Lancashire budget simulator

£0

£0

£0

£0

£0

£0

• Reduced local support and social interaction would limit independence and connection.
• Many vulnerable adults could see changes to their essential care, with some unable to remain safely at home.
• Day services and community hubs may close or operate on a reduced basis, increasing risks of isolation, hospitalisation, carer breakdown and fewer opportunities for prevention or enablement.

£0

• These changes could reduce access to community support, limit independence and increase reliance on hospital care.
• Care needs being met in different ways and a reduction in specialist staff would leave more people with reduced support at home, raising risks of admission or delayed discharge.
• Changes to day centre hours and reduced respite would place greater strain on carers and families.

£0

• This would mean longer waits, reduced day service hours and less home-based care and short-term support after hospital discharge available.
• Carers may have less respite and community services could face reduced hours, increasing delays in assessments and support. 
• Services would need to find additional efficiency savings through staffing, procurement, technology, and income generation.

£0

A recent CQC inspection highlighted the need to address inequities in service experience, strengthen workforce recruitment and retention, reduce assessment waiting times and improve communication systems. Without action in line with the Care Act 2014, the service risks failing to deliver fair, timely and sustainable support, with consequences for both compliance and public confidence.

£0

• Significant reductions in emergency social work, including mental health and out‑of‑hours provision, would create high risks for people we support, their families and communities due to delays in responding to urgent requests for help.
• Safeguarding capacity would be severely limited, leaving many adults at risk of abuse or neglect without timely support.
• Preventative work would cease, and only the most critical cases could be investigated, increasing the likelihood of harm and exposing the council to potential legal and regulatory consequences.

£0

• Social workers would have to prioritise only the most urgent cases, with routine or lower-risk concerns facing long waits.
• Support for carers and families would be reduced and some adults at risk may not receive timely intervention, increasing the likelihood of harm.

£0

• Delays in responding to safeguarding alerts could leave adults at risk for longer.
• Fewer assessments would be completed and social workers would have less time to support each individual, potentially missing early signs of abuse or neglect.
• Services would need to find additional efficiency savings through staffing, procurement, technology, and income generation.

£0

Our workforce is central to safeguarding and we hugely value the role staff play in keeping people safe from harm. Building stability across teams, reducing reliance on agency cover and improving recruitment and retention are essential to sustaining strong safeguarding practice. The recent CQC inspection recognised the importance of consistency in service experience and highlighted areas for improvement. Without sustained action, the service risks falling short of delivering fair, timely, and sustainable support, with consequences for both compliance and public confidence.

£0

• Only statutory public health duties (for example: outbreak management, emergency response, minimum mandated services) would be delivered.
• Most health improvement, wellbeing, and community safety programmes would be withdrawn.
• The risk of poor health outcomes, preventable illness, and community harm would rise.

£0

• Most non-statutory health improvement and wellbeing programmes would be withdrawn, with only essential services (for example: outbreak response, statutory health protection, minimum sexual health provision) maintained.
• Fewer resources for community safety and welfare rights. Vulnerable groups may lose access to targeted support, and public health campaigns would be minimal.

£0

• Some health promotion campaigns and preventative services (for example: smoking cessation, sexual health outreach, mental health support) may be scaled back or offered less frequently.
• Community safety and welfare rights teams may have longer response times, and emergency planning may be less proactive.
• Services would need to find additional efficiency savings through staffing, procurement, technology, and income generation.

£0

Public Health will continue to deliver health improvement, protection, and prevention programmes. However, demand for services is rising, and any reductions in adults’ and children’s social care would have a knock-on effect, increasing pressure on population health and wellbeing.

£0

• Both high-priority and lower-priority work would be affected, with the council unable to fulfil its legal duties to children. Child protection and looked-after incident responses would face unacceptable delays.
• Many families would lose access to preventative or early-help support, exacerbating risk.
• Case reviews would be sporadic, increasing the likelihood of placement instability, delayed progress toward more permanent care arrangements, and rising numbers of children remaining in care for longer than necessary.

