The Hastings Borough Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee met to review proposals for local government reorganisation (LGR) and devolution, including a single unitary council for East Sussex, a federated district and borough model, and a coastal unitary model. Councillors sought clarification on the details of each model, including their financial implications, service delivery plans, and community engagement strategies. The committee unanimously agreed to note the three LGR proposals for submission to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Local Government Reorganisation and Devolution

The committee convened to discuss a report outlining proposals for a new unitary council structure to be submitted to central government by 26 September 2025. Robert Cottrill, Chief Executive, introduced the report, noting that Hastings Borough Council was submitting three distinct options: a county-wide single unitary, a federated district and borough model, and a coastal unitary model.

Presentations were given on each of the models by councillors from across East Sussex. Councillor Webb questioned Councillor Hilton about Wealden Council's support for the single unitary model, and how hard-to-reach groups were being considered. Councillor Hilton clarified that Wealden had paused their support, but that engagement with migrants and hard-to-reach groups was still in its early stages. He stressed the importance of community engagement, particularly in Hastings.

Councillor Turner voiced concerns over the level of public engagement and the lack of clarity around the benefits of the single unitary model. Councillor Warne asked about how the District and Borough model would manage the varying demands of each council, particularly in the context of the Joint Waste and Recycling Committee (JWRC). Councillor Barnett responded by highlighting the success of the JWRC, describing it as a binary service that has evolved into a responsive one.

Councillor Jobson raised a question about the coastal unitary model, specifically regarding housing targets and development locations. Councillor Kay responded that a coastal unitary would be better positioned to meet housing targets, with further opportunities identified in Rother. Councillor Kean asked how the proposals address failing services in East Sussex, including children's mental health, SEND[^2], and adult social care.

Councillor Batsford argued that the District and Borough model would give Hastings a direct voice at the decision-making table, criticising East Sussex County Council's blanket approach. Councillor Barnett suggested that a coastal solution could help reset priorities but warned of potential risks if not managed well. Councillor Hilton emphasised that the unitary case promotes a shift toward a more preventative model, with neighbourhood-based scrutiny replacing the current county-level approach. Councillor Kay agreed, stating that a coastal unitary would allow priorities to be reset based on actual needs rather than perceived ones.

Councillor Smith expressed support for the coastal-first approach but questioned how a rural unitary would function, given the wealth disparities. Councillor Kay responded that the coastal model stands independently and is part of a wider proposal, though they were not in a position to comment on the rural unitary. Councillor Rankin commented that the proposals would lead to significant governance changes nationwide, including boundary adjustments.

Councillor Marlow-Eastwood asked how Hastings would remain central and maintain a strong voice in a coastal unitary, especially in comparison to Brighton. Councillor Kay responded that the coastal unitary would retain the unique characteristics of each area, with a shared understanding of population needs. Councillor Barnett warned that the consequence of the current proposals could be the loss of local identity in areas like Wealden and Lewes. Councillor Batsford concluded that under both the unitary and coastal models, Hastings would not exist in its current form.

Councillor Rankin raised concerns about the future of Hastings' existing asset base, including property and long-term debt, questioning what would happen to the estimated £100 million in assets. Councillor Hilton responded that all assets would be subject to assessment to determine what transfers to the unitary authority and what remains locally. Councillor Barnett emphasised that assets belonging to Hastings, such as industrial property and housing, should remain with Hastings under the District and Borough model.

Councillor Rankin asked for clarity on what qualifies as an asset, referencing St Mary in the Castle and the Foreshore Trust (FST), and stressed the need for government guidance, especially in relation to supporting a Hastings Town Council. Councillor Barnett noted the potential to extend FST to Brighton. Councillor Rankin also raised questions about council tax harmonisation, including how services would be funded under the new models and whether the breakdown in the billing would be understandable by residents.

Councillor Kay explained that working with different local authorities would require a transitional period to align council tax systems. Councillor Barnett added that communication around council tax spending needs improvement, pointing out that HBC currently receives only 12% of council tax revenue, whereas under the district and borough model, Hastings Councillors would control 82%. Councillors Edwards stated that harmonisation would take place over seven years, and given Hastings' higher rates, adjustments would be necessary. Councillor Batsford added that the county model would require additional precepts to pay for proposed parish and town councils.

Councillor Rankin asked how the proposals could be strengthened and raised the issue of the upcoming mayoral election for Sussex, questioning how each model would relate to the new mayor and their powers. Councillor Barnett noted that a motion was going to full council to delay the mayoral election due to concerns about supporting systems not being ready. Councillor Hilton agreed that the process shouldn't wait for the mayoral election but should be proactive at the earliest opportunity.

Councillor Turner raised concerns about children's services and democratic accountability, highlighting the absence of representation from CAMHS and the impact on children's mental health. Councillor Barnett pointed out that reducing Councillors from 48 to 16 would double the number of residents per councillor, raising concerns about effective representation.

Councillor Warne asked how statutory roles, such as directors, would be managed under the District and Borough model if they are not locally based. Councillor Barnett responded that the small team running the model, such as those in the JWRC, are employed by Wealden but work across councils. Councillor Smith raised concerns about rural areas being grouped into coastal unitary structures, questioning how a smaller coastal unitary would address similar challenges and how Hastings could be championed more effectively within the proposed structure. Councillor Kay clarified that the proposal includes a coastal unitary and a separate rural unitary, with Hastings forming part of the coastal authority.

Councillor Kean asked about the impact of new funding formulas on Hastings under each model. Councillor Hilton responded that a consultation is underway, highlighting significant disparities in funding. Councillor Rankin revisited the topic of council tax harmonisation, questioning why Band D rates in Hastings are higher than other areas. Councillor Barnett responded that the funding system is overdue for reform, noting that Hastings has the greatest need and should benefit from future changes.

Councillor Kay added that the coastal unitary proposal presents an opportunity for a more mature, devolved governance model, especially if five unitary authorities are to be created. Councillor Turner expressed frustration that Wealden already receives more support and questioned how they would manage in the future, suggesting that Hastings is currently being overlooked.

The committee agreed to note the three LGR proposals in line with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government criteria.

The reasons for the recommendation were that the Cabinet would welcome the comments from Overview and Scrutiny, and that the government has requested that all councils included in the Devolution Priority Programme submit their proposal for a single tier of local government for their area by 26 September 2025.