DOCSLIB.ORG

People and Places Local Government Boundary Commission for England Report No 550

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
People and Places Local Government Boundary Commission for England Report No 550 PEOPLE AND PLACES LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO 550 Her Majesty's Stationery Office PEOPLE AND PLACES LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO 550 Local Government Commission for England x LIBRARY COPY , PLEASE RETURN LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE 1988 O Crown Copyright 1988 First published 1988 ISBN Oil 752130 2 To: The Rt. Hon. Nicholas Ridley MP Secretary of State for the Environment The Rt Hon. Douglas Hurd MP Secretary of State for the Home Department People and Places — A Report by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England Foreword The Local Government Boundary Commission for England was established by the Local Government Act 1972. Since then it has reported on many electoral and administrative boundaries but its last general report was produced in 1983.(11This report gives an account of the Commission's activities since 1983, outlines its current programme and discusses some of the problems the Commission faces in its work. It is addressed to the Secretaries of State, to whom the Commission reports under the Act, but it is hoped that it will be both useful to local authorities and of interest to a wider public. 111 Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBC) Report No. 443. Local Government Boundary Commission for England Chairman MrGJEHertonCMGMBE Deputy Chairman Mr JG Powell CBE Members Professor G E Cherry MrKFJEnnalsCB Mr GR Prentice MrsHRVSarkany MrBScholesOBE Contents Page Introduction 1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 2 Why change local government boundaries? The Commission's Approach to its work 3 Making proposals for change 4 Consultation 5 Local knowledge 6 Local meetings 6 Legal challenge 7 Guidelines issued by the Secretary of State 8 Planning and development 9 Green Belts 10 Campaignsfor return to pre-1974 boundaries 11 The views of local people 12 Divided communities 13 Reluctance to advocate change 13 Cost-benefit of boundary changes The Commission's Work since 1983 Boundary Reviews 14 Parish reviews 15 Rural parishes 16 Urban parishes 17 District boundaries 20 Non -metropolitan counties in Page 22 London boroughs and the City of London 23 Metropolitan districts 23 Unitary authority 23 Seaward boundaries 24 National boundaries 24 Electoral Reviews 25 Criteria for electoral reviews 25 Countyelectoral reviews 26 Further electoral reviews of districts 26 Review of ILEA's electoral arrangements 27 Council size-The Widdicombe Report 28 New Legislation 28 Conclusion Appendices 30 A Criteria which the Local Government Boundary Commission For England will take into account in carrying out reviews of principal areas 32 B Approach to the reviews of Non-Metropolitan Counties 33 C Guidelines for the reviews of London and the Metropolitan districts 35 D Revised check list of points to be covered in parish reviews 38 E List of reports to the Secretary of State on principal area boundary changes since January 1983 40 F Check list of points to be covered in boundary reviews (other than parish reviews) IV Introduction The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 1. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England was set up by the Local Government Act 1972 to review the boundaries of Greater London, the London boroughs, the counties and districts and their electoral arrangements, and to make proposals for changes to them in the interests of "effective and convenient local government."The Commission also makes proposals in respect of reviews of parishes carried out by district councils. The Commission is not concerned with parliamentary constituencies which are the exclusive responsibility of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission. 2. The Commission has a duty, under the 1972 Act, to review at periodic intervals all counties in England, all metropolitan districts and all London boroughs.111 It has a separate duty to review, also at intervals, the electoral arrangements for all counties, districts and London boroughs.121 3. The Commission is also empowered to undertake ad hoc boundary reviews of districts and electoral reviews and it must consider requests for them from local authorities,131 as well as recommendations from district councils arising out of their own parish reviews.14' 4. In considering suggestions put to it, as well as in producing or modifying its own draft proposals, the Commission takes account of guidelines issued by the Secretary of State." These are discussed later in this report. Having decided on its final proposals, the Commission reports to the Secretary of State, who may accept, modify or reject its proposals, when he takes the final decision. 5. It is also the Commission's responsibility, and one it sees as very much part of its role, to ensure as wide a consultation as possible at each stage, with all those affected by, or interested in, a review. 01 Section 48(1 )The Local Government Act 1972. 121 Section 50(2) The Local Government Act 1972. 131 Section 48(3X4) The Local Government Act 1972. (4) Section 48(8)The Local Government Act 1972. 'Throughout this report 'Secretary of State' should be taken to mean either the Secretary of State for the Environment or Secretary of State for the Home Department as appropriate to the context. Why Change Local Government Boundaries? 