Brighton and Hove City Council has put in place a series of emergency measures aimed at balancing the books by the end of the financial year.
They include a hiring freeze, an overtime ban and a stop to using agency workers. Staff have also been invited to take unpaid leave or switch to part-time hours.
Strict spending limits have been imposed and some non-urgent and non-essential repairs and other routine tasks are being put back until the new financial year starts in April.
The measures were imposed after it emerged that the “forecast out-turn risk” could be about £8 million – that is, the council could end the year having spent about £8 million too much.
The budget gap has been closing, as usual, during the current financial year as overspending risks were reduced. But some additional costs have come through – and some planned savings have been further delayed.
There are also additional costs for the Royal Pavilion and Museums Trust which have been triggered by the recent confirmation of the local government pay award under the terms of their agreement.
The council set up the trust more than four years ago and by last summer it had borrowed £2 million from the council to help with cash flow, with income having been dented during and after the coronavirus pandemic.
It borrowed a further £1 million, approved by the council in June 2024, to further assist cash flow as it is entitled to do as part of its contract with the council.
The trust has a cash loan facility of up to a maximum of £4 million, approved by the council in September 2020.
In June, a report to the cabinet set out how the trust planned to repay the £3 million over a five years, starting from March this year.
It comes as the council has greater certainty over the borrowing liabilities resulting from the financial collapse of the Brighton i360 seafront viewing tower.
Senior officials have been asked to look afresh at where savings can be made as measures like the jobs freeze were imposed.
Exceptions have to be signed off by the chief executive Jess Gibbons and can be made in certain circumstances, for example, to fulfil a statutory duty or on health and safety grounds.
Some posts are required to meet contractual terms and others enable the council either to generate income or savings – so it would be more expensive to leave them unfilled.
It has been acknowledged that the pause for all non-essential spending may just end up pushing some costs into the next financial year but the move does buy time.
The council is also looking at “reprofiling” project timescales and borrowing – perhaps pushing back start dates or stage payment dates.
The deputy leader of the council Jacob Taylor said: “The in-year financial position continues to be difficult so we’re taking decisive action to bring spending under control.”
Councillor Taylor added: “I realise this is difficult for staff and will put pressure on services but I know residents will understand the need for the council to not overspend this year.”
The updated financial position is due to be published this week as the council’s cabinet prepares to meet next week – on Thursday 23 January.
Initially, councillors were told that the council was facing a £36 million budget gap in the next financial year – 2025-26 – which starts in April.
But after the Labour government’s budget, this looked like reducing to £30 million – and various announcements since could reduce the gap further although more savings will still have to be found.
The savings tend to come from measures such as making staff redundant or providing fewer services or lower-quality services – while fees and charges go up.
The service areas where the council spends the most remain adult social care, children’s services and supporting homeless people.
The council looks likely to receive about £1 million more than expected to tackle homelessness and the council is reviewing its own property portfolio to see if it can be used more creatively.
This month, the council is expected to publish its draft budget for 2025-26 and confidence is growing that a balanced budget will go before all 54 councillors for approval next month.
It looks likely that the council tax will once again go up by 4.99 per cent and, with the highest number of new homes completed for years, the council tax base is expected to be bigger.
But a growing number of people have been struggling to pay their council tax bills and this may have to be factored into the council’s budget projections
Another challenge has emerged since the budget when employers’ national insurance contributions went up. Councils were told that they wouldn’t be worse off but not everyone believes that to be the case.
Like many other councils, Brighton and Hove City Council also relies on a huge number of private sector businesses to provide goods and services and their costs are rising as a result of higher national insurance.
Many of them will want to recover their increased costs in the amounts that they charge the council.
The financial picture should become clearer in the coming days and weeks but it seems unlikely that the current hiring freeze, overtime ban and spending restrictions will be ended any time soon.
Adult Social Care certainly needs streamlining, particularly in ensuing value for money. At the moment, I don’t believe this is the case.
