Revealed: What people like you think about what the council does, spends, and charges

As part of its consultations before drafting the current budget proposals, Brighton and Hove City Council undertook a survey of a random sample of 3,000 households.

The results - based on a total of 502 responses - are regarded to be representative of what citizens think, give or take 4%. Which is pretty much as accurate as it gets with surveys like this.

Details were reported on Thursday (February 12) to the council's powerful policy and resources committee at its final meeting before the all-important budget-setting council on Thursday, February 26.

They make for fascinating reading. Our special report '“ and the illustrations it contains - summarises the findings of the report prepared for councillors.

Residents were first invited to rate - as high, medium or low - the priority they would give to different service areas for themselves and their family, then to do the same for the city as a whole.

Compared with last year's results, the proportions rating services as high priorities are lower - and the proportions rating services as low priorities are higher. Which suggests, according to council officers: "The scale of the budget challenge may be better understood this year".

The top five priority areas - with the biggest proportion rating high priority for the city - were: education (74% high); public health (73% high); refuse collection, disposal and recycling (62% high); children's social care (60% high); and public safety (57% high).

With the exception of public health, which was not asked about in last year's survey, all service areas have lower priority ratings this year: education was rated the highest priority for the city by 74% of respondents, with just 3% rating it a low priority; for respondents and their families, education received a lower rating (50% high), but was nonetheless the fourth highest ranked service; public health had the highest priority rating for respondents and their families (65% high) and was rated even higher for the city as a whole (73% high), - although 1% below the top priority of education; refuse collection, disposal and recycling received high and very similar priority ratings, regardless of whether respondents were rating it for themselves or the city (63% and 62%, respectively); children's social care had a high-priority rating, especially when rated for the city - with 60% rating it high - although only 30% rated it high for themselves and their families (it ranked 6th out of the 13 service areas asked about); public safety, like refuse collection, disposal and recycling, was rated very similarly for respondents themselves (55% high) and the city (57% high).

The bottom five priority areas - with the biggest proportion rating low priority for the city - were: central Services (33% low); Council Tax Reduction Scheme (31% low); highways and traffic Management (24% low); adult services (21% low); and planning and economic development (19% low).

As in previous years, central services was the lowest-rated area with just 11% rating it a high priority for the city - and only 9% rating it high for themselves. A third of respondents rated it a low priority for the city.

So where would citizens cut, increase, or maintain funding?

Respondents generally did not want funding reduced, with most opting to either maintain or increase spending for all areas. Notably, 42% would reduce funding for the Council Tax Reduction Scheme (for the 16,000 poorest households), 41% would reduce funding for central services, and 39% would reduce it for highways and traffic management.

The only service area where at least a third wanted funding increased was public health, with 34% saying they would increase funding and just 7% saying they would reduce it. A comparatively large proportion, 31%, would increase funding for refuse collection, disposal and recycling. Some 29% said they would increase funding for education and for children's social care.

With the exception of three areas - housing, Council Tax Reduction Scheme, and highways and traffic management - more than half of respondents thought funding should be maintained at the current level. Service areas with the highest proportions of respondents thinking funding should be maintained were leisure, parks and open spaces (67%), education (64%), and libraries, museums and tourism (64%).

Respondents were asked if they felt council tax should ever rise to reduce pressure on the council's finances: 13% of the sample felt that council tax should rise, a notably larger proportion than the 6% saying it should in response to last year's survey. Some 39%, however, thought that it should never rise, while 48% felt an increase in council tax could be justified in certain circumstances - both of these results are within 5% ( plus or minus) of last year's results.

Among those who thought tax should increase "under certain circumstances", there were four main positions:

If there's clear evidence of the money being put to 'good use' (22%);

If the rise is in line with cost of living increases/inflation (11%);

If the system is progressive (9%);

If the rise is in order to maintain essential services (8%).

Where else could money come from, other than council tax?

As in previous years, there was significant support for easing pressure on the council's finances through more fines for antisocial behaviour - such as littering, dog-fouling and noise, with 89% of the sample saying they would support raising money by way of such fines; only 2% said this should never happen. The majority (61%) also favoured charging residents and non-residents different rates for attractions.

This year there was more of an appetite to increase charges for attractions, with 42% in favour. Last year, respondents were divided about increasing admission charges for attractions, with similar proportions in favour (26%) as opposed (27%). Some 49% of respondents were opposed to increasing revenue through raising parking charges, a slightly lower proportion than last year (55%).

Respondents were asked - in the financial context - what they would stop doing, or do less of. Comments clustered around reducing or cutting services, staff and benefits.

Stopping traffic, cycling and parking initiatives was a close second with 44% suggesting making fewer changes to transport infrastructure. Looking in more detail at what respondents felt could be stopped showed alterations to roads (including bus lanes) was the most frequently-mentioned single issue, with 21% of responses referring to them. A further 13% referred specifically to spend on cycling lanes that they would stop to help close the budget gap. Reducing benefits, particularly Housing Benefit, was mentioned by 10%, and, in some cases, sentiments around this suggestion were expressed strongly.

So what would respondents start doing - or do more of?

Some 19% of respondents felt that the council should focus its efforts on delivering (only) essential services and prioritising vulnerable residents. Respondents had different views about what those essential services were and who the most vulnerable residents are, but there was general consensus that social care and children's services, including education, should be prioritised.

Finally, respondents were asked what they would change or do differently.

Reducing or cutting services, staff, and/or benefits was the top suggestion for change, mentioned by 23%; 13% felt increasing or introducing charges should be part of the funding-gap solution. This suggests that, on balance, respondents would favour cutbacks rather than paying more to maintain the status quo.

The biggest single issue respondents would change - mentioned by 7% - was improving efficiency within the council.