The spiralling cost of emergency and temporary housing has spurred a leading councillor to urge the government to provide the flexibility that would allow the council to bring things under control.
Labour councillor Jacob Taylor, the deputy leader of Brighton and Hove City Council, told a scrutiny committee that the council had budgeted £8 million for temporary housing in the current financial year.
That figure looks like going up by about £12 million to £20 million in the coming financial year, placing a great strain on the council’s overall budget.
The huge increase reflects the big rise in demand from people who have become homeless or who are at risk of losing their home.
The council is trying to reduce demand. It plans to spend £10 million over the next two financial years to build or buy properties that can be used to house people.
At the same time, the council is working on a big project to replace eight high-rise tower blocks over fire safety concerns, affecting about 550 households and more than 1,000 tenants.
In comments to a council budget scrutiny committee, the deputy leader called on the government to provide “flexibility” to allow the council to tackle the housing crisis in the city.
After the meeting, Councillor Taylor said: “The council is under significant financial pressure, with one of the main causes being the cost of providing temporary accommodation to local families and individuals.
“This is a broken system. We shouldn’t have any homeless households at all – and it shouldn’t be costing taxpayers so much in paying private landlords.
“We’re living with the consequences of the broken housing market of the last Tory government.
“The answer to this issue is simple: build and buy more social housing. We’re doing exactly that.
“We’ve got a plan to reduce homelessness and rapidly build up our social housing stock we just need the tools and flexibility to go faster.
“Effectively, we have a short-term financial problem from this failure of the market. In response, we could cut other frontline services.
“But that doesn’t make any sense. As a city and a country, we need to tackle the underlying issue: housing affordability.
“If the government gave us flexibility, perhaps on borrowing or use of capital, we could tackle this issue more quickly.
“In short, give us the tools and we will help fix this local and national issue. We’ll reverse the damage caused by Thatcher’s gutting of social housing and Tory austerity from 2010.”
A report to the council’s People Overview and Scrutiny Committee said: “The budget for temporary accommodation is under severe financial pressure, with a forecast increase of £12 million.”
The report said that there had been an increased reliance on spot-purchased accommodation – housing booked at short notice such as bed and breakfasts (B&Bs) – which came at a premium price.
The report added: “The financial cost is coupled with challenging outcomes for individuals who have much higher needs year on year.
“The trajectory is unsustainable and the council is now considering bold strategic action to address the issue.”
The strategic programme included the four key workstreams aimed at saving more than £5 million.
- Increasing the supply of more affordable temporary accommodation
- Reducing the unit cost of existing temporary accommodation
- Improving effectiveness in prevention of homelessness
- Accelerating move on from temporary accommodation
But Councillor Taylor believes that, with more financial flexibility, including to the flexibility to borrow more, the council could save even more money and reduce the number of people who are homeless.
If you advertise that you’re a city of sanctuary don’t be surprised when people come to seek it.
Not just this but on the front page of the Mail it says the Brighton Council wants to be only one of three cities that provides housing for asylum seekers. So no doubt Brighton will be next stop after the asylum seekers go to Crowborough as the accommodation there is only meant to be for a short period and then asylum seekers get rotated. I am surprised journalist are not asking more questions about this and this will have a big impact on the city.
Feel obliged to remind people of the various BS that Daily Fail says: https://thetownend.com/index.php?topic=38270.0&wap2=
Lets look st the Labour Party actions:
1) Invite hundreds of Afghans and Syrians under the Government rehousing scheme to Brighton which bearing in mind the housing shortage seems to be an odd priority.
2) Huge amounts of new Labour legislation on private landlords which has now led to the situation that thousands of former buy to let properties are no longer available to rent. Rent payable by the average tenant has increased by thousands of extra pounds a year as the extra cost of this legislation is passed on. It has also meant landlords are now no longer able to assume the risk of renting to people to anyone other than the most secure tenants. If you have a kid, are on universal credit, a recent immigrant with limited credit history are self-employed or any of the other groups considered high risk you are now and even more so in the will bb the councils problem.
The situation wil get worst as rents rise and landlords sell up. This will lead to only private investors building and renting out property in the city such as Moda homes. Has anyone seen how much they charge for rent.
