Posted by 
After a decade of political rows and wrangling, 2025 could be the year that determines whether Lancashire is to get an elected mayor – but what difference would the role actually make?
The county’s long-awaited devolution deal, which is due to come into effect in the next few weeks, was struck without the requirement for an Andy Burnham-style figurehead – primarily because of the perennial inability of Lancashire’s 15 council leaders to agree to one.
That meant the devolution settlement for Lancashire – reached with the previous Conservative government and since rubber-stamped by the new Labour administration – was a so-called ‘level 2’ deal.
The new powers and additional cash that come with it – most notably control over the adult education budget and a £20m fund to boost “innovation-led growth”- are not as extensive as those on offer to areas with a ‘level 3’ arrangement, for which a mayor is a prerequisite.
Although the new government resolved to implement the existing devolution agreement in the county – rather than rip it up and start again as the majority of its own MPs had implored – it did set out an expectation that Lancashire should bring forward proposals for “deeper and wider devolution” by autumn 2025.
Local government minister Jim McMahon’s reference to that deepening involving the consideration of “all governance models” hinted at possible moves towards a mayor.
The signatories of the deal – the leaders of Lancashire County Council, Blackpool Council and Blackburn with Darwen Council – all stressed that the hard-won agreement was not a final devolution destination, but just a case of getting “on the bus”.
If that carrot-dangling sentiment – coupled with the reality of Lancashire not needing to reopen the debate over a mayor immediately – was designed to paper over the deep disagreements between the 15 local leaders over the subject of a mayor and the value of the current devolution settlement, then it largely failed.
Those who wanted a mayor and a broader deal wanted it now – while those with no such desire feared what might be coming over the horizon in the autumn.
To complicate matters further, the government’s devolution white paper, published just before Christmas, lobbed the hand grenade of local government reorganisation into the mix – a move to abolish every existing council in the county and create just three or four replacements covering huge swathes of Lancashire.
The twin issues of an elected mayor and the prospect of redrawing the council map have a history of sending Lancashire’s leaders around in circles of ever increasing disagreement – and chiefly account for why it took the county nearly 10 years to get any kind of devolution deal at all.
As a new year dawns, the splits over a mayor broadly cut along party lines, with the three Conservative-led district authorities – Wyre, Fylde and Ribble Valley – being opposed, while the Labour-run boroughs of Preston, Chorley, South Ribble, West Lancashire, Rossendale and Hyndburn have declared they are happy with the idea of a mayor in principle. However, the Labour districts are not fully aligned over the shape of any new council areas that may be created in the process, while coalition-controlled Burnley and Pendle councils and Green-led Lancaster add another dimension to the debate – with the trio all expressing opposition to a council shake-up just last month.
The three signatories of the current deal have so far stayed on the same page during the last 18 months of devolution discussions, in spite of the county council being Tory-led and Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen being under Labour control. However, it is not clear how long that consensus will last once conversations turn to a mayor and council abolition – the two issues studiously avoided in order to get the present deal done.
The white paper roadmap stressed that it was the government’s “ambition” for all areas to adopt a “mayoral model” for devolution. While a mayor will not be imposed – unlike the streamlining of the county’s councils – the Labour administration’s preference was clear.
Mayor magic?
Away from the politicking that will inevitably come in its wake, the devolution white paper detailed those benefits that will be available to non-mayoral combined county authorities (CCAs), like the one about to be established in Lancashire, and more powerful combined authorities with a mayor at their head.
The former – which come under the umbrella of “foundation authorities” – will have 23 powers, responsibilities and sources of government support, while places that opt for a mayor will get more than double that at 51, with even more potentially to follow once the arrangement has been in operation for at least 18 months.
Amongst the most significant additional items on offer for mayoral areas is a long-term investment fund, with an agreed annual contribution from the government. When places like the Liverpool City Region did a devolution deal in the last decade, they were promised £30m a year of extra government cash for the next 30 years, whereas Lancashire’s current deal offers a seemingly one-off £20m, largely for innovation-led projects and a home insulation scheme.
