BeyondtheVote
Sign in
The local authorityCouncil · Unitary · England · 1 of 63 unitary authorities

Southampton.

Labour Party-controlled unitary. £274m net revenue. 17 wards across 2 parliamentary constituencies.

TypeUnitary
Seats49 councillors · 17 wards
Last election7 May 2026
Websitesouthampton.gov.uk ↗
Net revenue · 2025-26
£274m
Core spending power (MHCLG)
Band-D bill
£2,266
For the council slice (incl. precepts)
Composition
24/49
Labour Party 49%
Westminster
2
constituencies overlap · 1 MP party
Dispatch
31 May 2026

Labour Party chamber, Labour Party MPs.

Southampton is a unitary controlled by Labour Party (24 of 49 seats). Net revenue is £274m for 2025-26. It covers 17 wards spanning 2 parliamentary constituencies.

§ 01Composition.49 seats · last contested 7 May 2026

Who sits in the chamber.

Lab 24Ref 8Con 6LD 6Green 5

Labour Party 49% · last contested 7 May 2026

Councillors — the people.

CouncillorWardElected
Misty Calanthia Delamothe BurgessGrnBanister Polygon2026
Vivienne WindleLabBanister Polygon2024
Pat EvemyLabBanister Polygon2023
Luke ReynoldsGrnBargate2026
Ginnie LambertLabBargate2024
Sarah BogleLabBargate2023
Sam Philip ChapmanLDBassett2026
Sarah Louise WoodLDBassett2024
Richard BlackmanLDBassett2023
Paul KennyLabBevois2026
Jacqui RaymentLabBevois2024
Toqeer Ahmed KatariaLabBevois2023
Showing 12 of 49·All 49 councillors
§ 02Revenue mix & Band-D bill.MHCLG — Final LGFS 2025-26 Core Spending Power table

Where revenue comes from.

47%
Council tax
£128.2m · median 59%
39%
Central grants
£108.0m · median 30%
14%
Business rates
£37.6m · median 11%

This is a grant-heavy unitary authoritie: 47% from council tax vs the cohort median of 59%.

Source · MHCLG — Final LGFS 2025-26 Core Spending Power table · derived (CT exact; grants/rates split from SFA baseline)

Band-D bill.

Council slice£1,903
County / upper-tier£0
Police£275
Fire & rescue£88
GLA precept£0
Total Band-D£2,266

Parish precepts apply on top, vary by parish

For household tax breakdown

Use the income slider on My place to see income tax, NI, VAT and council tax against your earnings.

§ 03Service spend, ranked against peers.10 buckets · vs 62 other unitary authorities

How does Southampton split its revenue across services, compared with peer unitary authoritie-class councils? Each row is one of the ten standard service buckets. The vertical line at the centre is the cohort median share; the coloured square is where this council sits. Squares to the right of centre mean a bigger share of revenue than the median peer; to the left, a smaller share.

Education42.4% of net spend · cohort median 36%
5 of 61+18% vs median
Adult Social Care26.8% of net spend · cohort median 27%
37 of 61-2% vs median
Children's Services13.0% of net spend · cohort median 15%
42 of 61-12% vs median
Waste & Recycling4.2% of net spend · cohort median 6%
54 of 61-27% vs median
Public Health3.3% of net spend · cohort median 4%
38 of 61-11% vs median
Corporate & Central2.6% of net spend · cohort median 3%
38 of 61-10% vs median
Housing & Homelessness2.5% of net spend · cohort median 2%
22 of 61+33% vs median
Culture & Leisure2.5% of net spend · cohort median 2%
27 of 61+14% vs median
Planning & Economic Development1.8% of net spend · cohort median 1%
24 of 61+30% vs median
Highways & Transport1.1% of net spend · cohort median 3%
53 of 61-59% vs median
How to read these bars

The subtitle on each row (“X% of net spend”) is what share of this council’s revenue goes to that service. The rank (“15 of 61”) is where this council sits within the cohort, sorted by that share descending. The delta (“+26% vs median”) is a relative reading: the council allocates 26% more of its revenue to that service than the median peer would. A small absolute difference can still be a big relative one.

Higher share doesn’t mean waste — it can reflect demographic need (more older residents), rurality, or a policy choice (e.g. keeping a service in-house). Lower share doesn’t mean efficiency — some councils move costs to fees, ringfenced accounts, or grants. £-per-head would be sharper than share-of-revenue; LAD population is pending ingest. Comparisons are within the same council type only.

§ 04Top suppliers.18,329 payments · £166.0m gross · 3 Dec 2025 – 1 Apr 2026

Every invoice over £500, published under the Local Government Transparency Code. Best-effort, not statutory — counts and totals net negatives (refunds/reversals).

Top by total — last 180 days

SupplierPaidSharePmts
TRIDENT MAINTENANCE SERVICES LIMITED£10.40m6.3%27
MORGAN SINDALL PLC£6.81m4.1%7
BALFOUR BEATTY LIVING PLACES LTD£5.46m3.3%15
CLC CONTRACTORS LTD£5.36m3.2%88
NPOWER LTD£3.92m2.4%30
THE PYRAMID CONSORTIUM£3.50m2.1%32
COMENSURA£3.29m2.0%18
HAMPSHIRE & IOW HEALTHCARE NHS FT£3.06m1.8%34
SUPPLIER NAME REDACTED£2.81m1.7%2,207
CHANGE GROW LIVE (CGL) SERVICES LTD£2.21m1.3%11

By service area · top supplier

ServiceTop supplierPaid
Corporate And CentralNPOWER LTD£3.88m
Childrens ServicesTHE PYRAMID CONSORTIUM£3.50m
Adult Social CareHAMPSHIRE & IOW HEALTHCARE NHS FT£2.74m
EducationREDBRIDGE COMMUNITY SCHOOL (CB)£1.78m
Waste And RecyclingHAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (MAIN)£1.44m
Housing And HomelessnessTRAVIS PERKINS TRADING CO LTD£1.40m
§ 05Westminster constituencies — the overlap.17 wards split across 2 parliamentary seats
ConstituencyWards% of councilCurrent MP
Southampton Test1059% Satvir KaurLab
Southampton Itchen741% Darren PaffeyLab
Sources, methods & last update
Method The dispatch paragraphs are AI-generated from the public sources listed below. Every figure links to its source. If we’re wrong, please tell us — corrections within 48 hours.
CompositionDemocracy Club (live)
DCLEAPIL v1.0 (historic)
Net revenueMHCLG Final LGFS
Core Spending Power table · 2025-26
Service spendDerived from MHCLG CSP shares
vs 62 other unitary authorities
Band-DMHCLG CSP · precept schedules
Police, Fire, Parish on top
SuppliersCouncil publication under LGTC
18,329 payments · 3 Dec 2025 – 1 Apr 2026
Westminster overlapONS Open Geography Portal
2023 boundaries
PopulationONS mid-year estimates
Pending ingest at LAD level