Talk:Local Government Act 1972

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Unreferenced

This is an excellent article, and it clearly must have been written with several references to hand. Unfortunately it does not cite any of them, which is a real shame. Especially as I was looking to find more detail on the strip of land near Great Yarmouth that Norfolk annexed from Suffolk. I've added a References section, with the Unreferenced template, in the hope this will flush that detail out. -- Chris j wood 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The reference is the Act itself! Owain 15:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I can grab out the exact wording when I get back home to my flat (which will be this evening). Have added the two main references. If I remember correctly, it consisted of land south of the Waveney, so you should be able to find that on a map. Morwen - Talk 14:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Right, at [1] you will find a typed in copy of Schedule 1, Part II, which contains the required info. Morwen - Talk 21:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names

I notice that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England issued proposals for names for non-metropolitan districts [2] in March 1973. Apparently "names were chosen with regard to local feeling, and to geographical or historical background. Simple names were preferred to hybrid or concocted nemes, and care was taken to avoid names that might cause confusion between the new districts and existing parishes or other authorities."

I'd always thought this was a job for the committee of the merging councils. My father, an erstwhile urban councillor, was on one. I remember he said the guidelines discouraged the use of "this place and that place", preferring a single name. There was some concern about whether the City and County of Durham would both be allowed the use of the name. Whatever about the guidelines, contrivances made it through (Wychavon for one!)Lozleader 20:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the Welsh names are particularly odd, as well. Morwen - Talk 20:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this likely to have anything interesting in it (ie rationales) might fish it out, but not sure how much info it can get in 9 pages. Morwen - Talk 13:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Existing geographic county or subdivision" vs "administrative county"

The tables that define the non-metropolitan and metropolitan counties do so with reference to the the three rightmost columns. Given that there are "county borough" and "other parts" columns then surely "Existing geographic county or subdivision" is really just "administrative county"? i.e. the terminology used in the Act. Owain (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember, administrative counties did not include the county boroughs. Using terminology of the time someone would have said that Caversham did not form part of the administrative county of Berkshire, but part of the geographic county of Berkshire. Using the term "administrative county" in the second column would imply the administrative counties were considered to include the county boroughs. Morwen - Talk 11:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes I appreciate that, but the way I read the table it suggests that the first column is composed of the parts listed in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th columns, therefore by listing county boroughs separately from the geographic counties, you are listing the same thing twice. Owain (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
the idea is that we are showing the contemporary geographic county, the county boroughs comprised therein that were used, and then specify what parts of the corresponding administrative county were included (if any). From column 2, column 3 and column 4. The lists of the county boroughs are needed because of e.g. Bournemouth. we could unify columns 3 and 4 but i thought it would look neater this way, and i didn't want to make separate rows for the county boroughs, which would have been another way of doing it, as there are rather a lot of them. Morwen - Talk 12:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I understand your reasoning now, although I think that columns 2 and 4 could be merged, because the way it reads now is that, say, Avon was composed of the entire of Gloucestershire and Somerset along with Bristol and Bath county boroughs and then something called "northern part" and "southern part". It was somewhat confusing to me, and I understand this stuff! :) Owain (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. maybe an explanatory note might be helpful! Owain
Perhaps it would help if column 2 and 3 were swapped? I did consult a random person not knowledgeable in the area and he seemed to understand it. Morwen - Talk 12:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 250,000

So, um anyone want to grab the 1971/1981 census and figure out which of the education authorities (if any) went under this limit? Certainly the Isle of Wight did but that was a special case. Counting today (which isn't really relevant), there are many metropolitan boroughs smaller than that and of course lots of unitary authorities. But even the smallest shire county (Shropshire minus Telford) beats 250,000. Morwen - Talk 18:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Trafford for one: 227, 972 in 1971, 221,029 in 1981. [3]Lozleader 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've checked out VoB and found these among the Metropolitan Boroughs:
Borough 1971 1981 2001
Bury 174,165 175,459 180,608
Oldham 224,071 219,462 217,273
Rochdale 204,071 206,351 205,357
Salford 280,739 241,532 216,103
Tameside 221,067 217,050 213,043
Trafford 227,972 221,029 210,145
Knowsley 194,549 172,991 150,459
St Helens 188,689 189,245 176,843
Barnsley 225,751 223,901 218,063
Rotherham 243,118 250,340 248,175
Gateshead 225,075 210,950 191,151
North Tyneside 207,215 197,446 191,659
South Tyneside 176,687 160,112 152,785

