The council’s predicted budget gap of £36 million has been halved, partly as a result of the promise of extra cash from the government towards the cost of care services.
Senior councillors and officials are still trying to find savings and extra funding as they seek to balance the books in time for the annual Brighton and Hove City Council budget meeting next month.
The council said today (Tuesday 21 January): “Additional social care funding announced in the local government settlement and actions to address pressures on some services have reduced our predicted budget shortfall to £17.2 million.
“A report presented to cabinet last September warned of a predicted shortfall of up to £36.7million ahead of any funding announcements from the new government.
“However, with an additional £11.3 million announced, our finance officers have been able to update the forecast.
“Efforts to manage costs and demands, as well as to explore different ways of delivering some services, have also helped to reduce the forecast deficit. These measures should help to alleviate the pressure on high-cost and demand-led areas.
“Additionally, we will direct some external funding towards its key priorities.
“The local government settlement has provided a 3.2 per cent increase in core spending power, which – alongside uplifts in other core areas of public spending such as the NHS and education – will have a significant impact on outcomes.
“However, we have emphasised that this does not fully cover the growth in demand across areas like social care and homelessness.
“Decisions on how to address the remaining £17.2million budget shortfall will, therefore, still need to be made before councillors agree our budget in February.”
The deputy leader of the council Jacob Taylor said: “We are in a better place in terms of setting a balanced budget for 2025-26 than had been outlined in September.
“Thanks to the confirmed increase in local government funding from central government – as well as the excellent work carried out by our teams here at the council to find different ways of working – our budget shortfall looks as if it will be significantly less than the £36.7 million previously forecast.
“However, we are still predicting a sizeable budget shortfall, which we are working hard to address.”
Councillor Taylor, who is also the cabinet member for finance and city regeneration, added: “Difficult decisions will still need to be made in order to set a legally balanced budget.
“But we are in a much better position than we were a few months ago.”
If BHCC cancel VG3 they will save £7m.
Already being built, paid for by central government, get over it.
Not true. The £7m is over and above the grant.
Please don’t tell lies
Trying to spin the fact that the council will need to make cuts by suggesting they’ve cut the ‘overspend’.
“Overspends” are often blamed on higher than expected costs of statutory services, like social care. It’s shocking that this council is not doing more to insist that the Government addressed the crisis in local authority spending by them continuing to allow councils to not have the funding they need to meet basic services.
I agree that more needs to be done to fund the councils; as much as the books can be stripped of everything, and deep cuts are made to balance the book, after a certain point you simply need funding.
They could always stop wasting £10m per year funding climate emergency schemes with no defined benefits.
Alternatively they could cut B-ark staff such as yourself 😉
There are approximately 3500 Airbnb / short-let properties in Brighton & Hove. A £500 yearly license on each would raise nearly 2 million. Investing that money into a Pfand style recycling system would then raise another 2 million a year, along with keeping the city cleaner. I’m sure us residents can think of a way to raise the shortfall cash
Don’t suggest sensible and workable ideas!!! You will scare the council…
Business rates.
It’s not the council at fault for massive corporate venture capitalists buying up all social care companies and doubling the prices of care, that’s a national issue that needs addressing with urgency. To say councils are under funded due to this fact is actually pretty stupid. It’s a fact yes, but the reason for the fact is more important.
Private care companies get paid exactly the same as charities for providing social care.
I think there is a bit to it then just that. Private companies are incentivised into maximising their revenue streams from their clients, and not into focusing into expediting remedial care or streamlining the service.
The spend is different. It’s like maximising your meal allowance because you can.
I was challenging the comment “private companies double the cost of care”.
It is just not true.
You can make a case for only contracting with charities or indeed bringing social care in-house. Just don’t think that it will reduce costs. Most LA social care services are much more expensive than those contracted out.
Cancel VG3 and the hideous streetlight replacement scheme and sack three quarters of the overstuffed Transport dept – last known figure 257 employees, who are scoring an epic fail in terms of providing speed and efficiency of transport in this city. In fact I’ve seen less potholes and traffic obstructions in an African shanty town paying NO council tax. Plus how dare BHHC pump even more money into the i360.
Work has already started on VG3 and in any case has little impact on the councils revenue budget.
The new lamppost project is a “spend to save” and will save the council money on its electric bills.
Can’t comment on number of staff as I don’t know what they all do but they aren’t all working on cycle lanes.
What money is the council pumping into the i360 now that it’s closed? The Public Works Loan Board loan is the councils responsibility and the council paying the loan back isn’t the same as giving the i360 money.
VG3 will cost local taxpayers £7 million.
‘little impact ‘ ?
Just pass it all on to the local taxpayer – a bit like i360.
Simples!
Since part of the councils share of the cost of VG3 is coming from borrowing the cost is being spread over a number of years the impact on each years budget isnt as big as you think it is.
Cancelling VG3 doesn’t suddenly put £7m back into the budget.
Presumably you were one of the people who said the business case for the i360 was watertight? You simply can’t trust BHCC when it comes to financial matters.
I wasn’t living in Brighton when the Greens and Tories agreed to the loan.
I would have been against the council giving them a loan of the size they did.
The cycle lane (VG3) costs around £2m in cash from the city, interest on a further £5m, and then the rest (£8m) is from government funding. If the cycle lane had been stopped, we would save around £2m in year one and then on interest payments. The question really is do we need a cycle lane there…given the negative impact on traffic flow, noise, air pollution and safety (the councils own report suggests this btw).
The council is NOT pumping more money into the i360 !
VG3 will cost local taxpayers £7 million.
‘little impact ‘ ?
Just pass it all on to the local taxpayer – a bit like i360.
Simples!
And for that we get slower traffic, more pollution and a cycle lane! Bargain…
Has Brighton and Hove News become the Labour Party’s mouthpiece? Parroting what they are told by politicians – where is the analysis of the budget situation? The comments here are far more insightful than what is being published as ‘news’. Get Sarah BL on it, she provides some analysis. This stuff should be on the Labour Party website, it’s half truths and drivel.
owed £51million ? Cancel VG3
If they charged a commercial rate to private companies for our public spaces (in line with other councils) they could make another £500k per annum at least. Currently they give away our public spaces at CONSIDERABLY less than similar spaces are let out for in other cities. For some events promotors make millions while we make a few thousand, or in one case nothing at all (PVP).
For the hire of the beach to a private company in July we charge £60k for a month. Other cities charge around £200k. The event in Brighton clears around £2.4m in revenues for private companies.
In Brighton many outdoor event promotors and companies involved are usually part of a small circle of friends, with directorships in each other’s companies and historical ownership links to council officials. This may or may not have anything to do with the corporate subsidies we provide, but it really needs to stop. BHCC seem to waste money at every turn (lets not talk about VG3) and still we get this budget shortfall nonsense, as it it is something beyond their control.
Interestingly the cabinet in November suggested that we are one of the highest charging councils for public space rental. An FOI request to look at the information they reference suggests that we are one of the lowest by far. Perhaps they need to hire some people who understand numbers?