Brighton and Hove City Council is currently on track to overspend its budget by £7 million, down from a £10 million forecast made in July.
At a cabinet meeting on Thursday (17 October), members were told how the council was trying to rein in the forecast overspend by the end of the 2024-25 financial year next March.
The overspend relates to the council’s “general fund” which pays for essential council services.
But the council faces further financial pressure, with the “dedicated schools grant”, which comes from the government to fund “maintained schools”, falling short of budget predictions. The schools budget is currently expected to have a £1.4 million deficit.
Some 34 schools have “licensed deficits” totalling £7.1 million, compared with an expected overspend of £6.6 million, resulting in more pressure on the council’s general fund.
And services provided jointly with the NHS are at risk of an overspend of about £1.2 million.
The demand for adult social care continues to increase, with more people receiving support on being discharged from hospital. Councillors were told that £10 million was being spent on the increased costs linked to complex care.
The council is trying to make savings totalling £23.6 million but a fifth of the planned total – about £4.6 million – is also potentially “at risk”.
The budget for temporary housing is forecast to overspend by £2.4 million, attributed to a 12 per cent increase in nightly accommodation costs since last year.
The deputy leader of the council Jacob Taylor, who is also the cabinet member for finance, said that the council was moving in the right direction by increasing vacancy and spending controls to balance the budget.
The Labour councillor said: “Looking at the trajectory of previous years, we have every chance (of balancing the budget) if we remain focused.
“It is officers doing the work day to day on those financial management methods (so) that we should be able to come in on budget which is extremely important for this local authority.”
His cabinet colleague Emma Daniel offered hope for future savings, saying that the council was working to bring more children who need expensive specialist care and education back into Brighton and Hove.
One strand in the savings plan, she said, was to recommission Tudor House although this would not be achievable in the current financial year.
But at Drove Road, two young people were receiving full-time residential care in a placement that was helping the council to save £300,000 this year alone.
Councillor Daniel said: “What we had to do was go back to the drawing board. We listened to the families of those disabled children who are using Drove Road and Tudor House. We reconsidered what options are available.
“While our savings are going to be delayed until next year, they’re going to be bigger savings by doing that exercise and listening to people.”
I bet the council tax goes up again by 5% again. Not sure where these people think that people can keep paying these increases year after year. You may as well frisbee your money that you pay these fools with into the sea standing at the end of Brighton pier. It’s not as if they are offering value in return for your money and most of the lazy f**** that drain the system dry don’t even pay council tax!
What a surprise… It always felt like the administration were doing a doom and gloom forecast so it would be possible to try spin it into a slightly less doom and gloom one.
When any other party controls anything it’s always poor financial management on their part when there’s an overspend, yet when it’s Labour in control and there’s an overspend they cite a higher demand for statutory services. A bit of honesty rather than the blame game would be good – ANY overspend is directly connected to 14 years of Tory austerity, and it was wrong of Labour to suggest otherwise in the past. Councils need to be funded properly, and if the new government fails to do that, and this council fails to challenge them on it – they really will be doing residents in the city a disservice which will cause hardship and difficulty.
I mean, if we’re talking about the Green Administration, that was literally out of control. The fact that the bookkeeping wasn’t accurate, by tens of millions, was very damning.
That’s not true Benjamin. When Labour took control of the council in May 2023 they said they had been left with a £3 million “overspend” by the Greens. Yet Labour councillors voted for the budget a couple of months before, so they voted the budget through alongside the Greens and had access to all the same information at that point.
It’s also the same council officers now who do the “bookkeeping” you refer to as it was under the Greens. What councillors decide is how to spend the money they receive from central government (which Labour voted for alongside Greens). The day to day bookkeeping is done by officers. You can believe the political spin out there all you like, but it doesn’t add up that when Labour have a budget overspend it’s nothing to do with them, yet when anybody else does they are quick to point the finger.
It’s disingenous for Labour to refer to mid year overspends in the way they did when it’s other parties, and not apply the same to themselves. Greens and Labour were both lumbered with a poor hand because of the cuts to the Government’s funding they received.
They’re doing the same in national government. I don’t doubt it’s a tricky financial picture, but they refused to answer an FOI about how the “£22 billion black hole” they keep banging on about actually adds up. What are Labour trying to hide (other than lots of freebie Taylor Swift tickets!). It’s not a good look whatever it is. If they were just transparent about the true financial picture and they didn’t do this ugly blame game, I wouldn’t have issue with them. It’s the game playing that stinks.
The £3 million figure was found to be grossly inaccurate, which was a major problem at the start of term and reported very clearly here. So to reiterate, the fact that the bookkeeping wasn’t accurate, by tens of millions, was very damning.
And of course you won’t get an FOI out of a business sensitive figure. That’s 101 of things that are exempted from FOI. Very basic reasoning here, so I’m afraid your conspiracy on this side of things doesn’t really hold any weight.
You are however completely correct that councils nationwide are having to offer more with less funding, and this is largely contributed to Tory Austerity. Great example is the number of councils who have defaulted in recent years.
