Talk:Local Government Commission for England (1992)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Local Government Commission for England (1992) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Contents

[edit] Cumbria

Recently Cumberland and Westmorland were edited to imply that the electoral commission had recommended the restoration of Cumberland and Westmorland, but were ignored by the government. I couldn't find any copies of the Cumbria Draft and Final reports to buy, so emailed the Electoral Commission

I am afraid that we do not have spare copies of the reports, but I have
summarised the recommendations for you.

The 1994 review of Cumbria was part of a series of reviews which looked
into whether the existing Counties and their districts could be more
effectively run as Unitary Authorities. The attached map shows the
existing districts in Cumbria.

The draft recommendations gave 3 options:

1. No change; A county council for Cumbria and 6 district councils
(areas 1-6 on the map).
2. 2 Unitary Authorities; South Cumbria - areas 3 and 4 and the southern
part of 5 and North Cumbria areas 1,2 and 6 and most of 5.
3. 3 Unitary Authorities; South Cumbria (as above), West Cumbria - area
6 and most of 5, and Carlisle and Eden - areas 1 and 2.

They also recommended the return of the historic boundaries of
Lancashire and Yorkshire for ceremonial purposes, with either Cumberland
and Westmorland ceremonial counties, or a Cumbria ceremonial county
covering the two. Ceremonial Counties are the counties used by the
Crown, with a Lord Lieutenant representing the Monarch in each area.

The final recommendations proposed a retention of the two-tier, county
and district structure. The Commission considered that it had received
insufficient response to the proposal for a return to the historic
boundaries for ceremonial county to endorse the idea in the final
recommendations, and so proposed no change to ceremonial boundaries
either.

I hope that this answers your query.

Morwen - Talk 15:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I then asked to clarify the authorities proposed

Although the report does not explicitly refer to the historic areas of
Cumberland, Westmorland and Furness when making it's recommendations for
the administrative boundaries, it does appear that the boundary change
was intended to include all (or certainly most) of the Furness area in
South Cumbria. The boundary between South Cumbria and the one or two
authorities to the north is, however, not identical to the
Westmorland/Cumberland boundary, with not all of Westmorland included in
South Cumbria. Cumberland and Westmorland were not suggested as names
for North and South Cumbria.

Morwen - Talk 16:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and for reference, the district numbers here are

  1. City of Carlisle
  2. Eden
  3. South Lakeland
  4. Barrow-in-Furness (borough)
  5. Copeland
  6. Allerdale

Morwen - Talk 10:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Uk or GB?

Bearing in mind the comment added that no changes were made in Northern Ireland in the 90s should this article be re-named changes in Great British local gov? --C Hawke 12:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering whether it might even be worth just splitting this into 3 articles - although the move to unitary authorities in the 3 parts wasn't unrelated. Morwen - Talk 22:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my own summary

this is from the final report:

draft recommendation one was two unitaries

  • North Cumbria: covering Barrow, South Lakeland and parts of Copeland (Millom) and Eden (Orton/Tebay/Shap/Ravenstonedale)
  • South Cumbria: the other covering Allerdale, Carlisle, and the rest of Copeland and Eden

recommendation two was three unitaries

  • South Cumbria: same as south cumbria above
  • West Cumbria: Allerdale, rest of Copeland
  • North Cumbria (Carlisle & Eden): Carlisle, rest of Eden

"The commission noted an interest at Stage 1 from local people (particularly in the south of the county) for the restoration of historic counties, and therefore proposed the following recommendation (which applied to either unitary option)

Those areas of Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council and South Lakeland District Council formerly in Lancashire should be returned to historic Lancashire for ceremonial and related purposess The areas currently in South Lakeland which were formerly in Yorkshire should be returned to historic Yorkshire for ceremonial and related purposes. Other areas should similarly be restored to Cumberland and Westmorland (or remain as 'Cumbria') for ceremonial and related purposes."

