|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 23, 2020 20:02:58 GMT
It should be noted that parts of the Peak District do sit outside the High Peak district. Quite a sizeable section is in Cheshire East. And some of the Peak District is under Derbyshire Dales DC's remit, with the White Peak primarily under Staffordshire Moorlands DC's remit. |
|
|
|
Post by lackeroftalent on Aug 23, 2020 20:09:05 GMT
So a single unitary covering the entirety of the Peak District. Workable?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,843 
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 23, 2020 20:20:27 GMT
So a single unitary covering the entirety of the Peak District. Workable? You'll wrest Western Sheffield out of out cold dead hands! |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Aug 23, 2020 20:21:18 GMT
So a single unitary covering the entirety of the Peak District. Workable? Probably not. The constituent parts are very different to each other, and badly-connected. The existing High Peak already splits its bases between Glossop and Buxton for this reason. It does feel like it should be a neat unit, but it would surely be unworkable. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,843
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 23, 2020 20:23:48 GMT
So a single unitary covering the entirety of the Peak District. Workable? Probably not. The constituent parts are very different to each other, and badly-connected. The existing High Peak already splits its bases between Glossop and Buxton for this reason. It does feel like it should be a neat unit, but it would surely be unworkable. "The Peak District" is really two seperate entities on each side of the Pennine Ridge. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,114
|
Post by ilerda on Aug 23, 2020 22:33:35 GMT
It seems like High Peak is one of those districts that only makes sense as a single unit because it's fairly well balanced between all the constituent elements, even if those elements aren't necessarily the most cohesive in a wider scheme.
The current boundary seems to be drawn as wide as it can be for the area to be sensible, so any attempt to merge with another would be illogical and unacceptable to a large chunk of the district. A merger with Derbyshire Dales would make no sense at all for Glossop, but likewise a merger with anything in Cheshire or Greater Manchester would be anathema to Hathersage and the Hope Valley.
Either High Peak has to made a unitary in its own right (which is hard to justify based on population alone), or it needs to be split to take account of the clear differences in regional hub for the component parts.
|
|
Wisconsin
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,133
Member is Online
|
Post by Wisconsin on Aug 23, 2020 23:27:25 GMT
Parts of High Peak would fit well in Stockport IMO. I would agree. In fact, Disley had a referendum about 15 years ago on whether to stay in Cheshire East, join High Peak, or join Stockport MBC. How interesting - thanks. I had always assumed Disley was in High Peak. It seems bonkers having that small stretch of the A6 in Cheshire. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,056
Member is Online
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 24, 2020 3:14:43 GMT
I would agree. In fact, Disley had a referendum about 15 years ago on whether to stay in Cheshire East, join High Peak, or join Stockport MBC. How interesting - thanks. I had always assumed Disley was in High Peak. It seems bonkers having that small stretch of the A6 in Cheshire. Remember that part of High Peak is occupied Cheshire then it makes a lot more sense... |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Aug 24, 2020 7:15:20 GMT
How interesting - thanks. I had always assumed Disley was in High Peak. It seems bonkers having that small stretch of the A6 in Cheshire. Remember that part of High Peak is occupied Cheshire then it makes a lot more sense... Indeed. Bleaklow, which is the highest point if I recall, was once in Cheshire. |
|
|
|
Post by kvasir on Aug 24, 2020 8:12:01 GMT
I think whether you prefer to keep High Peak together since they are similar communities within the same national park; or you prefer to split it at the watershed to where each area is looking in terms of population pull, it says a fair bit about how you see the role of local government and how best to organise it.
(There are also the *return to the historical boundaries* groups.)
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,917
|
Post by YL on Aug 24, 2020 8:23:29 GMT
Remember that part of High Peak is occupied Cheshire then it makes a lot more sense... Indeed. Bleaklow, which is the highest point if I recall, was once in Cheshire. Black Hill, not Bleaklow. Actually it is on the historic boundary between Cheshire and Yorkshire and the modern one between Derbyshire and West Yorkshire, and is the highest point of both historic Cheshire and modern West Yorks. Both Bleaklow and Kinder Scout are higher but are unambiguously in Derbyshire. (The historic Derbyshire/Cheshire border runs more or less along the River Goyt, through Whaley Bridge, New Mills and Marple, to its confluence with the Etherow, and then up that river, through the Longdendale reservoirs, to the Yorkshire border near the Woodhead Pass. So the Cheshire bits of High Peak are basically the parts of Whaley Bridge and New Mills west of the Goyt, and the area north of the Etherow around Tintwistle.) |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,917
|
Post by YL on Aug 24, 2020 8:26:32 GMT
It seems like High Peak is one of those districts that only makes sense as a single unit because it's fairly well balanced between all the constituent elements, even if those elements aren't necessarily the most cohesive in a wider scheme. The current boundary seems to be drawn as wide as it can be for the area to be sensible, so any attempt to merge with another would be illogical and unacceptable to a large chunk of the district. A merger with Derbyshire Dales would make no sense at all for Glossop, but likewise a merger with anything in Cheshire or Greater Manchester would be anathema to Hathersage and the Hope Valley. Either High Peak has to made a unitary in its own right (which is hard to justify based on population alone), or it needs to be split to take account of the clear differences in regional hub for the component parts. Easy mistake to make, but Hathersage is in Derbyshire Dales, as is Bradwell; Bamford, Hope and Castleton are in High Peak. This has never made much sense to me... |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 24, 2020 9:10:38 GMT
