Council leaders react to delays in Local Government Reorganisation plans

There are calls for a wholesale rethink of plans to abolish and replace all of Lancashire’s councils after ministers announced the process had been paused while checks are carried out to ensure it is lawful.

All 15 main local authorities in the county are due to be scrapped in April 2028 as part of a government-ordered restructure designed to streamline the council landscape in almost two dozen areas nationwide.

News of the hold-up prompted Lancashire County Council leader Stephen Atkinson to renew his previously rejected push for a local referendum on the subject.

Meanwhile, Wyre Council leader Michael Vincent said the process should now be abandoned completely – and the leader of Lancaster City Council, Caroline Jackson, insisted the government should go “back to the drawing board”.

It is less than two months since Lancashire was told the size and shape of the councils that would replace those whose days were believed to be numbered – when four sprawling, all-purpose new authorities were unveiled to serve North Lancashire, South Lancashire, Pennine Lancashire and the Fylde coast.

They were set to take over in little more than 18 months’ time from Lancashire County Council and the authorities covering Blackburn with Darwen, Blackpool, Burnley Chorley, Fylde, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Pendle, Preston, Ribble Valley, Rossendale, South Ribble, West Lancashire and Wyre.

However, Angela Rayner announced in the Commons on Monday afternoon that the revamp planned for the county – the biggest for more than 50 years – was being put on hold, along with most of the others under way across England.

The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that “in light of legal advice” she wanted to satisfy herself that “the right process is in place [which] is robust and, of course, complies with the law”.

But she also pointed towards a broader reassessment of the principle underpinning the changes – which she herself set in train back in December 2024 under Sir Keir Starmer – by launching a “rapid review” of the entire reorganisation programme.

“I want to fully test whether our proposals for local government reorganisation meet the priorities of the new administration and the new Prime Minister,” Ms. Rayner added.

The shock announcement leaves Lancashire’s existing authorities in local government limbo, with no certainty as to whether their demise has simply been delayed – or indefinitely dodged.

Asked by South Ribble MP Paul Foster to confirm that reorganisation was “still a commitment of this government” – and that the county would “hopefully” move to the agreed four-council model in Lancashire, Angela Rayner said she was “absolutely committed to making sure areas like…Lancashire do get local government reform”.

“This is a pause and I haven’t taken that decision lightly,” she added – without making any promises regarding the specifics of the four-way split announced nearly two months ago.

One thing the government has confirmed is that elections to establish so-called ‘shadow’ versions of the replacement authorities – which were due to take place in May 2027, giving the new organisations 11 months to operate alongside the councils being axed – are now off.

Instead, polls will be held for those current local authorities that would have been due to stage them on the usual electoral timetable. That means 13 of the 15 existing Lancashire councils will see votes take place next year, with the exceptions being Rossendale and the county council, for which elections were not due until 2028 and 2029, respectively.

The move suggests that the planned timetable for the new councils – if they are still ultimately formed – has been pushed back by at least a year.

County Cllr Atkinson, the ruling Reform UK leader at County Hall – and a longstanding and vehement opponent of the proposed council changes – said the delay was a chance to ensure the voices of Lancashire residents were heard on the issue.

A public consultation last year found almost two thirds of the 13,000 people who responded wanted to retain the current ‘two-tier’ system that operates across most of Lancashire.

Under that arrangement, responsibility for services is split between the county council – which looks after the likes of social care, highways and schools – and 12 smaller district authorities, like Preston, Burnley and Wyre, which take care of matters such as waste collection, parks, housing and planning applications in their own areas. Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen councils deliver all local services within their borders – as the new authorities are set to do, but over much larger swathes of the county.

Last year, County Cllr Atkinson demanded a legally-binding referendum on the overhaul, but was told by the government that the relevant legislation did not permit the county to stage such a vote.

He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) he will now be writing to Angela Rayner to repeat that call afresh in view of the delay she has announced and the legal question mark hanging over the proceedings.

County Cllr Atkinson added: “I have consistently made clear that I do not believe local government reorganisation is the right course for Lancashire.

“Changing council structures on this scale would be costly and disruptive, with no guarantee that it would improve services or deliver better value for residents.

“I therefore welcome the decision to pause and review the process. It provides an important opportunity for ministers to reconsider whether such fundamental change is necessary and to listen properly to councils and communities across the county.”

Back in February, County Cllr Atkinson wrote to Steve Reed MP – who was in Angela Rayner’s role at the time after she had resigned from the post last September over a stamp duty controversy – to warn him that attempting to carry out so many reorganisations simultaneously was “inherently destabilising”.

He said that the sudden pause announced on Monday could have been avoided “if the government had entered into a dialogue back then”.

Since that point, county councils in Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk and Hampshire – the first three Reform-run, the latter under Conservative control – have brought judicial reviews over their own abolitions, which the government has now withdrawn.

Cllr Vincent told the LDRS that Andy Burnham should now take the opportunity to rip up the planned revamps altogether – regardless of the outcome of the overarching review into their legality.

