The Crawley Borough Council cabinet is scheduled to meet on 24 September 2025 to discuss a proposal for local government reorganisation in West Sussex, and to consider additional information regarding a five-unitary proposal from Brighton & Hove City Council. Councillors will consider a report from the Chief Executive, and decide which option for local government reorganisation the cabinet wishes to submit as a proposal.

Here are the topics scheduled for discussion:

Local Government Re-Organisation: Proposal for West Sussex

The cabinet is scheduled to consider report CEX/072 of the Chief Executive, which was considered by the Full Council on 24 September 2025. The report pack includes additional information to be considered with the previously published report CEX/72 of the Chief Executive. The additional information relates to the five-unitary proposal from Brighton & Hove City Council for local government reorganisation across Sussex, which was published on 17 September. The report pack states that the information contained within report CEX/72a of the Chief Executive, should be considered to replace paragraphs 5.12, 5.13, 6.9 and 6.10 of the main report CEX/72.

The report pack notes that the Brighton & Hove proposal is unique in that it seeks to set out a proposal for the whole of Sussex, recommending the creation of five unitaries of broadly similar population sizes (between 300,000 and 400,000), differentiating between the characteristics of coastal communities and those of market towns and rural hinterland, but not extending this differentiation to the urban new town characteristic of Crawley.

The five proposed unitaries are:

• Unitary A (population 301,130): Brighton & Hove as currently, but extended to include East Saltdean & Telscombe Cliffs, Peacehaven and Falmer
• Unitary B (population 359,868): Eastbourne, Rother, Hastings, south of Wealden and Lewes coastal wards
• Unitary C (population 322,617): Mid-Sussex, north of Wealden and Lewes (minus Saltdean & Telscombe Cliffs, Peacehaven, Falmer and coastal wards)
• Unitary D (population 294,308): Crawley, Horsham, Chichester
• Unitary E (population 343,098): Arun, Adur and Worthing

The report pack states that the Brighton & Hove proposal is recommended ahead of a three unitary solution (based on single unitaries in both West Sussex and East Sussex with Brighton remaining unchanged) and a four unitary solution (two unitaries in West Sussex, single unitary in East Sussex and Brighton unchanged), on the basis that it better meets the criteria.

The report pack notes that neither officers, nor the joint programme team developing the West Sussex proposals, have been directly involved in developing the Brighton & Hove proposals, and that in the limited time available it is clear that the evidence base behind the West Sussex and Brighton & Hove (and that of East Sussex) business cases are different and therefore not directly comparable.

The report pack states that given the inability to directly compare emerging proposals, and the limited time available prior to the submission deadline, the best way to provide comparison into the strengths and weaknesses if to apply the business case approach taken in West Sussex to those parts of the five-unitary proposal that relate to West Sussex.

The report pack notes that none of the 15 options considered either a unitary consisting of Crawley, Horsham and Chichester or one that would see Mid-Sussex merge with councils in East Sussex, and that a unitary consisting of Arun, Adur and Worthing was considered as part of a three-unitary option for West Sussex, but was not shortlisted primarily due to the significant financial imbalance that would exist with such an arrangement.

The report pack states that the covering report for Brighton & Hove's five-unitary proposal recognises the issue of financial imbalance, with some unitaries facing significant financial hardship with others either with smaller pressures or in surplus, but that their approach is to highlight underlying financial pressures and the need for these to be addressed through the fair funding review¹.

The report pack notes that Brighton & Hove's submission also recognises that due to the complexity, the transition costs of the five-unitary unitary model are significant at £197m and higher than the three and four unitary options, and that the report also speaks to the transition taking 10 years within a phased approach.

The report pack states that the strength of the Brighton & Hove option is the population balance of 300,000 to 400,000 across the five unitaries and how the fits with the new Sussex-wide strategic authority, but that to achieve this there is significant compromise made in other areas, requiring cutting across both all upper tier and two lower tier authorities, bringing a complexity to the process, including significant disaggregation (more than other options explored) and significant costs for what would be a longer transition (again higher than other options), and leaving the financial viability of at least some of the unitaries created uncertain.

The report pack states that the other strength of this approach is to retain the different characteristics of our communities, distinguishing between coastal communities and market town and rural hinterlands, but taking no account of urban new town characteristics, and that there has been no consideration of a Crawley, Horsham and Chichester solution in the West Sussex work, and therefore no engagement has taken place for such.

The report pack also refers to a connections survey undertaken prior to the Reigate & Banstead proposal that found comparatively low levels of Crawley residents accessing Chichester for either work (11%), leisure (29%) or shopping (23%).

The report pack includes a copy of a letter from Jim McMahon OBE MP, Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution, to the Leaders of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council and Crawley Borough Council, regarding a joint supplementary submission asking the Government to consider a cross-boundary option. In the letter, Minister McMahon states that he has concluded that the joint submission cannot be included in the Surrey Local Government Reorganisation consultation, for a number of reasons, including that the submission does not meet requirements under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, that the submission does not seek to meet the criteria specified in the guidance, and that there is no financial assessment nor consideration of transitional costs and savings for alternative options in the submission.

