New councils we are likely to see emerge

[Deleted]

I know I've said it before but I'll say it again: this kind of discussion exemplifies one of the many reasons why mass unitarisation of local government is a bad idea

[Foggy]

Nov 25, 2020 19:20:29 GMT @europeanlefty said:

I know I've said it before but I'll say it again: this kind of discussion exemplifies one of the many reasons why mass unitarisation of local government is a bad idea

Indeed. The Furness to Lancaster is fine (but South Lakeland needs a different solution). I'd suggest putting the northern half of Tameside into Rochdale, the northern half of Trafford into Salford, the northern half of Warrington into St Helens, the northern half of Halton into Knowsley and a swap between Manchester and Stockport for The Heatons and Wythenshawe areas. I would also recommend de-unitarisation of Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen. 

All places mentioned bar Wythenshawe would come under the jurisdiction of the County Council in Preston. 'Greater Manchester' and 'Merseyside' would then be abolished with Andy Burnham and Steve Rotherham put in stocks in Deansgate Square and Albert Dock respectively for a week each, to be pelted by tomatoes thrown by members of the traditional county-loving public. 

[Merseymike]

Nov 26, 2020 5:26:47 GMT Foggy said:

Nov 25, 2020 19:20:29 GMT @europeanlefty said:

I know I've said it before but I'll say it again: this kind of discussion exemplifies one of the many reasons why mass unitarisation of local government is a bad idea

Indeed. The Furness to Lancaster is fine (but South Lakeland needs a different solution). I'd suggest putting the northern half of Tameside into Rochdale, the northern half of Trafford into Salford, the northern half of Warrington into St Helens, the northern half of Halton into Knowsley and a swap between Manchester and Stockport for The Heatons and Wythenshawe areas. I would also recommend de-unitarisation of Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen. 

All places mentioned bar Wythenshawe would come under the jurisdiction of the County Council in Preston. 'Greater Manchester' and 'Merseyside' would then be abolished with Andy Burnham and Steve Rotherham put in stocks in Deansgate Square and Albert Dock respectively for a week each, to be pelted by tomatoes thrown by members of the traditional county-loving public. 

Are you a Southport LibDem?😨😈

[John Chanin]

Nov 26, 2020 5:26:47 GMT Foggy said:

Nov 25, 2020 19:20:29 GMT @europeanlefty said:

I know I've said it before but I'll say it again: this kind of discussion exemplifies one of the many reasons why mass unitarisation of local government is a bad idea

Indeed. The Furness to Lancaster is fine (but South Lakeland needs a different solution). I'd suggest putting the northern half of Tameside into Rochdale, the northern half of Trafford into Salford, the northern half of Warrington into St Helens, the northern half of Halton into Knowsley and a swap between Manchester and Stockport for The Heatons and Wythenshawe areas. I would also recommend de-unitarisation of Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen. 

Clear prejudice against the north....

[Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells]

Nov 26, 2020 7:25:13 GMT Merseymike said:

Nov 26, 2020 5:26:47 GMT Foggy said:

Indeed. The Furness to Lancaster is fine (but South Lakeland needs a different solution). I'd suggest putting the northern half of Tameside into Rochdale, the northern half of Trafford into Salford, the northern half of Warrington into St Helens, the northern half of Halton into Knowsley and a swap between Manchester and Stockport for The Heatons and Wythenshawe areas. I would also recommend de-unitarisation of Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen. 

All places mentioned bar Wythenshawe would come under the jurisdiction of the County Council in Preston. 'Greater Manchester' and 'Merseyside' would then be abolished with Andy Burnham and Steve Rotherham put in stocks in Deansgate Square and Albert Dock respectively for a week each, to be pelted by tomatoes thrown by members of the traditional county-loving public. 

Are you a Southport LibDem?😨😈

Only a Tory would propose such a ridiculously large county council!

[Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells]

Nov 25, 2020 17:51:00 GMT greenhert said:

Nov 25, 2020 17:14:30 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

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.

