Plans for the abolition of the remaining “county councils” and their replacement by unitary councils have been put on hold by the Ministry for Communities, Housing and Local Government, which has announced it will “undertake a rapid review of the current local government reorganisation programme”. The review is to ensure the process is robust  following “updated and privileged legal advice” and that it aligns with the new Government’s “Re-wiring the State” devolution agenda. This issue matters to the Association of British Counties (ABC) because we want to see a system of local government terminology and council names which totally separates the identity of local government from that of the historic counties.

As we have reported, the Government had been pursuing a policy of replacing all of the remaining two-tier (county council and district council) areas in England with a system of unitary councils. The end of the phrase "county council" and the abolition of several such councils which wholly misuse historic county names (e.g. Lancashire County Council, Oxfordshire County Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, Warwickshire County Council, Essex County Council etc.) would have been a huge help to ABC's work promoting the importance of the historic counties to our country's heritage and culture. The previously announced changes may now be amended, delayed or even not happen at all.

Announcing the decision to Parliament, Angela Raynor, Secretary of State for Communities, Housing and Local Government said: "The Prime Minister told the House last week, he was ‘prepared to look at local government reorganisation’ and he asked me as his Communities Secretary to 'do that’. In that context, in light of legal advice, I want to satisfy myself firstly that the right process is in place, that it is robust, and of course complies with the law. And secondly, I want to fully test whether our proposals for local government reorganisation meet the priorities of a new administration and the new Prime Minister and any additional considerations."

The review will include all those decisions made in March and July 2026. All reorganisation activity will be paused while it is undertaken. The abolition of Surrey Council Council and its replacements by two unitary councils - one now named West Surrey and South Middlesex Council - will still go ahead on 1st April 2027.

No timetable was given for any decisions. In response to questions from Lib Dem spokesperson Zoe Franklin, Ms Rayner said the review will “consider implications for the timetable”, adding that “local elections scheduled to take place to existing councils in May 2027 will go ahead unless we are in a position to hold elections to unitary councils at that point”.

Ms Raynor confirmed that the timetable for the establishment of Strategic (Combined) Authorities (i.e. the regional level of its devolution agenda) will not be affected by the local government review: “the prime minister is really clear that the government's ambition is to ensure that every area in England has or is in the process of establishing a strategic authority by the end of 2027, with strategic authorities in place everywhere by the end of 2028."

Taken at face value the implication is that the Government has concerns about the legality of one or more aspects of the process followed thus far. It was certainly facing a legal challenge to the reforms by several existing county councils. It seems more likely though that the review has been promoted by the new Prime Minster's revised approach to devolution. This was expressed in the Rewiring the State - Cabinet Statement published on 31st July 2026 and is expected to be the subject of a full white paper to be published at the end of October 2026.

None of the Government statements address what aspects of the formerly agreed local government changes are being reviewed. Is the whole idea of creating unitary local government in all parts of England being reconsidered? Or is it that the size and areas of the previously agreed changes no longer fit with the new administration's preferences for a devolved structure of regional and local government? Is the intention now to press ahead with creating Strategic Authorities and then worry about the local government changes later? Will we ever see the end of the dreaded 1974 fake "counties"? It's all as clear as mud.

Banner image is of the 'Welcome to Warwickshire' sign on the A46 to the south of Coventry (courtesy of Google Maps).

We present a bank holiday special featuring the latest stories from the front lines of the traditional county movement. We cover the agony of Rutland’s lost border signs and the ecstasy of Somerset-Dorset border signs found. We look at the frustrating delay plaguing the restoration of Fermanagh's border signs, major plans to celebrate Sussex’s 1550th anniversary, and how the Yorkshire Ridings Society became unlikely film stars. Plus, we feature the swishing tail of Dunkery, the Somerset Dragon; the ABC Vice-Chairman's circumambulation of Surrey; a first look at brand-new postal addressing data; highlights from this summer’s county day celebrations. Finally, we lift the covers on The Joy of Vex flag blog.

Lost: Rutland's Iconic Border Signs Stolen

Rutland has had more than its fair share of "county confusion" since 1974. But its iconic "Pre Worboys" metal border signs - largely dating from the 1950s and early 1960s - have stood firm throughout it all. When the county was infamously put under Leicestershire County Council, all attempts to remove the border signs were fiercely resisted.

The BBC now reports that around 10 of these historic signs have been stolen. Rutland County Council has taken down the remaining 17 signs "for safekeeping". The thefts may be linked to a misconception that the signs will be removed once Rutland County Council is replaced with a larger unitary Leicestershire and Rutland Council in April 2028. An unscrupulous person may see such signs as having considerable value in the future.

Council Leader Christine Wise said: "It started happening not long after the local government reorganisation announcement. There's a suspicion people were taking them for sentimental or nostalgic reasons."

Alicia Kearns MP has urged the council to replace the signs with modern ones that are less appealing to thieves. Meanwhile Rutland is left without border signs for the first time since road signage was first erected in the late 19th century.

The new council will surely continue to mark Rutland's border, but some of the historic signs may now be lost. Hopefully, the remaining of the historic signs will be re-erected soon.

Found: Restoring Somerset - Dorset Border Posts

Road sign enthusiast Tim Beer has discovered and restored two old cast iron county border posts which formerly lay on the Somerset-Dorset border near Kittwhistle, an area where local authority boundaries no longer follow the historic county border. Mr Beer rescues and restores roadside heritage signs dating back to the 1700s. He intends to use his restored county border posts as templates for having four new cast iron posts manufactured and installed in their original locations on the county border.

Each new post will cost around £600 to manufacture and install. Mr Beer has a crowd funding page Help Me Bring a lost piece of Dorset and Somerset History Back. We wish him every success with this endeavour.

ABC aims for nothing less than the full restoration of our historic counties as the standard general-purpose geography of our country. The installation of a full set of county border markers along the UK’s highway and byways is an essential part of achieving this aim.  Many such signs do now exist, thanks to the efforts of county campaigners and sympathetic local authorities. Nonetheless, many of our county borders have not been properly marked for decades.

Making progress with county signage should be easier once the remaining "county councils" are abolished in 2028. The new unitary councils will have no obvious reason to object to such signage. It is very much a matter of finding the best ways and means of progressing with this work. Key factors for signage include cost, visibility, durability and ease of planning approval.

