The Horsham Council Cabinet is scheduled to meet to discuss and decide on its preferred model for local government reorganisation in West Sussex, with a report from Councillor Martin Boffey, Leader of the Council, to be considered. The cabinet will also note the Forward Plan.

Local Government Reorganisation in West Sussex

The Cabinet will consider a report regarding the submission of a business case and proposal for local government reorganisation in West Sussex to the Secretary of State / Minister.

The report pack includes a joint business case, and a supplementary statement arguing for a two-unitary model. The recommendation is that the Cabinet support the two-unitary model, with one council comprising Crawley, Horsham and Mid Sussex, and the other Adur, Arun, Chichester and Worthing. The report also recommends delegating authority to Jane Eaton, Chief Executive, in consultation with Councillor Martin Boffey, Leader of the Council, to finalise a letter to the Secretary of State, and to make any necessary corrections to the business case and supplementary statement.

Background

The report pack states that the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution wrote to Councillor Martin Boffey, Leader of the Council, on 5 February 2025, asking the council to work with other local authorities in West Sussex to develop a proposal for local government reorganisation. The council was asked to submit an interim plan by 21 March 2025 and a full proposal by 26 September 2025.

The report pack notes that the Leaders and Chief Executives of councils across West Sussex have been working together to create a business case for local government reorganisation. From an initial list of 14 options, the list was reduced to four, and then three options:

• A single unitary council covering the whole county area.
• A two unitary option, with Crawley, Horsham and Mid Sussex in the eastern unitary council and Arun, Chichester and Worthing in the western unitary council. This option has two variations, depending on whether Adur District Council is included in the eastern or western unitary council.

The report pack states that councils can only support one proposal in their submission on 26 September. Councillor Martin Boffey, Leader of the Council, has reportedly discussed the options with the leaders of the opposition groups at Horsham District Council, the Chairs of the two Policy and Scrutiny Committees and his own political group, and believes that the best option for Horsham District and its residents is the two-council option with Adur, Arun, Chichester and Worthing in one authority, and Crawley, Horsham and Mid Sussex in the other.

The reasons given for this view are:

• 62% of the public, 55% of staff and 58% stakeholders countywide prefer two councils
• the Crawley, Horsham, Mid Sussex area covers the Gatwick Diamond, of which Horsham District forms a part and shares travel to work and housing market areas, this gives the best opportunity for economic growth for our district and the benefits economic growth gives to our communities
• smaller councils allow a more local focus on housing, social care, prevention, leisure and community support services
• having two councils in West Sussex means four seats on the board of the Mayoral Strategic Authority for West Sussex, which better reflects the size of the West Sussex population compared to those of East Sussex and Brighton & Hove
• a higher number of Councillors in the two-council model means better access to democracy for residents and a more manageable workload for Councillors.

The report pack includes a Supplementary Statement: A Two-Unitary Model for West Sussex which presents the arguments for two unitary councils.

Council Policy Alignment

The report pack notes that the change to a unitary council will impact on all council priorities, including people and communities, greener futures, and the local economy.

People and Communities

The report pack states that the people of Horsham District will become part of a larger unitary council, whichever option is chosen. The public engagement showed most people identify with an area closest to their home and preferred the two unitary option in the business case, which is a council covering the areas of Horsham District Council, Mid Sussex District Council and Crawley Borough Council.

The report pack notes that Horsham District Council currently has 48 District councillors and 12 County councillors, 60 councillors altogether. The number of councillors proposed in the business case is 100 for a single unitary, and 140 in total for two unitary councils. Under the two-council model the current Horsham District area will have 24 councillors, whereas for one council the district is likely to have around 17. The report pack claims that these reductions in the number of councillors means there will be considerably less support to the public from their councillors in accessing their authorities in either model, but that the loss is not as great in the two-council model as in the one council model.

The report pack notes that, according to Local Government Association figures in 2023/24, 61% of all local authority spend was on Adults' and Children's Services, including Special Educational Needs, and that these services profoundly impact communities. The report pack claims that there are two clear opinions voiced locally and nationally on this matter, but all agree that an increase in preventative work is essential for the wellbeing of people and to control the cost of services going forward. One opinion is that breaking up Adults' and Children's services risks further deterioration in the quality of these services and rising costs because the contracts let by smaller councils will not be as cost effective as those let by a large council. The alternative argument is that smaller councils deliver more effective social care because they are closer to their communities and they could still let large contracts, if needed, in partnership with their neighbours.

The report pack claims that neighbourhood arrangements are generally considered more effective in smaller councils, and that for Children's Services, the District Councils Network and Staff College report makes a strong case that smaller, localised models can be highly effective, highlighting that what matters most is proximity to people and the places they live in .

