Council Leader’s Direct Award Raises Serious Questions About Governance, Due Diligence, and Timing
The Bella Sankey Contract Controversy: What Happened and Why It Matters
Whilst families were preoccupied with Christmas and New Year celebrations, Brighton and Hove City Council quietly signed off a £19 million Private Sector Temp Housing Contract Over New Year The timing—a paper dated 31st December, signed off by Council Leader Bella Sankey on 2nd January 2026—demands serious scrutiny. This is precisely the kind of decision that should have been transparent, debated, and subject to rigorous oversight. Instead, it happened when most citizens were distracted.
I discovered this Bella Sankey contract controversy on January 9th when a councillor flagged the award paper with a stark observation: “Have you seen this, no debate!” Upon review, the scale of the decision became immediately apparent: an £18.8 million contract for 209 units over six years (£3.3 million annually) awarded directly to Base One Holdings—a company I’d never heard of, and neither, it seemed, had anyone else scrutinising it properly.
Inside the Bella Sankey Contract Controversy: The Housing Coalition’s Forensic Findings
When I raised this within the Housing Coalition, members were equally shocked. One specifically questioned due diligence; another challenged the legal justification for a direct award with no equality impact assessment. The timing was especially troubling: just one month prior, the administration had admitted to a staggering under-calculation in emergency accommodation costs—200 households whose circumstances remain unexamined from an equality perspective.
Our forensic analysis of Base One Holdings revealed troubling gaps:
Aggressive recent expansion: Room numbers show gradual increase historically, but aggressive growth in the last six months—without clear evidence this expansion was secure
A newly formed company: Just 2.5 years old, not fully established in the sector
Unclear capacity: Financials don’t demonstrate they actually possess 209 households as of the contract signature date
Housing Coalition Members did some digging into the company and the financials dont add up, a newly formed company one would argue not fully established, just 2.5 years old, there services and payments to the council highlight a gradual increase in room numbers, with more aggressive use in the last 6 months, but not clear as of the date siged up if base one actually have 209 households.
The Seven-Page Paper: Admissions That Undermine the Bella Sankey Contract Controversy
The Part One paper is deliberately thin—seven pages of large font, no addendums, no supplementary information. Yet within this sparse document lie damaging admissions:
- 1. No alternatives considered: The council explicitly admits it did not evaluate alternative plans
- 2. Projected savings don’t add up: The claimed £1 million saving against current costs cannot be reconciled with the figures presented
- 3. Ignoring better options: An in-house model could deliver £2 million-plus in savings—potentially far more with proper circular economy policies
This stands in sharp contrast to what the Local Government Association warned just nine months earlier.
The LGA Corporate Peer Challenge: A Warning the Bella Sankey Contract Controversy Appears to Ignore
Back in April 2025 the LGA’s Corporate Peer Challenge delivered a stark assessment of Brighton and Hove’s financial position
On financial resilience, peers warned: “The council has very little to no tolerance in its financial resilience. The current low level of reserves puts the council at significant exposure. A small change in external environment could trigger a section 114 notice.”
On strategic governance, they specifically recommended:
“A strategic review of the HRA is needed to determine how best to manage cost pressures, income potential and capital investment needs. Governance should be strengthened to track delivery and identify trends.”
On internal controls, the LGA flagged serious concerns:
“Feedback from internal and external auditors has identified areas for improvement in the internal control environment. Senior leadership should prioritise a clear and coordinated response, ensuring improvements are embedded in practice and subjected to ongoing monitoring.”
The Bella Sankey contract controversy appears to do precisely the opposite: it bypasses transparency, avoids strategic review, and weakens the very governance frameworks the LGA said must be strengthened.
Why the Bella Sankey Contract Controversy Demands Immediate Attention
This isn’t simply about procurement process. The decision reflects a council in financial crisis making rapid, under-scrutinised commitments to unproven providers—precisely when the LGA said reserves are dangerously low and governance must be reinforced. The contract locks the council into six years of payments to a company whose capacity, track record, and financial stability remain unverified.
Meanwhile, the Housing Revenue Account—which generates significant income for the council—remains strategically underdeveloped. Better use of council housing assets, as the LGA recommended, could have been explored first.
What Happens Now: Investigating the Bella Sankey Contract Controversy
I’m sharing this investigation across social networks and lobbying local press to bring scrutiny to bear. Surprisingly, mainstream media has been reluctant to cover this story—rejecting opinion piece requests.
If you’re a journalist, student of politics, law or social sciences, or someone affected by these housing decisions, this is your moment. The Bella Sankey contract controversy deserves public examination. Get in touch: info@housingcoalition.co.uk