Mr Beer’s approach on the Somerset-Dorset border has much to recommend it. Cast iron posts can be manufactured at reasonable cost, are durable and can be very visible - provided they are regularly painted and kept free from vegetation. It will be interesting to see the highway authority’s requirements as regards approval and installation.

Modern road signs of the type recently installed along the River Tees have a higher visibility than cast iron posts. However, getting them erected can be a lengthy, costly and bureaucratic process. It needs a cooperative local authority, which will manufacture and install the signs. Modern road signs are not very durable - often falling foul to vandalism, theft or accidents.

Each approach will be more appropriate in a particular context. Posts are ideal on minor roads or where there is little roadside verge. Posts can also be used on footpaths, canal towpaths, bridleways and cycleways. There are many historic border posts and stones in place which could be restored. Modern road signs are better on larger roads.

Delayed: Fermanagh county signs still not erected

ABC often points to the six counties of Northern Ireland as the model for how we would like to see the counties of the whole of the UK treated. For, despite not being used for any administrative purposes in generations, the six counties remain the geographical and cultural bedrocks of Northern Ireland.

Surprisingly though, few county borders signs for any of the six counties are to be found. They have been steadily disappearing since the 1970s. Since the local government reorganisation of 2015 almost all of the remaining county signs have been removed. Signs marking the 11 district council areas created in 2015 have been erected.

The prospects did look bright for the full return of county signage in County Fermanagh with Fermanagh and Omagh District Council being supportive. John McClaughry, chairman of the council's environmental services committee, said it was “important a county’s own identity is still recognised. As somebody involved with genealogy, and people coming back, I think it’s very important that we have our county lines shown.”

Unfortunately, the return of the signs has been delayed by a dispute over who actually took the county signs down and who should re-erect and meet the cost of replacement. The Department for Infrastructure’s Roads Division said that “The Department has never been responsible for the reinstatement or removal of county boundary signs. The use of information signs, such as county boundary signs, are the responsibility of the local council.”

Cllr McClaughry said it was “disappointing” that DfI was not willing to help with funding, but called on the council to explore other funding options, such as tourism grants. Meanwhile, a year has passed and Fermanagh remains without its border signs. At least it is now clear who is responsible for erecting county signs on all highways in Northern Ireland.

Sussex's 1550th Big Birthday Bash

ABC is proud to be a sponsor of Sussex 1550, a grand celebration in 2027 of the 1550th birthday of Sussex. Led by our friends in the Sussex Flag Group, this promises to be a grand celebration worthy of this momentous anniversary.

According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle it was in 477 AD that Ælle and his three sons landed at Cymen's Shore and began the establishment of the kingdom of the South Saxons. Which makes Sussex at least 400 years older than England itself.

The celebrations will run from Sat 12th to Sun 20th June 2027. The centrepiece will be a coordinated county-wide Beacon and Bonfire Lighting at 9pm on Sussex Day itself (Weds 16th June), uniting every corner of Sussex at the same moment. A series of the other events, including street parties and village fetes, are planned.

Book your holiday accommodation and be part of it. We Wunt Be Druv, But We Will Party.

They Tried to Shrink England's Largest County - They Failed!

Since its inception in 1975, Yorkshire Day has grown to become England’s largest community event.  In They Tried to Shrink England's Largest County, YouTuber Northern Introvert joined our old friends - and ABC co-founders - the Yorkshire Ridings Society on their Yorkshire Day 2026 declaration in York to discuss the past, present and future of Yorkshire Day.

They may have tried to shrink Yorkshire, but they reckoned without the YRS. Yorkshire Day 2026 was enthusiastically celebrated in all those parts of the county which have had their Yorkshire identity most challenged since 1974: in Saddleworth; in Bowes, Teesdale; in Sedbergh and Dent; in Earby and Barnoldwick, West Craven; in Slaidburn, Bowland; and in Yarm, Thornaby-on-Tees, Guisborough, Eston, Carlin How etc. in Cleveland.

Passion for Somerset: Inspiring Somerset’s Next Generation

Our friends at Passion for Somerset continue to show what can be achieved by a dedicated team of county lovers. Their work focuses on ensuring the younger generation experiences a strong connection to their home county. Their August 2026 Newsletter presents highlights of what has been their most successful year yet.

2026 was the year in which The Journey of the Somerset Dragon began. The dragon, now named Dunkery in a BBC poll, is on tour throughout the county and features in The Tail of the Somerset Dragon, which tells the story not just of the Dragon but of Somerset itself. The whole idea of a county-mascot is something with huge potential.

Somerset Day itself was celebrated through festivals, picnics, music, schools, businesses and community events. It continues to create a stronger sense of pride in Somerset while encouraging visitors, investment and community participation.

The Pride of Somerset Youth Awards 2026 attracted the largest number of nominations to date, recognising remarkable achievements in volunteering, education, entrepreneurship, sport, creativity, environmental action and community leadership.

Unlocking Somerset Talent 2026 is a new event being held in September in conjunction with Somerset Chamber of Commerce and sponsored by Young Somerset and Eurilait. It will bring together employers, educators, training providers, local authorities and young people to explore ways to ensure Somerset retains and develops its future workforce.

Surrey About It All: Rupert's New Border Walk

On Sat 5th September ABC Vice-Chairman Rupert Barnes will be setting off on his Surrey About It All walk - a full circuit around Surrey’s border. The walk is in support of the Stroke Association and will forge a new Surrey Border Walk. Full details of the walk and how to donate to the Stroke Association can be found on Rupert's Wildþing UK page.

In 2018 Rupert completed the Herts Embraced walk, raising money for the Stroke Association and in the process creating the Hertfordshire Border Walk route.

Rupert will start by The Globe in Southwark on Saturday morning, down the Thames a short way to the Surrey Docks, then south through the suburbs along the edge of Kent – the historic counties are what count here and not Whitehall inventions. Two days’ walking should bring him to the south-eastern corner of the county, where Surrey, Kent and Sussex meet, to turn west.

From there, over a series of weekends, Rupert will go all around the county, checking that it is all still there. A county three hundred years older than England itself must have a fine solidity, whatever has been done to its fields by generations of rapacious builders. You can follow his progress on his Wildþing blog.

