the people who bravely came forward – especially after they were so badly let down by politicians in 2019 when they tried to speak out about bullying and harassment then.
Exactly and especially those who continue to receive threats.
I wasn’t aware there were any lib Dems in Kemptown never mind the wider city. Think their attacks on students burst that bubble.
Interested to know what submissions/plans they made to the consultation.
Devolution is happening come what May, so what are your proposals for the unitary authority’s.
And nothing has changed as the managers suspend/dismiss people for no real reason. Mismanagement is a all time high with outdated fleet and practices.
Reading about this meeting it was a waste of time because as Sankey effectively stated “You have no choice, its going ahead whether you like it or not!”
Yes, devolution is happening; Sussex’s choices are to shape it themselves or have it done for them by parliament. Personally, I’d opt for the former. So, with that in mind, it is important to work out what the best version of this looks like. Starting with understanding the concept.
The question for residents is can East Sussex do a better job than B&H? Cllr Sankey makes the amusing claim that running a service for 280k residents is hard and questions how someone could run it for 500k. But still she wants more residents, presumably making it harder for herself, the council and a poorer service for residents. Not a well-considered argument!
I’m still confused why Labour is pushing this. Presumably they think there will be a Labour mayor – but across Sussex we have a conservative police leader (the only similar voter group). More likely, reform based on national polls. The key question then is how Labour B&H will work with a Tory or Reform mayor?
I’m confused as to whether it’s OK or not for the Chief Executive of the council, a civil servant, to be at these meetings to justify and answer public questions on what is essentially Labour Party policy. I thought they were supposed to be politically neutral.
I get that officers need to attend regular council meetings to offer practical support, and at those it’s fine to answer questions on practical issues with practical information etc. But here she’s pictured in what looks like a hosting roll with a microphone in her hand. It wasn’t a public meeting on a wholly practical council matter, it was a public meeting on a political ideology being pushed by the Labour Party – so I’m not comfortable with officers (paid for by the tax payer) propping up politicians on an issue where officers should be neutral, rather than persuasive.
Is seeing the elusive CEO of Brighton and Hove City Council like hearing the first cuckoo of Spring?
For someone who earns more than the PM, Ms Gibbons keeps a surprisingly low profile.
It’s an interesting point. Chief Executives are not there to promote party politics, and they know that. But it’s entirely proper for senior officers to attend public engagement events to explain what devolution means, correct misunderstandings, and answer questions factually. That is their job.
I took this from the LGA’s own guidance:
“Chief executives may attend events to present factual information about proposed governance changes where it supports informed public engagement. This does not in itself constitute political activity.”
So yes, officers must be neutral, but neutrality isn’t silence. Silence in the face of confusion or misinformation would be a disservice to residents, in my opinion.
It doesn’t sound like “informed public engagement” at all. There was no cross party representation on the panel from what I understand, or representation from other local authorities on the panel (either officers or councillors), so it was a one-sided presentation of why the Labour administration in Brighton and the Labour government want to force devolution through. If it were balanced by allowing factual information about devolution (plusses and minuses from different perspectives – incl the views of other councils and their officers and councillors) then it would be more possible to argue it was informed public engagement. It was spin and a PR event, and in my opinion wrong for civil servants to be involved with this kind of politically motivated event.
The other councils are also doing their own consultations, as I understand it. I think it is very fair to ask for a balanced discussion on what the pros and cons are, as well as explaining the differences between Local Government Reorganisation and Devolution, as these are very often confused. And it’s absolutely right to expect the discussions to be grounded in balanced, informed engagement.
I think it is good to note that this isn’t just a Brighton project. East and West Sussex County Councils approved of this process, and are both currently Conservative-led. The model is being developed under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which originated under the previous Conservative government and is being expanded, not invented, by Labour.
Also, on officers being involved, it is helpful to note that because CCAs are statutory bodies, that process is driven by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. That requires officer-level engagement to ensure compliance with central government guidance, whatever party is in charge.
I think you are completely right to argue for cross-party scrutiny and transparent local forums. I think this is generally true on a lot of topics. Especially because local government reorganisations can be easily mischaracterised as one council taking over another when there’s a lot more to it than that, and ultimately, it’s about transferring strategic powers from Whitehall to Sussex, and how those powers are coordinated and governed.
It’ll never be Reform, and more realistically, it will be a two-party race. Devolution is going ahead whether we like it or not, so I think there is wisdom in controlling the narrative and being part of shaping that, rather than it being shaped for us.
I think there is real benefit to gaining influence over big regional decisions we currently have zero power over. Working with a politically different mayor would be tough. But that’s already the case with many national and regional bodies. At least with a combined authority, there’s greater transparency, shared governance, and scrutiny structures in place, something that not last week the Greens were calling out for.
As a purely strategic decision, it makes logical sense to me.
B&H is a small minority in Sussex as the resident figures show. Even if all of B&H votes Labour, then we’d easily be outvoted by East and West Sussex. They in the past have voted Tory for police commissioner. With the Tory’s tarnished brand, I suspect votes will swing to reform. I certainly wouldn’t discount a reform mayor so quickly – on national polls that would happen. I wonder if it’s possible to bet on it? Your certainty makes me think could get good odds….
National polling ≠ regional outcomes. Turnout in local and regional elections is heavily affected by ground game, local issues, and party infrastructure – Reform lacks all three in Sussex. The PCC example you gave actually proves my point: even at peak Tory strength, turnout was low and outcomes driven by established party networks, not insurgents.
I’d certainly take your bet that Reform would not have a chance in Sussex; of course, we shall see in due time!
What if we don’t want our ‘narrative’ to be controlled Benjamin? What if we want to speak freely about issues concerning us and oppose anything which doesn’t serve us? What if we choose to end this unsolicited free trial of Owellian times? Look around at how angry people are getting and you will see it’s already starting to happen. People may not have an actual plan for the future yet, but Plan NO.1 is NOT THIS.
Well, if you don’t want to participate and would rather have parliament’s choices imposed without a say at all, it’s a bit of a weird choice, James, but it’s yours to make.
Can anyone remember when emptying bins became a political issue?
Perhaps that’s when emptying bins went so badly wrong.
One would hardly expect that Brighton and Hove City Council is such a shining paragon of bin emptying and other statutory service delivery, it is worthy of roll-out to the rest of Sussex.
Choose Brighton and Hove City Unitary-already Council. and you’ll have third world roads, fewer bin collections, fewer public toilets, fewer schools and fewer public libraries. But all the unused cycle lanes, inflated parking costs and closed down businesses you can shake a stick at.
Oh, Elaine, bins are the quintessential political issue! There’s a saying I once heard, and it remains true to this day. “If you want people to attend a meeting, talk about the bins.”
Is some of Saltdean B&H Council and the otherside is Lewes Council
I’d leave it like that to be honest.
“Brighton and Hove’s chief executive Jess Gibbons explained the city is only allowed to engage with its own residents, but it will take into account responses from people living in East Sussex and Lewes District before submitting its proposals to the government on Friday, 26 September.”
So yet again forcing a way on anyone else without taking on input. BHCC is a joke and I truly hope we’ll never be part of it.
Pretty sure you’ve just created a self-defeating contradiction.
You quoted the BHCC CEO saying they’re not allowed to consult outside the city – and then immediately criticised them for not consulting people outside the city. You can’t really have it both ways.
???? Why would there be any doubt about bin collections ??? It’s a bit like asking will we still have roads and street lights maintained at the normal low standards already in place, services existence won’t change, only the circus management will in size and capacity.
Well Brighton has almost finished raiding Hove’s land bank and they obviously need to expand to blight other areas with future developments.