A suite of additional transport powers will also be conferred on areas with a mayor, including a greater say over the rail and road networks. Bus powers – including the option for franchising of local services by bringing them under local government control – are available without a mayor being in place.
Any Lancashire mayor would get significant housing powers, including the ability to establish a development corporation – and they would also be likely to take on responsibility for the police and fire service in the county.
The policy area in which there is the greatest parity between mayoral and non-mayoral regions is environment and climate change. A raft of green and net-zero powers and responsibilities will be handed to local areas regardless of whether or not they have a mayor.
Meanwhile, an elected mayor would also be able to levy a charge – or “precept” – on local council tax bills to fund the huge devolved operation under their control.
Would be council tax go up?
An elected mayor would be able to levy an additional charge – or “precept” – on local council tax bills to fund the huge devolved operation under their control. Under Lancashire’s current deal, the new combined county authority (CCA) will not have that power. Although it will receive £1m from the government spread over the first three years of its operation, the CCA’s ongoing costs will be met by its three constituent local authority members.
Would my council be scrapped?
The council shake-up confirmed by the government last month will now happen whether or not Lancashire ever opts for a mayor. Although it will mean far fewer councils across the county – at most four – those new authorities will still be responsible for local services within their patch and will continue to exist whatever type of combined authority is in operation to oversee Lancashire’s newly-devolved powers.
What Lancashire gets without a mayor
Currently, this is what Lancashire is line for as a non-mayoral county combined authority:
Funding and investment
***Consolidation of local growth and place funding in a single pot.
Transport and local infrastructure
***Local Transport Authority and public transport functions, including bus franchising and responsibility for an area-wide Local Transport Plan.
***Simplification and consolidation of local transport funding.
***Priority for strategic rail engagement with Great British Railways.
***A clear, strategic role in the decarbonisation of the local bus fleet.
***Active Travel England support for constituent authorities.
Skills and employment support
***Joint ownership of the Local Skills Improvement Plan model, with employer representative bodies.
***Devolution of the core adult skills fund.
***Responsibility for developing local Get Britain Working Plans.
***Devolution of supported employment funding.
Housing and strategic planning
***A duty to produce a Spatial Development Strategy.
***Homes England compulsory purchase powers.
Economic development and regeneration
***Partnership working with Department for Science, Industry and Technology and UK Research and Innovation to explore opportunities for closer long-term collaboration in strengthening local research and innovation capacity.
***Responsibility as the accountable body for the delivery of Growth Hubs.
***Partnership working with Department for Culture, Media and Sport arm’s-length bodies to maximise culture, heritage, and sport spending in place.
Environment and climate change
***Heat network zoning co-ordination role.
***Co-ordinating local energy planning to support development of regional network energy infrastructure.
***Green jobs and skills co-ordination role.
***A strategic role on net zero in collaboration with government, including on Great British Energy’s Local Power Plan and Warm Homes Plan.
***Responsibility for co-ordinating delivery and monitoring of Local Nature Recovery Strategies.
Health, wellbeing and public service reform
***A bespoke statutory health improvement and health inequalities duty.
*** A role in convening partners and driving cross-cutting public service reform, including looking at areas such as multiple disadvantage.
Public safety
***A clear and defined role in local resilience, working with the Local Resilience Forum to embed resilience into broader policy and delivery.
What more would Lancashire get?