£0

• Drift and delay in key decisions about children’s care would become common, making it difficult for the council to meet its statutory duties. 
• The further reduced capacity would mean only urgent/safeguarding cases would be immediately addressed; routine or CIN (Children in Need) cases may face waits of several weeks.
• Children’s permanence planning (fostering/adoption) and reviews could be deferred, contributing to longer stays in care and a possible rise in looked-after numbers.

£0

• Reduced capacity would lead to delays in initial child protection assessments and plans. This may lead to slower identification of children at risk, increased caseloads, and less time for family support - potentially delaying exits from care and prolonging instability.
• Services would need to find additional efficiency savings through staffing, procurement, technology and income generation.

£0

£0

• Permanent closure of 37 out of 64 libraries across the county, as well as removal of the mobile library service, plus associated reduction in resource team and book fund. We would risk not meeting the statutory (by law) requirement to provide a ‘comprehensive and efficient’ public library service.
• All museums to close (but with continued statutory duty to maintain buildings, machinery and collections). Minimal public  Archives offer (statutory duty remains).
• Cultural Development projects cease.

£0

• There would be a permanent closure of 10 to 12 libraries across the county and a reduction in library opening hours, plus associated reduction in management costs, resource team and book fund. There would also be a reduction in mobile library provision.
• Some museums would close (but with continued statutory duty to maintain buildings, machinery and collections). 
• There would be a minimal public Archives offer to fulfil our statutory duty.
• Cultural Development projects would cease.

£0

• There would be a permanent closure of approximately five libraries across the county, reducing from 64 to 59, plus a reduction in the book fund.
• There would be a reduction in mobile library provision from three-weekly to six-weekly visits.
• Opening hours would need to reduce for all museums and archives services.
• There would be a reduction in conservation provision and expertise.
• Cultural Development projects would be limited.
• Services would need to find additional efficiency savings through staffing, procurement, technology, and income generation.

£0

£0

• A significant number of families would not get support when they need it.
• Services that help prevent problems from escalating such as parenting advice, youth activities, and Family Hubs support would be significantly reduced and a number of centres would have to close.
• Some families might miss out on support entirely, leaving issues to grow and escalate until they may require more costly social care support.
• While services would still exist, they would focus only on supporting families with the most complex needs and situations rather than promoting and supporting prevention and early intervention for any family in need.

£0

• Considerably reduced support to families generally and particularly impacting on those in crisis, may mean leaving many without the assistance they need to prevent problems from escalating. Universal and targeted services, those that keep families stable and children thriving, would also reduce.
• Local community family hubs could see shorter opening hours, fewer staff available, and less groups on offer to support a variety of needs. Some centres may have to close.
• Without good early intervention, more children and young people are likely to have statutory social care, increasing demand on already stretched resources and leading to higher long-term costs. 
• Investing in early help is not just compassionate; it’s cost-effective and prevents avoidable harm. Reducing these services risks far greater potential challenges later for more families.

£0

• Families would wait longer to receive early help and support. Some local group activities and outreach sessions in the community would be reduced.
• For some families who would not be able to access this support or have to wait longer for individual family support, this would increase the likelihood that their needs will escalate and become more serious, problematic or risky before help could be provided.
• Services would need to find additional efficiency savings through staffing, procurement, technology, and income generation.

£0

£0

• Our improvement functions are funded through traded income and the Dedicated Schools Grant or grant funding and therefore would be protected.
• Our statutory services for school admissions, attendance and Children Missing Education are funded by penalty notice income and Dedicated Schools Grant funding.
• The only staff currently funded through the council's core budget are Equality and Diversity teams, Education Partnership Officers, Youth Futures team and NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) tracking teams.
• Currently our early years team are funded from the council's core budget but this may change from April 26 depending on schools forum decisions.
• Only essential statutory duties (for example, safeguarding, school place planning, assessment monitoring) would be delivered.
• No traded services, minimal support for schools and nurseries, and specialist teams would be drastically reduced or withdrawn.
• The risk of declining educational standards, increased exclusions, and widening attainment gaps would rise sharply.