This Labour politician is not realistic. The Government has no money and any money they have for building would produce double the number of properties spent in cheaper parts of the country other than Brighton. In addition to this the population is hugely expanding and many of these people will be on low incomes and will need social housing. So building or buying a hundreds homes will not even keep the situation static. I predict in three years the situation will get so bad the council could go bust due to the cost of the section 21 legislation.
Name one tenant who is paying “thousands of extra pounds a year”.
This article says the quiet part out loud – the system is broken – but it still refuses to ask the most uncomfortable question of all: who benefits from keeping it broken?
When we talk about “spiralling costs”, let’s stop being vague. In Brighton & Hove, it can cost around £1,500 per month in Housing Benefit to keep one individual in a bedsit, hostel, B&B or other spot-purchased “temporary” accommodation. That’s £18,000 a year per person, often for rooms with shared bathrooms, zero security, and no pathway to independence.
Multiply that across hundreds of people and suddenly the £20 million figure stops being abstract – it becomes a business model.
So the obvious question is this:
Why is this cost hidden from public debate?
Is it because if people realised that councils are paying private landlords more than the mortgage cost of a one-bed flat, the illusion would collapse?
Is it because emergency housing has quietly become an income stream – not just for landlords, but for agencies, contractors, charities, consultants and intermediaries who all “manage” homelessness without ever resolving it?
Or is it simply easier to blame “demand” than admit the market has been allowed to feed on public money unchecked?
Jacob Taylor is right about one thing: paying private landlords eye-watering sums for temporary accommodation is indefensible. But calling this a short-term financial problem avoids the deeper truth. This isn’t an accident. It’s the predictable outcome of policy choices.
Let’s talk alternatives – the ones no one seems keen to spell out.
For the cost of housing one person in temporary accommodation for five years, you could:
Build or buy a modest one-bedroom flat
Provide secure tenure
Reduce pressure on mental health, social care, policing and the NHS
Restore dignity and independence
That isn’t radical. It’s basic arithmetic.
Yet instead, we maintain a system where instability is normalised because instability keeps money moving. Permanent solutions don’t generate repeat invoices. Independence doesn’t justify “support hours”. Stability doesn’t require constant reassessment. And that, uncomfortably, threatens jobs, contracts and entire sectors built around managing crisis rather than ending it.
Is central government aware? Of course it is. Housing Benefit rules, capital borrowing caps, Right to Buy receipts, and funding silos all come from Westminster. But local authorities, including Brighton & Hove City Council, still make choices within those constraints – and some choices are safer politically than others.
Building genuinely affordable one-bed homes at scale would:
Collapse the temporary accommodation market
Expose years of waste
Remove the excuse of “complex need” being used to justify permanent precarity
Maybe that’s why it’s always described as “difficult”, “slow”, or in need of more “flexibility”.
Homelessness isn’t just a housing failure. It’s a moral failure dressed up as economics. And until we stop pretending that £1,500 a month for a room with no future is somehow unavoidable, this city will keep paying more – financially, socially, and ethically – for a crisis it already knows how to solve.
Or perhaps the truth is simpler:
Ending homelessness doesn’t pay as well as managing it.
And that’s the conversation we’re still not being invited to have.
Hmm, you land some really good points. I quite agree that there is clearly a business model for companies to manage temporary, emergency, and supported accommodations, and no incentive for those companies to move people out of that situation. It’s a wealth transfer, from taxpayers to private providers, with little long-term gain.
This is one of the reasons I’m pleased to see this council move to bringing temporary accommodations in-house, thereby removing the profit-focused element. Also, I’m very interested in seeing how this ALMO in development shapes up as well, potentially an interesting driver for the very change you’ve articulated very well.
Today’s employment figures show that unemployment is now at 4 year high and businesses are rapidly shedding jobs. Brighton with the huge hospitality sector is likely to be shedding jobs at a high rate than in many other parts of the UK as they have been battered with the budget. This will also have a huge impact on housing as employers batten down the hatches and either make people redundant, do not rehire as people leave and also hold down wages in an effort to make fewer staff redundant this will directly affect the number of people that either cannot afford rent and mortgage costs or get into arrears and get evicted. All brought to you by the Labour Party. They have good intentions but they are so economically illiterate that they simply cannot be trusted in Government with peoples jobs, homes and livelihoods.
