|
|
Post by therealriga on Dec 26, 2020 13:00:25 GMT
Apologies if this or similar has been posted before but I came upon this map which includes a map of all districts in England as they stood at 1970 and the initial proposals for what became the new councils in 1974. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/177096/response/436264/attach/3/131003%20Circular%208%2071%20map.pdfAt first glance it looks the same as what eventually happened in 1974 but looking closer I found numerous differences Frome in Avon. No independent Isle of Wight authority. Aldershot in Surrey. Berkshire to retain Eton and add Henley-on-Thames. Suffolk to lose Newmarket & Haverhill to Cambridgeshire, and Lowestoft & Beccles to Norfolk. Birmingham to include Castle Bromwich and Chelmsley Wood. Solihull to extend a little further south. The south strip of South Staffs to be split between Salop, West Mids and Hereford & Worcester. Ellesmere Port & Neston in Wirral. Bury and Rochdale to be a single authority. St Helens and Knowsley to be a single authority. Sefton to include Skelmersdale but exclude Southport. Sedbergh in North Yorks instead of Cumbria. No Humberside. The parts south of the river to remain in Lincolnshire and the remainder being a bit smaller, losing a slice of its north west corner. Leeds to include Harrogate. Bradford to extend a bit further north. A larger Cleveland, extending further south to include Whitby and north to include Easington. Seaham to be in Sunderland, leaving Durham without a coast. I'm sure there are a few more that I missed. Some of those, like no Humberside, Southport in Lancs, Newmarket in Cambs and the larger Birmingham seem more sensible to me than what eventually emerged. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2020 13:37:16 GMT
Some of those suggestions would have been much better - Newmarket, no Humberside, the Sefton/Lancashire border. But some are absolutely moronic - extending Bradford, putting Harrogate in Leeds, Seaham in Sunderland
|
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Dec 26, 2020 13:45:21 GMT
Some of those suggestions would have been much better - Newmarket, no Humberside, the Sefton/Lancashire border. But some are absolutely moronic - extending Bradford, putting Harrogate in Leeds, Seaham in Sunderland Seaham in Sunderland probably does make sense. At the moment, Seaham is virtually surrounded with Sunderland proper to the north and Houghton to the west. In fact, Houghton is in a very similar situation to Seaham - a small town on the border between County Durham and Sunderland - so it's surprising that it ended up in Sunderland while Seaham did not. Easington in Cleveland doesn't really make sense though - that area looks more to Sunderland or Durham city than Middlesbrough. Even the ties to Hartlepool along the coast aren't that strong. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 26, 2020 13:46:16 GMT
Some of those suggestions would have been much better - Newmarket, no Humberside, the Sefton/Lancashire border. But some are absolutely moronic - extending Bradford, putting Harrogate in Leeds, Seaham in Sunderland I think there's a good case for moving most of west Lancs into Sefton anyway. It would put them in the City Region along with Halton. Politically it is evenly balanced - clearly there would be far fewer councillors particularly in the villages so no political effect to speak of. A couple of the northernmost villages might prefer to go into South Ribble as they are really Preston outskirts. It would also strengthen the case to have the City Region as a police authority too. West Lancs and Halton could be covered by the Merseyside police. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 26, 2020 13:48:15 GMT
Brackley in Oxfordshire
Lowestoft in Norfolk
Cleveland absolutely enormous (going from Whitby to Easington, leaving Co. Durham landlocked)
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by ilerda on Dec 26, 2020 13:54:46 GMT
You say a larger Birmingham would be sensible (I agree) but the map appears to show that to compensate for not having Castle Bromwich etc. Solihull would be given a chunk of Birmingham proper, seemingly around Hall Green. This is most likely needed to make a Solihull metropolitan district viable in terms of population, but is an inferior solution in my view to what actually happened.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 26, 2020 13:55:26 GMT
A larger Cleveland, extending further south to include Whitby and north to include Easington. Yes, there were fairly vigourous arguments in Whitby about which authority we should join. "We'll get cheap buses in Cleveland" seemed to be the only justification put forward. Even with the Cleveland that did come about almost as soon as it was formed there were vigourous campaigns that it was too big and there were bits that shouldn't be included, eg Guisborough. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 26, 2020 14:27:31 GMT