£0

• Most of the budget is dependent on traded service. If there is any cut in budget, this would impact the traded income and therefore lead to a drop in income across the service.
• Schools without the right support would lead to higher permanent exclusions, lower outcomes for children and concerns around achieving the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Improvement priorities.
• Most non-statutory support and training would be withdrawn.
• Early Years and school improvement teams would focus only on settings at risk of inspection downgrade or statutory failure.
• Fewer resources for governor support, professional development, and equality work.
• Vulnerable groups (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities, English as an Additional Language, Gypsy/Roma/Traveller) may receive minimal support.

£0

• We would struggle to manage our statutory duties at this level of funding.
• Admissions would be delayed, we would not be able to reach all our Children Missing Education cohort. We would not be able to reach our NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) cohort. Therefore the impact of any further cuts would impact on our ability to keep children safe and ensure they thrive.
• Most of the service is funded through the Dedicated Schools Grant, virtual school grants or traded services.
• There would be fewer advisory visits and training sessions for schools and nurseries. Some traded services may be scaled back, and specialist teams (for example Equality and Attendance) may have less capacity to support vulnerable groups. Monitoring and intervention for underperforming schools may be less frequent, increasing risk of decline. 
• Services would need to find additional efficiency savings through staffing, procurement, technology, and income generation.

£0

£0

• Only a fraction of statutory duties could be met. Education Health and Care Plans would not be delivered within legal timeframes for the majority of children. Section 19* education would fail almost entirely, leaving vulnerable pupils without provision.
• Elective Home Education oversight would cease. Specialist teaching services would close, removing all traded income. The service would be in crisis, focused solely on reacting to complaints and tribunals.
• Commissioners would likely take over budget control, and Lancashire would lose operational authority. Public confidence would collapse, and the council would face sustained legal and reputational consequences.

£0

• Most statutory functions would be delivered late or not at all.
• Education Health and Care Plans delays would become critical, with many families waiting months beyond legal limits.
• Section 19* provision would fail for large numbers of children, and Elective Home Education oversight would collapse. Specialist teaching services would be largely withdrawn, eliminating income streams.
• The service would be overwhelmed by complaints and tribunals, consuming staff time and legal costs.
• There is a risk that commissioners would intervene, limiting the council’s ability to manage resources for pupils with significant additional needs.
• Reputational damage would be significant and long-lasting.

£0

• A 5% reduction would result in serious statutory failure. Waiting times for Education Health and Care Plans would increase further, breaching legal timeframes.
• Section 19* provision would be compromised, leaving children without education.
• Oversight of Elective Home Education would deteriorate. Cuts to traded specialist teaching services would reduce income, worsening the financial position.
• Complaints, tribunals, and legal challenges would escalate, diverting resources into reacting to these issues rather than improvement.
• Public trust in the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities system would decline sharply.
• Services would need to find additional efficiency savings through staffing, procurement, technology, and income generation.

£0

Lancashire is operating under an Ofsted/CQC improvement notice. Waiting times for Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans are already unacceptably long, and compliance with Section 19 duties (providing education for children unable to attend school due to illness or exclusion) is fragile. Elective Home Education oversight is stretched, and specialist teaching capacity is insufficient. Without additional investment, the service remains at risk of legal challenge and reputational damage.

£0

• Only essential safety-related repairs and statutory duties would be delivered.
• Most planned maintenance, improvement projects, and non-urgent works would be suspended.
• Street lighting, traffic signals, and flood risk management would be maintained at minimum compliance, increasing the risk of our transport infrastructure deteriorating, road safety issues, and disruption for residents and businesses.

£0

• Only urgent road repairs and safety-critical maintenance would be completed promptly; routine works would face substantial delays.
• Fewer inspections and reduced capacity for traffic signal and street lighting maintenance could impact road safety.
• Flood risk management and parking enforcement would be scaled back, and the advice we give on the impacts of new development may be limited to the minimum required by law.