"In the consultation report, the Commission noted support for the restoration of areas in the borough of Barrow-in-Furness and the district of South Lakeland to historic Lancashire and of the parishes of Dent, Garsdale and Sedbergh to historic Yorkshire. It also asked for views on whether the historic counties of Cumberland and Westmorland should be restored for ceremonial and related issues. The Commission heard from few people on this subject during the consultation period, although support was indicated by the Friends of Real Lancashire. In view of this, and the recommendation that there should be no change to the existing structure of local government, the Commission does not propose any changes."

194.66.226.95 11:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suffolk

I have a leaflet which i picked up in Suffolk 10 or more years ago. Entitled "Suffolk Works, why change it?" and printed by Suffolk County Council. Apparently the Commission had presented two options and was sending a leaflet to residents. The options being to divide the county into four, or retain the status quo. The four were Ipswich (same as the borough), East suffolk, West Suffolk and "Yartoft" which was a merger of Waveney and Great Yarmouth in Norfolk. Not sure which districts were in East and west, but there's a map. I don't see it in the article? Lozleader 21:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - that would be the draft recommendations. I'll add those to article in a bit - working on the final ones atm. Morwen - Talk 21:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, there's a particularly confused article in the Guardian on July 15, 1994, that states the commission treated Norfolk and Suffolk as a unit, and recommended
  • Ipswich
  • Norwich
  • West Norfolk (Kings Lynn)
  • North East Norfolk (Broads)
  • Breckland and South Norfolk
  • Waveney and Great Yarmouth
  • West Suffolk
  • East Suffolk

as draft recommendations. because of the local reaction the ultimate recommendations in the district were status quo. Ipswich and Norwich must have been annoyed. getting the full list of draft recommendations out is a bit trickier because they weren't published in batches. Morwen - Talk 23:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phear my references section

! Morwen - Talk 07:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Any ideas for a name for a split of the English section out into its own article? Banham Commission won't work because of Cooksey, I don't like the idea of tacking it to Local Government Act 1992, and the Local Government Commission for England did do other stuff as well (electoral reviews, and the review of Sefton spring to mind). Morwen - Talk 11:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cambridgeshire

Preferred draft recommendations for Cambs were

A. The City & County of Cambridge (Cambridge/South Cambridgeshire/East Cambridgeshire) B. Huntingdonshire (Huntingdonshire Council) C. Peterborough & the Fens (Peterborough and Fenland)

it offered as other options

A. The City & County of Cambridgeshire (as above) B. Peterborough and Huntingdonshire (Huntingdonshire/Peterborough/Fenland)

A. The City and County of Cambridgeshire (Cambridge/South Cambridgeshire) B. The Fens (or Isle of Ely) (Fenland/East Cambridgeshire) C. Huntingdonshire D. Peterborough

it did not propose a Huntingdonshire ceremonial county or an inclusion of Peterborough in Northamptonshire ceremonial county.

There was a recommendation, agreed by the Peterborough and Hunts councils to move the Southern Township to Peterborough (parts of Alwalton and Yaxley parishes), and "that part of Farcet village currently in Peterborough should be transferred to Huntingdonshire"

"there is some difference in the structural preferences of residents in different parts of Huntingdonshire. There is very strong support in North Huntingdonshire (77 per cent), and to a lesser extent in the Huntingdon area itself (58 per cent). By contrast, more residents in St Neots supported options which did not include a unitary Huntingdonshire than supported those options which did (53% to 46%). In South Huntingdonshire the equivilant figures were 51% to 48%"

Huntingdonshire District Council wanted unitary Huntingdonshire (natch). Oddly Cambridgeshire County Council had the two-unitary option above the status quo.

It notes "strong reservations have been expressed by the county counciy, by a number of the statutory consultees and by some local opinion in Huntingdonshire about the ability [...]"

Final recommendation: no change in local government.

Ceremonial issues: "126. The Commission recognised that the strongly held loyalties that many people have for the county. The Commission's draft recommendation therefore was that the existing county of Cambridgeshire should be retained for ceremonial and related purposes.

