Moving a borough / district boundary
Moderator: Site Management Team
- RichardA626
- Member
- Posts: 7841
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 22:19
- Location: Stockport
- Contact:
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
As part of my current job I have to save documents using the first line of the address.
When it's a common one I'll add the first bit of the postcode to make sure there isn't any confusion.
When it's a common one I'll add the first bit of the postcode to make sure there isn't any confusion.
Beware of the trickster on the roof
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
And, living in Yorkshire, there is a list of every region *except* Yorkshire. And the form refuses to continue until you select one.
I. Do. Not. Live. In. The. North-East.
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
Postal address and counties: I'm pleased counties are no longer needed as long as you've got the right post code. It removes anomalies that used to annoy me like the villages of Everton and Beckingham in Nottinghamshire. Both villages' postal town is Doncaster, so that used to require South Yorkshire in the full postal address, but they're both in Nottinghamshire.
There used to be a small piece of Nottinghamshire to the east of the B1190 a couple of miles south of the A57 near Saxilby. This was the case about 30 years ago, but some time since then the area has been transferred to Lincolnshire. I'm not sure of the district councils involved.
There used to be a small piece of Nottinghamshire to the east of the B1190 a couple of miles south of the A57 near Saxilby. This was the case about 30 years ago, but some time since then the area has been transferred to Lincolnshire. I'm not sure of the district councils involved.
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
Luton's boundary is mostly very logical and close to the edge of the urban and industrial areas, except for a chunk of the Bushmead housing estate which was built over 30 years ago and is in Central Beds. I'm surprised this has never been tidied up.
Owen
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
The problem with urban unitaries like Luton though is that they literally are developed right up to the city boundary, without really an understanding that the sphere of influence is much larger - there will be children attending schools, people working and shopping in the area from outside, visiting the hospital and using other amenities that are in Luton as well as using public transport from further afield to get to it - and the larger the urban area, the further its influence on the surrounding areas will spread... However, those people don't have any say in the electoral makeup of their nearest town, and are significantly disenfranchised as a result.
Altering the boundaries to take this into account would also put a stop to neighbouring authorities using up their house allocations by building up against someone elses town without providing any amenity...
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
Exactly, it works both ways. People outside the urban unitary boundary don't get much say over what goes on inside it, conversely authorities outside the boundary put their development right up against the boundary, further adding to congestion, pressure on public services and reducing convenient access to green space for those on the urban unitary side. Luton is particularly plagued with this problem, with Central Beds proposals on the northern edge and the dreadful A6 - M1 link road proposal, and Hertfordshire housing proposals on the east side.c2R wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 21:52The problem with urban unitaries like Luton though is that they literally are developed right up to the city boundary, without really an understanding that the sphere of influence is much larger - there will be children attending schools, people working and shopping in the area from outside, visiting the hospital and using other amenities that are in Luton as well as using public transport from further afield to get to it - and the larger the urban area, the further its influence on the surrounding areas will spread... However, those people don't have any say in the electoral makeup of their nearest town, and are significantly disenfranchised as a result.
Altering the boundaries to take this into account would also put a stop to neighbouring authorities using up their house allocations by building up against someone elses town without providing any amenity...
Owen
-
- Member
- Posts: 1179
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
- Location: Gone
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
We have such a beastie at the moment... 270 houses going on a greenfield site, tight up against the borough/district boundary. The neighbouring borough objected on the grounds that the development has no provision for anything other than houses...Telstarbox wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 22:47 The specific situation I'm thinking of is some undeveloped land which is currently at the extreme edge of one district, but it's allocated for development and would then sit more logically with the settlements in the neighbouring district.
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
This precisely why I believe that when it comes to housing and transport infrastructure we should be planning at a regional level rather than at the urban unitary authority. We have a horrible mix at the moment. North Yorkshire County Council does a reasonably good job with its highways but it all becomes nonsensical when you hit the Teesside conurbation and find it fragmented between multiple unitary authorities. Stockton have been pretty good at providing new roads for settlements such as Ingleby Barwick but Middlesbrough and Redcar are allowing more ribbon development along already overloaded roads.owen b wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 22:18
Exactly, it works both ways. People outside the urban unitary boundary don't get much say over what goes on inside it, conversely authorities outside the boundary put their development right up against the boundary, further adding to congestion, pressure on public services and reducing convenient access to green space for those on the urban unitary side. Luton is particularly plagued with this problem, with Central Beds proposals on the northern edge and the dreadful A6 - M1 link road proposal, and Hertfordshire housing proposals on the east side.
