8


IN VIEW


council, working alongside three other newly established authorities.


By Ged Henderson


Burnley and Pendle councils are reported to be developing proposals for five unitary authorities and to be jointly preparing a business case.


Both councils say they believe that smaller unitary councils would be more responsive to local needs, closer to residents, and better placed to deliver high-quality services.


CARVING UP THE COUNTY


The North and Western Lancashire Chamber of Commerce (NWLCC) has urged the government to approve three unitary authorities for the county – saying it is what business wants and needs.


ENTER NOW!


DEADLINE FRIDAY 5 DECEMBER


ENTER HERE


redroseawards.co.uk @redroseawards


#RRA26


Hundreds of businesses have backed the proposal following a consultation exercise sparked by the impending re-organisation of local government in Lancashire.


The government’s drive to streamline local government aims to replace two-tier council structures with fewer, larger unitary authorities, each serving around 500,000 residents by April 2028.


The leaders of Lancashire’s 15 councils are currently weighing up options that range from


help reach the critical mass requested by the government, enabling more efficient governance, better resource allocation, and stronger economic development strategies.”


The letter adds: “Lancashire requires clarity, accountability and an efficient local government structure which strengthens our competitiveness.”


Babs Murphy, chief executive of the chamber, said: “Business has spoken, and the chamber has listened to members’ concerns and recommendations for all proposals and believe three unitary authorities would be the best for the county.


“A three unitary authority falls within the government’s population guidelines, connects existing councils with similar economic


As a voice of business, we have listened to


members concerns and recommendations for all proposals and believe three unitary authorities would be the best for the county


two to five unitary authorities. They have until the end of November to submit their proposals to government.


And as that deadline approaches it has become clear there are diverse opinions about the future political map of the county emerging.


The Preston headquartered chamber’s formal position is that Lancashire should be governed by three unitary authorities.


Its plan would see Fylde, Wyre, Blackpool and Lancaster come together. Preston, Chorley, South Ribble and West Lancashire would make up the second local authority with the six councils of east Lancashire – Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Pendle, Rossendale, Hyndburn, and Ribble Valley – combining for the third council area.


The chamber is now urging the government to “heed the voice of business in the county” and support its proposals. And it has written to local government secretary Steven Reed setting out its case.


It has told him: “Our members consider that establishing three unitary authorities would


identities and could deliver better services to businesses and residents.


“Having a coastal, central and eastern local authority keeps local identity intact and promotes business collaboration, as well as reducing service duplication as some of these district councils already work together.


“The county requires clarity, accountability and an efficient local government structure which will strengthen our competitiveness. We urge the government to consider the chamber’s proposal to ensure the restructure benefits the entire community and promotes social and economic growth for the county.”


Meanwhile, leaders of the Preston Partnership have thrown their support behind proposals to create a new unitary authority bringing together Preston, Chorley, South Ribble and West Lancashire.


South Ribble Council has revealed it prefers a model that would see four councils being created. Its plan would see it, Chorley and West Lancashire covered under a new unitary


Blackburn with Darwen says that it supports all options which will create an east Lancashire wide unitary council. That idea has the backing of council leaders at Hyndburn and Rossendale, according to reports.


Preston City Council prefers a model that would see four councils being created, with the city, Ribble Valley and Lancaster coming together as a new unitary.


Fylde Council has expressed its opposition to the reorganisation. Its leader Karen Buckley said: “We believe the current system works well for Fylde, keeping services close to our communities and preserving our strong local identity.”


It has also issued the borough’s response to the county’s local government reorganisation survey, saying that 85 per cent of more than 2,300 people from Fylde who took part want to retain the current structure.


Coun Buckley said: “The results from the survey confirm that the government’s plans to re-draw local authority boundaries are not welcome in Fylde.”


Ribble Valley Council leader Simon Hore said: “The council believes that our residents are best served by the current system of local government in Lancashire, but they can be assured that we will be fighting for the best outcome for the borough if reorganisation goes ahead.”


In the north of the county, Lancaster Council has yet to officially reveal its preference. The same goes for Blackpool, currently one of Lancashire’s two unitary authorities.


Wyre Council says it is committed to ensuring any new arrangements reflect the needs of its communities.


West Lancashire councillors have said they would prefer the borough to align with Chorley and South Ribble, based on current options on offer.


However, some members have expressed disappointment that there are no options for closer alignments with Merseyside or Greater Manchester.


Babs Murphy


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70