They keep doing these “recruitment freezes” at the council though, it’s starting to sound like a broken record and a line they bring out when they are struggling to stick to their budget (predictable often because the other line they say each year is that costs have risen because of a rise in the demand for statutory services).
When the Greens had an overspend because of a jump in demand on statutory services Labour insist its Greens fault, when Labour find the same, it’s not their fault – it is becoming a broken record. There was no £36 million budget gap when Labour set their budget back in February, so if they did not forecast and predict the rise in demand on statutory services, that’s on them. The fact that the budget “gap” has decreased is not down to their management, it’s down to unrealistic forecasting in February in the first place and Labour politically spinning the narrative.
One thing Labour councillors continually try and hope nobody notices is that we now have a Labour Govt, so if they wanted to actually sort out the issues with local government funding so they have enough money to cover essential statutory services, they could. But they don’t, because Labour are indistinguishable from the Tories before and still set on an austerity agenda.
Yep. With a Labour Council, plus a Labour Government, asking for more money from central government and getting it should be a doddle, so why don’t they? Government can soon find it for unused cycle lanes.
Cycle lanes are funded by the then Boris Johnson’s administration who funded £2B for active travel plans over 4 years
Hmm, probably correct, but the point is, was it the correct decision, with councils all over the country suffering with short falls in budgets, £2b on active travel seems a complete waste of money when councils could used that to keep service’s going.
I actually think the level of outsourcing is a poor use of finances in ASC. For-profit companies have no incentive to be efficient.
At 257 staff, the Transport department urgently needs slashing by at least three quarters. They are ruining the city with unnecessary road works seemingly designed to make the roads more dangerous and impassable for pedestrians as well as drivers while ignoring actual pot holes. The roads have never been so bad. Taxi drivers are complaining their short cuts are closed off meaning higher taxi fares and emergency vehicles are struggling to rescue people after heart attacks and accidents. Nor do we need to be spied on like criminals with all the hideous surveillance cameras going up. There are so many things money is being wasted on that we don’t want, while services the council legally has to provide are being cut to the bone. We also have an inexperienced CEO being paid more than the Prime Minister and way too many 6 figure salaries at the top.
Ambulances aren’t struggling to get to destinations at all. Their usage of blues and twos are pretty lacking in standards, seen way too many silent running through traffic lights, whilst being offside, not switching tones are hazards, and whilst displacing traffic, etc. Roads really aren’t an issue though in this regard.
260 strong department does seem like a lot though, especially when you consider some departments are in the single digits.
Utter rubbish, they recently cut off access to Bristol Gardens causing an Ambulance to perform a three point turn that took about five minutes to perform…
Road narrowing in North street has caused delays to emergency services so don’t pretend there’s no problems on the road because we can see it for ourselves at various locations across the city.
Nonsense Burt.
They’d have to be a very incompetent driver, considering there are plenty of points to use a side road to conduct a turnabout on that road. Considering the month of AD and additional exams in both B and C1 categories, your tale seems disingenuous, at best.
Secondly, that just advocates for an updated map on the Satnav. It’s also illogical they’d be using Bristol Gardens to go anywhere other than Bristol Gardens. If they are THAT lost, chances are they are out of area.
North street is also one of the easier roads to blue light down in Brighton. Plenty of room to go down the middle, and buses are typically excellent at react early – especially with good siren usage.
It is evident you actually don’t know what you are talking about Burt, from that comment.
Yet BHCC are pushing ahead with VG3 ,which not only will cost local taxpayers £7m, but will result in massive congestion and pollution. Independent consultants have told the Council this, but they chose to ignore it. BHCC , and particularly the Transport department, is not fit for purpose
Ah, the classic Tom Harding comment that just works regardless of the context. You should save that as a little copypasta. I’m pretty sure you’ve said this verbatim before – and still is a flawed argument for reasons you’ve been told plenty of times before by multiple people.
