A proposal for Sussex to have five unitary councils will be submitted to ministers after Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet backed the plan this afternoon (Thursday 25 September).
At the same time, East Sussex County Council and West Sussex County Council are each submitting their own separate ideas for a shake up of councils.
All three proposals are due to be sent to the government tomorrow as ministers weigh up the options for a local government reorganisation.
At a council cabinet meeting at Hove Town Hall, the Labour deputy leader of Brighton and Hove City Council, Jacob Taylor, said that what was being submitted was an idea – not the final outcome.
In the months ahead, ministers will hold a formal public consultation on a way forward as they look to replace the current two-tier set up – with counties and districts – across much of Sussex with unitary councils.
Currently, Brighton and Hove has the only unitary council in the area, serving more than 280,000 people.
The Brighton and Hove proposal would involve Sussex having five unitary councils, each serving a population of between 300,000 and 400,000.
And Brighton and Hove would expand its population to 300,000 by extending its boundary to include East Saltdean, Telscombe Cliffs and Peacehaven and the whole parish of Falmer.
These places are currently served by Lewes District Council and East Sussex County Council – but both of those councils are due to be scrapped as part of the coming shake up.
The changes being proposed by Brighton and Hove City Council would cost almost £200 million across the whole of Sussex.
But because Brighton and Hove already has a unitary council and only modest local changes are proposed locally, its share of that bill would be less than £10 million.
The government wanted a holistic “whole Sussex” approach, ideally agreed by all of the existing councils, but this has not proved possible.
East Sussex County Council, with the support of most districts, is pushing for one large unitary authority – a proposal known as One East Sussex – to serve about 550,000 people.
West Sussex County Council proposed one unitary authority to serve the whole area, with a population of about 900,000 people.
The district councils in West Sussex have expressed a preference for the creation of two unitary councils. One would serve the coastal districts of Adur, Worthing, Arun and Chichester. The other would cover Crawley, Horsham and Mid Sussex.
Green councillor Raphael Hill said that none of the councils in Sussex were in favour of Brighton and Hove’s proposal.
Councillor Hill questioned the £52.4 million net benefit promised in the Brighton and Hove proposal and asked how much the reorganisation would cost in total.
Labour councillor John Hewitt, the council’s cabinet adviser for devolution and local government reorganisation, said that the £52.4 million came from financial modelling by consultants Ignite. It was based on published financial assumptions for all Sussex councils, once a steady state had been reached.
Councillor Hewitt said that about £20 million would be saved by removing duplicated services and £26 million from the economies of scale from running services for 300,000 to 400,000 people.
A further £4.8 million would be saved by consolidating senior management, he said, and more than £2 million from the budget for items such as councillor allowances and support and election costs.
The one-off cost of setting up the new councils would between £168 million and £197 million. The government expects councils to fund these costs from their capital budgets, possibly by selling assets.
Brighton and Hove City Council chief executive Jess Gibbons estimated an £8.7 million bill locally.
At a special council meeting yesterday (Wednesday 24 September), opposition councillors raised concerns about the plan for five unitary councils being proposed by Brighton and Hove City Council’s Labour administration.
Green councillor Ellen McLeay criticised the lack of engagement with neighbouring councils.
Councillor McLeay said: “You can’t go about carving up the county next door to you without talking with them first. This is common decency.
“From my perspective, the lack of communication is not only discourteous but shows contempt for the communities affected. Now we have neighbouring district and county councils who are unhappy about the lack of inclusion. Trust has been eroded.”
Conservative leader Alistair McNair said that the Brighton and Hove proposals were the most complex and expensive, with new councils consolidating services from rubbish and recycling to education and adults’ and children’s social care.
Councillor McNair said: “These costs will need to be funded by central government. Where is this money going to come from when economic growth is so low?
“And we’re told it won’t solve challenges with children’s social care, temporary accommodation and SEND (special educational needs and disabilities).
“Local government reorganisation is setting neighbour against neighbour, community against community.”