127. There has been some local debate, during the review, about the issue of Huntingdonshire once again becoming a ceremonial county. However, this proposition is not supported by Huntingdonshire District Council and does not seem to be specifically supported in views expressed to the Commission by local residents in Huntingdonshire (leaving aside their support for a unitary Huntingdonshire)"

Also notes there is a case for a boundary revision of Cambridge, and recommends a swap between Hunts and Peterborough.

community identity table : mori poll conducted May/July 1993

"how strongly do you feel you belong to each of the following areas?"

District District Very District Very/fairly County Very County Very/fairly
Cambridge 25 64 13 43
East Cambs 12 54 8 52
Fenland 22 57 14 50
Hunts 15 59 8 50
Peterborough 23 68 8 46
South Cambridgeshire 13 50 12 48

[edit] Cherry picking

3.1 Basildon/Thurrock

It was proposed to remove Billericay and Wickford from Basildon. Basildon DC wanted a unitary for the new town in the south of the district only. Brentwood was ok with taking Brentwood, but Rochford didn't want to annex Wickford against its wishes. it recommended a "Brentwood and Billericay District Council" (Billericay East West and Burstead wards) and a "Rochford and Wickford District Council" (Wickford North and South wards). it recommended a two-tier Billericay District Council, with a population of 105,000. it notes Castle Point would have been left in odd situation.

3.2 Blackpool and Blackburn

"Commission accepts that the existing boundary [of Blackpool] is not ideal". it has a histogram showing people near Blackpool don't like it.

MORI Blackpool 59%

MORI Blackburn 39%/32%

3.3 Nottingham fringe

Broxtowe BC wanted no change. Gedling BC didn't especially want change. Rushcliffe BC wanted unitary status. No overwhelmingly popular support: MORI polling shows 60%/27% in Broxtowe, 48%/40% in Gedling, 45%/39% in Rushcliffe. Ken Clarke and Andrew Mitchell supported unitaries for all three, and Jim Lester supported unitary Broxtowe.

"a merger of any or all of the three districts is not considered viable [...] was not put forward by any representative group". Vaguely hints that amalgamation with Nottingham would be more sensible but doesn't actually say this. Recommends no change.

3.4 Dartford and Gravesham

It suggested in the draft recommendations that "the proposition of a unitary authority for Dartford and Gravesham should once again be tested". Notes Thames Gateway strategy.

Kent County Council opposed (natch). Dartford wanted to be unitary on its own. Gravesham didn't want unitary. MORI poll shows 35%/13% support in the boroughs compared to 56%/71% no change. it notes "a boundary change between Dartford and Gravesham, to encompass the Ebbsfleet development site in one authority, might have resolved some of the problems but was not explored in any depth during this review."

recommends no change but "is troubled by the County Council's instistence upon the lack of distinctiveness between north Kent and the remainder of the county"

Gillingham and Rochester

Draft recommendation was for a single unitary authority of the Medway Towns. Rochester City Council wanted the change. Gillingham Borough Council didn't. Notes it has a "the case for a merged authority has a long pedigree". Notes that the "poor relationships between the two-existing councils" makes a good case for a single council.

3.5 Exeter

Draft recommendations was no change. "only marginally viable for unitary status". Exeter City Council supported, Devon County Council didn't. Plymouth and Torbay did. MORI showed 53% in favour vs 32% against in Exeter. rejects laregely due to size.

3.6 Gloucester

Draft recommendations no change.

"the proximity of Gloucester and Cheltenham necessitated unified oversight". City Council wanted it, County Council didn't. Seems to think it is smallish but not too small, but the Cheltenham thing seems to be the killer

3.7 Halton and Warrington

Draft recommendation Halton unitary.

supported by Halton BC, opposed by Cheshire CC.

MORI 39%/34%.

"strong support for a unitary authority in Halton from businesses and business groups within the borough". "case is not overwhemling", but decides to recommend unitary.

