People living in places in Lewes District that could become part of a new and bigger Brighton and Hove City Council have raised their concerns with their MP.
James MacCleary, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, has been visiting villages in his constituency during the summer recess and found people in places such as Kingston expressing concerns that Brighton and Hove could annex them.
They have spoken out since Brighton and Hove City Council started a public consultation on four proposals to expand its boundary to the east.
All four include extending the boundary to take in East Saltdean and Peacehaven, with options to take in Kingston and / or Newhaven.
Lewes District Council is also consulting on the city council proposals, with a fifth option that the city keeps its boundary as it is.
Mr MacCleary is a former leader of Lewes District Council who still represents Newhaven and Bishopstone on East Sussex County Council and Newhaven South on Lewes District Council.
He said that the consultation was pitched as an expansion when, in reality, all Sussex councils would be abolished and replaced by new ones.
He said: “The Brighton proposal was dumped on us from a height with no prior consultation with me as local MP.
“I’ve had an absolute avalanche of contacts from really worried residents. It’s come out of the blue for them too.
“In Newhaven and the villages of Kingston ward, we don’t think of ourselves as part of Brighton and Hove.
“It’s sort of a nearby place that we go to and value. But a lot of us go to London quite often but we wouldn’t consider ourselves a London borough.”
Mr MacCleary was not surprised that public meetings in Saltdean and Peacehaven became “feisty” at times and said that the proposals had caused divisions between Labour members on the two councils.
Three of the Brighton and Hove proposals would mean splitting East Sussex County Council “divisions” – the equivalent of wards – in half. These were the three that included Kingston and/or Newhaven in the mix.
Mr MacCleary said that the government had said clearly that there should be no boundary reviews as part of the process.
He said: “An East Sussex unitary authority makes complete sense here. We’re in East Sussex so we’ll keep existing county boundaries – and it doesn’t make a mess of the county divisions which is what Brighton’s ill-considered land grab does.
“We all thought we knew where we were – it was simple. Brighton will go to the west into Shoreham and Southwick, we would have an authority for East Sussex and one for the rest of West Sussex.
“I still haven’t heard any sort of rational explanation for why that isn’t possible.
“Now, all of a sudden, it’s we’ll go east and take part of your constituency and we’re not even going to come and speak to you about it, just announce it in the press.
“There has been such a strong reaction. It does feel quite high-handed from the Brighton leadership and like it’s being imposed upon us.
“I do share residents’ scepticism about the consultation. I think they’ll get a heavily negative response to the consultation which I really hope they pay close attention to. But I’m not convinced they will. There is a real danger that this is all a Labour stitch-up.”
At the recent public meetings in Saltdean and Peacehaven, Labour councillor John Hewitt, Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet member for local government reorganisation and devolution, said that expanding the boundary westward was “not financially sustainable”.
The two consultations close on Monday 25 August. For the Brighton and Hove City Council consultation, click here, and for the Lewes consultation, click here.
It only appears to be Labour councillors in Brighton and Hove who want to this, and quite shocking that they did not discuss with the local MP in the area about their plans – discourteous the most polite term I can think of to describe the way Brighton council is ignoring community views elsewhere and trying to govern by force.
No matter what spin he puts on it the system population has to be reduced, it needs to work not drag itsef down overloaded with people producing minimal for years on end, multi administrations doing repeat on repeat work for what ??? build a system that works with the people needed, train them properly also with answers to the publics questions. this eternal noddy culture where the only answer is a non event from people who either don’t know or don’t care is wrong, fix it, make it work, for everyone.
Despite what Mr MacCleary said, Brighton and Hove is still in the county of East Sussex. It just has a separate unitary authority than East Sussex county council. Peacehaven and Newhaven would still be in the county of East Sussex under the proposals, just a different council.
The A259 is already overcrowded and more housing development to the East will simply overstress Rottingdean.
Go west where there are far more facilities for recreation at Portslade and Shoreham
Chris Ward is invisible in this matter. Which speaks volumes. The Peacehaven meeting on a show of hands was 99% wanted to stay as East Sussex. BHC representatives offered no tangible benefits to the change. Just looking for space to dump problems on the town.
That is ESCC’s proposal, as I understand it, that’s due to be finalised in September. Then it’s down to parliament to decide which proposal they are going to go with.
BHCC representatives not being able to offer tangible benefits is a problem of the representatives, rather than the absence of evidence, as there are, in fact, tangible benefits that have been discussed even on this website.
Was he invited to the meeting?
as an aside and off topic be sure to check out and read carefully a petition on the uk government and parliament petition page…repeal the online safety act it currently has 523,130, signatures it needs many more it can be signed and reshared widely from all over the uk
Look on the up side Newhaven residents. Brighton houses are worth a lot more than Newhaven houses. There will be a large windfall in it if you suddenly acquire a pukka Brighton address.
Just saying…
As a former leader of Lewes District Council, he should be aware that LDC is currently at a financial cliff edge, particularly with ASC over the next 12 months.