We wish him success, both in raising money and establishing a county border walk for Surrey for other walkers to enjoy.

Be Properly Addressed

Any strategy to see the counties restored as the standard general-purpose geography of the UK requires both a return to the widespread use of county names in domestic and business addresses and, of course, for the real counties to be those counties. With this end in mind, the Historic Counties Trust has introduced a new postcode-county lookup tool and a full downloadable list of postcode vs county for the whole of the UK.

The Post Office's changes to postal counties in many areas following the local government reorganisations of the 1960s and 1970s had a bigger impact on public perception of the counties than did the council changes themselves.

Much has changed since then. In the 1990s, the Royal Mail's "flexible addressing" made the historic county an acceptable part of any UK postal address. ABC supplied Royal Mail with the historic county data that it has made available in its Alias File product ever since.

And yet the post-1974 postal counties persist, most prominently in the address section of countless online forms, where the user has to choose a 'county' from a mashup of the 1974 postal counties and current councils. There has also been a general decline in the inclusion of a county line at all in addressing. And, of course, a massive decrease in the volume of mail.

It remains the case, however, that the single most effective way to promote your county is to include it in your postal address. This is especially so for businesses and other organisations. Put your county on your logo, letterhead, email signature, shop front, side of the van etc.

Any organisations which stores or manages addresses needs access to postcode-county data, for address matching and cleaning. Many providers of address management software do include the historic counties in their products, though some still do not.

To meet these needs, the Historic Counties Trust also supplies a downable list of postcode-county for the whole of the UK, in both CSV and JSON format. This list is in the public domain and available to AI for training, data mining and commercial use.

The Historic Counties Trust's postal data is a useful contribution to what needs to become a concerted campaign to see the real counties back in addresses across the UK.

More County Days of Summer

The summer of county day rolls on. We present some pictures from Nottinghamshire Day and Buckinghamshire Day.

The 'Joy of Vex' flag blog

County flag expert and ABC Committee member Jason Saber has set up a new blog - The Joy of Vex - about all things flags. Jason was a major driving force behind many of our county flags. There is plenty in his blog on the story and symbology behind the county flags, along with lots of fascinating items on Jason's many other flag interests.

The banner photo is from Tim Beer's gofundme page.

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".

The three council leaders have written to the Government to formally ask it to use 'Lancaster, Preston and Ribble Valley Council' within the Structural Change Order which will form the legislation enabling the local government changes. The councils are also very actively promoting their preferred name.

The formal name change may not actually happen until the shadow council is elected in April 2027 since Lancashire County Council, tiresome to the end, is lobbying against this change. The Government has made this clear in its letter of 20th July to the chief executives of the current councils that the name of each of the new councils will be be down to that council itself once elected.

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 New '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.

Since 1965, the Middlesex identity of Potters Bar has been grievously eroded by its placement under the misleadingly named Hertfordshire County Council. The abolition of this local authority in April 2028 and its replacement by four unitary councils could herald a new era in which local government can be properly seen to be totally separate from the counties - as the Government has consistently stated since local government was first created in 1889. The fact that Potters Bar and Borehamwood lie in different counties but the same council area need cause no confusion or loss of traditional county identities, so long as that council's name is chosen appropriately.

The provisional name 'South West Hertfordshire Council' most definitely is not appropriate for the new council area that includes Watford, Borehamwood and Rickmansworth in Hertfordshire but also Potters Bar and South Mimms in Middlesex . Alternative names such as 'Colne Valley Council', 'Watford and Colne Valley Council' or 'Watford and Hertsmere Council' could represent the whole of this new council area without mispresenting historic county identities.

Potters Bar: a case study in "county confusion"

Potters Bar provides a case study in how the use of the word "county" within local government terminology since 1888 and the 'borrowing' of county names by local authorities has, over time, had devastating consequences for traditional county geography, loyalty and identity in many parts of Great Britain.

The northern tip of Middlesex has born the name 'Mimms' since before the Conquest, with 'South Mimms' being the documented parish name since at least 1253. Middlesex County Council was first established in 1889 by the Local Government Act 1888. South Mimms parish became the basis of South Mimms Rural District under Middlesex County Council in 1895. This was renamed Potters Bar Urban District in 1934 as the former hamlet of Potters Bar grew into a busy suburban town.

The London Government Act 1963 abolished Middlesex County Council and placed Potters Bar Urban District under Hertfordshire County Council from April 1965. The Post Office insisted that Potters Bar residents include 'Hertfordshire' in their postal address. The Post Office made no such change elsewhere in Middlesex, for example in the Spelthorne area which found itself under Surrey County Council but remained postally Middlesex, thereby preserving the Middlesex identity of the people of Ashford, Staines and Sunbury. Hertfordshire County Council erected road signs proclaiming Potters Bar to now be part of Hertfordshire, signs which are geographically inaccurate as it is the administrative county that they are referring to and NOT the true geographical county.

The Local Government Act 1972 abolished Potters Bar Urban District and, from April 1974, placed the whole area within a new larger district of Hertsmere, still under Hertfordshire County Council. Around three-quarters of Hertsmere district lies in Hertfordshire (including Borehamwood, Radlett and Bushy) and one-quarter in Middlesex (including Potters Bar, South Mimms and the southern part of Elstree). The name 'Hertsmere' was chosen to reflect this cross border nature - the 'mere' (boundary) being both a reference to the area straddling the county border and also to Oakmere House and Park in Potters Bar.

None of these local government changes affected the real counties at all, of course. But the continued misuse of the word 'county' to describe local authority areas and the name Hertfordshire County Council to describe one such area which isn't Hertfordshire at all has led to an egregious assault on the Middlesex identity of the Potters Bar and South Mimms area.

The ongoing local government reorganisation provides a golden opportunity to right this major historic wrong and to once and for all get away from the whole notion that local authorities are in any way related to the counties - the root cause of this and so many other "county confusion" problems throughout Great Britain.

1st April 2028 - the End of Hertfordshire County Council

On 1st April 2028, the local government "county" of "Hertfordshire" will be abolished, as will Hertfordshire County Council and the 10 district councils in its area. They will be replaced by four new unitary councils. The map shows these unitary council areas, along with the provisional names by which they are currently being referred.