Blackburn is big enough to to include Hyndburn and the Clitheroe part of Ribble Valley to push it over 250k. Burnley and Rossendale fit much better together and Pendle,of course. The only part of Hyndburn really linked to Rossendale is Haslingden but then I'd argue that's more clearly linked to Rawtenstall and the rest of the borough. Chorley and West Lancs would be too small on their own,which why they have to go in with South Ribble and Preston plus West Lancs split in 3.
Blackpool wouldn't remain as a unitary in any sane plan, it should join Wyre and Fylde with the eastern half chopped off into the Preston based unitary if need be.

[Chris from Brum]

Nov 26, 2020 5:26:47 GMT Foggy said:

Nov 25, 2020 19:20:29 GMT @europeanlefty said:

I know I've said it before but I'll say it again: this kind of discussion exemplifies one of the many reasons why mass unitarisation of local government is a bad idea

Indeed. The Furness to Lancaster is fine (but South Lakeland needs a different solution). I'd suggest putting the northern half of Tameside into Rochdale, the northern half of Trafford into Salford, the northern half of Warrington into St Helens, the northern half of Halton into Knowsley and a swap between Manchester and Stockport for The Heatons and Wythenshawe areas. I would also recommend de-unitarisation of Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen. 

All places mentioned bar Wythenshawe would come under the jurisdiction of the County Council in Preston. 'Greater Manchester' and 'Merseyside' would then be abolished with Andy Burnham and Steve Rotherham put in stocks in Deansgate Square and Albert Dock respectively for a week each, to be pelted by tomatoes thrown by members of the traditional county-loving public. 

So you'd be sending Bowland and West Craven back to the West Riding?

[Foggy]

Nov 26, 2020 15:10:30 GMT Chris from Brum said:

Nov 26, 2020 5:26:47 GMT Foggy said:

Indeed. The Furness to Lancaster is fine (but South Lakeland needs a different solution). I'd suggest putting the northern half of Tameside into Rochdale, the northern half of Trafford into Salford, the northern half of Warrington into St Helens, the northern half of Halton into Knowsley and a swap between Manchester and Stockport for The Heatons and Wythenshawe areas. I would also recommend de-unitarisation of Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen. 

All places mentioned bar Wythenshawe would come under the jurisdiction of the County Council in Preston. 'Greater Manchester' and 'Merseyside' would then be abolished with Andy Burnham and Steve Rotherham put in stocks in Deansgate Square and Albert Dock respectively for a week each, to be pelted by tomatoes thrown by members of the traditional county-loving public. 

So you'd be sending Bowland and West Craven back to the West Riding?

Yes, quite the oversight on my part there! Barnoldswick and Saddleworth can join them. Todmorden would go in the opposite direction. Part of the "different solution" I mentioned for South Lakeland would see Sedbergh recovered by Yorkshire as well. 

[Foggy]

Nov 26, 2020 7:36:23 GMT John Chanin said:

Nov 26, 2020 5:26:47 GMT Foggy said:

Indeed. The Furness to Lancaster is fine (but South Lakeland needs a different solution). I'd suggest putting the northern half of Tameside into Rochdale, the northern half of Trafford into Salford, the northern half of Warrington into St Helens, the northern half of Halton into Knowsley and a swap between Manchester and Stockport for The Heatons and Wythenshawe areas. I would also recommend de-unitarisation of Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen. 

Clear prejudice against the north....

If it were up to me, there'd be no directly elected mayors, Mets and unitaries in the South or Midlands either... 

[greenhert]

Luke Hall, MP for Thornbury & Yate and Minister for Growth, has expressed support for the Morecambe Bay proposal: www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/people/government-minister-confirms-strong-support-for-morecambe-bay-wide-council-3235294

[No Offence Alan]

I suppose at some point they will get round to "unitarising" Worcestershire.
Worcester/Malvern/Wychavon as South Worcestershire and Wyre Forest/Bromsgrove/Redditch as North Worcestershire would seem to be the obvious split.

[Merseymike]

May 14, 2021 15:54:01 GMT No Offence Alan said:

I suppose at some point they will get round to "unitarising" Worcestershire.
Worcester/Malvern/Wychavon as South Worcestershire and Wyre Forest/Bromsgrove/Redditch as North Worcestershire would seem to be the obvious split.