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Mark Earthey, while broadly supportive, raised concerns about the lack of engagement with younger people.
Councillor Earthey, who represents Rottingdean and West Saltdean, said: “We ask for a vastly improved engagement with the young people of the affected areas.
“Of course, we recognise that, sadly, it’s the younger people who don’t engage with council surveys as they are too busy getting on with their lives.
“But we must persevere as it is they who will be living with the consequences of the decisions we make under LGR (local government reorganisation) for decades to come.”
A report to the cabinet said: “The government has set six criteria which it will use to assess all proposals. They are
- A proposal should seek to achieve for the whole of the area concerned the establishment of a single tier of local government.
- Unitary local government must be the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks.
- Unitary structures must prioritise the delivery of high-quality and sustainable public services to citizens.
- Proposals should show how councils in the area have sought to work together in coming to a view that meets local needs and is informed by local views.
- New unitary structures must support devolution arrangements (the new mayor and combined mayoral authority).
- New unitary structures should enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment.
“It is for the government to decide which proposals meet these criteria. Only those judged viable will be taken forward to statutory consultation later this year.”
“A proposal for Sussex to have five unitary councils will be submitted to ministers after Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet backed the plan this afternoon (Thursday 25 September).”
Who are Brighton and Hove City Council to be submitting proposals for the whole of Sussex, or did I misread this?
And who are they to spend £200m of taxpayer’s cash on this power grab with no definable benefits for anyone other than our Council Leader’s career ambitions? BHCC is already a unitary authority.
BHCC also recently announced the city already has £420m debt! No more debt in our name please.
“Who are Brighton and Hove City Council to be submitting proposals for the whole of Sussex, or did I misread this?”
The can because the Government asked for proposals from all the councils in Sussex.
And it seems they are the only council to put in an ‘whole Sussex” proposal. Doesn’t mean the Government will accept it.
“Councillor McLeay said: “You can’t go about carving up the county next door to you without talking with them first. This is common decency.”
Tell that to your Green colleagues in Lewis who lead the council who it seems have a deliberate strategy of not talking to B&H.
Literally, the ones complaining that they aren’t having a dialogue are refusing to have a dialogue.
No Council administration, be they a district, borough or County Council in Sussex has supported Brighton & Hove Labour’s proposals. They should be supporting option 2b in the West Sussex County Council’s options paper, supported by all the districts and boroughs in West Sussex. The difference is 2b put Chichester district with Arun, Adur and Worthing whereas B&H’s proposals put Chichester with Crawley, Mid-Sussex and Horsham. I asked twice why this is and got no answer.
Sorry it’s B2 not 2B. Also the article says West Sussex County Council supports the B2 proposal their their options paper but I believe they instead want one West Sussex wide unitary. Far too large in my view.
Just to say that the above is based on the B&H proposal not what WS has proppsed which is a single council with a 900k population (thought they did consider various options for 2 smaller councils in various combinations and splits)
TBH I don’t think a single West Sussex Unitary will fly.
And neither will the single East Sussex council propsal either
Let’s hope so!
Because putting Chichester in with the ‘coastal group’ would put the population of each new council out of kilter i.e. one too small and one too large for the 300k – 400k B&H was aiming for across the whole of Sussex?
At the moment Group D (the ‘northern’ cluster would have a population of 395k and Group E (the coastal) a population of 343k (so both within the range B&H were working in)
Wiki tells me Chichester is a population of 125k so moving it from D to E would mean the populations would be 270k and 468k so both out of the B&H range. And D would be even smaller than B&H.
Unless Chichester gets split into two which I don’t think anyone wants.
B&Hs reasoning for that population range are, to me, quite cogent.
But all Sussex Councils were entitled to put in a proposal to the Government (though only B&H put one in for the whole Sussex area) and it will be down to the Govenrment to decide based on the arguments the councils have put forward which one to go for.
Personally I think the B&H proposal does have some merit though by preference would be that B&H be left as it is with out the Peacehaven etc transfer. I would be lest costly in terms of calculating staff, property and finace allocations.