Powys would definitely have been below 250,000, maybe gwynedd, but I'm not sure if the principle extended to Wales. Lozleader 20:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Lozleader 20:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting - well not very interesting - that Bury/Rochdale and St Helens/Knowsley went under the 250,000 limit due to a split that the government consented to. And I suppose in Tyne and Wear any less than 4 districts on the Tyne would have been politically unfeasible. Morwen - Talk 22:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking at current figures these have been joined by Wolverhampton, Solihull and Calderdale, Morwen - Talk 10:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1974 statement

Just came across a section on "traditional Counties" in the Guiness Book of Answers, 9th edition, (1993). It is full of inaccuracies. For instance:
Moreover the 1974 Act (sic!) Stated "The new county councils are solely for defining areas of first-level government of the future; they are administration areas and will not alter the traditional boundaries."
It goes on to say that a review of local government begun in 1992 was likely to result in single-tier councils, and that
"The traditional counties are likely to return for all other purposes."
I've no idea who wrote this, and it gives no sources (maybe because they made it up. It gives areas for the counties in km2 and square miles, and I thought it might be the source for the figures, but on conversion to acres they don't match.
Interesting to see factually incorrect information on trad counties from the pre Internet and Wikipedia age. Lozleader 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
We must track down that infamous 1974 statement one day. I can state it wasn't a Written Answer in the house made in March or April 1974. Morwen - Talk 16:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
According to [4], the government made a statement on April 1, 1974 which was quoted in The Times of that day. The person quoting it notes that it "honoured much more in the breach than in any attempt to observe it". Mr Thurnham seems further to be under the delusion that traditional county boundaries were being shown on Ordnance Survey maps prior to 1974. Morwen - Talk 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, compare and contrast

"The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ... local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change." - the ABC's version

"The new county boundaries are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change, despite the different names adopted by the new administrative counties" - the version quoted in Hansard

These are clearly different versions of the same sentence (with one word recapitalised - is that a form of misquoting?). Morwen - Talk 16:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newmarket

I'm plodding through the Times archives for 1972, and I was very intrested to note that Newmarket UDC was very opposed to remaining in Suffolk, and made at least two attempts to jump into Cambridgeshire. Harwich borough corporation wanted the town to go into Suffolk, not remain in Essex. So much for "county loyalty". I shall put a bit about these when I have them digested. Lozleader 17:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

January 19, 1972's times has a [[metropolitan county of Thamesside being proposed!!!! 82.35.9.122 19:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention Tamarside which was to be based on Plymouth Lozleader 19:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland was apparently popular, at the time of its creation! According to The Times (21st March 1972), A proposal to divide "County Area 4" (based on and sometimes called Teesside) between Durham and Yorkshire was reversed in the face of local opposition from Teesside and Hartlepool boroughs.20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And also search for the string 'Botchdale' - which was the nickname for the proposed Bury/Rochdale district. Fabulous! I am reminded of the proposal to merge West Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse in the 1990s to form a unitary authority, which was quickly dubbed "Vale of White Elephant". 82.35.9.122 22:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
And, February 17 has an article "proposed new areas and their composition" which outlines the White Paper proposals in great great detail. Morwen - Talk 10:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The Local Government Boundary Commission (designate) proposed 278 non-met districts (see 27 April 1972), rather than the 296 we got. Haven't figured which got split yet... Lozleader 20:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

found em : 18 new districts announced in November (in 22/11/72 edition)Lozleader 20:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing I've not been able to find yet is the announcement from the Post Office about what they'll be doing. I've seen some tenative statements from them saying they probably won't adopt Greater Manchester - when did they announce you should use "North Humberside" and "South Humberside"? Morwen - Talk 11:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, on 6 July 1972 we also see South Staffordshire/North Staffordshire proposals, also South Devon and North Devon

