Brighton and Hove City Council’s proposed expansion – to include East Saltdean, Telscombe Cliffs and Peacehaven – has been put on hold.
The decision was announced in the House of Commons this afternoon (Monday 7 September) by Angela Rayner after at least eight councils around the country started legal challenges or considered doing so.
One of the local authorities believed to be weighing up legal action was East Sussex County Council – and like most of the others, it was unhappy with the “footprint” for the proposed new councils.
Ms Rayner, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, said that plans for council reorganisation would be paused and reviewed in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove.
The process would also be paused in West Sussex, she said, where a decision had yet to be made on the geography of two proposed new councils.
In the Commons, MPs criticised the waste of time, money and effort on the process so far but Ms Rayner said that this was not the case. And her review, she said, would take weeks rather than months.
Her fellow Labour MP, Chris Ward, who represents Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven, said: “A pause in the review is clearly the right step.
“But my constituents – particularly those in East Saltdean, Peacehaven and Telscombe (Cliffs) – will want to know what comes next.
“Will she answer two specific questions? First, will the review that she has announced look again at the precise boundaries announced in May, as well as the legal process that got to them?
“Secondly, how will my constituents have a chance to shape that decision? Will it be through MPs? Will there be another consultation?
“How can they feed in so that we can get this right and make (local government reorganisation) the success that we both know it can be?”
Ms Rayner said: “The review will look at those issues. I will then be able to give a more detailed response to how that happens with ministers.
“I want to ensure that local members feel that this review takes into account the issues and concerns that people raise and that it is done in a prompt and inclusive way so that we can make the right decisions for my honourable friend’s local area.”
James MacCleary, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, said: “Large numbers of my constituents took part in the government’s consultation on proposed boundaries for the East Sussex unitary authority in good faith.
“They were appalled by Brighton and Hove City Council’s attempted land grab in our area and, together, we resisted it.
“Can the Secretary of State be crystal clear for my constituents on whether she intends to reopen the discussion over East Sussex’s local government boundaries as part of this review?”
Ms Rayner replied: “Again, at the moment I can give the honourable member an assurance that I am looking at the areas and that I will look to ensure that all the consultation, information and advice is correct and that we are making robust decisions.
“I want to ensure that I do that. I am happy for him to be in contact with the relevant minister or myself to ensure that we hear what he is saying about that process but I have heard him today.”
The Reform UK leader of East Sussex County Council, Andy Woolley, echoed the Lib Dem MP’s remarks.
Councillor Woolley said: “A pause in the process announced by the government today is surprising but is very good news, especially for people in East Saltdean, Peacehaven and Telscombe (Cliffs) who overwhelmingly said they wanted to remain in East Sussex.
“This will now be the case until further notice.
“It’s also welcome news for all residents of East Sussex who are being spared, for now, the additional costs from the government’s plan for reorganisation.
“While we’ve been working closely with our partners to build a sound and effective unitary council, we’ll use this pause to ask for more evidence for the reasoning behind the government’s decision in July to separate a part of East Sussex for transfer to Brighton and Hove.
“This review will offer the chance to present the detailed evidence behind that decision. We hope the Secretary of State will permanently think again.
“We are continuing to hold government to account to ensure that decisions on (local government reorganisation) are evidence-based and in the best interests of local people
“And (we) will be seeking to understand how local areas will be involved in the review and the new timelines that we are expected to work towards.
“We also look forward to seeing further government proposals for rewiring the relationship between local government and other parts of the state.
“Local government services urgently require funding which matches the needs of people in East Sussex, now and in future.
“We await further details from the government as to what this means in practice. We note that borough and district elections planned for 2027 in many parts of East Sussex will now take place as originally planned.
“We are ready to resume local government reorganisation for East Sussex as soon as a final decision is made. Meanwhile, all services will continue as normal.”
So local elections need to go ahead in 2027 and BH Leader Bella Sankey is no longer a “pre-mayor”?
Does this mean Brighton and Hove, alongside East and West Sussex, needs to give back the £117 million in government funding they were allocated during a rotating “pre-mayoral” setup before a regional executive mayor is officially elected?
Local elections were always going to go ahead, regardless. Unlikely regarding money, since this is a pause to think about boundaries. LGR will still happen.
How can we trust Rayner after her mistake in Hove !!
Yet people vote and defend Reform, even after seeing footage of Nigel Farage accepting foreign money and flaunting electoral law.
In comparison, getting the wrong advice, owning up to it, and immediately correcting it is far more trustworthy behaviour, wouldn’t you agree?
