|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 11, 2020 22:57:50 GMT
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 borough 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 I mostly agree with your assessment,however, a borough of Epsom isn't necessarily the best shaped borough,it's making the best of awkward geography in the area. The borough of Bromley for example has similar issues with transport links from what I remember. Spelthorne on it's own is too small to be a London borough really,but my proposal of merging it with Elmbridge and taking Byfleet from Woking makes it big enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 11, 2020 23:00:19 GMT
 Administrative HQ in brackets Don't you dare merge West Berks and Reading. We're nothing like the farmers,we promise! |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 11, 2020 23:08:26 GMT
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: View Attachment1. 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's a good proposal,apart from a slight alteration I'd make to the East Hampshire and Fareham/Gosport plan. Portchester from Fareham and perhaps Havant itself from the eponymous borough,with the rump merged with East Hampshire. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 11, 2020 23:38:34 GMT
My pre-prepared proposal for the reorganisation of local authorities in Berkshire:
1)Abolition of Wokingham Borough -Transfer of Hurst,Remenham,Wargrave and Ruscombe,Charvil and Twyford wards to the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.
Creation of a new borough named East Berkshire or Bracknell and Wokingham encompassing the entirety of the former Borough of Bracknell Forest and the former Borough of Wokingham wards of Norreys,Emmbrook,Evendons,Wescott,Wokingham Without,Finchampstead North,Finchampstead North,Winnersh,Arborfield,Barkham,Shinfield South and Swallowfield.
Transfer of Shinfield North,Hillside,Hawkedon,Maiden Erleigh,South Lake,Loddon,Coronation and Sonning ward to the Borough of Reading.
2) Expansion of Slough Borough:
Transfer of Cliveden and Farnham Common & Burnham Beeches wards from Buckinghamshire Council to the Borough of Slough in Berkshire.
Transfer of the Eton Wick,Datchet,Horton and Wraysbury and the part of Eton and Castle north of the Thames in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to the Borough of Slough.
3)Changes to West Berkshire Council's boundaries & the Vale of White Horse Council's district boundary changes and subsequent reincorporation into Berkshire:
Creation of a new Borough of Kennet Valley encompassing the former Hungerford and Kintbury,Chieveley and Cold Ash,Newbury Speen,Newbury Central,Newbury Wash Common,Newbury Greenham,Newbury Clay Hill,Thatcham West, Thatcham Central,Thatcham North West,Thatcham Colthrop and Crookham,Aldermaston,Bucklebury,Bradfield,Theale,Burghfield and Mortimer and Pangbourne wards of the District of West Berkshire.
Transfer of the West Berkshire wards of Tilehurst and Purley,Tilehurst Birch Copse and Tilehurst South and Holybrook to the Borough of Reading.
Transfer of the District of the Vale of the White Horse to Berkshire and transfer of the West Berkshire wards of Downlands,Lambourn,Ridgeway and Basildon to the District of the Vale of White Horse.
Transfer of the South Oxfordshire wards of Cholsey,Wallingford,Sandford and the Wittenhams,Didcot North East,Didcot West and Didcot South to the District of the Vale of the White Horse in Berkshire.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593 
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jul 11, 2020 23:47:13 GMT
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. Cheers! Here's what it would look like:  You're right I don't see why NED couldn't be kept as one, and I don't know why I wanted to avoid a doughnut for the rest of Derbyshire as South Cambridgeshire works pretty well. I also have an aversion to more than one compass point in a Council name (North East Lincolnshire instead of Grimsby, then North Lincs instead of Scunthorpe annoys me), so North/South Derbyshire seems to also work, as the rest of Derbyshire is truly rural Peak District territory. I'm happy with Peak District as a name as I feel the areas of the NP outside Derbyshire are negligible at best. Derbyshire Dales was called West Derbyshire back in the day wasn't it? On a similar note the Lake District councils could also do with looking into and merging - Allerdale, Eden, South Lakeland (yet no North Lakeland), etc, what's that all about, as nice as Eden sounds? So I went crazy and decided to do the whole of East Midlands (Northamptonshire of course staying as the proposed one, though I prefer East/West vs the strange North and West Northamptonshire names they have proposed). The existing rural Lincolnshire councils form a perfect East/West divide. The Eastern one I have christened Lincolnshire Coast. The other one could simply be Lincoln (as it is fairly central to the district) or West Lincolnshire, seeing that the West Northamptonshire one didn't simply get called Northampton. Oh and I didn't mention in my previous post it's high time Bassetlaw becomes North Nottinghamshire (as they helpfully add in their current logo). I think I mentioned the one with Mansfield and Ashfield can be called as such (the two fields have a nice ring to it I feel) or simply West Nottinghamshire (I believe there's a college in Mansfield with that name, so they shouldn't mind, much like North Notts college in Workshop) |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jul 12, 2020 7:34:46 GMT
Some of this has moved (even more than normal!) into fantasy territory. I’m quite happy with ideas that seek to increase scale to produce efficiency while maintaining key elements of genuinely local governance. But universal pursuit of unitary status in areas that are sparsely populated or have substantial logistical or geographical barriers is inappropriate. Having two levels of local government in such places is fine.