Exactly. Tory austerity mixed with incompetence from the greens = total shambles. Oh but labour voted on the budget blablabla. But if the budget you vote on isn’t correct it’s not really fair to say they voted knowingly.
Annnyway 1 year on and roads are being replaced and bins are being emptied, weeds are getting removed so I think we can all agree although it’s not perfect it’s a dam sight better than the green disaster 2.0. lol and more importantly that Hannover LTN is well and truly in the dustbin of history
Surely that will soon become labour austerity ?
Time will tell Chris, got to give them an additional 13 years for a fair comparison, lol.
Hi Dingo Bingo – the last budget 2023/2024 was a Labour budget alone though and there’s still an overspend. People could say that any overspend this year is atrocious financial management on Labour’s part. That’s what they say about anyone else in control of things – just looks like a massive deflection on their part, and one they’ll increasingly struggle to make stick.
Or you’re choosing to ignore a decade of austerity, complied with proven Green mismanagement, that cannot be easily flipped in a single year.
Work to do, certainly, minimalistic viewpoints are disingenuous.
Agree on the Tory austerity bit, but you don’t seem to factor in that the Greens ran the council for about 2 and half years during the pandemic – other than that it’s been a Labour council for the last decade, including the last 18 months.
When Greens took on the council in 2020 (when the Labour administration collapsed) the forecast was something like a £60 million deficit. I cannot remember them pointing the finger at anyone other than the government. Labour have done a good job of making it feel like Greens have run the council for years and years, but they haven’t. I’ve never said Greens got everything right, they didn’t.
I do think the way in which Labour are trying to manage how they communicate the “overspend” quite interesting though. It does feel as if it’s being managed and residents are being drip fed information at choice moments.
Oh, communication is an interesting aspect – in the nicest possible way, joe public generally tends to be quite stupid. What I mean by this is that people will assume the worst thing, particularly if they lack understanding (and why should they?) even if they have no logical grounding for that mentality. In that respect, I absolutely agree with you that communication is managed, as any competent public-facing organisation, company, or party would.
£7m eh?
That’s roughly what VG3 is going to cost the local taxpayer!
So, wouldn’t it be a good idea to cancel it ? After all council consultants said it would have minimal benefit and lead to more congestion and pollution.
But BHCC Transport Dept and cllr Muten ( friend of Bricycles) know best !
I admire your dedication to beating this dead and decaying horse of yours.
The £7m is factual. So, you’re happy that local taxpayers have to pay for this?
Oh, we could go on again about ringfenced funds, but like I said, horse beating and dead.
Why not answer the question? Other commenters confirm the facts about the £7m, yet you choose to deny it . Why would that be?
We’ve had this conversation plenty of times before – you manage to shoehorn it into every single comment you make on plenty of non-related and adjacent articles. I’m choosing not to repeat myself, since, like I said – dead horse at this point.
Sigh, to make it clear for your benefit in case you’ve forgotten, ringfenced funds can only be applied to specific budgets. The £7m gap is not in one budget that can have the proposed released funds from VG3 – so your solution doesn’t work.
Spades go in the ground soon so good luck moaning about that, it’s mostly central government paying for it anyway so has little to do with the current budgets
£6 million comes from the LEP, (a central government quango), but Charlie is right about £7 million is coming from the local taxpayer, (£6 million is to be borrowed). Many think that this is an unwise spend at this time. The scheme should of been scaled back and money would have been saved.
Suggesting it is an unwise spend is absolutely reasonable. To take Charlie’s point, that fund comes from a ringfenced budget, so could not be applied to the shortfall, at least not all of it, so it doesn’t quite work as a panacea. Still, I think there is plenty of wisdom in cautiously avoiding large-scale projects in this time of financial uncertainty, like you suggest, Nathan.
The latest edition of the Taxpayers’ Alliance Town Hall Rich List revealed 68 workers in the county were on a salary of more than £100,000 in the 2022/23 financial year.
A total of 59 councils did not provide the Alliance accounts for 2022-23 and some roles and names were not disclosed by local authorities.
Brighton and Hove City Council had 15 people on a salary of more than £100,000.
It may not feel like it to many – but that is a professional salary these days (or a train driver).
The average professional salary in Brighton typically ranges from £30,000 to £40,000 per year, depending on the sector.
Cut Jess ‘Funky’ Gibbons salary by £100,000 a year (she will still be on a fair wack) , bingo ! Another six figure saving
The reported overspends and deficits go up and down like a yoyo. Deeply suspect. Independent Forensic Auditors needed.
The big word you are missing there: is FORCAST. Prediction. Barry, seriously…you really do need to improve the way you communicate, throwing a random half-baked accusation makes you look rather foolish. I’m not the only one who has noted this.
There is no consistency Benji boy, that is the point. The ‘forecasts’ swing wildly back and forwards with this council, producing wildly alternating headlines on a regular basis so they can scare the living daylights out of us one week and pretend they’ve saved us from the scary prediction the following week. What are they using, a predictive pendulum? Dowsing rods, perhaps? Anything but independent forensic auditors.
Again, you think this because you didn’t read the detail of the last one.