Highways and transport: every shire district ranked by spend per resident
158 councils · median £-4.02/person · mean £-7.19/person. From MHCLG Revenue Outturn 2024-25.
| Rank | Council | Control | Seats | Population | Total spend | Per resident | vs median |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Broxbourne | Con | 101,900 | £2.4m | £23.94 | 0% | |
| 2 | Harlow | Con | 98,235 | £1.0m | £10.60 | 0% | |
| 3 | Castle Point | THE | 90,581 | £0.7m | £7.72 | 0% | |
| 4 | Fenland | Con | 104,896 | £0.7m | £6.78 | 0% | |
| 5 | Colchester | Ref | 200,222 | £1.3m | £6.62 | 0% | |
| 6 | Watford | LD | 107,171 | £0.7m | £6.43 | 0% | |
| 7 | Breckland | Con | 146,620 | £0.9m | £6.17 | 0% | |
| 8 | Redditch | Ref | 87,847 | £0.5m | £5.90 | 0% | |
| 9 | Pendle | Ind | 99,777 | £0.5m | £5.14 | 0% | |
| 10 | Three Rivers | Con | 95,807 | £0.4m | £4.15 | 0% | |
| 11 | Hyndburn | Ref | 86,058 | £0.3m | £4.04 | 0% | |
| 12 | Bolsover | Lab | 83,773 | £0.3m | £3.93 | 0% | |
| 13 | Wyre | Con | 118,743 | £0.4m | £3.75 | 0% | |
| 14 | North Hertfordshire | Con | 137,201 | £0.5m | £3.29 | 0% | |
| 15 | Rossendale | Lab | 73,045 | £0.2m | £3.19 | 0% | |
| 16 | Wealden | LD | 166,908 | £0.5m | £3.14 | 0% | |
| 17 | Mansfield | Lab | 113,138 | £0.3m | £2.70 | 0% | |
| 18 | Babergh | Green | 97,033 | £0.3m | £2.59 | 0% | |
| 19 | Hinckley and Bosworth | LD | 116,682 | £0.3m | £2.52 | 0% | |
| 20 | West Lindsey | LD | 99,208 | £0.2m | £2.13 | 0% | |
| 21 | South Kesteven | Con | 147,151 | £0.3m | £2.11 | 0% | |
| 22 | East Cambridgeshire | Con | 92,906 | £0.2m | £2.10 | 0% | |
| 23 | West Oxfordshire | LD | 120,941 | £0.2m | £2.03 | 0% | |
| 24 | Gedling | Lab | 120,179 | £0.2m | £1.81 | 0% | |
| 25 | Preston | LD | 162,864 | £0.3m | £1.78 | 0% | |
| 26 | North Kesteven | Con | 122,468 | £0.2m | £1.63 | 0% | |
| 27 | Great Yarmouth | Con | 100,529 | £0.2m | £1.61 | 0% | |
| 28 | Bromsgrove | Con | 101,685 | £0.2m | £1.56 | 0% | |
| 29 | Wyre Forest | Con | 103,913 | £0.1m | £1.44 | 0% | |
| 30 | Crawley | Ref | 124,008 | £0.2m | £1.40 | 0% | |
| 31 | South Staffordshire | Con | 114,423 | £0.2m | £1.34 | 0% | |
| 32 | Rugby | LD | 122,378 | £0.2m | £1.23 | 0% | |
| 33 | Tandridge | LD | 90,586 | £0.1m | £0.83 | 0% | |
| 34 | Runnymede | Lab | 92,118 | £0.1m | £0.80 | 0% | |
| 35 | Basingstoke and Deane | BAS | 193,110 | £0.2m | £0.78 | 0% | |
| 36 | Broxtowe | Lab | 114,565 | £0.1m | £0.60 | 0% | |
| 37 | South Ribble | Lab | 116,113 | £0.1m | £0.58 | 0% | |