South Devon consisting of Plymouth, Kingsbridge, Salcombe, Tavistock RD, Plympton RD, parts of Totnes RD, parts of Kingsbridge RD. This was forced to a division and divided 22 to 52. 194.66.226.95 13:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extra districts

Ok, according to 22/11/72 edition these 18 extra districts would be formed from splits in. nb these generally also involved shuffling around other borders to keep populations reasonably equal and weren't exact splits

  1. Leicestershire: Melton and Rutland split precisely
  2. Harborough and Oadby and Wigston split, with Lutterworth Rural District moved from Blaby to Harborough
  3. Shropshire : Oswestry and North Shropshire exactly split
  4. Brignorth and South Shropshire split (possibly exactly)
  5. Dorset: separate Weymouth and Portland and Purbeck districts
  6. split of North Dorset and East Dorset
  7. Northumberland : split of Berwick-upon-Tweed and Alnwick
  8. Durham: Teesdale and Wear Valley split
  9. Lincolnshire: South Holland and Boston split
  10. Somerset: Taunton Deane and West Somerset
  11. Hereford and Worcester: separate Hereford district
  12. also a separate South Herefordshire and Leominster
  13. Devon : split of Torridge and North Devon districts
  14. Humberside : split of Holderness and East Yorkshire
  15. Northamptonshire: split of South Northamptonshire and Daventry
  16. Lancashire: split of Rossendale and Hyndburn
  17. Isle of Wight : originally a district in Hampshire, divided into South Wight and Medina
  18. Suffolk : extra district for Newmarket (which was to be part of the Ely district in Cambridgeshire)

other random notes:

[edit] Lymington

I'm trying to figure out when the proposal to move Lymington to Dorset got in. The map I have from the Bill in November 1971 clearly shows the Dorset/Hampshire boundary going between Christchurch and Lymington. The earliest I can find in The Times in reference to Lymington is a Lords amendment reported on September 12, 1972 (Lymington stays in Hampshire) with the government losing a division on keeping Lymington on the Dorset side. It surfaces again on October 17, 1972 (Peers fight to keep Lymington undivided) : with the government proposing the Barton, Becton and Milton wards of the borough of Lymington be detached from the rest and became part of Dorset. Finally in October 18, 1972 (Lymington to remain undivided) we learn that the government gave up.

So did an amendment happen between November 1971 and September 1972 to add Lymington to dorset? Hmm. Wood doesn't shed any light on the matter.

The government lost a few other divisions in the Lords around that time, Rothwell, Wilmslow, Poynton (Triple Lords defeat for Government on boundaries Bill)

The effect of the first two defeats [...] was to remove the urban district of Wilmslow and the parish of Poynton with Worth from the proposed new metropolitan county of Greater Manchester, leaving them as they are now in the county of Cheshire.

The second was just about which metropolitan district to put Rothwell in - change from Wakefield to Leeds.

This was also when the "save Somerset" campaign was taking place - the government won a division on the same day by 42 to 41. (saving Somerset, it must be noted, largely consisted of removing Weston-super-Mare from Avon (also Wrington, Butcombe, Compton Martin, Ubley, West Harptree and East Harptree). The government was apparently nearly running out of time with this one with the next session of Parliament starting soon and the Bill still being debated 11 months after its introduction.

Morwen - Talk 19:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

oh, and I've found letters saying apparently the Weston Corporation supported Avon. Morwen - Talk 19:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have found where they moved Lymington. On that long sitting on 6 July, 1972, a government amendment to add to Dorset

  • "the borough of Lymington, except so much of the Bashey ward as lies north of the boundary referred to in paragraph 51 of Part III of this schedule"

Graham Page notes that "when it was decided to place the County Borough of Bournemouth within the County of Dorset, the problem arose of the continous built-up area from Bournemouth to Christchurch. It seemed wrong to break the continuous development from Sandbanks in Poole to Lymington Borough by any county boundary, either at County Gates between Bournemouth and Pool, or as St. Ives Bridge between Bournemouth and Christchurch. The logical place for the boundary seemed to be either on the east boundary of Lymington Borough, or possibly in an area which gave a gap between a part of the western area of Lymington and the borough"

"The Lymington authority would have preferred to be in Hampshire, but if it meant splitting the borough, then the borough would prefer to be kept together"

Christchurch/Lymington district planned.

opposed by Patrick McNair-Wilson, MP for New Forest. "everyone in Lymington is desperately anxious to stay in Hampshire". "I hoped it would be possible to put a county boundary between the old county borough of Bournemouth and Christchurch". the amendment is agreed to. column 1033-1047.

on column 1073 we also see Arthur Blenkinsop proposing to make Waltham Holy Cross part of Hertfordshire, to unite it with Waltham Cross. this isn't favoured locally but they don't treat it as a crazy thing. even Norman Tebbit entertains the idea.