The Association of British Counties (ABC) wants to see an end to the use of the terms "county" and "county council" in local government terminology and parlance and an end to the misuse of county names by local authorities. These changes are a significant step forward in that:

• the new unitary councils will be called just “council” and not “county council”;

• there will no longer be a local authority which is literally claiming to be Hertfordshire itself.

On the other hand, the four new unitary councils are being created by dividing the current (though soon to be abolished) local government "county" of "Hertfordshire". The use of 'Hertfordshire' within each of the provisional names reflects this and risks perpetuating the misconception that their combined area literally is Hertfordshire. This will be reinforced if, as seems likely, the combined area of these four councils becomes the new definition of the so-called "ceremonial county" of "Hertfordshire" (see below).

Three of the new council areas do at least more or less lie within the borders of the real Hertfordshire. Not so the provisionally-named South West Hertfordshire Council which includes Potters Bar and South Mimms.

It is vital that the new councils adopt names that altogether avoid giving the impression that they are divisions of the former local government "Hertfordshire". If they must use the name 'Hertfordshire' at all then it should be done with appropriate qualification which makes sense in relation to the real Hertfordshire. It may be wise, especially for the provisionally-named South West Hertfordshire Council, to avoid using 'Hertfordshire' at all.

The existing councils have until 17th August to propose alternatives to the provisional names. The Government will then make a decision on a name for each new council to put into the Structural Change Order – the legislation which will enact the local government changes.

The final decision on a council's name will rest with the shadow council once elected in May 2027. Each will be able to change its name from that given in the legislation, as the shadow council now named West Surrey and South Middlesex Council (elected in May 2026) has recently done.

South West Hertfordshire Council

This council is being formed from the areas of the three current district councils: Watford, Three Rivers and Hertsmere.

ABC considers the provisional name South West Hertfordshire Council to be wholly inappropriate. Whilst a majority of the council area does lie in the south west of Hertfordshire (i.e. the real county), three significant parts of the council area are not in Hertfordshire at all:

• Ten square miles in the east of the council area lies in Middlesex. This area includes the town of Potters Bar, the village of South Mimms and the nearby South Mimms motorway services. This area comprises about 12% of the council area and 8% of its population (around 25,000).

• The council area also includes the southern part of the village of Elstree (the larger part of the village) which lies in Middlesex.

• A small area of Buckinghamshire lies in the west of the council area, including Chorleywood West.

The new council area does not include the highly populated Barnet salient of Hertfordshire.

Forming a compound name from the two counties - as has been done with ‘West Surrey and South Middlesex Council’ - is challenging for this area. A county-neutral name may be better.

We suggest that Colne Valley Council could represent the whole council area without giving precedence to any current council or town names and without mispresenting historic county identities. The River Colne binds this region together. It rises at North Mymms, being fed by the Mimmshall Brook which rises near Borehamwood and flows north between Potters Bar and South Mimms. The Colne then flows along the boundary of the eastern part of new council area and then down through the centre of the council area and on through Watford and Rickmansworth.

Another approach would be to base the new council's name around Watford, the main town in its area. Watford and Colne Valley Council combines this with the above suggested name. Alternatively, Watford and Hertsmere Council would have the advantage of retaining the 'mere' part of Hertsmere, a reference to the cross border nature of this area.

We have no strong objection to alternative council names along these lines, so long as the final name does not continue the 1965 mistake of portraying Potters Bar as literally being in Hertfordshire, which it is not and never has been.

East Hertfordshire and Broxbourne Council

This council is being formed from the areas of the current East Hertfordshire and Broxbourne districts, along with small areas from the North Hertfordshire and Welwyn Hatfield districts.

The provisional name does at least reflect the fact that most of its area lies in the east of Hertfordshire (i.e. the real county), although the larger part of Royston lies in Cambridgeshire. A compound name of this form also helps public understanding of the purely administrative nature of a council.

Central Hertfordshire Council

This council is being formed from the areas of the current Stevenage district and most of the districts of North Hertfordshire and Welwyn Hatfield.

The provisional name Central Hertfordshire Council does at least reflect the fact that almost of all of this council area lies in Hertfordshire, bar a few very small rural areas of Bedfordshire in its far north. Basing a council name around one or more of the main towns would be challenging since Stevenage, Welwyn Hatfield, Hitchen, Hatfied and Letchworth would all have a claim to be included. An alternative name would be Mimram Council, based on the chalk stream that runs through the heart of this area into the River Lea at Hertford.

West Hertfordshire Council

This council is being formed from the areas of the current districts of Dacorum and St Albans.

The provisional name West Hertfordshire Council does at least reflect the fact that almost of all of this council area lies in the west of Hertfordshire, bar a small area of Buckinghamshire around Great Gaddesden and a very small area of Bedfordshire around Markyate. Alternative names could be based around the main towns St Albans and Hemel Hempstead. More creatively, a council name could be formed from the main rivers of the area, e.g. Gade and Ver Council.

A Lord Lieutenant of Middlesex?

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. Such a move would provide Government recognition of the importance of both the historic counties and these offices.

In England the 'counties for the purposes of the lieutenancies' of the Lieutenancies Act 1997 - the so-called 'ceremonial counties' - remain defined in terms on local government areas, in most cases still reflecting the 1965/1974 local government areas. The present large-scale local government reorganisation is a perfect opportunity to return all the lieutenancies to the historic counties. To leave them appointed to a group of short-lived, now former local government areas would be absurd.

At present, the Government appears to not want to make any amendments to lieutenancy areas unless its local government changes force such a change upon it. Which suggests that it intends to keep the Hertfordshire lieutenancy as it is, although the Lieutenancies Act 1997 would need to be amended to define the lieutenancy area in terms of the four unitary councils, since the local government "county" is being abolished. This will inevitably lead to the misconception that the four new unitary councils are divisions of the "ceremonial county" of "Hertfordshire" - although the relationship would actually be the other way around.

The Lord Lieutenant of Hertfordshire and his deputy lieutenants no doubt provide excellent service to the people of their area. Nonetheless, if the Government wishes to continue to use historic county names for the titles of the lord-lieutenants then it should appoint this office directly to the real counties. If not, it should stop aping real county names and it should stop referring to these areas as "counties" within the Lieutenancies Act 1997.

