The government has told Lancashire that an elected mayor would give local leaders “the tools” they need to boost the county’s economy.

That was one of the main messages in response to a request from the Lancashire Combined County Authority (LCCA) for details of how an Andy-Burnham style figurehead would benefit the area.

At an LCCA meeting in October, the authority’s core members – Lancashire County Council leader Stephen Atkinson and his deputy, Simon Evans, Blackburn with Darwen Council leader Phil Riley and Blackpool Council leader Lynn Williams – resolved that they would consider launching a public consultation into the creation of the mayoral post.

However, that pledge was caveated on the government confirming that “clear and substantial benefits” would come with the role – a clarification that had been sought directly from ministers in correspondence sent several weeks earlier.

It was the latest twist in a near decade-long wrangle over whether Lancashire should agree to having a mayor – a thorny subject that has regularly driven the county’s 15 council leaders to deadlock and is the primary reason that it took until 2023 for the devolution deal now overseen by the LCCA to be agreed.

The government’s reply, obtained by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), spans just two pages – not least because it points out that the answer to Lancashire’s overarching poser can be found in government legislation and on its website.

However, the letter – from devolution minister Miatta Fahnbulleh – nevertheless sets a positive tone, acknowledging Lancashire’s “substantial progress” in developing an “ambitious growth plan for the region”.

It also recognises the LCCA’s wish to “understand the benefits of mayoral devolution before taking steps to further deepen your existing arrangements”.

Ms. Fahnbulleh adds: “These [additional] powers will give local leaders in Lancashire the tools to drive growth for the benefit of the communities you serve, building on the work you have done to date as local authorities and collectively through the Lancashire Combined County Authority.”

However, Lancashire County Council leader Stephen Atkinson told the LDRS that one of the most important questions of all – how much Lancashire would get from the government ‘investment fund’ that comes with agreeing to a mayor – had notably gone unanswered.

The minister stressed that a commitment to such funds being delivered over a 30-year period was laid down in legislation, but said the amount available to Lancashire would be “subject to further decisions following consideration of the Combined County Authority’s proposal to pursue mayoral devolution”.

County Cllr Atkinson – the Reform UK leader at County Hall and one of the most strident voices against an elected mayor during his six-year stint as the Conservative leader of Ribble Valley Borough Council – said that Ms. Fahnbulleh‘s response left too much to chance.

“It doesn’t say you’re going to get this much every year – it says look [at] whatever other [places] have got [and] you can assume you’ll get that.

“That’s not what we want – we want to understand exactly what we will get, because there’s this misconception in Lancashire that if we have a mayor, we’ll get what Manchester got, or what Liverpool got.

“That is not a result of a mayoralty – that is a result of those large cities receiving investment from the Treasury, and the shire counties [having been] neglected for years,” County Cllr Atkinson said.

He also warned of the option for any county-wide mayor to be able to levy an extra charge on council tax bills – although that has not been taken up universally in other mayor-led areas.

“Every council taxpayer [would] have to pay a fee to support the mayor’s office – and that’s a cost on families. So I don’t think it’s as simple as, ‘This is really good and let’s do it,’” County Cllr Atkinson said.

However, his Labour counterparts on the LCCA – starting from a much more pro-mayor position – were satisfied with what they saw as the broader benefits and were convinced that Lancashire would be in line for the gold standard level of annual government investment, widely regarded as £30m a year over 30 years, weighted according to an area’s population.

Cllr Riley said it would be “insane for Lancashire to end up being the only place in the North of England that doesn’t have a mayoral authority – it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever”. The county is currently on course to be in exactly that position in less than two years’ time.

He added that it was not just the core investment fund from which Lancashire would benefit, but the many individual cash pots set up by the government – for initiatives connected to the likes of transport and affordable housing – which are reserved solely for mayor-led combined authorities, leaving Lancashire currently out in the cold with every allocation.

Cllr Williams said the ministerial letter and evidence from Lancashire’s nearest neighbours should be enough to convince anyone of the need to “crack on” with getting a mayor.

“We’re missing opportunities. We’ve got a lot of catching up to Manchester and Liverpool to do.

“But it isn’t just the money, it’s the powers that come with that and those relationships that you have – and it’s incredibly important for business.

“[People] may have some scepticism about it, but you have to look at other areas and what they’ve achieved. We know we want that – we need to have that in Lancashire.”

The government’s response to the LCCA will be discussed at a future meeting of the authority, as part of the conclusion of a review into Lancashire’s existing devolution deal – and the powers and cash that come with it.

That agreement was concluded with the previous Conservative government just over two years ago, before being rubber-stamped by the new Labour administration last year and finally coming into force back in February.

However, Labour’s decision to honour the Tory deal came with a demand that Lancashire come forward with proposals for “deeper” devolution by autumn 2025 – the suggestion appearing to be that a mayor should be part of any future devolved package for the county. It is that – slightly delayed – process which the LCCA is now in the midst of.

Lancashire’s current deal entitles it to a one-off £20m government payment to help boost “innovation-led growth”.

The powers on offer are in the second tier of what were three levels of deal available at the time the agreement was signed, with the most extensive local control being given to those areas with a mayor to oversee the implementation of their devolution package