Good news: the unitary council replacing Lancaster, Preston and Ribble Valley district councils – which was provisionally named ‘North Lancashire Council‘ – now looks set to be called ‘Lancaster, Preston and Ribble Valley Council‘. After 54 years, the Bowland area of Yorkshire will cease to be part of a local government area which portrays it as being in Lancashire. Bad news: the West Craven area of Yorkshire could still find itself under a unitary council called ‘Pennine Lancashire Council‘. We discuss these and the other ongoing council naming issues.
As we recently reported in Reclaming our counties: the end of “county councils”, the abolition of the remaining “county councils” in England in April 2028 and their replacement by unitary councils will be a big step forward in separating the identity of local government from that of the historic counties:
- the new unitary councils will be called just “council” and not “county council”.
- few of the new councils will adopt names which challenge historic county identities.
The current reforms will see the abolition of 21 county councils and over 150 district councils. These will be replaced by around 60 new unitary councils. Only 8 or so of the new councils have provisional names which would, to a greater or lesser extent, perpetuate county confusion in their areas.
The Association of British Counties (ABC) is happy for historic county names to be used within a council name if this provides the best description of the location and area of that council, e.g. the new East Kent Council and North Oxfordshire Council. But where a council area cannot sensibly be described by reference to the historic counties, then a county-neutral name is better, e.g. the new Ridgeway Council.
The scenario which causes maximum county-confusion is where a council uses the name of one historic county but has an area which covers a large part of a totally different county, e.g. Oxfordshire County Council, Lancashire County Council and Cambridgeshire County Council. Fortunately, only 3 of the new unitary councils (‘North Lancashire’, ‘Pennine Lancashire’, ‘South West Hertfordshire’) have provisional names which fall into this red-alert category.
Ultimately each council will get the final say on its name, once the shadow authorities are elected in April 2027. Elected in April 2026, the shadow ‘West Surrey Council‘ – another red-alert case – has already voted to change its name to ‘West Surrey and South Middlesex Council‘.
‘North Lancashire Council’ or ‘Lancaster, Preston and Ribble Valley Council’ ?
Lancashire County Council has an area which excludes the whole south of the county, as well as Lancashire North of the Sands. It includes the Forest of Bowland and West Craven areas of Yorkshire. The existence of this other ‘Lancashire‘ has been a major challenge to those of us who cherish the history, heritage and identity of the real Lancashire – and of Yorkshire too. The ongoing local government reorganisation is a golden opportunity to right this wrong.
As we reported in Yorkshire ignored as councils consult on names for new ‘Lancashire’ authorities, a new council area provisionally named ‘North Lancashire‘ is to be formed from a combination of the current districts of Preston, Lancaster and Ribble Valley. Around 110 sq miles of the new council’s area lies in Yorkshire, including most of the Forest of Bowland.
Fortunately, the name ‘North Lancashire‘ seems unlikely to be that finally adopted. A joint statement issued on 20th August by Lancaster City Council, Preston City Council and Ribble Valley Borough Council said they had: “achieved a consensus that an alternative name should be put forward for consideration which is Lancaster, Preston & Ribble Valley“.
Preston City Council leader Matthew Brown stated that while ‘North Lancashire‘ was fine as a temporary working title, it is crucial to have a name that reflects the “combined, culturally rich and historic landscape of the three districts“.
The leaders of these three councils are asking the Government to use their preferred council name within the Structural Change Order which will form the legislation enabling the local government changes. Whether the Government will agree to this is unclear since Lancashire County Council is apparently arguing against it.
Ultimately the name of each of the new councils will be down to that council itself once elected. The Government has made this clear in its letter of 20th July to the chief executives of the current councils concerning the implementation process for the reorganisation.
Given the unanimous support for the Lancaster, Preston and Ribble Valley Council name among local politicians, it seems fairly certain that this name will be that ultimately adopted by the new council. After 54 years of nonsense, Bowland will cease to be under a local authority which seeks to claim it as a part of Lancashire.
West Craven’s ‘Pennine Lancashire‘ Nightmare
There is no such good news concerning the soon-to-be ‘Pennine Lancashire Council‘. This new council area is a combination of the current districts of Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle and Rossendale along with the current unitary council of Blackburn with Darwen.
The West Craven area of the West Riding of Yorkshire was made part of Pendle Borough Council area in 1974, the area having previously being part of Skipton Rural District. The Yorkshire identity in the towns and villages of West Craven – Barnoldswick, Earby, Kelbrook, and Salterforth – remains strong.