Interestingly, the Government has suggested that it may agree to create a separate lieutenancy for Rutland despite the fact that Rutland County Council is to be abolished. If Rutland is no longer the basis of a local government area but can have its own lord-lieutenant, then why cannot Middlesex? Why cannot every historic county in Great Britain?

Concluding Remarks - a return to geographical sanity

ABC promotes the geographical and cultural identities of our historic counties. We emphasise that the counties are distinct entities to any form of present-day administrative area. There is no reason why administrative areas cannot cross county borders, provided that the administrative terminology and the administrative area names are chosen so as to make clear the difference.

From 1835-1930, South Mimms, Monken Hadley and Friern Barnet were all part of the Barnet Poor Law Union. No one ever believed or suggested that these areas were no longer in Middlesex and were now part of Hertfordshire. It was always clearly understood that Poor Law Unions existed for the purpose of administering the poor law and not for anything else. No confusion was created and no identity problem caused.

Similarly, South Mimms and Potters Bar - along with several Hertfordshire parishes - were part of the Metropolitan Police District from its creation in 1829 until 2000. And yet nobody who lived in these places for one moment believed that, because they were policed by the Metropolitan Police, those places could no longer be in Middlesex or Hertfordshire.

When police areas were aligned with local government areas in 2000 and the Potters Bar area put under an enlarged Hertfordshire police area, this was an administrative area change which, as with local government changes, made no difference to the actual counties of Middlesex and Hertfordshire.

The people who decide these matters, whether in Parliament or at the local council level, should understand once and for all that the historical and geographical areas of our counties are entirely different to, and totally separate from, administrative areas. People cannot be expected to change their postal addresses, relearn the geography of our country and adopt a whole different sense of identity and community every time there is change in the administrative areas of one public service or another.

Local government administrative areas are just that - solely for the administration of local government and not for any wider geographical or cultural purpose. The new councils replacing Hertfordshire County Council must choose names that reflect this fact.

Our friends in the Yorkshire Ridings Society could not have dreamt of what they were starting starting 51 years ago. For Yorkshire Day is no longer just the biggest county day celebration but has become England's largest community event. On 1st August the people of Yorkshire celebrate their shared community in an ever-growing variety of ways - many moving, some hilarious, a few positively bizarre!

There were hundreds, maybe thousands, of Yorkshire Day events going on over the weekend. We presents some highlights.

Huge congratulations to the Yorkshire Ridings Society, the Yorkshire Society, the Saddleworth White Rose Society and the many other organisations and individuals who have worked hard over many decades to turn Yorkshire Day into the huge celebration of God's Own County it has become.

We are delighted to report that the shadow council for the new unitary West Surrey Council voted last night to change the council's name to West Surrey and South Middlesex Council - finally righting a 61 year wrong. This is a double-win, since both Middlesex and Surrey will be properly represented in the new council's name.

The Spelthorne area of Middlesex was placed under Surrey County Council in 1965. Through six decades of being told they are now "in Surrey", its people stayed true to their Middlesex identity. Surrey people too have had their county woefully mispresented these long years.

With Surrey County Council being replaced by two unitary councils - initially named West Surrey and East Surrey - our friends in Middlesex Heritage, led by our indefatigable patron Russell Grant, were determined that Spelthorne would be "in Surrey" not a day longer.

After over a year of campaigning, in the end it wasn't even close. With fantastic support from Spelthorne's councillors and the backing of the ruling Lib Dem group and the Reform UK group, the council voted 58-15 to change its name - easily getting the 2/3 majority required. Only the opposition Conservative group voted against - we assume in the spirit of providing an opposing point of view.

It was especially heartening to see and hear the support of the vast majority of councillors representing constituencies in Surrey. This motion was just as much about properly representing their county in the new council's name.

Massive thanks to Russell, to Cllr Harry Boparai who proposed the motion, and to the many thousands who supported this campaign.

For those of us who love our counties there are a few similar battles to be fought over the coming year - not least in West Craven and in Potters Bar. This wonderful victory shows what can be achieved.

Banner image shows Spelthorne councillors celebrating the change of name to 'West Surrey and South Middlesex Council'. Prime mover Cllr Harry Boparai holding the flag in one hand, beer in the other.

County Days come thick and fast in the summer months. It's hard to keep up! Our thanks to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for once again flying the county flags in Parliament Square for the week of Historic County Flags Day (23rd July). We present some highlights from Historic County Flags Day and from recent county days

Lancashire County Council, its districts, Blackburn with Darwen Council, and Blackpool Council will all be abolished on 1st April 2028 to make way for four new unitary councils. Current council leaders have an August 17 deadline to accept Whitehall's provisional names for these new councils or propose alternatives. The provisional names 'North Lancashire' and 'Pennine Lancashire' would perpetuate the myth that the Bowland and West Craven areas of Yorkshire are now literally part of Lancashire. Meanwhile, 'South Lancashire' completely misrepresents the actual geography of Lancashire.

Lancashire County Council was one of the worst named of all of the 1974 local authorities. Its area isn't much like Lancashire at all, excluding the whole urban south of county as well as Lancashire North of the Sands. It infamously 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 provides a golden opportunity to right this wrong. The names of each new unitary council must be chosen so as to properly reflect the location of that council's area within Lancashire itself and, where relevant, to give proper respect to the Bowland and West Craven areas of Yorkshire.

This reorganisation will certainly be a step forward in separating the identity of local government from that of the historic counties, in that the new unitary councils will be called just “council” and not “county council”. None of the new councils will literally make claim to be Lancashire itself.

Nonetheless, the provisional council names North Lancashire Council, Pennine Lancashire Council and South Lancashire Council are ridiculous and would continue the confusion of the last 54 years. Below we suggest alternative names for each of these three councils.

We are asking the Government and the current councils to consider these alternatives or to find their own - so long as the final names do not mispresent our counties. Make sure you let your local councillor and your MP know your views asap.

The councils have until 17th August to respond to the proposed names. The same consultation process and deadline applies to the other local government changes we discussed in Reclaiming our counties: the end of "county councils".

North Lancashire Council

This new council area is a combination of the current districts of Preston, Lancaster and Ribble Valley.

