In separate meetings held on Wednesday (September 24), cabinet members of both East Sussex County Council and Wealden District Council met to decide what proposals for local government reorganisation (LGR) would receive their support.
East Sussex County Council’s cabinet formally agreed to endorse the One East Sussex model — a proposal which advocates for replacing the county’s two-tier system of local government with a single unitary authority.
These cabinet members also agreed to ask government to formally cancel or postpone the next county council elections, which are due to take place next year.
Speaking in favour of the proposal, Conservative council leader Keith Glazier said: “I just don’t think anyone in this room should underestimate the amount of work that has gone in by officers and members across the whole of East Sussex and how not only does this try to foresee the benefits of what we are attempting to do but it also clearly lays out the problems that we are going to have to solve at the same time.”
This proposal had been jointly developed by the county’s six existing councils following a formal invitation by the government in February.
While the authority had been involved in this process, Wealden District Council’s cabinet opted not to endorse the proposal.
Summing up the cabinet’s views, Liberal Democrat council leader James Partridge said: “We don’t feel able to support the One East Sussex proposal, because we think a single unitary will be too big, remote from citizens and not able to provide high quality services across the whole area.
“We think three unitaries of different sizes will unbalance the Mayoral Strategic Authority (MSA) and we suspect the projected savings are unrealistic and risk the funding and delivery of discretionary services.
“We prefer the idea of smaller unitaries across the whole of Sussex, because that will improve democratic representation both locally and on the MSA.
“It still won’t be the same as having a district council but better than having a large unitary council and it will make safe local connections while achieving economies of scale. They would better reflect the places they serve and it will support effective devolution and preserve civic pride and enable specialist service design, particularly for rural areas.”
Despite setting out this support for smaller unitary authorities, Cllr Partridge made it clear the council was not formally supporting any other proposals, including those put forward by Brighton and Hove City Council.
This proposal could see the city council call on the government to explore creating five new unitary authorities to cover all of Sussex.
The creation of these new councils would be expected to involve extensive redrawing of existing administrative boundaries, with parts of what is currently Lewes District becoming part of Brighton and Hove. Wealden District could also be split up if these proposals progress.
Cllr Partridge said: “We don’t feel we can support that either. We haven’t been involved … in any of the detail and certainly not on the question of where the boundaries lie, which is always a sensitive subject and has been more than touched on today.
“So we just haven’t had time to properly evaluate that proposal and it would be just completely irresponsible really to support it and submit it formally to the minister.”
Cllr Partridge said he would be writing to the government setting out the cabinet’s concerns and calling for additional time to explore other proposals for Sussex as a whole.
Wealden’s position was formally decided shortly after the county council’s cabinet meeting began.
Responding to the news during the meeting, Councillor David Tutt, leader of the county council’s Liberal Democrat group, said: “I understand Wealden’s desire for smaller unitaries, indeed I would rather see smaller unitaries myself, but that is not something the government is going to contemplate, because they have looked at what they consider to be critical mass.
“The option that we are putting forward — despite our perhaps different opinions if we were all to have our piece of paper and draw our own boundaries — is something that I believe gives us a real strength.”
Before cabinet members made their decisions, both authorities had held full council meetings where members were able to discuss the LGR proposals.
Members of both authorities had spoken of concerns around the wider financial stability of local government and fears that some areas could lose out as a result of reorganisation.
Some councillors had also advocated for keeping local government as it currently is or called for the process to be delayed in order to allow more time for consultation.
County councillors took a vote, which indicated majority support for backing the One East Sussex model. Wealden councillors did not take a vote on which proposal to support.
As part of their meeting, Wealden councillors had also considered another alternative proposal. This proposal, developed by borough councillors forming the Hastings Independent Group, advocates for a district and borough model.
This model proposes a phased transition from the current two-tier system to a “borough and district-led single-tier model”. This would effectively see the county council abolished with its responsibilities and services to be devolved to the existing borough and district councils.
The model would involve the creation of departmental boards responsible for overseeing the services currently delivered by the county council, such as adult social care and education.
The Hastings Independents say the model would allow for “greater transparency and responsiveness to local needs” and deliver estimated savings of around £22 million by 2030.
Three of the county’s other councils — Eastbourne Borough Council, Hastings Borough Council and Rother District Council — are each due to hold similar meetings, with their own cabinets set to make the endorsement decisions following full council debates.
The county’s final council, Lewes District Council, is due to consider the business case this evening (September 25).
Read more here: Click Here
