Skip to content
Lancashire Counts — Lancashire, in numbers.Local help →

Fylde, in numbers

Projects: Fylde

Fylde local authority area. Every figure carries its own date.

The local plans, investments and decisions worth following.

3 selected records checked against official sources. A plan is not a completed project; each record shows the stage its source establishes.

St Annes and Kirkham

St Annes and Kirkham leisure investment

The council approved investment in St Annes leisure facilities and a route to reopening Kirkham Baths.

Approved; surveys and affordability conditions remain · evidence dated 2026-01-28

Responsible body: Fylde Borough Council

What the source says: The combined package is £9.3 million. Kirkham reopening remains subject to detailed surveys and affordability; neither opening is inferred from the approval.

Next thing to establish: Which neighbourhoods are covered by an official project plan, and which benefits still need testing?

Progress, funding and source
Cost
£9.3 million across both facilities
Funding
Council reserves and borrowing
Area covered
Named project location only. No verified current ward impact footprint; no ward-wide effect is inferred.

No verified ward footprint is assigned.

Two-pool investment decision →

Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.

Questions for the next progress report

  • What is the next published milestone, and what evidence will show residents benefit?

Turn the pool decision into usable swimming time →

Resolve hidden building and utility costs →

Target support where disadvantages overlap →

How to track delivery →

St Annes seafront

The Island boating-lake options

The council is costing lake restoration while inviting alternative ideas for the site.

Restoration costings and market testing · source does not state a status date

Responsible body: Fylde Borough Council

What the source says: No decision to abandon the lake is recorded. The council says drainage and other utilities are not connected.

Next thing to establish: What dated decision or progress report confirms the current stage?

Progress, funding and source
Cost
Not established by the evidence checked.
Funding
Not established by the evidence checked.
Area covered
Named project location only. No verified current ward impact footprint; no ward-wide effect is inferred.

No verified ward footprint is assigned.

The Island options and restoration work →

Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.

Questions for the next progress report

  • What is the approved cost, including ongoing maintenance?
  • Which funding is committed, and what remains conditional?
  • Which neighbourhoods are covered by an official project plan, and which benefits still need testing?
  • What is the next published milestone, and what evidence will show residents benefit?

Compare seafront options on the same basis →

Resolve hidden building and utility costs →

Connect local skills to local opportunities →

Target support where disadvantages overlap →

How to track delivery →