ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by ilerda on Sept 13, 2020 8:53:03 GMT
It’s important to remember that these proposed MCAs would also have a layer underneath, as they do now with the metropolitan districts. So there wouldn’t just be one council covering all of Northumberland and Durham, or all of South Yorkshire.
Hopefully that’ll cause everyone to panic somewhat less.
|
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 24, 2020 22:14:40 GMT
It’s important to remember that these proposed MCAs would also have a layer underneath, as they do now with the metropolitan districts. So there wouldn’t just be one council covering all of Northumberland and Durham, or all of South Yorkshire. Hopefully that’ll cause everyone to panic somewhat less. But we don't need an extra county council (read MCA) in places like Berks. We got rid of it for a reason in the 90s! |
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Sept 27, 2020 12:25:33 GMT
Each of the local councils in Lancashire are close to agreeing a new model after years of parochial back and forth. Not true. There will be no agreement. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,474 
|
Post by peterl on Oct 20, 2020 13:30:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 20, 2020 13:49:38 GMT
I rather like the response that King Aethelwulf would have been against it. Some Conservatives really do reference events a long time ago.... |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 20, 2020 20:28:32 GMT
Despite the branding, the current Somerset CC area becoming a unitary authority would not constitute a 'one Somerset' outcome, as the article and the Leader of the Commons both acknowledge.
Both solutions would also make Somerset West & Taunton a very short-lived district!
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 20, 2020 22:01:06 GMT
Despite the branding, the current Somerset CC area becoming a unitary authority would not constitute a 'one Somerset' outcome, as the article and the Leader of the Commons both acknowledge. Both solutions would also make Somerset West & Taunton a very short-lived district! Tees-side County Borough had such a short life it never made it on the OS maps.  |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 21, 2020 15:37:52 GMT
A proposed Morecambe Bay unitary authority has been approved by Barrow-in-Furness, Lancaster and South Lakeland councils: www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/lancaster-morecambe-bay-south-lakes-19232202If Morecambe Bay is approved, this will indirectly almost certainly result in the unitarisation of the rest of Cumbria and the break-up of Lancashire County Council into either three or four unitary authorities. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Nov 25, 2020 3:14:45 GMT
A proposed Morecambe Bay unitary authority has been approved by Barrow-in-Furness, Lancaster and South Lakeland councils: www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/lancaster-morecambe-bay-south-lakes-19232202If Morecambe Bay is approved, this will indirectly almost certainly result in the unitarisation of the rest of Cumbria and the break-up of Lancashire County Council into either three or four unitary authorities. It's a good idea, but they could do with putting the lightly populated northern half of Ribble Valley in the new unitary, it's way too far from the other population centres and Ribble Valley can't stand on it's own. Then I'd split the remainder in 5. 1) Pennine Lancs District - Burnley,Pendle and Rossendale, all are very strongly linked and this forms a reasonably sized unitary authority. 2) East Lancs District- Blackburn with Darwen, Hyndburn and the Clitheroe area of Ribble Valley, unfortunately Blackburn might dominate in this new district, but there's no other logical combination for Hyndburn. 3) Central Lancs District - Preston, Chorley, South Ribble and the western parts of Ribble Valley - strongly connected economic sub region, good transport links and shared cultural identity. 4) Amounderness District - Fylde,Wyre,Blackpool. Compact unit of governance, shared identity to some extent, sustainable size of new council. 5) Westernmost half of West Lancs (e.g west of line from Crossens to Rainford) district to merge with the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton and transferred to Merseyside, coinciding with abolition of the Met Borough of Knowsley, to be split between Liverpool and St Helens Met Boroughs. Northeastern part of W Lancs to become part of new Central Lancs district (north of a line Shevington - Burscough - Southport). Remaining Southeastern area including Skem and Upholland to join the Met Borough of Wigan. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 25, 2020 11:55:09 GMT
Of course, part of the sparsely populated bit of Ribble Valley could be moved back to Yorkshire |
|
|
|
Post by loderingo on Nov 25, 2020 12:33:32 GMT
I would suggest a slightly different 5 unitaries for Lancs:
Central Lancs - Preston, South Ribble, Chorley, Ribble Valley, Eastern part of Wyre (around Garstang)
Greater Fylde or Fylde Peninsula - Blackpool, Fylde, rest of Wyre
Southport and West Lancs - West Lancs + all of Sefton except Bootle. Bootle would merge into Liverpool
Blackburn and Accrington - Blackburn + Hyndburn
South East Lancs, Burnley, Pendle, Rossendale
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 25, 2020 13:17:19 GMT
I would suggest a slightly different 5 unitaries for Lancs: Central Lancs - Preston, South Ribble, Chorley, Ribble Valley, Eastern part of Wyre (around Garstang) Greater Fylde or Fylde Peninsula - Blackpool, Fylde, rest of Wyre Southport and West Lancs - West Lancs + all of Sefton except Bootle. Bootle would merge into Liverpool Blackburn and Accrington - Blackburn + Hyndburn South East Lancs, Burnley, Pendle, Rossendale There is no appetite for any part of Sefton other than Southport to be part of Lancashire. Even then it's questionable. More of a case for West Lancs to become part of the Liverpool City Region |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Nov 25, 2020 13:26:47 GMT
