The Prime Minister may be fighting to hang on to his job but, in Brighton and Hove, his party has kept faith with council leader Bella Sankey.
Councillor Sankey was re-elected unopposed as the leader of the Labour group last night (Monday 12 May) for the fourth year running.
As a result, she is expected to be confirmed as leader of Brighton and Hove City Council at the annual meeting on Thursday 21 May.
She is on course to become the longest-serving leader of the council for 20 years – since 2006, when former Labour councillor Ken Bodfish stepped down after five years at the helm.
And she will be the second-longest serving leader since the creation of the council that serves Brighton and Hove in 1997.
Councillor Sankey first became the leader of the council after Labour won a majority at the local elections in May 2023.
The Labour group has re-elected Councillor Jacob Taylor as deputy leader and finance lead while Councillor Tim Rowkins has been re-elected as the other deputy leader.
The party said: “The re-election of all three senior figures reflects continued confidence in the leadership team as Brighton and Hove Labour Party prepares for another year of delivering for residents.
“Since taking majority control of the council in 2023, Brighton and Hove Labour has prioritised cleaning up the city and restoring civic pride while implementing Labour’s values by escalating council and affordable house building and buy-backs, improving renters’ rights, rolling out clean energy, increasing fairness and school inclusion, focusing on community safety and expanding recycling and delivering food waste.
“The Labour group has also started reshaping the infrastructure of the city, with the delivery of Hove Beach Park, new outdoor gyms, starting the restoration of Madeira Terrace and the development of high-quality active travel and place-making regeneration.”
Councillor Sankey said: “I’m a local girl and it remains the honour of my life to lead my home city. I’m grateful to the Labour group for putting their trust in me again.
“Brighton and Hove is a special place and I am proud of how much we’ve achieved in the past three years.
“The Labour Party exists to make life better for working people and those who cannot work due to ill health or disability – and so we want to go further and faster.
“We are lifting thousands of people out of poverty across the city but too many are still struggling with the cost of living, too many families are still stuck in temporary accommodation and too many residents still feel the effects of over a decade of Tory underinvestment in public services.
“That is what drives me every day. We were elected to bring good governance, ambition and fairness back to the council and that work continues.
“Over the next year, we will keep focusing on the things that matter most to residents: more homes, cleaner streets, safer communities and better public services. And we will keep standing up for Brighton and Hove’s values – of fairness, dignity and equality.”
Councillor Taylor said: “I’m pleased to have been re-elected unopposed and to continue working alongside Bella and Tim as part of a strong and united leadership team.
“Local government finances remain incredibly difficult across the country but Brighton and Hove has a Labour administration that is making responsible decisions while still investing in the city’s future.
“Our focus is clear: protect vital services, tackle the housing crisis, get the best value for residents and make sure the council is on a stable financial footing for the years ahead.”
Councillor Rowkins, who is expected to continue to oversee the rubbish, recycling and street cleaning service and the council’s push towards “net zero”, said: “I’m delighted to continue as deputy leader and grateful for the confidence of our colleagues.
“This city deserves leadership that is practical, ambitious and rooted in residents’ values and everyday lives. Whether it’s improving basic services, delivering on our climate ambitions or making our communities safer and fairer, we have a serious job to do.
“The work is far from finished but this is a Labour group that knows what needs to be done and is determined to get on with delivering for Brighton and Hove.”
The Labour group’s leadership election comes as the local authority prepares for the new municipal year, with formal council appointments due to be ratified at the annual council meeting next week.
She is still the leader as no one else wants to do it.
Shame the B&H residents couldn’t vote.
Roll on May 2027.
Indeed. The way in which these ‘leaders’ are persistently failing to read the room means their downfall and inexorable drift into obscurity, is inevitable.
Look at these three… an adolescent, a self proclaimed ultra-socialist from the bastions of privelige, (public schools and Oxbridge), and a failed DJ. I wonder how many days of hard, physical labour they have had between them?
One has to ask; what has the Labour party become?
It’s a good question, one that I think will be answered by where this national leadership story ends up. The birth of the five-party system is already such a shock. My predictions are collations, tactical voting, and hung councils are incoming aplenty.
Change is seemingly inevitable. Whether ‘career politicians’, who have little other work/professional experience, will play a part in it remains to be seen.
It’s going to be a very interesting set of elections in 2027, agreed!
Were the other Councillors whipped to vote for them? Or have they just dug such a big hole for themselves no one else wants to fall in? Residents wouldn’t have re-elected them.
Extremely unlikely. It’s an internal group, so whipping makes zero sense. Reasons why are broad and completely speculative unless you were in the room, right?
That isn’t how local government works though Tracy,
The people elect their councillors then the party groups then elect their own leaderships.
The Tory the Green groups will also be doing the same.