| 38 | South Derbyshire | Lab | 117,493 | £0.1m | £0.54 | 0% | |
| 39 | Epping Forest | Ref | 137,451 | £0.1m | £0.52 | 0% | |
| 40 | Charnwood | Con | 188,385 | £0.1m | £0.51 | 0% | |
| 41 | Forest of Dean | Green | 89,753 | £0.0m | £0.47 | 0% | |
| 42 | Broadland | Con | 138,157 | £0.0m | £0.28 | 0% | |
| 43 | Cherwell | LD | 170,426 | £0.0m | £0.28 | 0% | |
| 44 | Dartford | Con | 125,011 | £0.0m | £0.02 | 0% | |
| 45 | South Cambridgeshire | LD | 172,544 | £0.0m | £0.01 | 0% | |
| 46 | Blaby | Con | 108,165 | £-0.0m | £-0.17 | 0% | |
| 47 | Chorley | Ref | 120,839 | £-0.1m | £-0.44 | 0% | |
| 48 | Vale of White Horse | LD | 149,347 | £-0.1m | £-0.48 | 0% | |
| 49 | Nuneaton and Bedworth | Ref | 141,565 | £-0.1m | £-0.73 | 0% | |
| 50 | South Norfolk | Con | 148,448 | £-0.1m | £-0.94 | 0% | |
| 51 | Hart | LD | 103,162 | £-0.1m | £-0.95 | 0% | |
| 52 | Lewes | Green | 102,363 | £-0.1m | £-0.98 | 0% | |
| 53 | Rushmoor | Ref | 105,751 | £-0.1m | £-1.06 | 0% | |
| 54 | Mid Suffolk | Green | 110,775 | £-0.1m | £-1.18 | 0% | |
| 55 | Basildon | Ref | 193,632 | £-0.2m | £-1.19 | 0% | |
| 56 | Huntingdonshire | LD | 190,619 | £-0.3m | £-1.35 | 0% | |
| 57 | South Holland | Con | 99,298 | £-0.1m | £-1.38 | 0% | |
| 58 | North East Derbyshire | Lab | 106,646 | £-0.2m | £-1.55 | 0% | |
| 59 | Tendring | Con | 156,759 | £-0.3m | £-1.65 | 0% | |
| 60 | Cannock Chase | Ref | 104,088 | £-0.2m | £-1.70 | 0% | |
| 61 | Test Valley | Con | 135,201 | £-0.2m | £-1.84 | 0% | |
| 62 | Bassetlaw | Lab | 124,937 | £-0.2m | £-1.85 | 0% | |
| 63 | Burnley | Ref | 99,233 | £-0.2m | £-1.98 | 0% | |
| 64 | Newcastle-under-Lyme | Ref | 127,727 | £-0.3m | £-2.07 | 0% | |
| 65 | Stroud | Green | 125,680 | £-0.3m | £-2.08 | 0% | |
| 66 | Welwyn Hatfield | LD | 122,819 | £-0.3m | £-2.26 | 0% | |
| 67 | Dacorum | LD | 161,420 | £-0.4m | £-2.38 | 0% | |
| 68 | East Staffordshire | Lab | 129,659 | £-0.3m | £-2.41 | 0% | |
| 69 | Staffordshire Moorlands | Lab | 96,651 | £-0.2m | £-2.43 | 0% | |
| 70 | Eastbourne | LD | 104,259 | £-0.3m | £-2.74 | 0% | |
| 71 | East Suffolk | Green | 249,664 | £-0.7m | £-2.87 | 0% | |
| 72 | Malvern Hills | Ind | 83,227 | £-0.2m | £-2.88 | 0% | |
| 73 | Adur | Ref | 64,889 | £-0.2m | £-2.99 | 0% | |
| 74 | Spelthorne | LD | 107,074 | £-0.3m | £-3.11 | 0% | |
| 75 | Braintree | Con | 164,304 | £-0.5m | £-3.19 | 0% | |
| 76 | Ribble Valley | Con | 65,794 | £-0.2m | £-3.28 | 0% | |
| 77 | Reigate and Banstead | Green | 159,134 | £-0.6m | £-3.49 | 0% | |
| 78 | Fylde | Con | 85,447 | £-0.3m | £-3.89 | 0% | |