Is Labour still doling out peerages in return for donations Benjamin? How much does one need to donate in order to get what peerage? Is there a tariff available?
Speaking of people voting and defending Reform, even after seeing footage of Nigel Farage accepting foreign money and flaunting electoral law; you’re not very good at deflection, Tracy, much like Nigel Farage isn’t good at deflecting how he was caught thanking a man, accepting his foreign money donation into Reform and flaunting electoral law.
Whataboutism is one of the worst arguments you can make.
Selling peerages for donations remains a criminal offence under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. How many of those responsible were prosecuted and bogus honours stripped? Or does the law only apply to non-Labour parties?
Completely irrelevant, and has no basis in fact. It just comes across as you remaining unhinged, as usual. Whataboutism is one of the worst arguments you can make, and you’re further highlighting why.
Brighton and Hove council own land over the border in Falmer and in Telscombe village, so we may as well take them over.
And run a number of the services used by the areas. I get the impression that it is the Brexit situation again, calling for freedom, then shocked to learn that their access to schools are reduced, and that their adult social care bill exponentially increases, so many of their current services will have to be chopped up quite severely to accommodate.
Labour cannot even run a seafront paddling pool! And apparently the new trees in Old Steine are already dying so more embarrassment on the way.
Blaming uncharacteristically hot and dry weather on a political party is certainly a very interesting take.
Saplings need intensive care for the first 2-3 years of their life until they have fully rooted, drought or not.
Blaming uncharacteristically hot and dry weather on a political party, whilst having no clue of what actually happened, is certainly a very interesting take.
Some people have thick skins and convenient short memories who sold of British energy for next to nothing,who sold our gold RESERVES for next to nothing, who lied to the nation about weapons of mass destruction, who murdered an innocent person and called it suicide, who is now a multi millionaire who tried to shaft the elderly ,who’s taxing the elderly on the pittance of a pension, who’s open the door to an invasion of Illegal migrants, who’s last to get housing, indigenous population,??next time you get yourself out of your fly remember that’s your name
Hooray. Only Bella Sankey and Jacob Taylor want this.
I want it
Well, this is rather encouraging.
One has become so accustomed to consultations being followed by lengthy explanations of why the consultees were, regrettably, mistaken that the prospect of a genuine pause for reflection feels positively refreshing.
There is surely no shame whatsoever in allowing a fresh pair of eyes to examine the evidence, the outcomes of the consultation and the concerns subsequently raised. Quite the reverse. Good government requires not merely the confidence to make decisions, but occasionally the confidence to reconsider them.
I was particularly impressed by Chris Ward MP’s contribution. His emphasis on the strength of feeling among people in Peacehaven, Telscombe Cliffs and East Saltdean – and on ensuring that those communities have a meaningful voice in what happens next – struck precisely the right note.
Consultations, as we are so frequently reminded in these parts, are not referendums. Quite so. But nor are they theatrical productions in which the ending has been written before the audience takes its seat.
People may reasonably disagree about the eventual boundaries. What matters now is that the review approaches the question afresh, properly considers the consultation evidence and listens respectfully to the communities whose representation and local identity are actually being discussed.
So, credit where it is due: to those who have listened, to those who have pressed the case constructively, and particularly to Mr Ward for ensuring that the voices of his constituents have been heard clearly at Westminster.
Fresh eyes, open minds and local voices given their proper weight. One can hardly object to that.
Indeed, one might rather like to see more of it.
Lady Bracknell, from the stalls
Lady Bracknell has, if I may say so, made the point with admirable restraint. I fear I am constitutionally incapable of quite such restraint.
There is something wonderfully reassuring about the Government deciding to pause a rather substantial piece of local government reorganisation and, for once, actually looking again at the map before everyone is instructed to pretend that the map was inevitable all along.
Mr Ward’s questions in the Commons were particularly sensible. If the review is genuinely to examine the areas, the consultation, the information and the advice upon which the decision was based, then one rather assumes that the geography is not to be treated as the one item on the buffet that nobody is permitted to touch.
That would be a rather curious definition of a review.
And this, I think, is where the distinction between consultation and decision-making becomes rather important.
A consultation is not a referendum, certainly. But neither should it resemble one of those exquisitely choreographed country-house dinners at which the assembled guests are invited to express their preference between the turbot, the Dover sole and the line-caught wild sea bass, accompanied by buttered Jersey Royals, asparagus and petits pois, only after the chef has prepared the turbot, the butler has decanted the Puligny-Montrachet, and the host has informed the kitchen that turbot is what everyone has always preferred.