There’s certainly good sense in looking at the natural boundaries of cities and incorporating immediately adjoining built up areas. However even there, in the major conurbations, that is unacceptable if it produces huge, unwieldy beasts. Should Birmingham be any bigger even though it’s hard to spot its natural boundaries in many places?
So, no one-system solution please. The main purpose (of course much distorted by our centralised state) is to offer local people the chance to make decisions about their own areas based around communities they broadly understand.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 12, 2020 11:56:17 GMT
Some of this has moved (even more than normal!) into fantasy territory. I’m quite happy with ideas that seek to increase scale to produce efficiency while maintaining key elements of genuinely local governance. But universal pursuit of unitary status in areas that are sparsely populated or have substantial logistical or geographical barriers is inappropriate. Having two levels of local government in such places is fine. There’s certainly good sense in looking at the natural boundaries of cities and incorporating immediately adjoining built up areas. However even there, in the major conurbations, that is unacceptable if it produces huge, unwieldy beasts. Should Birmingham be any bigger even though it’s hard to spot its natural boundaries in many places? So, no one-system solution please. The main purpose (of course much distorted by our centralised state) is to offer local people the chance to make decisions about their own areas based around communities they broadly understand. I agree with you there, but in some areas the government is actively instructing restructuring as unitataries (eg North Yorkshire last Friday) and in some areas the councils in the area are actively persuing unitaries (eg Surrey last week), so discussions of models for those are not fantasy, but solid evidence gathering of options.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,055
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 13, 2020 22:26:46 GMT
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. By feel though it's absolutely right as the communities there are either like Eastleigh town (Netley) or Hedge End (Gamble) on Solent. 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. Netley = Eastleigh-on-Solent, Hamble = Botley-on-Solent... |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,055
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 13, 2020 22:29:18 GMT
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: View Attachment1. 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's a good proposal,apart from a slight alteration I'd make to the East Hampshire and Fareham/Gosport plan. Portchester from Fareham and perhaps Havant itself from the eponymous borough,with the rump merged with East Hampshire. That post doesn't make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 13, 2020 22:54:36 GMT
That's a good proposal,apart from a slight alteration I'd make to the East Hampshire and Fareham/Gosport plan. Portchester from Fareham and perhaps Havant itself from the eponymous borough,with the rump merged with East Hampshire. That post doesn't make sense. Oh thanks, I meant putting them in a greater Portsmouth authority. 🤦♂️😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 13, 2020 22:55:27 GMT
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: View Attachment1. 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's a good proposal,apart from a slight alteration I'd make to the East Hampshire and Fareham/Gosport plan. Portchester from Fareham and perhaps Havant itself from the eponymous borough into an expanded Portsmouth,with the rump merged with East Hampshire. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,055
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 13, 2020 22:59:19 GMT
Some of this has moved (even more than normal!) into fantasy territory. I’m quite happy with ideas that seek to increase scale to produce efficiency while maintaining key elements of genuinely local governance. But universal pursuit of unitary status in areas that are sparsely populated or have substantial logistical or geographical barriers is inappropriate. Having two levels of local government in such places is fine. There’s certainly good sense in looking at the natural boundaries of cities and incorporating immediately adjoining built up areas. However even there, in the major conurbations, that is unacceptable if it produces huge, unwieldy beasts. Should Birmingham be any bigger even though it’s hard to spot its natural boundaries in many places? So, no one-system solution please. The main purpose (of course much distorted by our centralised state) is to offer local people the chance to make decisions about their own areas based around communities they broadly understand. This is nonsense. Two tier is a complete joke, creating confusing, disfunctional