|
Post by Wisconsin on Nov 22, 2020 11:16:05 GMT
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,024
|
Post by ilerda on Nov 22, 2020 11:33:59 GMT
I suspect a lot of the time they don’t happen because there isn’t seen to be the need or the will for it to happen. Lots of districts are quite happy to have cities and large towns build suburbs just across the border because it boosts population and therefore the tax base without demanding too much in terms of services,
This Sheffield-Barnsley situation is different because they are both large metropolitan boroughs, and the geography of the area makes a transfer a necessity.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Nov 22, 2020 11:39:58 GMT
Indeed. New build flats in London rarely benefits the Conservatives. The demographics in the social housing components are normally very heavily weighted against the Conservatives. And then those in the private housing normally have very high proportions of EU nationals and nationals from countries not eligible to vote. The best demographics in the East End for the Conservatives are 80s/90s new build riverside flats and the remaining white working class in (former) social housing. I seem to remember a discussion on here about some ward during a byelection in which various posters claimed that an influx of middle class professionals would variously benefit all the different parties. that may well have been correct in terms of the raw vote.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 22, 2020 12:03:39 GMT
I seem to remember a discussion on here about some ward during a byelection in which various posters claimed that an influx of middle class professionals would variously benefit all the different parties. that may well have been correct in terms of the raw vote. Well, you're no fun at all are you?
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Nov 22, 2020 16:45:20 GMT
that may well have been correct in terms of the raw vote. Well, you're no fun at all are you? oh, i find political activists seeing only their own new voters highly amusing. Just look at both sides' hubris before the recent us elections!
|
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,086
|
Post by Eastwood on Nov 23, 2020 11:04:01 GMT
It’s really not as big a deal as these pseudo-journalists are making it out to be. I know people on all sides (Local gov and the developers) and they’ve been aware of this from the start. There has always been an understanding that a boundary review will take place and that the whole thing will be moved into Sheffield, but they’ve also made contingency arrangements around services and funding in case people move in before the transfer has been completed. These sort of reviews should certainly more common than they are, but the suggestion that it’s a logistical and legal mountain to surmount is definitely not the case in reality. Although I’m not sure why they’ve waited this long to get the ball rolling. If both local authorities are in favour then the LGBCE will carry out an external boundary review. We had a good one up in Scotland where the Cardowan by Stepps review was opposed by both Glasgow (wanted the council tax despite no road access from Glasgow to the development) and North Lanarkshire (didn’t want extra pressure on the local primary school) opposed the proposed boundary review. Boundary Commission sided with the residents who requested it (who may have been at least partially motivated by the lower council tax in North Lanarkshire) and the anomaly was fixed no thanks to the two local authorities.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,604
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 23, 2020 11:17:27 GMT
If both local authorities are in favour then the LGBCE will carry out an external boundary review. We had a good one up in Scotland where the Cardowan by Stepps review was opposed by both Glasgow (wanted the council tax despite no road access from Glasgow to the development) and North Lanarkshire (didn’t want extra pressure on the local primary school) opposed the proposed boundary review. Boundary Commission sided with the residents who requested it (who may have been at least partially motivated by the lower council tax in North Lanarkshire) and the anomaly was fixed no thanks to the two local authorities. That was an odd one because it was on the northern boundary of Glasgow, but it was North Lanarkshire - the council to the south - on the other side, and I couldn't get my head around the arrangement until I tracked down a larger map that shows that North Lanarkshire has a small salient that creeps around the north of Glasgow.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,604
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 23, 2020 11:29:30 GMT
I suspect a lot of the time they don’t happen because there isn’t seen to be the need or the will for it to happen. Lots of districts are quite happy to have cities and large towns build suburbs just across the border because it boosts population and therefore the tax base without demanding too much in terms of services, This Sheffield-Barnsley situation is different because they are both large metropolitan boroughs, and the geography of the area makes a transfer a necessity. And the weird boundary there is because the 1974 authorities were built by just sticking together existing parishes. The boundary would follow the river but that when Stocksbridge Urban District was created it crossed the river to the bluffs, or followed the bluffs but the Wortley/Bradfield boundary was never changed, so causing that odd kink. They did try and put all of Wortley Parish into Sheffield to remove that odd salient, but it was objected to, and the objections supported. If they would have countanced slicing up the parish they could have just put Warncliffe Woods into Sheffield.
|
|
afleitch
SNP
Posts: 3,727
Member is Online
|
Post by afleitch on Nov 24, 2020 22:39:04 GMT
So if you dig around the minutes/papers etc on the LGBCS website you can see suggested new wards for North Ayrshire, Highland and Argyll and Bute before they go out to public consultation. North Ayrshire seem happy, Argyll and Bute want a few tweaks. Highland, having not responded spat the dummy at the 11th hour and want it all thrown out and want to go to the Scottish Government to 'fix the legislation' To be fair like the last round where certain councils got additional representation due to higher levels of deprivation, but they had to allocate new wards across the whole council, the same appears to be true of islands. Mainland North Ayrshire is rejigged for the net result of giving Arran one councillor. So to North Ayrshire as these seem the most likely to 'stick' without amendment. lgbc-scotland.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LGBCS_2533_North_Ayrshire.pdf In North Ayrshire Arran ends up with 1 councillor, but is technically served by 3 (with Ardrossan) at present. The Irvine wards and Kilwinning don't change. Saltcoats is abolished and recombined with Stevenston as in 2007-2017 but given 5 councillors. Ardrossan gets 3. The biggest change is actually aesthetically the most sensible. Dalry and West Kilbride is abolished with Dalry given to Kilbirnie and Beith (and renamed Garnock Valley) with 5 councillors and West Kilbride given to North Coast also with 5 councillors. In Argyll and Bute; lgbc-scotland.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LGBCS_2534_Argyll_Bute.pdfThey are giving Islay, Jura and Colonsay a 2 member ward and Mull, Iona, Coll and Tiree a 2 member ward, with one Oban ward of 4 with Kintyre and Mid Argyll being reorientated. The council have rightly pointed out that Bute remains with 2 members despite being considerably larger in electorate than the other island groupings. The Commission, giving away the fact they don't leave Edinburgh, think that Bute is 'closer' because of the small ferry link to Colintraive despite the fact that the drive to get to anywhere from that point is no different than driving up from Campbelltown. Bute is of course easily connected and IS easily accessible to Inverclyde by ferry...but Inverclyde is not Argyll and Bute. So the council have asked for some revision there.