Despite this the current councils are apparently quite happy with the name ‘Pennine Lancashire‘ and this seems set to be that used in the Structural Changes Order which will create the new authority.
Whilst the attraction of the name ‘Pennine Lancashire‘ to the larger part of this council area (that part actually in Lancashire) is understandable, to apply this name without any further qualification to West Craven would be utterly absurd.
The current Lancashire County Council largely gave up signing this area as ‘Lancashire‘ many years ago. Pendle Borough Council has signed West Craven with a degree of sensitivity, with some signs reflecting the Yorkshire identity of the area. The local government changes could see the area signed in future as “Welcome to Pennine Lancashire“!
The 20th July letter from the Government to the council chief executives points to a solution to this problem: “It is also possible for councils to use a name other than their official name for branding and local identity purposes.”
This line has been included in the Government letter specifically to help councils deal with situations like that presented by West Craven.
The new council could adopt the formal name ‘Pennine Lancashire and West Craven Council‘, acknowledging the geographical and cultural reality that West Craven is not in Lancashire.
But, as the Government statement makes clear, the new council need not use its whole official name in all contexts. It could use the shorter “Pennine Lancashire” on boundary signs, schools, libraries etc. within that part of its area in Lancashire.
But the new council could give due prominence to the ‘West Craven‘ part of its official name on council facilities in West Craven. It could also design boundary signage which refers to the Yorkshire identity of West Craven (cf the Pendle Borough Council sign outside Earby).
There may be other creative ways to deal with this situation. But it cannot stand that West Craven is portrayed as part of “Pennine Lancashire“.
Other “sub-optimal” council names
We highlighted several other inappropriate names in our recent Reclaming our counties: the end of “county councils” article. Whilst it is hard to know exactly what the councils have fed back to the Government on the provisional names, it seems likely that most of these names will be those used in the Structural Change Orders. If so, then change will have to wait until the shadow councils are elected in April 2027.
South Lancashire Council: Another council name that mispresents the real Lancashire. This is not in any sense the ‘southern strip’ of Lancashire. ‘Central Lancashire Council‘ would be one of any number of better alternatives.
Devon Council: this unqualified name would be absurd for a council which will be just one council among four providing local government services across Devon. It had previously been referred to as ‘Devon Coast and Countryside Council‘, a name which still has the support of many local politicians. Hopefully it will end up with this or a different alternative name.
Lincolnshire Council: this will be one council among four providing local government services across Lincolnshire. This has become the provisional name because the current councils cannot agree on an alternative. Hopefully a better name will be adopted by the council itself.
Gloucestershire Council: This is the only instance in the ongoing reorganisation that a current county council area is being made the basis of a new unitary council. Despite the absurdity of the name, it looks like we are stuck with it.
South West Hertfordshire Council: We have discussed in some depth why this name would fail the Middlesex town of Potters Bar. We are advocating ‘Colne Valley Council‘ or ‘Watford and Colne Valley Council’.
Nottinghamshire Council: until recently the two unitary councils replacing Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council were being referred to as ‘Southwest Nottinghamshire’ and ‘North and East Nottinghamshire’. These are now being referred to as ‘Greater Nottingham Council’ and ‘Nottinghamshire Council’. We much prefer the earlier names.
There are a few other provisional council names where the geographical compass-point description doesn’t entirely make sense. The worst examples are ‘South West Essex Council‘ and ‘South West Hampshire Council‘, neither of which lies in the south-west of these counties. We suspect that both of these will be renamed by the shadow councils. It is certainly inconceivable that Southampton councillors will accept the city’s name not being at the start of the new council name.
On a positive note, Leicestershire and Rutland Council seems set to be the name for the unitary council covering Rutland and the parts of Leicestershire beyond the enlarged city council area. Clearly, this council doesn’t cover all of Leicestershire but the “and Rutland” makes clear its administrative nature and gives a reasonable sense of the area it covers, avoiding the 1974 horror show of portraying Rutland as a part of Leicestershire.
The Government has still not made up its mind about the council set-up to replace Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council. More county-confusion could certainly result from the names and areas finally chosen here.
The Government is also yet to made up its mind about what will replace West Sussex County Council. The area will be split into two unitary councils though. It is hard to see how inappropriate county-based names could result.
Government back-peddling on Rutland lieutenancy?