The report pack includes a copy of a document titled 'Local Government Reorganisation Submission vfinal.pdf', which includes a copy of a document titled 'business case appendices.pdf'. The 'Local Government Reorganisation Submission vfinal.pdf' document sets out the background to the government's invitation to councils in West Sussex to explore the establishment of a single tier of local government. The document states that Crawley Borough Council has throughout worked closely with West Sussex authorities to develop proposals for that geography in line with the Government's request, and that collectively, West Sussex Councils have developed a joint data and evidence base to work through a wide range of options for how Local Government Reorganisation might look. The document also sets out the government criteria against which any business case supporting a proposal is expected to address. The government has been clear in its guidance that all criteria hold equal weighting. These are:

• A proposal should seek to achieve for the whole of the area concerned in the establishment of a single tier of local government
• Unitary local government must be the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity, and withstand financial shocks
• Unitary structures must prioritise the delivery of high quality and sustainable public services to citizens
• Proposals should show how councils in the area have sought to work together in coming to a view that meets local needs and is informed by local views
• New unitary structures must support devolution arrangements
• New unitary structures should enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment

The document states that in total, West Sussex Councils have considered 15 different options, which was reduced to the only three viable options ahead of public and stakeholder engagement in July and August, and for further development and assessment. The three viable options for reorganisation within West Sussex were:

• Option A the creation of a single unitary authority across West Sussex
• Option B, now known as Option B1 the creation of two unitary authorities, splitting the county on an East-West basis, which would see Crawley form a new unitary council with Adur, Horsham and Mid-Sussex.
• Option 5, now known as Option B2 the creation of two unitary authorities, similar to B1, which would see Crawley form a new unitary council with Horsham and Mid-Sussex (but not Adur).

The document states that following the meeting of Full Council, stakeholder and public engagement on these options commenced on 17 July, and that the outcome of the engagement shows a clear preference among the West Sussex public (5,073 responses) for a two-unitary model at 62%, with 23% preferring a single unitary model and 16% no stating a preference. The document also states that when asked which of the two unitary approaches was preferred there was a notable reduction in the number of responses, but also a clear preference for Option B2, in which Crawley would form a new authority with Horsham and Mid-Sussex. The document notes that Crawley residents (528 responses) preferred a two unitary approach (63% compared to 20% supporting a single unitary model) and also stated a preference for Option B2 over B1 (83% to 7% from 327 responses), and that Crawley Borough Council staff (105 responses) supported a two unitary approach over a single unitary model (79% to 8%) and Option B2 over B1 (78% to 6% from 81 responses).

The document includes a high-level summary of key points, including strengths and weaknesses for each of the options, including:

• Single Unitary
  • Modelling undertaken shows this is likely to create the greater level of savings of the three West Sussex options, and the payback of transition costs will therefore be quicker.
  • By retaining county services at their existing scale this option also avoids fragmentation of services, including social care and children's services.
  • This option, because of its scale, creates imbalance within the new Strategic Authority, and provides a lower ratio of councillors to population.
  • The scale and distance would also seem to be a factor for residents, stakeholders and staff, who stated a preference for smaller more local unitaries.
  • The characteristics and needs of a new town could be in the minority when compared to those of coastal communities, market towns and rural communities.
  • This option would also require Crawley Homes to merge with the Housing Revenue Accounts held in Adur and Arun District Councils.
• Two Unitaries B1 (Adur, Crawley, Horsham, Mid-Sussex)
  • A two unitary solution provides a more localised solution within the West Sussex options, and receives higher support from residents, stakeholders, and staff than Option A.
  • It also provides greater balance across the strategic authority whilst retaining population sizes likely to be acceptable to Government, and improved ratios of councillors to residents.
  • It does however require fragmentation of county level services and whilst it produces savings, these are not at the same level as Option A and transition costs will have a longer payback time.
  • There is greater balance across the area, with two more urbanised authorities (albeit one new town and one coastal) alongside two market town with rural hinterlands.
  • Economically this option is not optimal as it does not consider north of Crawley, but it does contain the key communication routes and is more consistent with travel to work patterns within West Sussex.
  • This option would require the merging of Crawley Homes and Adur Housing Revenue Accounts.
• Two Unitaries B2 (Crawley, Horsham, Mid-Sussex)
  • The West Sussex modelling and scoring does not distinguish between Options B1 and B2, and therefore the strengths and weaknesses set out in 6.5 also apply here.
  • From a Crawley perspective this leads to less balance within the characteristics of the new unitary, with two market town and rural authorities merging with the urban new town.
  • Economically, this option is a close match to the travel to work areas in West Sussex, though given it does not consider north of Crawley, it is not optimal.
  • In this option Crawley Homes would not merge with any of the other Housing Revenue Accounts.

The document also sets out a number of risks associated with the proposals, including that the level of savings anticipated through reorganisation will not be sufficient to address the longer-term financial challenges being faced by the sector, and that reorganisation will be a significant disruption and drain capacity over the coming period, creating uncertainty for residents, stakeholders and members.

Approval of Minutes

The report pack includes the minutes of the previous meeting of the cabinet, held on 3 September 2025, for approval as a correct record.

Public Question Time and Matters Referred to the Cabinet

The agenda allows for a period of public questions. The chair will conclude this item after 15 minutes, or when all questions have been answered, whichever is sooner. The cabinet will also consider any matters referred to it.