“Taxi drivers are complaining their short cuts are closed off”
Your short cut is my rat run. Preventing drivers using residential streets to shave a few seconds off journey times sounds like A Good Thing, tbh.
Okay thicko, Preventing drivers using residential streets also effects local residents meaning we now have to take a longer route to get where we need to go meaning we are now causing extra congestion and pollution.
People didn’t think that through did they ?
Rat runs join back the main arterial roads, guess what slows down traffic the most?
1) Traffic all moving at a steady pace on the same road.
2) Traffic rejoining at junctions constantly causing start stop.
What on earth is going on in this council? £30 million budget gap but vanity projects like Madeira Terraces are going ahead, adding to the debt mountain. Who is actually in control? Looks like the new CEO and the council leader are driving it over the cliff edge.
The vanity project is Valley Gardens 3, which will be an economic disaster for this city.
Madeira Terraces is our unique city heritage which should help earn the city increased tourist revenue, once restored.
If visitors can get to it after hours of delays with nowhere left to park and a patchy coach and train service.
Wrong priorities and gross mismanagement are the reasons this council is continually pleading poverty.
I’ve never brought into the idea that the terraces bring in tourism. Mainly because the data suggests events are the thing that has the biggest impact in tourism.
And regarding “pleading poverty” it’s very established that 14 years of Tory cuts to councils are to blame for finances being terrible, and Brighton is not the worst effected by a long short.
Phase one of Madeira Terraces restoration is fully funded , its the future phases that are not
Don’t be silly Derek, it’s all coming from debt, there is no money. Read the published paper. The arches are costing millions and it’s borrowing from a council on the verge of bankruptcy. Same a VG3, costing megabucks and some is borrowed.
Perhaps they could make a start by pulling the job listing for a so-called ‘Head of Community Cohesion’ with a salary band of ~£66-73k !!!!!!!
https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/jobs/job-details?job_id=43417
What an absolute load of woke lefty dei pointless nonsense.
And what will this role deliver ? Absolutely sweet Felicity Arkwright…
My experience of Adult Social Care is that there is nothing left to streamline – social workers are being asked to hold more and more risk on lower pay than neighbouring boroughs and with little opportunity to engage in quality work. Homelessness- the crisis is with temporary accommodation (as it is nationwide). This needs to be addressed nationally with more power passed to local areas to shape the rental market.
Interestingly, I think homelessness is the area specific that needs streamlining in ASC. Commissioned services are really poor value for money acting as expensive landlord quintessentially, with limited outcomes or incentive to achieve objectives, and could be far better internalised than outsourced, in my opinion.
It depends which commissioned services you mean; temporary and emergency accommodation- absolutely, supported housing – no, the in-house services are higher cost with worse outcomes. FOI the rates of eviction from services and be horrified!
I think we’re in agreement about the costs of emergency accomodation, it is eye watering.
Temporary, is a mixed bag, you hear stories of temporary being well over several years. Feels like a strained definition of the word at that point. Definite streamlining capable there.
Supported accommodations are not great. You point to the eviction rate difference between in-house and commissioned services. I say that’s a key element. Holding onto unsuitable people in a system that oftentimes trap that individual.
Seen plenty of low to medium support services that have individuals who should be in high support, for example. Also people who should be progressed a lot quicker in rehabilitation, however that looks. It’s common to see people within service for years because, as I mentioned, there is no incentive to progress people.
There is a silly number of supported as well, over 50 of them, in Brighton. There’s no way to have good oversight over all of them, and whistleblowing still is very vilified within companies. Considering that, for me it represents a big opportunity for this council to streamline and make substantial savings within this very costly area, in my opinion.
Surely some homelessness budget was saved by the sudden closure in March last year of a 29-bed homeless facility in Cambridge Road after an incident involving a young homeless male allegedly being attacked by a 65 year old non-homeless male.
That wasn’t run or funded by the council.
That makes losing 29 homeless beds ok then.
No Mike, but it does make your appeal to emotion fallacious argument irrelevant to the point.
