cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,285 
|
Post by cj on Aug 24, 2020 20:39:53 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. Incorporation of villages/other settlements is kinda how cities grow, this is no surprise, at least to anyone outside of a county with no cities  |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 24, 2020 21:03:14 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. "The anomoly of Hathersage" sounds like some medieval book of natural cures. |
|
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 21:30:06 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. Incorporation of villages/other settlements is kinda how cities grow, this is no surprise, at least to anyone outside of a county with no cities Ouch! |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,156
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 24, 2020 22:51:26 GMT
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. "The anomoly of Hathersage" sounds like some medieval book of natural cures. Or an ecclesiastical office in a large monastery. Or a moorland geographical feature. Or a rare passage migrant bird. Anyway ..... it does deviate from the normal (and correct) spelling. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,843
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 24, 2020 23:25:06 GMT
"The anomoly of Hathersage" sounds like some medieval book of natural cures. Or an ecclesiastical office in a large monastery. Or a moorland geographical feature. Or a rare passage migrant bird. Anyway ..... it does deviate from the normal (and correct) spelling. No, it's clearly a detatched part of some local authority somewhere, with it's own election laws. Clearly it needs to be in the Boundary Review thread.  |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 25, 2020 7:49:07 GMT
mapit.mysociety.org/area/2391.htmlIt 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. By which you mean the two areas I mentioned, plus one other area that is not and never has been a village? Glad we've cleared that up. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 25, 2020 8:49:04 GMT
"The anomoly of Hathersage" sounds like some medieval book of natural cures. Or an ecclesiastical office in a large monastery. Or a moorland geographical feature. Or a rare passage migrant bird. Anyway ..... it does deviate from the normal (and correct) spelling. "Frank Muir?" |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,156
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 25, 2020 9:00:12 GMT
Or an ecclesiastical office in a large monastery. Or a moorland geographical feature. Or a rare passage migrant bird. Anyway ..... it does deviate from the normal (and correct) spelling. "Frank Muir?" But without the same speech impediment. Same part of Kent. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 25, 2020 9:21:06 GMT
For Cambridgeshire there still haven't been any proposals, but rumours are that two authorities are being considered. My best guess is that if Peterborough is included, then it'll have Fenland and Huntingdonshire added to it, with East Cambs going with South Cambs and Cambridge. If Peterborough isn't keen to participate, then realistically the only way to get two authorities that are large enough is to combine East Cambs, Fenland and Huntingdonshire into one authority and South Cambs and Cambridge into the other.
South Cambs and Cambridge are a fairly sensible pairing and the two councils already share a lot of services, but I don't think their combined population has quite hit 300,000 (though it will do very soon.) East Cambs is mostly part of the same basic economic unit, but it likes to go its own way (and its political leadership do not play well with others.)
In terms of the political calculus, Fenland and Huntingdonshire would be more than sufficient to make a Peterborough-based authority Conservative under almost any conceivable circumstances. The Tories could not win a South Cambs-Cambridge pairing, but might still have a path to a majority if you added in East Cambridgeshire. The difficulty is that if they didn't win a majority, it's hard to see the Conservative group on such an authority being able to negotiate a coalition with anybody. The Lib Dems could certainly win a majority under either configuration, but equally in a bad year could lose the bulk of their seats. Initially Labour would be primarily limited to Cambridge itself, but plenty of Lib Dem voters in South Cambs are just as happy voting for any left-of-centre party so there's a chance of tactical unwind in some areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 27, 2020 20:44:57 GMT
Whoever came up with the idea of the Forest of Dean being linked with Stroud and Gloucester appears to have forgotten about the River Severn-the split instead needs to be north (Forest of Dean, Tewkesbury and Cheltenham) and south (Gloucester, Stroud and Cotswolds) : www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-53922221 |
|
🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️
Conservative & Unionist
Party hats roasting on an open fire...
