New councils we are likely to see emerge

[Davıd Boothroyd]

The big fight in the early 1960s was to keep out of Greater London, because it was thought to mean higher rates. Oddly it's currently Kingston and Richmond, two of the most Surrey-like of the London Boroughs, that now have the highest council taxes. I'm not sure there will be a lot of support for Greater London expansion, and if it does, then Epsom and Ewell and most of Elmbridge have a better claim than Spelthorne to be transferred: they have contiguous suburbs, whereas Spelthorne consists of discrete towns separated by reservoirs and Heathrow Airport.

But the main problem with Surrey from an admin point of view is its top-heavy population density - all the big population centres, save possibly Guildford, are in the north.

[yellowperil]

Jul 11, 2020 8:25:29 GMT bigfatron said:

Spelthorne may well want to join Greater London, which it has far more in common with than the rest of Surrey.

You#d probably link Runnymede, Woking and Elmbridge together; likewise Guildford, Waverley and Mole Valley. Surrey Heath could go with either.
Tandridge and Reigate & Banstead sensibly go together also, and Epsom & Ewell would either become part of London or could fit with Reigate/Tandridge.

HQs in Redhill (East Surrey), Guildford (South West Surrey) and Woking (North West Surrey)

One Surrey CC is simply a Tory power grab and will be unbearably clunky - more than 1m residents!

Edit: and the residents of Caterham would be absolutely horrified to be part of a boro could take anotherugh of Epsom - no public transport links, which all run north/south.

Labour's proposal seems quite sensible... though I still reckon Spelthorne are more interested in joining London as a 33rd(?) borough

Surely Spelthorne is too small to form a London borough in its own right? It  could take another borough (Runnymede?)into Greater London, or it could join Hounslow (London Borough of Heathrow, anyone?)

[Deleted]

I feel a thread coming on.

[J.G.Harston]

Jul 10, 2020 20:14:06 GMT bjornhattan said:

If I was feeling particularly daring, I would also reform the northernmost parts of the county. Middlesbrough would expand to take Thornaby and the suburban areas around Eston, while East Cleveland and Yarm would become part of the Scarborough/Ryedale/Stokesley authority. Redcar and Ingleby Barwick could feasily go either way, so I'd suggest a referendum in both (I expect the former to vote to join Middlesbrough and the latter would vote massively against Middlesbrough).

This would abolish Redcar and Cleveland, and would also pacify the many Yarm residents who want to be free from the yoke of Stockton. While it would destroy the former EU regional boundary, I'm not sure this is used for all that much any more (and this is hardly an area known for its love of the EU).

I refer the honourable member to a map I had prepared earlier:

[J.G.Harston]

I only refered to North Yorkshire in passing, but it looks like it's actually on the agenda for real: link

[jamie]

Incredibly unpopular opinion - Merge Redcar (-Eston) and Scarborough councils to form a unitary which is legally part of the North East.

[Pete Whitehead]

Administrative HQ in brackets

[greenhert]

Jul 11, 2020 11:12:05 GMT jamie said:

Incredibly unpopular opinion - Merge Redcar (-Eston) and Scarborough councils to form a unitary which is legally part of the North East.

There is no way Scarborough will agree to forming a council with Redcar. Merge Scarborough with Ryedale instead-they will find this a lot more palatable.

[greenhert]

Jul 11, 2020 10:28:03 GMT J.G.Harston said:

I only refered to North Yorkshire in passing, but it looks like it's actually on the agenda for real: link

They first made a bid for unitarisation in 2007; it was rejected. Most of these bids for unitarisation were first made during the Blair years but many did not proceed.

York needs to stay separate from North Yorkshire, which is clearly unsuitable for a single unitary authority due to its geographical size (it is the largest county in England) and connectivity issues (Selby really belongs in East Yorkshire). J.G.Harston had exactly the right idea re: reorganising local government in North Yorkshire.

Edit: this has also been mentioned in the Yorkshire Post: www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/scrapping-north-yorkshires-district-councils-integral-regions-devolution-deal-leaders-told-2910759

We do not need metro mayors at all, in relation to that article!