governance (verges & footpaths anyone?) that every government has bottled since they rejected Redcliffe-Maude. The problem is, this government is pushing unitaryisation behind the scenes like few before it based on 'it's going to save you loads of cash' and doesn't give a shit about unitaries that make community or even logical sense and it's playing into the hands of their mates that run counties (thus the rubbish that is the Surrey proposal and others like Somerset). The threshold for viable unitaries is only around 160-180k, much lower than the government pretends it is and the size of the unitary for whether it's in financial trouble or not isn't terribly relevant (thus you do have the IoW which is at the low end with financial issues alongside the asset stripped Cheshire East towards the top end). So in West Sussex for example, a Chichester/Arun unitary would work perfectly well (a good example of Midhurst being stuck out divorced from its hinterland even in a two tier system, and indeed in any system unless you build a council round it), a Worthing/Shoreham unitary (possibly taking in Burgess Hill if you wanted to go for a B&H commuter council) and then a Horsham/Crawley/rest of Mid Sussex unitary. Likewise in places like Lincolnshire, rural area in places like Boston are drowned out by the town on their council and vice-versa in next door South Holland but all have very different needs in areas like social care, education and children's services than Lincoln and Gainsborough which has to be considered all together at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jul 13, 2020 23:08:30 GMT
Some of this has moved (even more than normal!) into fantasy territory. I’m quite happy with ideas that seek to increase scale to produce efficiency while maintaining key elements of genuinely local governance. But universal pursuit of unitary status in areas that are sparsely populated or have substantial logistical or geographical barriers is inappropriate. Having two levels of local government in such places is fine. There’s certainly good sense in looking at the natural boundaries of cities and incorporating immediately adjoining built up areas. However even there, in the major conurbations, that is unacceptable if it produces huge, unwieldy beasts. Should Birmingham be any bigger even though it’s hard to spot its natural boundaries in many places? So, no one-system solution please. The main purpose (of course much distorted by our centralised state) is to offer local people the chance to make decisions about their own areas based around communities they broadly understand. This is nonsense. Two tier is a complete joke, creating confusing, disfunctional governance (verges & footpaths anyone?) that every government has bottled since they rejected Redcliffe-Maude. The problem is, this government is pushing unitaryisation behind the scenes like few before it based on 'it's going to save you loads of cash' and doesn't give a shit about unitaries that make community or even logical sense and it's playing into the hands of their mates that run counties (thus the rubbish that is the Surrey proposal and others like Somerset). The threshold for viable unitaries is only around 160-180k, much lower than the government pretends it is and the size of the unitary for whether it's in financial trouble or not isn't terribly relevant (thus you do have the IoW which is at the low end with financial issues alongside the asset stripped Cheshire East towards the top end). So in West Sussex for example, a Chichester/Arun unitary would work perfectly well (a good example of Midhurst being stuck out divorced from its hinterland even in a two tier system, and indeed in any system unless you build a council round it), a Worthing/Shoreham unitary (possibly taking in Burgess Hill if you wanted to go for a B&H commuter council) and then a Horsham/Crawley/rest of Mid Sussex unitary. Likewise in places like Lincolnshire, rural area in places like Boston are drowned out by the town on their council and vice-versa in next door South Holland but all have very different needs in areas like social care, education and children's services than Lincoln and Gainsborough which has to be considered all together at the moment. It's rather a shame that Northumberland didn't end up becoming two unitary authorities - this was voted for in a referendum. Such a solution would have meant authorities better able to tackle the unique challenges found in the different parts of the county. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jul 14, 2020 7:12:24 GMT
Some of this has moved (even more than normal!) into fantasy territory. I’m quite happy with ideas that seek to increase scale to produce efficiency while maintaining key elements of genuinely local governance. But universal pursuit of unitary status in areas that are sparsely populated or have substantial logistical or geographical barriers is inappropriate. Having two levels of local government in such places is fine. There’s certainly good sense in looking at the natural boundaries of cities and incorporating immediately adjoining built up areas. However even there, in the major conurbations, that is unacceptable if it produces huge, unwieldy beasts. Should Birmingham be any bigger even though it’s hard to spot its natural boundaries in many places? So, no one-system solution please. The main purpose (of course much distorted by our centralised state) is to offer local people the chance to make decisions about their own areas based around communities they broadly understand. This is nonsense. Two tier is a complete joke, creating confusing, disfunctional governance (verges & footpaths anyone?) that every government has bottled since they rejected Redcliffe-Maude. The problem is, this government is pushing unitaryisation behind the scenes like few before it based on 'it's going to save you loads of cash' and doesn't give a shit about unitaries that make community or even logical sense and it's playing into the hands of their mates that run counties (thus the rubbish that is the Surrey proposal and others like Somerset). The threshold for viable unitaries is only around 160-180k, much lower than the government pretends it is and the size of the unitary for whether it's in financial trouble or not isn't terribly relevant (thus you do have the IoW which is at the low end with financial issues alongside the asset stripped Cheshire East towards the top end). So in West Sussex for example, a Chichester/Arun unitary would work perfectly well (a good example of Midhurst being stuck out divorced from its hinterland even in a two tier system, and indeed in any system unless you build a council round it), a Worthing/Shoreham unitary (possibly taking in Burgess Hill if you wanted to go for a B&H commuter council) and then a Horsham/Crawley/rest of Mid Sussex unitary. Likewise in places like Lincolnshire, rural area in places like Boston are drowned out by the town on their council and vice-versa in next door South Holland but all have very different needs in areas like social care, education and children's services than Lincoln and Gainsborough which has to be considered all together at the moment. Your difficulty (and mine) is there is little hard evidence on where the limits of viability lie. There’s an argument (false in my view) that because some small unitaries exist they must be viable. That’s compounded in this debate by the subjectivity involved in deciding where scale damages genuinely local democracy. Clearly our opinions differ and (from the examples you give) I am probably more of a localist than you. I lived with two tier. It’s not optimal and I’d always favour unitaries if the design were compatible with my view of local democracy. However sometimes the geography and dispersed population appears to make that impossible and, in those cases, services where scale is vital (social services broadly defined being one in my view) would need to organised on a wider basis. That could be achieved by partnership working between smaller unitaries. I wish I could trust that to happen satisfactorily. In the absence of that a second tier is necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jul 14, 2020 10:13:20 GMT
This is nonsense. Two tier is a complete joke, creating confusing, disfunctional governance (verges & footpaths anyone?) that every government has bottled since they rejected Redcliffe-Maude. The problem is, this government is pushing unitaryisation behind the scenes like few before it based on 'it's going to save you loads of cash' and doesn't give a shit about unitaries that make community or even logical sense and it's playing into the hands of their mates that run counties (thus the rubbish that is the Surrey proposal and others like Somerset). The threshold for viable unitaries is only around 160-180k, much lower than the government pretends it is and the size of the unitary for whether it's in financial trouble or not isn't terribly relevant (thus you do have the IoW which is at the low end with financial issues alongside the asset stripped Cheshire East towards the top end). So in West Sussex for example, a Chichester/Arun unitary would work perfectly well (a good example of Midhurst being stuck out divorced from its hinterland even in a two tier system, and indeed in any system unless you build a council round it), a Worthing/Shoreham unitary (possibly taking in Burgess Hill if you wanted to go for a B&H commuter council) and then a Horsham/Crawley/rest of Mid Sussex unitary. Likewise in places like Lincolnshire, rural area in places like Boston are drowned out by the town on their council and vice-versa in next door South Holland but all have very different needs in areas like social care, education and children's services than Lincoln and Gainsborough which has to be considered all together at the moment. Your difficulty (and mine) is there is little hard