The Full Council meeting of Lancashire County Council, held on Thursday, 20 November 2025, saw a significant decision made regarding the reorganisation of local government in Lancashire. After extensive debate, the council voted to recommend a proposal for two unitary authorities for Lancashire, a decision aimed at improving efficiency, service quality, and financial resilience. The meeting also addressed several other key issues, including the Local Government Association's Debate Not Hate campaign, the appointment of a co-chair for the Autism Partnership Board, and the impact of VAT on private schools.

Local Government Reorganisation

The council voted to recommend a proposal for two unitary authorities for Lancashire, a decision that emerged after considerable debate among councillors. The preferred model, outlined in the Connecting Need to Opportunity: Two Unitary Councils for Lancashire report¹, aims to create two equitable authorities, North and South Lancashire, broadly split along the River Ribble. This proposal was favoured for its potential to deliver significant financial savings (£391m over five years), enhance financial resilience, and provide a balanced distribution of resources and service needs. Councillor Stephen Atkinson, Leader of Lancashire County Council, moved the recommendation, arguing that this model offered the most viable option in the current financial climate and would best serve the residents of Lancashire.

However, the proposal faced considerable opposition. Councillor David Whipp, Leader of Pendle Council, expressed strong disagreement, advocating for a pattern of five unitary authorities. He argued that larger authorities would not be efficient and that smaller units were better able to make savings and adapt. Councillor Professor Michael Lavalette echoed these sentiments, criticising the two-authority model as a folly on top of a folly that would lead to distant bureaucracies with councillors having little control. Councillor Aidy Riggott also voiced concerns, questioning the credibility of the proposed large councils and their alignment with government criteria, suggesting that businesses favoured a three-unitary approach. Councillor Arif argued that Lancashire was too diverse for two mega-authorities, citing the example of Birmingham City Council's collapse. Councillor Cameron highlighted the potential for Burnley to be overshadowed by decisions made in Blackburn or Preston, fearing a loss of local control and compromised services. Councillor Sutton supported the two-unitary option not as an endorsement of the process, but as the least damaging outcome, arguing it best protected services, accountability, and household finances. Councillor Paul Stubbins argued that the proposal was for minimum change and not better for local identity or effectiveness. Councillor John Potter criticised the lack of data on democratic deficit and the capped number of councillors, while Councillor Yousuf Motala expressed amazement at the ruling group's suggestion, arguing that bigger was not necessarily better. Councillor Ali also could not support the two-unitary model, believing a structure with four or five unitary councils would keep local decision-making closer to the people. Councillor Graham supported the two-council solution, stating that constituents were against any reorganisation but that this was the best option on the table. Councillor Murfin drew parallels with Britain's entry into the European Community, fearing that large unitaries would rely on transfer payments and lose local identity. Councillor Jones questioned why a referendum was not being held, stating that Reform UK supporters wanted a democratic revolution. Councillor Walsh questioned the confidence in staff and officers, arguing that the two-unit model offered the best savings. Leader Stephen Atkinson responded by highlighting the financial difficulties faced by other unitary authorities, such as Somerset and Cumbria, and reiterated that the two-unitary model was the most viable option given the lack of funding and support for local government.

Ultimately, the motion to recommend the proposal for two unitary councils was carried with 446 votes in favour and 29 against, following a named vote. An amendment to delay shadow elections until May 2028 was accepted.

