Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor S Arif

Members of Cabinet are asked to consider whether they have an interest in any of the matters of the Agenda and, if so, to formally declare that interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

Questions are invited from members of the public about the work of the Cabinet.

Notice of any question must be given to Democratic Services by midday on Monday, 12 October 2026. Approximately 30 minutes will be set aside for Public Question Time, if required.

Two questions were submitted in advance of the meeting by members of the public, Peter Liggins and Andy W Morris. Neither member of the public was present at the meeting, so in accordance with council procedures written responses will be sent to them by Democratic Services.

Fin McCaul asked whether Cabinet will defer approval of the proposed Prestwich Travel Hub parking charges until the Council has properly assessed the impact on access to essential NHS healthcare, the financial burden on existing businesses and their employees, and the consequences for Prestwich's daytime economy?

Responding, Councillor Morris advised that considerable work has gone to get to this point to make a recommendation to cabinet which includes the tariff structure.

Modelling has been done and we have started by looking at what the car park is used for and when, and how a tariff structure can balance the outcomes required. We also need to consider how to generate income for the council. 

There are already parking charges in Bury Town Centre, and it was important to ensure parity across the borough, and have concluded free parking after 6pm and a flat rate on a Sunday are positive ways forward to support residents in Prestwich. 

There is also an option for season tickets as part of the suggested tariff structure. Modelling for free parking during the day didn’t make financial sense and the Council are not in a position to subsidise the car park.

Councillor Morris offered to visit local businesses and discuss any further issues if required. 

Questions are invited from Elected Members about items on the Cabinet agenda. 15 minutes will be set aside for Member Question Time, if required.

Notice of any Member question must be given to the Monitoring Officer by midday Friday, 9 October 2026.

There were no Member questions submitted in advance.

Councillor Mike Smith highlighted an opportunity that could deliver in environmental and community benefits at land adjoining Outwood Country Park that was originally live for public auction but following discussions with the company, agreement principle has been secured for the land to be transferred to the council for a nominal sum of £1.00.

Councillor Smith asked whether cabinet would explore the financial, ecological and legal implications of acquiring the land; expedite the land and keep Friends of Outwood and Cllr Smith involved as the proposal develops.

Councillor O’Brien thanked Councillor Smith for bringing this opportunity to the Cabinet’s attention and agreed this is a positive opportunity but there is a need to review risks and liabilities. 

Councillor Thorpe added that the council need to ensure there are no liabilities as there has been a request for the purchasers of this site to indemnify the sellers of any historical and ongoing issues associated with the land.  Councillor Thorpe committed to tasking officers to look into the opportunity and to meeting with Councillor Smith on a regular basis and keeping him updated. 

Councillor Simpson questioned the agreement in place at Milltown Road that has been in place since 10 October 2023 where the land had been handed over to the community for an initial period of three years. In February 2026 there was works carried out on the site for which there was no communication or consideration given to the residents who have been maintaining the site.

Substantial works has taken place on the meadow by residents including the purchase of bulbs and wildflower seeds.

Councillor Simpson asked if the cabinet decide to take the green space away from the community, how does it intend to compensate the hundreds of hours and funding spent maintaining the area over the last few years. 

Councillors O’Brien apologised to Councillor Simpson and the community for the lack of communication leading up to the initial work. 

Councillor Thorpe added that we are aware of the agreement and that although it is not a legally binding agreement, it is important that the council operates in good faith. We would be willing to work in collaboration with the local residents. 

The Monitoring Officer confirmed she would look at the compensation issue but as there is no formal legal agreement the initial advice would be that it is not the case that compensation would flow from that. 

Minutes from the meeting held on Wednesday, 9 September 2026 are attached.

It was agreed:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2026 be approved as a correct record.

This report has been deferred until the December Cabinet meeting.

This item has been deferred and will now be considered in December 2026.

Report of the Cabinet Member for Housing Services is attached.

Councillor A Arif introduced the report seeking Cabinet approval for two minor amendments to the Council's Housing Allocations Policy following its annual review. The changes are intended to strengthen homelessness prevention and provide appropriate operational flexibility while maintaining the overall principles and priorities of the existing allocations scheme.

Councillor Rydeheard asked a question around forecasting and whether there are any additional costs associated with the policy?

Sian Grant, Director of Housing confirmed that it is really rare that a case doesn’t fit within the criteria and that this only occurs when we have complex cases.

Councillor Vernon queried ‘retiring service attendants’ and whether this would relate to someone who was made redundant rather than retiring.

Councillor A Arif confirmed that there is only one tied tenancy and that the occupant is not affected by redundancy.

Decision(s)

Cabinet:

·         Approved the amendments to the Allocations policy.