At the councils AGM they will be formally be elected by the full council as the roles of Leader and Cabinet members are legally appointed by the full council.
This is happening in councils up and down the land.
And of course the pool of candidates is limited as you need to be a councillor to take these roles on.
Even if there were 54 independent members of the council they’d still have to find a leader and cabinet members.
Shame she refuses to meet people and answer emails
Apart from the various regular times she spends meeting people and answering emails.
Personally, in spite of everything, I would still probably vote Labour nationally – but not locally under Cllr Bella Sankey’s leadership.
That’s not about disagreeing with everything the administration does. I agree with some of it. But how things are done matters as much as what is done. And on a range of issues – King Alfred, the Hove Floral Clock, school admissions, local government reorganisation – the pattern has been consistent: consultations designed around leading questions rather than genuine engagement, experts and residents who ask difficult questions dismissed or attacked, key data and modelling withheld from public scrutiny.
The consequence isn’t abstract. Under the current King Alfred plans, Brighton & Hove will lose all meaningful leisure swimming for children over 8 – the only facility of its kind in the city, used by families who cannot afford to travel to Worthing or Burgess Hill. That loss appears nowhere in the council’s public communications. It was never put to residents in any consultation. It was confirmed only when residents read the submitted planning drawings themselves – and were then told they were spreading misinformation for doing so.
Leadership isn’t just about delivery. It’s about how you treat the people you’re delivering for.
It’s simply not true that Brighton & Hove will lose all meaningful leisure swimming for children over 8. In fact, the current King Alfred plans enhance it, and were designed with input from children’s swim clubs and family groups. There’s also a network of other facilities that provide swimming and leisure activities for children; it’s not the only facility of its kind in Brighton. Can’t consult on a claim that simply doesn’t exist!
Although if the argument there is that there should be more facilities around, beyond the King Alfred, I’d totally get behind that!
Thanks Benjamin worth responding properly as these are the same claims the council makes.
On other facilities, Prince Regent, Sea Lanes and the new Withdean pool are all lane pools. None have a leisure lagoon or slides. The existing King Alfred has a freeform lagoon and enclosed slide for children over 8 – that specific provision exists nowhere else in the city. When it’s demolished, it’s gone from Brighton & Hove entirely without any replacement.
On enhancement, Cllr Robbins confirmed in writing that the new facility has two pools (lanes and a teaching pool) plus a splash pad. The splash pad area is approximately 4×8 metres, sits above a car park with no pool tank, and has the fitness suite directly above – meaning the ceiling height precludes full-height slides. He described the offer for older children as the teaching pool and inflatables in the main pool at the operator’s discretion. That’s not an enhancement of what it replaces.
On swim club and families input, I’d welcome the council publishing that consultation – the survey questions were never made public and an FOI request for them is overdue and hasn’t yet been answered. What I can say is that the council’s own foundational Sports Facility Investment Plan survey from 2020, obtained via FOI, showed 52.3% of respondents specifically ticked ‘Leisure Water for families with features such as slides, interactive water play.’ The submitted plans don’t deliver it.
I want an improved leisure centre – and I wouldn’t personally mind if facilities for over 8s moved somewhere else in the City. But I do think it should be on the basis of residents being given an accurate picture of what’s actually being proposed and facilities being enhanced rather than lost.
Maybe have a look at the details of the plans yourself? It is available on the planning portal.
Thanks for the suggestion. Our first-ever discussion involved me sending you links to the planning portal documents, including the technical drawings, so you know I’ve already read them! And thanks for articulating in more detail, the specifics make for better conversation.
So, I feel you’re changing the goalposts slightly there. You claimed, “Brighton & Hove will lose all meaningful leisure swimming for children”. Now you’re saying there is leisure swimming for children in Brighton & Hove, but you feel you’re not a fan of what the older stuff is being replaced by. That’s a fair argument, and why it is important to be precise. Again, and I think we’re agreed on this, that’s a strong incentive for having more swimming facilities in Brighton!
You also claimed that the submitted plans don’t deliver a “Leisure Water for families with features such as slides, interactive water play” but recognise the Splash Pad, which is a leisure water facility for families with features such as slides and interactive water play. I agree scale is in question, and I would gently point to the LSS site that was originally considered, but the public said no to, which would have provided an additional 2,000sqm of space over the KA. Even the early online YourVoice survey showed a 92% of positive intent to use what was currently designed for families and young children, perhaps there is caution about how much the vocal minority are weighed?
I agree with you that facilities should be enhanced, not lost, and I would gently remind you that the condition of it means that if the “do nothing ” approach continued, KA would have shut down. And, if there are still gaps, then creating more leisure spaces is not a bad thing!
Benjamin, I don’t recall any interaction where you posted planning portal links. I do remember the one where you said there were ‘errors in facts and interpretation’ that you would ‘gently push back on later’. To be honest I found that a bit patronising – and then you never replied. Maybe you just wrote something and never posted it?
