Posted by 
All 15 Lancashire council leaders have agreed to put their names to a letter setting out their initial thoughts about what should happen to local government in the county after the authorities they control are abolished.
Ministers had ordered Lancashire to draw up an “interim plan” by this Friday (21 March), which will see a radical reduction in the number of local authorities in the area.
However, as we reported this morning, the letter – which has now been published in full – is devoid of any detail about which places could merge as part of the process.
Read more: Aerial pictures show new Lancashire Cricket ground at Farington progress ahead of 2026 opening
The correspondence openly acknowledges that there is no “clear consensus on a single proposal” or even majority support for one – and notes that some places do not want to see any changes at all.
Against that backdrop, it sets out high-level options for between just one and as many as five new authorities to replace those that currently exist – offering ministers only numerical, rather than geographical, proposals. In doing so, the letter seemingly seeks to set out all shades of opinion across the county, while largely shunning specifics.
However, the LDRS understands that at least one authority could be making its own submission to the government with a more detailed proposal about how the council landscape should be redrawn in Lancashire.
But Burnley Council leader Afrasiab Anwar indicated on Wednesday that his authority would not be doing so, after its preferred five-council model was included in the joint letter – although Burnley’s specification that any configuration should ensure the town is not bound together with Blackburn with Darwen is not made explicit in the document.
Chorley and South Ribble councils have previously called for a three-way tie-up with West Lancashire, while Preston City Council’s ruling Labour group said it has settled on its preference, but will not be making it public until after the joint letter has been sent. It is not yet known whether any of the Central Lancashire authorities are planning to make their own formal submissions about their preferences this week.
Local government minister Jim McMahon has previously urged local leaders in counties set for a council revamp to make “every effort” to draw up a joint vision for their area – but recognised that it might not be possible to do so.
Given Lancashire’s long history of disagreement over the subject of reorganisation whenever it has cropped up over the last decade as part of related discussions about devolution, it is perhaps unsurprising that only the broadest of broad-brush suggestions have managed to attract the support of all 15 leaders.
The shake-up being demanded by the government, as part of a nationwide overhaul, will see Lancashire County Council and the 12 district authorities in Preston, South Ribble, Chorley, West Lancashire, Fylde, Wyre, Lancaster, Ribble Valley, Burnley, Hyndburn, Rossendale and Pendle – along with the standalone councils in Blackpool and Blackburn with Dawren – all scrapped.
They will be replaced by a handful of new ‘unitary’ authorities covering much larger areas, which will each be responsible for delivering all council services in their patch – unlike the current ‘two-tier’ split between the county and district authorities across most of Lancashire.
While keeping their cards close to their collective chest about how they see the shake-up shaking out, Lancashire leaders tell the government in their jointly-signed letter that they have a “shared commitment to strong, sustainable local government” and are willing to “work together with a spirit of respect and co-operation”.
Explaining the absence of a single proposal emerging from Lancashire at this early stage, they say that it is “in part, because of the inherent complexities of Lancashire as a county – politically, economically and geographically – and also our collective desire to ensure the best outcome for Lancashire residents and businesses”.
They add: “The fact that we have a multitude of options of different sizes and configurations reflects the range of local views and there are mixed views on which ones best meet the government’s criteria.
“There are real, pressing issues of local identity, culture and heritage that require further exploration and consideration than time has allowed.”
The radical overhaul was announced by the government just before Christmas, while this Friday’s deadline for an interim plan was set just six weeks ago.
Local areas now have until 28 November to come up with their final proposals, upon which ministers will make a decision.
The new authorities for Lancashire are likely to come into being in 2028 after Lancashire County Council opted not to seek a place on the government’s fast-track reorganisation programme – instead choosing to hold local elections to County Hall in May, as planned.
What do we want? Erm…
Deputy county council leader Alan Vincent told a cabinet meeting on Thursday – at which the letter was discussed – that it was “something of a novelty” for all 15 leaders to agree anything on the subject of local government reorganisation.
“I sincerely hope that we can carry on achieving this kind of consensus going forward, but that may be a stretch,” the Conservative politician said.
However, Labour opposition group leader Matthew Tomlinson was less than impressed with the contents of the 15-page document, describing it as “anodyne”.
