Agenda and draft minutes

31.1 RESOLVED – to confirm as a correct record the minutes of the County Council meeting held on 8 July 2025.

32.1     Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Claire Dowing, Chris Dowling, Sarah Osborne, Steve Murphy and Trevor Webb.

COUNCILLOR PETER PRAGNELL

33.1     The Chairman began with the sad news of the death of Councillor Peter Pragnell. Councillor Pragnell was first elected to Hastings Borough Council in 2000 where he served until 2023 representing both St Helen’s ward and Conquest ward during his time. Councillor Pragnell served as the Leader for Hasting Borough Council between 2006 and 2010. As a County Councillor, Councillor Pragnell was elected to represent the Ashdown and Conquest division in 2009. Councillor Pragnell served as Chairman from 2018 to 2019 and again from 2021 to 2024. He served on multiple outside bodies during his time at the County Council including the East Sussex Fire Authority. The Leader of the Council and the other group leaders offered condolences and shared memories of Councillor Pragnell. The Council stood for a moment’s silence as a mark of respect to Councillor Pragnell.

CHAIRMAN’S ACTIVITIES

33.2     The Chairman reported that he had attended a number of engagements since the last County Council meeting including: a combined visit with the Mayor of Hastings, Dieppe Raid Commemorative event hosted by the Mayor of Newhaven, the Eastbourne and District Samaritans AGM, and Dieppe Commemorations hosted by the Mayor of Dieppe. The Chairman also attended Heathfield Full Fibre Broadband Celebration, Battle of Britain Dinner hosted by the Royal Society of St George (Seahaven Branch), and the East Sussex Healthcare Trust AGM.

33.3     The Chairman thanked the Vice Chairman for his ongoing support, including his attendance at the East Sussex Philippine Festival, Bexhill Day hosted by the Mayor of Bexhill, Grand Opening of Tuk Tuk Hastings hosted by Hastings Pan Asian Takeaway, and the second anniversary celebration at MLC Ltd in Bexhill. The Vice Chairman also attended the 20^th anniversary of the Bexhill Classic Car Show hosted by 100 Motoring Club, Civic service in Peacehaven hosted by the Peacehaven mayor, and the Battle of Britain Parade hosted by the Mayor of Bexhill.

PETITIONS

33.4     The following petition were presented before the meeting by Councillor Wright:

PRAYERS

33.5     The Chairman thanked Reverend Ben Brown, St Anne’s Church, Lewes for leading the prayers before the meeting.

34.1     Copies of the question from a member of the public and the answer from Councillor Glazier OBE, Lead Member for Strategic Management and Economic Development, are attached to these minutes. One supplementary question was asked and responded to.

35.1     The Chaiman stated that all Members have been granted with a dispensation, in relation to their membership of the Council and any membership of a district or borough council under the Localism Act 2011 and the Council’s Code of Conduct to enable them to participate and vote on the items on the agenda which relate to devolution and local government reorganisation.

35.2     The following members declared a personal interest in item 6 on the agenda as follows:

35.3     Councillor Ungar declared a personal interest in item 6 as having a member of family who works as a local government officer in the county of East Sussex. He did not consider this to be prejudicial.

36.1     The Chairman of the County Council, having called over the reports set out in the agenda, reserved the following for discussion:

Leader and Lead Member for Strategic Management and Economic Development report – paragraph 1 (Local Government Reorganisation: Proposal for a single tier of local government across East Sussex), paragraph 2 (Devolution Update) and paragraph 3 (Update on Lane Rental Scheme following implementation).

NON-RESERVED PARAGRAPHS

36.2     On the motion of the Chairman of the County Council, the Council adopted those paragraphs in the report that had not been reserved for discussion as follows:

Governance report - Paragraph 1 (Amendment to the Constitution – Scheme of Delegation to Officers).

Paragraph 1 - Local Government Reorganisation: Proposal for a single tier of local government across East Sussex

37.1     Councillor Glazier moved the reserved paragraph.

37.2     The following amendment was moved by Councillor Collier and seconded by Councillor Denis.

(delete the following wording)

Y (1) Note the business case setting out the proposal for a single tier of local    Government in East Sussex; and

   (2) Express views on the proposals ahead of consideration by Cabinet.

[replace with the following wording]

The County Council agrees to endorse the One East Sussex proposal and recommends that Cabinet agrees to its submission to Government.

37.3     The amendment was CARRIED.

Paragraph 2 – Devolution update

37.4    Councillor Glazier moved the reserved paragraph.

37.5    The following amendment was moved by Councillor Tutt and seconded by Councillor Field.

            (delete the following wording)

              Express the devolution update as set out in the report

            [replace with the following wording]

This Council recognises the Government’s commitment to devolution and calls upon the Government to hold the election using the Supplementary Vote (SV) system.

