Proposals to make huge changes to local government – the biggest to affect Rye in fifty years – were announced on Monday, December 16. It could mean Rother District Council is abolished, five decades after it replaced Rye Municipal Borough following the Local Government Act of 1974.
The shake up was revealed as part of the government’s plans for devolution in England. All five district and borough councils in East Sussex, including Rother, could be merged with East Sussex County Council to form a unitary authority. The government is asking local councils to put forward joint proposals.
Writing in this week’s Rye News, Rye mayor Andy Stuart says the plans ignore smaller local councils like Rye Town Council. “It saddens me that, when it comes to local government, like its predecessor, this government has demonstrated a woeful level of ignorance. Once again, a government has failed to acknowledge the existence of around 10,000 parish / town councils in England alone. These councils are the closest we have to local decision making.”
A mayor for Sussex – covering both east and west counties – could also be on the agenda, although it is not in one of the areas prioritised, unlike Kent. This new role would take on responsibility for the police, transport, and development as well as representing Sussex on the new Council of the Regions and Nations.
The new structure could look like this.
Following the July election the government asked councils to consider how they might be better organised. All five district authorities in East Sussex and the county council signed up to a joint bid.
The need for robust funding for whatever is agreed is a a priority says Keith Glazier, the leader of East Sussex County Council. “All the services local government provides require stability and secure funding, especially in this time of intense financial pressure. Our priority will be that any changes should benefit the people of East Sussex.”
A spokesperson for Rother District Council said: “We have good working relationships with all our local government partners, and will be discussing the government’s proposals with them in the coming weeks. We believe local decision making is key to serving local people and we will continue to work in the best interests of the people of Rother.”
All the seats on East Sussex County Council are up for election in May next year, however the proposals to reorganise local government could see the vote delayed or postponed.
In a letter to council leaders the local government minister Jim McMahon said the changes would be phased in. “I expect to deliver new unitary authorities in April 2027 and 2028. I am minded-to lay secondary legislation to postpone local council elections from May 2025 to May 2026.”
Despite attacking the proposals for ignoring smaller local councils. Rye mayor Andy Stuart says there may be some good news in Rye. “If regionalisation is foisted upon us, it may provide Rye Town Council with an opportunity to deliver services that were provided formerly by Rother and county, enhancing local control and accountability.”
You can read Andy Stuart’s take on the local government re-organisation plans in the Opinions section of Rye News.
Thanks to Russell Hall for the graphic.
Image Credits: Jim Linwood , Russell Hall .
Thank you James for clarifying this new restructuring which may eventually be a more positive local option but to get it into place it will be messy, expensive and probably drive council tax up.
Why this explosion in the first year by the party, however, maybe to get change it’s needed.
First, the local govt minister proposes to defer local council elections for one year. Then the next general election will be deferred, if necessary for ever in the interests of “the party” which is faced with rising opposition.
Absolutely agree that local elections shouldn’t be deferred. The government might get an idea of what it needs to do to regain support by taking note of local election results – (not holding my breath on that though.) The thought of deferring a general election makes the blood run cold. Puts one in mind of some of the countries that elect a ‘President for life,’ which generally aren’t democracies.
Any proposals will take years to agree on anyway. By then it will be time for more elections.
Lets see what they can make mess of this time round cant be as bad as what is going on in the country.
Do we really want to be governed by a Mayor located in Brighton?
I just wonder what other ideas they have in mind!!
There’s not much difference between being governed by a mayor in Brighton or two groups in Bexhill and Lewis both of whom have no interest in Rye.
London is encircled by the M25, it has a Mayor. From the centre to the M25 boundary it is no more than 9 miles in any direction.
From Brighton, where a Mayor would undoubtedly be based, it is 20 miles to the northern boundary of Sussex, 30 to the western and 40 to the eastern.
Living near Rye as I do, it is noticeable that the furthern a location is from the source of power and finance the less it receives.
Eastern Rother is one of the poorest areas in the District where even the public toilets are in danger of being sold off, being governed by a Mayor 40 miles away is simply not acceptable.