The financial position
How serious is the council’s financial position?
We face a serious financial challenge. The October forecast shows a £20.3m gap for 2027/28.
Existing and new savings proposals reduce that gap, but around £9.6m remains.
We must set a balanced budget.
We are developing further recurring savings and income, and exploring temporary financial flexibility if needed.
What has changed since the budget was agreed in February?
The forecast gap has grown from around £13.9m in February to £20.3m.
Care and other running costs have risen, including around £4.1m of additional demand pressures against earlier assumptions and £3.1m of borrowing costs and higher interest rates identified by Finance.
A small number of savings have also taken longer than planned to deliver but these are being addressed.
Why has the council not delivered all its previously agreed savings?
We have delivered substantial savings over several years.
A small number of measures have been delayed, including the Housing Revenue Account recharge, children’s homes and some finance system and management benefits.
We already have established financial and savings oversight and will continue to challenge delivery and put mitigations in place.
Has the council’s transformation programme failed?
No. Our transformation programme remains central to delivering the borough's LET'S Do It! vision.
Our work now is about intervening earlier, preventing people needing intensive care and helping them become more independent.
That is delivering results: more children are receiving early help, residential placements have fallen and adult social care has been rated Good.
Independent sector experts have also reviewed our approach.
But the cost of care is rising sharply, so better outcomes and costs avoided do not automatically produce an immediate reduction in the overall budget.
5. Why is the council describing this as a structural deficit?
A structural deficit means the cost of running services keeps rising faster than the income available to pay for them.
In adult social care, we support broadly the same number of people as in 2021/22, but the prices we pay for commissioned care have risen by between 43% to 70%, depending on the service.
Wages, employer costs, inflation and more complex needs all matter. Across the council, those pressures build up year after year.
One-off funding cannot solve that which is why it is described as a structural deficit.
Why does the financial position deteriorate again in 2029/30?
The current Government funding settlement ends in 2028/29, making later funding less certain.
The forecast assumes some grants end and contains far fewer identified savings for 2029/30 than 2028/29.
Meanwhile, care, contracts and staffing costs continue to rise. The next phase of the financial plan must address that longer-term gap.
Why has the council relied so heavily on reserves?
Reserves have helped us manage financial pressures, but they can only be spent once.
Our General Fund reserve is currently around £10m, with its adequacy reviewed annually by the Section 151 Officer (Finance Director).
We need recurring savings and income so that we can rebuild financial resilience rather than rely on reserves year after year.
What assurance is there that the new savings will actually be delivered?
We have an ongoing savings governance programme and a Finance Board.
Every proposal is reviewed for deliverability, timing and risk, and delivery is monitored through the budget monitoring process.
To support future delivery we are standing up a dedicated monthly Savings Delivery Group reporting to the existing Finance Board to sharpen challenge and identify alternatives quickly where savings are at risk.
Why not collect more outstanding Council Tax instead of cutting services?
We are already improving Council Tax collection, with earlier contact, better use of information and more targeted recovery.
We must collect what is owed fairly, while supporting people who cannot pay.
But even better collection cannot on its own close the budget gap: some debts are not immediately recoverable, and the cost of services continues to rise.
But outstanding debt is not the same as money immediately available to fund services.
We need to understand how much is realistically recoverable and over what period.
Exceptional Financial Support and financial recovery
Is Bury asking the government for a bailout?
No.
We are exploring Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) as one option to help manage the financial position.
This may mean permission to use our own capital receipts or borrow to meet certain costs, or exceptional Council Tax flexibility.
It could buy us time to deliver further changes, but it is not a new pot of money and would not remove the need to balance our ongoing income and spending.
Does Exceptional Financial Support mean the government will give Bury more or new money?
No. The support we are exploring is principally permission to use our own assets or borrowing more flexibly, not a new government grant.
There have been separate government grants for transformation in some councils receiving support but Bury has no such grant agreed.
