Highways and transport: every county council ranked by spend per resident
21 councils · median £62.02/person · mean £63.67/person. From MHCLG Revenue Outturn 2024-25.
| Rank | Council | Control | Seats | Population | Total spend | Per resident | vs median |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gloucestershire | — | — | 669,380 | £58.9m | £87.97 | +42% |
| 2 | Lincolnshire | — | — | 789,502 | £66.7m | £84.53 | +36% |
| 3 | Hertfordshire | — | — | 1,236,191 | £95.8m | £77.47 | +25% |
| 4 | East Sussex | — | — | 560,882 | £42.5m | £75.76 | +22% |
| 5 | Devon | — | — | 842,313 | £62.0m | £73.58 | +19% |
| 6 | West Sussex | — | — | 915,037 | £67.3m | £73.50 | +19% |
| 7 | Surrey | — | — | 1,248,649 | £85.5m | £68.44 | +10% |
| 8 | Oxfordshire | — | — | 763,218 | £50.5m | £66.20 | +7% |
| 9 | Leicestershire | — | — | 745,573 | £48.7m | £65.36 | +5% |
| 10 | Derbyshire | — | — | 822,377 | £53.1m | £64.53 | +4% |
| 11 | Essex | — | — | 1,563,365 | £97.0m | £62.02 | 0% |
| 12 | Kent | — | — | 1,639,029 | £97.3m | £59.38 | -4% |
| 13 | Nottinghamshire | — | — | 857,013 | £50.7m | £59.18 | -5% |
| 14 | Warwickshire | — | — | 632,207 | £37.3m | £58.99 | -5% |
| 15 | Staffordshire | — | — | 907,153 | £52.8m | £58.16 | -6% |
| 16 | Worcestershire | — | — | 621,360 | £33.1m | £53.25 | -14% |
| 17 | Hampshire | — | — | 1,447,214 | £76.8m | £53.05 | -14% |
| 18 | Lancashire | — | — | 1,294,914 | £68.5m | £52.88 | -15% |
| 19 | Suffolk | — | — | 786,231 | £38.1m | £48.46 | -22% |
| 20 | Norfolk | — | — | 940,359 | £45.2m | £48.06 | -23% |
| 21 | Cambridgeshire | — | — | 710,317 | £32.9m | £46.30 | -25% |
What this shows. Net revenue expenditure on the highways and transport bucket from each council’s 2024-25 Revenue Outturn (RO) submission to MHCLG, divided by ONS mid-year population. Higher per-head doesn’t imply waste — it can reflect demographic need (e.g. more older residents), rurality, or policy choice (e.g. retaining in-house services rather than contracting out). Lower per-head doesn’t imply efficiency — some councils have moved costs to fees, grants, or a ringfenced account.
Caveats. Councils under MHCLG suppression for 2024-25 don’t appear here (Birmingham, Slough, Cumberland and others — see their council card for the reason). Comparisons across the tier line don’t make sense, which is why this table is filtered to one council type at a time. Source: MHCLG Local Authority Revenue Expenditure and Financing.