Reasons for decision(s)

·         The council has properties it lets to employees such as caretakers or park wardens as part of their employment contract. When these employees retire they lose their service tenancy and are at risk of becoming homeless. In order to prevent them becoming homeless and to ensure they enjoy a planned rehousing move it is recommended that the Allocations Policy is amended to allow for a direct let to a council tenancy at the point of retirement.

·         The policy should reserve discretion to the Director of Housing make direct lets in such circumstances she considers necessary subject to the law and aims of the policy. Such lettings should be very few in number and will not affect overall compliance with the law. 

Alternative options considered and rejected

·         Do nothing and not amend the Allocations Policy. This option has been rejected as it would leave long standing employees at risk of homelessness and will avoid the Director of Housing having to seek cabinet approval for individual direct lettings under the policy. 

Report of the Leader is attached.

Councillor O’Brien introduced the report seeking Cabinet approval of the Bentley Project Management sum of £423k, to cover the remaining Stage 2B period, and subsequent Stage 3 works, concluding the scheme’s Pre-Construction Period and highlighting that this is an important development site for both Bury and wider area.

Councillor Rydeheard queried the provisional maximum and whether any allowances have been made of if this would be exceeded and whether there is any room for manoeuvre.

Councillor O’Brien confirmed that we are not forecasting to exceed it.  If we do go over for any reason, would need to return to cabinet to make an additional decision.

Councillor Vernon queried paragraph 16 around Councils commercial risk and the included break clause and mechanisms.  If costs do spiral out of control are the developers liable as much as Bury Council. 

Councillor O’Brien advised that at this stage we can have a lot more certainty around the budget, however projects do get delayed and costs increase.  We are attempting to pre-empt this and can be reasonably assured that this a is a robust estimate and provide assurance that there are checks and balances in the approach. 

Decision(s)

Cabinet:

a.   Delegated final acceptance of Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Ltd Stage 3 contract sum, up to a provisional maximum of £3,129,915, covering the finalisation of the Detailed Design/ Full Business Case stage work packages (Stage 3), to the Director of Law and Democratic Services in consultation with the Executive Director of Place and Director of Finance and the Leader.

b.   Approved the Bentley Project Management (UK) Limited contract sum of £423,000 covering the remaining Pre-Construction Stages of the scheme (finalisation of Stage 2b Outline Business Case/ Preliminary Design stage, and Stage 3 Full Business Case/ Detailed Design stage). 

c.    Accepted the remaining £8.5 million of Investment Zone capital grant funding allocated to the Western Access scheme, for inclusion in the Council’s Capital Programme.

Reasons for decision(s)

·         The Western Access scheme (Pilsworth Road Corridor Improvements) is a cross-boundary scheme with Rochdale Council, and will provide the necessary off-site, highway and transportation infrastructure required to access the early development phases of the Northern Gateway Investment Zone (IZ) site (JPA 1.1 allocation). The construction of the Western Access scheme will create the potential capacity to unlock up to 600,000 sqm of employment generating uses and support the creation of high quality, employment floor space, including space within the advanced manufacturing and foundational sectors. 

·         The completion of on-going Stage 2b activities to finalise the Outline Business Case (OBC) for the Western Access scheme will result in a preferred option for the scheme being identified and associated Preliminary Designs and an updated scheme budget estimate being prepared. Importantly, the OBC will also provide the robust strategic, economic, commercial and financial cases for the scheme. This in turn will provide the firm foundation for the development of the subsequent Stage 3 Full Business Case (FBC), which will confirm detailed designs and costings. 

·         Investment Zone (IZ) year one revenue grant funding was allocated  ...  view the full minutes text for item CA.79

Report of the Cabinet Member for Adult Care, Health and Public Service Reform is attached.

Councillor Tariq introduced the report seeking Cabinet approval to adopt a new Shareholder Agreement between Bury Council and Persona Group Ltd. and highlighted that the proposed new agreement has been developed collaboratively between the Council and Persona, with legal input. It clarifies governance, strengthens the relationship between the parties, supports service improvement and growth, and sets out arrangements for any future surpluses.

There were no comments or questions

Decision(s)

Cabinet

·         Approved to adopt the new Persona Shareholder Agreement 

Reasons for decision(s)

·         To explore the potential for providing Persona with greater flexibility in decision making to facilitate growth in high quality service delivery by a local company which provides giving a strengths-based approach to care and support of older residents and those living with learning disabilities.

Alternative options considered and rejected

·         Do nothing – Persona will be unable to respond fully to the department of health and adult care commissioning intentions and potentially miss out on growth opportunities

Report of the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People is attached

Councillor Walmsley introduced the report seeking Cabinet approval for the grant of a new lease for the premises occupied by the Elms Bank College Hub, located within the former St Monica's Sixth Form buildings in Prestwich. The facility is currently leased by Oak Learning Partnership (OLP) from Salford Roman Catholic Diocesan Trustees (StoC) and provides specialist post-16 educational provision for young people with Special Educational Needs (SEN).