[edit] Save Somerset

Ok, I have Lords hansard for 16 October 1972. The amendments proposed are

2. Lord Jacques, proposes to have Belmont ward of Turton Urban District in MB Bolton rather than in Lancashire. Lord Sandford notes this had been the original proposal, but had been changed due to local demand. Amendment withdrawn. columns 1571-1576.

2A. Lord Tanlow proposes to "the parish of High Lane" remain in Cheshire (part of the South ward of Marple UD). Sanford notes that "perhaps it would help if in answering the Noble Lord if I started by making the point that there is no such thing as a parish of High Lane." Withdrawn. columns 1576-1580.

3. Lord Peddie proposes to keep Wilmslow in Cheshire. this goes on from columns 1580 to 1592. its argued that it would be silly to have Wilmslow in GM but Alderley Edge not. this is forced to a division, and we get 85 contents to 61 not-contents.

3A. Lord Woolley moves to keep Poynton out of Greater Manchester, by manuscript amendment (which he apologises for). This is forced to a division, and we get 66 conents vs 65 not-contents. this is columns 1592-1604.

"My Lords, once again we are aware that in the case of Poynton there is a strong body of opinion that would prefer Poynton to remain in Cheshire, and as they have hitherto been in the county of Cheshire this is not the least surprising."

4. Baroness Bacon moves to "take the urban district out of the Wakefield metropolitan district and to put it back in the Leeds metropolitan district". this would apparently have made the geography particularly odd. columns 1603 to 1614. result was 71 contents, 46 not-contents.

6. moved by Lord Arwyn, an amendment to remove Bath from Avon. columns 1613 to 1632. result is 26 contents, 68 not-contents.

6a. Earl Bathurst: remove parish of Alderley from Avon. "a result of local people in this parish of Alderley wishing to remain within the new county of Gloucestershire". Hawkesbury and Acton Turville wished to be in Avon not Glos. columns 1631 to 1634. amendment agreed to.

7/8. Baroness Berkeley: removal of parishes of Alkington, Berkeley, Ham and Stone, Hamfallow and Hinton from Avon. columns 1634 to 1635. agreed to.

10 etc. Lord Harding of Petherton.

"This amendment is the first of a number of Amendments all related to the Government's proposals for the boundary between the old county of Somerset and the new county of Avon". "If Weston-super-Mare is moved into Avon it will adverseley affect the balance between town and county in Somerset"

10 - keep Weston in Somerset

11/12/13/25/29 - bits of Axbridge Rural District in Somerset

15/16/20/24/26/27 - Mendip within Somerset

"It is true that the large majority of the Weston-super-Mare Borough Council has expressed itself in favour of Avon", but residents disagreed, he claims. this goes from columns 1635 to 1658. amendment 10 is rejected by 41-42.

harding then brings in amendment no 13, to "keep the whole of the parishes of Blagon and Burrington" in Somerset. this is negatived. column 1657 to 1659.

amendment 15 "places the whole of the divided parishes of East Hartley, West Hartley, Compton Martin and Ubley in Compton". this is negatived. column 1659 to 1661.

