Protective services: every county council ranked by spend per resident
9 councils · median £45.16/person · mean £44.35/person. From MHCLG Revenue Outturn 2024-25.
| Rank | Council | Control | Seats | Population | Total spend | Per resident | vs median |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gloucestershire | — | — | 669,380 | £32.4m | £48.42 | +7% |
| 2 | Warwickshire | — | — | 632,207 | £30.3m | £47.87 | +6% |
| 3 | West Sussex | — | — | 915,037 | £41.6m | £45.43 | +1% |
| 4 | Lincolnshire | — | — | 789,502 | £35.7m | £45.27 | +0% |
| 5 | Suffolk | — | — | 786,231 | £35.5m | £45.16 | 0% |
| 6 | Oxfordshire | — | — | 763,218 | £32.3m | £42.33 | -6% |
| 7 | Hertfordshire | — | — | 1,236,191 | £52.0m | £42.10 | -7% |
| 8 | Norfolk | — | — | 940,359 | £39.4m | £41.88 | -7% |
| 9 | Surrey | — | — | 1,248,649 | £50.8m | £40.65 | -10% |
What this shows. Net revenue expenditure on the protective services 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.