Councillor O’Brien highlighted that this is a welcome opportunity to continue working with the Trust. 

There were no comments or questions

Decision(s)

Cabinet:

a.    Approved the current heads of terms for the grant of the new lease and associated indemnity agreement 

b.    Delegated any minor variations to the final heads of terms or Indemnity Agreement to the Assistant Director of Corporate Assets and Facilities Management.

c.    Delegated the signing of the lease, Indemnity Agreement and any associated documents to Councils Monitoring Officer.

Reasons for decision(s)

·         The grant of the new lease secures the operation of the Elms Bank College Hub without major capital expenditure for in the medium term. 

Alternative options considered and rejected

·         Not to agree to the agreement to the new lease

o   In this scenario the OLP would have to vacate the existing buildings in August 2027.

o   The Council would need to secure a suitable site and spend several million pounds on modular accommodation to ensure provision could continue past August 2027.

o   Without alternative provision OLP would in effect need to close the provision.

o   As such, this option has been discounted.

Report of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services is attached.

 The Leader advised that two members of the public, Jacqueline Daley and Elaina Daley, wished to raise questions concerning the proposed disposal. As they had been unable to attend the earlier public question session, the Leader permitted them to put their questions before Cabinet considered the report.

Elaina Daley referred to the number of bungalows in the vicinity and the needs of older and vulnerable residents. She asked how residents would be protected from any anti-social behaviour associated with a future use of the site. Jacqueline Daley asked how residents would be supported in relation to pupils travelling to and from any future educational provision.

Councillor Thorpe clarified that the item before Cabinet concerned only the proposed disposal of the land. He stated that pupils attending alternative provision should not be stereotyped and that specialist staff would support pupils if the proposed educational development progressed.

Councillor Walmsley similarly cautioned against stigma associated with alternative provision. She advised that the Council had not received complaints about its two existing alternative provision sites and that any future anti-social behaviour concerns would be addressed through the appropriate police and community safety arrangements. She also noted that any development would remain subject to the relevant planning and other approval processes.

The Leader confirmed that further decisions would be required before any development could take place. He undertook to maintain communication and provide opportunities for residents to engage as the proposals developed.

Councillor Thorpe introduced the report, which asked Cabinet to consider the objections received following the statutory advertisement of the proposed disposal of public open space on the north side of Milton Road, Radcliffe, and to determine whether the disposal should proceed.

Councillor Birchmore expressed concern that the report included the formal objections but did not reproduce the comments made at the separate engagement event held on 29 September 2026. She asked why there was no detailed report of attendance and feedback from that event; why the event appeared to focus on the proposed alternative provision rather than the disposal; why Cabinet Members had not attended; whether Cabinet Members had read the section 123 material; and how many had visited the site.

Councillor Thorpe responded that the attendance of education officers had enabled residents to obtain information about the possible future use of the site. He confirmed that he had not attended the event or previously visited the site, but was familiar with the location and had read the section 123 report. The Leader confirmed that he had visited the site on a number of occasions and acknowledged that discussion of the disposal and the proposed educational development, which was the next item on the agenda, could overlap.

The Monitoring Officer clarified that the statutory process under section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972 was distinct from the later engagement event. She advised that the statutory advertisement had run from 27 August to 3 September 2026 and that the report set out the objections received during that period. The event held on 29  ...  view the full minutes text for item CA.82

Report of the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People is attached.

Councillor Walmsley introduced the report seeking to progress the delivery of a new permanent facility for the Ash Grove Alternative Provision (AP) Academy on the proposed Milton Road site in Radcliffe. The proposal represents a significant investment in the borough's education infrastructure and forms a key element of the Council's commitment to improving outcomes for some of Bury's most vulnerable children and young people.

The Council has a statutory responsibility to ensure that appropriate educational provision is available for children who are unable to access mainstream education. In December 2024, the Council entered into a legal agreement with Oak Learning Partnership (OLP) to provide a permanent, single-site location for Ash Grove Alternative Provision Academy by September 2028. The proposed development will replace the current temporary arrangements across multiple sites, creating a modern, purpose-built facility capable of accommodating up to 136 pupils in an inclusive, supportive, and adaptable learning environment.

The development will support the delivery of the Council's Alternative Provision Strategy; address identified gaps in local educational provision and ensure compliance with statutory and contractual obligations. Importantly, it will provide a long-term, sustainable solution that improves educational opportunities, strengthens support for vulnerable learners, and reduces the Council's reliance on temporary accommodation and external provision arrangements.

