Brighton and Hove City Council proposes absorbing places on its northern and easter edges as part of a shake up of councils across Sussex.
The prospect of extending the boundary east to Peacehaven has already been aired but now the council is suggesting that the whole parish of Falmer should be part of Brighton and Hove.
Part of the parish is currently in Lewes district – in Kingston ward – and is also served by East Sussex County Council.
Brighton and Hove City Council consulted on whether to include Kingston as well as Newhaven but has decided against the idea.
The changes are driven in part by numbers, with the Labour government looking for unitary councils serving a population of at least 500,000. In Sussex, with a population of about 1.8 million, that would mean three new unitary councils.
The Labour administration in Brighton and Hove has instead proposed five smaller unitaries and – with a population of about 301,000 – Brighton and Hove would be the smallest.
The detailed proposals are due to be discussed at a series of meetings next week at Hove Town Hall, including a special council meeting on Wednesday (24 September).
Final proposals are due to be submitted to the government by the end of the week.
Brighton and Hove City Council is currently the only unitary council in Sussex since a merger in 1997 – but it serves a population of about 280,000.
A report to councillors said: “Neighbourhoods along the seafront already function as a single city region. Falmer links through universities, the Amex Stadium and health services.
“This helps align the Brighton Kemptown constituency boundary which includes East Saltdean, Peacehaven and Telscombe.”
The area is the youngest and most diverse part of Sussex, the report said, with only 13.5 per cent of residents aged 65 or over compared with more than 23 per cent in West Sussex and 26 per cent in East Sussex.
There are large student, commuter and family populations in the area and high demand for housing.
The proposals were also described as bringing together key infrastructure including the A259, railway routes, hospitals and cultural venues.
In the report, the Labour leader of Brighton and Hove City Council, Bella Sankey, said: “Change on this scale is unsettling. It is also necessary. Too often our current boundaries cut through communities, decisions feel distant and responsibility is unclear.
“Our vision is for councils that are big enough to be resilient and small enough to stay connected, places where local pride and local voice shape what happens next.
“This is not just about lines on a map. It is about the experience of residents. It means services that are easy to reach and joined up. It means decisions informed by lived experience and made with our communities, not for them.
“It means neighbourhood-led partnerships with the NHS, schools, police and the voluntary sector so that support feels seamless when people need it most.
“For the coast, we see one authority for a continuous coastal city that reflects the reality of a shared place and daily journeys.
“But this vision is wider than the coast alone. Across Sussex as a whole, we propose five councils, balanced in population size.
“Each would serve around three to four hundred thousand people, large enough to be financially resilient and small enough to remain rooted in local communities.
“Together they form a family of councils with clear responsibility and strong accountability, able to stand as equal partners in a devolved Sussex.
“This is not about one place growing at the expense of another. It is about the whole of Sussex being set up to succeed, with every community recognised and every council built on a scale that works.”
The council held a public consultation in July and August, inviting responses on four proposals to extend the city boundary eastward.
There were 2,307 responses, with 31 per cent from Brighton and Hove and 58 per cent for non-residents.
Concerns were raised about Brighton and Hove and the towns and parishes to the east losing their identity and character.
Continuity of frontline services was highlighted by responders – and safeguarding for vulnerable groups such as adults receiving care and children with special educational needs.
The report to councillors notes that the concerns raised were similar to those highlighted in other parts of the country.
A consultation run by Lewes District Council had 14,000 responses, with 89 per cent against Brighton and Hove absorbing the towns to the east.
Ninety-seven per cent of the responders did not want a change to local government structures.
In the Brighton and Hove proposals, East Sussex would have two unitary councils instead of the current two-tier set up of a county council and district councils.
One of the proposed unitaries would include all of the Eastbourne, Rother and Hastings districts, the Lewes District Council wards in Seaford and Newhaven and the Wealden District Council wards for Pevensey Bay, Polegate, Stone Cross, Willingdon and Herstmonceux.
The second unitary would include the rest of the Lewes district except for Falmer, all of Mid Sussex district, and the rest of the Wealden district including Uckfield, Crowborough, Hailsham, Mayfield, Buxted and Maresfield.
West Sussex would be more evenly divided with Adur, Worthing and Arun forming one unitary council, and Chichester, Horsham and Crawley the other.
All five proposed unitaries would have populations of more than 300,000 with the Chichester, Horsham and Crawley area having almost 400,000.
The proposals are due to be presented to Brighton and Hove City Council’s Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Monday (22 September) from 4pm.
They are also due to be discussed at a special meeting of the full council next Wednesday (24 September), starting at 6.30pm, and again by the council’s cabinet on Thursday 25 September from 2pm.
The final proposals are due to be submitted to the government on Friday 26 September.
The three meetings, at Hove Town Hall, are all scheduled to be webcast.
This should be put on hold. We should not be the guinea pigs in this first trial. Nationally the benefits have not been proven and there is no financial case as the previous deputy prime minister confessed.
We should let other areas try this, see if it works and if it does join in. The risks are too great and the financial benefits are unproven.
I understand the people who work in our councils spending a huge amount of time, resource and money on this. Just think how services could be improved if they spent it on things that we really care about like collecting the bins, graffiti, roads, potholes and so on.