Draft recommendation Warrington unitary

"the County Council sees Warrington as central to Cheshire". interstingly there was a Ship Canal split, with north of the Ship Canal supporting change, and south of the Ship Canal supporting no change.

Recommends unitary.

3.8 Huntingdonshire and Peterborough

Hunts Draft recommendation no change.

"In its report, the Commission considered that there was no exceptional county allegiance to Huntingdonshire, as had been percieved in Rutland and Herefordshire." "questions about the authority's resourcecapacity and difficulty in discerning any clear advantage of the unitary proposal against the two-tier arrangement, when the consequences for Cambridgeshire were takne into account". Notes concern for Fenland in rump Cambs.

"Huntingdonshire District Council considers that it should be granted unitary status because of its history as a county, noting recent expressions of spontaneous support. [...] Furthermore, the Council feels that it has an affinity with the East Midlands, unlike the rest of the county"

81% of representations from Huntingdonshire wanted status quo, vs 13% unitary. Mori polling showed 47% unitary, 40% no change. decides against a unitary Hunts.

Peterborough draft recommendation unitary

MORI 40%/40%. Recommends unitary finally : large size & Cambs remains viable. Some concerns about Fenland.

3.9 Northampton

Draft recommendations Northampton unitary. "it had many of the hallmarks for unitary status. It is large and growing and there are strongly expressed affinities to the town, although not to the area of the Borough Council. [...] There are other urban centres in Northamptonshire, and the remaining county council would be capable..." "despite the potential strengths of the case for unitary status for Northampton, the arguments for no change had widespread local currency"

Northamptonshire County Council opposed change very strongly. Northampton Borough Council wanted unitary status, and noted that "local opinion had been influenced by the publicity campaigns of the County Council". NBC noted "a town the size of Northampton would be an unacceptable anomaly in English local government, were it to fail to achieve unitary status".

MORI showed in Northampton 44% no change, 28% unitary, 20% not sure. William Powell, Tony Marlow, Michale Morriss all supported unitary Northampton. Peter Fry opposed. Tim Boswell sat on fence conditionally. "The Commission is persuaded that, as with Exeter and Gloucester, the separation of Northampton from its county would have a significant and detrimental effect". It declares Northampton does not achieve a "regional role" as well and this is a reason.

3.10 Norwich

Draft recommendations no change.

Notes "displays a complex interplay of arguments to an exceptional degree". "issues arising from Norwich's restrictive boundary, with 60,000 people living within the built-up area but outside the city boundary led the Commission to its draft recommendation for no change".

Norfolk County Council wanted no change. Norwich City Council wa wanted unitary status, and "that the Secretary of State instigate a boundary review at the earliest possible time".

MORI in Norwich: 43% unitary, 45% unitary.

"the case for unitary status has been articulated through wide-spread publicity [...] Despite this an even balance of opinion of residents of Norwich exists as between change on the existing boundary and no change." Recommends no change in end.

3.11 Spelthorne

draft recommendation no change

"made up of small communities lacking a strong centre". notes Middlesex, the Thames, and its position between Berkshire and Greater London unitaries. would be a "relatively small" unitary. Surrey County Council didn't want change. Spelthorne Borugh Council did. "in many respects it sees the borough as having strong parallels with Thurrock". Also issues with Heathrow. MORI showed 46% in favour of unitary, 41% no change. David Wiltshire strongly supported unitary status.

"3.11.12 The issue of community identity has been particularly relevant to the Spelthorne debate. Affinity with Surrey has been questioned by supporters of a unitary authority. However, the desire to be in Middlesex appears to be waning and a similar proportion now identify with Surrey. [...]"

"clearly does not regard itself as more of London than of its own county", "quite typical of district councils within the two-tier structure in south-east England".

recommends against because of "conerns about the internal coherence of the area", and also on its smallness

3.12 Wrekin

draft recommendations unitary.

notes Shropshire "would become the smallest two-tier English county".

Shropshire CC opposed, Wrekin DC supported.

