MP calls Brighton and Hove City Council’s Sussex reorganisation proposal a ‘dog’s breakfast’ as BHCC highlights benefits for region

James MacCleary was responding to a BHCC Agenda Document detailing the ‘Five Unitary Proposal’.

The document, which was due to be discussed at a city cabinet meeting yesterday (Thursday, September 25), can be found online at democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk.

The proposal, if endorsed by BHCC cabinet members, would call on the government to explore creating five new unitary authorities to cover all of Sussex. This would be expected to involve extensive redrawing of existing administrative boundaries and has come in for heavy criticism from politicians across East Sussex.

The draft proposal says Brighton and Hove’s existing boundaries could be expanded into areas which currently form part of Lewes District: East Saltdean and Telscombe Cliffs, most of Newhaven and part of Falmer Parish. The rest of Lewes District, the draft proposal says, could be split between two other unitary authorities. Wealden District could also be split (into two parts) as part of the proposal. One of these potential councils could be formed of wards currently covered by Mid Sussex Council, as well as those in the north of Wealden District and the north of Lewes District. This would include Crowborough, Hailsham, Heathfield, Kingston, Lewes, Newick, Ringmer and Uckfield. The other potential council in East Sussex would take in the rest of Wealden and Lewes, as well as all of Eastbourne, Hastings and Rother District. This would include Herstmonceux, Pevensey Bay, Seaford and the Newhaven North ward.

The Lewes MP (Lib Dem) said the proposed reorganisation with five unitary authorities had involved ‘minimal consultation with those affected’, and said BHCC is ‘tearing through existing settlements, districts and wards of Sussex’.

But Brighton and Hove City Council leader Bella Sankey (Lab) says the five council setup would ‘protect local identity’ better than any alternative model.

She said: “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.”

Mr MacCleary said: “If this wasn’t so serious then it might be possible to write it off as some sort of joke. It looks like someone has sat in a room with a map somewhere in Hove Town Hall, drawn some lines on it and presented it as a real proposal for local government reorganisation.”

The Lewes MP said one of the new authorities would place Crawley, Horsham and Chichester together, and said other proposals would divide Lewes District and Wealden in different directions. He added that the plans create ‘a confused map of conflicting boundaries and wards’, saying they would split some communities in half.

He said that, in contrast, East Sussex County Council’s proposal ‘has been through extensive consultation’ and ‘respects existing communities’.

Mr MacCleary also said that, despite public opposition, East Saltdean, Telscombe and Peacehaven would become part of Brighton and Hove in the BHCC proposals.

“The plan would see South Heighton and Newhaven in my constituency put into different local authorities,” he said. “The whole thing is a dog’s breakfast. I will be writing to the new local government minister urging him to throw it out.”

But, in a statement responding to Mr MacCleary’s points, Cllr Sankey said: “At every stage we have looked to work proactively with our neighbouring authorities and reached out to chief executives and council leaders. Regular conversations have taken place between this council and others across Sussex.

"Under our proposal, each council is large enough to deliver essential services, such as adult and children’s social cares with the necessary capacity and expertise yet remains small enough to stay rooted in the communities it serves.

“We believe our proposal not only has the potential to unlock tens of millions of pounds annual for the region but also strikes a careful balance between scale and local identity. Under our proposal, each council is large enough to deliver essential services, such as adult and children’s social cares with the necessary capacity and expertise yet remains small enough to stay rooted in the communities it serves.”

Lewes District Council (LDC) and East Sussex County Council (ESCC) issued a joint reaction to BHCC’s proposals, also saying there had been no consultation with residents or organisations outside Brighton.

They are due to make a decision on whether to endorse their own, alternative proposals. These proposals, known as the One East Sussex model, advocate for the creation of a single unitary authority covering every part of what is currently East Sussex county.

Councillor Zoe Nicholson (Green), Leader of LDC, said the BHCC proposals had been developed for communities they ‘do not understand’.

She said the LDC Cabinet was due to meet on September 25 as the Express went to press, and would ‘be standing firm in supporting our residents’. She said: “We will not support any proposal that seeks to dismantle our communities without proper engagement or understanding of their needs.”

Councillor Nicholson said: “Our own consultation showed overwhelming rejection of the proposals – 89 per cent of respondents, representing around 7,500 people objected – and nearly 6,500 people signed an online petition opposing the plans.”

“We also have serious concerns about the effects this proposal would have on essential frontline services,” she said.

“We are proud of the collaborative One East Sussex proposal, which we developed with our partners across the county. This is the right way forward for East Sussex and provides a sensible and sustainable solution for our region.”

Councillor Keith Glazier (Con), Leader of East Sussex County Council said: Residents of East Sussex are the most important people to involve in conversation about the future of their local government. It’s bewildering that maps have been drawn up in secret for their communities with almost no discussion with them or with us.

“We will analyse this late proposal (from BHCC) and any data or evidence it contains. But I am confident in the case we have made for One East Sussex which has been widely discussed with residents, is built on rigorous evidence and offers a clear proposal to provide the high-quality services people want. Our proposal stands on solid evidence and strong partnerships and would not involve huge extra complexity and cost.”

Councillor Sankey responded: “We asked to join the working group of East Sussex leaders discussing local government reorganisation but unfortunately that request was not accepted. Nonetheless we have also openly shared relevant information with colleagues at other councils to help inform their proposals and are grateful for the data and insight councils have provided us with in relation to their constituencies and areas impacted by plans. It is, therefore, disappointing to see a small group of politicians criticise Brighton & Hove City Council and misrepresent the process which has taken place.

“All local councils have been asked by government to suggest what shape local democracy could take in the region – not just their own council footprint and we’ve followed Government’s guidance to do so.

"Guidelines governing this process do not allow us to actively consult residents outside of our council area, but we have held public engagement events on our eastern boundary to make them as accessible as possible for residents impacted by our changes to attend, and our online consultation included the ability for anyone living in an area potentially impacted by our plans but currently outside of Brighton & Hove to have their say. If government decides to take our proposal forward to statutory consultation, then everyone in Sussex would be consulted and have their voice heard.”

Additional reporting by Local Democracy Reporter, Huw Oxburgh.