Brighton and Hove City Council has warned that it is in “financial peril” and will have to cut millions of pounds in spending next year to balance its books.
The Labour leader of the council Bella Sankey said that the local authority faced a £31 million budget gap in the coming financial year which starts in April.
She blamed the government’s autumn statement, saying that it fell “disastrously short” on meeting the rising demand for services and costs fuelled by inflation.
Councillor Sankey said: “The council’s finances are in an extremely perilous position.
“There was absolutely nothing in the autumn statement to provide relief for this council or local authorities who have faced a decade of heartless central government austerity – or any real-world financial help for struggling families.
“Demand for our services is increasing, especially in key areas like adult social care, children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and homelessness which is putting pressure on other services.”
She said that a government fund that allowed the council to help those who were struggling to pay for food, energy and other essential costs was being cut.
She added: “We’re being forced to look at every one of the 400 services we provide and start the extremely difficult process of deciding what are priority services and what aren’t.
“To put it bluntly, the less money we have the less services we can provide.”
Her warning came as Nottingham City Council became the latest local authority to issue a “section 114 notice”, effectively declaring itself bankrupt.
The notice was issued on Wednesday (29 November) as the council also blamed its financial problems on government funding and rising demand for services.
Nottingham City Council is at least the third local authority to issue a section 114 notice this year, with a total of 12 issued over the past five years.
Councillor Sankey said that the council was not in the same position yet – but it was in financial peril.
She added: “While we await the final detail on the local government settlement, we will almost certainly have to find millions more savings next year than planned because the government has chosen to ignore the crisis in local government funding.
“I want to reassure all of our residents we are doing everything we can to make service improvements while balancing the council’s budget which is a legal requirement.”
In the current financial year, the council has imposed a staff hiring freeze among a variety of savings measures as it tries to balance the local authority’s books by the end of March.
An extremely difficult time at the moment, I don’t envy those making the decisions on this particular aspect of the job upcoming. Whatever service it cut or reduced is going to be met with anger methinks.
The blame for the budgetary crisis lies firmly at the door of the Greens. How on Earth could cllr Davis sign off a £13.4m spend on Beryl Bikes? He needs to be held to account.
How much!!!
A first step, with minimal impact on services, would be to stop throwing £10m per year at schemes to address the climate emergency and biodiversity crisis.
Then look at cutting council B-ark jobs such as their biodiversity officer and the 26 people in the “communications” department which I believe you work for?
The Carbon Neutral Fund doesn’t even appear on the Council Accounts. Why is it off-book and how much is in it? This fund needs to be prioritised for statutory goods and services provision in an emergency. If it is not being used for any project which is evidence-based and of proveable benefit to citizens, it is a virtue signalling fund.
BHCC needs some serious scrutiny – start with the Parking/Transport department, which works against the wishes of its residents, and is only interested in pushing its own agenda.
The council is currently proposing to give £100,000 to Pride which is a private event company that can afford to give £1.2m to charity and is a commercial business. They are so commercial they were even charging residents money if they wanted visitors to come round to their houses in 2023 whilst this event took place. If the council is so skint how about charging Pride a fair market rate for the land they use so that residents and business owners can at least see some benefit to the disruption this event causes?
Quite. Pride and the Brighton Marathon are private events being given council money.
My understanding is that it brings a lot of money into the city, so it comes back in other ways. SECAmb for example get paid to provide medical cover for this event.
I would hope the event providers do fully cover direct costs the events trigger including policing, cleanup and health/safety provision. I also am sure it does bring secondary revenue to local economy which is great but at the same time the council needs to recognise it is in the stronger negotiating position and be a bit more commercially minded.
If the events are generating large profits and benefit (via boosted attendance etc) from being located in the city then the council shouldn’t need to pay providers to host their events here.
Usually, those safety and cleanup aspects are the key prerequisites addressed during a SAG (Safety Advisory Group) meeting, typically occurring before an event advances beyond its initial planning stages.
I share your perspective on the financial aspect – the council need not allocate funds for these events. Given the well-established nature of the festival and the existence of numerous smaller events struggling to secure support, especially if there’s a ringfenced budget, channeling council-backed funds towards them seems like a more beneficial approach.
BHCC has had their central government grant cut by £110,000,000 a year since 2010. Yes some decisions haven’t been the best but find me any business that could manage a cut to their income of that level.
Correct it’s a challenge and a normal organisation would do everything it could to protect the income it has. Brighton Council though for instance is now proposing against the wishes of businesses and residents that they remove huge numbers of pay and display bays in grade 1 listed areas and stick giant bike sheds in these bays to house six bikes so people can free up storage in their flats. Parking costs £14.60 a day in one of these bays which in Brunswick Square alone means £15,000 lost parking revenue.