The report pack notes that all district and borough councils in West Sussex provide leisure services and Health and Wellbeing Services, and that a new model of leisure provision is beginning to emerge called 'Active Wellbeing'. The report pack claims that a community focus rather than a leisure centre focus will deliver long term benefits allowing people to live longer and independently in their own homes and to reduce the burden on the NHS and Adult Social Care, and that such a model could be more effective at a smaller scale because there would be fewer leisure providers to bring together and more similarity in the demography.

The report pack claims that providing locally based housing and homelessness services, and keeping a focus on them, is essential with either model but easier with a smaller authority. However, it also notes that putting land together and drawing in support from Homes England for development could potentially work better with the biggest scale possible.

The report pack claims that Horsham District currently provides a range of community support and community safety services, and that officers could focus them more on the preventative services that help improve residents' lives and stop them slipping into crisis. The report pack questions whether a large unitary council with significant cost pressures of either size would keep these services, and whether these services are better understood and run more locally is a matter of opinion.

Inspiring Greener Futures

The report pack notes that the environment does not feature in the government's consideration of local government reorganisation. It claims that Horsham District has generally tended to invest more than other councils in West Sussex in environmental matters, and that Wilder Horsham District is a national trailblazer in terms of nature recovery. The report pack questions whether, in a unitary model, Horsham's experience will raise standards in the new councils, or whether it will be diluted, and claims that the smallest council option, two councils without Adur, would ensure the greatest influence and the least dilution.

The report pack notes that Horsham District has large landholdings in the form of nature reserves, woods, countryside sites and a large number of parks and open spaces, and questions whether this service will continue in its current form or not, in a large unitary council. It also notes that the Sussex & Brighton Mayor will be responsible for a Local Nature Recovery Strategy and there is a huge opportunity for Wilder Horsham District to influence and shape environmental policy across the whole of Sussex, if there are bodies with the ambition and commitment to learn from and develop what we have started locally.

Building a Thriving Local Economy

The report pack claims that West Sussex does not have a single economy, and that Crawley Borough and Horsham and Mid Sussex Districts are all part of the Gatwick Diamond. It claims that a council that focusses on the Gatwick Diamond can focus on growth and a thriving economy, and that diluting this focus with the wider economies could weaken this part of the economy that drives so much of economic activity in East and West Sussex.

The report pack claims that the creation of a Sussex and Brighton Mayoral Strategic Authority gives the best chance of securing and attracting new investment into Sussex, and that in a two unitary model West Sussex would have four seats, compared to two seats in a single unitary model.

Always Listening, Learning and Improving

The report pack notes that the West Sussex councils carried out public engagement this summer, receiving 9,242 replies, just over 1.03% of the population or 1.25% of the population aged over 16. The views of residents across West Sussex in the engagement survey are that 62% favour a two unitary model and 23% a single unitary model. Between the two unitary models 28% favoured the option including Adur District and 63% favoured the model without Adur District.

The report pack notes that in the engagement survey 58% of stakeholders preferred a two unitary model and 22% preferred a single unitary model. Between the two unitary models 34% favoured the option including Adur District with Crawley, Horsham and Mid Sussex and 52% favoured the model without Adur District.

The report pack notes that the businesses across West Sussex said they favour a model that retains current levels of local support, and that the meeting with Horsham's Parishes indicated a preference for two unitary councils rather than one because they said they felt they would have more influence.

The report pack notes that the views of Horsham District's residents in the engagement survey are that 60% favour a two unitary model and 21% a single unitary model. Between the two unitary models 16% favoured the option including Adur District and 68% favoured the model without Adur District. The views of the parishes in an engagement with the Chief Executive were that they preferred to interact with a smaller council rather than a single unitary.

The report pack notes that staff expressed concerns about equal pay in the new authority, how TUPE will work, whether non-statutory services will survive, whether neighbourhood plans will survive, the impact of the change on the pension scheme and Union engagement and a range of comments about ensuring good quality services to residents continue. The views of staff in the engagement survey are that 75% favour a two unitary model and 13% a single unitary model. Between the two unitary models 10% favoured the option including Adur District and 77% favoured the model without Adur District.

Next Steps

The report pack states that, following approval of the report, Councillor Martin Boffey, Leader of the Council, will sign a letter to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government / Minister containing Cabinet's preference for the unitary, and send the letter, the business case and the arguments for the two unitary model included in the Supplementary Statement to the Secretary of State / Minister on Friday.

The report pack notes that civil Servants at the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government will review the business case and put forward the viable options for a technical consultation during the autumn, and that the Minister will reach a decision on which option in the business case we will implement early in the new year. The Secretary of State will lay the order to set up the new council during 2026 or early 2027, and the new council will be elected in a shadow form on 6 May 2027, with the new council's vesting day on 1 April 2028.