Commission: "case for the Wrekin to achieve unitary status in terms of its size, location, history and character is strong". Notes that Shropshire CC will not be much smaller than it had been before Telford New Tow, and of similar size to East Riding, Herefordshire and North Lincs which will be ok as education authorities.


also made various random consequential proposals, and warding.

5.5.1/5.1.2 notes that there has been "no representations on this issue during Stage Three consultations" regarding the retention of Halton and Warrington in Cheshire for ceremonial purposes.

5.7 considers boundary changes between Runnymede and Spelthorne based on the course of the River Thames: "former islands in the river are now attached to the 'wrong' bank." it recommends these. the offending areas are Church Island (to Runnymede), south of Penton Hook Island (to Runnymede), Chertsey Lock (to Spelthorne), Chetsey Meads (to Runnymede). these aren't terribly large changes but do affect 26.8 ha and 130 people. did this happen?

[edit] Membership

Cooksey Commission was ->

  • Dr Bob Chilton (Chief Executive)

Banham Commission was ->

  • Martin Eastel (Chief Executive)

[edit] Criticism

Pondering a political opinions/evaluation section. It's a bit too soon for there to be much literature about this : it would be good to see what we can find, though. There's current political opinion on the process: David Miliband cited it as an example of something he'd like to avoid. There was a lot of party political criticism at the time as well, but this tended to be mainly concerned with specific issues rather than the entire farce of it.

On the other hand, the mere sequence of events and the court cases perfectly well demonstrates how bizarre and fickle both the commission and the government were, so do we need more? Morwen - Talk 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As an example of this, the original plan for Derbyshire was accused of being gerry-mandering as it removed Chesterfield&Derby and would have left the county tory-controlled (Border-rigging charge as Tories redraw county, The Guardian, 7 November, 1993) But then the re-review of Derbyshire to create wholly unitary authorities was criticised on precisely the same grounds! The inclusion of Derbyshire in the first tranche was particularly odd : it otherwise consists of Cleveland, Avon, Humberside and their neighbours, and the Isle of Wight. Morwen - Talk 21:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Atkinson, H. & Wilks-Heeg, S., Local Government from Thatcher to Blair: The Politics of Creative Autonomy, (2000) has a lengthy critique of the review (p.111-116). They note:
  • The review was constructed as a distraction from the poll tax
  • The review was controversial
  • Words used to describe it: 'inept', 'fiasco', 'shambolic'
  • Recommendations were not in line with expectations e.g. only 7 of 39 county councils were to be abolished and unitary authorities were created in a system dominated by a two-tier structure
  • Banham used public opinion far too much as a barometer. e.g. Unitary Durham was unpopular so not recommended
  • The review was dominated by established interests
  • The approach was inconsistent between tranches
  • Conservative MPs objected to unitary Somerset and Gummer rejected it on this basis
  • Commentators considered many of the unitary districts to be under-bounded
  • The government was too directly involved with every stage of the process
  • There were policy shifts during the reviews.
The text points to Leach, S. & Stoker, G., Understanding the local government review: a retrospective analysis, (1997). This may be worth getting a copy of. Mrsteviec 10:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind adding a few points from this to cover questions raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Local Government Commission for England (1992)? (although I'd be wary at outright saying that it was shambolic or a distraction ourselves : that wants attributing in text not just as references) Morwen - Talk 17:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Atkinson & Wilks-Heeg were also wary of saying those things outright and directly attibute them to Leach & Stoker. It is possible I might be able to get a copy of this, possibly on Wednesday. I want to know what else they had to say. Mrsteviec 19:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dorset

July 8, 1994, The Times Residents to get choice of county says the LGCE proposed a postal referendum for Bournemouth and Christchurch to see if they want to return to Hampshire. this doesn't appear to have been in the final proposals, which will however explain why. it notes the change would be ceremonial only, and Dorset police etc would continue to serve the area. Preferred option was Poole, Bournemouth/Christchurch, rural Dorset. Morwen - Talk 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/c/Talk%7ELocal_Government_Commission_for_England_%281992%29_cff8.html"