Posts: 3,988
Member is Online
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Aug 27, 2020 20:57:24 GMT
Just combine Forest of Dean and Monmouthshire. Makes much more sense with where Monmouth and Chepstow towns are.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 27, 2020 21:10:26 GMT
Just combine Forest of Dean and Monmouthshire. Makes much more sense with where Monmouth and Chepstow towns are. The Forest of Dean is not, and never has been, in Wales so that combination is out of the question. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Aug 27, 2020 21:18:37 GMT
Whoever came up with the idea of the Forest of Dean being linked with Stroud and Gloucester appears to have forgotten about the River Severn-the split instead needs to be north (Forest of Dean, Tewkesbury and Cheltenham) and south (Gloucester, Stroud and Cotswolds) : www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-53922221I don't agree - if you're going to split Gloucestershire into two unitaries the Forest essentially has to go in with Gloucester - the links down the A40 are strong and it's a major commercial centre for the Forest, to a far greater extent than Cheltenham. The problem you've got is the Tewkesbury's bizzare salient which separates the two. That would need to go in any proposed "West Gloucestershire" unitary - but ideally you don't want the rest of the district in there, since Bishop's Cleeve is very definitely in Cheltenham's hinterland. Stroud could probably go either way - I'm inclined to have it in with Cheltenham because it makes more sense being included in the Cotswolds. In turn, that means the bits of Tewkesbury which could go either way (the town itself, plus the suburbia between Chelt and Glos) should probably go with Gloucester to make the populations more even. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Aug 27, 2020 21:40:18 GMT
Just combine Forest of Dean and Monmouthshire. Makes much more sense with where Monmouth and Chepstow towns are. The Forest of Dean is not, and never has been, in Wales so that combination is out of the question. I cannot imagine anything more likely to provoke pitchforks (always kept handy on the Forest for almost anything really) than lumping them in with Wales. Or vice versa. It might be worth remembering that Glos is a rugby county. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Aug 27, 2020 21:47:31 GMT
Whoever came up with the idea of the Forest of Dean being linked with Stroud and Gloucester appears to have forgotten about the River Severn-the split instead needs to be north (Forest of Dean, Tewkesbury and Cheltenham) and south (Gloucester, Stroud and Cotswolds) : www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-53922221I don't agree - if you're going to split Gloucestershire into two unitaries the Forest essentially has to go in with Gloucester - the links down the A40 are strong and it's a major commercial centre for the Forest, to a far greater extent than Cheltenham. The problem you've got is the Tewkesbury's bizzare salient which separates the two. That would need to go in any proposed "West Gloucestershire" unitary - but ideally you don't want the rest of the district in there, since Bishop's Cleeve is very definitely in Cheltenham's hinterland. Stroud could probably go either way - I'm inclined to have it in with Cheltenham because it makes more sense being included in the Cotswolds. In turn, that means the bits of Tewkesbury which could go either way (the town itself, plus the suburbia between Chelt and Glos) should probably go with Gloucester to make the populations more even. If all the districts in the county are merging into unitaries I see no reason why current district boundaries are relevant. Tewkesbury has tended to accumulate random parishes in order to make other units (constituency or district) add up. As Tewkesbury town is relatively small you just need to decide where that goes and the rest of the district can go wherever makes sense. But if Wiltshire can be a single unitary I suspect the easiest solution is to make Gloucestershire one too and avoid all such issues. It would also make constituency boundaries easier by removing a constraint. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,843
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 27, 2020 22:16:12 GMT
Good god, what is this abomination?  The district councils' model for unitary councils. ( link) It looks like they've given up before starting. The "Dales" authority is ok-ish, but Scarborough & Selby (plus York?  ??) They *really* need to pull their thumb out if we are to avoid a single unitary county. And they're losing the information war. The NYCC website is full of info on their proposal, including recordings of the presentations including loads 'n' loads of detail. The SBC presentation on Tuesday we were told would not be recorded, but the presentation would be made available. I have yet to obtain this presentation, either emailed or online, and the website is so bad I had to get that map image from the Scarborough News as you can't actually link to anything on the GetChangeRight website. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Aug 28, 2020 6:56:18 GMT