Given the size they will probably create a single unitary Bucks style.
At least half of Bromsgrove should be in Birmingham anyway

[edgbaston]

May 14, 2021 15:54:01 GMT No Offence Alan said:

I suppose at some point they will get round to "unitarising" Worcestershire.
Worcester/Malvern/Wychavon as South Worcestershire and Wyre Forest/Bromsgrove/Redditch as North Worcestershire would seem to be the obvious split.

It does seem that they (the civil service, let’s me realistic) are going through 3 or four 1974 counties every few years halving the number of Cllrs and creating some huge new councils. It is a systematic gutting of local government. Of course, doing it this way (gradually) avoids the need for a big local government reform year or bill, around which national public or parliamentary opposition can gather. It’s really very clever but also very sad as we become a country focussed very much on nationalism and the ‘four capitals’ as opposed to the local town hall and the bread and butter issues.

[Merseymike]

May 19, 2021 7:07:08 GMT edgbaston said:

May 14, 2021 15:54:01 GMT No Offence Alan said:

I suppose at some point they will get round to "unitarising" Worcestershire.
Worcester/Malvern/Wychavon as South Worcestershire and Wyre Forest/Bromsgrove/Redditch as North Worcestershire would seem to be the obvious split.

It does seem that they (the civil service, let’s me realistic) are going through 3 or four 1974 counties every few years halving the number of Cllrs and creating some huge new councils. It is a systematic gutting of local government. Of course, doing it this way (gradually) avoids the need for a big local government reform year or bill, around which national public or parliamentary opposition can gather. It’s really very clever but also very sad as we become a country focussed very much on nationalism and the ‘four capitals’ as opposed to the local town hall and the bread and butter issues.

Undoubtedly. Having one council for the whole of Buckinghamshire , for example, is laughable. It will be remote and distant. I lived as far south in Bucks as you could get at one time and think I visited Aylesbury once! The "local area" was High Wycombe and Maidenhead over the county border.

[Chris from Brum]

May 14, 2021 15:57:33 GMT Merseymike said:

At least half of Bromsgrove should be in Birmingham anyway

Not sure that I'd put it quite that high.  The bit of Rubery that isn't could easily be absorbed, as was the rest of Frankley a few years ago (now the parish of New Frankley in Birmingham).  The built-up area of Cofton Hackett on the wrong side of Cofton Park might be considered.  There's a highly anomalous area of Walker's Heath where new housing crosses the boundary, and I'm sure must go through the middle of some houses.  But I don't think I'd go beyond that. 

There's a danger in lumping villages that happen to be on the periphery of a large town or city in with that city, and that is depopulating the district that you take them out of, reducing its revenue base and putting it in danger of becoming unviable.  This has already happened to Ryedale, where getting on for 50% of its residents were in what were effectively northern suburbs of York.  York expanded to take in these suburbs, and now Ryedale is left with a large but sparsely-populated area to service and barely enough council tax/business rate revenue to do it.  As it happens, North Yorkshire's structure is now under consideration, so that problem will be resolved somehow, but every time someone says "Why isn't Perton in Wolverhampton" or similar, this is the example I cite of why you shouldn't do it.

[cibwr]

In the case of Perton I think there is an argument for saying that the whole of the northern part of the South Stafford district could be put into Wolverhampton (the Southern bit into Dudley) ..... The reality is that its difficult to draw maps that take into account human geography. At least Redcliffe-Maud tried to unite urban areas with the rural areas that depended on them for services. Where he went wrong was the unitary authorities were too large or lacked second tier authorities for minor functions. The current ad hoc unitaries in England seem the worst of all worlds.... England needs sensible local government reorganisation, where the regional dimension is address (yes regional assemblies - in the vein of the original Welsh Assembly) and a proper reorganisation of district and counties. I don't like the ad hoc regional bodies being created with directly elected mayors and this small scale devolution of powers - that vary from area to area. Its untidy and illogical.

[ilerda]

May 19, 2021 14:44:15 GMT Chris from Brum said:

There's a danger in lumping villages that happen to be on the periphery of a large town or city in with that city, and that is depopulating the district that you take them out of, reducing its revenue base and putting it in danger of becoming unviable.  This has already happened to Ryedale, where getting on for 50% of its residents were in what were effectively northern suburbs of York.  York expanded to take in these suburbs, and now Ryedale is left with a large but sparsely-populated area to service and barely enough council tax/business rate revenue to do it.  As it happens, North Yorkshire's structure is now under consideration, so that problem will be resolved somehow, but every time someone says "Why isn't Perton in Wolverhampton" or similar, this is the example I cite of why you shouldn't do it.