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
Yes, I've never understood why they wanted the unitaries that the Tyne Tees region was split into to be quite so small... Some of them have no possibility of being sustainable in the long run without serious levels of funding coming from above, as there's no way that council tax revenues and business rates can possibly cover the range of services that need to be provided in their local area - particularly in those with higher than average levels of deprivation, meaning lower council tax revenues are brought in, and lower business rates are achievable, but spending to support the population needs to be higher.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
- Steven
- SABRE Maps Coordinator
- Posts: 19237
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
- Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
- Contact:
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
However, people outside the boundary are quite happy being there as generally the headline rate of council tax is lower as the "commuter belt" authority doesn't need to concern itself with supporting public services so much - for example, most "commuter belt" authorities have fewer and smaller libraries, and have lower care bills to deal with.owen b wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 22:18
Exactly, it works both ways. People outside the urban unitary boundary don't get much say over what goes on inside it, conversely authorities outside the boundary put their development right up against the boundary, further adding to congestion, pressure on public services and reducing convenient access to green space for those on the urban unitary side. Luton is particularly plagued with this problem, with Central Beds proposals on the northern edge and the dreadful A6 - M1 link road proposal, and Hertfordshire housing proposals on the east side.
I disagree with the "regional level" item - we've been there and seen where that one leads, and it's not a good place as everything ends up happing in the regional Core City and everywhere else gets mostly ignored.KeithW wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 09:42This precisely why I believe that when it comes to housing and transport infrastructure we should be planning at a regional level rather than at the urban unitary authority. We have a horrible mix at the moment. North Yorkshire County Council does a reasonably good job with its highways but it all becomes nonsensical when you hit the Teesside conurbation and find it fragmented between multiple unitary authorities. Stockton have been pretty good at providing new roads for settlements such as Ingleby Barwick but Middlesbrough and Redcar are allowing more ribbon development along already overloaded roads.owen b wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 22:18
Exactly, it works both ways. People outside the urban unitary boundary don't get much say over what goes on inside it, conversely authorities outside the boundary put their development right up against the boundary, further adding to congestion, pressure on public services and reducing convenient access to green space for those on the urban unitary side. Luton is particularly plagued with this problem, with Central Beds proposals on the northern edge and the dreadful A6 - M1 link road proposal, and Hertfordshire housing proposals on the east side.
However, this is why single tier authorities everywhere based on Travel To Work Areas would be my starting point for reform; with an expectation that authorities would work together for proposals that are within a certain distance of the other.
Steven
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
It depends on the definition of regional. I am not talking about the North East region but in my case the Tees Valley Combined Authority which when it comes to roads is acting at this level to coordinate the unitary authorities.Steven wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 09:58
I disagree with the "regional level" item - we've been there and seen where that one leads, and it's not a good place as everything ends up happing in the regional Core City and everywhere else gets mostly ignored.
However, this is why single tier authorities everywhere based on Travel To Work Areas would be my starting point for reform; with an expectation that authorities would work together for proposals that are within a certain distance of the other.
Here is the TVCA Roads Implementation plan
https://teesvalley-ca.gov.uk/wp-content ... n-2020.pdf
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15771
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
When they abolished Cleveland County Council, they took the path of least resistance and made the four existing boroughs into unitary authorities. They really are too small by themselves, and it would probably have made more sense to have North Tees (Stockton + Hartlepool) and South Tees (Middlesbrough + Langbaurgh, as it was then) authorities, but I can already picture the pitchforks wielded in resistance to that. In fact, abolishing the boroughs might have been the better option, making the county the unitary authority. Cleveland isn't that huge, the population is only about 600,000. But again, pitchforks ...c2R wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 09:53 Yes, I've never understood why they wanted the unitaries that the Tyne Tees region was split into to be quite so small... Some of them have no possibility of being sustainable in the long run without serious levels of funding coming from above, as there's no way that council tax revenues and business rates can possibly cover the range of services that need to be provided in their local area - particularly in those with higher than average levels of deprivation, meaning lower council tax revenues are brought in, and lower business rates are achievable, but spending to support the population needs to be higher.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
- Steven
- SABRE Maps Coordinator
- Posts: 19237
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
- Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
- Contact:
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
The TTWAs in the region show that something like this would be an appropriate solution.Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 16:42 They really are too small by themselves, and it would probably have made more sense to have North Tees (Stockton + Hartlepool) and South Tees (Middlesbrough + Langbaurgh, as it was then) authorities, but I can already picture the pitchforks wielded in resistance to that.
They're basically:
* Hartlepool
* Stockton/Billingham/North of the Tees
* Middlesbrough/Guisebrough/Redcar/South of the Tees
whilst nearby Darlington is its own separate TTWA.