Apologies if this or similar has been posted before but I came upon this map which includes a map of all districts in England as they stood at 1970 and the initial proposals for what became the new councils in 1974. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/177096/response/436264/attach/3/131003%20Circular%208%2071%20map.pdfAt first glance it looks the same as what eventually happened in 1974 but looking closer I found numerous differences Frome in Avon. No independent Isle of Wight authority. Aldershot in Surrey. Berkshire to retain Eton and add Henley-on-Thames. Suffolk to lose Newmarket & Haverhill to Cambridgeshire, and Lowestoft & Beccles to Norfolk. Birmingham to include Castle Bromwich and Chelmsley Wood. Solihull to extend a little further south. The south strip of South Staffs to be split between Salop, West Mids and Hereford & Worcester. Ellesmere Port & Neston in Wirral. Bury and Rochdale to be a single authority. St Helens and Knowsley to be a single authority. Sefton to include Skelmersdale but exclude Southport. Sedbergh in North Yorks instead of Cumbria. No Humberside. The parts south of the river to remain in Lincolnshire and the remainder being a bit smaller, losing a slice of its north west corner. Leeds to include Harrogate. Bradford to extend a bit further north. A larger Cleveland, extending further south to include Whitby and north to include Easington. Seaham to be in Sunderland, leaving Durham without a coast. I'm sure there are a few more that I missed. Some of those, like no Humberside, Southport in Lancs, Newmarket in Cambs and the larger Birmingham seem more sensible to me than what eventually emerged. Also some smaller districts were initially not included: West Somerset, Forest Heath, and Torridge. The former two no longer exist. Also Suffolk was to add the area around Colchester to unite the Stour estuary. Many of these provisional proposals were ludicrous. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Dec 26, 2020 14:57:39 GMT
You say a larger Birmingham would be sensible (I agree) but the map appears to show that to compensate for not having Castle Bromwich etc. Solihull would be given a chunk of Birmingham proper, seemingly around Hall Green. This is most likely needed to make a Solihull metropolitan district viable in terms of population, but is an inferior solution in my view to what actually happened. I didn't notice that. it's hard on the map to see exactly where the met county boundaries ended. But yes, Hall Green in Solihull wouldn't have made sense. Manchester and Stockport also look like they may have had some differences in the south but I couldn't make out exactly what. I think there are also a few more villages north of Nelson which were to be added to Lancs but stayed in (North) Yorks. I think Stamford is in Cambs in this version? |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Dec 26, 2020 16:28:00 GMT
Things I've noticed there:
1) The messy repartition of Sussex, putting Burgess Hill in a county with Chichester rather than Lewes was already there.
2) Bournemouth being moved out of Hampshire into Dorset was already there. (Dorset really is problematic whatever one does with it though. From a pitchfork bait perspective: Shaftesbury, Sturminster, Sherborne, and Beaminster should go into Somerset; Bridport and Lyme into Devon; and the rest can go into Hampshire.)
3) The northern border of the Avon monstrosity looks odd as well.
4) Coventry seems to have taken over Meriden.
5) Sedbergh was still in North Yorkshire.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Dec 26, 2020 16:41:07 GMT
Also, St Thomas Rural District is an absolutely brilliant name for a local authority.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 26, 2020 16:53:29 GMT
Things I've noticed there: 1) The messy repartition of Sussex, putting Burgess Hill in a county with Chichester rather than Lewes was already there. 2) Bournemouth being moved out of Hampshire into Dorset was already there. (Dorset really is problematic whatever one does with it though. From a pitchfork bait perspective: Shaftesbury, Sturminster, Sherborne, and Beaminster should go into Somerset; Bridport and Lyme into Devon; and the rest can go into Hampshire.) 3) The northern border of the Avon monstrosity looks odd as well. 4) Coventry seems to have taken over Meriden. 5) Sedbergh was still in North Yorkshire. Sussex was so large it needed to be partitioned into West and East, although arguably Mid Sussex should have been moved to East Sussex where it actually looks towards. Bournemouth and Christchurch had grown in such a way that they could not really be considered part of Hampshire (cf. Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire), and they were close to absorbing Poole (which has always been in Dorset); structural changes in 2019 finally addressed this reality via Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole. Thornbury should not have been included in Northavon, being much further from Bristol than Yate and therefore not remotely a de facto Bristol suburb in any way (unlike Kingswood and Mangotsfield for example). There was never any plan for Meriden to be moved into Coventry, although it does highlight the fact that Coventry did not belong in the West Midlands metropolitan area any more than Bath belonged in Avon. There was no reason to move Sedbergh out of North Yorkshire and into Cumbria at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 26, 2020 22:07:11 GMT