[edit] References

I have several texts at hand that cover this in detail. Is there anything that particularly requires a citation? Mrsteviec 10:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hampton, W., Local Government and Urban Politics, (1990) notes:
  • that South Glamorgan was described as a 'gerrymander' (p.47). Not sure if this should be included?
  • He also notes that the Tories were open to boundary changes where it would make a two-tier system more viable (p.37).
  • He notes (p.38) the commitment to two-tier was so strong it led to the creation of *three* local authorities on the Isle of Wight for a population of 100,000.
  • He notes (p.50) they later they would accept three unitary Scottish islands, only because of their remoteness. Mrsteviec 11:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
South Glamorgan, yeah - i think we have the substantive allegations there already, probably we need to use that word as well. There are also accusations that removing Ellesmere Port and Neston and adding Southport to Merseyside had the effect of a gerrymander : although probably the tories never came close to taking Merseyside County Council (what about Sefton MBC?).
Was anyone actually calling for an Isle of Wight unitary? I looked for this in hansard but couldn't really find anything. The districts were particularly stupid and I believe both district councils supported their abolition in 95. Morwen - Talk 13:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
No. The only reasons cited for the Scottish islands becoming unitary is the length of time it would take for someone to travel from them to the mainland and back (max given as 5 days) and also the distinct identity of Orkneys and Shetland (which would preclude being grouped into a 'Highlands and Islands' region). Although the text talks retrospectively about the efficiency of unitary solutions, there is no suggestion that anyone was using that as an argument for the IoW or even the scottish islands.
Hampton notes that generally the tories were more concerned about retaining boundaries that efficiency. Their unfailing commitment to the two-tier system was based on a belief that there should be a mixed urban-rural solution to local government instead of the towns and cities being "county boroughed off". This second point could probably go into the article as part of an "aims/objectives" section. (As an aside what could the tories have to gain from the blurring of urban and rural areas?) Mrsteviec 13:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It does seem that the system that ended up being adopted was essentially the one being put forward by the County Councils Assocations as well: Cheshire certainly considered the Nov 1971 Bill as a victory. Morwen - Talk 15:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

The structure of the article rather seems to have turned to random recently, probably as a result of me adding content without having thought about it beforehand. There's a particular problem in that the backgrounds for England and Wales are entirely different, as were the debates over boundaries, but the actual process of the passage of the Act was the same. any suggestions/anyone want to edit? i'm thinking that having prose under the sections with the tables in is a bad idea. Morwen - Talk 20:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I could have a go. I'm reading a text on this at the moment that goes into some detail; it has a shortish introduction and then deals with Wales and England in separate sections. It is probably a good idea to mirror this. Mrsteviec 10:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, bizarrely I seem to have started work on structuring it just as you were writing that. How odd. Morwen - Talk 10:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I will leave you to it. I will have another look at it some other time. Mrsteviec 10:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, as the article is getting long, some content could go in Metropolitan county and Shire county (shire county is quite short and metropolitan county probably duplicates). The two would also need extensive copyediting. Mrsteviec 10:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, splitting off sub-articles wouldn't be a bad idea. I'd rather see it become a huge sprawling article that we then edit down to be balanced. I think it currently focuses too much on boundaries, and we could do with more about things like agency, the demands of large districts for extra powers, changes to the actual structure of councils (abolition of aldermen) as well. also more about the electoral system it set up, the provisional designation of electoral divisions that were replaced for the next set of elections, how they decided who was going to be up for re-election the next time, that sort of thing. Do we need "reaction and aftermath" as a section on its own? Some of it could be moved to other sections: other bits were just the side effects of edit wars and probably shouldn't be there. Morwen - Talk 12:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The reaction section doesn't really represent what commentators are saying. The main issues were:

  1. Within two months 9 former county boroughs started a campaign to regain functions (Hampton, 1990)
  2. A group of other medium sized districts campaigned for some futher responsibilities (Hampton)
  3. Where functions were shared between levels there was difficulty co-operating (Redcliffe Maud & Wood, 1974) - further, the Association of County Councils commissioned Birmingham University to study this and they considered the flexibility between tiers confusing (Hampton) Mrsteviec 12:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. By the way, in the redo of the functions bit, it seems to have dropped the fact about some Welsh districts having extra powers. The last page of the white paper outlines proposed functions in England, I could probably type that in. Morwen - Talk 12:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do. Do the GLC / London boroughs get any new/amended powers under this Act? Perhaps that could get noted at the end of the table with the welsh variations. Mrsteviec 13:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] metropolitan counties in Wales