On the substance, I haven’t moved any goalposts. I’ve read the planning documents in detail, and they simply do not match the statements councillors have made.
My first comment in this thread was very clear – Brighton & Hove will lose all meaningful leisure water provision for children over 8. You said that was ‘simply not true’.
I then quoted what Cllr Robins confirmed in writing – a splash pad and potentially a small slide for younger children.
That is not provision for over‑8s.
So, since you want specificity, can you point to anything in the plans that replaces the lagoon and enclosed slide for older children? Because the plans – as the lead councillor has confined – show only the toddler splash pad; lane swimming; a teaching pool; and inflatables in the main pool at the operator’s discretion (likely once a week, as at Prince Regent).
That is not equivalent to, or an enhancement of, the lagoon and slide for over‑8s.
And on the Your Voice survey, I completed it positively myself. The council hasn’t published the questions or the results, which is poor practice. But even then, I recall that the survey did not make clear that the only leisure water would be a small toddler splash pad buried inside the building. That is not remotely suitable for my child, or for any older children. You cannot call in aid a poorly designed survey which did not make the proposal clear.
Facilities are being lost. The council should, at a minimum, be honest about that. And as I said originally, this is just one example of many where the approach the council has taken has been questionable.
You had asked for them! Wasn’t aiming to be patronising, you articulate yourself well, and it’s enjoyable to discuss this with you. I thought I’d sent a reply, but it was during later hours when the site slows right down, so I guess my submission didn’t go through! Blame my impatience for that one.
Anyway, as I said, it’s fine to hold that opinion and argue for more, and without being pedantic, I’d broadly agree with the goal of that criticism; to encourage more leisure provision, however that looks – personally, I’d like to see more spaces around the city, as I’ve mentioned before. Doesn’t have to be a like-for-like. Oh, you can see the results of the YourVoice survey by scrolling to the bottom; you might have to expand the bottom menu to see the file to download. I don’t know if you missed it?
For honesty, I think it is important to reiterate that the KA would have been lost if not for this work, and it’s been a project stuck in limbo for 30 years. When you say a facility is being lost, I would say it’s a facility that has been saved from historic, and almost terminal neglect. And that’s something positive.
Bella and her chums are becoming the best advertisement to vote Reform, whether wittingly or unwittingly.
Keep up the good work dear. You’re doing a great job destroying everything my late parents stood for.
Thanks Benjamin – I hadn’t asked for the planning documents, I’d already read them. That’s how I knew what was in them.
The specific question was: can you point to anything in the submitted plans that replaces the lagoon and enclosed slide for children over 8?
And since my original point on this post was actually about the council’s broader approach to consultation – I’ll add an additional one, can you point me to where, in either the YourVoice survey or the LSS site preference survey, residents were clearly told that the new facility would not include a leisure lagoon or enclosed slide for older children?
The LSS survey asked residents whether they would personally use a facility at each location – a question almost guaranteed to favour the existing site for anyone who currently goes there. It didn’t ask whether residents were happy to lose the lagoon and slide in exchange for a new building. I completed the Your Voice survey myself and had no idea the leisure water provision for older children was being removed. That’s not a consultation on the trade-offs. That’s a consultation designed to avoid them.
In this case I would welcome any links you have to the actual questions – not just the summaries that have appeared in the Council papers – I have already read those.
You had specifically asked for links to documents that were in the planning portal, so maybe you didn’t know they were in there, which is fine, there’s 100s, but that’s okay – it’s not relevant to our discussion.
I’m afraid you’re shifting the goalposts and reiterating your question. Your claim is, verbatim quote: “Brighton & Hove will lose all meaningful leisure swimming for children over 8”. I countered this by saying this is not true and pointed to several other locations that offer meaningful leisure swimming for children over 8. You then clarified and said you didn’t feel what was being developed at King Alfred was equivalent or meaningful, referring to the designs of King Alfred, pointing yourself to elements of my answer. I agreed that it was a fair opinion and stated that it is a persuasive argument for additional leisure facilities throughout the city.
The plans and designs, which you have said you’ve read all of, show clearly what is there and what is not. These have been presented in many easy-read forms and provided to many groups, stakeholders, residents’ associations, in addition to surveys, as is legally required, to review and scrutinise. Some of these were webcast, so I assume you’ve already seen them, or know where on the website to look. When I think of all this, I cannot support your assertion on consultation, which I believe has been very thorough, and even through informal channels, I’m sure our Ward Councillors would continue to be open to hearing thoughts and views, particularly when articulated constructively.
Back to your broader point, as you indicated, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts. I think the term consultation is often confused with co-design, and this causes frustration due to the misunderstanding? Maybe an important thing to advocate for is more precise language, as suggested in the Public Participation Spectrum?