Council leader Bella Sankey has criticised the government for telling Brighton and Hove City Council to form a local growth hub with neighbouring West Sussex County Council.
The Labour councillor said yesterday (Thursday 25 April): “We completely oppose the government’s plans for West Sussex and Brighton and Hove to become one ‘functioning economic area’.
“Not only are the economies of Brighton and Hove and West Sussex clearly distinct and operate across different geographies, Brighton and Hove is a city that drives jobs and investment across a larger functioning economic area.
“The government’s decision is so illogical that I can only conclude that this is one of the many last-ditch attempts by this failing Tory government to bolster its support in the counties to the detriment of our city.
“I have written to the minister and requested a rethink of this approach and will continue to lobby on behalf of our city.”
The marriage of inconvenience has been brought about by the government’s decision to stop funding local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) including Coast to Capital (C2C).
C2C covers an area that includes not just Brighton and Hove and West Sussex but the Lewes district as well as East Surrey, with Gatwick airport at the heart of the area.
In their place, the government wants regional growth hubs made up functioning economic areas with a minimum population of 500,000.
It was this proposal that prompted Councillor Sankey to speak out as the council’s Strategy, Finance and City Regeneration Committee met for the last time before the council scraps its decision-making policy committees in favour of a cabinet set up.
Brighton and Hove and West Sussex will be expected to come up with arrangements for local economic planning that enable business to be represented as well as to deliver some government programmes.
Projects supported by the LEP included £12 million towards the work that is under way at Black Rock, £1.5 million towards faster broadband infrastructure, known as the Brighton fibre ring, and £3 million towards the Corn Exchange restoration.
The LEP also awarded funding of £7 million towards the Advanced Engineering Centre, in Brighton, channelled grants to the council for the revamp of the area from The Level to the sea, now known as Valley Gardens and loaned £4 million to the Brighton i360.
The government has said that, as LEPs were set up as private enterprises, they may choose to continue operating.
The council is also a member of the Greater Brighton Economic Board which covers council areas from Arun to Lewes and from Brighton and Hove to Crawley. The economic board has not met in public since last July.
Stability is needed before growth. Economic stability is being undermined on a daily basis by all the parking charge hikes, road carve ups, commercial rent hikes, messed up train services, graffiti and squalor. You can now find cleaner cities in parts of the third world.
Brighton and Hove Council are fully justified in objecting. The government have made a poorly informed decision: the area of the Greater Brighton Economic Board is much more logical as an area for focusing on economic development. The very western part of West Sussex is as much in the orbit of Portsmouth economic zone. It also makes no economic sense to exclude Lewes District including Lewes itself and the coastal zone from east Saltdean to Newhaven from the development area of greater Brighton. Setting aside historic boundaries that date in part from the Norman conquest (!) Sussex now has in terms of economic activity and the transport system three zones – a western zone approximately west of the A24; a central zone from Brighton and Hove to Gatwick; an eastern zone approximately east from the A22! Just drive north from Brighton to Haywards Heath via Ditching from and one realises the irrationality of the existing county boundaries from an economic and social perspective.
So why has Shoreham Airport, which is in West Sussex, been absurdly named Shoreham (Brighton City) Airport al these years?
Will cllr Sankey have it revert to Shoreham Airport? Even Shoreham Aerodrome?
You need to ask the people who operate the airport that.
Besides lots of airports are named for places that they aren’t actually located within the boundaries of local government entities they are named after.
The airport is called Brighton City Airport as there’s another Shoreham in Kent & it assists pilots to differentiate.
Plus the Art Deco terminal building was jointly opened by the Mayors of Brighton, Hove and Worthing & then in the 1930’s it was known as ‘Brighton, Hove & Worthing Municipal Airport’. So the name reflects that history, as well as the practical modern reason for pilots.
Cllr Sankey is completely right in objecting to this absurdity. Even taking this to a more local level, the notion that the Marina, Kemptown, and Whitehawk can be treated the same is completely ridiculous – each have unique challenges, and a different approach required for each. I don’t believe that is a particularly contentious logic.