6. Changes in the size and distribution of population will inevitably mean that the areas of some local authorities will from time to time cease to be apt for effective and convenient local government. For example, new development may often straddle an existing boundary; but a boundary which cuts through property is unlikely to be convenient to the property owner who may have to deal with two separate authorities, for example, for rating and planning purposes. It can also make it harder, or more expensive, to deliver local government services effectively, for example, by requiring vehicles from two authorities to collect rubbish from adjoining houses in the same street. 7. Similarly, unless electoral areas - district wards and county divisions- are kept under periodic review, changes in the distribution of population will mean that the general equality of representation which Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act calls for, will cease to apply, and votes in one area will weigh more heavily than those elsewhere in the same district or county. 8. But if local boundaries must be changedfrom time to time, there are good reasons for changing them as seldom as possible. Most people value continuity in their lives and often feel fierce loyalty to their village, parish, town, city or county. Any boundary change, therefore, is quite likely to be strenuously opposed by local people who are normally content with things as they are; they will resent the instability which frequent change can mean to their communities. 9. Another good reason for avoiding frequent change is that even a minor boundary variation will require much detailed work on the part of not less than two local authorities - and a substantial change, for example, to a county boundary, can involve six (or more) authorities: two counties, two {or more) districts and two (or more) parishes. Detailed work will be required not only by those authorities, but by the Commission and the Department of the Environment (and by the Home Office when electoral areas are affected), as well as by Ordnance Survey. In short, we are well aware that boundary changes cost money. 10. Opposition to boundary changes has changed little since Mr Balfour, introducing the London Government Bill nearly ninety years ago, said: 'I am well aware that there is probably no more ticklish question to be dealt with in this Bill than this question of areas. It invariably arouses jealousies, feelings, local passions and local rivalries in a way which has proved very embarrassing to every government which has endeavoured to deal with the complexity of our existing local areas and which has, I am afraid, stood in the way of many important and useful reforms.' (Hansard, 23 Feb. 1899, Col. 356). 11. The Commission is not in the business of re-drawing wholesale the local government map of England. Rather, it views its task as that of an estate manager, seeking to keep the fabric of the map in good repair and to prevent, if possible, that tendency towards rigidity in the pattern which was a characteristic of local government in the 85 years before reorganisation in 1972. THE COMMISSION'S APPROACH TO ITS WORK Making proposalsfor change 12. Our task is to make proposals for changes appearing to us desirable in the interests of 'effective and convenient local government.' We meet on a regular basis. At each meeting we have before us for each item all the proposals and counter-proposals put to us by local authorities, supported by all the written representations from members of the public. In addition, we have advice from Ordnance Survey on the technical suitability of proposed boundaries. When we are considering whether to carry out a review, and when we are formulating our proposals, we have regard to the guidelines set out in Department of the Environment (DOE) Circular 33/78, extracts of which are reproduced at Appendix A. These guidelines ask us to have in mind three broad considerations: — whether the boundary accords with the wishes of the local inhabitants; — whether it reflects the pattern of community life; and — whether it is conducive to the effective operation of local government and associated services. 13. We comment further on our guidelines in paragraphs 28-33 and 42-45 below. It is important that those who wish to suggest changes should put forward a detailed and reasoned case which we can relate to them -and this applies to all types of boundary review. The submissions we receive, whether for or against change, do not always set out the facts and arguments which have led to the conclusion that it will or will not be in the interests of effective and convenient local government, which is our concern.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annex F –List of Consultees
    ANNEX F –LIST OF CONSULTEES Local highway authorities Leicester City Council Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Leicestershire County Council Bath & NE Somerset Council Lincolnshire County Council Bedfordshire County Council Liverpool City Council Birmingham City Council Local Government Association Blackburn & Darwen London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Blackpool Borough Council London Borough of Barnet Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Bexley Borough of Poole London Borough of Brent Bournemouth Borough Council London Borough of Bromley Bracknell Forest Borough Council London Borough of Camden Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Croydon Brighton and Hove City Council London Borough of Ealing Bristol City Council London Borough of Enfield Buckinghamshire County Council London Borough of Greenwich Bury Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Hackney Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Hammersmith and Cambridgeshire County Council Fulham Cheshire County Council London Borough of Haringey City of York Council London Borough of Harrow Cornwall County Council London Borough of Havering Corporation of London London Borough of Hillingdon County of Herefordshire District Council London Borough of Hounslow Coventry City Council London Borough of Islington Cumbria County Council London Borough of Lambeth Cumbria Highways London Borough of Lewisham Darlington Borough Council London Borough of Merton Derby City Council London Borough of Newham Derbyshire County Council London