The Ribble Valley district, created in 1974, incorporated the whole of the former Bowland Rural District, the area of which lies entirely within the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Around 110 square miles (22%) of the new council's area lies in Yorkshire, including most of the famous Forest of Bowland. To call this council just North Lancashire Council would be both absurd and outrageous. Better names include:

• Preston, Lancaster and Ribble Valley Council - a county-neutral name which highlights the civic identities of Preston and Lancaster but without portraying the whole of this area as being in Lancashire;

• North Lancashire and Bowland Council - a simple way to reflect the fact that much of this areas lies in the northern part of the main body of Lancashire but that a large part of it comprises the Forest of Bowland in the West Riding of Yorkshire.

We would be delighted to hear alternative suggestions for names for this and the other councils.

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.

To call the new council Pennine Lancashire Council would perpetuate the myth that the whole of this council area is part of Lancashire. Better names include:

• Pennine Lancashire and West Craven Council - this very explicitly makes clear that West Craven is not part of Lancashire;

• East Lancashire and West Craven Council - a more geographically accurate alternative;

• South Pennines Council - a county-neutral name which retains the association of the new council area with the Pennines.

South Lancashire Council

This new council is a combination of the current districts of West Lancashire, Chorley and South Ribble.

Whilst the new council area lies entirely within Lancashire, the adjective 'South' is wholly wrong for the location and extent of the area within the historic county. This is not in any sense the 'southern strip' of Lancashire. Better names include:

• West Lancashire Council - simple and geographically accurate;

• Central Lancashire Council - this name was suggested for this self same area in one of the other submissions to the local government consultation;

• Heart of Lancashire Council - an alternative approach to reflecting the council area's place in the centre of Lancashire.

Fylde Coast Council

This new council is a combination of the current districts of Fylde, Wyre and the current unitary council of Blackpool.

ABC has no issue with the name of this council. Adopting a county-neutral name of this type would be a wise move in the other three council areas.

Who will finally decide the new council names?

The process of deciding on the new council names is potentially lengthy. The names above are those provisionally decided upon by the Government. The current councils in each area have until 17th August to make alternative suggestions to Government. The Government will then make a decision on a name for each new council to put into the Structural Change Order – the legislation for the local government changes.

Ultimately though, each shadow council selected in May 2027 will be able to change its name from that given in the legislation. The shadow West Surrey Council  has voted to do just this, renaming itself West Surrey and South Middlesex Council. Such a move requires a 2/3 majority vote on the council.

Lieutenancy and Combined Authority

As far as we are aware, the local government changes will have no affect on the “Lancashire” lieutenancy. To leave the lieutenancy based on the former Lancashire County Council area would be anachronistic and absurd. ABC has proposed that the lieutenancies throughout the UK be re-appointed to the historic counties.

The so-called Lancashire County Combined Authority will continue after the local government changes, still covering an area which isn’t anything like Lancashire. The only positive is that at least the word “County” will disappear and it will be called the Lancashire Combined Authority. This combined authority also needs to choose a more sensible name.

Concluding Remarks

Most of the new unitary council names throughout the rest of England will not contradict and challenge historic county identities. These councils replacing Lancashire CC are something of a rare case where the unitary councils could end up with names which confound traditional geography. All the more reason to do all we can to ensure that geographical sanity prevails.

Banner image of 'Lancashire welcomes careful drivers' sign in Tosside, Yorkshire is courtesy of Google Maps.

This is an update (31st July 2026) to an article first published on 24th July 2026.

On 16th July 2026, the Rt Hon Steve Reed (Secretary of State of Housing, Communities and Local Government) confirmed that all the remaining 1974 local government "counties" in England will be abolished on 1st April 2028. This final end of the 1974 fake "counties" will be a major boost to the work of the Association of British Counties (ABC). Henceforth, we can promote the real counties as the important geographical and cultural entities that they are, unencumbered by the widespread confusion caused by having local authorities masquerading as "counties".

We will wish a not-so-fond farewell to Cambridgeshire County Council, Essex County Council, Kent County Council, Lancashire County Council, Lincolnshire County Council, Oxfordshire County Council, Staffordshire County Council, Surrey County Council, Warwickshire County Council and Worcestershire County Council - local authorities which for half a century have shamelessly portrayed themselves as some kind of institutional embodiment of the real counties whose names they so absurdly borrowed.

Each will be abolished, along with the district councils in its area, and replaced by two or more new unitary councils. The new unitary councils will be known just as "councils" and not as "county councils".

These local government changes form part of the Government's longer term plan for devolved government in England. The Government started a process in 2025 to see all of the remaining two-tier areas of local government (county council and district councils) replaced by unitary councils. The announcement of 16th July was that of the final batch of areas to be considered (although decisions were deferred in two areas).

The table below shows the outcome of the process for all two-tier areas in England. In most areas, shadow authorities will be elected in May 2027, fully taking office on 1st April 2028.

Naming the new unitary councils

ABC's concern now is to ensure that none of the new unitary councils repeats the mistake of 1974 and chooses a name which makes inappropriate use of a historic county name.

To be clear, ABC is not opposed to historic county names being used within a council's name, but only if this makes sense geographically. For some of the new councils the use of a historic county name with appropriate qualification would provide the best description of the location and area of that council, e.g. North Staffordshire Council, East Kent Council, North Oxfordshire Council etc.  

Other councils do not have areas which are sensibly described by reference to a single historic county. In such cases using a historic county name at all can be a contrivance best avoided. For example, ABC has no objection to the proposed name of the new Ridgeway Council which will cover parts of both Berkshire and Oxfordshire.

The process by which the new council names will be determined is potentially quite lengthy. The names above are those provisionally decided upon by the Government. The current councils in each area have until 17th August to make alternative suggestions which the Government will then consider. The Government will then make a decision on a name for each new council to put into the Structural Change Order - the legislation for the local government changes.

Once elected, each new shadow authority will be able to change the name it was given in the legislation. For example, the Structural Change Order which created the two new unitary councils from the area of Surrey County Council named them West Surrey and East Surrey. The shadow council for West Surrey has now voted to rename the council West Surrey and South Middlesex Council.

Given the number and size of the new unitary councils, there is actually limited scope for the new councils to make inappropriate use of a historic county name. Those which do will be an exception rather than, as in 1974, the rule.