Ipswich is so tightly drawn that great chunks of Ipswich aren't in Ipswich. There’s only a little of the built up area in Babergh. Kesgrave is the main exclusion and it’s in East Suffolk. Commuter villages are another issue entirely, and one that has a much wider importance than just Ipswich. The next substantial extension to Ipswich is likely to be to the north. It would certainly span the boundary with East Suffolk and probably with Mid Suffolk too. The county as a whole is slightly too large for a single unitary if we taken the government's figures as hard targets, but otherwise I suspect that will be the most likely option. It wouldn't be the most sensible one, but given that they've only just created East Suffolk they aren't going to turn around and put everything south of Woodbridge in with Ipswich, and if you don't do that then there's no sensible solution for Ipswich. This is especially true when we consider the strong likelihood that the lines will be chosen for partisan reasons - Labour may have done poorly in Lowestoft in recent years, but it wouldn't take too much of a swing back for an Ipswich & East Suffolk authority to go Labour in a good year. |
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on Aug 24, 2020 9:38:34 GMT
Ipswich is basically only 4 miles square. Some residential areas have spilled over the border. Areas that you would think were in Ipswich are in fact in the neighbouring authorities, w.g. part of the Belstead housing estate. The Hewlett Packard building on the edge of Ipswich, and never occupied by Hewlett Packard, but now used by the police based in Ipswich, is actually in Mid-Suffolk. It was noticeable over the years how, if the population of Ipswich grew to exceed that of Norwich, the boundaries of Norwich were extended to take in more villages.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 24, 2020 11:23:43 GMT
Ipswich is basically only 4 miles square. Some residential areas have spilled over the border. Areas that you would think were in Ipswich are in fact in the neighbouring authorities, w.g. part of the Belstead housing estate. The Hewlett Packard building on the edge of Ipswich, and never occupied by Hewlett Packard, but now used by the police based in Ipswich, is actually in Mid-Suffolk. It was noticeable over the years how, if the population of Ipswich grew to exceed that of Norwich, the boundaries of Norwich were extended to take in more villages. I realise talking nonsense about Ipswich/Norfolk is a traditional East Anglian pastime, but this is a map of Norfolk in 1920: www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/sheet/county_diagrams_1920s/Norfolk_1920Note that except for Bowthorpe and the bits around the airport, the boundaries are the same as today's. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Aug 24, 2020 11:47:50 GMT
Ipswich is basically only 4 miles square. Some residential areas have spilled over the border. Areas that you would think were in Ipswich are in fact in the neighbouring authorities, w.g. part of the Belstead housing estate. The Hewlett Packard building on the edge of Ipswich, and never occupied by Hewlett Packard, but now used by the police based in Ipswich, is actually in Mid-Suffolk. It was noticeable over the years how, if the population of Ipswich grew to exceed that of Norwich, the boundaries of Norwich were extended to take in more villages. I realise talking nonsense about Ipswich/Norfolk is a traditional East Anglian pastime, but this is a map of Norfolk in 1920: www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/sheet/county_diagrams_1920s/Norfolk_1920Note that except for Bowthorpe and the bits around the airport, the boundaries are the same as today's. And there’s far more of Norwich outside the city limits than there is of Ipswich. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,155
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 24, 2020 12:09:26 GMT
And there’s far more of Norwich outside the city limits than there is of Ipswich. Really? I would certainly have expected all of Ipswich to have been well outside the city limits of Norwich. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 24, 2020 12:11:40 GMT
And there’s far more of Norwich outside the city limits than there is of Ipswich. Really? I would certainly have expected all of Ipswich to have been well outside the city limits of Norwich. And neither place would want it otherwise....  |
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on Aug 24, 2020 12:53:46 GMT
Ipswich is basically only 4 miles square. Some residential areas have spilled over the border. Areas that you would think were in Ipswich are in fact in the neighbouring authorities, w.g. part of the Belstead housing estate. The Hewlett Packard building on the edge of Ipswich, and never occupied by Hewlett Packard, but now used by the police based in Ipswich, is actually in Mid-Suffolk. It was noticeable over the years how, if the population of Ipswich grew to exceed that of Norwich, the boundaries of Norwich were extended to take in more villages. I realise talking nonsense about Ipswich/Norfolk is a traditional East Anglian pastime, but this is a map of Norfolk in 1920: www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/sheet/county_diagrams_1920s/Norfolk_1920Note that except for Bowthorpe and the bits around the airport, the boundaries are the same as today's. It is clear that there has been expansion to the west, to the north to incorporate the airport and a small area to the north east since your plan. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,843
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 24, 2020 20:29:00 GMT
It seems like High Peak is one of those districts that only makes sense as a single unit because it's fairly well balanced between all the constituent elements, even if those elements aren't necessarily the most cohesive in a wider scheme. The current boundary seems to be drawn as wide as it can be for the area to be sensible, so any attempt to merge with another would be illogical and unacceptable to a large chunk of the district. A merger with Derbyshire Dales would make no sense at all for Glossop, but likewise a merger with anything in Cheshire or Greater Manchester would be anathema to Hathersage and the Hope Valley. Either High Peak has to made a unitary in its own right (which is hard to justify based on population alone), or it needs to be split to take account of the clear differences in regional hub for the component parts. If you're keeping the current system, the anomoly of Hathersage should be fixed and transfered to High Peak to put the whole Hope Valley in the same authority. |
|