Parking revenue is a red herring and has little to do with the council’s overall budget. Revenue from parking is ringfenced to spend on other transport initiatives such as concessionary bus fares, etc.
Yes you are correct BUT a vast majority of that parking revenue pays for things like concessionary bus passes and that is rising year on year. Start losing parking revenue, (£1 million last year), and then eventually you will not have enough to cover the passes so it will come from main revenue. If you are under financial pressure it would be illogical at best to keep denting your best revenue stream.
Also, they are already ramping up the cost of parking permits which is a increased cost to residents which many of us can ill afford.
It is ringfenced for transport initiatives. It is nowhere near their “best revenue stream”.
The council budget is far, far more than that, but typically all we see here are selfish car owners moaning about parking all the time.
Kate Hall.
Incorrect, they have NOT had £110 million cut every year. The £110 Million is the total since 2010.
It’s not a CUT either, it’s a shortfall. Careful study of the published budgets year on year show in fact, we get a small increase. The problem is the increase doesn’t cover the projected costs, so a shortfall of what is required.
Sadly, this council quoted the overall ‘Shortfall’ of £110 from government or £10M per year, but forgot to inform us how much they receive in grants, benefits and other income like business taxes that they now keep, funny that.
Except the government now gives all business rates to the council and if they concentrated on encouraging profitable companies to come to the city that could offset the loss of direct funding.
Our council seems to focus on the opposite, wasting money on vanity schemes and national / global issues, and blaming Westminster for their problems.
Rarely do we see projects aimed at reducing expenditure.
The Data provided on BHCC’s own records show they receive a great deal more from business taxes and other grants that reduced the shortfall in funding gaps. I’m sure one year they were actually +£3 m but they didn’t tell us that.
I agree too much is being spent on vanity projects, many will say but these are Government funds/grants/loans. What they don’t seem to realise, while these may be ring fenced funds, council funds are always needed to top them up, 9.5m grant for KA, yet the price tag is now £14m, we have to fund the extra from the pot, that takes funding out from where it’s really needed but some people are too thick for that penny to drop.
Secondly, these same people can’t work out these active travel schemes and other ring fenced projects takes away funding from the main pot. BHCC and other councils can’t have the funding they need but there’s a couple of Billion available for vanity projects, so while little Jimmy and Jenny can’t get funding for getting a school bus, there’s a lovely new cycle lane along side a cycle lane and it’s cost us a couple of million because there was a shortfall in funding yet people seem to think that is okay.
Mart, think through what you’re saying. The council has to spend money to make money in these instances. They can have £X worth of funding for a project, if they chip in £Y, and Y is much less than X. This allows them to (crucially) pay staff across the whole year, as long as the council commits to projects. The alternative would be to leave the money on the table, downsize their departments well below any usable size (probably to zero), and cease to effectively operate.
Every public sector organisation I’ve been involved with runs on bids for funding. I can tell you this from personal experience. The money that you get “just for existing” is never enough to actually operate, but if you can get £10M funding for £2M outlay and a promise to spend on a green initiative or a cycle lane or whathaveyou, you can scrape by. It’s a huge stress, as organisations have to commit staff time and effort to pull those bids in and God forbid you waste your time doing it and get nothing back. I wish that the system worked a bit more smoothly, but it simply doesn’t.
What a horrific state of affairs. This needs urgent reform or our council will never comply with the Nolan Principles of Public Service or be free to serve the people first, which is what it is meant to do.
Cut the number of councillors and save their allowances. Have an elected Mayor .
This wouldn’t touch the sides to be honest. The total cost of allowances doesn’t even touch close to 1m. Additionally our Mayor is ceremonial sn therefore the cost of an election would be unnecessary for a role that holds no civic power.
Andy Burnham is a little more than a figurehead. You miss the point totally which i suspect is deliberate as you seem to support monies on councillors talking not doing.
Andy Burnham is a little more than a figurehead. You miss the point totally which i suspect is deliberate as you seem to support monies on councillors talking not doing.
As Tesco says every little helps.
You’d lose representation, and that’s have a knock on affect of having less immediate issues being tackled by the council.
Would be great if all councillors were focused on needs of local residents and businesses, rather than many seemingly focusing on their career development
I agree that councillors should be focused on the needs of the residents and businesses. Some may choose to approach that question by progressing up the political pole, and that’s okay too, that’s a classic example of the Peter Principle.
Cutting the number of six figure salaried council staff would be far more effective. And decimating the size of the overstuffed parking and transport departments and Comms.