“They should just scrap it and let us go about our jobs – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” Wyre’s Conservative leader said. “Stop wasting money on this stuff – and what they would have wasted on it, they should release to local councils.

“We have spent so much time and money on preparing bids [for the suggested replacement council configurations] and then doing the work that’s needed to implement the decision since it was made in July, that the government absolutely has to compensate us for this financially – and they should then just start funding us properly,” said Cllr Vincent, who was always opposed in principle to reorganisation.

The 15 existing Lancashire councils had already agreed to set aside £30m between them to cover the cost of the transition to the new arrangements. While it is understood that that cash pot has not yet been significantly dipped into, the individual authorities have had to absorb the direct and indirect costs of the work involved in answering the government’s call to come up proposals for their replacement. Five different visions were produced over the course of last year, collectively running to more than 800 pages.

Fylde Council’s Tory leader Karen Buckley – another reorganisation opponent – said the government’s change of course at such a late stage was “staggering”.

“Councils were instructed to prepare at pace for major structural change, including the creation of shadow unitary councils and revised electoral arrangements for next May. Staff in all affected areas across the country have been living with prolonged uncertainty about their future employer and their roles – uncertainty that could and should have been avoided.

Significant time, effort and public resources have already been committed to planning for changes ministers insisted were necessary. To halt the process [now], after councils have been repeatedly told to press ahead, represents a serious failure of national leadership.

“It has left local authorities with the consequences of decisions that were not of our making – and now with the consequences of their reversal,” said Cllr Buckley, who pledged that her authority would “continue to serve our residents with professionalism and commitment”.

Lancaster City Council’s Green Party leader Caroline Jackson was deeply sceptical about the shake-up when it was first mooted, but told the LDRS in July that she had come round to considering it an “opportunity for new thinking…and providing better services”.

Responding to the delay, she said it “comes as both a slap in the face regarding our work and commitment and, to be honest, a blessed relief – an opportunity to get back to doing more of the things that mean so much for local residents”.

“Government needs to take responsibility for coming up with a clear plan for the way ahead and soon. [This] has been a huge imposition on council officers and councillors alike – uncertainty has affected all of our wellbeing and makes strategy and service planning very difficult.

“It’s time to stop using local government as a political football and recognise, whatever its inconsistencies, it is currently providing the support that all communities need. [This is] a chance for the government to work with councils to devise a real answer to the real difficulties [involved in] providing local services,” Cllr Jackson said.

The Conservative leader of Ribble Valley Borough Council, Simon Hore said he found the hold-up “incredibly frustrating” – and called for clarity, one way or the other, “this side of Christmas”.

“I feel for all the council officers who have put in a huge amount of work over the past 18 months – and this is also about their employment as well,” Cllr Hore told the LDRS. “People will drift away from local government because they can find more stable work elsewhere.”

Burnley Council’s independent leader Afrasiab Anwar welcomed the fact that ministers had “finally listened to the concerns that many of us have been raising about local government reorganisation”, but added of the situation: “You could not make this up.”

“I have always been deeply concerned about the way this has been done and especially about the proposals that would see Burnley merged with Blackburn- particularly given the reported £43m financial black hole facing the new authority. I raised this with government on numerous occasions.

“I hope this review will address those concerns and, most importantly, protect Burnley’s unique identity, heritage and voice. The government has marched local authorities up the hill on this issue, only to now reconsider its approach. It raises serious questions about the process to date and the costs already incurred.

“Local residents deserve reassurance that Burnley taxpayers will not be expected to pick up the bill for problems they did not create.

“There must now be a proper review that genuinely takes account of the views of local communities, elected councillors and local leaders. Any future decision must be based on what is best for our residents, not what is most convenient for Whitehall. The secretary of state needs to listen to the views of Burnley residents about being merged with Blackburn. “

Meanwhile, David Whittington, the Conservative leader of West Lancashire Borough Council, decried any change in the implementation date for the new structures.

“A great deal of work has been undertaken on the basis that West Lancashire Borough Council will cease to exist on 31st March 2028. A lot of that work is now irrelevant, which is annoying to say the least, and means that scarce resources have been wasted,”

“Staying with the existing structure is preferable to an extended period of uncertainty, but local government reorganisation done properly is probably a good thing,” Cllr Whittington said.

The LDRS approached all 15 Lancashire council leaders – several of whom strongly support the now uncertain restructure – for a response to the government’s announcement.

The government said in July that it was minded to create four new local authorities for Lancashire – and had already started to prepare for the Parliamentary process that was to lead to their eventual formation.

The proposed councils are:

NORTH LANCASHIRE – made up of the existing Preston, Lancaster and Ribble Valley council areas;

SOUTH LANCASHIRE – made up of the existing Chorley, South Ribble and West Lancashire council areas;

FYLDE COAST – made up of the existing Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre council areas;

PENNINE LANCASHIRE –  made up of the existing Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Hyndburn, Rossendale and Pendle council areas.