Council leaders call for original One East Sussex proposal to be retained

Leaders of all six East Sussex councils have written jointly to the Government to oppose a proposed modification to plans for local government reorganisation in East Sussex and Brighton & Hove. The letter argues that transferring communities from East Sussex into Brighton & Hove would not improve services, support significant growth or deliver better value for residents, while conflicting with strongly expressed local views and creating unnecessary financial and operational disruption. You can read the full letter below or download a signed copy. 

Dear Secretary of State and Minister of State 

Opposition to the potential modification to the two-unitary proposal for East Sussex
and Brighton & Hove

In addition to each of our councils’ responses to the current consultation we write to express our strong opposition to the potential modification to the two-unitary One East Sussex proposal for the reorganisation of local government in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove. In our view, the boundary changes would not deliver better local government for East Sussex or Brighton & Hove. They would not improve service delivery, financial resilience or democratic legitimacy, and they would run directly contrary to clearly expressed local preferences.

It has been suggested that extending Brighton & Hove’s boundary would support future economic growth and housing delivery. In practice, however, the areas proposed for transfer are bounded by the South Downs National Park and the sea, leaving very limited development capacity. Their inclusion would therefore add little, if anything, in terms of housing supply or economic growth.

There is also clear and consistent local opposition to any such change. Residents in the affected communities have repeatedly expressed their wish to remain part of East Sussex. Peacehaven, Telscombe, East Saltdean and Falmer residents have a clear local identity, a strong sense of independence and are closely aligned with Lewes District and East Sussex. Previous consultations have shown strong resistance to moving parts of East Sussex into Brighton & Hove, and consultation evidence submitted within the One East Sussex proposal found that 86% of respondents – and 88% of respondents in the potentially affected area – did not support any change to the Lewes district boundary. The proposal therefore runs counter to clearly stated local preferences and risks undermining public confidence in local government and in the wider reorganisation process.

Nor is there convincing evidence that the proposal would deliver any meaningful strategic benefit to Brighton & Hove. Given the semi-rural character of the areas concerned and their proximity to protected landscapes, it is highly unlikely that their inclusion would materially strengthen the city’s role as an economic driver on the south coast. The proposal therefore offers little strategic advantage to Brighton & Hove while creating clear disadvantages elsewhere.

The proposed modification would also make little practical difference to the overall scale of either future authority. While earlier guidance suggested future unitaries should serve populations of around 500,000, and later ministerial indications suggested populations above 300,000 would be acceptable, the change proposed in this consultation would alter population sizes by only around 23,900. That is not a sufficient difference to justify the disruption and cost of redrawing established boundaries. The proposal is made less credible still by the fact that it would require the disaggregation of Falmer village at subward level, despite Falmer not constituting a complete ward at either district or county level. Such an approach would be unprecedented in an accepted local government reorganisation proposal and would create serious democratic and administrative difficulties.

There are also significant public service and financial sustainability concerns. As set out in the One East Sussex proposal, any alteration to the current East Sussex boundary would require the complex disaggregation of services currently delivered at scale across the county. This would be costly, disruptive and unnecessary, diverting limited public resources away from frontline delivery and creating avoidable transitional risks.

Estimated disaggregation costs would be £3.25 million, and Brighton & Hove’s own proposal acknowledges the higher transition costs associated with modified geographies.

Evidence also indicates that service outcomes and performance are stronger in a number of areas under the current East Sussex arrangements. Residents in the proposed transfer areas would therefore face a real risk of reduced service quality rather than the improvements local government reorganisation is intended to achieve. The proposal would particularly disadvantage vulnerable residents in the affected area, as Lewes District is committed to a 100% Council Tax Reduction Scheme, whereas in Brighton & Hove the maximum reduction available is 80%.

Democratic legitimacy should also carry significant weight in the Secretary of State’s consideration. Local government reorganisation will command confidence only if it is seen to reflect the identities, preferences and interests of the communities affected.

Where consultation evidence shows clear and sustained opposition to a boundary change, that evidence should not be set aside without compelling justification. To do so would create the perception that local views were invited but not genuinely taken into account, weakening trust in both the outcome and the process itself.

Beyond statements of opinion from Brighton & Hove City Council, no robust evidence or analysis has been presented to show that these communities identify with Brighton & Hove, that the city is constrained by its current boundary, or that any service benefits would arise from the proposed change. The coastal towns already receive well-used and valued local services from Lewes District Council and East Sussex County Council, including youth services, libraries, housing support and leisure facilities. Although many residents travel to Brighton & Hove for work and shopping, as would be expected, this does not mean they wish to depend on the city for public services when strong local provision already exists. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, and given the clear local opposition and practical risks, we urge you to reject the proposed modification and retain the original East Sussex proposal.

Finally, we would also highlight that the One East Sussex proposal is predicated on the Preparing Council model and is underpinned by strong agreement and determination from all councils to create a new unitary council incorporating all of the present East Sussex.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Holt - Leader of Eastbourne Borough Council, Andy Woolley - Leader of East Sussex County Council, Glenn Haffenden - Leader of Hastings Borough Council, Zoe Nicholson - Leader of Lewes District Council, Doug Oliver - Leader of Rother District Council, Rachel Millward - Leader of Wealden District Council 

Hollie Farley

Tuesday, 7 July 2026