The Rother Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee met on 22 September 2025, and authorised the Chair to sign off the minutes from the previous meeting. The main item discussed was the business case for local government reorganisation in East Sussex, which the committee agreed to forward to the full council with a recommendation for approval.

Local Government Reorganisation in East Sussex

The committee reviewed the business case for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) in East Sussex, which proposes the creation of a new unitary council. Councillor Doug Oliver, Leader of the Council, introduced the report, explaining that the document was for submission to the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution by 26 September 2025. Lorna Ford, Chief Executive (CE), led the members through the salient points of the business case.

The government's devolution white paper, published in December 2024, outlined proposals for LGR in England, and Sussex and Brighton were approved to be part of the Devolution Priority Programme (DPP), enabling them to fast-track plans for new mayoral combined authorities and LGR. Areas in the DPP are required to work together to submit proposals for unitary councils by 26 September 2025.

The business case presented three options for local government reform:

• Option 1: One East Sussex - A single unitary authority covering the current East Sussex boundaries.
• Option 2: Two Unitary Authorities - Dividing East Sussex into two new councils (geography undefined).
• Option 3: Brighton & Hove Expansion - Brighton & Hove City Council expands into parts of Lewes District Council (with four proposed variants), while the remainder of East Sussex forms a separate unitary authority.

The business case argued that the 'One East Sussex' model best aligned with the government's criteria for local government reform, reflecting existing service delivery and avoiding the costs of disaggregation.

Extensive engagement had taken place, including an online survey and focus groups. The majority of respondents preferred a single unitary authority on the existing East Sussex footprint, though there were concerns about the potential loss of local representation.

Following discussion, members requested changes to the wording of the business case, including:

• Removing Wealden District Council from the front page if they no longer supported the proposal.
• Mentioning the High Weald National Landscape and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) such as Pevensey Levels and Ramsar sites to recognise the district's treasures.
• Rewording section 6.1.4 from 'Benefits of Reform' to 'Benefits of Reorganisation'.
• Replacing 'natural beauty' with 'nature' on page 44.

During the discussion, the following points were raised:

• The integration of housing and social services would be a huge benefit.
• Neighbourhood Area Committees (NAC) needed serious attention to their locality, size and integration into the scrutiny system.
• Concerns were raised about a lack of respect for parish and town councils, and a lack of guidance around how NACs would work.
• One East Sussex would be more inclusive and avoid the costs of boundary changes.
• Members appealed for fairer funding to the county to enable the council to accept LGR.
• A five-district model would contradict government requirements and was not viable.
• Working with the community and voluntary sectors would address any democratic deficit.
• Consideration should be given to basing the unitary authority in a central location rather than on the edge of the county in Lewes.
• Reducing the size of the area proposed by One East Sussex to four or five districts should be an option for residents to consider.
• The business case should trump any political interests, due to financial concerns.
• Concerns were raised that NACs were another version of a town council, but appointed rather than elected.
• There was a need to ensure that there would not be three levels of decision makers with the creation of a Mayor, unitary and parishes or NACs.
• It would be a positive move to create a unitary authority to deliver primary services, but not structured as a long, thin geographical area.
• Consideration should be given to the financing of the P&TCs, to boost their responsibilities and consider bringing smaller parishes together.
• Consideration should be given to Rother District Council being put forward as a pilot area around the neighbourhood governance work.
• Climate, nature and carbon reduction should be emphasised.

The CE confirmed that the One East Sussex option was based on the current East Sussex county boundary, with Brighton and Hove City Council remaining as a unitary authority, and that the three options had all been assessed against the government's criteria. She also confirmed that it was not compulsory for the borough councils to be parished in order to go through the process, and that page 30 of the business case set out high level principles to guide the unitary authority in developing the models of neighbourhood governance, but the government was still to issue guidance on what was to be expected. Research had been carried out around NACs, looking at what had worked in recent unitary authorities elsewhere, and this had been the most consistent concern of residents and stakeholders that had come out in the consultation. The proposal from Brighton and Hove City Council on the creation of five councils across Sussex had not been considered in the business case, due to its late submission and that it had not been subject to any engagement or consultation. Brighton and Hove City Council did consult on the expansion into Lewes, but this was primarily rejected by affected residents.

Members agreed to request that full council recommend cabinet approve the proposal on 24 September 2025, for submission to central government by 26 September 2025. They also requested that the CE, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, incorporate key comments made from this committee and from full council on 24 September 2025 into a covering letter to be submitted with the business case to the government, and that any requested changes to the wording of the business case would be subject to the agreement of the other councils in support of the business case.

The committee resolved to recommend that full Council recommend Cabinet approve the proposal on 24 September 2025 for submission to central Government by 26 September 2025, and that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, incorporate key comments made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and full Council on 24 September 2025 into a covering letter, to be submitted with the proposal to central Government, and that any requested changes to the wording of the Business Case, would be subject to the agreement of the other councils in support of the Business Case.

Councillor Carl Maynard declared an Other Registerable Interest as an Executive Member of East Sussex County Council and remained in the meeting for the consideration thereof.