Today's decision to retain full maternity service at the Conquest and Eastbourne DGH means £400,000 paid by the trust for its consultation has been wasted.
It had been proposed to move consultant-led maternity to the Conquest but this plan was dropped today.
But it does not rule out big changes in both hospitals.
The Health Secretary chose to follow the advice of the Independent Reconfiguration P
anel, an independent body brought in in May to talk to hospital staff, patients, trust members and MPs. The panel's report, published at www.irpanel.org.uk, says East Sussex Downs and Weald and Hastings and Rother Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) must keep consultant-led maternity, special care baby and inpatient gynaecology services at both hospitals, not just at Hastings as planned.
Dr Peter Barrett, the IRP chair, said, "The needs of local women and their families were at the heart of this review. Having considered all the evidence available, visited both hospitals and met with a wide range of local people, we concluded that women's access to, and choice of, services would be seriously compromised if the proposals were implemented."
The IRP decided the 21-mile journey from the DGH to Hastings could be dangerous for women, especially when they were transferred unexpectedly, as for an emergency Caesarean.
Its report also said the distance would be time-consuming for maternity staff and families.
The panel, appointed after East Sussex Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee transferred the PCTs' plans to the Government to decide, said the decision to move consultant-led maternity was mainly driven by the PCTs trying to address staffing problems.
Consultants from Eastbourne and Hastings described being overstretched and both PCTs said maternity services were at "the margin of safety". Women had been diverted to Hastings several times already due to staff shortages.
The IRP agreed that there needed to be changes in staffing to ensure safety but said a single site for maternity was not the best way to achieve this, instead recommending using higher-tier midwives to support junior staff.
Vanessa Harris, the interim chief executive of both PCTs, said, despite the decision change was still needed at the hospitals, as the IRP had acknowledged and pledged to meet the deadline of drawing up an alternative proposal for the future of maternity services within a month.
She said, "The IRP's advice contains some very useful observations and I confirm that we accept its recommendations."
The PCTs had, she said, weighed up the competing problems in proposing to base all consultant-led maternity care in Hastings but had faced a tough and very close decision.
Ms Harris added, "The IRP exists in order to ensure that tough decisions like this can be subject to an independent second opinion. This is an example of NHS decision-making working as it should."