| 79 | West Lancashire | Ref | 121,995 | £-0.5m | £-3.96 | 0% | |
| 80 | Stafford | Con | 141,556 | £-0.6m | £-4.08 | 0% | |
| 81 | Tewkesbury | LD | 101,949 | £-0.4m | £-4.26 | 0% | |
| 82 | Erewash | Lab | 114,253 | £-0.5m | £-4.30 | 0% | |
| 83 | Surrey Heath | LD | 94,492 | £-0.4m | £-4.40 | 0% | |
| 84 | Harborough | Con | 104,713 | £-0.5m | £-4.68 | 0% | |
| 85 | South Oxfordshire | LD | 156,470 | £-0.7m | £-4.75 | 0% | |
| 86 | Melton | Con | 54,052 | £-0.3m | £-4.77 | 0% | |
| 87 | Mid Devon | LD | 84,993 | £-0.4m | £-5.05 | 0% | |
| 88 | Newark and Sherwood | Con | 127,886 | £-0.7m | £-5.26 | 0% | |
| 89 | Eastleigh | LD | 142,933 | £-0.8m | £-5.36 | 0% | |
| 90 | Gosport | Ref | 82,921 | £-0.5m | £-5.55 | 0% | |
| 91 | Wychavon | Con | 138,017 | £-0.8m | £-5.59 | 0% | |
| 92 | Boston | BOS | 71,080 | £-0.4m | £-5.94 | 0% | |
| 93 | Rushcliffe | Con | 126,736 | £-0.8m | £-5.97 | 0% | |
| 94 | Gravesham | Lab | 110,671 | £-0.7m | £-6.11 | 0% | |
| 95 | Arun | Con | 170,064 | £-1.1m | £-6.31 | 0% | |
| 96 | Ashford | Con | 140,936 | £-1.0m | £-7.02 | 0% | |
| 97 | Maidstone | Con | 187,767 | £-1.3m | £-7.08 | 0% | |
| 98 | Mid Sussex | LD | 161,755 | £-1.2m | £-7.27 | 0% | |
| 99 | Tamworth | Ref | 81,117 | £-0.6m | £-7.36 | 0% | |
| 100 | Hastings | Green | 91,219 | £-0.7m | £-7.44 | 0% | |
| 101 | West Devon | Con | 58,923 | £-0.5m | £-7.82 | 0% | |
| 102 | Fareham | Con | 115,428 | £-0.9m | £-8.02 | 0% | |
| 103 | Stratford-on-Avon | LD | 146,258 | £-1.2m | £-8.43 | 0% | |
| 104 | Rochford | Ref | 89,815 | £-0.8m | £-9.09 | 0% | |
| 105 | Dover | Lab | 119,768 | £-1.1m | £-9.24 | 0% | |
| 106 | Oadby and Wigston | LD | 61,695 | £-0.6m | £-9.51 | 0% | |
| 107 | Ipswich | Ref | 140,274 | £-1.3m | £-9.54 | 0% | |
| 108 | Thanet | Lab | 142,691 | £-1.4m | £-9.75 | 0% | |
| 109 | Chesterfield | Lab | 106,045 | £-1.0m | £-9.77 | 0% | |
| 110 | Worthing | Green | 113,866 | £-1.1m | £-9.77 | 0% | |
| 111 | Hertsmere | Con | 110,212 | £-1.1m | £-9.81 | 0% | |
| 112 | Lichfield | Con | 111,932 | £-1.1m | £-9.82 | 0% | |
| 113 | Havant | Ref | 126,985 | £-1.3m | £-9.93 | 0% | |
| 114 | Tonbridge and Malling | Con | 136,853 | £-1.4m | £-9.99 | 0% | |
| 115 | Gloucester | LD | 138,598 | £-1.4m | £-10.06 | 0% | |
| 116 | East Hertfordshire | Green | 156,875 | £-1.7m | £-10.75 | 0% | |
| 117 | Uttlesford | RES | 95,106 | £-1.1m | £-11.17 | 0% | |
| 118 | Torridge | Ind | 69,841 | £-0.8m | £-11.37 | 0% | |
| 119 | Swale | Lab | 158,379 | £-1.8m | £-11.39 | 0% | |
