More than 3,500 people are homeless in Brighton and Hove including those sleeping rough and those in temporary housing, according to a report going before councillors next week.
Of these, more than 1,400 are homeless children, making up about 40 per cent of the total, with overall homelessness applications on the rise since 2021.
The details are set out in a report to Brighton and Hove City Council’s People Overview and Scrutiny Committee which is due to meet at Hove Town Hall next week.
The committee is being asked to comment on the proposed priorities and commitments as the council prepares to adopt a new homelessness and rough sleeping strategy for 2025-30.
The priorities are
- Preventing homeless through “early identification”, supporting people to stay in existing homes or find a new home and targeted prevention for those at risk of rough sleeping.
- Improving the options for temporary housing by improving both the quality and supply of temporary homes, supporting people in temporary housing and improving the move into settled housing.
- Working with partners to provide joined up support to those who need help, with targeted support for the vulnerable, integrated services for those with multiple compound needs and support for rough sleepers to access services and housing.
The report said that an analysis by the charity Shelter last year found that homelessness affected 1 in 77 people in Brighton and Hove – 3,580 people or 1.3 per cent of the population.
Council data released to the Local Democracy Reporting Service showed that between January and June this year, 1,023 households were assessed as homeless and needing council support. And about 2,000 households were in temporary housing.
The reasons varied from private tenancies coming to an end, family or friends no longer willing to put them up, domestic abuse and a variety of other reasons.
The report said: “The cost of temporary accommodation is not sustainable with both rising prices and increasing demand.
“We anticipate a significant reduction in grant funding over the life of the strategy.
“To deliver the strategy with its planned shift to prevention, it must be financially sustainable in the short and medium term to deliver the desired long-term benefits.”
The cost has been highlighted by the Labour deputy leader of the council, Jacob Taylor, in recent weeks during discussions about the council’s budget.
Councillor Taylor said that it was one of the most pressing issues facing the council budget this year and in future years.
When the council’s People Overview and Scrutiny Committee met on Monday 15 September, Councillor Taylor said that demand for temporary housing and rough sleeper services were adding about £12 million “pressure” – or potential extra costs – to next year’s budget.
The strategy report said that external grants – from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government – were under threat. The main ones are the rough sleeping prevention and recovery grant (RSPARG) and the homelessness prevention grant (HPG).
The council faces a potential reduction from the HPG from £10.9 million to £6 million in 2026-27.
And there is no confirmed RSPARG funding for 2026-27.
Rough sleeping has also been increasing, with the city ranked 19th joint highest for rough sleeping in England, at 30 per 100,000 people.
There are 704 people in Brighton and Hove who have “multiple compound needs” including one or more of mental health problems, substance misuse, domestic violence and a history of offending.
The People Overview and Scrutiny Committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 4pm next Wednesday (8 October). The meeting is scheduled to be webcast.
Would the ‘variety of other reasons’ include those attracted to the city by Brighton’s reputation of being a soft touch with a supply of hard drugs readily available?
The hostels are flooded with people from all over the UK and beyond, many with an extremely dubious history.
The county line aspect is definitely part of it, which then relates to these vulnerable men and women being exploited. That draws in vulnerable people from elsewhere.
But the council houses people in property that is not fit for purpose and they need to do better.
Anyone who follows housing issues in the city will have seen reports of ceilings collapsing in properties Baron Homes rent to the council. Over a 5 year period between 2019-2024 the council paid Baron Homes, and companies owned by the same family (Moretons and Chestnut Development Ltd) £18,705,626 to provide temporary accommodation. During that time multiple reports were raised by tenants about standards in the properties, including one case where a man was injured by a collapsing ceiling https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/24403706.brighton-council-apologises-ceiling-falls-mans-head/
I am constantly staggered that the council allows this situation to go on and they are happy to line the pockets of landlords for accommodation which has, on occasion, injured tenants.
Some of the things I have heard about Baron Homes are horrific. I agree that those kinds of for-profit companies simply do not have the right intention when it comes to temporary housing, and from what’s been said in the news, it sounds like there are better ways of providing such accommodation. I get the impression that BHCC has used these because they’ve been forced to, rather than by choice.
I think there are better methods.
