Two leading local politicians are due to answer questions from the public about the proposed shake up of councils in Sussex.
The Labour leader of Brighton and Hove City Council, Bella Sankey, and the Conservative leader of East Sussex County Council, Keith Glazier, are scheduled to share a platform in the new year.
They are expected to discuss the pros and cons of the planned local government reorganisation, part of a national programme of reforms, currently out for public consultation.
The public meeting, at St Martin’s United Reformed Church, in Longridge Avenue, Saltdean, comes four days before the end of the government consultation, with four proposals on the table for Sussex.
It looks likely that, from 2028, the existing county and district councils will be scrapped and Sussex will be run by three, four or five unitary authorities.
Brighton and Hove City Council, currently the only unitary in Sussex, has proposed an expansion that would include East Saltdean, Telscombe Cliffs, Peacehaven and the section of Falmer village that is currently in the Lewes district.
The places in contention are currently served by East Sussex County Council and Lewes District Council, both of which are due to be scrapped as part of the government’s reforms.
The Brighton and Hove proposal would split the rest of Sussex into four areas, all to be run by new unitary councils.
East Sussex County Council has submitted a different proposal – for a new unitary council with the existing East Sussex boundary.
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Bridget Fishleigh, who represents West Saltdean and Rottingdean, said that the meeting would be a unique chance for residents to speak with the two council leaders.
She said: “Both councils want them (unitary authorities) and I hope people will come and discuss how the two compare with regards to services such as support for children with special educational needs, people with disabilities, dementia – and all those who genuinely need help and support.
“It’s not just about the bins!”
“For my part, I’d love to see East Saltdean’s roads improved. In my 20 years of living in Saltdean, I can only recall one road in East Saltdean being resurfaced.
“And I firmly believe that we won’t see a concerted and joined up approach to tackling congestion on the A259 between Ovingdean and Newhaven unless the entire stretch comes under one council.”
Saltdean Residents and Community Association has organised the meeting on Wednesday 7 January.
The organisation’s chair Fraser Woodward said: “As a community split across two different local authority boundaries, Saltdean is uniquely placed in Sussex to see the impact of local government reorganisation first hand.
“That’s why it’s so important residents come along and hear about the proposed changes from our council leaders and then have their say in the current consultation.”
The meeting is due to start at 5pm on Wednesday 7 January at St Martin’s United Reformed Church, in Longridge Avenue, Saltdean.
Tickets are available on Eventbrite, with priority given to Saltdean residents. To book, click here.
The government consultation closes on Sunday 11 January. To read it or to comment, click here.
Will Ms Sankey be unveiling the rumoured Sussex and Brighton Mayoral plan? it appears the people of Hove could be right to be worried about Hove being ‘erased’.
I’m genuinely disappointed to see you spreading this kind of baseless speculation. The idea that Hove is going to be “erased” is not just wrong; it’s the kind of conspiratorial fearmongering that undermines honest debate.
The facts are clear: BHCC remains a unitary authority under the proposed MCCA. The plans are public, thoroughly consulted on, and supported across party lines because they’re about practical governance, not political erasure. Instead of stoking unfounded fears, why not engage with the actual consultation? Residents deserve better than alarmist rhetoric.
We’re just have to agree to disagree on where you get your info from.
The great thing about primary-sourced evidence-based arguments is that they don’t require your agreement.
While primary-source, evidence-based arguments are often seen as objective, several critical counter-arguments suggest they are not immune to the need for agreement or interpretation:
Evidence Does Not Speak for Itself: Raw data from primary sources often requires explanation and analysis to be meaningful. A researcher must interpret how a specific piece of evidence supports a claim, and different researchers may see that evidence in vastly different ways.
Subjectivity of Primary Sources: Primary sources are rarely neutral; they are “unfiltered records” that reflect the personal, social, and political viewpoints of their creators. For example, historical records or newspaper reports often contain inherent biases or propaganda that must be critically evaluated rather than accepted as absolute truth.
The Problem of Underdetermination: Multiple conflicting interpretations can often be drawn from the same set of primary sources. Historians frequently disagree because they give different “weighting” to the same sources or apply different theoretical lenses, meaning the evidence alone does not force a single, “agreeable” conclusion.
Selection and Confirmation Bias: The process of gathering evidence is itself an act of interpretation. Researchers may “cherry-pick” or suppress evidence that contradicts their preferred argument, leading to a conclusion that is based on evidence but is still fundamentally manipulative
Problem when you generate a comment using AI like that, is that it doesn’t always make the zinger you are trying to make.
In this case, you’ve inadvertently agreed with me, which I suspect you didn’t mean to do, lol.
Your disappointment is of no consequence to me, sir. How odd that you assume it would be.
Perhaps I wasn’t being clear enough. No one’s looking for your deference, nor did my comment hinge on it. Disappointment wasn’t a plea for your concern; it was a statement about your chosen tone of public discourse. I’ve seen you make much better comments before, so when you spread misinformation like that, you are very much doing yourself a disservice.
So I repeat myself: Instead of stoking unfounded fears, why not engage with the actual consultation? Residents deserve better than alarmist rhetoric.
Here’s a revolutionary idea. Let’s see ten devolution options, five of which could be suggested by the electorate and put it out to public referendum to vote on. I seem to remember it’s called democracy.
This is not devolution.
It’s a mess is what it is. More to the point, it will never happen if the Polls are correct about the new political kid on the block.
Messy, I can’t deny. LGR was going to be complicated by the very nature of the area. Reform isn’t against LGR from my understanding, although they’ve been vocal about election delays.
The great thing about primary-sourced evidence-based arguments is that they don’t require your agreement.
Good thing it wasn’t an evidence-based assertion then, wasn’t it?
Copied and pasted ben
Brighton & Hove City Council’s spending on housing for immigrants in the 2025/2026 financial year is complex as much of the funding comes from specific central government grants, not a single dedicated council budget line. The council’s general housing budget in 2025/26 includes a significant amount for temporary accommodation for all residents, which is projected to cost £28 million
…and what does that have to do with LGR, Devolution, or this article at all?
An emergency shelter for people who are sleeping on the streets is to open its doors this evening (Wednesday 24 December) for Christmas and the coming few days and nights.
The shelter, known as the SWEP (Severe Weather Emergency Protocol) shelter, is funded by Brighton and Hove City Council.
…and what does that have to do with this article, LGR, or devolution?
What’s it got to do with you.
Get over your self
Stop it get some help
Well, you’re the one who directed the comment towards me, so you tell me.
Because as my dad would say living on a farm .
Don’t wrestle a pig as your both get dirty and the pig will love it.
You love calling everyone out daily ……
I like to challenge narratives I believe are incorrect or lacking nuance, we’ve been through this before. What does that have to do with LGR, Devolution, or this article at all?