£0

• Routine maintenance (for example pothole repairs, street lighting, minor resurfacing) may be delayed, with longer response times for non-urgent defects.
• Fewer resources for traffic management and parking enforcement could lead to increased congestion and parking issues.
• We may be slower to give advice on the impacts of new development, and flood risk management projects may be postponed.
• Services would need to find additional efficiency savings through staffing, procurement, technology, and income generation.

£0

£0

• Only children meeting strict statutory criteria (for example, distance to their nearest suitable school, or Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) would receive transport.
• All discretionary and exceptional transport would cease, and support for appeals or route planning would be minimal.
• Many families would lose access to school transport, risking increased absence, lateness, and barriers to education for those in rural or disadvantaged areas.
• Transport to Adult Day Services could be withdrawn entirely meaning vulnerable passengers would be charged for the full cost of their travel.

£0

• Most discretionary transport would be withdrawn, with only statutory entitlements maintained.
• There would likely be means-tested charges introduced for Post 16 (Sixth Form) students and adults accessing transport to Day Services.
• Eligibility checks could become stricter, and appeals or exceptional cases could face longer delays.
• Some families may need to make alternative arrangements, increasing risk of non-attendance for vulnerable pupils. 

£0

• Some discretionary transport (for example for faith schools or post-16 students) may be scaled back.
• Families may experience longer waits for route adjustments, appeals, or transport for exceptional circumstances.
• Fewer staff available for planning and support could lead to delays in resolving issues.
• Services would need to find additional efficiency savings through staffing, procurement, technology, and income generation.

£0

£0

• Only legally required home-to-school transport for eligible students would be provided; most post-16 Special Educational Needs and Disabilities, day care, and community transport services would be withdrawn.
• Fleet Services would operate at minimum compliance, with little capacity for sustainability initiatives.
• Public transport support would be limited to statutory obligations, with many bus routes and community schemes ending, increasing isolation for vulnerable residents and reducing access to education, work, and other services.

£0

• Fleet upgrades to greener vehicles may be paused, and maintenance intervals extended, risking reliability issues.
• Public transport support would focus only on essential routes with reduced frequency.
• Some rural bus services would be reduced or withdrawn.
• Withdrawal of any discretionary concessionary travel schemes.

£0

• Fleet maintenance schedules may be stretched, risking delays in vehicle replacement or upgrades.
• Fewer resources for public transport development could mean slower progress on bus service improvements and less support for community transport initiatives.
• Services would need to find additional efficiency savings through staffing, procurement, technology, and income generation.

£0

£0

• A number of recycling centres would be closed, significantly increasing travel times and inconvenience for many residents.
• An appointment system would be introduced to control access and vehicle numbers at the remaining recycling centres and access would be limited to a certain number of visits per year.
• Policies would be implemented to limit the amount of soil and rubble that can be accepted.

£0

• Some smaller Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) would be closed, increasing travel times and inconvenience for some residents.
• An appointment system would be introduced to control access and vehicle numbers at the remaining recycling centres.
• Some recycling containers, such as those for wastes already collected at kerbside, or those which aren't frequently used, would be removed from smaller HWRCs and only be available at bigger ones.
• Policies would be implemented to limit the amount of soil and rubble that can be accepted.

£0

• We would reduce opening hours at our smaller Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) which receive the fewest visitors.
• Residents would have to travel further to bigger facilities or store their rubbish at home until local facilities are open.
• Some recycling containers, such as those for wastes already collected at kerbside, or those which aren't frequently used, would be removed from smaller HWRCs and only be available at bigger ones.
• Policies would be implemented to limit the amount of soil and rubble that can be accepted.
• Services would need to find additional efficiency savings through staffing, procurement, technology, and income generation.

