Agenda item

Report attached.

Members considered a report of Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP, Leader of the Council, providing a summary of the English Devolution White Paper (EDWP) published on the 16^th December 2024 and an indicative Council Position to the Government’s consultation.

Councillor Dad outlined the contents of the summary section of the report and the potential benefits of reorganisation / devolution and, in particular, the anticipated benefits of a Pennine Lancashire option.  He outlined the consultation process and overall timescales.  He also expressed a preference tor Lancashire to be included in the Devolution Priority Programme (DPP), so that this area could lead the way.

Councillor Dad and other Lancashire area council leaders had previously met with the Government Minister responsible.  The following three key questions, posed in November, could now be answered as indicated:

• Would reorganisation happen? – This would definitely go ahead;
• When would this occur? - The timetable was as set out in the report;
• How would this be implemented? – The outcome would depend on the details of the plan that the relevant stakeholders drew up.

The report set out a summary as follows:

The Government’s intention was that Local Government reorganisation would take place across England.  All two-tier areas, including Lancashire, were to be replaced by unitary authorities by either April 2027 or April 2028.

The Government expected new unitary authorities to cover population sizes of at least 500,000.  No upper limit had been set.  Populations of under 500,000 would be considered under specific circumstances.  500,000 had been set as the Government felt this was the minimum population required to achieve efficiencies, withstand financial shocks and provide quality of service.

There were two “paths” to reorganisation, either through the Devolution Priority Programme (DPP), which was fast track approach and aimed to have new local government structures in place by April 2027. Or, the non DPP areas (areas not on the devolution priority programmes) would be expected to have new local government structures by April 2028.

Councils (upper tier and unitary only) who wanted to take part in the DPP would have to have confirmed this to government by the 10^th January.

By the end of January, the Council should know whether or not Lancashire was on the DPP.

Mayoral elections would take place in 2026 (DPP areas) and 2027 (non DPP areas).

The Government expected all Councils in an affected area to work together to submit one proposal for reorganisation.  However, they understood that this might not be possible and would consider more than one proposal.

A formal invitation to submit reorganisation proposals would be issued to authorities in January.

Initial proposals for reorganisation would have to be submitted to the Government by March 2025.

Final proposals would have to be submitted by May 2025 (for those on the DPP) and Autumn 2025 (for those not on the DPP).

The Government would be responsible for public consultation on the proposals.  However, they emphasised that this would be consultation and not a referendum.

The Government would accept requests to cancel 2025 local elections from areas affected.  Councils wishing to cancel their election would have to notify the Government by 10^th January.  There were no local elections scheduled in Hyndburn this year, however, Lancashire County Council elections were due in May 2025.

Electoral wards would change under the reorganisation and the Boundary Commission would work with councils on this.  Parish Councils might have a role in reorganisation, although it was not yet known what this would look like.

Further background was set out in the report under the following headings:

• The English Devolution White paper;
• New Powers;
• Potential Benefits of Reorganisation  / Devolution;
• Key Benefits of a Pennine Lancashire Proposals;
• Timetable; and
• Next Steps

Councillor Khan expressed disappointment that the recommendations had been drafted without consultation with Conservative Group, or with residents.  He recognised the benefits of devolution and reorganisation, but was not in favour of Lancashire being included in the Devolution Priority Programme.  An additional year wold allow more time to plan for IT, staffing and boundary changes.  There was a also a case for ensuring sufficient time to spend the Council’s reserves in Hyndburn, rather than allowing that funding to be subsumed into plans for projects in Blackburn or Burnley.  Councillors Fazal and Pritchard also expressed a preference for a later implementation date.  Councillor Fazal supported comprehensive consultation with residents.

Councillor Smithson asked whether a request should be submitted to Lancashire County Council for a further extension to the waste disposal contract at Whinney Hill, in the light of reorganisation.

David Welsby, Chief Executive, clarified the devolution arrangements and proposed local government reorganisation were separate issues with different timetables.  The devolution question and DPP would be determined by upper tier authorities in the region, whereas every council could express a view in relation to local government reorganisation.  Councillor Khan indicated that the Lancashire upper tier authorities had already written to the Government to say that Lancashire did not want to be in the DPP.

Councillors Aziz, Brerton, Walsh and Younis spoke in favour of the overall proposals.

Councillors Pritchard, Clegg and Paul Cox expressed some reservations about the changes.

Councillor Dad summed up by indicating that the report to the Council today represented the start of the consultation process.  The timescales would be set by the Government.  He acknowledged that a variety of views had been expressed, some positive and some negative.  He also confirmed that he had contacted Councillor Khan to discuss the proposals but it had not been possible to agree a mutually convenient time.  However, he hoped that the respective group leaders could work together on this matter going forward.  He expressed concern that Hyndburn had no voice in respect of the Lancashire Combined County Authority (CCA).  However, it was hoped that Hyndburn could take the lead by becoming the administrative centre for a new Pennine Lancashire Unitary Authority.

Resolved                                    -    That Council:

(1)   Notes the content of the report;

(2)   Supports the process of devolving powers from Whitehall to Local Government;

(3)   Supports the creation of a Pennine Lancashire Unitary Authority (which includes Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle, Ribble Valley & Rossendale);

(4)   Supports the Council’s inclusion in the Devolution Priority Programme;

(5)   Supports a proposal for Hyndburn to be the administrative centre of the unitary authority due to its symbolic and central location and good infrastructure.