Now, apply that to East Sussex and West Sussex. Vastly different demographics, challenges, councils. The only thing they truly share in common is the word Sussex.
Once again showing why the exiting government is exactly that. Out of touch, and once the elections roll around, out of time.
This is probably being suggested as the wider government (beyond the control of Brighton council) are finally starting to take notice that Brighton is not living up to it’s duty, as the only city in Sussex – and south of London – with true metropolitan potential (which is a very good thing that they are turning their attention and applying pressure). Brighton should have never applied for city status if it had no intention of upsizing and evolving; but even that is not (and should not) be for the average resident to dictate over. Brighton was always fated to become a metropolitan area.
Brighton has been doing the youth (and economy) of Sussex a dis-service for nearly 2 decades now and it’s time that a higher authority step in before Brightonian boomers – in partnership with anti-growth advocates in the council – usher the the city toward becoming the next Blackpool (a shanty town); the only exception being that Brighton/Hove will have a few £500k-£1m houses, that you would need to spend a career in London (then move to Brighton) to afford; however they will be surrounded by homeless, decay, and a youth with very little diversity in their career/living options and income levels outside of service to the middle-class (no local opportunity to work toward the middle-class themselves WITHIN the city).
A lot of the people complaining (including Brighton council) seem happy to claim Gatwick Airport as being an asset to Brighton, and claim they want prosperity and jobs for the city — but then fight growth and building developments every step of the way, they do not want to work with towns like Crawley, Horsham, Haywards Heath, Burgess Hill and East Grinstead; despite clearly benefiting from their populations, visiting numbers, and local assets (such as Gatwick).
It appears as if they believe Brighton is a quaint sleepy town where city-appropriate development is ‘out of character’; when that is simply not true – Brightons historic nickname is literally ‘London by the Sea’ – is was always intended to be urbanised and populated. In theory, any developlent that is appropriate for London is by extention appropriate for Brighton. This includes: transport infrastructure, large entertainment venues, mixed-use skyscrapers, and high-rise apartments.
Its not fair on London, or the youth of Sussex who want a metropolitan lifestyle, that Brighton is failing to meet its responsibilities to them – and further adding to the overpopulation and ‘rat race’ of London, simply because Brighton is not a viable city for individuals looking for ‘more’ out of their metropolitan lifestyles and careers. Not to mention that it’s primary income is (and has always been) tourism. You would think that would encourage the place to build bigger and bolder – but no, that’s not ‘in keeping with the area and history’ apparently. I would hate to see what would have become of the Pier, the Pavilion, and some of those big estates had the current Brighton council (and boomers) been in office during the 1800’s and 1900’s (they wouldn’t exist – large scale development and a Raj-inspired palace would definitely not have been in keeping with the area or the history).
The fact that a simple 4 story apartment building in a central area of the city is met with outrage and comments like ‘oppressive; tall; out-of-place; monstrosity’ is frankly laughable. I think some real pressure needs to be applied to Brighton, and when the council rejects viable projects (that absolutely make sense), their decision needs to be overturned by a higher power. If they can’t be trusted to do their jobs with honesty and non-bias then their authority needs to be diminished.
What some of these people need to realise is that Brighton is a city. If city-life and city-appropriate development makes them uncomfortable then they need to relocate to Littlehampton, Bognor Regis, Hastings, and the like.
The next generation is up-and-coming, and have big plans for their local environments. Brighton will change for the better, and it will begin to upgrade and evolve. It’s simply a question of how much longer we are going to suffer the stagnation and status-quo imposed by middle-class boomers who frankly have no right to commandeer the trajectory of the city in the way they have been (which is actually NOT in keeping with the purpose and history of Brighton).
I thought we were already in Greater Brighton ?
Indeed Derek, right as always.
Run West Sussex run, look what a disaster it was for Hove finances when taken over by Brighton, lost everything and much of the history as well, don’t let it happen to you.