A council leader described Brighton and Hove City Council’s reasons for not expanding westward as “alternative facts”.
The city council is currently consulting on proposals to extend its boundary eastward, potentially taking in places that are currently governed by East Sussex County Council and Lewes District Council.
The proposals have been put forward as the government requires all councils to become unitary authorities by 2028, replacing two-tier county and district areas such as East Sussex.
But the leader and deputy leader of Lewes District Council challenged the Brighton and Hove proposals and questioned comments made at public meetings in recent weeks.
At public meetings held in Saltdean and Peacehaven, residents have repeatedly asked why Brighton and Hove City Council should not extend westward.
At both meetings, Labour councillor John Hewitt, the city council’s cabinet adviser for devolution and local government reorganisation, said that extending westward was not “financially sustainable”.
At Peacehaven on Tuesday (12 August), Councillor Hewitt said that the city council was invited by the government to “submit a proposal on … the ceremonial East Sussex boundaries”.
Green councillor Zoe Nicholson, the leader of Lewes District Council, has challenged this assumption.
Councillor Hewitt was asked to clarify Brighton and Hove’s position after both meetings and the Lewes leader shared her concerns with the Local Democracy Reporting Service.
Councillor Hewitt said: “The government formally invited Brighton and Hove City Council to work with East Sussex councils to develop a proposal for local government reorganisation covering the whole of that invited area.
“While the guidance allows councils to explore options with neighbouring areas outside this footprint in exceptional circumstances, the government’s clear expectation is that proposals are developed within the invited area.
“Having undertaken analysis, our view, and the view of West Sussex authorities, is that coherent new unitary authorities would be best achieved by Brighton and Hove merging with areas eastward, in keeping with the old ceremonial boundaries which saw Brighton exist within East Sussex.
“This is why we have chosen to consult with residents on proposals to include wards to the east of the city boundary.
“Brighton and Hove shares challenges with communities currently in Lewes District just as we do with communities currently in Adur District.
“We feel the current level of connections in terms of education, transport, infrastructure and services is more prominent to our east than to our west or north.”
Councillor Nicholson said that there was a ceremonial area because that was how civil servants saw East Sussex and Brighton and Hove.
A letter from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) in May was clear, Councillor Nicholson said, that Brighton and Hove was expected to consider the impact on East and West Sussex.
Councillor Nicholson said: “I am completely boggled. I can’t understand why Councillor Hewitt has made up some alternative facts when they’re plain for all the public to see in the public domain.”
She said that to say the guidance stated that councils were able to “explore options with neighbouring areas” in exceptional circumstances was a misrepresentation of the instructions.
Councillor Nicholson said: “I think that Councillor Hewitt must misunderstand the guidance that has been given to us by the civil servants in MHCLG.
“The letter speaks for itself. I’m a bit unsure about why they would be so defensive about their position going west.
“They’ve been crystal clear the reason they don’t want to go west is because it affects the financial sustainability of Brighton and Hove as a council.”
The government letter to West Sussex County Council had a paragraph responding to the question relating to whether Brighton and Hove would be required to grow.
The letter said: “As set out above, in terms of population size and boundaries, proposals should set out what makes sense for that area and provide a rationale for that.
“Where a proposal is put forward that has an impact on a neighbouring invitation area, we would recommend that the impacts of the proposals for both areas are set out.
“For example, you mention the consideration from Brighton and Hove of the potential to extend the city boundary into West Sussex.
“Should there be any impacts on West Sussex of any final proposals from Brighton and Hove, we would recommend that the implications for West Sussex are considered and set out in those proposals.”
On boundaries, the letter to East Sussex said that the proposed future unitary authority must be supported by “robust evidence and analysis with explanations of what is expected to be achieved”.
The East Sussex letter said: “Proposals should be for a sensible geography which will help to increase housing supply and meet local needs, including future housing growth plans.
“All proposals should set out the rationale for the proposed approach.
“Given the financial pressures you identify, it would be helpful to understand how efficiency savings have been considered alongside a sense of place and local identity.”
Brighton and Hove City Council is currently consulting on four proposals while Lewes District Council was mirroring the consultation but with a fifth option of the status quo.
The two consultations close on Monday 25 August. For the Brighton and Hove City Council consultation, click here. And for the Lewes District Council consultation, click here.
Eh, it doesn’t seem that bad after reading the article. Question asked and answered.
Why make these changes? We have too much local Government already and all we want are the basic things like our bins emptying and BHCC cannot always perform that.
The government won’t allow cross county boundary changes.
They have already turned down a proposal from Crawley [West Sussex] and Reigate [Surrey] to merge to form a single unitary authority.
This carping from the political leadership of Lewes won’t help them. They are being abolished anyway.
Plus nobody to the west wants Brighton and Hove City Council forced on them either.
A bit irrelevant, though, Clare.
BHCC haven’t provided any information to support their rationale, hiding behind phrases such as ‘Not financially viable’ without providing anything to support their approach.
They have been asked to provide the potential benefits of this approach – again, nothing has been provided to support their approach.
This is BHCC playing a numbers game with our residents way of life. BHCC needs to come clean about its true intentions and the effects on all involved.
Even with that information, I think they will struggle to convince anyone that this is a good deal for the residents of East Saltdean, Telscombe Cliffs and Peacehaven. These are my personal views and might not be the views of Peacehaven Town Council.
But Councillor, BHCC are also saying you are refusing to meet with them on several occasions now, so how can they reasonably provide you with this information?
I was thought that Hove should blended into Brighton more, clearly by rejecting that Frank Gehry building they want to stay a little backwater.
West Brighton would be a cooler name.