He added: “Everybody knows what they don’t want and nobody seems to know what they [do] want. The danger here, if we continue to say nothing, [is that] the minister will take advantage of the space that we leave – and we will end up with what the minister wants, rather than what the people of Lancashire deserve.”
However, County Cllr Vincent said the government knew “full well” that there had not been “anywhere near enough time” to formulate a more detailed plan at this point.
Call for clarity
The leaders’ joint letter to the government asks more questions of ministers about their plans than it gives answers regarding Lancashire’s vision for how they should be implemented.
Chief amongst them is a request for clarification on the degree to which ministers are wedded to each of the replacement councils covering a population of at least 500,000 residents.
Should that be applied rigidly, Lancashire could be split into no more than three new council areas. However, the government’s devolution white paper states that “exceptions” could be made in order to ensure the new structures “make sense” – and Jim McMahon said in an interview with the LDRS last month that he was aware of the need to be “flexible” when considering proposals from “diverse” places like Lancashire.
The letter states that “a variety of options” are being mulled over by some councils which fall below the 500,000 threshold, because of the need to factor in “complex geography, levels of deprivation and functional economic and commuting areas”. It asks the government whether it has an absolute minimum population size that it considers “would be acceptable”.
Clarity is also sought over the extent to which the government would be open to “amending” any current council boundaries as part of the merger process if doing so would “result in a better fit for a community or place within the new authorities”.
The leaders state that their current modelling is being done on the basis of existing borders, but the question suggests that they would like to have the flexibility to split districts across more than one new authority area, rather than having to use the current councils as fixed building blocks.
They ask what the likely impact would be on the timescale for reorganisation “if such an amendment was relatively minor” and only affected “one current district boundary and its neighbouring proposed new unitary”.
“This is on the assumption that a wider redrawing of boundaries would add complexity and likely delay to any process,” the leaders add.
Meanwhile, the 15 council chiefs also ask the government whether any of the criteria it has so far set out for reorganisation proposals will be given “additional weighting”, in order to allow them to reflect upon the elements ministers will consider most important.
‘Don’t forget about democracy’
In their letter, Lancashire’s leaders have quizzed the government about how many residents it believes should be served by each councillor in the new streamlined system.
There are currently almost 700 upper and second-tier councillors across Lancashire – a figure that will be slashed as part of the sweeping abolition of the 15 existing councils.
The correspondence notes that Lancashire residents “benefit from a significant level of democratic representation and coverage” under the current two-tier system.
“In making any changes we would want to ensure that, in future, there is an acceptable and sufficient level of democratic representation in each of the new local authorities,” the leaders stress.
They also call for the government’s view about the role of parish and town councils – of which there are more than 200 in Lancashire, although the entire county is not covered by them – and whether it will change following the forthcoming revamp.
‘We can’t leave any part of Lancashire behind’
Lancashire’s leaders have told the government that pockets of deprivation within the county, along with its rural nature, pose a particular challenge to reshaping the current council arrangements.
Seventeen out of the 285 local authority wards in Lancashire are within the poorest one percent across England.
Blackpool is ranked as the most deprived local authority area in the country, based on the official index of multiple deprivation, while Blackburn with Darwen is in the most deprived 10 percent of places.
Burnley and Hyndburn are both in the most deprived 10 percent of lower-tier local authorities, with Preston and Pendle in the poorest 20 percent.
Meanwhile, 78 percent of Lancashire is deemed to be rural – and 17 percent of the population live in a rural area.
In their letter, the leaders recognise the government’s desire to ensure that, as far as possible, “none of the new unitary authorities are created with undue advantage or disadvantage”.
However, they warn: “We acknowledge that the geographic spread of population, deprivation, varying tax bases, demand for services and health inequalities will still see clusters of deprivation and areas of rurality [in Lancashire].”
To that end, they ask that there “continues to be additional funding from across the system, targeted to areas of deprivation and rurality within larger footprints, to recognise the relative needs, tax bases and demands of areas to deal with these ongoing challenges”.
That request is set against the backdrop of a warning that the planned shake-up will not be a substitute for the extra cash needed across local government more broadly.
“Long term and increased funding will need to go hand in hand with reform,” the leaders state.
Numbers game
Average population of new local authorities In Lancashire, based on number created:
One new council: 1.57m residents
Two new councils: 785,000 residents
Three new councils: 523,000 residents
Four new councils: 393,000 residents
Five new councils: 314,000 residents
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
