Title

In the autumn of 2025, I wrote that local government reorganisation was being driven at breakneck speed, so fast that it had outrun its own logic. In Sussex, we have now reached the next phase of that process. Not acceleration, but stall.This reorganisation is being driven by government priorities, economic growth and housing, not what is good for local government or what makes sense in terms of long-term functional economic areas beyond the short-termism of current priorities.The Government's decision not to proceed with reorganisation in Sussex, at least for now, will no doubt be presented as prudence, as listening, and as taking time to get things right.From where I am sitting, having spent years inside local government watching policy collide with practice, it looks like something else entirely. Possibly even creating areas that are Labour-friendly.It looks like a system that has run out of road. Sussex was supposed to be a model of ‘locally-led' reform. What we got instead was a perfect illustration of why that phrase has become so hollow.Competing visions emerged, each advanced with total conviction, each incompatible with the others. Ministers called this ‘local choice.' In reality, it was local veto dressed up as consensus.This is because when every option is locally supported, none of them are politically deliverable. We do not get a decision, we get deadlock. Sussex has exposed what the rhetoric tries to conceal.This is not a system empowering local areas to shape their own destiny. It is a system that cannot resolve disagreement without the centre stepping in, something the centre is reluctant to do – or losing control entirely.In my previous piece, I described a system in motion but without traction. Sussex shows what happens next: paralysis.Months of officer time spent modelling options, redrawing boundaries, preparing business cases, all effectively parked. Political relationships strained by competing bids. Expectations raised and then abruptly suspended. And at the end of it all, no clearer sense of direction than when we began and even less public engagement with the proposals.This is the lifecycle of rushed reform. First comes confusion, then competition and finally, a kind of strategic pause that gets branded as reflection. It is not a pause because we are close to agreement. It is a pause because agreement proved impossible.It would be comforting to treat Sussex as a one-off, a particularly messy local disagreement. It is not. It points to a deeper problem at the heart of the reform programme: the absence of any clear governing theory.There is no settled answer to the basic questions. What is the right scale for local government? Where do you draw the boundaries? Where should power sit? What is this reform actually for – efficiency, growth, identity or simply administrative tidiness?Ministers are now facing a choice they have been trying to avoid all along – impose a structure and take responsibility for it, or admit that the reform was never fully worked through. At present, they are doing neither.Instead, we have a shifting set of assumptions: population thresholds that appear from nowhere and change as soon as they are communicated, governance models imposed and then partially walked back, and a persistent tension between central control and local variation. Sussex has not failed the model. It has revealed that there isn't one.Any decision in Sussex would have created clear winners and losers. So, for now, the decision is not to decide.There is a deeper instinct at play here: a reluctance to own the consequences of reform. Devolution is supposed to be about letting go. But when letting go produces friction, the centre does not resolve it, so it steps back and calls it ‘listening'.Ministers are now facing a choice they have been trying to avoid all along – impose a structure and take responsibility for it, or admit that the reform was never fully worked through. At present, they are doing neither.If Sussex were unique, this might be manageable. It is not. Other areas are watching.If one of the most prominent and fast-track cases can stall like this, why would others not hesitate? Why invest political capital in proposals that may never materialise? Why commit already stretched officer capacity to a process that can be paused indefinitely?The risk is that momentum drains away, leaving behind a patchwork of half-formed structures and uneven progress. Devolution without direction does not produce healthy diversity, it produces drift.And there is a cost to that drift. Not an abstract, institutional cost, but a practical and democratic one.Officers diverted from frontline pressures to work on restructuring that may never happen. Financial strain continuing, regardless of governance debates.Residents left trying to make sense of changes that are announced, contested and then quietly deferred. Towns not knowing where their boundaries begin and end and having to consult a map every single time.Trust erodes in that space. Each false start reinforces the sense that reform is something done to places, not shaped by them. That consultation is a performance. That decisions are provisional.Over time, confidence in the process and in the institutions themselves, begins to thin. The urgency remains in the language: transformation, delivery, reform. But beneath it, the system is hesitating, circling, unsure of its next move. Sussex is not an anomaly. It is a warning.Samer Bagaeen is Localis policy fellow, professor of planning and resilient systems at the University of Kent and an independent councillor for Westdene & Hove Park on Brighton & Hove City Council

Title

REORGANISATION

Sussex: a warning, not an anomaly

By Samer Bagaeen | 15 April 2026

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING