ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by ilerda on Jul 15, 2020 14:18:54 GMT
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. According to the BBC today they are apparently considering a Combined Authority with an elected metro mayor for South Essex. This would probably make more sense as district councils are normally reluctant to merge into a larger UA and accept the subsequent loss of power. A bid for freedom from Essex County Council is probably much more appealing. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 15, 2020 14:44:54 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. Yes. Everything east of the Ouse - the old "real" East Riding - is OK in East Yorkshire, as is Goole town and Selby town themselves being on the river itself. But, yes, Tadcaster in no way fits in East Yorkshire. (Similarly, the southern boundary should be the Wharf. When I head of Kellingly Pit being desribed as "the last coal mine in North Yorkshire" I had to get the map out and check, it was so unbelievable.) I'd split Selby district in two, and put the East part (back) in East Riding. But that leaves the problem of the western part. I'd actually extract Wetherby from Leeds and put it and Tadcaster in with Harrogate. But you're still left with non-met-y rural areas that aren't East Riding and - although they used to be in the West Riding - aren't in this day and age Leeds/Wakefield/Doncaster-y. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 15, 2020 14:56:03 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. Yes. Everything east of the Ouse - the old "real" East Riding - is OK in East Yorkshire, as is Goole town and Selby town themselves being on the river itself. But, yes, Tadcaster in no way fits in East Yorkshire. (Similarly, the southern boundary should be the Wharf. When I head of Kellingly Pit being desribed as "the last coal mine in North Yorkshire" I had to get the map out and check, it was so unbelievable.) I'd split Selby district in two, and put the East part (back) in East Riding. But that leaves the problem of the western part. I'd actually extract Wetherby from Leeds and put it and Tadcaster in with Harrogate. But you're still left with non-met-y rural areas that aren't East Riding and - although they used to be in the West Riding - aren't in this day and age Leeds/Wakefield/Doncaster-y. There was the 'Wharfe Valley' campaign in the late 70s/early 80s. Slice the top off West Yorks - everything from Ilkley to Wetherby - and form a new district. |
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,833
|
Post by iang on Jul 15, 2020 14:59:35 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 think there has been occasional consideration of splitting Birmingham into two or three authorities, but this would also involve annexing at least Solihull, and probably bits of the neighbouring Black County boroughs, having knock on effects there. I don't like all up elections - I think that contributes to a sense of democratic deficit, at least when you only have one tier. When Birmingham rewarded a few years ago, I thought the best solution might be (in terms of size of wards), 60 two member wards, having bi-annual elections like Oxford and a few other places. But it didn't happen then, so it won't for a good long while now |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 15, 2020 15:25:41 GMT
The old Riding boundary put part of Selby district in the East Riding - the River Ouse was the boundary. That bit could safely go to ERYC. The rest of it mostly looks west towards Castleford and Leeds.
|
|
|
|
Post by kvasir on Jul 15, 2020 15:42:33 GMT
If we are being honest, Selby itself looks far more towards West Yorkshire and York than the East Riding. Barlby in the old East Yorkshire cannot be separated from Selby across the river, so the old boundary is out of the question. Riccall is another example, historically East Riding but really isn't a good fit any more, tied to York and Selby. This would never happen, but my solution would be to move Goole and the surrounding area (maybe even Howden) into Selby to make "Selby and Goole" unitary authority. In terms of population a bit on the small side, but have services shared with either York or put it in the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and share resources with Leeds/Wakefield. Again, would probably go down like a bucket of cold sick, and its probably never going to have sufficient population, but it doesn't fit neatly anywhere. The other pitch folk option would be Tadcaster and co. becoming part of the City of Leeds  |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jul 15, 2020 15:51:18 GMT
If we are being honest, Selby itself looks far more towards West Yorkshire and York than the East Riding. Barlby in the old East Yorkshire cannot be separated from Selby across the river, so the old boundary is out of the question. Riccall is another example, historically East Riding but really isn't a good fit any more, tied to York and Selby. This would never happen, but my solution would be to move Goole and the surrounding area (maybe even Howden) into Selby to make "Selby and Goole" unitary authority. In terms of population a bit on the small side, but have services shared with either York or put it in the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and share resources with Leeds/Wakefield. Again, would probably go down like a bucket of cold sick, and its probably never going to have sufficient population, but it doesn't fit neatly anywhere. The other pitch folk option would be Tadcaster and co. becoming part of the City of Leeds How about boosting the population of your Selby & Goole by moving some of the eastern not-really-Leeds bits of Leeds the other way? |
|
|
|
Post by kvasir on Jul 15, 2020 15:58:10 GMT
If we are being honest, Selby itself looks far more towards West Yorkshire and York than the East Riding. Barlby in the old East Yorkshire cannot be separated from Selby across the river, so the old boundary is out of the question. Riccall is another example, historically East Riding but really isn't a good fit any more, tied to York and Selby. This would never happen, but my solution would be to move Goole and the surrounding area (maybe even Howden) into Selby to make "Selby and Goole" unitary authority. In terms of population a bit on the small side, but have services shared with either York or put it in the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and share resources with Leeds/Wakefield. Again, would probably go down like a bucket of cold sick, and its probably never going to have sufficient population, but it doesn't fit neatly anywhere. The other pitch folk option would be Tadcaster and co. becoming part of the City of Leeds How about boosting the population of your Selby & Goole by moving some of the eastern not-really-Leeds bits of Leeds the other way? It could work potentially. The down side to that is Leeds is a very big pull and these suburbs could easily just become parasites, benefiting from the city but not paying council tax. Such a situation would necessitate putting the district in the West Yorkshire Conurbation. Either the area is so underpopulated that it wouldn't make a difference to transfer it, or they are ribbon settlements that are clearly completely tied to the city like Garforth and Kippax. I think Wetherby is probably the best option there. But "Selby and Goole and Wetherby" is quite the council name! |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 15, 2020 17:03:50 GMT
How about boosting the population of your Selby & Goole by moving some of the eastern not-really-Leeds bits of Leeds the other way? It could work potentially. The down side to that is Leeds is a very big pull and these suburbs could easily just become parasites, benefiting from the city but not paying council tax. Such a situation would necessitate putting the district in the West Yorkshire Conurbation. Either the area is so underpopulated that it wouldn't make a difference to transfer it, or they are ribbon settlements that are clearly completely tied to the city like Garforth and Kippax. I think Wetherby is probably the best option there. But "Selby and Goole and Wetherby" is quite the council name! Bring back Barkston Ash? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Jul 15, 2020 17:28:36 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 think there has been occasional consideration of splitting Birmingham into two or three authorities, but this would also involve annexing at least Solihull, and probably bits of the neighbouring Black County boroughs, having knock on effects there. I don't like all up elections - I think that contributes to a sense of democratic deficit, at least when you only have one tier. When Birmingham rewarded a few years ago, I thought the best solution might be (in terms of size of wards), 60 two member wards, having bi-annual elections like Oxford and a few other places. But it didn't happen then, so it won't for a good long while now 60 two member wards in Birmingham would be better than the current mish mash- and would provide handy building blocks for Parliamentary boundary reviews. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 15, 2020 23:09:09 GMT
Yes. Everything east of the Ouse - the old "real" East Riding - is OK in East Yorkshire, as is Goole town and Selby town themselves being on the river itself. But, yes, Tadcaster in no way fits in East Yorkshire. (Similarly, the southern boundary should be the Wharf. When I head of Kellingly Pit being desribed as "the last coal mine in North Yorkshire" I had to get the map out and check, it was so unbelievable.) I'd split Selby district in two, and put the East part (back) in East Riding. But that leaves the problem of the western part. I'd actually extract Wetherby from Leeds and put it and Tadcaster in with Harrogate. But you're still left with non-met-y rural areas that aren't East Riding and - although they used to be in the West Riding - aren't in this day and age Leeds/Wakefield/Doncaster-y. There was the 'Wharfe Valley' campaign in the late 70s/early 80s. Slice the top off West Yorks - everything from Ilkley to Wetherby - and form a new district. By "Wharfe" of couse I actually mean "Aire"  Otherwise my comment about Kellingley makes no sense.  North Yorkshire shouldn't have that odd little lump on the south side of the Aire, the boundary should follow the river all the way to the Ouse. Unfortunately, I can't really work out what it should be put in, just as the East of the Ouse should be in the East Riding (with tweeks), but that leaves the problem of where the west side should go. Tadcaster is not an East Riding town! |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 15, 2020 23:53:09 GMT
There was the 'Wharfe Valley' campaign in the late 70s/early 80s. Slice the top off West Yorks - everything from Ilkley to Wetherby - and form a new district. By "Wharfe" of couse I actually mean "Aire" Otherwise my comment about Kellingley makes no sense. North Yorkshire shouldn't have that odd little lump on the south side of the Aire, the boundary should follow the river all the way to the Ouse. Unfortunately, I can't really work out what it should be put in, just as the East of the Ouse should be in the East Riding (with tweeks), but that leaves the problem of where the west side should go. Tadcaster is not an East Riding town! Getting the map out I can actually see merit in the Wharf being the southern boundary of some sort of "North Yorkshire". Or rather, the A659, A1, A64 and Wharfe. But then will still end up with leftovers. Put Selby back in the West Riding by putting in with Leeds? There's 20km of open countryside between them. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jul 16, 2020 6:02:24 GMT
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. Thurrock and Southend are both a bit too small to make good unitaries. The tinkering of the Major government made a horrible mess, the results of which are only now becoming clear, but it is quite difficult to do anything about it. A unitary covering the whole of south Essex would be too big - between Leeds and Birmingham in size. But two unitaries would make good sense - a Thurrock & Basildon one, and Southend linking with its peripheries in Castle Point and Rochford. This would bring both up to size, without any monstrous community implications. The rest of Essex is not a great candidate for unitaries although Colchester + Tendring wouldn't be too awful. A "metro mayor" for South Essex is more plausible - for those that like elected figureheads with few powers. But the powers they do have, over regional planning and economic development, and over transport, don't fit the area very well. There is no regional transport for example, as there is in a city, and no centre. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jul 16, 2020 7:42:28 GMT
but this would also involve annexing at least Solihull, and probably bits of the neighbouring Black County boroughs The split of Harborne ancient parish so that the less built-up bit went into Birmingham and the more built-up bit didn't was particularly perverse: www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10280461/boundaryI wouldn't worry about knock-on consequences in the Black Country: "Sandwell" is an awful name for a district, and Dudley is an awful shape. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 16, 2020 8:14:04 GMT
but this would also involve annexing at least Solihull, and probably bits of the neighbouring Black County boroughs The split of Harborne ancient parish so that the less built-up bit went into Birmingham and the more built-up bit didn't was particularly perverse: www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10280461/boundaryKind of but if you're Birmingham and you're told you can have Harborne or Smethwick, what are you going to do? |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 16, 2020 8:37:36 GMT
Yes, interestingly in the rumoured Essex reorganisation, Southend and Thurrock are apparently considering forming a larger unitary with the other South Essex councils. Thurrock and Southend are both a bit too small to make good unitaries. The tinkering of the Major government made a horrible mess, the results of which are only now becoming clear, but it is quite difficult to do anything about it. A unitary covering the whole of south Essex would be too big - between Leeds and Birmingham in size. But two unitaries would make good sense - a Thurrock & Basildon one, and Southend linking with its peripheries in Castle Point and Rochford. This would bring both up to size, without any monstrous community implications. The rest of Essex is not a great candidate for unitaries although Colchester + Tendring wouldn't be too awful. A "metro mayor" for South Essex is more plausible - for those that like elected figureheads with few powers. But the powers they do have, over regional planning and economic development, and over transport, don't fit the area very well. There is no regional transport for example, as there is in a city, and no centre. One indication of the problem with Essex is that there is no district over 200k- the largest is Colchester at 195k, and the two unitaries are only the third and fifth largest districts in the county, which is pretty ridiculous. Agree the adding of Rochford and Castle Point into Southend makes sense (then 362k), as does a Thurrock/Basildon merger (361k). Don't agree that the rest of Essex would not necessarily work as unitaries- if by simple mergers without any boundary adjustments I would suggest Brentwood takes in Epping Forest and Harlow (296k), Chelmsford has Maldon and Uttlesford (334k), and Colchester Braintree and Tendring (495k). Of course a bit of boundary adjustment to add parts of Braintree into Chelmsford might even things up a bit... |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 16, 2020 8:49:05 GMT
Chelmsford and Uttlesford doesn't make sense. Uttlesford would go better with Braintree (although that would be a smallish pairing) or with Harlow and Epping Forest.
But this is always the problem with trying to turn counties into a jigsaw of unitaries - the smaller and more rural districts don't fit well anywhere, precisely because they're peripheral and rural. I tend to think that if you're going to change the arrangements, you need to concentrate on the areas that can benefit from it. If the rural areas want to be involved, that means working with the more urban areas. If they don't, leave them in splendid isolation, but as a consequence they get less power or discretionary funding.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 16, 2020 9:04:19 GMT
Chelmsford and Uttlesford doesn't make sense. Uttlesford would go better with Braintree (although that would be a smallish pairing) or with Harlow and Epping Forest. But this is always the problem with trying to turn counties into a jigsaw of unitaries - the smaller and more rural districts don't fit well anywhere, precisely because they're peripheral and rural. I tend to think that if you're going to change the arrangements, you need to concentrate on the areas that can benefit from it. If the rural areas want to be involved, that means working with the more urban areas. If they don't, leave them in splendid isolation, but as a consequence they get less power or discretionary funding. It depends whether you look at creating unitaries as beefing up district councils or cutting down county councils to size. I prefer the latter. I would point out that Uttlesford, say, is run from Chelmsford now in terms of county functions, and in my model district council functions like local planning control, refuse collection, etc , should still be left to localities. |
|
|
|
Post by jm on Jul 16, 2020 9:33:37 GMT
What is the population requirement for unitary authorities these days? It seems strange that the recent abominations such as Dorset and East/West Northamptonshire have populations of 300,000+ yet the unitaries in the former "Cleveland" area have populations of around 100,000 or less in the case of Hartlepool.
I notice many of you have proposed a unitary Bassetlaw (which I would support) but it only has a population of 100,000. As the government seem unwilling to divide districts between unitaries I would imagine the most likely option in Nottinghamshire is an expanded Nottingham encompassing Nottingham, Broxtowe and Gedling with the rest of the county in a unitary Nottinghamshire. I wouldn't be surprised if they also shove Rushcliffe in with Nottingham and create a 'Nottingham and South Nottinghamshire' authority rather than just move West Bridgford into Nottingham.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 16, 2020 9:37:37 GMT
On the other hand, if East Anglian Lefty feels West Essex is so very different from the rest of the county that Uttlesford can't possibly marry Chelmsford, there is another combination that might work which is Uttlesford+Harlow+ Epping +Brentwood as a West Essex authority at 387k, leaving Colchester+Tendring at 342k, Chelmsford + Braintree at 396k, and the Southend and Basildon based unitaries as before at 362k and 361k respectively. Remarkably even population bases at least. I will say though I have lived in Essex for a time and stayed in all parts at some time. Uttlesford is the bit I know least well, which maybe shows its a bit different. |
|
Otherwise my comment about Kellingley makes no sense. 
