A special meeting of Brighton and Hove’s cabinet will ask councillors to back the city council taking part in a devolution priority programme – but it leaves the future of the council in question.
Proposals going before the special meeting on Thursday (9 January) are for Brighton and Hove to join with East Sussex County Council and West Sussex County Council to create a mayoral combined authority for Sussex.
Councils across the country have been asked to submit their requests to take part in the devolution priority programme outlined in a government white paper by next Friday (10 January).
The West Sussex and East Sussex county council cabinets are also due to meet on Thursday morning to discuss their responses to the devolution white paper.
A report published today (Friday 3 January) described devolution as a “key plan” in the new Labour government’s plans to redistribute political, social and economic power across England.
In the summer the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner wrote to leaders of all upper-tier councils, including Brighton and Hove City Council and the two county councils, inviting areas to express an interest in devolution.
The white paper sets out an aim for new strategic authorities to have a population of at least 1.5 million. The combined population of the two counties and Brighton and Hove is more than 1.7 million which passes the threshold.
Brighton and Hove City Council leader Bella Sankey spoke positively about Ms Rayner’s the letter after she was elected chair of the Greater Brighton Economic Board on Tuesday 16 July, the day before English Devolution Bill was announced in the King’s speech.
Councillor Sankey said in July: “Because we are a coalition of the willing, with extensive economic and business experience across local authority boundaries, we are well placed to be involved in discussions about opportunities for deeper collaboration.
“We can bring relevant people together and highlight insights about how the strengths and achievements of the different councils can complement one another to make the strongest possible case for investment in the region.
“We want to be part of this conversation and capitalise on the region’s potential.”
The Greater Brighton Economic Board brings together the leaders and chief executives of seven councils as well as business representaives and university and college bosses – from Bognor to Seaford and from the coast to Crawley.
The government published its English Devolution White Paper on 16 December, aiming to decentralise power from Westminster to new “strategic authorities”.
For areas keen to move forward with devolution the government will back establishing mayoral strategic authorities by May next year and new unitary authorities by April 2027 with a view to elections in May 2027.
At this stage it is not clear whether Brighton and Hove will remain a unitary authority on its own. The population of about 280,000 falls short of the 500,000 that the government states that it wants for new unitary authorities.
The report said that there would be some flexibility – and proposals for new unitary authorities would be judged on a case-by-case basis. But reorganisation looks likely to lead to a new unitary authority that includes Brighton and Hove.
The report to cabinet said: “The government has committed to a simplified funding landscape for strategic authorities, with mayor strategic authorities receiving a consolidated pot covering local growth, place, housing and regeneration, non-aprenticeship adult skills and transport.
“Foundation strategic authorities (those without an elected mayor) will have less flexibility in receiving dedicated local growth allocations decided by formulae.
“The white paper sets out that the default assumption is to have mayoral combined authorities with a population of 1.5 million or above.
“Areas must cover a sensible economic geography with a focus on functional economic areas, travel to work patterns and local labour markets.”
Within the white paper, the government has set out areas where strategic authorities will drive growth and shape public services.
The list, which may expand, includes
- Transport and local infrastructure
- Skills and employment support
- Housing and strategic planning
- Economic development and regeneration
- Environment and climate change
- Health, wellbeing and public service reform
- Public safety
The special cabinet meeting at Hove Town Hall is due to start at 11.30am on Thursday (9 January). The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
Devolution means getting smaller not vastly increasing. This sounds like more ‘jobs for the boys’. and less help for the local people, not to mention huge increase in costs.
I agree with your definition, but I feel you’re applying it incorrectly. Many items that are decided by central government would now be managed more locally, meaning MORE help for local people and a huge decrease in costs.
It does all have a ring of Bella Sankey power grab all over it – let’s not forget that when she didn’t get selected as an MP candidate in Hastings she issued a press release which included the line “my time will come”. It’s hard not to think that she has her eye on being mayor if it all happens. I think that underestimates the national mood of disappointment at the new Labour Government, meaning that the largely area would return a Tory mayor given the voting history of Sussex outside of the city.
Over the last 30 years, English governance has paradoxically become both more devolved and yet increasingly centralised.
Sqqquccessive generations of Westminster politicians have rhetorically committed themselves to devolving power, yet in office, continue to promote a model of English devolution shaped by the ‘value system’ of the British Political Tradition emphasising centralised control.
Are we really going to see local people making decisions or control taken from them and put in the hands of metro mayors under the influence of all and sundry.