We must not confuse those possibilities with the financial flexibility being considered for our budget.
Would using capital receipts solve the budget problem?
Using capital receipts could help meet eligible costs once, if the government agrees.
But selling an asset does not create income we can spend every year.
We would still need lasting savings or income to close the underlying gap.
Would additional borrowing make the problem worse?
Borrowing would give us short-term flexibility, but it also means paying interest and other financing costs from future budgets.
It would be a last-resort option and would have to be considered as part of a credible financial recovery plan.
Could Council Tax increase above the usual referendum threshold?
Our aim is to do all we can to avoid that as we know residents and businesses in Bury are already feeling the impact of other bills rising.
The draft budget assumes a 4.99% Council Tax increase; the maximum normally permitted without a referendum under the current planning assumption.
Even that is not enough to meet rising costs.
Every additional 1% would raise approximately £1.311m a year.
Any higher increase would need the relevant government approval or statutory process, and elected members will make the final decision in February.
What happens if the government refuses Exceptional Financial Support?
We would have to identify further local measures to meet our legal duty to set a balanced budget.
That could mean revisiting savings options, redesigning services and considering other ways of working. We are developing those options now rather than relying on exceptional support being approved.
What is the long-term plan to restore financial sustainability?
We already have a long-term plan in LET’S Do It!, with three years still to run.
We are improving care through prevention and independence, modernising services and systems, and investing in homes, jobs and town centres to grow our Council Tax and business rates base.
That is how we strengthen the borough and the council’s income over time.
Alongside it, we must deliver the immediate savings needed to balance the budget.
Services, charges and the consultation
Why are residents being asked to pay more for services?
Every resident benefits from council services in some way.
We keep the borough clean and safe, support communities and protect people at their most vulnerable.
That takes skilled people, buildings, systems and money.
Costs are rising, particularly the price of care, while funding remains under pressure.
We are already changing how we work; we are now consulting on where charges or other income could help sustain services.
We know households face rising bills too, so we want their views before decisions are made.
Why introduce a charge for garden waste collection?
Garden waste collection is a service councils can choose to provide, and many already charge for it.
We are considering a subscription to help meet its running costs and keep the service available.
We need to test likely take-up, recycling impacts and the risk of extra fly-tipping before making a decision.
What if fewer residents subscribe than forecast?
The income depends on how many households subscribe and what the service costs to run.
We will monitor subscriptions, waste tonnages and the costs of collecting and disposing of waste.
The forecast must be tested against lower take-up as well as the central estimate.
Will charging for garden waste lead to more fly-tipping?
We recognise that concern.
If the proposal goes ahead, we would monitor fly-tipping, recycling and disposal costs as well as subscriptions.
The decision needs to take account of those risks, not simply the headline income estimate.
Why are changes to school crossing patrols being considered?
Children’s safety comes first.
Crossing points have been assessed using established guidance, including traffic, visibility and the age of children using them.
High-priority locations are proposed to be retained.
Further counts and site assessments are planned for points still under review before decisions are finalised.
How many school crossing patrol sites and staff would be affected?
The proposal would retain the six crossings currently rated high priority and remove medium- and low-priority staffed points, subject to consultation and final assessment.
Three locations require further review, including one affected by the Heywood Road closure.
We will confirm the final site and staffing numbers before any change.
Could reducing school crossing patrols undermine active travel and road safety?
We want children to be able to walk or cycle to school safely.
That is why decisions must be based on evidence about each crossing, road conditions and the safety measures needed, not simply a borough-wide savings target.
Why are leisure charges being increased?
Running leisure centres, particularly large swimming pools, is expensive.
Energy, staffing, maintenance and building costs have risen sharply.
We want to keep facilities available, but the current income does not cover the cost of providing them.
Proposed charges are one way of reducing that gap while protecting the long-term future of leisure services.
Could the proposed leisure increases price people out?
Affordability matters.
Higher charges could help meet rising running costs, but they could also put people off using facilities.