Going back a few years, didn’t Gill Mitchell tell us there was a staffing and vehicle shortage where City Clean were concerned and employed a so called £100k specialist to look at it, quite sad really when they expertly reported the problem was a shortage of staff and vehicles but failed to tell us what they were going to do to address that problem. Wish I’d applied for the job now, perhaps it should be worded, Expert in telling us the bleeding obvious, 100K of tax payers money going free. That £100k could have paid for at least 3 staff to begin with, a total waste of money and again the thick can’t see the wood for the forest of trees.
I agree the greens are to some extent the cause of this financial hole,BUT once the change of leadership,this council ought to prioritise where it spends its budget! Not on some of the proposals, chase down the DEBTOR’S that blight its books,cut back on the millions of pounds it spends on road road repairs (especially the GHOST!! Repairs) just for overtime most cases on a Saturday??? Put on hold all ! The proposed building works for hove /kingsway just as they have done for Madeira terraces,,surely it can not be that hard to BE IN CHARGE OF OF THE PURSE STRINGS,if your struggling to be prudent with finances?? Go back to the beginning
I mean, they are making progress into cutting the deficits, so they are doing what you are saying. Haphazardly cutting could leave to vulnerable people being left in a dangerous state, so a measured approach is very reasonable.
Measure twice and cut once.
They plead poverty to us while placing outrageous contracts behind the scenes which would easily cover this shortfall.
Nearly £30m to persecute their own electorate through parking enforcement. There are a number of smaller contracts related to this totalling another £10m or so including making city parking cashless.
https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/notice/38351598-81eb-47cc-a4bf-74ffc449e985?origin=SearchResults&p=1
Nearly £140m to refurbish a pool. Wtf?
https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/notice/2553f66a-036c-4430-841f-176868a529bb?origin=SearchResults&p=1
Type in ‘BHCC’ on Govt contract finder for an educational few hours. You aren’t going to find most of these items or any officer reports for them on the council website.
Some of what you uncover when you start digging into these is shocking the numbers are immense.
This surrender pool refurbishment must be a typo – it’s so far out. I reckon it’s £1.48m not £148m but even then that’s about more than triple where I think it should have come in.
That is a serious ‘typo’ on a government website if it is, as it could easily result in the bulk of that money being syphoned off elsewhere, no questions asked. Independent forensic accountant investigation needed.
Years of financial mismanagement has led is here. I suspect we are being softened up for a declaration of bankruptcy.
Labour central has already said that there will be no sudden release of cash for councils – mainly because there isn’t any to give away !
Give up on the blame game and get on with running the council. That’s why we elected you and what we pay for.
The thing I am hoping for personally out of everything is a comprehensive housing plan and focusing on tackling on that specific challenge, I think a lot of others issues are improved by having that one worked on, more so than any other issue.
It is now December, by which time an outline budget draft should have been published.
Maybe they aren’t going to bother if they are planning to declare ‘bankruptsy’. Councils get very careless in the lead up to these events and lots of money tends to go AWOL in the knowledge it can all be blamed on central government cuts creating the situation.
Labour council wanted the job, now they have it. Stop bleating and get on with it. You knew what you were getting into so deal with it and stop blaming everyone else.
That’s neither insightful nor helpful, Tom. But thanks for stopping by.
Well since you appear to have all the answers throw your hat in the ring and get the job done. Let’s see how insightful you really are.
Now is the winter of their discontent……
I am unsure whether people in this comment section are just extremely ignorant about the primary causes of the financial hardships facing the majority of local authorities across the country, or if they simply don’t care and have been battling in the culture wars for so long that they’ve gotten themselves trained like Pavlov’s dog such that they cannot help but bark whatever their pet peeve is whenever they hear the word “council” uttered.
As for the situation at hand, the deficit is forecasted to get worse year on year and the only thing the council can do right now is bail water out of the ship with a bucket. Even if the council manages to find £31 million to plug the budget gap, 2025/26 will bring another gap. Seeing as this is happening to all but the wealthiest of local authorities, eventually enough of them will submit section 114 notices that there will be sufficient pressure on the central government to fix the hole in the ship. So BHCC just need to do their best to delay section 114 until then in order to save our city from being asset stripped.
You don’t appear to have read the comments or you would have seen some serious questions and issues being flagged up. Then again if you think pedestrianising Seven Dials will do any favours for the local econonic crisis, you’re part of the problem.
100% agreed.
I did indeed inflict misery upon my brain cells by reading the comments. Someone blaming Pride, someone blaming Beryl Bikes, someone blaming councillors’ allowance, and what I’m sure you’re most alluding to, your comment blaming an obvious typo on a listing for a contract from 4 years ago.
