On Wednesday 16th July 2025, Bury Council’s Labour group presented a motion to Full Council under the grandiose headline “Take Back Control of Our Highways.” At first glance, the motion might appear to be a robust step forward for Bury residents fed up with potholed roads, delays caused by utility companies, and the all-too-familiar sight of roads being dug up mere weeks after fresh resurfacing. However, on closer inspection, this motion looks less like meaningful local policy-making and more like a carefully stage-managed piece of political theatre, drafted to create headlines without delivering anything new.
Before we dive into the policy detail, let’s pause and consider the slogan itself: “Take Back Control.” Most people will immediately associate these words with Dominic Cummings and the Brexit Vote Leave campaign. The phrase was a key rallying cry designed to tap into anti-establishment sentiment, a cry against bureaucracy, against Brussels, and for British sovereignty. That Bury Labour is now recycling this exact phrase is, at best, tone-deaf and, at worst, an alarming sign of how populist slogans—no matter how tainted by association—have fully infected local government discourse. That’s before we even begin to note how closely this mirrors Reform UK’s typical campaigning tone about “taking back control” from faceless bureaucrats. For a local Labour group trying to sound serious and progressive, it’s an oddly reactionary choice.
The Political Performance of Pretending to Act
Let’s be clear: the lane rental scheme proposed in Bury’s motion is not original, new, or even the brainchild of Bury Council. The motion reads as though Bury Labour have come up with this solution themselves, bravely stepping up to protect residents and bring rogue utility companies to heel. In reality, this scheme has been under discussion for Greater Manchester as a whole for months, driven not by Bury but by Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM).
As reported in The Manchester Evening News (source) and confirmed by the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (source), TfGM has been coordinating a proposal for a Greater Manchester-wide lane rental scheme across all 10 local authorities, of which Bury is merely one. The intention is to replicate successful schemes similar to those introduced in Kent, Surrey, West Sussex, and London, where those councils already charge utility companies for occupying and obstructing highways during peak times. These charges encourage companies to finish works quickly and to coordinate between themselves, reducing inconvenience to residents, but are not meant to be money making schemes for the council.
Bury Labour, therefore, is not pioneering anything here. This is not an example of bold municipal leadership, despite Bury Labour group’s attempt to present it as such. Rather, it’s a piggybacking exercise—treating TfGM’s hard work as a local initiative for the sake of a press release.
Worse still, Bury Labour’s motion states it will “write to the Government calling for the introduction of legislation” to enable councils to implement lane rental schemes. This is embarrassing for two reasons.
Firstly, the legislation has existed since 2012. Councils have been able to apply for lane rental schemes for well over a decade. The application process is so straightforward that the UK Government helpfully hosts the forms online (see here). Other councils have been benefiting from this for years. Kent’s scheme, for instance, has been operational since 2013. London even longer.
Secondly, Bury Labour have had plenty of time to apply for this scheme themselves. Bury Labour have run the Council continuously through the entire period this legislation has been in force. They could have implemented this any time over the past decade. They didn’t. Now, they are suddenly desperate to appear proactive.
What Problem Is This Actually Solving?
The motion makes a lot of noise about “14 years of chronic underfunding” laying the blame at the previous government—possibly with some truth to that, but hardly news.
The motion complains, with some justification, about utility companies repeatedly digging up freshly resurfaced roads, botching repairs, and leaving pavements in worse condition. However, none of these problems are unique to Bury. That’s precisely why TfGM has been coordinating a region-wide solution.
The problem with this motion is that Bury Labour is trying to spin a Greater Manchester initiative as their own radical new policy. They seek to appear tough on utility companies while making no real new commitments or pledges. This is about looking busy without delivering anything the council wasn’t already going to have to do.
Reheated Ideas Disguised as New Thinking
What’s particularly disingenuous is the pretence that Bury Labour and therefore Bury Council is leading on this issue. TfGM is leading. Bury is following. Expect similar motions to be submitted across other Greater Manchester Labour councils in the coming months, each claiming credit for something centrally coordinated.
To their credit, TfGM is acting based on real data: in London, Kent, Surrey, and West Sussex, lane rental schemes have been proven to reduce congestion caused by street works. Companies either work faster, work off-peak, or coordinate between themselves to avoid multiple disruptive visits. The results? Less frustration for drivers, less cost to councils, and fewer broken promises on repair schedules.
But none of this is a Bury Labour innovation.
Why the Political Posturing?
Locally, Bury Labour are under pressure to demonstrate alignment with the narrative “Labour delivers, others destroy”. Motions like this one allow Bury Labour to posture as proactive, diligent, and responsive to residents’ complaints—even when the underlying action is neither new nor particularly challenging to implement.
By wrapping this relatively mundane policy in the Brexit-era language of “Taking Back Control,” Bury Labour are playing at populism. It’s the same playbook that we expect to see from Reform UK in next year’s local elections—pick a popular frustration, sound tough about it, suggest that only your party is willing to fix it, and repeat until polling day.
Conclusion: A Missed Opportunity to Be Honest
If Bury Labour genuinely wanted to lead on this issue, they could have implemented a lane rental scheme years ago. They didn’t. Now they are catching up and pretending it’s a bold new step.
There’s nothing wrong with following best practice, nothing wrong with aligning with TfGM’s proposals. But honesty about the origins of this scheme would have shown maturity. Instead, Bury’s Labour group has chosen to dress up someone else’s homework as their own visionary policy.
Meanwhile, residents will rightly ask: if this was so obvious, why didn’t you do it sooner?
For all the noise, slogans, and political point-scoring, Bury’s highways will only improve when the council stops performing and starts acting.
Postscript for Residents Who Want Facts, Not Slogans:
If you’re wondering how this policy will actually work once implemented, or why other councils have done it already, the CIHT’s press release and TfGM’s proposals are well worth a read. Kent and London’s successes show this isn’t rocket science. It’s just good governance—something we should expect without the need for self-congratulatory motions and recycled Brexit slogans.
