A councillor has denied she and her colleagues are using inflammatory language in a row over council boundaries, saying they are just standing up for their residents.
Lewes District Council was accused of whipping up people on social media when launching a petition opposing Brighton and Hove’s proposals to move parts of the district into the city boundaries.
Council leader Zoe Nicholson accused Brighton of wanting to areas including Peacehaven and Newhaven as a “dumping ground” and deputy leader Chrstine Robinson said the city wanted to “concrete over their neighbourhoods”.
In a council meeting last week, Brighton councillor Bridget Fishleigh described this as “inflammatory and irresponsible language” – and Brighton and Hove council leader said the wording of the petition strayed into “the realm of conspiracy theory”.
Another councillor, Theresa Fowler, also pointed out Lewes District residents pay more council tax than in Brighton and Hove.
This week Councillor Robinson, who represents Telscombe on the area’s town, district and county councils, denied inflammatory language had been used.
She said: “It speaks volumes that Brighton and Hove City Council believe this is an acceptable way of working with a neighbouring authority.
“Since the government launched the local government reorganisation in December 2024, all East Sussex authorities have been actively consulting and working cross-party to prepare a coordinated response.
“Yet, seven months later, Brighton and Hove City Council has suddenly announced, for the first time, it wants East Saltdean, Telscombe, Peacehaven, Newhaven, and Kingston removed from the Lewes district part of the proposed unitary footprint and absorbed within the city boundary.
“There has been no consultation with Lewes District Council or any other neighbouring authorities over these plans. Unsurprisingly, the council and many thousands of our residents are deeply unhappy.
“There has been no inflammatory language, only a district council determined to stand up for the best interests of every single resident.
“And as for the claims being made about council tax, Brighton is one of the most expensive places in the UK to live and own a home.
“The facts speak for themselves. Brighton is facing a housing crisis and needs sites to build 40,000 homes by 2040. We also know they need to increase their population to meet the government’s criteria for unitary council status.
“It’s no surprise that thousands of people across Lewes district have already signed a petition opposing Brighton’s plans.”
Councillor Sankey hit back, saying: “They’ve excluded us from their meetings on local government reorganisation, then refused to meet with me at all on it. And now saying we’re being non-consultative – you couldn’t make it up.”
Brighton and Hove City Council is consulting on four proposals to expand its population from 280,000 to 300,000 – to comply with government guidance for unitary authorities to have a population of up to 500,000 – by absorbing areas currently within Lewes District.
All four proposals currently under consultation until Sunday, 24 August, include bringing East Saltdean, Telscombe Cliffs, and Peacehaven into Brighton and Hove’s control, with three other proposals including drawing in Kingston and Newhaven.
In Lewes District, the average band D property pays £2,627.39 a year in council tax, compared with £2,338.06 for the same band in Brighton and Hove.
The bulk of Lewes District council tax payment goes to East Sussex County Council, with precepts to Lewes, East Sussex Fire Authority, Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner, town and parish councils.
The Lewes District Council petition has more than 4,600 signatures. Brighton and Hove’s consultation on the Your Voice section of its website has received more than 800 responses as of Thursday 7 August.
Ending the two-tier system of local government to replace districts and counties with unitary authorities was in the Labour general election manifesto for 2024 along with English devolution.
Existing parish and town councils will remain.
East Sussex County Council has proposed creating a unitary authority serving over 500,000 people.
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.
Local government reorganisation is taking place at the same time Sussex is devolving to have a county-wide executive mayor.
Once the new Mayor is elected in May 2026, the Strategic Mayoral Authority will include the leaders and their deputies from the two county councils and Brighton and Hove City Council.
Ceremonial mayors will remain in place, such as Brighton and Hove’s Mayor.
After local government reorganisation, the Strategic Mayoral Authority will include the leadership of the Sussex unitary authorities which could be four or five councils.
Brighton and Hove City Council is due to debate the results of its public consultation in September, before submitting its proposals to the government on Friday 25 September.