Whitehall/Westminster by Proxy.
The most likely outcome in my view of the Local Government Review is that Brighton & Hove City Council will cease to exist from May 2027 and be replaced with a new unitary authority which will add Worthing Borough Council, Adur District Council to the current borders. This is because the Leader of East Sussex County Council seems to be happy with keeping the current county boundaries for the new unitary and West Sussex County Council is the largest at 882,700 so it wants to shed part of it to make a slightly smaller unitary. We’ll know for sure by May but all of this is so opaque it’s gobsmacking.
That will indeed be a result!
Residents, businesses and taxpayers are fed up with the inept, profligate and unaccountable dogma-driven idiots at bhcc
The debate ultimately hinges on whether local identity and tailored governance is outweighed by efficiencies by consolidation.
Something that is definitely worth keeping apprised on.
I live in Sompting. Why would I want anything to do with Brighton?
No thank you! Moving out of Brighton & Hove Council’s area was the best move of my life. No more problems with bin collections or parking, plus we don’t want to be saddled with their debt from the i360 debacle.
Google how many local authorities in your county, W.Sussex has 166 all costing mony and causing multiple units of repeat administration, with only 880,000 residents it’s about time all of these sub units were centralised and reduce the excess council office population. Add to that some “councillors” have repeat jobs within different sub units. Not exactly value for money.
There’s definitely a benefit in centralisation. We see it in many industries.
It depends on what form that centralization takes. The main thrust of the white paper seems to be a case for improving economic growth. The policy area that Labour is gambling the next general election on.
The ongoing dominance of a growth-led urban agglomeration model of English devolution does not however adequately accommodate the range of social, political, cultural, environmental, and economic interests that shape the diversity of places.
This top–down approach to English devolution lacks clarity and consistency, and can create ‘governance gaps’ that undermine public confidence, particularly in places that experience long-term political and economic marginalisation.
Thus, English devolution currently offers little to deprived communities in England who invariably feel disenfranchised despite the fact that it is repeatedly framed as an economic equaliser in government policy
These factors may well contribute to rising populism, however unintended that outcome may be. Farage 1 – 0 Labour.
While criticisms of a top-down approach are valid, the model emphasises empowering communities through localised decision-making frameworks, ensuring that policies are tailored to the unique needs of different areas rather than imposing one-size-fits-all solutions.
Economic growth isn’t incompatible with social equity. Prioritising growth could create the resources necessary to invest in deprived communities, addressing disparities in housing, education, healthcare, and infrastructure. This approach positions growth as a means to an end—improving lives, not just statistics.
Claims that devolution fuels populism overlook the opportunity it presents to build public trust. By demonstrating the tangible benefits of these policies and engaging directly with disenfranchised communities, Labour can counter alienation and show that devolution can be a tool for inclusion and progress, not division. The challenge is not Farage 1 – 0 Labour but ensuring that Labour’s vision is effectively delivered and communicated.
Living on the edge of East Sussex (Eastbourne seems to need a microscope to notice us on the map) , Brighton and Hove, and Lewes District (which loves us as a place to put housing, but not infrastructure or services), the idea of being more centrally placed within a combined Sussex sounds appealing. The boundaries of Brighton and Hove, in particular, seems arbitrary and result in necessary bus services, for example, being at the mercy of Lewes councillors who begrudge services to our underserved town.
Anyone who’s read “Failed state” by Sam Freeman will know that this is long overdue and a necessary move if we want to improve governance and accountability in this country.
If Worthing & Adur are ‘added’ to Brighton & Hove then households in temporary accommodation (approx 1,300) will be legitimately be able to be placed in accommodation in those areas. This will remove people from support networks and risks changing the demography of both areas.
In my experience, I feel that decentralisation will help with some of the issues that come from that specific community feeding off each other.
It is by degrees of removal that democracy is destroyed. The less you can see the less you can question. The more remote the the governing offices, The harder it is to gain accountability. Was it this kind of strategy that Putin deployed to gain his access to absolute power that made him virtually untouchable?
It’s the amount of administration that is the problem, so many local authorities all being paid is not proper democracy, it’s overdone with too many offices doing the same job in various places that should be managed properly, East and West Sussex do NOT have millions of residents nor millions of miles of roads nor millions of homeless or council properties, 1 central admin can cover that easy with sub management locally not another complete administration system, bring out yer dead comes to mind, see what’s lurking around all these council properties.
