Debate emerges over M65 toll proposal to fund repairs in Lancashire
Councillors discuss hypothetical toll idea amid complex funding challenges
Last updated 18th Sep 2026
A row has broken out, after a Lancashire county councillor suggested introducing a toll on a stretch of the M65, to help pay for repairs and maintenance.
Joel Tetlow floated the idea, as a possible way of raising the £15m, needed for drainage work on the route.
The Reform UK backbencher made the “hypothetical” proposal for the six-mile section between junction 10 – the Burnley and Clitheroe turn-off – and the end of the motorway at junction 14 in Colne. No official proposal is under consideration by Lancashire County Council, which Reform runs.
Nevertheless, any prospect of drivers having to dip into their pockets to access part of Lancashire’s road network was condemned by main opposition group leader Azhar Ali as a “double tax” on residents and businesses, which he branded “bonkers”.
Meanwhile, veteran Pendle Lib Dem councillor David Whipp – while supportive of having a “discussion” over the issue – warned that it could cause “chaos” on surrounding roads in East Lancashire.
A quirk of history means Lancashire County Council is responsible for the area between junctions 10 and 14, even though the rest of the route – and almost all of the motorway network in England – is looked after by government agency National Highways.
The Burnley-to-Colne stretch is regularly affected by flooding, which is sometimes so severe it forces the complete closure of the carriageways.
County Cllr Tetlow – who represents the Accrington North division – told a meeting of County Hall’s environment, economic growth and transport scrutiny committee that the M65 was “a big issue”.
He then added: “Why don’t we do something like put a toll on it? It might be very contentious, but there’s big problems with that road – it needs a lot of money spending on it
“So I’m just talking about maybe £1 or…50 pence.”
But fellow committee member County Cllr Whipp – who had previously pushed for the authority to make a pitch for government funding to rectify the issues – warned that if people sought to “avoid” any toll put in place, the knock-on effect would be similar to when the M65 currently has to be shut.
“I suspect that the chaos on the surrounding road network means it won’t be worth a candle,” he said – but added that use of automatic number planet recognition cameras meant a toll would at least be possible to implement in practice.
However, speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) after the meeting, County Cllr Ali – who leads the Progressive Lancashire opposition alliance at County Hall and also sits on the scrutiny committee – said the suggestion was as unfair as it was “crazy”.
“Why should the people of East Lancashire have to pay extra on top of their road tax and fuel duty to use a few miles of road that’s owned by Lancashire County Council? It’d be a double tax by Reform.
“The M65 ends effectively in a cul-de-sac in Colne – why should we charge people a toll for that?
“Local people will end up having to pay to go to work if they’re using the motorway – once on the way in and then to come back home.
“The motorway also takes a lot of business traffic, going through to Yorkshire. A toll would put drivers off from going through Burnley and Pendle – penalising local businesses who benefit from passing trade,” said County Cllr Ali, who earlier this year warned about the danger of potholes on the county council-controlled section of the M65.
While County Cllr Whipp told the meeting he was “not keen…at all” on a toll, he said discussing the possibility would at least keep the M65 funding issue “in the headlines” – and so seconded County Cllr Tetlow’s suggestion that the authority’s cabinet should investigate the “cost benefits” of a charge to be implemented via a remote system.
However, after a vote, the committee declined to request the administration explore the idea.
The county council’s interim director of highways and transport, John Davies, said the introduction of a toll would likely require “government approval” – although County Cllr Tetlow questioned why that would be the case when they did not “own” the section of the M65 in question.
Scrutiny committee chair – Reform county councillor Mark Wade – said of that broader anomaly: “If every other motorway is owned by the government, why do we own this one? It’s ridiculous.”
County council cabinet member for highways Warren Goldsworthy told a cabinet meeting earlier this month that he would “love” to hand the M65 over to National Highways, but that they would only “want it…with the £15m spent on it” first. He said there had been defects with the motorway since “day one”.
What is now junctions 10-12 were the first sections of the M65 to open in 1981, with 12-13 following two years later – along with 7-10 – and 13-14 coming in 1988. The junction 1-6 stretch between the M6/M61 and Blackburn North and East exit did not open until 1997.
In a statement issued after the scrutiny meeting, County Cllr Goldsworthy said: “Lancashire County Council has no plans to introduce tolls on the M65 and this is not something we are considering.
“While the suggestion was raised during a recent scrutiny committee discussion, it does highlight the unique position of Lancashire County Council being responsible for a section of motorway.
“We will be discussing this issue with National Highways to explore options for the future ownership and management of this section of the M65.”
The authority recently considered making a bid for so-called ‘structures funding’ from the government to finance a drainage improvement scheme on its part the M65, but ultimately judged it would not meet the eligibility criteria.
A report to the scrutiny committee stated that the county council now needed to “explore alternative funding opportunities” through its capital programme to finance such a project.
It added that routine maintenance was continuing to ensure the M65 drainage system operates “as effectively as possible”.
Meanwhile, targeted investigations have been carried out to assess the reasons for flooding in known problem spots – including near junction 13 eastbound – and draw up possible solutions.
Cost estimates are currently being prepared to determine whether funding for any agreed work – such as the potential replacement of the route’s remaining original gully covers with modern stormwater versions – can be found in the 2027/28 capital budget. But any upgrades might have to be delivered over an extended period depending on financial constraints.
The LDRS approached Lancashire County Council for further comment on the toll discussion at the scrutiny meeting, but had not received a response by the time of publication.
There are currently only two tolled motorways in England – a stretch of the M6 in the West Midlands, for which there remains a corresponding, free-to-use section, and the Dartford Crossing on the M25. However, there are 17 bridges and tunnels for which charges are in force, along with charge zones in the centre of London and Durham.
‘It was just an idea’
In response to County Cllr Ali’s criticism of his toll suggestion, County Cllr Tetlow told the LDRS his comments were “intended to highlight a serious funding challenge facing Lancashire, not to announce a policy proposal”.
He added: “There is currently no proposal before the council to introduce tolls on the M65 and no decision has been taken. The example I used was simply to illustrate the scale of traffic using the route and the sort of revenue that can be generated when tens of millions of vehicle journeys take place each year.
“The real issue is that Lancashire taxpayers could be expected to fund around £15m of improvement works before National Highways will consider taking responsibility for this stretch of motorway. I believe it is entirely reasonable to ask whether local residents should have to bear that cost alone when the road serves a much wider regional and national purpose.
“This is not just a road used by Lancashire residents. It carries significant volumes of traffic travelling between Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and beyond, as well as supporting major economic and infrastructure activity. It is fair to ask whether the burden of bringing the route up to the required standard should fall solely on local taxpayers.
“Residents living alongside this corridor are the people most affected by its condition and performance. When elected members are confronted with a significant infrastructure liability, it is our responsibility to examine all options and ask difficult questions about how those costs should be funded fairly.”
County Cllr Tetlow said he was “disappointed” that County Cllr Ali had “chosen to politicise the issue”.
He continued: “Rather than focusing on the wider question of how we secure a long-term solution for this stretch of motorway, the debate has been diverted towards scoring political points.
“If my comments…achieve nothing more than drawing public attention to the fact that Lancashire residents could be expected to fund millions of pounds of work on a strategic route used by people from across the North of England, then they will have served their purpose.
“The discussion we should be having is not about a hypothetical funding mechanism, but about who should fairly pay for infrastructure that benefits far more than just Lancashire alone.”