    [Show full text]
  • Public Sector Organisation Listing
    Public Sector Organisation listing - completed energy efficiency projects using Salix financing in FY 2018/2019 Abertay University Addenbrooke's Hospital All Saints Catholic Primary School All Saints Church of England (C) Primary School All Saints Church of England Primary School Alsager School Angus Council Archbishop Ilsley Catholic School Arnold Academy Arthur Terry Academy Ash Trees Academy Austhorpe Primary School Bailey's Court Primary School Barbara Priestman Academy Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Barwell Church of England Academy Beacon Primary Academy Beecroft Academy Beeston Hill St Luke’s Primary School Bemrose School Biggleswade Academy Birchfield Primary School Birmingham City Council Bishop Challoner Catholic School Blunham Parish Council Bolton-le-Sands CofE Primary School Boskenwyn Primary School Bottisham Village College Bournemouth Borough Council Bournemouth University Brampton Bierlow Parish Council Brandhall Primary School Bridgend County Borough Council Briercliffe Primary School Bristol City Council Britannia Bridge Primary School Broadlands Academy Broomhill Infants School Brunel University Buckinghamshire County Council Burnt Mill Academy Version 1 Public Sector Organisation listing - completed energy efficiency projects using Salix financing in FY 2018/2019 Burraton Community Primary School Burton End Primary School Caerphilly County Borough Council Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Cansfield High School Cardiff Metropolitan University Carmarthenshire County Council Caroline Haslett Primary School
    [Show full text]
  • Results from the Questionnaire: Analysis of Needs and Preferred Methods of Co-Operation
    Results from the questionnaire: analysis of needs and preferred methods of co-operation Following the demand-driven approach and in order to better assess the needs of the regional and local level, a questionnaire was sent in April 2012. The main findings were: 103 replies from 26 different countries were received in response to the questionnaire. Among the respondents there were several capital cites (for instance Berlin, Budapest, Lisbon, Belgrade, Vilnius, Tirana) as well as many other big cities. The majority of the respondents were municipal authorities and in particular mayors or deputy mayors. 88,3% gave a positive answer when responding to whether they would be interested in taking part in the activities of the Alliance The following graphs present other main findings: Graph 1 - Interest of cities to be part of the Alliance Graph 2 - Thematic issues of interest 1 Graph 3 - Transversal issues of interest Graph 4 - Activities of interest 2 Answers by countries cities and regions (26 Countries replied out of 43 contacted) Cities/Regio Cities/Regions ns Not- Total Number of Country Interested in Interested in Cities/Regions the Alliance the Alliance Austria 1 1 2 Albania 6 _ 6 Belgium 1 _ 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 _ 2 Bulgaria 6 1 7 Croatia 3 _ 3 Czech Republic 5 _ 5 Finland 1 _ 1 France 1 _ 1 Germany 2 1 3 Greece 9 _ 9 Hungary 2 _ 2 Italy 9 1 10 Lithuania 7 4 11 Portugal 2 _ 2 Romania 1 _ 1 “the former Yugoslav Republic of 4 _ 4 Macedonia” Russia 1 _ 1 Serbia 7 _ 7 Slovakia 1 _ 1 Spain 5 _ 5 Sweden 2 _ 2 Switzerland _ 1 1 The
    [Show full text]
  • The Isle of Wight in the English Landscape
    THE ISLE OF WIGHT IN THE ENGLISH LANDSCAPE: MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL RURAL SETTLEMENT AND LAND USE ON THE ISLE OF WIGHT HELEN VICTORIA BASFORD A study in two volumes Volume 1: Text and References Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Bournemouth University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 2013 2 Copyright Statement This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with its author and due acknowledgement must always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this thesis. 3 4 Helen Victoria Basford The Isle of Wight in the English Landscape: Medieval and Post-Medieval Rural Settlement and Land Use Abstract The thesis is a local-scale study which aims to place the Isle of Wight in the English landscape. It examines the much discussed but problematic concept of ‘islandness’, identifying distinctive insular characteristics and determining their significance but also investigating internal landscape diversity. This is the first detailed academic study of Isle of Wight land use and settlement from the early medieval period to the nineteenth century and is fully referenced to national frameworks. The thesis utilises documentary, cartographic and archaeological evidence. It employs the techniques of historic landscape characterisation (HLC), using synoptic maps created by the author and others as tools of graphic analysis. An analysis of the Isle of Wight’s physical character and cultural roots is followed by an investigation of problems and questions associated with models of settlement and land use at various scales.