| 120 | High Peak | Lab | 91,959 | £-1.1m | £-11.76 | 0% | |
| 121 | East Lindsey | Con | 145,183 | £-1.7m | £-11.92 | 0% | |
| 122 | East Hampshire | Con | 129,975 | £-1.6m | £-12.69 | 0% | |
| 123 | Folkestone and Hythe | Lab | 112,411 | £-1.4m | £-12.78 | 0% | |
| 124 | New Forest | Con | 176,116 | £-2.3m | £-12.90 | 0% | |
| 125 | Maldon | Con | 69,131 | £-0.9m | £-13.35 | 0% | |
| 126 | Rother | Con | 96,133 | £-1.5m | £-15.94 | 0% | |
| 127 | West Suffolk | Con | 188,485 | £-3.0m | £-16.00 | 0% | |
| 128 | Lancaster | Lab | 145,006 | £-2.3m | £-16.19 | 0% | |
| 129 | Elmbridge | LD | 141,926 | £-2.4m | £-16.79 | 0% | |
| 130 | Winchester | LD | 135,632 | £-2.4m | £-17.55 | 0% | |
| 131 | Brentwood | Ref | 79,326 | £-1.4m | £-17.61 | 0% | |
| 132 | South Hams | LD | 92,148 | £-1.7m | £-18.34 | 0% | |
| 133 | Mole Valley | LD | 88,709 | £-1.6m | £-18.45 | 0% | |
| 134 | North Devon | LD | 101,222 | £-1.9m | £-18.62 | 0% | |
| 135 | East Devon | Ind | 158,239 | £-3.0m | £-18.84 | 0% | |
| 136 | Horsham | LD | 151,521 | £-2.9m | £-19.21 | 0% | |
| 137 | North Norfolk | LD | 103,217 | £-2.1m | £-20.05 | 0% | |
| 138 | St Albans | LD | 151,012 | £-3.1m | £-20.72 | 0% | |
| 139 | King's Lynn and West Norfolk | Con | 156,206 | £-3.3m | £-20.90 | 0% | |
| 140 | Woking | LD | 105,679 | £-2.2m | £-20.92 | 0% | |
| 141 | Worcester | Lab | 106,671 | £-2.4m | £-22.57 | 0% | |
| 142 | Sevenoaks | Con | 122,748 | £-2.8m | £-23.11 | 0% | |
| 143 | Cheltenham | LD | 121,739 | £-2.8m | £-23.12 | 0% | |
| 144 | Chelmsford | LD | 188,803 | £-4.4m | £-23.52 | 0% | |
| 145 | Teignbridge | LD | 138,548 | £-3.4m | £-24.54 | 0% | |
| 146 | Oxford | Green | 166,034 | £-4.3m | £-26.19 | 0% | |
| 147 | Derbyshire Dales | LD | 71,757 | £-1.9m | £-26.45 | 0% | |
| 148 | Cotswold | LD | 91,661 | £-2.4m | £-26.46 | 0% | |
| 149 | Stevenage | Ref | 91,774 | £-2.4m | £-26.63 | 0% | |
| 150 | Norwich | Green | 147,182 | £-4.1m | £-27.61 | 0% | |
| 151 | Epsom and Ewell | RES | 83,288 | £-2.4m | £-29.04 | 0% | |
| 152 | Waverley | LD | 134,284 | £-4.2m | £-31.57 | 0% | |
| 153 | Tunbridge Wells | LD | 119,694 | £-4.4m | £-36.42 | 0% | |
| 154 | Chichester | LD | 128,934 | £-5.0m | £-38.92 | 0% | |
| 155 | Lincoln | Ref | 105,114 | £-4.1m | £-38.94 | 0% | |
| 156 | Cambridge | Green | 149,352 | £-5.9m | £-39.18 | 0% | |
| 157 | Exeter | Green | 138,399 | £-5.7m | £-41.42 | 0% | |
| 158 | Canterbury | Lab | 162,100 | £-7.8m | £-48.01 | 0% |
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.