If external grants from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are “under threat” then why on earth are Labour councillors in the city not demanding their colleagues in Westminster continue to fund proper and sustainable support to end rough sleeping.
Resources were made available during the pandemic via the “everyone in” initiative, so the fact there are so many rough sleepers is now a lack of political will. As for temporary accommodation, all the time the council pays millions each year to the same multi-millionaire private landlords, who provide often poor quality temporary housing, there are both value for money and morality questions the council needs to answer about its approach to homelessness in the city.
They are, Fletch. And also, that’s the job of the MP.
Reducing temporary accommodation usage is a worthwhile goal, and I agree with you on that. My understanding is that the council are preparing an ALMO, according to their press release back in February. A potential benefit of this is that the ALMO could provide temporary accommodation at a lower rate than private entities currently charge, with reduced overheads and in-house management, as a result of its own operations.
To me, delivery of that hits both the moral and value-for-money aspects you’re referring to.
I don’t that’s true Benjamin, unless you can direct me to any public statement where any of the Labour council have said that the ongoing austerity and pressures on local government funding is scandalous, and insisted that the Government urgently needs to address this so libraries aren’t closed, homelessness funding is adequate to meet statutory duties and provide decent fit-for-purpose housing, and that social care isn’t hanging on by a thread, they have not been critical of the government’s austerity measures.
Yes, it’s MPs who make decisions in Westminster, but if Labour councils do not have enough money to meet statutory duties and force cuts to community services, there should be an outcry amongst Labour councillors. There isn’t. So they are complicit in passing cuts budget and running a local authority with a cuts agenda, because they are not pushing back.
Please do direct me to a public statement where Labour councillors have condemned the austerity and cuts being passed by the Labour Government, because I can’t find it.
Cllr. Taylor himself has repeatedly flagged the £12m budget pressure from temporary accommodation and homelessness, warning it is unsustainable without government support. That is, in effect, a critique of austerity, even if it isn’t wrapped in the exact language you want. Councillors’ job is to balance the books locally; they can’t simply refuse to pass a legal budget, but they are on record about the impact of reduced grants on homelessness services, libraries, and care.
The bigger point remains: this is a Westminster-driven funding squeeze.
Can you direct me to somewhere where he makes clear his outrage Benjamin, or something where he insists that the government is neglecting its core responsibilities by not providing councils with the money they need to run basis services and that the situation is shocking. Any article link anywhere where he’s outraged, or minutes from ANY council meeting where he says how let down he feels that the Labour government are continuing to make cuts to local authoirty budgets and that this council administration vehemently opposes the government’s position.
Repeatedly “flagging” a budget gap is doing nothing. Actively opposing cuts and having the courage of conviction to speak out and say the cuts and funding pressures are wrong and harmful and that Ministers and the Government are wrong to push this agenda on residents (who lose services and vital support as a result) is more honourable.
Any article, anywhere, where they’ve opposed, shown anger and opposition rather than “flagged”. Share a link if you can find something.
You’re just playing bad faith semantics, as usual. Councillors have repeatedly put on record that government underfunding is driving unsustainable pressures; that’s a matter of public record in budget papers, scrutiny minutes, and the local press. Insisting they must use your exact preferred adjectives of “outrage” or “shock” doesn’t change the substance. If you want theatre, fair enough, but in the real world, the responsibility for reversing austerity lies with Westminster – so perhaps point me to a single opposition councillor anywhere in England who has actually secured more funding by shouting louder?
It’s not bad faith semantics at all.
All I’ve asked is for you to share one link to an article where Labour councillors have made clear that they vehemently oppose the government’s austerity agenda, which is impacting on homelessness funding. Because I have not seen them oppose the cuts. If not an article, a link to a statement at a public meeting where they have made their opposition to the government’s approach clear and that they disagree.
Labour councillors saying “underfunding is driving unsustainable pressures” is not the same as saying they oppose their government’s stance and they are calling on them to address the cuts they are forcing on local councils.
You know as well as I do they have not been outspoken and condemned the cuts in the same way as I have described since it has been a Labour government (Labour councillors were more vocal about their opposition when it was a Tory government – those comments are on public record).