    [Show full text]
  • Working with Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council Why Choose
    WHY CHOOSE US? WORKING WITH DUDLEY METROPOLITAN DUDLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL METROPOLITAN Dudley MBC turned to Verto to implement a simple easy to use system that would provide BOROUGH COUNCIL a robust fund management solution and easy access to quality management information. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (MBC) is one of the 152 county councils and unitary authorities across England. County councils and unitary authorities are responsible for all services in their local areas. However, they work closely with partners to ensure these services are delivered in line with the needs of their local population. Dudley MBC has an annual budget of around £740 million and serves a population of nearly 313,000 across 24 wards. It is committed to building an effective and dynamic organisation, delivering services in partnership and helping communities to help themselves. Like all local authorities, Dudley MBC has a complex structure made up of the full council and its various committees, directorates and services. It has to report regularly on its progress in delivering its plans, both within the council itself, to central government and other regulatory bodies, and to its various partners. WHAT DUDLEY MBC WANTED TO ACHIEVE Prior to using Verto, Dudley MBC managed all its projects using spreadsheets and Microsoft Project. Aware that this could lead to a rather ad hoc approach, they also had a comprehensive manual to help staff work to a common project management system. However, at 90 pages it was too long for most people to read in detail. As a result, there was no consistency in how the authority was managing projects across its different departments.
    [Show full text]
  • Business Rates Pilot Scheme 2019/20 Application Form
    Business Rates Pilot Scheme 2019/20 Application Form This application form will be used to assess your application to pilot 75% business rates retention in 2019/20. Where relevant, further evidence to support points raised in this form may be included as an annex. Please note that authorities cannot apply to pilot 75% business rates retention as part of more than one application. Information provided in response to this application may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes – these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA), the EU General Data Protection Regulation, and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004). The personal data you provide as part of this application will be held on a secure government system in line with the department’s personal data charter. Contact details will only be used for contacting you about your application or to update you on our work relating to local government finance reforms. For any questions relating to the application process, please email: [email protected]. FAQs relating to applications will be published on the Government publications website at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/75-business-rates-retention-pilots-2019-to-2020- prospectus 1. Application Contact Details Please include details of the lead pilot authority and lead official responsible for responding to any departmental queries relating to the pilot application. a. Name of lead pilot authority Leeds City Council b. Name of lead official Carolyn Jolley c. Lead official job title Senior Financial Manager d. Lead official email address [email protected] e.
    [Show full text]
  • UASC Capacity Support - Proposed Distribution of £21.3M Allocation Is Based on Latest Available Home Office Management Data Capturing Numbers at September
    UASC capacity support - proposed distribution of £21.3m Allocation is based on latest available Home Office management data capturing numbers at September. The information on NTS transfers has been confirmed by the Strategic Migration Partnership leads and is accurate up to December 2017. Please see attached FAQ and methodology document for further information. Local Authority Amount Total 21,258,203.00 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham £ 141,094.00 London Borough of Barnet £ 282,189.00 Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Bath and North East Somerset Council £ 94,063.00 Bedford Council (Unitary) £ 94,063.00 London Borough of Bexley £ 282,189.00 Birmingham City Council £ 188,126.00 Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Bournemouth Borough Council £ 141,094.00 Bracknell Forest Council £ 94,063.00 Bradford Metropolitan District Council £ 94,063.00 London Borough of Brent £ 329,219.00 Brighton and Hove City Council £ 188,126.00 Bristol City Council £ 188,126.00 London Borough of Bromley £ 141,094.00 Buckinghamshire County Council £ 188,126.00 Bury Metropolitan Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Cambridgeshire County Council £ 235,157.00 London Borough of Camden £ 329,219.00 Central Bedfordshire Council £ 282,189.00 Cheshire East Council (Unitary) £ 94,063.00 Cheshire West and Chester Council £ 94,063.00 City of London £ 94,063.00 City of Nottingham Council £ 94,063.00 Cornwall Council (Unitary) £ 94,063.00 Coventry City