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Nov 25, 2020 2:51:46 GMT
I can give two examples where it has happened. The Frankley estate split between Birmingham and Bromsgrove was moved wholesale to Birmingham, and an estate in Cricklewood split between Camden & Barnet was moved into Camden. I think there is another development going up split between Coventry and Warwick that may be moved, presumably into Coventry. A bit more than half of the Holybrook area in Reading is Holybrook parish in West Berks, the rest is in RBC. The boundary cuts right though and is very irregular along that section.
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Nov 25, 2020 21:05:16 GMT
I can give two examples where it has happened. The Frankley estate split between Birmingham and Bromsgrove was moved wholesale to Birmingham, and an estate in Cricklewood split between Camden & Barnet was moved into Camden. I think there is another development going up split between Coventry and Warwick that may be moved, presumably into Coventry. A bit more than half of the Holybrook area in Reading is Holybrook parish in West Berks, the rest is in RBC. The boundary cuts right though and is very irregular along that section. There are multiple examples of this along Three Rivers border with Watford, including lots of culs-de-sac that start in one but the 'blind' end in the other authority. I also have most of the hamlet of Pimlico in my Three Rivers ward, about 70 houses - but one cul-de-sac of 20 houses is in St Albans district (and even more bizarrely, although 'my' part is actually in St Albans constituency, the 20 houses are represented by the MP for Hitchin & Harpenden ...)
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Nov 25, 2020 21:25:46 GMT
A bit more than half of the Holybrook area in Reading is Holybrook parish in West Berks, the rest is in RBC. The boundary cuts right though and is very irregular along that section. There are multiple examples of this along Three Rivers border with Watford, including lots of culs-de-sac that start in one but the 'blind' end in the other authority. I also have most of the hamlet of Pimlico in my Three Rivers ward, about 70 houses - but one cul-de-sac of 20 houses is in St Albans district (and even more bizarrely, although 'my' part is actually in St Albans constituency, the 20 houses are represented by the MP for Hitchin & Harpenden ...) That's the problem with building post war housing estates across ancient parish boundaries - the LGBCE doesn't seem to be arsed to clear up the mess the housebuilding creates later on. To be frank, it's worse in the Tilehurst area Reading-wise, the boundary splits people's gardens in 2,so someone had to apply to Reading and West Berkshire council every time they want to submit a planning application to improve their home .
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 26, 2020 7:25:03 GMT
I can give two examples where it has happened. The Frankley estate split between Birmingham and Bromsgrove was moved wholesale to Birmingham, and an estate in Cricklewood split between Camden & Barnet was moved into Camden. I think there is another development going up split between Coventry and Warwick that may be moved, presumably into Coventry. A bit more than half of the Holybrook area in Reading is Holybrook parish in West Berks, the rest is in RBC. The boundary cuts right though and is very irregular along that section. There are cul-de-sacs in Southend too which straggle across the border into Rochford and Castle Point Districts. I have no idea how this is managed for services (eg refuse collection). I'd guess they are provided by Southend, and a nominal payment is made to them for the service, but the council tax, councillors, and MP are all across the border. I can't believe Rochford would solemnly send a refuse truck half a mile out of its way to collect rubbish from 4 houses. Perhaps one of our councillor contributors knows how this is managed. And yes of course the boundary should be rationalized.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 1, 2020 10:27:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 1, 2020 10:30:40 GMT
It looks like they have adopted a couple of my recommendations
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Dec 1, 2020 10:55:53 GMT
It looks like they have adopted a couple of my recommendations
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Dec 1, 2020 11:02:44 GMT
I see the Conservatives have won their case on Upper Walthamstow. Now of course they have to actually win the ward at the next council elections.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 1, 2020 11:20:53 GMT
It looks like they have adopted a couple of my recommendations Well the last time I had proposals adopted was in the first zombie review when the BCE accepted a number of my proposed constituencies in Middlesex - of course they never came to fruition. But yes I can claim partial credit for 'Hill End' and for moving the northern boundary of London Colney to the A414 (the latter glory, such as it is, is shared with the local Labour group who may possibly have had more influence than me..)
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 1, 2020 12:34:39 GMT
I see the Conservatives have won their case on Upper Walthamstow. Now of course they have to actually win the ward at the next council elections. Probably about 30 years too late..
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Dec 1, 2020 12:50:32 GMT
I see the Conservatives have won their case on Upper Walthamstow. Now of course they have to actually win the ward at the next council elections. Probably about 30 years too late.. You’re probably right. They may have been more concerned about Hale End & Highams Park South (what a bloody mouthful). I’ve no idea how the Hale End Road area the controversy was about, votes compared to the areas south and north. But there’s plenty of nice middle-class housing in this part of Walthamstow, alongside the strip of Epping Forest.
|
|