In your defence of council that you clearly seem to support, you should not twist the narrative to imply councillors have said things they haven’t. You have not been able to show that there has been condemnation of the cuts and proper opposition from Labour councillors, and until you can provide a link or evidence, then I’ve still seen nothing to prove otherwise.
Easily done. At the People Overview & Scrutiny Committee on 17 September 2025, Cllr Jacob Taylor stated that temporary accommodation and rough sleeper services were adding about £12 million pressure to next year’s budget and warned this was unsustainable without further government support (Reported on B&H News).
Earlier this year, the council announced plans for a council-owned housing company to bring temporary accommodation in-house and reduce dependence on costly private landlords (Council Press Release on the 4th Feb 2025).
The draft Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2025-30 itself says that “the cost of temporary accommodation is not sustainable” and that central government grants are expected to fall sharply over the next two years (Further Reported by B&H News).
You may prefer stronger adjectives, and I’ll state it once again, the record already shows the council warning about the national funding squeeze and actively trying to reform how temporary housing is delivered.
Who would have thought beating up landlords with expensive legislation and tax burdens would not result in thousands pulling out of renting in the city. This just means fewer rental properties, higher rents and landlords that can be highly selective about who they rent to. No surprise that very few tenants that are not a good financial bet are now not being housed in the private rental sector and the council and taxpayers are expected to pick up the tab for this. The situation will only get worst with uncontrolled population growth.
Fortunately, Angela, the idea of landlords “leaving in droves” just doesn’t stack up with the facts and has been successfully rebutted multiple times. The real problem in Brighton is that demand far outstrips supply. High rents are driven by the scarcity of affordable homes, not by modest legislation or tax changes. We can prove this by observing that rental yields here are among the strongest in the UK, which is why most landlords stay.
Investment properties like the Gasworks recently talked about will do very little to change this. We need more genuinely affordable homes. We need better control over HMOs and holiday lets. And we need changes to the RTB system that doesn’t work for our city.
Rental yields certainly aren’t some of the strongest in the UK! The highest yields are all in the North of England and Scotland, and get lower as you track south, due to the higher house prices. Recent analysis by Zoopla placed Brighton as 60th out of 65 Cities and towns for yield.
You’re quoting gross yield tables, which only tell half the story. Brighton’s house prices mean the crude yield percentage looks lower, but when you combine that with rapid capital appreciation, near-zero void periods, and a waiting list of tenants, it makes it one of the strongest overall markets for landlords in the South. That’s why most landlords aren’t “leaving in droves”: they know demand here guarantees returns even if the gross yield % doesn’t top the chart.
Capital appreciation in the city is zero as prices for flats has plummeted, due to landlords (both private rental and Airbnb) trying to sell as a result of ongoing adverse legislation. There are hundreds of flats for sale with no buyers. If the environment was as conducive as you claim, landlords would be fighting to buy. The reason many do not sell up and leave the sector is due to the high rate of capital gains, which they can’t afford to pay if redeeming a high mortgage on sale if the property.
Rapid price inflation is very much in the rear view mirror and is unlikely to return in the short to medium term. Talk to some agents or at least look on Rightmove and you will see many former rentals for sale ‘chain free’ – this is evidence of landlords exiting the market. Speaking to an agent in Kemp Town recently he told me there are currently 400 flats for sale between the pier and the Marina, and his own agency has 100 properties for sale (mostly flats) when historically the average is 60. Many of these are ex rental stock. Ask yourself this: if the rental market is as robust as you claim, why aren’t landlords buying?
There’s hundreds of student HMOs that haven’t found tenants for the academic year just getting underway. There’s plenty of these HMOs for sale but very few are interested in buying them. The student market is shrinking.
So looking at the evidence rather than applying wishful thinking, it’s quite clear that Brighton rental property is a poor investment at present.
The sales market has indeed cooled, and some landlords are selling. But that’s happening across the UK because of higher interest rates. What hasn’t changed is that rents in Brighton are at record highs, void periods are close to zero, and tenants outnumber available homes many times over. Even if capital growth has slowed, rental returns here remain strong.
