Surrey or Sussex?

Tonight Crawley Borough Council are meeting to decide the council’s response to the Government’s proposed reorganisation of local government in our area. This submission isn’t the final decision as to what will happen in our area, nor is CBC the only organisation making a submission, it all forms part of a process for deciding how ‘unitarisation’ will play out in our area.

Last year, the Government announced their intention to complete the process of English devolution which began with the Mayor of London under Labour and has continued across the country’s major urban areas under the last two governments, by delivering elected strategic mayoralties across the parts of the country which do not currently have them.

To reduce the risk of confusion as to who is responsible for what and out of a belief that there are savings to be made from economies of scale, it is proposed that two-tier areas like ours, where we have both a district and a county council, will be replaced with a single unitary tier of council, holding the powers of both. While it was initially proposed that these would have a population size of 500,000 or more, following lobbying by Labour MPs, the Government has said that they are prepared to reduce that number by several hundred thousand.

However, this still means that Crawley’s population is far too low to form a new unitary council of its own, even if we were to include all the existing or proposed developments on the town’s border, so we have to consider boundaries further afield.

Reorganising the populations of West Sussex, East Sussex, and Surrey into new unitary councils isn’t easy and what happens in one place can affect the proposals for other areas. Fortunately Crawley is at the boundary of a number of other council areas and with a population small enough that we don’t affect other proposals. Consequently, we are one of the very few areas to have genuine options.

The question posed by some of whether we go with Surrey or Sussex isn’t a meaningful one, the current councils representing each area will not exist and no one is proposing to alter the boundaries of the ceremonial counties, this is purely a question of administrative boundaries. As I have written before, one of quirks of the town’s history is that the current borough is actually made up of three traditional counties, with the original boundary with East Sussex being just East of the High Street (the whole of Mid Sussex was once East Sussex), and everything North of County Oak–hence the name–having previously been Surrey. Putting aside whether using the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy as a model for modern governance structures makes sense in the first place, the reality is that the current county boundaries have only existed since 1974.

So, when looking at the future boundaries for a council there are a few things we should consider. For instance, where will the council be based? In the many conversations I have had with residents on the doorstep about West Sussex County Council over the years, it is rare to find a nice word to be said about the council and there is a perception–which I agree with–that the concerns of Chichester, where the council is based, are prioritised over those of our area. The worst possible outcome for reform to my mind is to give County Hall which is further away from Crawley than Parliament and which is already failing to deliver the services they are currently responsible for, control over all our other services. I strongly believe that this is the most likely outcome of a Sussex-based deal featuring Crawley.

Secondly, and more importantly, is the question of common interests. Regardless of which party is in control of the new council, if you can ensure that the interests of Crawley’s community are shared by a majority of those living in the new authority then you have the best chance of ensuring that those interests and needs are addressed. When you consider public service footprints, economic areas, and transport connectivity it is very clear that greater shared interests exist North of the current county boundary.

There is significantly better road and rail connectivity heading North and the greater urbanisation which accompanies this avoids much of the urban-rural split which has characterised politics at West Sussex County Council for well over a century.

There is far greater integration of the economy between Crawley and Reigate and Banstead, particularly centred around Gatwick Airport and Manor Royal, with new economic developments planned both sides of the boundaries and which would benefit from greater coordination. Collectively these two district-tier councils have a integrated economy larger than those of most UK cities.

Lastly there’s the public service footprint, particularly Health. Unlike most of West Sussex, Crawley’s nearest acute hospital is found in Surrey. Through casework I regularly have to deal with issues with the poor interaction of the county council’s services with those of the hospital, such as around discharge, and clinicians have written to be complaining of how hard it is to discharge patients in West Sussex compared to patients based in Surrey. The opportunity to deliver major improvements in service quality for patients and savings which can be reinvested from aligning the footprint of local NHS services with those of local government is hard to overstate.