One would hardly call that consultation.
One might call it lunch.
If the evidence supports Brighton & Hove’s proposed expansion, so be it. If it supports a different arrangement, then so be that instead. The purpose of asking questions is surely to discover the answer, rather than merely to establish that the questions have been asked.
And this is why I find Mr Ward’s question about whether the boundaries themselves will actually be reconsidered rather more important than some of the political theatre surrounding this affair. If the map is genuinely on the table, then let us examine it properly. If it is not, one wonders why the table was laid.
There is also something rather refreshing about asking how the people actually living in East Saltdean, Telscombe Cliffs and Peacehaven are to have their say. One might have thought that residents having some influence over the future shape of their own local government would be considered a fairly uncontroversial proposition.
Apparently, however, we have reached the stage at which this counts as radical constitutional theory.
So I find myself in agreement with Lady Bracknell: fresh eyes, proper evidence and an opportunity for local voices to be heard are all rather welcome.
Indeed, if the Government manages to conduct this review without anyone attempting to sweep an inconvenient piece of evidence underneath the carpet, I shall be positively astonished.
One hopes, therefore, that everyone might put down their political rolling pins for five minutes and allow the evidence to rise naturally.
After all, nobody wants a half-baked unitary council.
Sincerely
Viscount Biscuit
Viscount Biscuit, do please invite me to one of your lunches. The turbot sounds divine.
Having read rather more about this affair, however, I fear the tail may indeed have been wagging the dog. Population arithmetic is a useful servant, but a very poor substitute for geography, identity and the rather inconvenient matter of where communities themselves feel they belong.
And Mr Ward in the Commons? Quite genuinely moving. There was something in his voice – and, one thought, in his eyes – which suggested a man determined that his constituents would not simply be processed as numbers on somebody else’s map.
One may, quite unexpectedly, have discovered a contender for the title of Lady Bracknell’s favourite politician.
Young Master Jacob should consider himself on notice.
Lady Bracknell
Lady Bracknell,
I should be absolutely delighted to have you to luncheon. Any lady who can combine population arithmetic, constitutional principle and the finer points of local government in a single sitting is precisely the sort of company one hopes to find at one’s table.
I am inclined towards Dover sole, incidentally. My granddaughter, Miss Clementine Biscuit, who visits regularly, is not terribly keen on fish, so one must occasionally take the younger generation into account. Freshly caught sole has, in any event, the considerable advantage of being both delicate and remarkably unassertive in the olfactory department. A chilled Meursault should complete the arrangement rather nicely.
But back to the rather more substantial matter at hand.
I entirely agree with your observation about population arithmetic. Numbers are, of course, important, but they are an ingredient rather than the entire recipe. Geography, community identity, existing relationships and the rather important question of where people actually feel they belong all deserve consideration before one starts rearranging the municipal furniture.
There is always a danger, when dealing with local government, of becoming so enamoured with the spreadsheet that one forgets there are actual people living in the cells. A population figure may look wonderfully neat on paper, but communities are rather less obliging than biscuits: they do not necessarily fit the tin one has selected for them.
Mr Ward’s intervention seemed to me particularly welcome for precisely that reason. He was asking not merely whether the arithmetic works, but whether the proposed arrangement makes sense for the communities involved. That strikes me as a rather more useful question.
And as for Mr Ward becoming your favourite politician, I fear he may have rather stiff competition from a certain 27-year-old Cabinet Member for Woodingdean.
Mr Allen appears to have made quite an impression upon you, Lady Bracknell. I shall endeavour not to take it personally. Youth, Cabinet office and a Woodingdean constituency are, I concede, formidable advantages. One must recognise a strong hand when one sees it.
Still, I am pleased that you have accepted the invitation. It would hardly do to have an entirely theoretical luncheon, particularly when there are municipal boundaries to dissect and a perfectly good bottle of Meursault waiting to be opened.
I propose, therefore, that we proceed in the traditional manner: Dover sole, Meursault, good conversation and absolutely no discussion of municipal boundaries until after the first glass. One must have some standards.
There may, of course, be biscuits with the coffee. I am not entirely without principles.
And if the conversation becomes particularly taxing, I have always found that a well-timed digestive can restore both the constitution and the constitutional settlement.
After all, one should never attempt to redesign local government on an empty stomach.
The invitation stands.
Yours, with anticipation,
Viscount Biscuit