[J.G.Harston]

Jul 11, 2020 11:12:05 GMT jamie said:

Incredibly unpopular opinion - Merge Redcar (-Eston) and Scarborough councils to form a unitary which is legally part of the North East. Yorkshire

Fixed it.

A few years ago there was a movement in Whitby to secede from Scarborough Borough Council and become part of the Tees Valley Combined Authority. How it would work without the intervening Esk Valley not also joining, and with only a population of 15,000 was never explained, and the attempt to have a referendum was struck down by SBC legal department.

My initial option:

Expand Middlesbrough, take in Easton and the bit of Yorkshire held by Stockton

Reduced Redcar

Transfer Guisborough to a merged Scarborough + Rydale + north Hambleton. Population would be about 200,000 which is below the government's insistance on 300,000.

Unlikely to happen, as the government seems to be welded to using the Euro Region and existing county boundaries.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

As a former resident of Scarborough, I would go for a radical option of a unitary going from Redcar down the coast including Whitby, Robin Hood's Bay, Scarborough, Filey, and Bridlington.Possibly even to Hornsea and Spurn point. But not going inland, none of your Driffields and Maltons.

[J.G.Harston]

Jul 11, 2020 11:30:48 GMT greenhert said:

Jul 11, 2020 11:12:05 GMT jamie said:

Incredibly unpopular opinion - Merge Redcar (-Eston) and Scarborough councils to form a unitary which is legally part of the North East.

There is no way Scarborough will agree to forming a council with Redcar. Merge Scarborough with Ryedale instead-they will find this a lot more palatable.

Whatever happens, Ryedale will be fighting tooth and nail for their existance. They lost over 50% of their population to York, and have been struggling ever since, but any resolution of their problems ultimately requires them to be extinguished and absorbed by a neighbour. They also have a high ratio of councillors to population, so any merger would result in losing at about half their councillors to ensure parity across the merged authority.

Ultimately, Ryedale realises their future is abolition, but they will understandably fight to preserve their independence as long and as much as possible.

Another problem is any review is being driven by numbers, but just merging Scarborugh and Ryedale doesn't fit the numbers, but driving by the numbers would create something that's not a good fit for the area.

[greenhert]

Jul 11, 2020 11:33:48 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Jul 11, 2020 11:12:05 GMT jamie said:

Incredibly unpopular opinion - Merge Redcar (-Eston) and Scarborough councils to form a unitary which is legally part of the North East. Yorkshire

Fixed it.

A few years ago there was a movement in Whitby to secede from Scarborough Borough Council and become part of the Tees Valley Combined Authority. How it would work without the intervening Esk Valley not also joining, and with only a population of 15,000 was never explained, and the attempt to have a referendum was struck down by SBC legal department.

My initial option:

Expand Middlesbrough, take in Easton and the bit of Yorkshire held by Stockton

Reduced Redcar

Transfer Guisborough to a merged Scarborough + Rydale + north Hambleton. Population would be about 200,000 which is below the government's insistance on 300,000.

Unlikely to happen, as the government seems to be welded to using the Euro Region and existing county boundaries.

You mean Thornaby, Yarm, Ingleby Barwick, and Eaglescliffe. After all, the Thornaby constituency of 1974-83 was the successor of Middlesbrough West.

[J.G.Harston]

Jul 11, 2020 11:40:59 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Jul 11, 2020 11:30:48 GMT greenhert said:

There is no way Scarborough will agree to forming a council with Redcar. Merge Scarborough with Ryedale instead-they will find this a lot more palatable.

Whatever happens, Ryedale will be fighting tooth and nail for their existance. They lost over 50% of their population to York, and have been struggling ever since, but any resolution of their problems ultimately requires them to be extinguished and absorbed by a neighbour. They also have a high ratio of councillors to population, so any merger would result in losing at about half their councillors to ensure parity across the merged authority.

Ultimately, Ryedale realises their future is abolition, but they will understandably fight to preserve their independence as long and as much as possible.

Another problem is any review is being driven by numbers, but just merging Scarborugh and Ryedale doesn't fit the numbers, but driving by the numbers would create something that's not a good fit for the area.

This is my first stab (kudos, didn't realise I could use Boundary Assistant for this):

(Is it possible to make the thumbnail bigger?)

