For seven consecutive financial years, Bury Council has set itself ambitious efficiency savings targets. Each year, those targets have been presented as the solution to balancing the books and avoiding deeper financial trouble. Yet the reality has been starkly consistent: not once in the last seven years has the council fully achieved its savings goals.
Instead, the shortfall has been plugged by dipping into reserves, a practice that has steadily eroded the council’s financial resilience. Lofty savings targets are announced, delivery falls short, and reserves are left to carry the burden.
Now, a new development adds an important twist…
A £60m Boost, but the Same Old Problems
According to the Bury Times, Bury Council will receive more than £60 million in additional core spending power over the next three years, beginning in the 2026/27 financial year. This represents a significant uplift in the council’s funding envelope. In theory, this new money could help stabilise the council’s finances and reduce the need to raid reserves. But the council’s own statements suggest otherwise.
Despite the upcoming funding boost, the authority still expects to use reserves to balance the budget in 2026. The structural gap remains, and the council continues to rely on reserves as its fallback, even with tens of millions in new government funding on the horizon.
This raises a fundamental question: If £60m over three years isn’t enough to stop the council dipping into reserves, what will be?
📊 Efficiency Savings: Targets vs Reality (2019/20–2025/26)
| Financial Year | Projected Savings Target | Actual Savings Delivered | Gap Plugged by Reserves | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019/20 | ~£11m | ~£8m | ~£3m | Early signs of structural funding gap. |
| 2020/21 | ~£15m | ~£9m | ~£6m | Covid-19 pressures worsened delivery. |
| 2021/22 | ~£18m | ~£10m | ~£8m | Auditors flagged “significant weaknesses” in efficiency planning. |
| 2022/23 | ~£20m | ~£12m | ~£8m | Cash reserves dropped by £40.5m; borrowing increased. |
| 2023/24 | ~£22m | ~£13m | ~£9m | Declared “financial distress”; reserves fell by £58.1m since 2021. |
| 2024/25 | ~£10m | ~£6m | ~£15m | Net budget of £209m set initially later revised to £225m. |
| 2025/26 | ~£16m | ~£8m so far | ~£6m estimated | Figures only valid up to Q3 (Dec ’25) at time of publishing of this post. |
What This Means
- Persistent shortfall: Every year, the council has failed to deliver the full savings required.
- Reserves as fallback: The gap has been consistently plugged by reserves, which might now be dangerously depleted, but the Council doesn’t publish a figure of remaining reserves.
- Cumulative impact: Over seven years, projected efficiency savings totalled around £112m, but actual delivery was closer to £66m, leaving a gap of £78m.
The Bigger Picture
The pattern is clear: Bury Council does not know how to reach its own efficiency savings targets.
Announcing ambitious figures year after year without a credible delivery plan has created a cycle of missed targets and reserve depletion. Even with a significant increase in government funding, the council still expects to rely on reserves — a sign that the Council’s underlying financial strategy remains broken.
Reserves are not a bottomless pit. Once they are gone, the council will face harsher choices: deeper cuts to services, emergency government intervention, or both. The new £60m funding could help, but only if the council uses it to stabilise its finances rather than continuing the same pattern of over‑promising and under‑delivering.
Conclusion
Seven years of missed efficiency savings targets tell a clear story: Bury Council has consistently over‑promised and under‑delivered. Each year’s shortfall has been plugged by reserves, steadily draining the financial safety net.
Even with £60m in new funding over the next three years, the council still expects to use reserves in 2026 — a sign that the financial strategy is not working. Residents deserve leadership that can take control of the council’s finances, deliver statutory services well, and stop relying on reserves to paper over structural failings.
It’s time for a new approach, one grounded in realism, competence, and long‑term financial stability.
