It's fair to say not many people think the Local Government Reorganisation is a good idea.
For those of you not quite aware, all the local Borough councils across Lancashire are being abolished. If plans go ahead, Pendle Borough Council will be no more and cease to exist around April 2028.
The idea is to get rid of the two-tiers of local government (County and Borough) and create just one council, or Unitary Authority, to run everything.
 |
| From the Government website |
The arguments for Unitary Authorities, are that a single council should cut duplication, encourage more linked up decision-making and reduce costs.
The arguments against, are that there will be less local representation (less councillors for each area and larger council districts), the cost savings are negligible and this is ideologically motivated.
The Government said that things cannot remain the same, and that the Borough and County Councils must make a proposal about how the new Unitary Authorities across Lancashire should look.
In the end there were five proposals submitted by all Lancashire councils.
Pendle Borough Council proposed the smallest possible model - the 5 Unitary Authority (5UA) model - in an effort to keep the local representation and some sort of local identity. This was also proposed by Burnley Council, and is the only option that separated Burnley and Pendle from Blackburn.
 |
| Pendle Council's 5 Unitary Authority (5UA) proposal |
 |
| LCC's proposal for a 2 Unitary Authority (2UA) |
As you can see the proposals are either end of the spectrum and we wanted to know why a Reform-led Council - a party that fundamentally disagrees with the reorganisation - would choose the most radical and largest council model rather than choose the smaller more local models.
 |
| Conclusion of residents' survey preferring smaller authorities |
Take a look at the full residents' survey here:
Lancashire Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) Community Survey Report
Pendle Insider wrote to Lancashire County Council Leader, Stephen Atkinson, for clarity on the decision-making and the disparity between what residents wanted in the survey and the Council's final proposal to the Government.
Cllr Stephen Atkinson, Leader of Lancashire County Council, said:
"A range of options involving varying numbers of councils were carefully assessed during the development of the county council’s business case.
This work was undertaken prior to the decision on a preferred option to replace the current two-tier system of local government with two new single-tier authorities.
The business case did include feedback from a Lancashire-wide residents’ survey, which was supported by all 15 of the county’s local authorities. This feedback was one of a number of factors considered alongside financial sustainability, service delivery, governance and long-term resilience.
The government have also been clear that the minimum threshold for each council is a population of over 500k and only the two unitary proposal delivers this.
The savings in the two unitary proposal are also many millions of pounds extra compared to the other options being considered, and this money would allow local area committees to be funded, keeping that local voice across Lancashire that people currently treasure within their own communities.
Member of the cabinet voted to support the two council option at the cabinet meeting in November 2025. It is worth stating that I said in the meeting that I was not in support of local government reorganisation but had a duty to support the option that was in the best interest of local people if the Government went ahead.
The Government’s own statutory consultation is now under way. This gives residents, businesses and other interested parties the opportunity to set out their views directly to Government before a final decision is taken.
The consultation can be found here: Have your say – Lancashire Local Government Reorganisation "
The response from Lancashire County's Leader, along with looking at the minutes from the Council meetings, indicate a belief that larger Unitary Councils will decrease the disparity of deprivation in certain areas (such as Pendle and East Lancashire), and that larger areas will equalise standards and wealth share, bringing poorer areas up, thanks to wealthier areas such as South Ribble and Chorley.
Cllr Atkinson also specifically indicates that 'the government have been clear' that each Unitary Authority has a minimum threshold of 500k - although this is actually only a guideline from the government, so could have been deviated from.
 |
| Deprivation in East Lancashire |
At least now there is clarity. The Council did look at the residents' views and seemingly has ignored it, or not weighted it very highly, in favour of greater savings and a lower disparity of deprivation across the regions.
The arguments around whether a two or five Unitary Authority is better will remain, and whether any savings made from LCC's proposal would be reinvested into providing local area committees are just promises from a politician at this stage. How much weight you put behind that is up to you...
The decision has not been made by the Government yet, and there is a consultation running right now for you to have your say.
Find it here: (closes March 26, 2026)