However, there are some problem areas we need to aware of:

• The biggest source of controversy is likely to be around the names of the unitary councils replacing Lancashire County Council, primarily because two major areas of Yorkshire (Bowland and West Craven) have been in the Lancashire County Council area since 1974. It would be unconscionable for the names of the new councils to continue to portray these areas as being in Lancashire.

• The Potters Bar area of Middlesex is set to be part of a unitary council provisionally called South West Hertfordshire.

• Devon Council, Gloucestershire Council, Lincolnshire Council and Nottinghamshire Council have at present been given unqualified county names despite having areas covering only part of these counties. In each case there are two or more other unitary councils covering the rest of that county. Devon Council and Lincolnshire Council are each one of four unitary councils covering the counties whose names they use - a setup so bizarre that it will fortunately lessen the impact these ridiculous council names could have on the real county's identity.

• The Government has actually yet to make a decision about the future form of local government in the current Cambridgeshire County Council area. This could yet produce proposals that apply the name Cambridgeshire to Huntingdonshire and the Soke of Peterborough area of Northamptonshire.

Below we take a more detailed look at the effect of the local government changes announced on 16th July in those parts of England which have suffered the most from "county confusion" since 1974. In each case we compare the new councils to the historic counties to provide a sanity check on the new council names.

Lancashire County Council / Blackburn with Darwen Council / Blackpool Council

These councils are to be abolished and replaced with four new unitary councils. These are shown below, along with their provisional names, compared to the historic counties.

Lancashire County Council was one of the worst named of all of the 1974 local authorities. Despite its name, it excludes the whole urban south of Lancashire where most of the county's people live. It also excludes the Furness and Cartmel peninsulas. It infamously includes the Forest of Bowland and West Craven areas of Yorkshire.

The names of each new unitary council must be chosen so as to properly reflect the location of the new council within Lancashire itself and, where relevant, to give proper respect to the Bowland and West Craven areas of Yorkshire. ABC has major objections to three of the provisional names:

• South Lancashire Council does not lie in the south of Lancashire and would be better named West Lancashire Council, Central Lancashire Council or even something like Heart of Lancashire Council;

• Around 110 square miles (22%) of the North Lancashire Council area comprises the Forest of Bowland area of Yorkshire. It would be better named North Lancashire and Bowland Council. Alternatively, a county-neutral name along the lines of Preston, Lancaster and Ribble Valley Council would highlight the civic identities of Preston and Lancaster but without portraying the whole of this area as being in Lancashire.

• The Pennine Lancashire Council area includes the West Craven area, with its population of 18,000 Yorkshire men and women. A better name would be East Lancashire and West Craven Council. Alternatively, South Pennines Council would be a county-neutral name which retains the association of the new council area with the Pennines.

Local pressure needs to be brought to bear in these areas to ensure that sensible council names are adopted.

Hertfordshire County Council

Hertfordshire County Council and the district councils in its area will be replaced by four new unitary councils. These are shown below, along with their provisional names, compared to the historic counties.

The current Hertfordshire County Council, as set up in 1965 and further amended in 1974, has always excluded the High Barnet salient of the county. It also includes the area of the former Potters Bar Urban District Council. This area lies entirely in Middlesex and includes the town of Potters Bar, the village of South Mimms and the South Mimms motorway services.

A more appropriate name should be found for South West Hertfordshire Council, the new unitary council that includes the 24,000 Middlesex people of Potters Bar. Colne Valley Council would be an ideal county-neutral name. The River Colne rises at North Mimms, near Potters Bar, flows along the boundary of the eastern part of new council area and then down through the centre of the council area and on through Watford and Rickmansworth.

Another approach would be to base the new council’s name around Watford, the main town in its area. Watford and Colne Valley Council combines this with the above suggested name. Alternatively, Watford and Hertsmere Council combines the names of the two largest current district councils. The name ‘Hertsmere' was chosen to reflect the fact that this district lies in two counties – the ‘mere‘ (boundary) being both a reference to the area straddling the county border and also to Oakmere House and Park in Potters Bar, Middlesex.

Leicestershire County Council / Leicester City Council / Rutland Council

These councils will be replaced by two new unitary councils. These are shown below, along with their provisional names, compared to the historic counties.

As set up in 1974, Leicestershire County Council was infamous in that its area also included Rutland. Rutland Council became a unitary council in 1997.

The current local government reorganisation sees an expanded unitary Leicester Council with the rest of the Leicestershire County Council and Rutland Council areas becoming the basis for a new unitary council. ABC considers it essential that this later authority has 'and Rutland' within its name. This does seem to be the intention.

Oxfordshire County Council / West Berkshire Council

These councils will be replaced by three new unitary councils. These are shown below, along with their provisional names, compared to the historic counties.

The current Oxfordshire County Council is infamous for having a wildly inappropriate name, its area including a huge area in the north-west of Berkshire. The new unitary set-up will bring this ridiculous situation to an end after 54 years.

Whilst two of the successor unitary councils do cover parts of both counties, the provisional names (Greater Oxford Council and Ridgeway Council) are sensibly neutral as far as the counties are concerned. The name North Oxfordshire Council is entirely reasonable for the third council.

Lincolnshire County Council / North Lincolnshire Council / North East Lincolnshire Council

Lincolnshire County Council and the district councils in its area will be replaced by two new unitary councils. These are shown below, along with their provisional names, compared to the historic counties. North Lincolnshire Council and North East Lincolnshire Council will continue.

The current Lincolnshire County Council, as set up in 1974, has always excluded the northern part of the county. From 1974-1996 this area was under Humberside County Council and has since been under the two unitary councils North Lincolnshire Council and North East Lincolnshire Council.

The replacement of Lincolnshire County Council with two unitary councils presents an opportunity to find a less bizarre set of council names in this area. Unfortunately, as of the present time, the Government has chosen to make things even more bizarre by calling the larger of the two new unitary council just Lincolnshire Council.

Warwickshire County Council

Warwickshire County Council and the district councils in its area will be replaced by two new unitary councils. These are shown below, along with their provisional names, compared to the historic counties.

The current Warwickshire County Council, set up in 1974, has one of the most outrageous of all local government names. Its area excludes the entire populous north-west of the county, including Birmingham, Coventry, Solihull and Sutton Coldfield.

