By Tom Pickup, Lancashire county councillor and Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care. I sit on the Cabinet that took this decision and I voted for it. Proceedings may follow, so this piece sets out what was decided and why, from the Cabinet report and the webcast, and does not discuss the merits of any claim.
On Thursday 1 October, Lancashire County Council’s Cabinet agreed to protect the council’s ability to challenge the Government’s July decision on local government reorganisation. If the Government does not confirm in time that the decision has been withdrawn, the council may file a “protective” judicial review claim and ask the court to pause it while the Government’s own review runs. Any claim must be filed “promptly and in any event by 16 October 2026”. The report estimates the cost “at approximately £5,000” if the claim is stayed at an early stage.1
The report was tabled as urgent business, and Cabinet adjourned briefly to read it. The video below runs uncut from the moment Cabinet reconvened to the vote, with chapters for each speaker.3
Lancashire County Council Cabinet, 1 October 2026, item 13, from the council’s public webcast (14 minutes). Nothing loads from YouTube until you press play. Watch on YouTube.
Why the date matters
On 16 July the Secretary of State decided to replace Lancashire’s fifteen councils with four unitary authorities: North Lancashire, South Lancashire, Pennine Lancashire and Fylde Coast. That was the proposal submitted by Chorley, Lancaster, Preston, Ribble Valley, South Ribble and West Lancashire councils. The county council had proposed two (para. 1 and 2).1
A judicial review claim must be filed promptly, and in any event within three months of the grounds arising. On the report’s calculation, and assuming the July decision still stands, that period ends on 16 October (para. 16).
On 7 September the Government paused reorganisation affecting Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool while it reviews the programme, and confirmed that the May 2027 elections will be held on existing boundaries. The report records that “Unlike decisions relating to some other areas, the announcement did not expressly state that the Lancashire decision had been withdrawn” (para. 7).
That leaves three things unclear, in the report’s words: “whether the July decision remains operative, whether all proposals will be reconsidered afresh, and whether the review will culminate in a fresh legal decision replacing or superseding the earlier decision” (para. 8). If the review ended after 16 October with the July decision left standing, the time to challenge it would already have run out.
What the council asked for, and when
| Date | What happened | Report |
|---|---|---|
| 5 August | The Leader writes to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government asking for its comparative assessment of the proposals, its fuller reasons, and the financial, service resilience and implementation analysis it relied on | para. 6 |
| 2 September | The Ministry replies that it holds some of the information and withholds it under section 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, “as it relates to the development of government policy” | para. 6 |
| 7 September | The Government announces the pause and review | para. 7 |
| 17 September | The Leader writes asking for the review’s scope, legal basis and timetable, and whether a fresh decision will be issued with reasons; a substantive reply is requested within seven days | para. 9 |
| 22 September | The Leader meets Jim McMahon, Minister for Local Government, Devolution and Growth, and repeats the request | para. 10 |
| 23 September | The Leader writes again; officers follow up | para. 10 |
| 28 September | A further meeting seeking clarification | summary |
| 1 October | No response confirming that the July decision is withdrawn; Cabinet decides | para. 11 |
| 16 October | Last day to file a claim, on the report’s calculation | para. 16 |
| 5 November | Next scheduled Cabinet | para. 25 |
The letters of 5 August and 17 September are published as appendices to the report.2
What a protective claim is
The report describes it as “a claim issued within the applicable time period to preserve the claimant’s legal position while an uncertainty or related process is resolved”. The council would ask the court to stay the claim until the review is finished, and any stay is for the court to grant (para. 15). While a claim is stayed, “no party would need to take any action (or incur any costs), and the court would take no action” (para. 22).
Cabinet had three options in front of it (paras. 20 to 22):
- take no immediate action, if the Government confirms in writing that the July decision is withdrawn and a fresh decision will follow;
- send a pre-action letter, which would give the Government a further chance to reply but use part of the time left, at greater cost;
- issue a protective claim and seek a stay, the course recommended if no confirmation arrives.
What Cabinet approved is a delegation, not an instruction to go to court. The Director of Law and Governance, in consultation with the Leader and the Section 151 Officer, may take whichever steps are “necessary and proportionate to protect the Council’s position”, including withdrawing proceedings later (recommendation (ii)). If the Government confirms that the decision is withdrawn, that a fresh decision will follow, and that it will not argue the council left it too late, “the Council may not need to take any action prior to the 16 October” (para. 13). The purpose of any claim, the report says, is “to preserve the Council’s ability to challenge the July decision if necessary, rather than to commit the Council at this stage to pursuing a substantive challenge” (para. 14).
In the meeting
The Leader, County Councillor Stephen Atkinson, recommended the third option: “This option protects the council’s position, affords maximum flexibility and minimal costs.” The Leader of the Opposition, County Councillor Azhar Ali, supported it and asked whether a fresh decision for two unitaries would satisfy the council. The Leader replied that “this is not about which model to choose. This is purely about looking at the facts of how the decision was reached”, and that any move to a full judicial review would come back to Cabinet with its costs.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, County Councillor Gina Dowding, asked whether the council would publish its correspondence and issue a press release, saying the public were “really interested and confused about LGR now”. The council published a statement from the Leader after the meeting.4
I spoke about what the uncertainty means for the county council’s own planning: until the review reports, we do not know whether to prepare services to be split between new councils, or to plan on the basis that the county council carries on and must be put on a sound financial footing. What the pause and a later vesting day cost all fifteen councils is set out in The year the pause handed back to Lancashire’s councils.
County Councillors Joshua Roberts, Simon Evans and Brian Moore also spoke. The recommendations were carried.
What happens next
If the Government gives the confirmation the council has asked for, no claim may be needed. If it does not, a claim can be filed by 16 October with an application to stay it. Either way, a further report will come to Cabinet once the outcome of the review for Lancashire is known, “with options provided on next steps including the continuation of any protective proceedings or withdrawal” (recommendation (iii)).
The Local Democracy Reporting Service’s report of the meeting, by Paul Faulkner, ran in the Burnley Express, the Lancaster Guardian and on Greatest Hits Radio Lancashire.567