The last time I visited Hove Town Hall to renew my resident’s parking permit (with a folder containing all relevant documents) they made me cry with exasperation – literally. There were two people in attendance – the security officer and a clerk. So – congratulations for making an old (80 years) lady cry. A fine example of bureaucracy gone mad.
Maybe becoming a ‘City of Sanctuary’ wasn’t such a good idea………as most people said at the time
Maybe it’s a cover for human trafficking.
There are many “deserving causes” out there. However the council only has a duty to provide certain services, and these should be the focus. You cut your cloth to suit your pocket. Time for a “reset” of council services.
There are few, if any, non staturoty things that the council provides these days that could be cut.
Sometimes the ‘nice to have’ are just as essential as statutory services.
‘Nice to have for whom?’ Bella, presumably? We don’t get a say.
No, for the people who use such services.
Indeed, and the balance will always be trying to have all those services functioning, as much a possible. It’s a horrible job to balance the books, just thinking about it.
Sack all the useless ‘sustainable’ cretins in the Transport Dept. They’re all probably ‘working from home’ too
You nailed it. The transport department is unsustainable and must go.
Head of Transport, Mr Prior, is on £90k p.a.
Could be a good place to start the cuts!
I think he has gone in the reshuffle
Strange they’ve announced a “Hiring Freeze”. Just this week the housing department alone placed adverts for around 20 staff with a highest salary cost of about £400k.
Maybe they didn’t get the memo, or said £1M was for the hiring they’re totally not doing
Except that’s not true at all
£400k?
Post a link to the job then to prove it.
That’s over twice as much as the Chief Exec gets paid.
It’s been three days Chris, he’s not answered your challenge. I suspect he was lying.
Ask the citizens for suggestions on how to save money and attract funding
So what are your ideas Derek?
Derek is in love with VG3. Case proven m’lud
Close the public toilets.
Get rid of the enforcement.
Make collections drivers work their full hours.
Get rid of people who work from home.
Get rid of people who don’t contribute to the services.
Get rid of some senior managers as they’re not needed especially if you have good small team of managers who know how to do their jobs and are not afraid to get rid of dead wood.
Get rid of RSG pay and sick pay.
Get rid of some supervisors that are useless and want to sit at home during their working hours.
I think that is the intention with centralisation, too many doing the same job in various locations, W. Sussex has 166 council authorities, some “managers” in more than one location, then add on expenses, pensions, nothing left to pay for actual services
Agreed. It’s one of the major benefits of centralisation.
Hahaha, you want to see how much money the completely useless unqualified management at city clean blow through. Hiring an expensive recovery truck to toe a drivable dust cart to London, because of the ULEZ instead of finding mechanics closer to home.
Calling out recovery x amount of times a week for the electric dust carts, to be told, drive it back to the depot in limp mode and contact the manufacturer…..
Agency staff sat around all day, being paid because drivers were not rostered in. Agency staff working full time for years on end costing double than just employing them…
You couldn’t make it up. Imagine British rail in the late 80s and you’ll get the picture. Basically the entire senior management, and several of their subordinates need sacking, but that won’t happen as they have been there 20 years +
If the rest of the council is anything like city clean then the labour administration has zero chance of sorting Brighton out.
I think it is very well established that CityClean have a lot to do.
£8 million shortfall this year, £30 million shortfall forecast for next year. Bella, I’m having a problem understanding why what you said about the Greens, with their ££3 million shortfall, doesn’t also apply to yourself. In case your struggling to find a word to describe it, I think you’ll find ‘incompetent’ fits the bill nicely.
I disagree. I believe you are confusing incompetence with worsening financial climate for councils. Understanding there will be a forecasted shortfall early is the first step to managing the budget. It shows the opposite of your insinuation, competence.
Greens were financially in a stronger position compared to now, whilst managing to mismanage the budget severely. Their shortfall wasn’t even correct, it was found after that they didn’t even get the numbers right in the first place.
It suggests a much different picture then what you’re suggesting.