Things I've noticed there: 1) The messy repartition of Sussex, putting Burgess Hill in a county with Chichester rather than Lewes was already there. 2) Bournemouth being moved out of Hampshire into Dorset was already there. (Dorset really is problematic whatever one does with it though. From a pitchfork bait perspective: Shaftesbury, Sturminster, Sherborne, and Beaminster should go into Somerset; Bridport and Lyme into Devon; and the rest can go into Hampshire.) 3) The northern border of the Avon monstrosity looks odd as well. 4) Coventry seems to have taken over Meriden. 5) Sedbergh was still in North Yorkshire. Sussex was so large it needed to be partitioned into West and East, although arguably Mid Sussex should have been moved to East Sussex where it actually looks towards. You mean it should have stayed in East Sussex.. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 26, 2020 23:14:55 GMT
Sussex was so large it needed to be partitioned into West and East, although arguably Mid Sussex should have been moved to East Sussex where it actually looks towards. You mean it should have stayed in East Sussex.. Yes. I initially believed at first that only East Grinstead was moved from East Sussex to West Sussex; the constituency of East Grinstead ended up being split between two counties as a result (most of it became the current Wealden constituency). |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,055
|
Post by Khunanup on Dec 26, 2020 23:40:37 GMT
You say a larger Birmingham would be sensible (I agree) but the map appears to show that to compensate for not having Castle Bromwich etc. Solihull would be given a chunk of Birmingham proper, seemingly around Hall Green. This is most likely needed to make a Solihull metropolitan district viable in terms of population, but is an inferior solution in my view to what actually happened. I didn't notice that. it's hard on the map to see exactly where the met county boundaries ended. But yes, Hall Green in Solihull wouldn't have made sense. Manchester and Stockport also look like they may have had some differences in the south but I couldn't make out exactly what. I think there are also a few more villages north of Nelson which were to be added to Lancs but stayed in (North) Yorks. I think Stamford is in Cambs in this version? No Stamford stays in Lincs, it's not very clear but when you have the dotted line inside the red line that indicates existing boundaries (which it does with the Lincs boundary there). Further to the Hampshire observations above. It's actually the whole of what is now Hart & Rushmoor that goes in to Surrey from Hampshire. East Sussex would have retained a small part of what is now Mid Sussex district directly north of Brighton, Hove & Portslade rather than the border being so tightly drawn round the existing town boundaries. Stockport is proposed to include Whaley Bridge and an adjacent area of Cheshire to the other side of the borough and Tintwhistle & Longdendale are proposed to go into Tameside rather than Derbyshire. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 26, 2020 23:45:59 GMT
It's worth giving the context for this map. In February 1970 the Labour government had published a White Paper (Cmnd 4276) which responded to the Redcliffe-Maud report, and "broadly accepted" it but altered the geography - adding further two-tier areas in West Yorkshire and South Hampshire - and noted that detailed comments on the unitary areas had been made by some existing local authorities. There then kicked off a strong fight against Redcliffe-Maud, particularly by Cheshire County Council.
When the Conservatives won the election, their manifesto committed them to a sensible measure of reform which retained two-tier councils. In February 1971 the Conservatives published their own White Paper (Cmnd. 4584), notably thinner than Labour's, committing to two tiers everywhere, with a Metropolitan structure in six areas. But rather than fall into the trap that Labour had, in which the boundaries were set first and local opposition guaranteed, they specified that local opinion would shape where the new counties would be, and the districts drawn up by a local boundary commission. The map was issued alongside this White Paper, in 'Circular 8/71' to existing local authorities, "as a basis for consultation". But the White Paper reassured that "Where possible, existing county boundaries will be retained in order to keep the maximum existing loyalties and to minimise the administrative problems".