Of course, part of the sparsely populated bit of Ribble Valley could be moved back to Yorkshire Yes, but they won't really mess about with the county boundaries again in that type of area. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Nov 25, 2020 13:31:35 GMT
I would suggest a slightly different 5 unitaries for Lancs: Central Lancs - Preston, South Ribble, Chorley, Ribble Valley, Eastern part of Wyre (around Garstang) Greater Fylde or Fylde Peninsula - Blackpool, Fylde, rest of Wyre Southport and West Lancs - West Lancs + all of Sefton except Bootle. Bootle would merge into Liverpool Blackburn and Accrington - Blackburn + Hyndburn South East Lancs, Burnley, Pendle, Rossendale There is no appetite for any part of Sefton other than Southport to be part of Lancashire. Even then it's questionable. More of a case for West Lancs to become part of the Liverpool City Region That's why I said split into 3. The rural villages between Southport and Preston can move into a Central Lancs unitary as they probably wish, Ormskirk and the villages in that area can move into Sefton and Merseyside as that's where they're closely tied to. Then the Skem and Upholland area can move into the Met Borough of Wigan as they've got good geographical and transport links to Wigan itself,despite Skem's links to Liverpool I feel this is a fair compromise. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Nov 25, 2020 13:37:15 GMT
I would suggest a slightly different 5 unitaries for Lancs: Central Lancs - Preston, South Ribble, Chorley, Ribble Valley, Eastern part of Wyre (around Garstang) Greater Fylde or Fylde Peninsula - Blackpool, Fylde, rest of Wyre Southport and West Lancs - West Lancs + all of Sefton except Bootle. Bootle would merge into Liverpool Blackburn and Accrington - Blackburn + Hyndburn South East Lancs, Burnley, Pendle, Rossendale I accept your boundary alteration around Garstang,but putting the whole of Ribble Valley in Central Lancs makes absolutely no sense at all, the Blackburn and Accrington unitary needs the Clitheroe area of RV to make the new unitary a reasonable size. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 25, 2020 13:39:20 GMT
There is no appetite for any part of Sefton other than Southport to be part of Lancashire. Even then it's questionable. More of a case for West Lancs to become part of the Liverpool City Region That's why I said split into 3. The rural villages between Southport and Preston can move into a Central Lancs unitary as they probably wish, Ormskirk and the villages in that area can move into Sefton and Merseyside as that's where they're closely tied to. Then the Skem and Upholland area can move into the Met Borough of Wigan as they've got good geographical and transport links to Wigan itself,despite Skem's links to Liverpool I feel this is a fair compromise. That's another option. I think Skem would benefit from being attached to a Metropolitan region. I think it's residents would prefer Liverpool,though. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Nov 25, 2020 13:44:28 GMT
That's why I said split into 3. The rural villages between Southport and Preston can move into a Central Lancs unitary as they probably wish, Ormskirk and the villages in that area can move into Sefton and Merseyside as that's where they're closely tied to. Then the Skem and Upholland area can move into the Met Borough of Wigan as they've got good geographical and transport links to Wigan itself,despite Skem's links to Liverpool I feel this is a fair compromise. That's another option. I think Skem would benefit from being attached to a Metropolitan region. I think it's residents would prefer Liverpool,though. Then you'd have to put all of the area between Ormskirk and Skem/Upholland into Sefton and I think that's prime pitchfork bait tbh. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 25, 2020 14:42:29 GMT
That's another option. I think Skem would benefit from being attached to a Metropolitan region. I think it's residents would prefer Liverpool,though. Then you'd have to put all of the area between Ormskirk and Skem/Upholland into Sefton and I think that's prime pitchfork bait tbh. There's virtually noone living there, though. And Burscough is a working class Labour- leaning village |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 25, 2020 17:14:30 GMT
Using Boundary Assistant, this proposed Morecambe Bay Unitary would have an electorate of 242,730 electors, therefore a reform of Lancashire could look like the following:
Preston and North West Lancashire: 244,090 electors (made up of Wyre, Preston and Fylde)
Eastern Lancashire: 226,871 electors (made up of Ribble Valley, Burnley, Hyndburn and Rossendale)
Chorley and South Western Lancashire: 259,560 electors (made up of West Lancashire, South Ribble and Chorley)
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 25, 2020 17:51:00 GMT
Using Boundary Assistant, this proposed Morecambe Bay Unitary would have an electorate of 242,730 electors, therefore a reform of Lancashire could look like the following: Preston and North West Lancashire: 244,090 electors (made up of Wyre, Preston and Fylde) Eastern Lancashire: 226,871 electors (made up of Ribble Valley, Burnley, Hyndburn and Rossendale) Chorley and South Western Lancashire: 259,560 electors (made up of West Lancashire, South Ribble and Chorley) Preston would more likely be joined up with South Ribble, West Lancashire and Chorley (the last two should be in a separate authority, though). A "Fylde Peninsula" authority would need to integrate Blackpool as well although Fylde will vociferously object to this; Wyre will also object since the western half would end up being subsumed by Blackpool and the rural eastern half around Garstang has no real connection to Blackpool. Blackburn would have to join up with Rossendale and Hyndburn, and Eastern Lancashire would definitely need to include Pendle if it included Burnley. |
|