The splitting of this council area into two unitary councils and the overwhelming likelihood that these will be called North Warwickshire Council and South Warwickshire Council will finally resolve this issue. When viewed in relation to their place in the historic county as a whole, these names are reasonable.

Worcestershire County Council

Worcestershire County Council and the district councils in its area will be replaced by two new unitary councils. These are shown below, along with their provisional names, compared to the historic counties.

The current Worcestershire County Council was set up in 1998 after the abolition of Hereford and Worcester County Council, itself a creation of 1974. The council's name is not ideal since its area excludes the populous north-east of the county.

The provisional unitary council names North Worcestershire Council and South Worcestershire Council are fairly reasonable for the areas they cover. Whilst North Worcestershire Council still doesn't cover the populous north-east of the county, at least these council names are not literally claiming to cover / be the whole county.

Staffordshire County Council / Stoke-on-Trent City Council

These councils will be replaced by two new unitary councils. These are shown below, along with their provisional names, compared to the historic counties.

The name of Staffordshire County Council has, since 1974, been wholly inappropriate since this council area excludes the populous south-east of Staffordshire, including Wolverhampton, Walsall and West Bromwich.

The provisional new council names North Staffordshire Council and South and Mid Staffordshire Council are reasonable for the areas they cover, though the latter council would arguably be better called Mid Staffordshire Council.

Gloucestershire County Council

Gloucestershire County Council and the district councils in its area will be replaced by a single new unitary council covering the same area as the current county council. This is shown below compared to the historic counties. South Gloucestershire Council will continue.

The current Gloucestershire County Council, as set up in 1974, has always excluded the southern part of the county. From 1974-1996 this area was under Avon County Council and has since been under the two unitary councils: South Gloucestershire Council and Bristol City 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. It seems highly likely that the new unitary council will end up being called Gloucestershire Council. The bizarre set-up of having a Gloucestershire Council and an adjacent South Gloucestershire Council could be avoided by calling the new council North and West Gloucestershire Council.

Kent County Council / Medway Council

These councils will be replaced by four unitary councils. These are shown below, along with their provisional names, compared to the historic counties.

The main problem with the name of the 1974 Kent County Council has always been that its area excludes the highly populous part of the county in Greater London, including Bromley, Greenwich and Bexleyheath.

The creation of four unitary councils with compass-point names actually rather lessens the impression that the metropolitan part of Kent is not part of the historic county. Indeed, if one thinks of that area as Metropolitan Kent then it sits alongside the other council areas with no confusion at all.

Lieutenancy Areas

There is still the problem of the so-called "ceremonial counties", that is the counties for the purposes of the Lieutenancies Act 1997. These were based on the newly created local government "counties" in 1974 and have remained largely based on them ever since - even as areas have been removed from county council control and made the basis of unitary councils. But the on-going large-scale local government reorganisation presents the Government with problems in relation to the lieutenancies.

Campaigners in Rutland believe that the Government has already promised to maintain Rutland's "ceremonial status" once it has become part of a larger Leicestershire and Rutland Council. This suggests that the Government is going to create separate Leicestershire and Rutland lieutenancy areas within the Lieutenancies Act 1997. This would be a major change to the current approach of basing lieutenancies in England on current local government areas. At present, Stockton on Tees is the only council area to be split (along the River Tees) for lieutenancy purposes.

The abolition of local government Oxfordshire and the creation of Ridgeway Council and Greater Oxford Council also presents a problem to the Government. The current Oxfordshire and Berkshire lieutenancy areas reflect the 1974 local government areas of these names. The new unitary councils cut across the current local government boundaries. There has been no indication from Government as to how it plans to deal with this. Splitting these councils along the course of the Thames (cf. the Stockton-on-Tees approach) could be on the cards.

To ABC there is an obvious problem. Why should Rutland have its own lord-lieutenant but not Middlesex? Why not Huntingdonshire? Why not Glamorgan? Why not every historic county in Great Britain?

Continuing to base the lieutenancies on what will soon be former local government areas would be anachronistic and absurd. It is long since time that the lieutenancies throughout Great Britain were re-appointed to the historic counties. This move would fully end the last vestiges of "county confusion". We will be repeating our call on the Government to undertake this simple and common-sense measure.

Concluding Remarks - Reclaiming the Counties

The end of the 1974 local government geography is a necessary condition for the real counties to resume their role as the standard geographical and cultural divisions of England. But it is not sufficient in and of itself. The Association of British Counties, the Historic Counties Trust and many other national and local organisations have much more work to do in promoting the existence and importance of the real counties. But the main obstacle to public and media understanding of our message is being removed and we can pursue our aims with renewed vigour and confidence.

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. It is also time for the heritage sector (British Museum, National Trust, English Heritage, Historic England et al.) to acknowledge and promote this important part of our living heritage.

Note that whilst this article is primarily concerned with the situation with regard to the historic counties in England, there are, of course, still issues with the confusion of local government and the historic counties in Scotland and Wales.

The banner photo of a "Welcome to Lancashire" sign as one leaves Blackpool is courtesy of Google Maps.

This is an update (31st July 2026) to an article originally published on 17th July 2026.

County Days come thick and fast at this time of the year. We present some highlights from the most recent.

Sussex Day - Tuesday 16th June 2026

Sussex Day is celebrated on 16th June, the feast day of St Richard of Chichester, the county’s patron saint. This has become a huge annual event, one of the largest and most joyful of all county day celebrations. 2026 has been the biggest yet.

Huge thanks and congratulations are due to our friends at Sussex Flag. You can see many more posts from the Sussex Day 2026 celebrations on their Facebook page.

Wiltshire Day - Friday 5th June 2026

Wiltshire Day is celebrated on 5th June each year, the date the county flag was first flown in 2007.

Devon Day - Thursday 4th June 2026

Devon Day is celebrated on 4th June, the feast day of St Petroc.

Dorset Day and Pembrokeshire Day - Monday 1st June 2026

Dorset Day is celebrated on 1st June – the feast day of Saint Wite. Pembrokeshire Day is celebrated on the same day.

Kent Day - Tuesday 26th May 2026

Kent Day is celebrated on 26th May, the feast day of St Augustine.