There is of course the alternative argument: why should the ratepayers of the core of the urban area be expected to fund and maintain the town for the use and benefit of residents who pay their taxes to surrounding authorities?

I always think Reading is a good example of this - residents in the suburbs that fall under West Berkshire and Wokingham are clearly focussed on Reading and use the roads/parks/litter bins in the town. But they pay their taxes to continue the upkeep of Newbury and Wokingham.

Also I would say no district has the "right" to exist solely by holding hostage well-integrated suburbs of an urban authority. There are a number of authorities like Ryedale and South Staffordshire that logically shouldn't exist anymore based around just a couple of small towns and a random scattering of villages.

[neilm]

May 19, 2021 14:44:15 GMT Chris from Brum said:

There's a danger in lumping villages that happen to be on the periphery of a large town or city in with that city, and that is depopulating the district that you take them out of, reducing its revenue base and putting it in danger of becoming unviable.  This has already happened to Ryedale, where getting on for 50% of its residents were in what were effectively northern suburbs of York.  York expanded to take in these suburbs, and now Ryedale is left with a large but sparsely-populated area to service and barely enough council tax/business rate revenue to do it.  As it happens, North Yorkshire's structure is now under consideration, so that problem will be resolved somehow, but every time someone says "Why isn't Perton in Wolverhampton" or similar, this is the example I cite of why you shouldn't do it.

There's an issue like that with the eastern fringe of Plymouth. Wembury, Ivybridge and (the new town of) Sherford all look to Plymouth. No one there ever goes to Totnes or Kingsbridge (and don't really look to Exeter). But if you pulled them out of South Hams, the revenue base would collapse. When I was a parish councillor there, I wanted Wembury to be pulled into Plymouth but there was loads of nimby opposition. Eventually, though, something has to give.

[Chris from Brum]

May 26, 2021 8:53:26 GMT neilm said:

May 19, 2021 14:44:15 GMT Chris from Brum said:

There's a danger in lumping villages that happen to be on the periphery of a large town or city in with that city, and that is depopulating the district that you take them out of, reducing its revenue base and putting it in danger of becoming unviable.  This has already happened to Ryedale, where getting on for 50% of its residents were in what were effectively northern suburbs of York.  York expanded to take in these suburbs, and now Ryedale is left with a large but sparsely-populated area to service and barely enough council tax/business rate revenue to do it.  As it happens, North Yorkshire's structure is now under consideration, so that problem will be resolved somehow, but every time someone says "Why isn't Perton in Wolverhampton" or similar, this is the example I cite of why you shouldn't do it.

There's an issue like that with the eastern fringe of Plymouth. Wembury, Ivybridge and (the new town of) Sherford all look to Plymouth. No one there ever goes to Totnes or Kingsbridge (and don't really look to Exeter). But if you pulled them out of South Hams, the revenue base would collapse. When I was a parish councillor there, I wanted Wembury to be pulled into Plymouth but there was loads of nimby opposition. Eventually, though, something has to give.

Indeed, and we see similar situations on the fringes of Nottingham (where Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe are involved) and Leicester (Charnwood and Blaby).

[Khunanup]

May 26, 2021 9:10:41 GMT Chris from Brum said:

May 26, 2021 8:53:26 GMT neilm said:

There's an issue like that with the eastern fringe of Plymouth. Wembury, Ivybridge and (the new town of) Sherford all look to Plymouth. No one there ever goes to Totnes or Kingsbridge (and don't really look to Exeter). But if you pulled them out of South Hams, the revenue base would collapse. When I was a parish councillor there, I wanted Wembury to be pulled into Plymouth but there was loads of nimby opposition. Eventually, though, something has to give.

Indeed, and we see similar situations on the fringes of Nottingham (where Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe are involved) and Leicester (Charnwood and Blaby).

But then there always has to be a boundary somewhere and it's never going to be perfect.