He should also be aware that Lewes District Council will be abolished under these proposal and it will either be subsumed under a reorganised East Sussex CC (most likely) or a mash up with Eastbourne and Wealden (either in part of in toto)
Resident of East Saltdean etc etc may not be happy with that either.
Sorry I misread the article and he is aware of that.
But that doesn’t make it better for the residents of these area.
Mr MacCleary is quite right to be worried. It’s just a power, land and money grab, the same as when Brighton Council took over Hove to form a city, when Hove previously had more money than Brighton per resident and was far better run. Now Hove is just as squalid. He needs to use his MP powers to at least delay this car crash pile up in the making. Almost no one involved has the qualifications or expertise to make any of it work anyway, even if it were democratic and intended for the public good, which it is not. Look at all the public outrage and political bickering even before anything happens. Does anyone think this is going to get any better during and after implementation? If something is in dispute, it would be wrong to plough on regardless until all is settled and if it’s still a bad idea, it needs to be thrown out, whoever had it. Hold tight and delay everything while we see how long Starmer lasts is the best tactic. He’s already ignoring a public petition large enough to demand a general election.
I am still not sure what the practical benefits are to all concerned. I gather that it is an attempt to reduce unnecessary beaurocracy and duplication but will there be adequate representation from all current areas otherwise there will be a feeling of being bulldozed and false integration. Such changes as are proposed require great sensitivity and respect for autonomy. It would be good to have some examples of positive changes that will happen in various scenarios.
I think that is a very sensible take, Diane.
LGR is a first step towards devolution. And you’re right, there are some economies of scale going on here with the proposals, whichever one, including the as yet unfinalised ESCC proposal, is chosen by parliament. At the moment, LDC doesn’t have the same autonomy as a unitary authority like Brighton; many big decisions are made at the county level in ESCC.
The whole point of reorganisation is to bring those powers together locally, which could mean more say for residents on key services like transport, education, and social care. You’re right, though. It does need to be done with sensitivity.
BHCC can’t cope with what it’s got, how it’s going to manage if it expands is anyone’s guess. On the contrary, Lewes should expand over BHCC, at least they seem to have some sort of idea on how to run local government.
No! Them Lewes folks are weird! Weird, weird, weird! Let them stay up there wherever they are. Don’t bring them under Brighton auspices, please! Next it’ll be all cakes and jam-making and burning people who don’t fit in. No!
Ah, the local space of Royston Vasey…I mean Lewes.
Ms Sankey won’t want Lewes as she’ll end up being a big wicker effigy at the next Lewes bonfire parade.
Ha! No-one would see it since Lewes Residents Tubbs and Edward Tattsyrup keeps telling everyone: “It’s a local event for local people.”
It could almost be an episode of Yes Minister. Brighton & Hove City Council, with 280,000 residents, is desperate to hit Whitehall’s arbitrary threshold of 300,000 for unitary councils. Their solution? Annex the villages of Kingston Ward to the east – a 1,900-strong community inside the South Downs National Park.
At a packed parish hall meeting, with standing room only, over 100 Kingston Village residents rejected the plans unanimously. The irony wasn’t lost on them: Brighton’s consultation offered no “no change” option, and councillors are barred from holding meetings in the very areas they hope to absorb. As one local put it: “It’s democracy by clipboard — you can tick any box you like, so long as it says Brighton.”
The consequences, residents warn, are far from comic:
• Split education system: primary schools run by Brighton, while secondary schools remain under East Sussex.
• Service risk: Lewes District’s higher recycling rates and food waste collection could be lost to Brighton’s weaker system.
• Rural mismatch: a National Park ward governed by a city council with no track record of administering rural communities outside its urban boundary.
• Transport strain: potential housing growth in Newhaven adding pressure to the C7 and A26 roads.
• Concerns that Brighton’s needs will always take precedence over rural voices if the takeover goes ahead.
Residents commented that “Our ties are with Lewes, not Brighton. This is a land grab dressed up as reform. We don’t want to be swallowed by a city council that has no understanding of rural communities.”
Questions remain unanswered. Why was expansion to the west dismissed as “financially unviable”? Brighton has published no evidence. A Freedom of Information request has been lodged to uncover the reasoning.
The Kingston meeting closed with residents playing the Pet Shop Boys’ Go West. It was more than a joke: in Whitehall’s numbers game, expansion westwards made more sense — but Brighton has turned east instead. As Sir Humphrey might have said, “That’s not because it’s logical, Minister. It’s because it’s easier.”
Because “no change” is not an option that can be chosen. The remit is that a proposal is to be submitted to the government, not the council. It’s a fundamental point that really needs to be understood.
Devolution doesn’t work – no matter how it looks on paper it actually increases bureaucracy and makes things far more complicated to implement and costs more. Bella Stankey is a career politician and expanding BHCC if her bid for regional Mayor doesn’t work will increase her profile. That’s all this is about. Nobody in Brighton & Hove wants any of this.
That’s an opinion, not a fact. In practice, devolution deals vary – Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire are examples where local control has improved transport, housing, and economic investment. Others have been less effective, but it’s not universally “doesn’t work.”