Based on me quickly googling ONS 2021 figures so take with a pinch of salt this is what I get for option B2
Crawley: 119,509
Horsham: 147,487
Mid Sussex: 103,417
Total: 370,413
–
Chichester: 124,531
Arun: 164,800
Adur: 64,688
Worthing: 112,044
Total: 466,063
Bbc says this based on more accurate numbers i presume:
‘But all seven existing borough and district councils disagree, voting instead to split the county into two with a south-west half made up of 473,000 residents in Chichester, Arun, Adur and Worthing and a north-east half made up of 428,000 residents in Horsham, Crawley and Mid Sussex.’
Does it mean that rates etc will be going up because BHCC have ideas?
They are getting more delusional the longer this goes on. Can they submit a 6th proposal….get rid of BHCC as they can’t even organize themselves nor listen to neighbouring towns they now plan to occupy (I’m not even going to call it absorbing at this point).
How can we bring a vote of No Confidence in BHCC? Our leader is becoming more power-crazed by the day while presiding over a city falling apart under her reign. The last thing she needs is even more power to wreck other places – at our expense.
The only thing falling apart is your argument here.
Almost 500 genuinely affordable homes this year, £11m secured for retrofitting council housing stock, £20m secured for community work in Whitehawk, record visitor numbers this summer, major refurbishments approved for Hove Museum, Saltdean Lido, and sports investment at Withdean, council overspend projections reduced by over £15m in six months.
Reality disagrees with you. Doesn’t mean everything is perfect, but you are ignoring the evidence of progress in housing, climate action, local services and financial stability.
@benjamin, really don’t care, most of what you just mentioned isn’t something they lead. Example Hove Museum only gets one small contribution from the council. The rest is self funded by tickets etc. Saltdean Lido, same story, but Lottery Fund this time.
They still overspend, spend on vanity projects that nobody cares about and prioritise areas where the wealthier constituents live.
Not many outside of BHCC currently boundary wants them, and as it was put in the article: there’s been minimal consultation with those they want to occupy which damages trust even more
The recent announcement of the Pride and Place Funding kinda cuts into that perspective a little bit, doesn’t it?
We don’t have that sort of provision over here.
Well we do but it’s called the local elections ( next due in B&H in May 2027)
I’m not sure thats the way to go either for a whole council or even individual councillors.
A Supervisor (councillor) in San Francisco has just been ousted due to a recall election just because some people didn’t like the idea of a road being closed and a park created despite the fact the entire city voted for the park)
I agree with you, in theory, such a provision would be open to extreme levels of abuse, and ultimately, not very useful for the city.
The only beneficiaries of this proposal seems to be BHCC. Everyone else in both Wrst and East Sussex can go hang.
From a personal point of view, I live in Seaford which is currently under Lewes District and East Sussex County councils. This proposal would put us under a new Eastbourne unitary authority. Now I am happy with being under Lewes at the moment, but have no idea what a move to an Eastbourne Unitary authority rather than Lewes would do.
Under the B&H propsals (and they are just that – proposals) a new council made up of all of the current Easbourne,, Rother and Hastings Council area and parts of Wealden and parts Lewes (the current Seaford South, Newhaven North, Seaford West, Seaford North and Seaford Central wards)
Another new council would be formed of the currrent Mid Sussex District (all of it) and the remainder of Wealden and remainder of Lewes (that havn’t beem moved to either the new proposed council above or to B&H)
NO decisions have been made on what these councils would be be called or where any HQ will be.
And a reminder these are just B&HCCs proposals.
It seems that East Sussex CC and the districts within it are proposing a single council.
What some people are missign is that the liles of Lewes District and Eastbourne Borough will be abolished
The B&H CC PROPOSALS can be found here
https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/documents/s210148/Appendix%201_Representative%20Councils%20for%20a%20Devolved%20Sussex_%20a%20five%20unitary%20proposal.pdf