£0

£0

• We would struggle to deliver statutory and public rights of way services with further delays to response times impacting public access to routes.
• Resources for countryside sites would be dedicated to basic safety maintenance only.
• Most biodiversity and climate initiatives would be suspended, leading to environmental decline.
• External ecology advice would likely have to be bought in for council schemes and planning applications.
• The Planning Service would be reduced to a statutory minimum. Many planning applications would breach prescribed determination periods, enforcement would be minimal, and the Minerals and Waste Local Plan would not progress.
• The Historic Environment service could collapse entirely, forcing councils to seek costly external advice.

£0

• We would be less able to secure external grants for non-statutory environmental projects such as tree planting and biodiversity enhancement.
• Countryside sites and rights of way would be maintained to a lower standard, with delays in path diversion and modification applications.
• Historic environment and ecology advice services would be scaled back.
• There would be significant delays in determining planning applications within statutory timescales and responding to complaints.
• Enforcement capacity would be severely reduced.
• The Minerals and Waste Local Plan progress would stall, and the viability of the Historic Environment Service could be at risk if partner councils refuse to increase contributions.

£0

• Countryside sites and public rights of way would see reduced maintenance and deterioration in condition.
• Ability to secure funding and deliver biodiversity and climate initiatives would be reduced.
• Already stretched, Development Management would be slower to make decisions on planning applications, and there would be reduced site monitoring.
• Progress on the minerals and waste local plan would slow further, and enforcement action would be delayed.
• Services would need to find additional efficiency savings through staffing, procurement, technology, and income generation.

£0

£0

• Only statutory and essential economic development, property, and facilities management functions would be delivered.
• Most business support, regeneration, and skills programmes would be suspended, reducing opportunities for job creation, inward investment, and local economic growth.
• Strategic development would be limited to legally required activities, and support for local businesses and communities would be minimal.

£0

• Most non-statutory business growth programmes would be withdrawn, with only the highest-priority regeneration and development projects continuing.
• Estates and property services would focus on statutory and essential functions, with limited support for new initiatives.
• Facilities management would operate at minimum levels, and the Skills and Employment Hub would restrict its offer to statutory duties and core programmes.

£0

• Fewer resources for business support programmes, meaning some initiatives to help local businesses start, grow or innovate may be scaled back.
• Estates and property teams may have longer response times for land and property advice, and facilities management may delay some non-essential maintenance.
• Strategic development projects may progress more slowly, and the Skills and Employment Hub may offer fewer training and employment programmes.
• Services would need to find additional efficiency savings through staffing, procurement, technology and income generation.

£0

£0

• Registration services would operate at minimum statutory levels, with long waits and limited appointment availability. Most complaints and appeals would face significant delays.
• ICT systems would be vulnerable to disruption due to reduced support.
• Legal services would have to focus only on safeguarding and statutory duties.
• Communications and customer access channels would be minimal, and most staff development programmes would cease.
• Residents would experience major delays and reduced access to council services. Digital systems may be less reliable, and legal and HR support would be unavailable for most functions. Public awareness of services would decline, and staff would have fewer tools to improve or innovate.

£0

• A reduction of 10% would mean delays in registration of births, deaths, and marriages.
• Complaints and appeals (for example school transport, exclusions) would take longer to resolve.
• ICT support could be limited to critical issues only, affecting service reliability.
• Legal services would need to prioritise statutory and safeguarding cases, delaying support for contracts and development.
• Fewer communications campaigns and reduced internal training.
• Residents would face delays in accessing statutory services and resolving issues.
• Council services would be less responsive and less visible.
• Staff would receive less training, and legal support for non-critical functions may be unavailable.

£0

• Longer response times for complaints, appeals, and registration queries.
• Fewer public-facing campaigns and slower updates to the council website and social media.
• Some internal training programmes would be postponed, and digital improvements to customer experience would be delayed.
• ICT support would remain stable but stretched.
• Residents would notice slower service when contacting the council or accessing information. Fewer campaigns and updates could reduce awareness of key services.
• Staff development and digital innovation would slow down.
• Services would need to find additional efficiency savings through staffing, procurement, technology, and income generation.

£0