With over 250 administrations in EAST and WEST Sussex anything else can only be for the better, it does not need testing elsewhere plenty to gain by doing it right here right now
what are these 250 adminstrations?
Please list some of them
Google it, starts with County Councils and work your way down the lists, shocking really how many repetitive functions there are in local administrations, that’s where money is to be saved
It’s a little bit exaggerated, and it depends on your definition, Stan. There are a lot, though, if we just count County, District, and Parish Councils, about 90 in East Sussex.
Ah ‘google it’ the standard response of people who havn’t done any research on the issue
YOU made the claim so YOU have to justify it.
Read on, 166 in West Sussex, plus the 90 mentioned below
On balance, though, Chris is right, you should lay your stall, and not wait for others to prove your point. Just makes for a much stronger point, right?
I’m sure 166 + 90 = 256
Could also query why you would comment on numbers I quoted from O.N.S. while it seems apparent you partake in the debate with NO research or numbers ??? Bigger issue is trying to find the numbers of people who are employed by said councils plus the population of sub contractors whose only customers are councils aka taxpayers
Nationally, the benefits have been proven for LGA and devolution in various parts of the country already. Whilst I don’t really agree with the expedited route, there is a financial incentive in doing so, and that’s a decision that has already been taken. Other areas have tried this and seen it works, and what pitfalls to avoid.
The impact this work currently has on those specific services is fairly limited, being completely different workstreams, but the outcome has the potential for remedying a lot of enduring challenges within the city, some of which you frequently comment about, Nick.
Why does this appear to be driven by Brighton & Hove?
Because BHCC applied for the expediated route, and also because LDC are being absorbed one way or another, and that ESCC, to my knowledge, haven’t provided their proposals yet.
B&HCC needs to sort it own house out first before even remotely considering taking on more.
We’ve seen the shambles it has become and reason why a lot moved East and West away from the city.
We’ve all heard Sankey’s false promises before
Unfortunately, that doesn’t match what reality shows us, though, Lucas. You say shambles, but there are plenty of positives that have been delivered, take house building for example – hundreds of new stock added, and the latest bin collection data is promising and trending well with the introduction of in-cab technology, to name just a few.
And the overwhelming reason why people move out of Brighton is house prices.
Totally agree. Brighton and Hove are a mess and have been spending money like it’s going out of fashion eg the i360. Very little publicity about these changes has been made particularly to the west. I am in West Worthing. It is already too late to object
Partial climbdown, but what a wasted opportunity. The problem is that the surrounding areas looked at the City and then directly at BHCC, and concluded that they did not want to import the grime, filth, graffiti, crime, and mafia run refuse collections into their own area. Cant say I blame them.
It’s an understandable perspective from that narrative. Turning that constructively, there’s a difference between the needs of urban vs rural, and I think that is a reasonable thing to be concerned about.
If this were to go ahead it will be an absolute disaster not just for BHCC but for the whole proposal, and chaos will ensue, it’s a preposterous idea thought up by nincompoops over there coffee.
Scrap it sll. They’ll only screw it up and make everything worse.
Why on earth would the people of Peacehaven, East Saltdean etc. want to be part of a council that has consistently ignored the needs of the “urban fringe” to its east, let the A259 disgrace at Saltdean fester for years (ignoring a 17,000 signatory petition), increased bus commuter journey times up to 30%, and pursued policies of wanton waste, influenced by minority lobbyists (cycling?) and the attraction of ill advised vanity projects (i360, Valley Gardens P3 … …. … )
Oh! Silly me … why on earth did I think that what the people affected want, will be a factor in the decision?
Adult Social Care.
It is clear to all with eyes to see that BHCC cannot run a proverbial in a Brewery. It should be deeply alarming to all towns and villages threatened by BHCC takeover that they will be subject to the same maladministration, civic dereliction and total unaccountability, when some may currently be enjoying much more competent rule.
A complete pause on any further progress along this path to disaster needs to be demanded. As does a Sussex-wide referendum on the matter. Scandalman Starmer is not even likely to be in power long enough to see his horrific land and asset grab plans through.
We had a referendum on the matter, it was called the General Election, Elaine.
This plan was not mentioned in any electioneering materials I saw, so people voted for Labour on false premises if they didn’t want this.
It was in the manifesto for the last two general elections, Elaine.
No other area in the UK had a referendum for a regional / metro mayor (other than for the London Mayor / GLA in 1998).
There is no provison in law to have one.
It’s also interesting how people assume referendums are a magic tool that enshrines any decision as “right,” regardless of whether the public fully grasps the issue. It is massively illogical. For example, if a referendum were held tomorrow to abolish prisons, should that automatically be accepted as sound policy?
Complex questions don’t magically become simple truths just because they win a majority vote, yet many cling to that belief, almost wistfully, as if the vote could spare them the burden of grappling with expertise, consequences, and reality.
AI generated drivel.
Have ESCC made their proposal yet?
https://democracy.eastsussex.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=70074
B&H Council can’t manage to deal with what they already have, they ignore the majority, they’re meant to represent and pander to the minority. They are a joke….
my opinion as a brighton resident…..
Why do they need to take more, can’t they be devolved into east & west sussex along with all the other small councils. Then there would be a lot less repeated paperwork/job roles etc & would probably save a lot more of council tax payers money from being wasted on things the majority in the city don’t want or need…..