What you seem to be creating is a good argument for a Citizens Assembly.
In my view, the priority of concerns for the individual are the immediate locality, the wider neighbourhood, then the village, town or city, after that the county, next the region, finally the nation as a whole. It makes sense for the responsibilities to reflect the size of the unit. For example, defence and foreign policies are at national level. Individual planning decisions and speed limits on residential streets could be sorted at neighbourhood level. Integrated public transport would best be considered at town or county level. For truly devolved government, several layers would encourage participation and democracy. With each layer with relevant responsibilities and adequate funding. Perhaps a review of parish, district, town and county councils would be in order.
Doesn’t need multi layers of anything, just common sense should apply, and no one cares about the opinion of your neighbours garden gnome, it’s not viable for everyone to be included on every subject on every change or remedy, personal ideaology should not be allowed to hinder anything or make it more expensive, general standards and management should be applied not multi decisions on how to not repair potholes or anything else, get the busy bodies removed and get something actually done and not delayed at twice the price.
When I raised this matter in December as part of my Supplementary Question to cllr Robins as its being a factor in funding of the King Alfred, he was dismissive of it.
Him and his mates getting worried about the size of the local government populations around the counties, way too many of them, has been for decades.
Too Many Cooks, Stan?
Washer uppers, not cooks !
It’s a saying, Rachael.
Yes for sure, and some of the same “cooks” meddling in different kitchens.
The people of Brighton will be overruled by Tory outsiders in our own town
I remember several reorganizations where the smaller unit was ripped off by the bigger unit. East-Sussex taking over Brighton county borough. Hove taking over Portslade. Brighton merging with Hove. None of these were happy marriages. Mergers need to be carefully planned between several equals.
The Labour Party’s landslide victory in the 2024 General Election was secured with a low vote share. An important subplot is the historic success of smaller parties, including an increasing share of the vote for the populist right in post-industrial, ‘left behind’ constituencies.
The fragmentation of British electoral politics continues. The government’s decision to ditch the Conservative Party’s ambiguous ‘levelling up’ tagline is understandable, but if it is serious about tackling spatial inequality, policymakers will need to fashion alternative reform agendas that more effectively devolve power without neglecting a complex political geography that has for too long fuelled discontent in England. There must be greater emphasis on deliberative engagement, enabling citizens to fully participate in policymaking at the devolved level, while embracing social policy concerns within devolved governance.
A narrow growth focus to the detriment of these broader concerns, even in the short to medium-term, runs the risk of further destabilising the entire UK political system.
Critiquing a growth-focused model as overly narrow seems like it misses the point. Economic growth can – and should – be integrated with broader social and political reforms. Specifically when devolving power in a way that empowers communities, particularly those long ignored. Deliberative engagement, where residents have a meaningful voice in policymaking, aligns with this approach and is likely to feature.
Rather than destabilising the political system, combining growth with participatory governance offers the best route to addressing inequality and rebuilding trust, in my opinion. But as was rightly mentioned by another, the devil will be in the details.
No one wants to hear corporate word salad when it’s the coalface of customer service and council accountability that is the issue. Something we are being charged more and more for less and less of. STATUTORY basic services and provisions, my friend, not optional extras!! This council needs to get Brighton and Hove right before they get granted any right to expand their tyranny, never mind, territory.
…which would be improved with centralised systems. It is an improvement that saves money, meaning theoretically, more could be pumped into those statutory services to improve it further. Ironically, to achieve the goal of “getting it right” – that might very well be through devolution!
I wish more people even just a few could see that the benefits are there as you lay out.
If citizens think they have no say in anything now, they will have even less say and less accountability if a council who can’t even run a seafront paddling pool properly and line it with the correst materials suddenly goes supersize to give the rest of Sussex the benefit of its risible and increasingly Orwellian idea of governance. Time for Direct Democracy and taking the politics out of local councils. They’ve had their chance to show that all party politics does is lead a once-beautiful city into a no-go ghettoland of increased crime and squalour, all the while claiming they are oh so ‘inclusive’ and ‘diverse’
The money wasting is also off the scale, prioritising big brother cameras and clogging road schemes no one wants over weeds and basic legal service provision.
Re-organisation at the local government level is futile if there is no reform of the broken relationship between central and local government. For example, compare the mature model in the Netherlands, or Germany with the UK’s bickering. A strengthened and more active Local Government Association could help to drive out the politics from day to day delivery and administration.