Continuing to focus on the claim that landlords are “leaving in droves” is simply not accurate, because many sources still see decent returns as broadly supported by the data (Brighton Buy-to-Let Guide, CIA-Landlords, PropertyInvestmentsUK, Track Capital, and Zoopla quote gross yields in the region of 3-6%). Many are continuing to hold properties because the market remains viable, even if margins are tighter.
So again, I’m led by the data that we need more genuinely affordable homes. We need better control over HMOs and holiday lets. And we need changes to the RTB system that don’t work for our city’s challenges.
A gross yield of 3 – 6% (let’s split the difference and call it 4.5%) is poor for property, and does not signify a strong market for landlords. Remember this is before any costs, mortgages, taxes etc are applied so the net is going to be lower and it’s quite easy to make an annual loss. Couple that with non existent capital growth (negative growth when you factor in inflation, AKA the ‘silent property crash’) and it’s hardly an exciting investment proposition for your average landlord.
The problem with property market data is that it’s always produced by those with a vested interest in talking the market up, and looking at national and regional data is erroneus as the UK property market is made up of thousands of hyper local markets. Landlords buying in the North where yields are higher offsets the properties being sold in the South, but does not change the fact that small landlords (who are the backbone of the market) in the south are leaving the market. You’d be better served doing your own research, monitoring the market and speaking to those involved to get a feel for what is going on.
I agree that the ‘landlords selling in droves’ narrative has been overdone. What I see and expect to continue is the bleed of properties from the market as tenancies draw to a natural conclusion and those properties are marketed for sale rather than rent. Most landlords will be quite aware of the glut of properies on the market at present, and those wishing to sell can hold fire and wait / hope for market conditions to improve before selling properties on. If you have a good, reliable tenant then there is less pressure to leave the market, but when that tenant leaves?
That’s a fairer summary, Nige, and I appreciate the amicable debate about it. Yields are tighter, and some landlords are selling, but I’d gently push back and say there’s no collapse; rents and occupancy remain extremely strong, which is why the market continues to function.
Totally agree with you, we definitely need more truly affordable homes. The Brighton General site should really be offered as such.
Whilst the Council consider this, will they be considering the tenants, like myself, who are to be dehoused in the eight tower blocks that are to be demolished in the next few years?
The current tenants decanting from the highrises are prioritised over introducing any new applicants from the waiting list, effectively freezing the waiting list until everyone is decanted and the new builds are complete.
But we all know that the Labour government spends most of their time not only “off the table”, but these days it seems they are “out of the room”. Having read as much as I can bear during the party conference, it’s apparent some are “living next door”.
Getting back to the issue in question, we now have a cabinet who are following in the footsteps of the Labour Party leadership.
Homelessness has been a problem in Brighton for decades. Here is a copy and paste from a Brighton and Hove strategy for single homeless people published online in 2009, called ‘Review of the Single Homeless Strategy’
“Brighton and Hove is the largest city on the south coast and attracts inward
migration from across the region and beyond. In the late 1990s/early
2000s, rough sleeping levels within the city were problematic and at its
height 66 rough sleepers were found on a Street Count in 2001.”
We are looking at a carousel of Administrations who simply cannot get to grips with homelessness.
Many of us notice that quite a few of our councillors are getting re-elected year after year. It makes me wonder whether councillors for Brighton and Hove in the future should have a limited time in office as it is obvious we are re-electing councillors who at the end of the day cannot cope with the problems faced in Brighton and Hove.
https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/documents/s10825/Item 12 – Single Homeless Strategy.pdf
Look what happens when you declare your city a “city of sanctuary”. You have to pay for everyone you invite here
Does the figure only include those recorded by Brighton and Hove? Or, does it include those placed into temporary accommodation within the city, by other councils? I ask this, as two years ago, I was placed in temporary accommodation, in Hove, by a council, close by, but not part of, or indeed controlled by Brighton and Hove.
Please stop using dehumanising images of homeless people CHI has free to use non stigmatising images https://www.homelessnessimpact.org/news/introducing-the-first-free-library-non-stigmatising-images-of-people-experiencing-homelessness
Rough sleepers in every town
This council gets enough homelessness funding each year to give each homeless individual a mortgage-free flat each. Someone needs to investigate where all this money goes.
That is wildly incorrect and easily disproven with public data and simple mathematics.