Notices of Motion

Support for Northern Powerhouse Rail

Councillor Azhar Ali OBE moved a motion reaffirming the council's support for Northern Powerhouse Rail¹ and urging the government to provide funding for various rail projects across Lancashire, including the Poulton-Fleetwood link and the Colne to Skipton line. Councillor Aidy Riggott seconded the motion, criticising Reform UK's stance on the project. Councillor Michael Lavalette proposed an amendment to condemn any attempt to scrap Northern Powerhouse Rail, which was accepted as a friendly amendment. Councillor Clive Balchin spoke against the motion, questioning the cost and effectiveness of Northern Powerhouse Rail. Councillor Jordan Fox expressed confusion about supporting the project, arguing it primarily benefited Liverpool and Manchester. Councillor Hamish Mills urged Reform councillors to support the motion for improved rail services. Councillor Steve Rigby added the South Fylde loop line to the list of projects. Councillor Mark Clifford spoke about the importance of rail connectivity for Lancashire's economy. Councillor Mark Wade called for a named vote. Councillor Stephen Atkinson, the Leader, responded by stating that the country was broke and that the motion was disingenuous, as the money was being spent on the Liverpool-Manchester connection. He argued that Reform UK supported local transport links but could not guarantee funds for local projects. The motion was ultimately defeated with 28 votes in favour and 46 against.

Opposition to Onshore Cabling Route for Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Windfarm

Councillor Peter Buckley moved a motion opposing the proposed onshore cable route for the Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Windfarm¹, citing concerns about disruption to residents, businesses, farmland, and the environment. He called for a full exploration of alternative routes. Councillor John R Singleton seconded the motion, highlighting the potential loss of agricultural land and the impact on farming communities. Councillor Joshua Roberts proposed a friendly amendment to support an alternative route, which was accepted. The motion, as amended, was carried.

Civic Pride Initiative

Councillor Ella Worthington moved a motion to foster civic pride across Lancashire, proposing the playing of the National Anthem at the start of Full Council meetings and the development of a Civic Pride Action Plan. Councillor Professor Michael Lavalette proposed an amendment to the motion, objecting to the National Anthem and suggesting the inclusion of Lancashire's hidden history in school curricula, and advocating for investment in public services and local grants. Councillor Russell Walsh seconded the amendment, arguing for financial commitment to community organisations and youth projects. Councillor Worthington refused the amendment. Following a named vote, the motion was carried.

Local Elections in 2026

Councillor Tom Lord moved a motion calling for the repeal of Section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000, which allows the Secretary of State to postpone local elections, and for assurances that the 2026 local elections would proceed. Councillor Thomas de Freitas seconded the motion, emphasising the importance of a renewed mandate for councillors. Councillor Aidy Riggott supported the motion, acknowledging Reform UK's eagerness to contest elections. Councillor Gina Dowding supported the motion but questioned Reform UK's commitment to proportional representation. Councillor Gordon Johnson highlighted Labour's potential losses in West Lancashire and supported the motion. Councillor Usman Arif stressed that democracy must never be paused and that elections must go ahead. Councillor Martyn Sutton argued that cancelling elections was a rupture of the democratic contract. Councillor Joel Tetlow asked for a named vote. Councillor John Potter agreed that elections should go ahead but pointed out the hypocrisy of the Reform UK group in proposing to delay elections in the Local Government Reorganisation context. Councillor Professor Michael Lavalette supported the motion, criticising the government's authoritarian tendencies and the confusion caused by cancelling elections in some areas but not others. Councillor Ged Mirfin spoke about the erosion of rights and the cancellation of elections by dictators. Councillor Ashley Joynes supported the motion, highlighting the importance of the National Anthem and the achievements of the previous Conservative administration in promoting civic pride. Councillor Matthew Salter spoke about celebrating Lancashire's history and identity. Councillor Maria Jones spoke about her loyalty to Britain and Lancashire, emphasizing unity and respect. Councillor Worthington concluded by stressing the importance of civic pride and urging councillors to get involved in their communities. The motion was carried by a named vote.

Committee Reports and Other Business

The council also noted reports from the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee, the Employment Committee, and the Overview and Scrutiny Committees. The Cabinet's report (Part B) was also noted. A committee appointment was made, with Councillor Alice Jones appointed as Deputy Chair of the Environment, Economic Growth and Transport Scrutiny Committee. Minor updates to the County Council's Constitution were also noted.