evidence on where the limits of viability lie. There’s an argument (false in my view) that because some small unitaries exist they must be viable. That’s compounded in this debate by the subjectivity involved in deciding where scale damages genuinely local democracy. Clearly our opinions differ and (from the examples you give) I am probably more of a localist than you. I lived with two tier. It’s not optimal and I’d always favour unitaries if the design were compatible with my view of local democracy. However sometimes the geography and dispersed population appears to make that impossible and, in those cases, services where scale is vital (social services broadly defined being one in my view) would need to organised on a wider basis. That could be achieved by partnership working between smaller unitaries. I wish I could trust that to happen satisfactorily. In the absence of that a second tier is necessary. A relative that worked in Ofsted back in the Labour-govt years observed that it was the smallest unitaries that really struggled as education authorities, especially when it came to supporting secondary level. The issue of scale very much applied, where they might only be dealing with a handful of secondary schools. Also, I was working for a music service back in the pre-GE2010 era when our county was being fully considered for a change from two-tier, to one or more unitaries. The latter possibility caused much black humour, the idea of divvying up the resources amassed over decades: West Shire Council gets the contrabassoon, East Shire Council gets the bass clarinet, West gets the gamelan, East gets the chamber organ... |
|
|
|
Post by cuthbertbede on Jul 14, 2020 18:28:23 GMT
Your difficulty (and mine) is there is little hard evidence on where the limits of viability lie. There’s an argument (false in my view) that because some small unitaries exist they must be viable. That’s compounded in this debate by the subjectivity involved in deciding where scale damages genuinely local democracy. Clearly our opinions differ and (from the examples you give) I am probably more of a localist than you. I lived with two tier. It’s not optimal and I’d always favour unitaries if the design were compatible with my view of local democracy. However sometimes the geography and dispersed population appears to make that impossible and, in those cases, services where scale is vital (social services broadly defined being one in my view) would need to organised on a wider basis. That could be achieved by partnership working between smaller unitaries. I wish I could trust that to happen satisfactorily. In the absence of that a second tier is necessary. A relative that worked in Ofsted back in the Labour-govt years observed that it was the smallest unitaries that really struggled as education authorities, especially when it came to supporting secondary level. The issue of scale very much applied, where they might only be dealing with a handful of secondary schools. Also, I was working for a music service back in the pre-GE2010 era when our county was being fully considered for a change from two-tier, to one or more unitaries. The latter possibility caused much black humour, the idea of divvying up the resources amassed over decades: West Shire Council gets the contrabassoon, East Shire Council gets the bass clarinet, West gets the gamelan, East gets the chamber organ... Yes, interestingly in the rumoured Essex reorganisation, Southend and Thurrock are apparently considering forming a larger unitary with the other South Essex councils. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 14, 2020 18:51:37 GMT
A cynic might observe that Thurrock Council has historically been marginal and that Southend Council is looking newly so.
|
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jul 14, 2020 19:52:29 GMT
Thurrock certainly was mentioned as an example in those conversations.
|
|
|
|
Post by kvasir on Jul 15, 2020 13:47:10 GMT
In terms of Yorkshire, it is bad enough having Goole and the rest of the area South of the river in East Yorkshire. But to go full hog and putting Tadcaster and Sherburn in East Yorkshire feels very very wrong. Like, very wrong. I just couldn't go along with it.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by ilerda on Jul 15, 2020 14:17:03 GMT
At the time that North Yorkshire was created (as a post-1974 non-metropolitan county, not as the North Riding), the City of York authority covered a much smaller area than the current York UA. Most of the suburbs were split between Ryedale, Selby and Harrogate districts.
At this time it would have been ridiculous to include the Selby district in Humberside, as this would have meant large parts of York's urban area being in a different county to the city itself. Now that the UA is in existence it does make less sense for Selby to be run from Northallerton, but equally areas around Tadcaster would be totally out of place in the East Riding UA.
|
|