The Council has a statutory duty under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 to provide suitable education for children who cannot attend mainstream school due to exclusion, illness, or other reasons. Alternative Provision (AP) is therefore not discretionary; it is a legal requirement.  Bury currently lacks a permanent site for its main AP. Following relocation from the former Spring Lane site, provision operates from temporary accommodation across two locations, creating operational inefficiencies, and limiting the development of a coherent local Alternative Provision offer for our children.

Councillor Birchmore queried why the cost per pupil is so much higher than star academy and whether we know how many permanent exclusions there were last year?

Councillor Walmsley confirmed that  alternative provision costs more per pupil than general population schooling.  She also confirmed there were 66 permanent exclusions last year. 

Ben Dunne, Director, Education & Skills added that permanent exclusions across Bury are far too high compared to our Greater Manchester neighbours. The vast majority of our suspensions and permanent exclusions sit in secondary schools.  This is also a national issue.  An alternative provision academy that provides a genuine inclusion hub, outreach support, short term intervention places and provides a centre for excellence all hinge around a provision setting that can focus on those things.  This is an opportunity to intervene earlier and support schools earlier so they don’t find themselves in a situation where they have to permanently exclude children. 

As we haven’t had these options in Bury before, we have had to rely on expensive independent specialist placements, out of borough provision, high transport costs, crisis interventions, and high numbers of youngsters going  into youth justice.

Alternative provision can be a turning point for young people.  Perception that the new alternative provision is for a new  ...  view the full minutes text for item CA.83

Report of the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People is attached.

Councillor Walmsley introduced the report seeking approval for Bury Council to join the expanded Greater Manchester End-to-End Fostering Hub, hosted by Rochdale Borough Council, which would manage fostering recruitment, assessment and approval functions on behalf of all ten Greater Manchester authorities and is a corner stone of the GM Regional Care Cooperative, leading on the commissioning and sufficiency of homes for children in care.

Councillor Walmsley highlighted that Bury, like other councils across Greater Manchester, faces increasing challenges in recruiting and retaining foster carers. This has contributed to greater reliance on costly residential placements and external provision. The proposed model aims to increase the number of approved foster carers through a more consistent, specialist and regional approach.

Councillor Rydeheard commented that it is a positive thing to retain kinship element.

Decision(s)

Cabinet:

·       Endorsed the proposal for the transition from the current Greater Manchester Fostering Recruitment Hub model to an end-to-end regional fostering hub model hosted by Rochdale Council.

·       Noted the national policy context, including the Government's ambition to create 10,000 additional fostering placements and the associated Department for Education funding opportunities available to participating authorities.

·       Noted and agreed the delegation of agreement by the Director of Children’s Services (in consultation with other authorities and the portfolio holder for Children’s Services and the S151 officer) of the proposed funding formula and resource contributions for fiscal years 2026/27 and 2027/28.

·       Noted and agreed the proposed HR recommendation on 2-year secondment opportunities for the staff in scope. Secondment is subject to staff in scope consenting.

·       Delegated authority to the Director of Children's Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Children's Services and Education and the Monitoring Officer, to implement those arrangements and approve any operational matters necessary for their delivery.

Reasons for decision(s) 

·       Securing sufficient fostering households remains a significant challenge for Bury and across Greater Manchester and beyond. By the end of 2024/25, the number of Greater Manchester children in mainstream fostering placements was 7% lower than six years earlier, with a sharper 10% reduction in in-house mainstream placements. Over the same period, mainstream residential placements across all provider types increased by 41%. The resulting increased reliance on residential care continues to create significant financial pressure across all Greater Manchester Local Authority budgets. The latest published outturn figures for local authority revenue expenditure suggest that Greater Manchester collectively spent at least £920m on children’s social care across 2024/25, including £530m purely on children in care, chiefly their homes.

·       In 2025/2026 the Greater Manchester Fostering Hub received 86 enquiries from carers interested in fostering for Bury and this led to 27 initial visits. The 27 initial visits led to 14 applications and assessments commencing and at the end of the year 3 approvals had been made, a further 2 assessments were ongoing. This shows that the Hub received a reasonable number of enquiries (86) and 43% (27) of these enquiries led to a home visit. 52% (14) of home visits to prospective foster carers led to an application and assessment but only  ...  view the full minutes text for item CA.84

Report of the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People is attached.

Councillor Walmsley introduced the report seeking Cabinet approval for Bury's proposed implementation approach to the national Families First Partnership Programme (FFPP). The reforms aim to shift children's services towards earlier intervention, prevention, stronger multi-agency safeguarding, and greater involvement of families in decision-making.

Councillor Rydeheard queried the grant funding and whether we have anticipated the possibility that the funding may get cut and our response in the event that it does.