The government will then hold its own consultation after considering the options put forward by the Sussex councils.
If the proposals are accepted… those Lewes District Labour Councillors are going to find themselves utter pariahs in meetings even among their own party! Probably shooting themselves in the foot long term.
Also do other parties have any stance on this!? I haven’t heard a peep out of the Greens, Tories, Liberals or Reform…
Councillor Robinson’s response is disappointing in tone and accuracy.
“There has been no inflammatory language.” – This is objectively false.
The Lewes petition described the plans as “Brighton trying to take over Lewes District,” using highly emotive language like “breaking up our community” and “asset grab.” That is not neutral nor balanced. It implies communities are being annexed. That’s not a calm, evidence-based presentation; it’s alarmist and divisive.
There has been inflammatory language, Bella Sankey referred to the Lewes petition in conspiracy theory terms. That sounds pretty inflammatory to me.
Bullying other local authorities to agree with what Labour councillors want to do in Brighton and Hove is how it comes across to many people, and as soon as Bella and her colleagues are challenged on it, rather than reply in an evidence based way with facts about any tangible benefits devolution might bring (not the vague hopes and ‘ambitions’ which have mainly been communicated to date) she goes on the attack and and rolls out conspiracy theory lines. It’s starting to look like a pattern of behaviour and it’s not a good look.
If Bella thinks she was shut out of earlier conversations in East Sussex, perhaps the person she needs to question is herself – there’s a growing sense that her and her Cabinet shut out community and opposition voices in Brighton. So if they are getting a reputation for being difficult to work with then it’s hardly surprising that other councils elsewhere will lose patience trying to engage and will decide to make better use of their time by working with those more willing to do politics in a grown up way – rather than those just throwing their toys out if their pram.
Equating the wording of the Lewes petition with a criticism of that wording is a false comparison. One was an official call to residents, written to provoke; the other was a characterisation of that rhetoric after the fact. From the outside, it looks less like one side bullying the other and more like both sides trading digs instead of sitting down to work through the facts. Residents would be better served if everyone involved dropped the rhetoric and focused on a solution that works best for everyone. THAT would be the grown-up thing to do.
I don’t blame the Lewes Cllr speaking out against this. If Sussex has to have an elected mayor the three designated authorities should be drawn along recognisable boundary lines, such as the A23. Have two authorities to the east & west and keep Brighton & Hove as is, but perhaps include all of Saltdean rather than just part of it at present. Yes, the population sizes won’t mirror up – but that should not be a reason not to have three authorities if the good folks north of the Downs do not want Brighton & Hove’s incredible refuse collection service, smooth roads, no litter, graffiti, rubbish etc
And miles of unused cycle lanes
Worth noting that your suggestion to include all of Saltdean is exactly what your council has proposed.
You don’t want Brighton and Hove council, they can’t even get the bin collections right.
I live in Brunswick Square. The bin collections are pretty efficient and I don’t often have a problem other than fly tipping.
Stupid Idea. The havens have nothing in common with Brighton. . It is a space grab to export its problems. It will do nothing to solve the issues locally. , it can barely run itself.
Political oratory has always employed inflammatory and provocative language to get its point across.
Not that people don’t already feel strongly about this issue.
The dangerous individuals are those who seek to stifle and ;control the narrative’ because they undermine and mock the whole concept of democracy and represent a more sinister Nanny knows best state.
They certainly do, although I dislike performative arguments, especially in written forms like this. I prefer a more evidence-based and logical approach – controlling the narrative in the sense of keeping the process locally led, by ensuring councils and communities here in Sussex shape how it’s implemented, rather than disengaging and leaving it to be imposed by central government. That is what democracy looks like.
BHCC started this by not talking to the other councils. Even now they haven’t provided any information as to why they won’t go West, claiming it is not viable financially but not providing any factual information to support that stance. They haven’t provided any details on why going East is the better option, nor any of the benefits that the coastal towns will gain by being a part of a larger BHCC (I purposely didn’t use “Greater Brighton “ because that wouldn’t be true.