Little mention of discussion of the actual factors causing difficulties for local authorities across the country because who cares about austerity, the housing crisis, the disastrous mini-budget and inflation when you can blame the gays and the cyclists?
You do indeed prove my point by trying to rope my unrelated alias into this to again try and turn the issue towards the motorist/anti-motorist culture war (as you already did by trying to claim it’s the result of the “persecution” of drivers parking illegally), which frankly has nothing to do with the topic at hand but is the only thing people come here to argue about so they insist on making every article about it.
Is the council perfectly run? No, of course not, it’s a large public sector organisation. Are there efficiencies that can be found? Always, regardless of the financial situation. Is this the cause of a sudden shortfall of £31 million? No.
Only partly true! The Green party DID waste many £MILLIONS of public money, including on the i360.
The i360 has cost £40.2 Million of PUBLIC MONEY. FACT! The i360 owes the Council £15 MILLION so far – and there are another 20 Years to go before the Loan to build it gets paid off!
Thanks, now that the i360 has been mentioned I’ve completed my b&hnews comment section bingo card.
I live in a council flat and have paid £10,000 rent plus over £1,000 council tax in the last year. Their is mold, rotten windows, a broken unsecured front door, a leak under the sink, gutters overflowing with moss and a general attitude from the council of apathy. Every phone call or email is met with 20 questions then ring this other number or contact this other department. The council need to employ doers and get rid of the talkers….that will save them a fortune.
Yep I agree. They need to stop wasting money on nonsense and get back down to basics.
These people wanted the gig, they’ve got it, now get on with it. As with managing any business, you stop the wast, improve efficiency, cut back on the vanity, get rid of all those wasters spending time in endless non productive meetings and stop meaningless consultants. At least that would be a good start.
I have a different perspective based on my experiences, as I actively engage in various initiatives within my community. Establishing positive relationships with council officers, the community TA, and my ward councillors have been key to the success of my endeavours.
In addressing issues like emergency repairs, especially concerning the front door, I’ve found BHCC to be prompt and this is reflected within the data. Effective articulation of concerns may play a role in this, or perhaps there’s room for improvement in communication. While BHCC may not excel in communication, particularly something I regularly challenge at Area Panels, this is where the support of your ward councillor proves invaluable. They are more than willing to take on challenges and serve as a liaison, alleviating the need for numerous calls and emails.
Maintaining amicable language has undoubtedly contributed to the responsiveness I’ve encountered too. I’ve witnessed quite a few instances of really disrespectful communication towards BHCC workers, and while I don’t believe this applies to you, Paul, it’s crucial to recognise that such behaviour can contribute to defensive reactions. Encouraging a more respectful dialogue benefits both residents and local authorities, fostering a more collaborative and effective community engagement.
Brighton and Hove are not unique in the country for having no money, we knew the council was struggling before the election. Labour just don’t want to admit they promised more than they could achieve and are blaming the greens. When in reality they have spent many years power sharing.
More significantly, the financial mismanagement by the Green Party was a critical factor that resulted in the council not comprehending the extent of their financial challenges.
Although we may not like it, I think the time’s changed, and we’re going to have to do more for ourselves.
Many years ago, I lived abroad for 3 years, and it made me appreciate what we have in this country, how much I took for granted, getting simple provisions, freedom and So forth. So, I think the tide’s turned again.
That’s an interesting outlook to have Anne, and I think we have some examples of that. Community assets and the Third Sector have been doing quite a bit of outreach work and have been a godsend for many over the pandemic years, highlighting their importance in a way that is very much as you say – doing more for ourselves.
There is too much corruption amongst the council employees at the moment no matter which party is in control. Here in Patcham there is a lovely semi council house renovated by the council back in 2018 but to this day remains untenanted. That is thousands in lost rent. Bella Sankey was made aware of it back last summer but still empty. Probably due to the planning application currently on Patcham Court Farm by Royal Mail because if this house was tenanted it would be the prime resident to object. This application is to move a 365, 24 hour a day enormous industrial unit into a small residential village. Not only will it devastate the village but it also threatens the quality and quantity of drinking water for the entire city of Brighton, it will cause increased flooding, sewage seepage and gridlock the adjacent highways which are the main arteries in and out of Brighton. Of course Southern Water have removed their objection no surprise there as there is little difference between their shareholders and those of Royal Mail. Both these companies have such deep pockets to share around to get their way. Incidentally, Bella and the Labour Party seem very happy about it whereas the Conservatives, Caroline Lucas and Sian Berry have raised very genuine concerns.