'Don't do it': Lancashire leaders bid to block council abolition plan

Phillippa Williamson has urged ministers to honour a timeline agreed “in good faith” less than three months ago - and give Lancashire until next autumn to draw up proposals to deepen the agreement.

It comes after a push by the majority of Lancashire’s Labour MPs last month to rapidly accelerate that process - and peg it to a plan to slash the number of councils in the county from the current 15 to just three or four.

The parliamentarians called on the government to give an answer before the end of the year as to whether it would agree to introduce an Andy Burnham-style elected mayor by 2027 and enact the suggested council cull within the next 18 months.

The MPs’ move - which they say would deliver a more “ambitious” devolution deal, with greater powers and extra cash - has triggered a series of political manoeuvres in anticipation of a town hall overhaul across the county.

Competing suggestions have been pitched to the government by Labour-run Preston and, collectively, Chorley and South Ribble councils about the merger of different areas and suggestions as to how the new local authority map in Lancashire should look.

Meanwhile, Conservative-controlled district authorities have opposed any changes at all - and called for local referenda to be held on any revamp that is formally put on the table.

The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) can also now reveal that the leaders of Lancashire’s three Tory-run boroughs - Wyre, Fylde and Ribble Valley - last week joined forces with their counterparts at coalition-led Burnley and Pendle councils and Green Party-controlled Lancaster to tell the government now is not “the correct time" to rip up Lancashire’s 50-year-old local government structure.

It is against the backdrop of the flux unleashed following the MPs’ intervention that County Cllr Williamson has now added to the growing number of letters with a Lancashire postmark that have landed on the desk of local government minister Jim McMahon.

In correspondence seen by the LDRS, the Conservative county council leader - one of the three signatories to the devolution deal, along with her Labour opposite numbers at Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen councils - said she was conscious of the “numerous and varied discussions taking place locally and nationally on local government reorganisation”.

Referencing the government’s own imminent white paper on English devolution - which is expected to set out its stance on the future of the two-tier system in places like Lancashire - County Cllr Williamson said she was anxious that such conversations ”may divert us from the agreed necessary and intended next steps in our devolution journey”.

That involves the formal establishment of a new Lancashire Combined County Authority (LCCA) early in the new year to oversee the powers being devolved from the government.

She warned that so-called “unitarisation” - the creation of a smaller number of standalone local authorities to replace the county and district council model that exists across most of Lancashire - would be “vastly complex”, because of the diverse nature of the county.

“Consensus will not be generated quickly - if at all - and vital relationships and our shared vision for growth, enhanced through the establishment of the LCCA, will be adversely impacted by piecemeal discussions about local authority boundaries.

She added: “Our commitment has been to build on our current progress and work with central government, local authorities and businesses to develop ambitious plans for future devolved powers and associated governance arrangements.

“It was agreed, in good faith, to present these proposals for your consideration, sequenced as requested, by the autumn of 2025 and remain on track to do so. We fear however, that this timeline and the associated benefits of deeper and wider devolution will be at risk if the White Paper makes devolution dependent on concurrent unitarisation.

“We also fear this is causing confusion in the minds of the public, businesses and stakeholders who so far have been supportive of our devolution ambitions.”

The letter - which has not been signed by the county council’s devolution partners in Blackpool and Blackburn - suggests the debate about reorganisation should be saved until after the development of the blueprint for a deeper deal late next year.

In both scenarios, local councils will continue to exist after the LCCA - which is currently operating in shadow form - comes into being next year. The only question is whether the current 15 - comprising the county council, 12 districts and two standalone authorities in Blackpool and Blackburn - remain in place or are abolished to make way for a handful of new councils covering huge swathes of Lancashire.

HOW DID WE GET HERE, AGAIN?

Lancashire’s current devo agreement - level 2 out of a possible three degrees of devolution - was signed by the previous Conservative government just over 12 months ago, but not implemented before the summer's snap general election.

In spite of lobbying by many of its own MPs and district council leaders since then, the new Labour administration announced in September that it would be adhering to the original, non-mayoral deal, rather than ripping it up and starting negotiations from scratch.

However, Mr. McMahon did suggest that Lancashire explored “all governance models that reflect the geography, economy and political landscape” of the county as part of proposals for its devolution evolution by next autumn.

That seemed to put the perennial political sticking point of an elected Lancashire mayor on the backburner for another year - giving space for the current deal to become established.

But the flurry of recent proposals have put the prospect of that county figurehead back at the top of the agenda - and interwoven it with the equally vexed question of streamlining the county’s council structure by slashing the number of individual local authorities.

During eight years of devolution deliberations, Lancashire’s 15 leaders have never reached anything but the most nuanced and caveated consensus on either subject.

A spokesman for Lancashire County Council said on Monday that the authority had had “no discussions with central government or anyone else relating to local government reorganisation and remain wholly focused on progressing the devolution deal for Lancashire”.

They added that there are “no plans” to cancel the county council elections in May next year. That move was suggested by the Labour MPs who signed a letter to the government last month calling for unitarisation by the summer of 2026 - on the basis that the county authority would otherwise be scrapped just 12 months after electing members to serve a four-year term.

The spokesperson added: "We have agreed with government that following the publication of the new English devolution bill white paper, we will explore all governance models that reflect the geography, the economy and the political landscape of Lancashire, working closely with local councils and other important stakeholders, reaching a conclusion by autumn 2025, ensuring that we remain in a strong position to receive further powers and funding in the future.

"We intend to keep to our word and expect government to do the same."

‘WE NEED STABILITY’

In their letter to the government, the leaders of Lancashire’s currently non-Labour-controlled districts - Fylde, Wyre, Lancaster, Ribble Valley, Burnley and Pendle - said changes to the council set-up in the county would be “unhelpful and unwelcome”.

Speaking to the LDRS about the issue, Wyre Council leader Michael Vincent said it was notable that the six signatories - three Tory, one Green and two independent - were from "very different ends of the political spectrum" and even have different views on some aspects of devolution, but were united in opposing changes to Lancashire’s local authority arrangements.

“I think it's important that we have some stability for a time when we've been arguing about [devolution] very publicly for a long time. If the government goes down this road, there's going to be a lot more very public argument - and I don't think that's in anybody's interest,” Cllr Vincent said.

Wyre has recently joined Ribble Valley Borough Council in resolving to demand a local referendum on any local government changes that are formally proposed for Lancashire.

CASE FOR CHANGE

The 10 Labour MPs out of the 12 in the county who wrote to the government last month calling for an immediate move to a deeper devolution deal with an elected mayor - and a radical reduction in the number of local councils - said what was currently proposed would not deliver "the long-term change Lancashire desperately needs".

They added: "We need more powers and critically more resources, to tackle the great issues of our time, issues which can only be addressed by strategic cooperation within and on behalf of Lancashire: our health and social care services, local and regional transport, town and city regeneration, planning, and, crucially, growth.

"Lancashire’s two-tier system of local government organisation - county and districts - does not work for our residents. Imported from the 1970s, in 2024 the county council in particular far too often represents an anachronistic, inefficient, opaque and distant governance system, with no clear democratic sight lines. While undoubtedly some good outcomes are achieved, particularly at the district level, these councils are ill- equipped, under-powered, under-sized and under-resourced to address the strategic issues the county faces, or in some cases ensure their own long-term financial survival.

"Doing nothing is not an option. The time is now for Lancashire devolution, we simply cannot miss this opportunity, to reshape our powers, our politics, and our county. It is Lancashire’s time to join the top table - and we hope you will give full consideration to our proposals."