How about East and West Sussex divide Brighton and Hove, reducing the number of designated authorities to two – a clear saving in bureaucracy and makes as much sense as BHCC plans!
BHCC’s leader has said Lewes and others excluded Brighton from their LGR meetings and then refused to meet. If your councils were to engage directly, you might already have the detailed financial information you say is missing. That’s a straightforward fix.
The council has in fact set out reasons and example benefits: existing ties for work, schools, healthcare and transport; extending free swimming to nearby children; delivering children’s services across a wider area; and stronger transport and economic links.
Here’s a specific, pressing example for Lewes: East Sussex County Council’s adult social care budget is under severe strain, with a £55 million funding gap for 2025/26 and adult social care alone consuming nearly 48% of its entire budget. ESCC is looking at deep cuts, including reducing housing-related support from £4.3 million to just £500,000. Their own analysis says this would create £9.9 million of extra costs for district councils — including yours.
In a unitary model, those functions sit within one authority. The savings and the knock-on costs are part of the same budget, which protects cost-effective preventative services from being cut in ways that cost more in the long run. That is a tangible benefit to Lewes residents.
So rather than trading accusations, the constructive route is to meet, share the numbers, and have the debate on facts, not inflammatory rhetoric.
By now, everyone should be aware that when brighton and hove city council members attack individuals for what they say is inflammatory, militias or unfounded it means the individuals have actually spoken out the truth and then identified the wrongdoing within the Brighton and hove City council. As the organisation firstly tries to undermine individuals that have pointed out the truth and then the organisation goes quiet, hoping it will avoid any further scrutiny by the wider public and hope no evidence coming to light.
It’s about more people speak out like these counsellors in the Lewes councillors or you just have to accept the long term outcomes for your own area.
Or in reality, language that’s inflammatory for the sake of it is being called out because it is, quite literally, inflammatory.
Land grabbing is a common feature of the world today, let’s hope the tanks don’t invade Lewes.
Brighton city council endorse and encourage developers and the term landgrab,and dumping ground are very relevant, they care little about east Sussex, and surrounding countryside, all they see is potential for there bedfellows the greedy,developers that thrive and live of ,off this council ,and if it was not the fact that house building is wanted! But affordable is wanted not?? I have signed up to stop this disgraceful proposal and urge others to do the same ,there is no justification for this except to over spill east Sussex as they did to Crawley, and milton Keynes,
Sean, the boundary proposals are part of a government-led Local Government Reorganisation process, not a covert land grab. Any change goes through ministerial approval and independent review. Eastward expansion has been justified on existing community and service links, not to “dump” anything, and is a very different situation from historic New Town designations like Crawley or Milton Keynes, and affordable housing delivery is a national challenge and is set by planning policy and central government funding, not by boundary lines alone.
Strongly suspect that, given that BHCC own farmland in Lewes district, that the Lewes councillors have hit the nail on the head.
The reaction of Bella Sankey is reminiscent of a kid caught with one hand stuck in a sweetie jar.
Would love to know why the inclusion of Southwick and Shoreham, which would make more geographic sense, has been ruled as unviable. Less room for building there, perhaps?
BHCC has said the westward option was dropped after analysis found it financially unviable, but I agree they should publish the figures so everyone can see the reasoning. That level of transparency would help avoid some of these assumptions.
Logically thinking it through, though, Brighton’s strongest links are eastward along the coast, not westward, where Southwick and Shoreham are tied more closely to Worthing and West Sussex services. Eastward expansion is simpler, fits the criteria better, and avoids destabilising West Sussex’s tax base for a small population change.
Former GMB staffer who never met a change she didn’t object to. What a surprise
As for the Green referring to Brighton people needing a “dumping ground”.
The Green snobbishness knows no bounds.