Local Government Boundary Commission for England
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
If LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REVIEW OF NON-METROPOLITAN COUNTIES FURTHER REVIEW OF THE COUNTY OF HUMBERSIDE NORTH YORKSHIRE EAST YORKSHIRE HUMBERSIDE EAST YORKSHIRE _J \\HOLDERNESS BOROUGH OF BEVERLEY ^KINGSTON UPON HU SOUTH YORKSHIRE LINCOLNSHIRE REPORT NO. 604 I I I I I I I • LOCAL GOVERNMENT I BOUNDARY COMMISSION I FOR ENGLAND iI REPORT NO. 604 i i i i i i i i i I I I • LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND I I CHAIRMAN MR G J ELLERTON I MEMBERS MR K F J ENNALS MR G R PRENTICE I MRS H R V SARKANY I MR C W SMITH I PROFESSOR K YOUNG I I I I I I I I I I I CONTENTS The Making of Numberside The Progress of the Humberside Reviews 2.1 The Commission's Initial Review i 2.2 The Secretary of State's Direction 2.3 The Commission's Further Review 2.4 The Commission's Interim Decision 2.5 The Commission's Draft Proposal i 2.6 The Response to the Commission's Draft Proposal i The Commission's Approach to the Further Review and its Consideration of the Case For and Against Change i 3.1 The Criteria for Boundary Changes 3.2 The Wishes of the People 3.3 The Pattern of Community Life 3.4 The Effective Operation of Local Government and i Associated Services i The Commission's Conclusions and Final Proposal 4.1 The Commission's Conclusions 4.2 The Commission's Final Proposal i 4.3 Electoral Consequences 4.4 Second Order Boundary Issues 4.5 Unitary Authorities i 4.6 Publication i i Annexes 1. DOE Circular 12/84 2. The Secretary of State's Direction Letter i 3. The Commission's Further Review Letter 4. The Principal Parties 5. The Commission's Interim Decision Letter i 6. The Commission's Draft Proposal Letter 7. Summary of the Response to the Draft Proposal Letter 8. Map of the Commission's Final Proposal i 9. Recipients of the Commission's Final Report i i i THE RT HON MICHAEL HESELTINE MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW OF NON METROPOLITAN COUNTIES FURTHER REVIEW OF THE COUNTY OF HUMBERSIDE THE COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT AND PROPOSAL 1. THE MAKING OF HUMBERSIDE 1.1 The Local Government Act of 1972 provided for a new County of Humberside, made up of: - the county boroughs of Grimsby and Kingston upon Hull; - the administrative county of the East Riding of Yorkshire (except the areas to be placed in North Yorkshire); - the borough of Goole and the rural district of Goole in the West Riding of Yorkshire; - the boroughs of Cleethorpes and Scunthorpe in the Parts of Lindsey in the county of Lincoln; and - the urban districts of Barton-upon-Humber and Brigg, and the rural districts of Glanford Brigg, Grimsby and the Isle of Axholme, also in the Parts of Lindsey in the county of Lincoln. 1 .2 The expectation at the time was that the population of Humberside would increase substantially in the 1970s and that the Humber Bridge, then in prospect, would radically alter the pattern of economic and social life, and would bring together the separate communities on the north and south banks of the estuary. In the event, this expectation was not realised. 2. THE PROGRESS OF THE HUMBERSIDE REVIEWS 2.1 The Commission's Initial Review 2.1.1 As part of the mandatory cycle of reviews of county boundaries under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, we commenced, in July 1985, a review of the County of Humberside and its boundaries with Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. This review had regard to the guidelines contained in Department of Environment Circular 12/84, a copy of which is at Annex 1. 2.1.2 In our Report No. 563, issued in July 1988, we referred to paragraphs 11 and 12 of this circular, which state that the abolition or creation of a principal area will only be appropriate where present arrangements clearly fail to provide effective and convenient local government. We concluded that Humberside County Council could not be shown to have failed to provide effective and convenient local government. Nor at that stage had any more satisfactory alternative pattern of county boundaries been identified, which would be both consistent with the guidelines and avoid such far-reaching consequences that the pattern of local government would be profoundly disturbed over a very wide area. We therefore made no proposal for radical change to Humberside. 2.1.3 However, in our report we noted with concern the extent and intensity of local feelings against the continued existence of the County of Humberside. We expressed the view that there must come a point at which long-standing and strongly-held feelings of alienation towards an authority on the part of large numbers of its residents must, in themselves, call for a re- examination of the justification for its existence - although we suggested that that stage had not yet been reached in the case of Humberside. 