Local Government Reorganisation is often discussed in technical terms: governance models, balance sheets and boundary maps. But for cultural organisations, the current proposals for new unitary councils for Sussex raise more fundamental questions.
For example: How do people actually experience heritage & culture in this place? How do heritage systems really function on the ground? And what kind of local government structure is most likely to protect and strengthen those systems through a period of major change?
These questions matter because culture does not sit neatly within administrative boundaries. It flows along transport routes, shared identities and everyday patterns of movement. Any assessment of “sensible geography” needs to take that lived reality into account.
From a heritage & cultural perspective, East Sussex is not experienced as a single, uniform space. Along our part of the coast, visitor behaviour, school travel and cultural participation tend to be shaped by the Eastbourne–Bexhill–Hastings corridor. Audiences move east–west along the A259 and the coastal railway, not north–south across the county. Cultural partnerships, tourism initiatives and shared narratives reflect this same pattern.
This does not mean county-wide structures are unimportant. The museum is strongly advocating for a Sussex-wide response to emerging crisis in archives, archaeological planning and heritage services management. These often benefit from scale, consistency and long-term continuity. But it does mean that cultural geography and administrative geography do not always align, and that tension sits at the heart of the current proposals.
The case for a single East Sussex unitary council – the One East Sussex proposal – is strongest in terms of organisational stability. One East Sussex would replace the current county and district councils, including Rother, Eastbourne and Hastings, with a single unitary authority covering the whole of East Sussex, bringing all local government services under one council.
Existing county-wide arrangements for archives, archaeology, museums and heritage partnerships could transfer into a new authority largely intact. At a time when non-statutory services are particularly exposed to disruption, this continuity offers reassurance.
This stability takes on added significance given the delay to the election of a Sussex Mayor until 2028. Many cultural organisations had anticipated that a mayoral office would help provide early strategic leadership across culture, heritage, tourism and regeneration. That coordinating role will not exist during the crucial early years of transition.
In the absence of regional leadership, fewer structural changes mean fewer risks. Clear lines of accountability, established professional networks and predictable governance all help protect cultural infrastructure while new councils find their feet. For these reasons, One East Sussex presents a lower-risk option from an organisational standpoint.
However, stability does not automatically equate to cultural fit. County-wide geography does not fully reflect the lived cultural connections along the East Sussex coast, and this is where the alternative proposal raises important points.
The Brighton & Hove proposal for Five Unitaries includes the idea of a distinct East Sussex Coastal authority bringing together Eastbourne, Bexhill and Hastings. From a cultural perspective, this is a coherent and compelling concept.
As noted, these towns already function as a connected cultural ecosystem. They share audiences, creative networks, heritage narratives and tourism initiatives, including long-established collaborations such as 1066 Country, the Sussex Museums Group, the Sussex Archaeological Society and the Cultural Coastal Trail. Cultural institutions along the coast already work together in ways that reflect shared identity and mutual dependence.
A coastal unitary could support genuinely place-based cultural strategy, allowing arts, heritage & culture to play a central role in coastal regeneration and economic development. At the same time, a separate inland or “country” authority could focus more clearly on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, rural heritage and nature-based tourism. This differentiation reflects how East Sussex is already experienced by residents and visitors alike.
It is also important to note that a five-unitary model does not automatically undermine county-wide cultural infrastructure. Archives can serve multiple authorities. Archaeological archive networks can be designed to operate across boundaries. Cultural systems are adaptable, provided governance is clear and collaboration is actively supported.
That adaptability, however, should not be assumed. The Five Unitaries model carries real operational risks, particularly in the absence of a mayor until 2028. Creating five new councils at once would be complex under any circumstances. Doing so without regional leadership increases the likelihood of fragmentation, duplication and short-term decision-making driven by immediate financial and statutory pressures.
Disaggregating county-wide services, establishing new governance arrangements and ensuring consistent cultural policy across multiple authorities would require time, capacity and political focus. Coastal authorities often face higher social and economic need, which can make it harder to sustain attention on heritage & culture unless it is deliberately prioritised.
For these reasons, the Five Unitaries proposal presents greater short-term risk, even while offering longer-term cultural opportunities.
Across both proposals, one conclusion stands out. The success or failure of cultural governance will depend less on the precise configuration of boundaries and more on how heritage & culture is treated during transition.
Cultural infrastructure needs active protection. Museums, archives, archaeological stores, heritage buildings and the professional expertise that sustains them cannot be left to drift while new councils focus on statutory services. There is a strong case for some form of Sussex-wide cultural coordination during the transition period, regardless of which model is chosen.
Looking further ahead, the eventual election of a Sussex Mayor remains a significant opportunity. When that happens, culture and heritage should be embedded at the heart of regional leadership, not treated as peripheral concerns. A dedicated role focused on heritage & culture could help re-knit Sussex’s cultural landscape across whatever unitary structure emerges.
This debate may be largely technical in form, but its consequences are deeply local. The decisions made now will shape how heritage & culture is governed, funded and valued across Sussex for decades. Cultural organisations therefore have an important role to play in explaining how heritage & culture actually works on the ground, and what conditions are needed to support it through change.
The challenge is not to defend one map at all costs, but to ensure that whichever structure is chosen reflects real cultural geographies, supports collaboration and protects the heritage assets that give Sussex its distinctive character