Councillor Walmsley confirmed that it has been taken into consideration and that safeguards would need to be put in place to ensure the service can continue.

Decision (s)

Cabinet

a.    Approved the implementation of the Families First Partnership Programme operating model as set out in this report.

b.    Approved the use of Families First Partnership Programme grant funding to support implementation of the model and associated service transformation arrangements.

c.     Approved commencement of formal consultation with affected staff and trade unions regarding the proposed organisational and staffing changes arising from implementation of the Programme.

d.    Delegated authority to the Executive Director of Children and Young People, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People and the Monitoring Officer, to take such actions as are necessary to implement the approved model and associated operational arrangements. 

e.    Noted that implementation of the Programme will contribute to compliance with relevant statutory duties and the reforms introduced by the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026.

Reasons for decision(s) 

·       Implementation of the Families First Partnership Programme is part of the national children's social care reform programme and provides Bury with an opportunity to strengthen our Family Safeguarding model of practice, while also delivering services in line with relevant statutory guidance, including Working Together to Safeguard Children, and the Families First Partnership Programme delivery expectations

·       Families First is a significant system reform programme that will improve outcomes for children and families through earlier intervention, strengthened multi-agency safeguarding and greater family involvement in decision-making. Approval will enable the Council and its partners to comply with national policy expectations, secure the benefits of government investment, establish robust governance and accountability arrangements, and support the delivery of a sustainable, integrated model of family support across Bury

Alternative options considered and rejected

The Families First Partnership Programme is a national reform programme supported by programme guidance, grant conditions and elements of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, which seeks to reform how services to children and families are delivered by local authority children's services and partner agencies

Report of the Cabinet Member for Adult Care, Health and Public Service Reform is attached.

Councillor Tariq introduced the report seeking to approve a new 10-year lease for Units 6B and 6C at Bridge Trading Estate, which are used by Bury Adult Care Equipment Services. These premises provide the operational base for the storage, management and distribution of essential equipment, aids and adaptations that help residents remain safe and independent at home. The service also supports hospital discharge and helps avoid unnecessary admissions. The previous lease has ended following notice served by the landlord, and terms have now been agreed for a new lease running from May 2025 to May 2035. The proposed rent is higher than the current rent, but reflects current market conditions and avoids the significant cost, disruption and service risk associated with relocation.

Cllr Rydeheard asked a question on the market conditions and what assessments or considerations have taken place as to whether the market conditions are at a premium to what they otherwise would have been under market conditions as they are.

Roger Frith, Assistant Director of Corporate Assets & Facilities Management confirmed that the rent is reasonable at the moment for units that size.

Councillor Birchmore queried what the items were that are stored at this facility.

Councillor Tariq confirmed the equipment stored at the facility included hoists, specialist and stair lifts. 

Decision(s)

Cabinet

·       Approved a 10-year lease of 6b & 6c Bridge Trading Estate, on the terms set out in this report, to enable Adult Care Equipment Services to remain in occupation 

Reasons for decision(s)

·       Adult Care Equipment Services provides an essential service and requires secure, uninterrupted occupation of suitable premises to maintain continuity of service.

Alternative options considered and rejected

·       Vacation of the unit - This would create a direct risk to the continuity of Adult Care Equipment Services. The unit is already configured for the storage, management and distribution of equipment, aids and adaptations, and loss of occupation would disrupt an essential operational service that supports residents to remain safe and independent at home. Vacation would mean either: 

o   Finding alternative premises - This option has been rejected because there are no readily available alternative premises currently identified that would provide an equivalent operational base. Moving the service would require the Council to source suitable accommodation, negotiate terms, undertake any necessary fit-out works, relocate equipment and manage transition arrangements. This would create additional cost, operational risk and potential service disruption. It may also give rise to reinstatement liabilities at the existing premises.

o   Close the equipment store - This option has been rejected because the store support the provision of equipment to residents with care and support needs. Closure would therefore undermine the Council’s ability to maintain continuity of an essential Adult Care service.

Report of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment, Climate Change and Operations is attached.

Councillor Smith introduced the report seeking to support the maintenance and improvement of Bury’s highway assets for 2026/27.

Councillor  Birchmore queried the resurfacing scheme for 26/27 on the website it states ‘to be confirmed’, when will the council determine which roads will be resurfaced?

Councillor Smith confirmed that historically had stated all the roads that were planned to be completed but due to various reasons this does have to change.  Details will be updated as we purchase the blocks and works are confirmed.

Councillor Rydeheard queried whether the factors contained in the draft budget have been taken into account as to feasibility for the delivery timescale and what impacts that could have on delaying some of the proposals set out.

Councillor Smith confirmed that a proposed change in structure of the highways team is being consulted on.  Vacancies are being held in line with this.