In fact the map was, in most areas, the same or very similar to that in the Labour Government's White Paper, although with a bit more respect for existing county boundaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 27, 2020 12:17:34 GMT
I didn't notice that. it's hard on the map to see exactly where the met county boundaries ended. But yes, Hall Green in Solihull wouldn't have made sense. Manchester and Stockport also look like they may have had some differences in the south but I couldn't make out exactly what. I think there are also a few more villages north of Nelson which were to be added to Lancs but stayed in (North) Yorks. I think Stamford is in Cambs in this version? , it's not very clear but when you have the dotted line inside the red line that indicates existing boundaries (which it does with the Lincs boundary there). Further to the Hampshire observations above. It's actually the whole of what is now Hart & Rushmoor that goes in to Surrey from Hampshire. East Sussex would have retained a small part of what is now Mid Sussex district directly north of Brighton, Hove & Portslade rather than the border being so tightly drawn round the existing town boundaries. Stockport is proposed to include Whaley Bridge and an adjacent area of Cheshire to the other side of the borough and Tintwhistle & Longdendale are proposed to go into Tameside rather than Derbyshire. A Local Government Commission of 1963 did initially suggest moving Stamford, along with part of Rutland, to Cambridgeshire, but that proposal thankfully never made it off the drawing board. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Dec 27, 2020 15:23:40 GMT
It's worth giving the context for this map. In February 1970 the Labour government had published a White Paper (Cmnd 4276) which responded to the Redcliffe-Maud report, and "broadly accepted" it but altered the geography - adding further two-tier areas in West Yorkshire and South Hampshire - and noted that detailed comments on the unitary areas had been made by some existing local authorities. There then kicked off a strong fight against Redcliffe-Maud, particularly by Cheshire County Council. When the Conservatives won the election, their manifesto committed them to a sensible measure of reform which retained two-tier councils. In February 1971 the Conservatives published their own White Paper (Cmnd. 4584), notably thinner than Labour's, committing to two tiers everywhere, with a Metropolitan structure in six areas. But rather than fall into the trap that Labour had, in which the boundaries were set first and local opposition guaranteed, they specified that local opinion would shape where the new counties would be, and the districts drawn up by a local boundary commission. The map was issued alongside this White Paper, in 'Circular 8/71' to existing local authorities, "as a basis for consultation". But the White Paper reassured that "Where possible, existing county boundaries will be retained in order to keep the maximum existing loyalties and to minimise the administrative problems". In fact the map was, in most areas, the same or very similar to that in the Labour Government's White Paper, although with a bit more respect for existing county boundaries. So when was a county of Humberside introduced as an idea, who by, and what were they thinking? With most other county boundary changes of that era, I can see some motivation even if there are also reasons why they might have been unpopular with some. But I've never understood that one. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 27, 2020 15:52:30 GMT
So when was a county of Humberside introduced as an idea, who by, and what were they thinking? With most other county boundary changes of that era, I can see some motivation even if there are also reasons why they might have been unpopular with some. But I've never understood that one. It suddenly appeared in November 1971 when the Local Government Bill was introduced. It was the standout alteration in the proposals; there were many smaller changes from the map. Most of the county boundaries in the Bill as first introduced went on eventually to be enacted though there were a few changes made during Parliamentary consideration - not to Humberside, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Dec 27, 2020 15:58:59 GMT
It's worth giving the context for this map. In February 1970 the Labour government had published a White Paper (Cmnd 4276) which responded to the Redcliffe-Maud report, and "broadly accepted" it but altered the geography - adding further two-tier areas in West Yorkshire and South Hampshire - and noted that detailed comments on the unitary areas had been made by some existing local authorities. There then kicked off a strong fight against Redcliffe-Maud, particularly by Cheshire County Council. When the Conservatives won the election, their manifesto committed them to a sensible measure of reform which retained two-tier councils. In February 1971 the Conservatives published their own White Paper (Cmnd. 4584), notably thinner than Labour's, committing to two tiers everywhere, with a Metropolitan structure in six areas. But rather than fall into the trap that Labour had, in which the boundaries were set first and local opposition guaranteed, they specified that local opinion would shape where the new counties would be, and the districts drawn up by a local boundary commission. The map was issued alongside this White Paper, in 'Circular 8/71' to existing local authorities, "as a basis for consultation". But the White Paper reassured that "Where possible, existing county boundaries will be retained in order to keep the maximum existing loyalties and to minimise the administrative problems". In fact the map was, in most areas, the same or very similar to that in the Labour Government's White Paper, although with a bit more respect for existing county boundaries. So when was a county of Humberside introduced as an idea, who by, and what were they thinking? With most other county boundary changes of that era, I can see some motivation even if there are also reasons why they might have been unpopular with some. But I've never understood that one.
Initially Humberside will likely have been an informal term for the docks of Hull, Grimsby etc, then the planning region of Yorkshire and the Humber came in being in 1964. Humber or Humberside will likely have been used in marketing terms after that. My best guess is the fact that Humberside was in use for regional planning purposes is what led to it becoming a county in the reorganisation of 1974.
|
|