Whoever came up with the idea of the Forest of Dean being linked with Stroud and Gloucester appears to have forgotten about the River Severn-the split instead needs to be north (Forest of Dean, Tewkesbury and Cheltenham) and south (Gloucester, Stroud and Cotswolds) : www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-53922221I don't agree - if you're going to split Gloucestershire into two unitaries the Forest essentially has to go in with Gloucester - the links down the A40 are strong and it's a major commercial centre for the Forest, to a far greater extent than Cheltenham. The problem you've got is the Tewkesbury's bizzare salient which separates the two. That would need to go in any proposed "West Gloucestershire" unitary - but ideally you don't want the rest of the district in there, since Bishop's Cleeve is very definitely in Cheltenham's hinterland. Stroud could probably go either way - I'm inclined to have it in with Cheltenham because it makes more sense being included in the Cotswolds. In turn, that means the bits of Tewkesbury which could go either way (the town itself, plus the suburbia between Chelt and Glos) should probably go with Gloucester to make the populations more even. Add the Forest of Dean to Herefordshire and Tewkesbury to Worcestershire. What's left is Gloucestershire. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,917
|
Post by YL on Aug 28, 2020 7:26:45 GMT
If you insist on both the new councils simply being combinations of old ones and a minimum of 300,000 population for them then there are going to be some counties where there just isn't a very satisfactory proposal. You're also not going to be able to fix anachronistic tightly drawn urban boundaries.
I note to my surprise that a simple split of North Yorkshire based on the West Riding/North Riding boundary (Craven, Harrogate and Selby on one hand and Hambleton, Richmondshire, Ryedale and Scarborough on t'other) would actually put both councils above 300,000 (on 2019 estimates: 309,461 for the North Riding one and 308,593 for the northern West Riding) and allow York to remain unchanged. Both would be rather big geographically but I think they're slightly better than that Selby to Scarborough thing or a single unitary. Part of the problem is that Selby is out on a limb wherever it goes.
For Gloucestershire I would probably go for Cheltenham+Stroud+Cotswold (326,132) and Gloucester+Forest+Tewkesbury (311,118). But I would acknowledge that the Cheltenham-facing parts of Tewkesbury are not well handled by that.
I'm really not convinced that this process is going to give good results for either modest sized cities (or similar sized towns; Cheltenham and Gloucester are both examples) in two tier areas or for thinly populated rural areas. At least the former should be able to set up new parish councils.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,114
|
Post by ilerda on Aug 28, 2020 8:22:14 GMT
If you insist on both the new councils simply being combinations of old ones and a minimum of 300,000 population for them then there are going to be some counties where there just isn't a very satisfactory proposal. You're also not going to be able to fix anachronistic tightly drawn urban boundaries. I note to my surprise that a simple split of North Yorkshire based on the West Riding/North Riding boundary (Craven, Harrogate and Selby on one hand and Hambleton, Richmondshire, Ryedale and Scarborough on t'other) would actually put both councils above 300,000 (on 2019 estimates: 309,461 for the North Riding one and 308,593 for the northern West Riding) and allow York to remain unchanged. Both would be rather big geographically but I think they're slightly better than that Selby to Scarborough thing or a single unitary. Part of the problem is that Selby is out on a limb wherever it goes.For Gloucestershire I would probably go for Cheltenham+Stroud+Cotswold (326,132) and Gloucester+Forest+Tewkesbury (311,118). But I would acknowledge that the Cheltenham-facing parts of Tewkesbury are not well handled by that. I'm really not convinced that this process is going to give good results for either modest sized cities (or similar sized towns; Cheltenham and Gloucester are both examples) in two tier areas or for thinly populated rural areas. At least the former should be able to set up new parish councils. This is my thoughts exactly. It makes far more sense to have the Leeds-focussed (or at least West Yorkshire-focussed) councils together and then recreate the old North Riding but minus York. Selby will always be an odd addition anywhere, but anything apart from a complete four-way split or a single unitary for the district is always going to have that effect. As a side note I'd also advocate extracting Wetherby from Leeds and making that the main town of the new West Riding/Dales/Wharfe authority, but that's just personal preference. The North Riding would work fairly well with Northallerton kept as the county town I think. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 28, 2020 8:23:07 GMT
|
|
??)