Decision(s)

Cabinet

·       Approved the Highways Capital Investment Programme and associated funding allocation set out in Table 2.

·       Approved the proposed asset management and prioritisation approach used to determine investment priorities across the highway network, as detailed in Appendix 1. 

·       Approved the proposed works on culverts and structures detailed Appendix 2. 

·       Noted the previously approved road safety programme detail in Appendix 3. 

·       Delegated authority to Executive Director of Place, in consultation with Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Smith Cabinet Member for Environment, Climate Change and Operations to approve amendments to the programme of work and prioritisation method where required, to respond to changing asset condition, emerging risks, funding opportunities and delivery considerations.

Reasons for Decision(s)

·       The Council, as the Highway Authority for Bury, has a statutory duty to maintain the public highway and associated infrastructure, including structures deemed to be publicly maintainable. The proposed programme provides a balanced and risk-based approach to managing the borough's highway assets, ensuring investment is targeted towards those interventions that deliver the greatest benefit in terms of safety, asset condition, network resilience and long-term value for money. 

·       The programme has been developed using asset management principles to prioritise investment based on condition, risk and network need, helping to manage deterioration across the network, protect previous investment and reduce future maintenance liabilities. It supports the Council's wider priorities for economic growth, connectivity, thriving communities and resilient public infrastructure. 

·       Approval of the programme will also enable the Council to utilise external funding allocations within the conditions and delivery timescales attached to those funding streams, including the Mayor's Pothole Fund, CRSTS and Integrated Transport Block funding. Failure to commit funding through an approved programme risks delaying delivery, affecting spend profiles and reducing the Council's ability to maximise the benefits of available investment within the required funding periods. 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

·       Alternative investment approaches have been considered. However, the recommended programme represents the most effective use of available funding based on asset condition, risk, deliverability and strategic need. The proposed approach ensures investment is prioritised transparently and consistently in accordance with the Council's Highway Asset Management Plan and the requirements of external  ...  view the full minutes text for item CA.87

Report of the Cabinet Member for Adult Care, Health and Public Service Reform is attached.

Councillor Tariq introduced the report seeking approval to accept and allocate £676,000 of Greater Manchester Live Well under the terms of a grant agreement with GMCA funding for both Year 2 and Year 3 of the programme.

The Live Well programme is a Greater Manchester initiative designed to reduce health, social and economic inequalities through neighbourhood-based support, stronger community networks, and integrated public services.

Councillor Smith welcomed the paper and thanked the team for the transformation in Besses. 

Councillor Birchmore highlighted that pride in place funding is not money for the council nor should it be treated as a replacement for council funding.

Councillor Tariq clarified that there is no intent on our behalf to present this as a replacement. 

Decision(s)

Cabinet

1.    Noted the good progress of Live Well year 1 funding to establish the Whitefield Live Well centre in Besses and note the VCFA utilisation of half of the grant award to support the Live Well centre and invest in community capacity in Whitefield and beyond.

2.    Approved entering into a further grant agreement to secure the £676,000 from GMCA for Years 2 and 3 and the allocation of £338,000 to Bury VCFA in each year, subject to appropriate grant funding arrangements. 

3.    Noted the priorities for VCFA investment in Year 2 and approve the proposals for spend for the Year 2 Council element of the grant funding.

4.    Agreed a framework for prioritisation of Live Well investment across the borough for year 3.

Reasons for decision(s) 

•       Approval of the recommendations secures £676,000 from the GM Live Well Fund for year 2 and year 3 and provides for investment in the Bury VCFA of half of that in each year - £338,000 – to continue the implementation of Live Well in the borough following the year 1 pilot in Whitefield.  The GM Live Well programme does not require match funding and is completely aligned with the principles of the LETS Do It Strategy.  

Alternative options considered and rejected

•       The alternative option to obtaining the grant funding is to not receive it which is a missed opportunity to deliver a key aspect of the council Lets Do It strategy, with no benefit.

•       It will be noted it is a condition of the grant that 50% of the funding received should be spent with the local voluntary and community sector.  There is an alternative that would see the Council administer multiple grants to local voluntary and community sector colleagues rather than inviting the VCFA to lead that, but it would require additional administrative and management resource in the council to do that and VCFA have well established and mature grant management processes and knowledge of the voluntary and community sector in the borough.  This alternative is therefore rejected.

A report of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Transformation is attached.

Councillor Thorpe introduced the report highlighting that the 2026/27 Final Budget Report presented to Budget Council on 25 February 2026 set out the Council’s budget requirement for the 2026/27 financial year and provided details on the Council’s reserves position. This report presents an updated budget position for 2027/28, comprising a refreshed budget assumptions and funding movements and a draft revenue savings.