2.2 The Secretary of State's Direction 2.2.1 In his letter of response of 17 March 1989 (Annex 2) the then Secretary of State expressed his concern that, 15 years after its creation, Humberside still attracted a degree of unhappiness amongst its residents, the strength of which called for a re-consideration of the justification for its existence. He directed us, under section 49(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, to conduct a further review of Humberside. He said that the Commission should reconsider its proposal of no radical change to the county. He gave us guidance about the options he wished us to examine on the basis of a radical proposal of dissolving the present County of Humberside, and in doing so he set aside paragraphs 11 and 12 of Circular 12/84 referred to in paragraph 2.1.1 above. He stressed the need for the Commission to take account of the costs and benefits of possible alternative arrangements as compared with maintaining the status quo, and the sense of identity and loyalty that such alternatives might engender. 2.3 The Commission's Further Review 2.3.1 Accordingly, in a letter dated 12 April 1989 (Annex 3) we launched a further review of Humberside and, after consultation with the Principal Parties (listed in Annex 4), decided that the options for study should be:- (i) Option 1 the maintenance of the County of Humberside; (ii) Option 2 the enlargement of the administrative Counties of North Yorkshire and Lincolnshire to include the present Humberside, north and south of the Humber respectively; (iii) Option 3 the creation of a new administrative County of East Yorkshire to the north of the Humber and a new administrative County of Lincolnshire to the south; and (iv) Option 4 the creation of both a new administrative County of East Yorkshire to the north of the Humber and a new administrative County of North Lincolnshire to the south. The options involving a new administrative County of East Yorkshire were expressed as either excluding or including the district of Selby, currently in North Yorkshire. If Humberside were to be dissolved, it was then assumed that the borough of Boothferry would be divided by adding the Isle of Axholme to the county authority serving the south bank, and the remainder of the borough to the county serving the north bank. 2.3.2 We appointed Arup Economic Consultants (Arup) to undertake a study of the costs and benefits of all the options. We also engaged Research Surveys of Great Britain (RSGB) to conduct a study of attitudes and preferences amongst the people of Humberside and the neighbouring district of Selby. Summaries of the conclusions of the two studies are at Annexes C and D of Annex 5 to this Report. 2.4 The Commission's Interim Decision 2.4.1 In response to our letter of 1 2 April 1989 we received representations from all the Principal Parties; from other local authorities concerned; from Members of Parliament; and from interested bodies and organisations. We also received over 2,500 representations from members of the public and 37 petitions signed by more than 20,000 people. 2.4.2 We considered all the submissions and representations made to us. We investigated whether the present pattern of county boundaries was conducive to effective and convenient local government and we considered, in the light of the Secretary of State's direction, whether any better alternative existed. 2.4.3 Our interim conclusions were that the County of Humberside provided a suitable framework for effective and convenient local government and that there was a high level of satisfaction on the part of residents of Humberside with the services provided by the County Council. 2.4.4 We also noted that there were deep feelings of traditional loyalty, which led to calls for a restoration of pre- 1974 authorities, although some loyalty to the present county already existed which could be expected to grow with time. However, while the RSGB study suggested that a majority of res idents favoured some form of radical change, there was no clear consensus for any one alternative. 2.4.5 We recognised that any radical change would involve both transitional and extra running costs which would not, as estimated, be large enough to rule out change if other factors pointed strongly to a better alternative. The only realistic alternative to the present county would be a new East Yorkshire (excluding Selby) and an enlarged Lincolnshire.