Steven
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
In reality it was not quite as bad as that. Stockton and Middlesbrough councils have mostly worked closely together even sharing the same bin collection service and recycling centre. As mentioned the TVCA has already stepped into the coordination role not just for Roads but for Rail and Aviation. They took Teesside Airport back into public ownership (under a conservative Mayor) and Darlington Station has got funds for a significant upgrade. Redcar and Cleveland tended to do its own thing but since the ruling labour councils were roundly defeated in the last local elections the councils are now largely controlled by independents who are rather more pragmatic.Steven wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 16:53The TTWAs in the region show that something like this would be an appropriate solution.Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 16:42 They really are too small by themselves, and it would probably have made more sense to have North Tees (Stockton + Hartlepool) and South Tees (Middlesbrough + Langbaurgh, as it was then) authorities, but I can already picture the pitchforks wielded in resistance to that.
They're basically:
* Hartlepool
* Stockton/Billingham/North of the Tees
* Middlesbrough/Guisebrough/Redcar/South of the Tees
whilst nearby Darlington is its own separate TTWA.
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15771
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
Guisborough (no e) please. I used to live there. It was expanding at the time, to become a dormitory town for Middlesbrough, also having middle management from. ICI Wilton and British Steel living there. As they have both gone, I wonder what has replaced them.Steven wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 16:53The TTWAs in the region show that something like this would be an appropriate solution.Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 16:42 They really are too small by themselves, and it would probably have made more sense to have North Tees (Stockton + Hartlepool) and South Tees (Middlesbrough + Langbaurgh, as it was then) authorities, but I can already picture the pitchforks wielded in resistance to that.
They're basically:
* Hartlepool
* Stockton/Billingham/North of the Tees
* Middlesbrough/Guisebrough/Redcar/South of the Tees
whilst nearby Darlington is its own separate TTWA.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
They should never have abolished Teesside County Borough. That's when the rot set in, a county and four districts fighting amongst themselves, and fossilising the arbitary district boundaries into the current unitaries.KeithW wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:30 It depends on the definition of regional. I am not talking about the North East region but in my case the Tees Valley Combined Authority which when it comes to roads is acting at this level to coordinate the unitary authorities.
Here is the TVCA Roads Implementation plan
https://teesvalley-ca.gov.uk/wp-content ... n-2020.pdf
-
- Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2019 01:20
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
Yep, Reading has suffered from this issue since the 1970s, not corrected by the Banham Report unitarisation of Berkshire in the mid-90s.
Just over a third of the Ding is in West Berks (Calcot/Purley/Beansheaf/most of Tilehurst/Holybrook) and Wokingham (Earley/Lower Earley/North Shinfield/Bulmershe/Woodley) districts.
It causes major issues with funding (as with elsewhere) and planning issues in some areas, someone made a submission to the recent local government boundary review in Reading, asking the Commission to move his house entirely into Reading or West Berks as he would like to put up a structure in his garden and he required planning permission from both authorities as the boundary ran straight through!
They were sadly unable to help him.
Although, the boundaries in the Caversham Park Village area got changed to bring the newly-built 70s housing estate into Reading from South Oxfordshire.
Just over a third of the Ding is in West Berks (Calcot/Purley/Beansheaf/most of Tilehurst/Holybrook) and Wokingham (Earley/Lower Earley/North Shinfield/Bulmershe/Woodley) districts.
It causes major issues with funding (as with elsewhere) and planning issues in some areas, someone made a submission to the recent local government boundary review in Reading, asking the Commission to move his house entirely into Reading or West Berks as he would like to put up a structure in his garden and he required planning permission from both authorities as the boundary ran straight through!
They were sadly unable to help him.
Although, the boundaries in the Caversham Park Village area got changed to bring the newly-built 70s housing estate into Reading from South Oxfordshire.
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
Even Reading University isn't in Reading!unrepentantfool wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 17:52 Yep, Reading has suffered from this issue since the 1970s, not corrected by the Banham Report unitarisation of Berkshire in the mid-90s.
Just over a third of the Ding is in West Berks (Calcot/Purley/Beansheaf/most of Tilehurst/Holybrook) and Wokingham (Earley/Lower Earley/North Shinfield/Bulmershe/Woodley) districts.
This is another one where Sykes/Picot can be fixed: link
-
- Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2019 01:20
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
It's half and half, London Road campus is wholly in the Borough and Whiteknights, yes, is split.
That image you posted would clearly be the proper boundary, apart from the weird salient of Sonning/Charvil, which would perfectly well fit in Windsor and Maidenhead, along with Remenham, Wargrave, Ruscombe, Hurst and Twyford.
That image you posted would clearly be the proper boundary, apart from the weird salient of Sonning/Charvil, which would perfectly well fit in Windsor and Maidenhead, along with Remenham, Wargrave, Ruscombe, Hurst and Twyford.
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
I must admit I am enjoying this discussion, as there are some very odd boundary anomalies in the UK. It is interesting to learn about the fact certain councils don't want to see areas of land moved due to business rate income possibly being transferred to another council? Here in Colchester, part of the Severalls Industrial Estate. is in the neighbouring district of Tendring although the estate is geographically part of Colchester. I am not sure what happens when a large building is partly in one council and partly in another?