I'd be happy with the Yorkshire Dales and Yorkshire Moors as drawn, each of those is internally self consistant. But there's the Northallerton A19 corridor left over. It doesn't really "fit" as Yorkshire Moors or as Yorkshire Dales.

I suppose as James Herriot was based in Thirsk and plyed his trade in the Yorkshire Dales, that Thirsk and Sowerby easily be seen as part of the Dales. But Northallerton really really doesn't feel like Dales /or/ Moors, neither does the Easingwold area.

The western boundary of The Moors can easily move westwards a bit by splitting wards, the NYMNP boundary is further west, and it would be consistant having all of the Moors national park in the Moors local council.

Similarly, there's tidying up around York that should be done.

[greenhert]

Given its size and the increasing sub-county identity of many of its areas, particularly near the Solent, I am surprised no councils in Hampshire that are not already unitary authorities have made any recent bid that I am aware of to either separate from Hampshire or merge.

Here is my suggestion for "unitarising" Hampshire:




1. New Forest (same as current authority; in the 1990s New Forest was briefly considered for unitary authority status)
2. North West Hampshire (Basingstoke & Andover part of Test Valley)
3. Blackwater Valley (Rushmoor & Hart)
4. Gosport & Fareham (what it says on the tin)
5. Mid Hampshire (Winchester, Eastleigh, and Romsey part of Test Valley)
6. East Hampshire (East Hampshire & Havant)

Southampton and Portsmouth should remain as they are.

[bsjmcr]

I'm surprised Nottingham hasn't been mentioned yet. It is well known that the boundaries are way too tight for the city, much to the disgruntlement of City councillors as it often ends up ranking very highly in deprivation statistics for example. Whether they like it or not, West Bridgford and the more suburban/non-rural areas of Broxtowe and Gedling need to go into the city.

The rural parts of Broxtowe can go to Ashfield, which isn't too big even when merged with Mansfield -> Ashfield and Mansfield (or West Nottinghamshire)
The rest of Gedling and Rushcliffe join Newark and Sherwood to make East Nottinghamshire. I know Rushcliffe isn't very 'East' but have a look at Cheshire East...

While I was at it, I did Derbyshire and Leicestershire - surely the most 'pointless' borough in the country has to be Oadby and Wigston...
It should join Harborough and Blaby to become South Leiecestershire
Hinckley and Bosworth + NW Leicestershire -> West Leicestershire
'Charnwood'  and Melton (which I didn't know was so tiny) can merge to be either North Leicestershire, but as the two main towns are well-known in their own right, 'Loughborough and Melton' makes sense. Also to prevent confusion with the old NW Leics.

Erewash can join Derby - though I don't know how rural parts of Erewash might be on the ground to see if it is as appropriate as the Nottingham solution. 
If Erewash is more suburban/rural than I thought, it can instead join 'Amber Valley' to become East Derbyshire. As can bits of NED and Bolsover, whose shape is horrible.

The rest of NED and Bolsover can join Chesterfield to become either North(East)Derbyshire or as I've called it Chesterfield and Bolsover, again, as they're both well known (though the latter mostly due to a certain Mr. Skinner?)

High Peak and Derbyshire Dales -> Peak District?

Attachments:

[J.G.Harston]

Jul 11, 2020 13:13:21 GMT greenhert said:

Given its size and the increasing sub-county identity of many of its areas, particularly near the Solent, I am surprised no councils in Hampshire that are not already unitary authorities have made any recent bid that I am aware of to either separate from Hampshire or merge.

Here is my suggestion for "unitarising" Hampshire:

1. New Forest (same as current authority; in the 1990s New Forest was briefly considered for unitary authority status)
2. North West Hampshire (Basingstoke & Andover part of Test Valley)
3. Blackwater Valley (Rushmoor & Hart)
4. Gosport & Fareham (what it says on the tin)
5. Mid Hampshire (Winchester, Eastleigh, and Romsey part of Test Valley)
6. East Hampshire (East Hampshire & Havant)

Southampton and Portsmouth should remain as they are.

That Eastleigh coastline doesn't make any sense, it's like Bolivia desperately clinging to an outlet to the sea.

