Public money · peer comparison

Housing and homelessness: every county council ranked by spend per resident

18 councils · median £3.62/person · mean £4.32/person. From MHCLG Revenue Outturn 2024-25.

RankCouncilControlSeatsPopulationTotal spendPer residentvs median
1East Sussex560,882£10.9m£19.38+435%
2Warwickshire632,207£4.7m£7.49+107%
3Lincolnshire789,502£5.3m£6.74+86%
4West Sussex915,037£6.0m£6.59+82%
5Hertfordshire1,236,191£7.4m£6.00+66%
6Surrey1,248,649£7.3m£5.83+61%
7Suffolk786,231£3.6m£4.60+27%
8Leicestershire745,573£3.3m£4.48+24%
9Oxfordshire763,218£2.9m£3.77+4%
10Cambridgeshire710,317£2.5m£3.47-4%
11Kent1,639,029£5.5m£3.35-7%
12Derbyshire822,377£2.1m£2.54-30%
13Devon842,313£1.7m£1.98-45%
14Essex1,563,365£1.7m£1.07-70%
15Gloucestershire669,380£0.2m£0.37-90%
16Hampshire1,447,214£0.1m£0.07-98%
17Nottinghamshire857,013£-0.0m£-0.01-100%
18Worcestershire621,360£-0.0m£-0.05-101%

What this shows. Net revenue expenditure on the housing and homelessness 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.