Tight spending controls enabled Brighton and Hove City Council to end the past financial year in the black by just over £1 million.
The council said last summer that it was on course for a £10 million deficit for the financial year which ended on Monday 31 March.
But the Labour administration imposed a hiring freeze and the council received more money than expected from business rates and benefited from “significant one-off resources”.
As a result, the council’s £205 million general fund budget underspent by almost £1.1 million.
Deputy leader Jacob Taylor said that tough decisions had been required but they had paid off and the underspend would help replenish the council’s “working balance” – or reserves.
Details of the financial outturn are contained in a report to the council’s cabinet which is due to meet at Hove Town Hall on Thursday 26 June.
The report said that the council planned to make savings of £23.6 million last year but £4.7 million was not achieved and that would put pressure on the budget this year.
The budget passed four months ago, in February, for the current financial year included a further £16 million in cuts and savings.
Some demand-led services were overspent such as the budget for temporary housing which was £6.5 million. But a £2.6 million overspend took the total to £9.1 million as the council put up a growing number of homeless people.
The report to the cabinet said that the high and increasing number of people requiring help meant that there was a risk that this service could continue to overspend.
The council had expected that emergency nightly booked housing would be needed for 160 households a night. But since April last year the council had supported an average of 337 households a night – more than double the number in 2023-24.
The report said: “The underlying trend is that the number of households using nightly booked accommodation is increasing due to changes in the private rented sector.
“Over the past year, many landlords have exited the market due to cumulative external events beyond the control of the local authority such as increases in landlord taxes, rising mortgage rates and the threat of impending legislation.
“The private rented sector is also the greatest means of preventing homelessness.”
The report said that the council’s city operations directorate underspent by £3.8 million. Income comes from parking charges, planning application fees and venues – all requiring a healthy economy, commercial activity and buoyant visitor numbers.
The improved performance was linked to the economic recovery after the coronavirus pandemic measures, with several areas of activity returning to pre-pandemic levels.
But parking revenues including permit fees fell short by £357,000 and the council made £300,000 less than budgeted from planning applications despite higher fees.
Thirty out of 55 maintained schools in Brighton and Hove, including special schools and nurseries, finished the year over budget.
The council-run schools, including faith schools but not academies, spent almost £211 million last year compared with an income of almost £209 million.
This left the council potentially exposed to some of the overspend of almost £2 million. The outcome was £680,000 worse than budgeted.
The report flagged up issues in several service areas
- More pupils in mainstream schools had more expensive education, health and care plans (EHCP) requiring top-up funding of £336,000
- More children were placed in special schools than expected, pushing the service over budget by £262,000
- The early retirement bill was £178,000 over budget
- The budget for bespoke tuition for children with medical needs was increased by £250,000 but was still overspent by a further £176,000 because of “a continued significant increase in the number of pupils” receiving this support
The cabinet is due to meet at 2pm on Thursday 26 June at Hove Town Hall. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast.
Lots of back slapping, but at what human cost.The council’s actual press release says “there are still significant challenges ahead. 2025/26 is likely to continue to be challenging due to our low reserves, pressures on services and further savings to meet.” That last bit sounds like cuts to me.
We’re seeing austerity mark 2 under this Labour government and a council quite happy to implement cuts at will. Nationally Labour have targeted their cuts at the most vulnerable (eg winter fuel allowance targeting pensioners and currently threatening to remove disability benefits from people who need support). Councillors can gloat if they like, but I’m personally concerned about the choices they are making and who they target when they impose cuts.
I don’t think that is an entirely unfair statement, Clare. I can certainly see how much it has cost to balance the books, and even with the warning, it affectedmanyf people. Rather than austerity mk.2, I think this is more the aftermath of the original Tory austerity. As many of us have commented before, councils have had to do more with less, and Brighton has had difficult issues to deal with – not the worst compared to some, but certainly not great.
I do think they’ve played a good hand with a stacked deck, at least locally. I want to see an area that has more local control, so I’m currently beating the devolution drum a bit at the moment. I can see a version of it that targets a lot of the major challenges within Brighton.
I’m under no delusion that there is more to do, and I feel I’m pragmatic enough to know it is not going to all be sunshine and rainbows, but I’m convinced that bold changes, even with the associated pains, are going to be much better in the long-term compared to idle ticking over.
Just reads like cuts cuts cuts Benjamin. I’m pragmatic (it’s not just you), but targeting the elderly and disabled, as Labour appear to be doing with their policies, and who will bear the brunt of the “associated pains” you refer to, is nothing to be applauded in my book.
I agree with that sentiment. Balancing the books by pushing those with the narrowest shoulders and the weakest financial backs doesn’t sit well with me, either.
Well, you say disabled. There is a hell of a lot of people on pip who are drug addicts and alcoholics. From personal knowledge pip only helps them buy more of what they shouldn’t be buying. They are left with zero clinical help but are given vast sums to live on… A much more pragmatic approach would be to cut pip to all that have addictions and to then spend that money on actual support.
What alcoholic is going to spend £20 a week getting a cleaner in, what alcoholic is going to spend £80 on an hour’s counselling… The only people who benefit from this are the offline across the road.
Well that’s part of the changes D! Reducing the amount of free cash given to people, and more vouchers and purchases of the specific things needed, specifically to stop that.
Except the winter fuel cuts were not targeted at poor pensioners but wealthy ones who don’t need the tax break. The tax break that would be much better spent on the generation who’s housing costs are quadruple those of their OAP peers, who owns 3 + houses as well as having massive pension pots to draw from. Equally I’m guessing you were expecting labour to wave a magic wand overnight and undo 14 years of pillage and plunder from the conservatives. Unfortunately they trashed the economy so badly what with Brexit, bad COVID policy then icing on top, lizz truss, all while stealing from the treasury to help out their mates… . It may take a few years to feel the benefits of competency to emerge.
It wasn’t implemented well either way, the calculation was rough and a cliff edge. Even doing it via tax bindings would have been better. Also, the timing question was not good. It could have been done in the Summer to give people a chance to adjust and prepare.
The councils finance officers are to be congratulated!
Refreshing to hear B&Hs Labour administration recognise that rising landlord taxation, mortgage rates and the incoming Renters Rights Bill have driven landlords out of the market, while the central Labour government remain in complete denial.
Personally, I don’t think landlords leaving makes any impactful difference on the net challenges in Brighton. When landlords leave the market, those homes don’t vanish. The more pressing issue is not landlords exiting but properties being pulled from the housing market entirely to become full-time short-term lets. Estimates suggest there are 2,000 to 6,000 such properties in the city. Many are larger homes that could house families or key workers, but instead serve weekend tourists.
Landlords also often outbid first-time buyers, especially in high-demand areas. Reducing buy-to-let activity can ease pressure on prices and allow more people to own rather than rent.