Govt fires starting gun on Lancs governance consultation
Residents across Lancashire’s 14 boroughs have until 26 March to contribute to the discussion about how the county will be carved up as part of Labour’s efforts to overhaul local governance.
Lancashire’s local authorities do not see eye to eye on how to split up the county, with five different options put forward to government last year.
Scroll down to see the five reorganisation options on the table in Lancashire.
Residents are now being given the opportunity to say which option they prefer.
In a written ministerial statement published yesterday, Alison McGovern, minister for state for local government and homelessness said the reforms are about achieving “better outcomes for the people we serve” rather than “funding formulas or lines on a map”.
She added that local government reorganisation would bring an end to “the disjointed two-tier council system”.
“We will finally put an end to two-tier system that slows down local decisions, sees local economies fragmented with different councils responsible for different priorities, and means outdated boundaries stop our towns and cities from growing,” she said.
Elections for the new shadow authorities could take place in May 2027, with the new councils assuming full responsibility for services from 1 April 2028.
The five options on the table in Lancashire are as follows.
Two unitary authorities – this option proposes dividing the county in half with the River Ribble as the dividing line.
North – Lancaster, Fylde, Wyre, Blackpool, Preston, and Ribble Valley.
South – Blackburn with Darwen, West Lancashire, South Ribble, Chorley, Hyndburn, Burnley, Rossendale, and Pendle.
Lancashire County Council is the only one of the 15 authorities in favour of the two-way split.
Three unitary authorities – this option proposes a three-way reorganisation comprising Coastal Lancashire, Central Lancashire, and Pennine Lancashire.
Coastal – Lancaster, Blackpool, Fylde, and Wyre.
Central – Chorley, South Ribble, West Lancashire, and Preston.
Pennine – Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle, Ribble Valley, and Rossendale
This option is preferred by Blackburn with Darwen, Fylde, Hyndburn, Rossendale and Wyre councils.
Four unitary authorities option one – a four-way split proposing North, East, South, and West council areas.
North – Lancaster; Preston, and Ribble Valley
East – Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle, and Rossendale
South – Chorley, South Ribble, and West Lancashire
West – Blackpool, Fylde, and Wyre
This is the preferred option of Chorley, Lancaster, Preston, Ribble Valley, South Ribble and West Lancs councils.
Four unitary authorities option two – largely the same as option one save for some important differences concerning Wyre, Preston and Ribble Valley.
North – Lancaster, rural Wyre, and North Ribble Valley
East – Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle, Rossendale, and south Ribble Valley
South – Chorley, South Ribble, and West Lancashire
West – Blackpool, Fylde, Preston, and urban Wyre
This is otherwise known as the Blackpool option, given that Blackpool Council is the only authority promoting this split.
Five unitary authorities – a five-way split that introduces a fifth ‘middle’ authority area, as well as North, East, South, and West, incorporating Blackburn with Darwen Hyndburn, and Ribble Valley.
West – Blackpool, Fylde, and Preston
South – Chorley, South Ribble, and West Lancashire
Middle – Blackburn with Darwen, Hyndburn, and Ribble Valley
North – Lancaster and Wyre
East – Burnley, Pendle, and Rossendale
This is the preferred option of Burnley and Pendle councils.
Four of the options are based on political opportunism and party advantage . The only realistic option based on functional economic areas , eg travel to work , housing market , health economy , skills and education systems is the three council option . It produces the right size councils big enough to be effective and make savings but still linked to actual communities. I suspect the government will see through the motivations for the other 4 options . Option of 3 councils and a combined mayoral authority will at last allow Lancashire to begin to for fill its potential
By George
Three unitaries option please. Keeps Blackpool, together with the Fylde Coast councils, and keeps the Central Lancs authorities together.
By Rennalp
@George
I agree on the three unitary option. My council, Fylde, has sensibly backed the three UA option.
A full coverage of civil parishes underneath these would also take on and pull down powers from the UAs as per the Localism Act 2011.
Devolving further powers to the CCA is the big game in town. If the (any) mayor is good then a bonus.
By Rye
Hope all the supporters of the three council option will complete the consultation form …important as there will be a lot of responders with vested interests supporting other options
By George
The three-unitary option is the most logical, as it best reflects functional economic areas, travel-to-work patterns and the organisation of public services, while creating authorities of sufficient scale to drive efficiency and savings.
Splitting Preston out of Central Lancashire makes little sense given the existing joint local plan and core strategy, and Ribble Valley clearly belongs within Pennine Lancashire given its shared landscape with Pendle and strong economic and transport links to Blackburn and Hyndburn.
I have some sympathy for West Lancashire, which could make a case for closer alignment with the Liverpool City Region, but aligning with Central Lancashire wouldn’t be a disaster, they could still build ties with Liverpool (and GM) with the greater weight that a large unitary would bring.
A strong Pennine Lancashire authority would support a major manufacturing base, create opportunities to link with Atom Valley, improve connections to Manchester, and strengthen links with the Leeds City Region — this should have happened 20-years ago.
By P Larkin
The people can take part in the meaningless box ticking consultation. But they aren’t allowed to vote in an election.
By John
@ February 06, 2026 at 1:03 pm
By Rennalp
And February 06, 2026 at 6:12 pm
By P Larkin
I agree. A no brainer.
By Rye
Keeping Ormskirk in Lancashire is damaging growth, it’s a Liverpool commuter market town – not a rural Lancashire town.
By Derek