    [Show full text]
  • Ss Ee Cc Tt Oo Rr Ss Tt Uu Dd Yy 11 23 4
    DECEMBER 2001 Black and minority ethnic communities: key data 11 Introduction The study is supplemented by appendices y covering: Awareness of the need for housing associations (HAs) to address the • A comparison of HA lettings to BME inequalities faced by Black and Minority households and Census data in each d Ethnic (BME) households has been English local authority area; heightened by a number of key events in • HAs’ lettings, employment and recent years: governance statistics in relation to BME u communities. • The Housing Corporation’s BME housing t policy, launched in 1998; The appendices should be used by HAs in • The Report of the Lawrence Inquiry in analysing their own performance and will 1999 and its emphasis on the dangers of be updated on an annual basis, including s organisations failing to review practice; 2001 Census data as it becomes available. • The Race Relations Amendment Act s 2000 which places an enforceable duty on the Housing Corporation to promote Data limitations racial equality and prevent racial r discrimination, which it can most The categories used to collect data on BME effectively meet through the work of communities vary between different HAs; sources, causing difficulties in comparing o • The publication of the Challenge Report data. This reflects more than simple in 2001 from the Race and Housing differences in group names. For example, t Inquiry and its emphasis on the need for Irish communities, which are covered by the continuous improvement in HAs’ race Housing Corporation’s BME housing policy, equality work; are classified as ‘white’ rather than BME c • The Housing Corporation’s new groups in many data sources.
    [Show full text]
  • NNDR FOI Web Report 20150818
    Property Reference Business Name Property Address Account Start Date Exemption Start Date Exemption Description Relief Start Date Relief Description RV 2005 RV 2010 Val Description Relief Award Amount Empty West Wing At, Northcourt, Main Road, 72000300016050 Redacted Shorwell, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30 3JL 01/04/2013 01/04/2013 Small Business Relief England 9000 Self Catering Holiday Unit and Premises -£2160.00 N The Shop Cottage,Main 72000300021014 Redacted Road,Shorwell,Newport,Isle Of Wight,PO30 3JL 01/04/2004 1800 2750 SELF CATERING HOLIDAY UNIT & PREMISES N Hut 30 Hoopers Site,Shore,Sandown,Isle Of 45009100130024 Redacted Wight,PO36 8JT 20/06/2013 20/06/2013 Small Business Relief England 235 370 BEACH HUT -£177.60 N 27 Sandown Road,Lake,Sandown,Isle Of 4200510021100BC Redacted Wight,PO36 9JL 08/06/2012 08/06/2012 Small Business Relief England 3150 3850 Shop and Premises -£1848.00 N Hut 1 The Duver,St Helens,Ryde,Isle Of 22426500001203 Redacted Wight,PO33 1XZ 08/07/2007 08/07/2007 Small Business Relief England 230 365 BEACH HUT -£175.20 N Hut D7, Dunroamin Revetment, Shore, Lake, 45009100330007 Redacted Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO36 8JT 14/06/1996 01/04/2005 Small Business Relief England 280 435 BEACH HUT -£208.80 N 18 Faulkner Lane,Sandown,Isle Of Wight,PO36 44006000180007 Redacted 9AZ 30/01/2013 30/01/2013 Small Business Relief England 4100 4900 STORE & PREMISES -£2352.00 N Mulberry Rest, Hill Farm, Hill Top, Newchurch, 69003100040101 Redacted Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO36 0NU 23/02/2007 01/04/2007 Small Business Relief England
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Management
