Last week's Spending Review from the UK Government gave a few clues about the direction of travel for regions with devolved mayoral authorities (and those without)
For places like Sussex and Brighton, preparing to elect a mayor in 2026, there are signals on what’s to gain (and lose) from the changing rules of the game.
Five big takeaways:
1. Mayors got a lot of the money
City-regions led by mayors received enhanced multi-year, flexible budgets – known as ‘integrated settlements’ – spanning transport, housing, and skills. That flexibility isn’t available to county councils or districts working alone.
“This Spending Review backs our ambition to rebuild the West Midlands and unlock opportunity in every community.”
— Richard Parker, Mayor of the West Midlands
By contrast, most non-mayoral regions must navigate a ever-more complex patchwork of ringfenced grants, rising service costs, and ongoing pressures in social care and SEND.
District councils, which handle much of the prevention and placemaking agenda, are notably anxious about being squeezed out – both politically and financially. And the mood music suggests this is not unfounded. Mayoral status appears increasingly to be the 'preferred customer' badge for central government investment.
The District Councils’ Network praised the “long-term investment to boost economic growth” and the capital spending focus, but its finance spokesperson Cllr Jeremy Newmark warned it was “potentially counterproductive not to consider district council services in the same light”. He emphasised that under-resourcing districts could undermine key preventative services – for example, leisure centres that keep people healthy (reducing NHS burdens), or housing support teams that prevent homelessness.
Traditional local government (counties, districts and non-mayoral unitaries) certainly gained from the review’s general funding increases, but not to the same extent as regional authorities. They face persistent financial pressures – some exacerbated by the very agenda that benefits metro areas (for instance, funding formula changes and competitive funds that may favour urban centres).
Key policy areas illustrate this divergence: city-region transport networks are set for transformation, whereas many county transport budgets remain tight; large affordable housing programmes will be easiest to deploy in metropolitan areas with shovel-ready plans; skills funding is growing, but tailored employment support is flowing through mayoral pilots first.
2. Transport investment followed the mayors
£15.6 billion was earmarked for local transport – nearly all of it for mayoral areas. Greater Manchester and Liverpool secured backing for major tram and rail expansion. South Yorkshire got government support to reopen Doncaster-Sheffield Airport. West of England secured £752m.
“That three-quarters of a billion pounds will mean better buses, more trains, and mass transit – with trams and much more on the table.”
— Helen Godwin, Mayor of the West of England
It is fair to predict that if Sussex wants to make some big transport infrastructure investment in the future, it would be difficult to persuade Whitehall to invest without a Combined Mayoral Authority to lead it.
3. Housing powers were extended
A record £39 billion was pledged for new social and affordable homes. This was an unexpected pledge for the whole of the country. But it was noted that mayoral authorities can more quickly align planning, infrastructure, and land assembly across multiple boroughs – Sussex can’t, yet.
4. Skills and employment innovation is going through mayors first
A nationwide £1.2 billion uplift in post-16 and vocational training was welcomed by many. But local employment support pilots – especially for people furthest from the labour market – are now mainly being run via devolved city-regions (eg. Greater Manchester is designing integrated health and work schemes through its prevention pilot).
5. Visibility and ambition now matter more than scale
The Spending Review rewarded visible local leadership with a track record. That doesn’t just mean bigger cities – but places that have a clear identity and a single point of accountability.
“Residents in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough elected me to deliver a new community stadium... If today’s announcement from Government helps deliver this, then this is to be welcomed.”
— Paul Bristow, Mayor of Cambridgeshire & Peterborough
It’s not necessarily about being the biggest, but about showing you know what to do with the powers.
What does this mean for Sussex and Brighton?
As the region moves towards electing a mayor in 2026, the Spending Review indicates how this Government is going to focus its resources. The promise is:
-
Bigger, longer-term funding deals
-
Strategic powers over transport, housing and skills
-
A seat at the table when national plans are shaped
But it also raises the bar. There’s a clear expectation that mayoral areas bring sharp vision, bold leadership, and coordination across institutions. The bar has been set by Greater Manchester, the West Midlands, and increasingly, newer mayoralties in the south west and north west.
Sussex and Brighton might not have a choice over which track it ends up on, but perhaps more work is needed to show it’s ready to do something with it.
“We’ve started a new chapter for the West of England, but start from a place of needing to catch up with other city-regions.”
— Helen Godwin
That line could just as easily apply to Sussex. But what structures and strategy ensures it doesn’t have to stay that way?
📚 Further reading
%20-%20newsletter%20(8).png?upscale=true&width=1120&upscale=true&name=SATC%20100%20(60%20x%2021%20cm)%20-%20newsletter%20(8).png)