We want to hear what the proposals would mean for households, and will test the effect on membership, access and income before final decisions.
Why invest in Ramsbottom and Castle Leisure Centres while increasing charges?
Much of the proposed work is essential to keep ageing facilities safe and compliant, including roofs, plant, electrical systems and ventilation.
At Ramsbottom, around 1,300 members use the centre, but it costs the council around £230,000 a year net to run; necessary capital works would add financing costs if funded by borrowing.
We are looking at both costs and income to keep leisure facilities sustainable.
Workforce, fairness and accountability
How many jobs could be lost?
We have already introduced vacancy management (temporary pauses on recruitment, removal of long unfilled vacant posts and other measures of that nature), a voluntary scheme, redeployment and changes to how services are organised.
The full workforce impact has not yet been decided.
Where staff may be affected, we will follow the proper consultation and employment processes.
Can compulsory redundancies be ruled out?
We want to avoid compulsory redundancies wherever possible, using voluntary exits, redeployment and other options first.
But we cannot responsibly rule them out before the full financial and workforce position is clear.
Have the combined effects of the proposals on vulnerable residents been assessed?
We must look at the combined effect of the proposals, not just each change in isolation.
A working group is coordinating an overarching Equality Impact Assessment for the whole budget alongside assessments of individual proposals.
These will inform final decisions, including how we protect people who rely most on council services.
Equality and service impact assessments must inform decisions alongside financial evidence.
Why are services being reduced while the council invests in regeneration?
Investment is part of how we secure our financial future and is part of our ten-year LET’S Do It! strategy, with three years still to run.
The regeneration programmes in Bury, Prestwich and Radcliffe will bring homes, jobs and business space, helping grow our Council Tax and business rates income over time.
Much of the capital funding cannot simply pay for day-to-day services.
We must also be careful about borrowing because its repayment costs fall on future revenue budgets.
We need both a balanced budget now and a stronger income base for the future
Will residents really be able to influence the budget?
Yes.
The consultation is a chance to explain how proposals would affect people, suggest alternatives and help shape final decisions.
We will report what people said and explain how their views were taken into account.
What assurance can residents and staff have that essential services will continue?
We will continue to meet our statutory responsibilities and protect essential services.
We must also make sure they can be paid for in the long term.
That means taking difficult decisions on the evidence, considering impacts and being open about the choices.
We will continue to explain the financial position, the options being considered and the decisions taken.
If children’s residential placements are falling, why are costs still rising?
Our early-help work has doubled the number of children supported in the past year, and residential placements fell by nearly a quarter to 39 by September.
But individual residential placements and independent foster care have become more expensive.
The team reports more than £3.3m of residential costs avoided in 2026/27 to date, even while new in-year pressures have arisen.
Fewer placements does not necessarily mean a smaller bill straight away.
Why does the council still need to pay for offices, systems and management?
A council serving more than 190,000 people needs the people, systems, buildings, financial controls and safeguarding arrangements to run services safely and lawfully.
We are already reducing these costs through digital investment, better processes and changes to how we work.
But some costs are fixed, and removing them indiscriminately would undermine frontline services.
Has investment in digital systems reduced costs?
We have been modernising systems and processes for some time to make services easier to use and less expensive to run.
That is delivering improvements, but major changes take time to implement and the full financial benefits do not all arrive at once.
Why is Bury spending less per resident on children’s social care than other metropolitan councils?
Published budget comparisons put Bury below the metropolitan borough average for children’s social care spending per head of the whole population.
That is one indication of the effort to manage costs, but it does not prove services are cheaper to run or that children’s needs are lower. We judge value for money by outcomes as well as spending.
Why not increase Council Tax enough to close the gap?
There are legal limits on increases without a referendum or special permission.
The draft plan already assumes a 4.99% rise, but that will not cover the increasing cost of services.
A further 1% would raise about £1.311m a year, far less than the remaining gap. We also recognise the pressure on household budgets.