THE police and crime commissioner has been forced to defend her plans to raise tax to pay for more officers after coming under fire from councillors.

Members of the police and crime panel tried twice to get the proposal thrown out on the grounds it lacked enough data and detail to make an informed decision.

But both motions, first to veto the plan until she elaborated and second to oppose it altogether, fell through when a majority of councillors failed to support them.

The third vote saw a majority agree to increase the police’s part of council tax by 3.4 per cent, equating to £5 more a year for band D households and allowing Sussex Police to hire 100 more specialist officers.

This was only after Katy Bourne faced a barrage of criticism from councillors at the meeting, which is set up to scrutinise her work.

Panel member Michael Jones said: “I don’t consider [this proposal] that good. The introduction of these new initiatives is coming at a time when there is genuine concern about the effect of previous cuts to frontline policing. People want Sussex Police – and the commissioner – to get the basics right.”

Councillor Warren Davies branded it a “veneer” paper while fellow member Sandra James said: “We are discussing a serious business case but we don’t have fundamental information.”

Figures suggesting fewer officers would be based in Brighton and Hove to tackle sex crimes raised concerns. The extra money will mean 30 more staff hired to investigate historic abuse and other sexual offence cases at a cost of £1.25 million, responding to a 217 per cent increase in recorded rape and serious sexual offences since 2013. But the information for the panel indicated three fewer staff would be based in the city when 41 more will work from West Sussex – where there is an “acute” need – and 20 more in East Sussex.

Councillor Emma Daniel, who represents Brighton and Hove City Council on the panel, said she feared city taxpayers would be getting “less for more” and said Mrs Bourne’s responses were “inadequate”.

Mrs Bourne disagreed with the criticism and said she did not believe the proposal lacked detail, adding: “I do not take lightly raising the precept.

“When these roles were set up two years ago the majority were based in Brighton. This indicates where they will be based but does not mean they are not working across the county. They will respond to where the need is and at the moment it is in West Sussex.”

Detective Superintendent Jason Tingley, head of public protection, said: “Our aim is to match demand and this investment bid was informed by detailed analysis of public protection activity across Sussex. People can be assured no area is being disadvantaged. The resources we have are flexible and can be focused wherever the need is.”