To me the case seems obvious, as it did to the 1970-74 Conservative Government in 1972 when they proposed merging Horley and Charlwood into Crawley, and again in the 1990s when submissions made as part of the two attempts by the Conservative Government to reorganise districts at that time both proposed Crawley going North. After 53 years of consideration, it is the option I continue to believe is best for the town.

Anonymous (for obvious reasons) response to #Trump DEI pledge or get cut order 4-3-15.
#Education #USA #Essay #School #DEI #Fascism #devolution #Society #America #today #Tuesday
This is Speaking Truth to Power:
‘In response to this edict from the Trump administration giving every school district only 10 days to respond, one brave district superintendent wrote this. (Name was withheld for obvious reasons..)
Still Not Signing: A Superintendent's Response to the Department of Education's Anti-DEI Ultimatum
The federal government gave us ten days to sign away our values. Here’s our answer.
April 8, 2025
To Whom It May (Unfortunately) Concern at the U.S. Department of Education:
Thank you for your April 3 memorandum, which I read several times — not because it was legally persuasive, but because I kept checking to see if it was satire. Alas, it appears you are serious.
You’ve asked me, as superintendent of a public school district, to sign a "certification" declaring that we are not violating federal civil rights law — by, apparently, acknowledging that civil rights issues still exist. You cite Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, then proceed to argue that offering targeted support to historically marginalized students is somehow discriminatory.
That’s not just legally incoherent — it’s a philosophical Möbius strip of bad faith.
Let me see if I understand your logic:
If we acknowledge racial disparities, that’s racism.
If we help English learners catch up, that’s favoritism.
If we give a disabled child a reading aide, we’re denying someone else the chance to struggle equally.
And if we train teachers to understand bias, we’re indoctrinating them — but if we train them to ignore it, we’re “restoring neutrality”?
How convenient that your sudden concern for “equal treatment” seems to apply only when it’s used to silence conversations about race, identity, or inequality.
Let’s talk about our English learners. Would you like us to stop offering translation services during parent-teacher conferences? Should we cancel bilingual support staff to avoid the appearance of “special treatment”? Or would you prefer we just teach all content in English and hope for the best, since acknowledging linguistic barriers now counts as discrimination?
And while we’re at it — what’s your official stance on IEPs? Because last I checked, individualized education plans intentionally give students with disabilities extra support. Should we start removing accommodations to avoid offending the able-bodied majority? Maybe cancel occupational therapy altogether so no one feels left out?
If a student with a learning disability receives extended time on a test, should we now give everyone extended time, even if they don’t need it? Just to keep the playing field sufficiently flat and unthinking?
Your letter paints equity as a threat. But equity is not the threat. It’s the antidote to decades of failure. Equity is what ensures all students have a fair shot. Equity is what makes it possible for a child with a speech impediment to present at the science fair. It’s what helps the nonverbal kindergartner use an AAC device. It’s what gets the newcomer from Ukraine the ESL support she needs without being left behind.
And let’s not skip past the most insulting part of your directive — the ten-day deadline. A national directive sent to thousands of districts with the subtlety of a ransom note, demanding signatures within a week and a half or else you’ll cut funding that supports... wait for it... low-income students, disabled students, and English learners.
Brilliant. Just brilliant. A moral victory for bullies and bureaucrats everywhere.
So no, we will not be signing your “certification.”
We are not interested in joining your theater of compliance.
We are not interested in gutting equity programs that serve actual children in exchange for your political approval.
We are not interested in abandoning our legal, ethical, and educational responsibilities to satisfy your fear of facts.
We are interested in teaching the truth.
We are interested in honoring our students’ identities.
We are interested in building a school system where no child is invisible, and no teacher is punished for caring too much.
And yes — we are prepared to fight this. In the courts. In the press. In the community. In Congress, if need be.
Because this district will not be remembered as the one that folded under pressure.
We will be remembered as the one that stood its ground — not for politics, but for kids.
Sincerely,
District Superintendent
Still Teaching. Still Caring. Still Not Signing.’