Consultation and Engagement

The report pack notes that the Project Team appointed to write the business case carried out a widespread public engagement exercise between 10 July and 14 August 2025, and that the Leader has consulted the Leaders of the two opposition groups and the Chairs of the two Policy and Scrutiny Committees.

Other Courses of Action Considered but Rejected

The report pack notes that the Cabinet could choose to not put forward any preference to the Secretary of State / Minister, but that the Leader has rejected this idea.

Resource Consequences

The report pack notes that there are no financial implications in putting forward a view to the Secretary of State / Minister, but that there will be substantial financial implications in the move to a unitary council as outlined in the business case. The first call to fund the costs of transition for the eight councils is the business rates pool, but there is insufficient money in the business rates pool to cover the cost of transition. This means the councils will have to fund the change from other sources, likely to include reserves and could include borrowing. The report pack claims that using reserves to fund local government reorganisation will have a knock-on impact on the Council's annual revenue position, and that the scale of this impact is not yet known.

The report pack notes that there are financial implications for the residents of Horsham District associated with a move into a unitary council, and that as Horsham District has the lowest district or borough council tax in the county, it is inevitable its council tax will rise and by more than that of other councils. Initial modelling suggests the increase is most with option B1 and least with option B2, but the differences between the models are small.

The report pack notes that, under the Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Staffing) Regulations 2008, all council staff, possibly excepting the Head of Paid Service, will have their employment transferred to the new Council. To achieve the savings laid out in the business case there will be staff reductions regardless of the model, and because the business case shows more staff in the two-council model it is likely there will be fewer staff reductions in a two-council model compared to a one council model.

Legal Considerations

The report pack notes that the legislative framework governing Local Government Reorganisation is found in Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, and that the Council must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

Risk Analysis and Mitigation

The report pack notes that there are substantial risks associated with changing from a two-tier system to a unitary system of local government whichever model is chosen, and that these risks will be long-lasting, and the new council is or councils are unlikely to reach a steady state in less than 10 years.

The main risks associated with a single council that don't equally apply to a two-council model are:

• merging 8 organisations carries higher technological, organisational, and staffing risk into one council
• the only unitary council in the country providing services to a population over 900,000 is Birmingham City Council. Birmingham City Council is currently in special financial measures largely due to ongoing strikes, an equal pay claim and a failed implementation of an Enterprise Resource Planning system at this scale
• the equal pay risk of merging 8 councils is higher than the equal pay risk of merging 5 or 4, but the risk remains in both models
• drafting a local plan across the whole county will be more challenging than across two smaller councils, especially when compared to Horsham, Crawley and Mid Sussex where the councils are in the same housing market and economic areas
• bringing together housing services at county scale will carry a higher risk because of the needs for locality working in these services
• not breaking up the county means it is likely to ask for continuing authority status. This will increase the risk that no changes will be made to county services, which are crucial to the financial sustainability of the new councils
• the potential redundancy of most or all the current returning officers who run elections in the model means elections will carry a higher risk in the first few years of the unitary.

The main risks associated with two unitary councils that don't apply to one unitary model are:

• risk of adult or children's social care failing during the disaggregation
• increase risk of errors when transferring the County Council's 5,660 staff and approximately 21,000 schools' staff to the new unitary councils in addition to the district and borough councils' 2,740 staff
• the risks associated with breaking up all county services and the impact this will have on the morale of the 5,660 non-schools' staff who will be split. This will be mitigated to some degree by the fact many of the services already have geographically based area teams
• there are a number of cross county contracts that may need to be split such as waste disposal and some large social care contracts
• the waste disposal sites do not sit evenly between the two councils.

The report pack notes that the Fair Funding Review by Government places Horsham District Council among the approximately forty Councils losing the most funding, and that the business case is submitted prior to knowing the final implications of this, which could affect the Council's ability to fund and function in the transition period as well as having financial implications for the new Council in either model.

Procurement Implications

The report pack notes that there are no direct procurement implications associated with this decision, but that all models will have considerable aggregation work to do relating to existing contracts, and that a two unitary model will have disaggregation work to do on County's significantly outsourced model (social care, highways, waste disposal).

Equalities, Human Rights & Public Sector Equality Duty Considerations

The report pack notes that the project team has carried out a full equalities impact assessment of the options, and that there are significant equal opportunities risks associated with moving or changing services and significant equal pay risks involved in merging 4, 5 or 8 sovereign bodies.

Environmental Implications

The report pack notes that the environmental implications differences between one a one council model and two council model largely relate to travel, and that with a single unitary, given all the largest offices are in Chichester, it is likely that staff and councillors will need to travel greater distances.

Urgency

The report pack claims that this decision is being treated as urgent on the basis that any delay in its implementation would pose a risk of harm to residents and/or prejudice the interests of the Council.