Right to Buy is an easy lever to pull to make a start on affordability. Suspend the option when waiting lists are high, and give 100% of the receipts to the council, and remove the time limit on spending then.
Right to buy should be scrapped until such a time as enough housing is available to cover government/council needs, even then I would say make enough in house availability to supply for a minimum of 10 years ahead before selling off council stock
Agree. I’d prefer scrapping it altogether personally, however, with suspension there’s a balance that if waiting lists ever became a lot more manageable or non-existent, people could benefit from the scheme. Although…would such a world ever exist? And considering our devolved nations scrapped RTB years ago, maybe England should follow suit?
The government hasn’t got the money to prioritise this, and it’s ridiculous to still be blaming the Tories. As a country we need to be making money, helping small businesses etc, and as other comments not be actively encouraging people to come here. Brighton for Brightonians, mind you that simple approach went out the window a long time ago. Was it the greens?
Unfortunately, upon closer examination, the chronic underinvestment in housebuilding under the Conservatives is the ongoing cause of housing affordability issues now, given the long-term negative impact they left behind. To think this can be reversed in one-tenth of the time is completely unrealistic, regardless of who is in power at the moment.
You say growth is a core goal, and I’d agree. Consider this: The biggest burden for most people is housing. By improving affordability, people become wealthier because they spend less on housing. More affluent people spend more in businesses, and growth improves as a result.
And let’s be extra clear, migration is being weaponised by extremist right-wing groups, like Reform, to encourage racism within this country and deflect, despite the hatred they spew rarely being supported by evidence. I can’t help but draw a comparison to the evil British National Party with comments like “Brighton to Brightonians”.
We are better than that. You are better than that.
Benjamin Franks is a Conservative political figure in
South Portslade, Brighton and Hove, who most recently stood as a candidate in the January 11, 2024, by-election for the Brighton and Hove City Council.
Criticisms from local residents and political observers, primarily documented in public forum responses and local news commentary during his campaigns, include:
Reliance on “Party Line” Rhetoric: Some critics argued that his campaign responses felt generic and lacked personal political depth. He was accused by some of using “typical attack lines” of the Conservative Party rather than establishing a unique local vision.
Contradictions on Local Policy: Critics pointed out perceived inconsistencies in his platform. For example, while Franks opposed the closure of local schools like St Peter’s, critics noted that other Conservative members on relevant committees had previously voted in favor of closure consultations, leading some to label his stance as populist or “spineless”.
View on Property Rights: During discussions on waste collection, a comment from Franks regarding refuse workers not entering private gardens was criticized by some as potentially advocating for council workers to enter private property uninvited, which critics argued contradicted traditional Conservative views on property rights.
Perceived “Alarmism”: Some observers characterized his rhetoric as “alarmist,” particularly regarding his portrayal of local issues like graffiti, weeds, and potholes, with one critic describing his public persona as having “old man yells at clouds vibes”.
Engagement with Council Officers: While Franks stated he would listen to council officers but prioritize his own decisions, critics from other political backgrounds suggested that this approach could lead to ignoring professional expertise in favor of political ideology.
Franks is a tutor by profession and has previously contested the Wish ward in the May 2023 local elections, where he was also not elected.
I note Brighton has asked to be part of a pilot scheme worth £100 million to buy and refurbish lots of houses in Brighton for asylum seekers. Bizarre on so many levels.Is this really want people voting Labour want? Front page of the Daily Mail today.
I need to read more into it, but it could be a net positive in the long run?
As I understand it, and this is just an initial thought, the scheme revitalises derelict properties and builds new council properties as part of it; these homes would become part of the city’s long-term social housing stock once the seeker’s application has resolved either way.
Would locals in housing need get a look in? What is going to happen to the three Hove hotelfuls of immigrants, belonging to a certain Mr Van H?
Van H is not the problem, if not him another name would be right there in the same position, blame half wit politicians who can’t see far enough to clip their own toe nails
Ideally the government needs to bring back rent control so that private sector rents are more affordable for people on lower incomes and the Local Housing Allowance needs to be reviewed so that the rents allowable under the benefit scheme reflect market rents more realistically.
The chance would be once devolution happens. Scotland has probably the most effective version of this through “Rent Pressure Zones”.