Planning and economic: every county council ranked by spend per resident
21 councils · median £5.87/person · mean £5.98/person. From MHCLG Revenue Outturn 2024-25.
| Rank | Council | Control | Seats | Population | Total spend | Per resident | vs median |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nottinghamshire | — | — | 857,013 | £23.7m | £27.64 | +371% |
| 2 | Essex | — | — | 1,563,365 | £24.9m | £15.92 | +171% |
| 3 | Warwickshire | — | — | 632,207 | £9.8m | £15.49 | +164% |
| 4 | Devon | — | — | 842,313 | £12.8m | £15.25 | +160% |
| 5 | Lincolnshire | — | — | 789,502 | £8.9m | £11.26 | +92% |
| 6 | West Sussex | — | — | 915,037 | £10.0m | £10.93 | +86% |
| 7 | Surrey | — | — | 1,248,649 | £10.3m | £8.27 | +41% |
| 8 | Hertfordshire | — | — | 1,236,191 | £9.4m | £7.59 | +29% |
| 9 | Kent | — | — | 1,639,029 | £11.7m | £7.14 | +22% |
| 10 | Derbyshire | — | — | 822,377 | £5.0m | £6.03 | +3% |
| 11 | Lancashire | — | — | 1,294,914 | £7.6m | £5.87 | 0% |
| 12 | East Sussex | — | — | 560,882 | £2.9m | £5.19 | -12% |
| 13 | Worcestershire | — | — | 621,360 | £2.8m | £4.46 | -24% |
| 14 | Oxfordshire | — | — | 763,218 | £3.3m | £4.30 | -27% |
| 15 | Staffordshire | — | — | 907,153 | £3.3m | £3.64 | -38% |
| 16 | Leicestershire | — | — | 745,573 | £2.5m | £3.41 | -42% |
| 17 | Cambridgeshire | — | — | 710,317 | £2.2m | £3.14 | -47% |
| 18 | Hampshire | — | — | 1,447,214 | £4.1m | £2.83 | -52% |
| 19 | Gloucestershire | — | — | 669,380 | £-2.2m | £-3.22 | -155% |
| 20 | Norfolk | — | — | 940,359 | £-8.5m | £-9.00 | -253% |
| 21 | Suffolk | — | — | 786,231 | £-16.2m | £-20.58 | -451% |
What this shows. Net revenue expenditure on the planning and economic 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.