[J.G.Harston]

Jul 11, 2020 14:47:31 GMT bsjmcr said:

I'm surprised Nottingham hasn't been mentioned yet. It is well known that the boundaries are way too tight for the city, much to the disgruntlement of City councillors as it often ends up ranking very highly in deprivation statistics for example. Whether they like it or not, West Bridgford and the more suburban/non-rural areas of Broxtowe and Gedling need to go into the city.

This was my initial draft for Nottingham some years ago. I was going to update it in line with comments on here, I'll have to track them down again. (Eg: keep Long Eaton in Derbyshire.)

[greenhert]

Jul 11, 2020 14:47:31 GMT bsjmcr said:

I'm surprised Nottingham hasn't been mentioned yet. It is well known that the boundaries are way too tight for the city, much to the disgruntlement of City councillors as it often ends up ranking very highly in deprivation statistics for example. Whether they like it or not, West Bridgford and the more suburban/non-rural areas of Broxtowe and Gedling need to go into the city.

The rural parts of Broxtowe can go to Ashfield, which isn't too big even when merged with Mansfield -> Ashfield and Mansfield (or West Nottinghamshire)
The rest of Gedling and Rushcliffe join Newark and Sherwood to make East Nottinghamshire. I know Rushcliffe isn't very 'East' but have a look at Cheshire East...

While I was at it, I did Derbyshire and Leicestershire - surely the most 'pointless' borough in the country has to be Oadby and Wigston...
It should join Harborough and Blaby to become South Leiecestershire
Hinckley and Bosworth + NW Leicestershire -> West Leicestershire
'Charnwood'  and Melton (which I didn't know was so tiny) can merge to be either North Leicestershire, but as the two main towns are well-known in their own right, 'Loughborough and Melton' makes sense. Also to prevent confusion with the old NW Leics.

Erewash can join Derby - though I don't know how rural parts of Erewash might be on the ground to see if it is as appropriate as the Nottingham solution. 
If Erewash is more suburban/rural than I thought, it can instead join 'Amber Valley' to become East Derbyshire. As can bits of NED and Bolsover, whose shape is horrible.

The rest of NED and Bolsover can join Chesterfield to become either North(East)Derbyshire or as I've called it Chesterfield and Bolsover, again, as they're both well known (though the latter mostly due to a certain Mr. Skinner?)

High Peak and Derbyshire Dales -> Peak District?

Your proposed version of North East Derbyshire, whilst making perfect sense, should contain all of North East Derbyshire and Bolsover in addition to Chesterfield, as a mooted North East Derbyshire UA (not to be confused with NE Derbyshire DC) would have done had it been accepted during the 1990s round of local governmental reforms in the UK. Derby should stand alone as it does now, leaving Amber Valley, South Derbyshire, and Erewash to form East Derbyshire, forming a nice ring around the city of Derby. 

Derbyshire Peaks would be a better name for the last of these hypothetical merged districts to avoid confusing it with the Peak District National Park, but otherwise I approve of it.

[J.G.Harston]

Jul 11, 2020 12:13:53 GMT J.G.Harston said:

I'd be happy with the Yorkshire Dales and Yorkshire Moors as drawn, each of those is internally self consistant. But there's the Northallerton A19 corridor left over. It doesn't really "fit" as Yorkshire Moors or as Yorkshire Dales.

I suppose as James Herriot was based in Thirsk and plyed his trade in the Yorkshire Dales, that Thirsk and Sowerby easily be seen as part of the Dales. But Northallerton really really doesn't feel like Dales /or/ Moors, neither does the Easingwold area.

The western boundary of The Moors can easily move westwards a bit by splitting wards, the NYMNP boundary is further west, and it would be consistant having all of the Moors national park in the Moors local council.

Once I put Thirsk and Darrowby into Yorkshire Dales, and expanded Yorkshire Moors west to take in the rest of the national park almost up to the A19, Northallerton naturally falls into Yorkshire Dales, and Easingwold just ends up having to go in there. I would be quite happy to argue for something based on this.

However, the current information from Westminster is a requirement for a minimum 300,000 population and an ideal of 400,000. Even bearing in mind that the above figures are electors not population, it's just is not possible to do without having a single North Yorkshire council.

My estimated population figures are:

Yorkshire Moors: 156,000

Yorkshire Dales: 283,600

City of York: 156,600