Much of Hove seafront was previously known as Brunswick Town back in Regency times
From all I’ve seen and read, no one in Peacehaven wishes to fall under the umbrella of a new BHCC unitary Authority. The only benefit I can see at present is Brightons banding of properties is lower than Lewes. I understand that current Lewes areas Community Charge will remain stagnant until Brighton catches up. This is likely to be only 1 or 2 years.
The alternative that is being offered that I can see is that Peacehaven then falls under the umbrella of the new ESCC unitary authority. There are benefits to both proposals, from what I’ve been working through, even a fully informed conversation is likely to be divisive.
Since this is all in huge public dispute, perhaps there should be a freeze on ANYTHING happening until there is public consensus. This is all unlawfully being pushed with no public referendums and no sign of either the Nolan Principles of public life or the Gunning Principles of public consultation in evidence. Even more importantly no one knows what the so-called public benefits are supposed to be so they cannot consent to anything until they do. Any public consent has to be informed consent. Where is the business plan including the cost/benefit analysis for each area? We also need to know what safeguards are in place if the whole scheme is a disaster. What is the plan B?
There’s nothing “unlawful” about what’s happening here. Local government reorganisation is set out in statute and requires consultation, not a referendum. The councils are holding formal consultations, so the Gunning Principles do apply. You might not like the quality of the information provided, but it isn’t being pushed through illegally. And the Nolan Principles are ethical standards, not a legal test.
Part of the lack of information is because Lewes District Council hasn’t finalised its proposal yet, which it is required to do. Really difficult to have an informed conversation until all the cards are on the table, right?
So you have lost the ethics and the morals and go straight for the Tyrannical side!
The Ppl don’t want, period!
Who wants to be part of a poor, cripy, lawless, dirty and drug addicted big town? None of the ppl from East Sussex.
Brighton is a big town with an erroneous pretentious feeling of being a city. Fact!
Better to split Brighton and Hove they simply don’t have the Population requirements for a city! Fact!
There’s no “tyranny” here; councils are legally required to consult, and that’s exactly what’s happening, fact. Brighton is a city, fact. There’s no population threshold in law, fact. You might dislike Brighton, but insults aren’t facts; that’s just classic inflammatory rhetoric, fact.
Brighton is a city — that’s a fact. Hove is also part of that city — another fact. Geographically, Hove sits right between Brighton city centre on one side and Portslade (which is also part of Brighton & Hove) on the other. Hove is literally within the boundaries of Brighton & Hove. So how could it be separated? It wouldn’t make any sense.
There were no referrenda when regional Mayors were created for the Tees Valley, Manchester, Liverpool, Yorkshire, Lincolnshire etc etc etc using the same act of Parliament (passed under the tories) that is being used here.
The only regional mayoralty that had a referendum was in 1998 to create the Greater London Authority and Mayor for London.
Logically, with the interests of Brighton extending to places such as Aldrington Basin and Shoreham Airport, extension westwards, rather than eastwards would seem more obvious. Was this not the original intention anyway?
We should go west. That way we would have an airport to develop. Top city credentials! And lots of land to build on…
Adur doesn’t need breaking with Brighton & Hove fix, thank you.
Why don’t they split Brighton and Hove in half and divide up between E and W Sussex? Sounds like the obvious solution to me. That would save some pennies.
Because neither want B&H. When Brighton was part of East Sussex it got the first bite of the cherry every time.
Whatever happens everyone else will end up paying for it. When the split took place ESCC Council Taxpayers had to pay the equivalent of £100 each per year in transitional relief to the new authority for the first 2 years.
Even after 1997 ESCC has been mostly a Brighton-centric organisation. It’s really important the new East Sussex council sits further east somewhere like Eastbourne or Hailsham
Brighton and Hove is a unified city with a single administrative identity, so that kind of separation simply isn’t possible.
People don’t want it! Period!
Brighton is a big town with an erroneous pretentious feeling of being a city. Fact!
Better to split Brighton and Hove they simply don’t have the Population requirements for a city! Fact!
They doesn’t have the resources to improve services in their own area, let alone extending to East Sussex
Western Brighton sound and feel more natural as it was intended
There isn’t a population requirement to be a city.
Just as there isn’t a requirement for a city to have a Cathedral.
I was born in Brighton in 65 and loved it growing up, then they made it a city and it’s become very shitty, ruined by excess of Londoners coming down bringing all Thier shitty attitude with them,
This is the way. I think BHCC residents would jump at the chance to be shot of this dire council if given the option.
brighton just need to build more houses to make up the 20000 people need to reach the minimum size then they wont need to go east or west
or why dont the just go north ?
The South Downs National Park.
Gov wants areas to be a minimum of 500,000
West Sussex pop: 885,000 – East Sussex pop: 550,000 – B&H Pop: 300,000
Unless B&H plans to build enough homes for 200,000 by building on farmland, taking 20,000 from the East makes no sense. Going West, adding Worthing and Adur districts, would add 175,000 residents. The simple fact is that the majority of councillors, MPs, residents and business owners in East/West Sussex and possibly at least half the population of people living in Brighton and Hove would rather not be living under Brighton & Hove councils jurisdiction. B&H has its shitty 4 options, but they need to add 2 more: 5) Keep the status quo, 6) Abolish B&HC
Maybe an outsider point of view would show where other lines could be drawn ??? as always everyone on the inside still only wants what’s what benefits themselves, Random thought,,, all of Sussex as one with a minimal number of sub divisions, Council admin costs would nose dive.
I can get behind a third party. Take a purely objective look at it. In some respects, if proposals aren’t provided to the government, then that effectively happens.