ABC has long argued that the lieutenancies throughout Great Britain should be dissociated from local government altogether and the lord-lieutenants appointed directly to the historic counties (see The lieutenancies of England and their relationship to the historic counties), as a recognition of the important of both. Whilst the end of the 1974 local government system is an obvious time for such a move, the Government does not seem minded to agree.
Any changes to lieutenancy areas will be announced late in the day. The 20th July letter from the Government to the council chief executives states that the Government is first going to deal with the local government change in each area through a Structural Change Order and then, following that, will work with the current councils on “further legislation” concerning a range of issues including “ceremonial matters that need specific provision, such as Lord Lieutenants or Charter Trustees.”
The Government clearly doesn’t want to change lieutenancy areas at all unless absolutely forced to by its own local government changes. It will most likely leave the lieutenancies based on the old 1974 “county council” areas, albeit that these will initially mostly continue as some kind of combination of unitary council areas.
This approach would see the lieutenancy areas become increasingly esoteric. Once the mayoral Strategic Authorities are fully established then the unitary councils will be seen as divisions of these and not as divisions of “ceremonial counties“. The lieutenancies of Wales are still based on the 1974 “counties“ but cannot be found on any road sign or map, invisible and irrelevant to the people of Wales. Such would be the fate of the lieutenancies of England. In contrast, re-appointing the lieutenants to the real counties would give the office prestige, relevance and affection.
The Government will have to make some kind of change to the lieutenancies in two areas of England:
- The abolition of local government ‘Oxfordshire‘ will require the Government to do something about the Oxfordshire and Berkshire lieutenancies. It could do the obvious thing and re-align them along the Thames. But don’t bet against it coming up with some other bizarre nonsense.
- The Government continues to dally over the issue of Rutland’s “ceremonial status” despite over 2 years of lobbying from Alicia Kearns MP and Rutland Council. On August 13th 2026, Rutland Council again resolved to raise this issue with the Government. But still their entreaties are met with the most weaselly of weasel words.
ABC recently asked the Government what its specific intentions are in relation to the Rutland, Leicestershire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire lieutenancies. The response from the Ministry Communities Housing and Local Government commits to absolutely nothing, concluding with:
“The Government remains committed to ensuring that ceremonial arrangements, including the role of the Lord Lieutenant, continue to be recognised and preserved as local government reorganisation is implemented.”
The Government’s evasiveness is not a good sign. We suspect it doesn’t want to go down the path of separating lieutenancies from combinations of council areas and instead basing them on real counties. It may be hoping that a single ‘Leicestershire and Rutland‘ lieutenancy will assuage the opposition. Though raising the issue with Prime Minister may have some effect.
Concluding Remarks
Despite the issues discussed above, the ongoing local government changes should be a big help to those of us who love our counties and spend our time promoting them. In general the notion of local government being provided by “county councils” within “counties” will be gone. Most councils will not have names that are especially challenging to traditional county identities.
There are, of course, other challenges to historic county identities.
- Many police areas remain based on 1974 “counties” and perpetuate these names. The Home Office is currently reviewing the police service with a view to creating a dozen or so regional forces in England and Wales. If seen through, this would surely see an end to Greater Manchester Police, Cleveland Police and so on.
- Some of the Strategic / Combined Authorities will also mis-use county names. Having a “Mayor of Lancashire” who doesn’t cover Manchester or Barrow but does cover Bowland is clearly going to be challenge. However, the scale of this problem across England is far from clear at present. At least these authorities won’t literally be described as “counties” or take on county identities. Combined authorities also tend to merge into larger combined authorities. The pattern of these authorities may evolve significantly over the next decade.
- It may actually turn out to be easier to get the Government to engage with the broader lieutenancies issue once the current local government changes are in place. The absurdity of having the lieutenancies based on former local government areas will be starkly obvious then and changes could be made with no threat of that causing confusion with ongoing local government change. If they do remain based on the 1974 “counties” then, shorn of councils, they won’t be anything like the threat to real county identities they once were.
Whatever the scale and nature of these future challenges, the onus is on those of us who love our counties to promote their existence and importance in any ways we can. The counties need to be on road-signs, on maps, in postal addresses, in geographical databases and major reference sources. Their histories and importance needs to be taught in schools. We need all our counties to enjoy county day celebrations on the scale currently seen in Yorkshire, Lancashire, Somerset and Sussex. We would be naïve to think the Government is going to take a leading role. It comes down to us.