Councillor Thorpe confirmed that the proposed review of the youth service and participation has now been removed from the consultation.

Councillor Rydeheard  confirmed there were lots of pre submitted questions from members and a useful discussion was held at Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  

Councillor Rydeheard queried the 75k saving in waste collection and highlighted he is dealing with missed bins in his ward and asked what more detail can be provided and clarity that this proposal won’t impact residents any further.

Councillor Thorpe advised the savings are being achieved you the rationalisation of the service to make it more efficient.

Councillor Smith confirmed we are not proposing to remove any waste collection rounds but acknowledged that there are problems in certain areas that need to be reviewed. 

Councillor Rydeheard advised members had discussed the garden waste charge at Overview and Scrutiny and the possibility this could lead to a net loss and queried whether there were any plans to try to forecast what that is likely to be and whether we could map the impact this could have?

Councillor Thorpe advised that at Overview and Scrutiny they discussed the potential impacts of implementing this policy which could have a detrimental impact on delivering this policy.  There is a plausibility that it doesn’t work however, work to date shows that we would be able to deliver this effectively as have several other councils in Greater Manchester.

Councillor L Smith advised that there is some risks but we are going to be mitigating them really well. As part of the improvement programme, there will be a waste strategy and this policy would sit within this. 

Councillor Vernon queried the response he received when he asked a question about the green waste levy several years ago and what has changed since then.

Councillor Thorpe highlighted that circumstances change over time and that this is being included within a wider waste strategy to help meet our 2035 targets.

Councillor O’Brien advised that there is a lot more genuine uncertainty on the impact this would have several years ago.  Lots of authorities across the country do this already and Stockport and Trafford have now since implemented it.  We can now say with greater certainty what impacts implementing this policy will have. The financial position is very challenging so proposals that we may not have considered in the past need to be looked at now.

Councillor Birchmoer felt there was some information around costings that was missing from the proposals and would like this information to be brought back to Overview and Scrutiny to enable them to review the proposals properly.

Councillor Thorpe responded that  ...  view the full minutes text for item CA.89

Report of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth is attached.

Councillor Morris introduced the report seeking approval for the strategy, charging and tariff structure to enable the Travel Hub to be open and fully operational within the required timeline.

Councillor Rydeheard queried whether there was a mechanism in place to the council to hold APCOA to account if anything does go wrong?

Councillor Morris confirmed that the car park would be operated using ANPR and barriers so the likelihood of incorrect fines being issued were minimal.  

Councillor Birchmore queried whether any funds in terms of parking have to be ringfenced?

Councillor O’Brien confirmed that the council cannot use it for income generation.   Any income is ringfenced around the wider service.

Neil Kissock, Director of Finance confirmed that we will have ringfence and statutory car park account that will have full transparency on how it has been collected and utilised.

Councillor Rydeheard queried whether there was an agreement in place for this particular car park that the payment of charges goes to the land owner and payment of fines go to the operator?

Councillor Morris confirmed that we pay a cost to APCOA each year and any income received will go towards paying that.

Decision(s)

Cabinet:

·       Acknowledged APCOA Parking (UK) Limited (Company number 02572947) as the appointed third-party operator for the Travel Hub. 

·       Approved the operations strategy to facilitate the opening of the Travel Hub.

·       Approved the introduction of parking charges and other charges in the new Prestwich Travel Hub and subsequent agreement to the implementation of a tariff structure as set out in Section 8 of this report.

Reasons for recommendation(s) 

·       To successfully facilitate the Travel Hub opening to the public (once APCOA is fully mobilised) now construction of the building is practically complete and is within the Council’s ownership.

·       To enable the Travel Hub to have an operations strategy including a charging and parking tariff structure in place to generate income and cover APCOA’s operational costs for managing the facility.  Opening the Travel Hub without implementing charging would mean that the Council would need to subsidise the facility by approximately £300,000 per annum.

Alternative options considered and rejected

·       Not agreeing to the operations strategy but this would prevent the Travel Hub from opening.

·       Not introducing a charges and parking tariff structure but this would prevent the Council from generating income to be able to cover the costs of a third-party operator managing the Travel Hub.

·       Various parking tariff options have been considered and financially modelled, but the recommended option is in keeping (as much as possible) with the current parking tariffs within Bury Town Centre (noting the differences between the operation of a surface-level car park and a building) and overall, represents best value for money, including meeting the annual operating costs of APCOA.

A report of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment, Climate Change and Operations is attached

Councillor L Smith introduced the report seeking Cabinet approval for interim and longer-term contractual arrangements that will maintain parking and moving traffic enforcement services and support an integrated, resilient and value-for-money service.

There were no comments or questions.