    Coastal Management Mapping of littoral cells J M Motyka Dr A H Brampton Report SR 326 January 1993 HR Wallingfprd Registered Office: HR Wallingford Ltd. Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OXlO 8BA. UK Telephone: 0491 35381 International+ 44 491 35381 Telex: 848552. HRSWAL G. Facsimile; 0491 32233 lnternationaJ+ 44 491 32233 Registered in England No. 1622174 SR 328 29101193 ---····---- ---- Contract This report describes work commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under Contract CSA 2167 for which the MAFF nominated Project Officer was Mr B D Richardson. It is published on behalf of the Ministry of Agricutture, Fisheries and Food but any opinions expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the funding Ministry. The HR job number was CBS 0012. The work was carried out by and the report written by Mr J M Motyka and Dr A H Bramplon. Dr A H Bramplon was the Project Manager. Prepared by c;,ljl>.�.�············ . t'..�.0.. �.r.......... (name) Oob title) Approved by ........................['yd;;"(lj:�(! ..... // l7lt.i�w; Dale . .............. f)...........if?J .. © Copyright Ministry of Agricuhure, Fisheries and Food 1993 SA 328 29ro t/93 Summary Coastal Management Mapping of littoral cells J M Motyka Dr A H Brampton Report SR 328 January 1993 As a guide for coastal managers a study has been carried out identifying the major regional littoral drift cells in England and Wales. For coastal defence management the regional cells have been further subdivided into sub-cells which are either independent or only weakly dependent upon each other. The coastal regime within each cell has been described and this together with the maps of the coastline identify the special characteristics of each area.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Authority District Codes
    UK Data Archive Study Number 6028 - British Household Panel Survey, Waves 1-18, 1991-2009: Conditional Access, Local Authority District Codes British Household Panel Survey, waves 1-18 (1991-2009) User Documentation: Local Authority District Codes (LADISTC) 05 November 2008 For more information contact: Birgitta Rabe [email protected] ++44-1206-874594 Institute for Social and Economic Research University of Essex Wivenhoe Park Colchester Essex CO4 3SQ Local Authority District Codes (wLADISTC) The local authority districts within the database are aggregated if their population falls below 120,000. This aggregation is on the same basis as that for the Census Sample of Anonymised (Individual) Records, and the codes used are the same as those given in Marsh, C. and Teague, A. 'Samples of anonymised records from the 1991 Census', Population Trends, 69, 17-26, 1992. Note that, for wLADISTC, only codes up to 278 are relevant. 1: City; Westminster 53: Newcastle upon Tyne 2: Camden 54: North Tyneside 3: Hackney 55: South Tyneside 4: Hammersmith & Fulham 56: Sunderland 5: Haringey 57: Birmingham 6: Islington 58: Coventry 7: Kensington & Chelsea 59: Dudley 8: Lambeth 60: Sandwell 9: Lewisham 61: Solihull 10: Newham 62: Walsall 11: Southwark 63: Wolverhampton 12: Tower Hamlets 64: Bradford 13: Wandsworth 65: Calderdale 14: Barking and Dagenham 66: Kirklees 15: Barnet 67: Leeds 16: Bexley 68: Wakefield 17: Brent 69: Bath; Kingswood; Wansdyke 18: Bromley 70: Bristol 19: Croydon 71: Northavon 20: Ealing 72: Woodspring 21: Enfield 73: Luton 22: Greenwich
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Boundary Commission for England
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REVIEW OF TYNE AND WEAR THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF GATESHEAD Boundaries with: CASTLE MORPETH and TYNEDALE in NORTHUMBERLAND DERWENTSIDE and CHESTER-LE-STREET in COUNTY DURHAM CASTLE MORPETH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE SOUTH TYNESIDE TYNEDALE GATESHEAD DERWENTSIDE CHESTER -LE-STREET REPORT NO. 640 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO 640 SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW OF TYNE AND WEAR THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF GATESHEAD AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH THE DISTRICTS OF CASTLE MORPETH AND TYNEDALE IN NORTHUMBERLAND, AND WITH THE DISTRICTS OF DERWENTSIDE AND CHESTER-LE-STREET IN COUNTY DURHAM COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION 1. This is one of a series of five reports dealing with the metropolitan districts of Tyne and Wear. In each of these reports we firstly set out our analysis of those proposals put to us for radical change to the County as a whole, and then our consideration of the boundaries of the particular metropolitan district under review. 2. The five reports are as follows:- (i) Gateshead, and its boundaries with Castle Morpeth and Tynedale in Northumberland and Derwentside and Chester-le- Street in County Durham. (ii) Newcastle upon Tyne. and its boundaries with Gateshead and with Castle Morpeth in Northumberland. (iii) North Tvneside. and its boundaries with Newcastle upon Tyne and with Blyth Valley and Castle Morpeth in Northumberland. (iv) South Tyneside. and its boundaries with Gateshead, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside and Sunderland. (v) Sunderland, and its boundaries with Gateshead, with the City of Durham, Chester-le-Street and Easington in County Durham.
    [Show full text]