If Lancashire had a mayor and a combined authority, it would also get:
Funding and investment
***Long-term investment fund, with an agreed annual allocation.
***Ability to introduce mayoral precepting (charging) on council tax.
Strategic leadership
***A statutory duty to produce Local Growth Plans.
***Membership of the Council of Nations and Regions.
***Membership of the Mayoral Data Council.
Transport and local infrastructure
***Removal of certain secretary of state consents [requirements for permission for some actions].
***Duty to establish a Key Route Network on the most important local roads.
*** Mayoral power of direction over use of constituent authority powers on the key route network.
***Statutory role in governing, managing, planning, and developing the rail network.
***An option for greater control over local rail stations.
***Formal partnership with National Highways.
Skills and employment support
*** Devolution of non-apprenticeship adult skills functions through a consolidated skills funding pot.
***Central convening of youth careers provision including greater flexibility for careers hubs.
***A clear role in relation to 16-19 education and training.
***Co-design of future employment support that is additional to core Jobcentre Plus provision.
Housing and strategic planning
***Strategic development management powers.
***Ability to raise a mayoral community infrastructure levy to fund strategic infrastructure.
***Ability to make mayoral development orders.
***Ability to establish mayoral development corporations.
***Devolution of wider grant funding to support regeneration and housing delivery.
***Strategic Place Partnership with Homes England.
Economic development and regeneration
***Develop joint innovation action plans with Innovate UK to shape long-term strategies and investments.
*** Embed UK Research and Innovation lead points of contact for enhanced collaborative working on innovation with Mayoral Strategic Authorities that are committed to work collaboratively on innovation.
***A strategic partnership with the Department for Business and Trade focused on domestic growth, exports, investment, and delivery of local growth priorities.
Health, wellbeing and public service reform
***Mayors engaged during the Integrated Care Board’s chair appointment process.
***Mayors as members of local Integrated Care Partnerships, and consideration for position of chair or co-chair.
Public safety
***Mayors accountable for the exercise of Police and Crime Commissioner functions where police force and mayoral boundaries align.
***Mayors accountable for the exercise of Fire and Rescue Authority functions where fire and rescue service and mayoral boundaries align.
Source: English Devolution White Paper
‘One-size-fits-all won’t work in Lancashire’
Lancaster and Wyre MP Cat Smith has warned that the mayor-led formula that the government has set as the gold standard for devolution is not necessarily right for a county like Lancashire.
Speaking in a Commons debate before Christmas, she told devolution minister Jim McMahon that while the government had suggested its plans signalled the end of “a top-down approach” from Whitehall, “to many of my constituents it looks like a one-size-fits-all model that works for Greater Manchester…but does not necessarily work for the rural English counties”.
Ms. Smith was one of just two Lancashire Labour MPs – along with Pendle and Clitheroe’s Jonathan Hinder – not to sign a letter sent to Mr. McMahon in November calling for an elected mayor for the county by 2027 and a radical reduction in the number of councils covering the area a year sooner than that.
In the Commons, she asked him: “What assurances can the minister give…that this approach will not be imposed on local areas against their will? How will he measure consent from a local area that this is the approach they want?”
Mr. McMahon said: “In the end, when given the powers and resources, mayors can achieve change in partnership with local leaders.
“We are not creating super-councils. We are creating a strategic authority that will give power from this place downwards, giving councillors far more power.
“On how we will do it, I can say that in Lancashire, in our drive to widen devolution across the country, the principle is for foundation authorities; of course, Lancashire has already agreed to a level 2 [deal], which, in the white paper, would be the equivalent of a foundation authority. In that sense, it already has devolution in place.”
However, Burnley MP Oliver Ryan – one of the 10 Labour MPs to push for a mayor and a deeper devolution deal in their recent letter to Jim McMahon – alluded to the list of powers that Lancashire would be missing out on if it stuck with its current agreement.
He added: “Lancashire’s time is now” and echoed the minister’s own words in calling for the county to “grasp this moment and this movement”.
Mr. McMahon agreed that there were “huge opportunities in Lancashire” and said it would be “a shame” if the county was not part of the Great North project, a mayoral collaboration to boost investment across the pan-region.
Subscribe: Keep in touch directly with the latest headlines from Blog Preston, join our WhatsApp channel and subscribe for our twice-a-week email newsletter. Both free and direct to your phone and inbox.
Read more: See the latest Preston news and headlines