What is the wording of the source regarding this? I can't find really any powers of the Secretary of State to create new metropolitan counties anywhere so am unsure what this means. Morwen - Talk 16:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what I think it means. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England was given the power to recommend making this change - the Welsh one wasn't it. Can we clarify the wording? Morwen - Talk 16:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I no longer have Arnold-Baker (it is an annotated version of the LGA1972). My notes tell me that counties could not be designated metropolitan in Wales by the Secretary of State. I will take another look at it to get the exact wording, probably tomorrow. Mrsteviec 16:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see what I think it means. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England was given the power to recommend making this change - the Welsh one wasn't it. Can we clarify the wording? Morwen - Talk 16:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

the English Commission seems to have had (section 47) a pretty free hand in redrawing the maps of parishes, districts of counties, also it could recommend toggling between metropolitan and non-metropolitan. the only thing it couldn't really do is vary the border of Greater London. THe only big reviews I'm aware of happening were of Sefton and Humberside, which both resulted in status quo being recommended. This seems contrary to the predictions made in the 1970s.

the Welsh Commission had (and has!) pretty much the same powers. Alterations in the border between England and Wales would have been dealt with by a joint Commissions (section 62). These proposals all had to be rubber-stamped by the Secretary of State, so this is probably what Arnold-Baker said or means. Morwen - Talk 16:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isles of Scilly

The article makes no reference to the Council of the Isles of Scilly, which I believe was created as a sui generis unitary authority by this act. At least that is the implication of the information at:

Vision of Britain

If I am correct, then the statement for Cornwall is incorrect, and the 'other parts' column should read 'all except the Isles of Scilly'. -- Chris j wood 20:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point you have raised. I had a look at the Act. Section 1(1) states "For the administration of local government on and after 1st April 1974 England (exclusive of Greater London and the Isle of Scilly) shall be divided into local government areas..."
Schedule I, part II lists the non-metropolitan counties, and the area of Cornwall is stated to be the same as the administrative county of Cornwall.
Therefore, LGA 1972 didn't create the Council of the Isles of Scilly.
I then had a look at Youngs, and he makes the statement that the Isles of Scilly were technically not part of the ancient, administrative or non-metropolitan county of Cornwall.
The council's own website states [5] that they have been unitary "for over 100 years".
It would seem that Vision of Britain is in error, not for the first time. Lozleader 16:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh hang on! I have found it: Section 265

(1) There shall continue to be a council for the Isles of Scilly to be known as Council of the Isles of Scilly. (2) The Secretary of State may make an order providing for the constitution of the council of the Isles of scilly and otherwise for regulating the application of this Act to the Isles of Scilly...

According to this section orders regarding local government in the Isles were previously made under section 292 of the Local Government Act 1933.
Which means (I think) that the Council for the Isles of Scilly was not created by the 1972 Act, but continued in existence under a different name (previously being IoS rural district council, but not part of the admin county of Cornwall). Lozleader 17:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I've had a look at the Local Government Act 1888, and it sems clear that the Isles of Scilly Council (under whatever name) was created under that section 49 of that act:

49. (1) It shall be lawful for the Local Government Board to make a Provisional Order for regulating the application of this Act to the Scilly Islands, and for providing for the exercise and performance in those islands of the powers and duties of both of county councils and also of authorities under Acts relating to highways and the Public Health Act, 1875 and the acts amending the same and for the application to the islands of any act touching local government; and such Order may provide for the establishment of councils and other local authorities separate from those on the county of Cornwall, and for the contribution by the Scilly Islands to the county council of Cornwall in respect of costs incurred by the county council for matters specified in the said Order as benefitting the Scilly Islands, and such Order may also provide for all matters which appear to the Local Government Board necessary or proper for carrying the Order into effect.

(2) Any such order shall not be in force until it is confirmed by Parliament.

(3) Subject to the provisions of a Provisional Order under this Act, the county council of Cornwall shall have no greater powers or duties in the Scilly Islands than the quarter sessions of Cornwall have hitherto in fact exercised or performed therein, and the Scilly Islands shall not be included for the purposes of this Act in any electoral division of the county of Cornwall.

Youngs notes (in a footnote) that the Isles of Scilly Rural District was constituted in 1890. Lozleader 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/c/Talk%7ELocal_Government_Act_1972_d3a9.html"