37.6     The amendment was LOST.

37.7     Council agreed to note the devolution update.

Paragraph 3 – Update on the Lane Rental Scheme following implementation

37.8     Councillor Glazier moved the reserved paragraph.

37.9     The motion, including the recommendations, was CARRIED after debate.

The Chairman has directed under Standing Order 36.9 (1) that the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Taylor shall stand referred to the County Council.

The Westminster Government has announced its intention to return to the Supplementary Vote (SV) system for mayoral elections, which compared to First Past The Post (FPTP) better reflects the preferences and values of residents particularly when electing a single powerful figure across a large constituency. The government has announced that mayoral elections will revert to the SV system as soon as they can get that change instituted, but this is likely to be too late for the 2026 elections.  This would put Sussex among the disadvantaged counties that are in the fast track with our residents electing a mayor under an outdated and problematic electoral system.

When Sussex decided to join the priority programme there was no suggestion that there would be any democratic disadvantage from being at the front of the queue, (notwithstanding some of us were concerned about the haste and doubted that there was anything to gain).

It now appears that there will be distinct disadvantages as the process for Sussex is too hurried for the government to get the necessary statutory instruments properly in place. We should not have to implement a new mayoral authority under a poor and unrepresentative system. We therefore propose that the administration should work with West Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove City Council to seek to delay the Mayoral election to the 2027 electoral cycle. 

Advantages of delaying the Mayor election to 2027 are:

-          It will coincide with the anticipated unitary elections for West and East Sussex, so the combined costs will be lower and there will be a higher turnout for both.

-          It will be more equitable across the country for all coming mayor elections to have the same voting system.

-          It is better for democracy as there will be more certainty for residents and political parties locally, and more time to communicate clarity about what the devolution and government reorganisation mean for the local areas.

This council therefore requests the Leader:

1. to approach West Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove City Council to open negotiations on a change to the schedule for implementing devolution in order to better reflect the preferences of residents in electing a Mayor; and
2. to work together with West Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove City Council with a view to approaching the minister for local government to request to revise the timetable and/or withdraw from the priority programme and undertake the Devolution process according to a more appropriate timetable.

38.1     The following motion was moved by Councillor Taylor and seconded by Councillor Denis:

The Westminster Government has announced its intention to return to the Supplementary Vote (SV) system for mayoral elections, which compared to First Past The Post (FPTP) better reflects the preferences and values of residents particularly when electing a single powerful figure across a large constituency. The government has announced that mayoral elections will revert to the SV system as soon as they can get that change instituted, but this is likely to be too late for the 2026 elections. This would put Sussex among the disadvantaged counties that are in the fast track with our residents electing a mayor under an outdated and problematic electoral system.

When Sussex decided to join the priority programme there was no suggestion that there would be any democratic disadvantage from being at the front of the queue, (notwithstanding some of us were concerned about the haste and doubted that there was anything to gain).

It now appears that there will be distinct disadvantages as the process for Sussex is too hurried for the government to get the necessary statutory instruments properly in place. We should not have to implement a new mayoral authority under a poor and unrepresentative system. We therefore propose that the administration should work with West Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove City Council to seek to delay the Mayoral election to the 2027 electoral cycle. 

Advantages of delaying the Mayor election to 2027 are:

-     It will coincide with the anticipated unitary elections for West and East Sussex, so the combined costs will be lower and there will be a higher turnout for both.

-    It will be more equitable across the country for all coming mayor elections to have the same voting system.

-    It is better for democracy as there will be more certainty for residents and political parties locally, and more time to communicate clarity about what the devolution and government reorganisation mean for the local areas.

This council therefore requests the Leader:

1.     to approach West Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove City Council to open negotiations on a change to the schedule for implementing devolution in order to better reflect the preferences of residents in electing a Mayor; and

2.     to work together with West Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove City Council with a view to approaching the minister for local government to request to revise the timetable and/or withdraw from the priority programme and undertake the Devolution process according to a more appropriate timetable.

38.2     The motion was LOST after debate.

a) Oral questions to Cabinet Members

b) Written questions of which notice has been given pursuant to Standing Order 44

39.1 The following members asked questions of the Lead Cabinet Members indicated, and they responded:

39.2      There were two oral questions from members to the Lead Member for Transport and Environment. In the absence of the Lead Member, it was agreed that oral questions should be submitted in writing to Councillor Claire Dowling for a response. 

39.3     There were no written questions received from Councillors.