Decision(s)

Cabinet

·       Noted that the previous enforcement services contract with Marston (Holdings) Limited (Company number 04305487) expired on 31 August 2026 and that services have continued to be provided by the incumbent supplier. 

·       Approved the use of  a compliant procurement framework  to  award  a short  call-off contract for value of £600,000 to Marston (Holdings) Limited (Company number 04305487) for the continued provision of enforcement services pending procurement of a long-term solution. This short-term contract to commence  following approval and expiring on 31st March 2027

·       Authorised the Executive Director (Place), in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment, Climate Change and Operations and Director of Law and Democratic Services, to finalise and enter into the framework call-off contract and ancillary documentation.

·       Approved commencement of a procurement exercise for a replacement long-term enforcement services contract for a value of £5,000,000.

·       Authorised the Executive Director (Place), in consultation with the Cabinet Member  for Environment, Climate Change and Operations and Director of Law and Democratic Services, to undertake all steps necessary to conduct the procurement process.

·       Authorised the Executive Director (Place), in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment, Climate Change and Operations and Director of Law and Democratic Services, to award and enter into the replacement contract following completion of the procurement process, subject to approved budget and procurement parameters. 

·       Delegated authority to approve lawful contract modifications, mobilisation arrangements and ancillary contractual documentation required in connection with the framework call-off contract or replacement contract

Reasons for decision(s) 

·       The Council is required to maintain effective parking and moving traffic enforcement services to support its statutory traffic management responsibilities. The proposed short term framework call off arrangement will provide service continuity whilst a longer term procurement is undertaken. The longer term procurement will enable the Council to develop a more integrated enforcement service, improving operational efficiency, accountability and value for money. The recommendations provide an appropriate governance framework to support both the immediate service requirements and the future delivery of enforcement services.

Alternative options considered and rejected

·       Alternative delivery and procurement options were considered as part of the review of future enforcement arrangements. The recommended approach was considered to provide the most appropriate balance of service continuity, operational effectiveness, value for money and future flexibility. Other options were not progressed as they were not considered to deliver the Council's requirements as effectively as the proposed approach.

To consider the minutes of meeting of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority held on 10 July 2026.

It was agreed:

That the minutes of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority meeting held on 10 July 2026 be noted.

Any other business which by reason of special circumstances the Chair agrees may be considered as a matter of urgency.

There was no urgent business.

To consider passing the appropriate resolution under Section 100 (A)(4), Schedule 12(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, that the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the reason that the following business involves the disclosure of exempt information as detailed against the item.

Decision:

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting under Section 100 (A)(4), Schedule 12(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, for the reason that the following business involves the disclosure of exempt information as detailed against the item.

Report of the Cabinet Member for Adult Care, Health and Public Service Reform is attached.

Councillor T Tariq presented the Part B report which included the full financial details.

Decision(s)

Cabinet:

1. Adopted the new Persona Shareholder Agreement

Reasons for recommendation(s)

2. To explore the potential for providing Persona with greater flexibility in decision making to facilitate growth in high quality service delivery by a local company which provides giving a strengths-based approach to care and support of older residents and those living with learning disabilities.

Alternative options considered and rejected

3. Do nothing – Persona will be unable to respond fully to the department of health and adult care commissioning intentions and potentially miss out on growth opportunities

Report of the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People is attached.

Councillor Walmsley presented the Part B report which included the full financial details. 

Decision(s)

1. Cabinet
   1. Approved the current heads of terms for the grant of the new lease.
   2. Delegated any minor variations to the final heads of terms to the Assistant Director of Corporate Assets and Facilities Management.
   3. Delegated the signing of the lease and any associated documents to Councils Monitoring Officer.

Reasons for recommendation(s)

2. The grant of the new lease secures the operation of the Elms Bank College Hub without major capital expenditure for in the medium term.

Councillor Walmsley introduced the Part B report which included the full financial details. 

Decision(s)

1. Cabinet:

a.    Approved the implementation of the Families First Partnership Programme operating model as set out in the Part A: Families First Partnership Programme report.

2. Approved the use of Families First Partnership Programme grant funding to support implementation of the model and associated service transformation arrangements.

3. Approved commencement of formal consultation with affected staff and trade unions regarding the proposed organisational and staffing changes arising from implementation of the Programme as set out in the Part A Families First Programme report, and noting the additional detail provided in this report.

4. Delegated authority to the Executive Director of Children and Young People, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People and the Monitoring Officer, to take such actions as are necessary to implement the approved model and associated operational arrangements.

5. Noted that implementation of the Programme will contribute to compliance with relevant statutory duties and the reforms introduced by the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026.

Reasons for decision(s)

2. Refer to report - Part A Families First Partnership Programme.

Alternative options considered and rejected

3. Refer to report - Part A Families First Partnership Programme.