Greggs proposes four UK factory closures, putting about 740 jobs at risk

Greggs announced proposals on Wednesday, 30 September, to close four UK manufacturing sites over the next two and a half years, putting about 740 jobs at risk. The bakery chain said it would consult trade unions and employee representatives before developing the plans, which affect production sites in England and Scotland.

The closures and job losses are proposed rather than final. Greggs said the changes would help it make products for a growing shop network more efficiently, even as it reported stronger sales in its latest quarter. For workers at the affected sites, the immediate next step is consultation; the available reporting does not give a date for a final decision.

Which Greggs factories are proposed to close?

The four proposed closures are Enfield in north London, North Lakes near Penrith in Cumbria, Pettigrews in Kelso in the Scottish Borders, and Seaham in County Durham, according to the reporting. Greggs would continue distribution operations at Enfield, so the proposal does not mean every activity at that location would end.

Manufacturing at Treforest in Wales may also be affected, while Greggs plans to keep that site operating as a distribution centre. Grocery Gazette also reported proposals to reduce the range of products made at Clydesmill and Manchester and to end tinned bread production at Gosforth. Those changes are distinct from the four proposed factory closures.

What happens next for affected workers?

Greggs said it would enter a consultation period shortly and work with trade unions and employee representatives to refine and develop the proposals. It described minimising the impact on its people where possible as its immediate priority. The company has not specified a consultation end date or a date for its final decisions in the reporting reviewed.

What would the factory changes cost and save?

Greggs estimates about £60m in costs connected with the proposals, including disruption and redundancy costs. It also projects about £20m in annual operating-cost savings. Both figures are company estimates tied to changes that have yet to be completed; the savings are not money already realised.

The timing of those savings needs care. The Guardian described the expected benefit as reaching about £20m a year by 2028, while Grocery Gazette reported benefits across the 2028 and 2029 financial years. The clearest reading is that Greggs expects savings to emerge over those years, with the precise timing subject to how the proposals proceed.

Greggs called the changes difficult but necessary to meet future capacity needs in the most cost-efficient manner. That rationale sits alongside a planned expansion of its retail estate: the company says the manufacturing network must be able to serve more shops as it grows.

How are Greggs sales performing?

The proposal came with a trading update showing total sales up 7.7% in the 13 weeks to 26 September compared with the same period last year. Grocery Gazette reported that sales at company-managed shops open for at least a year rose 3.4%. The two figures measure different things: overall sales include the effect of adding shops, while the like-for-like measure tracks established locations.

Greggs attributed stronger summer trading to product launches and more settled weather in August and September. The Guardian reported that iced matcha lattes, salads and chicken rolls helped sales. The stronger quarter has modestly improved the company’s outlook for 2026, although Greggs has also warned of signs of greater inflationary pressure in 2027.

Grocery Gazette reported that Greggs had 2,796 shops at the end of September after 95 openings and 38 closures so far this year. That amounts to 57 net new shops. The company is targeting 100 to 110 net new shops for 2026, making the proposed changes to production part of a wider capacity plan rather than a response to falling total sales.

The central decision remains ahead: Greggs must consult on the site plans before the proposed closures and staffing changes can be treated as final. For now, the known impact is the scale of the risk to about 740 roles and the locations under consideration. The timetable, site-level effects and outcomes for individual workers remain unresolved.