It was apparently assigned to Suffolk by the Local Government Act of 1898 before that apparently the town was split between Suffolk and Cambridgeshire.Big Nick wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 11:41 Surely all of Newmarket should be in Cambridgeshire?
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 53,0.38124,
And what was going on near Ashby-de-la-Zouch?
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 53,0.38124,
Moving a borough / district boundary
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
An estuary is part of a sea. While there is no simple universally accepted definition of one, they all agree on that.the cheesecake man wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:36An estuary is part of a river not a completely different hydrological feature. Calling the Humber a river is correct, just not as precise as calling it an estuary.
Whether or not you wish to argue that The Humber is a river (small "r"), there is no River Humber (big "R"). So if the Ordinance Survey call it that they are unarguably wrong. That is not its name.
Although I have never previously seen anyone argue that Skegness (well, technically Gibraltar Point) and Hunstanton are on opposite sides of a river.
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
The racecourse complex is still split. The Rowley Mile course is in Suffolk, the other courses such as the July course and the Cesarewitch course are in Cambridgeshire.KeithW wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:10It was apparently assigned to Suffolk by the Local Government Act of 1898 before that apparently the town was split between Suffolk and Cambridgeshire.Big Nick wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 11:41Surely all of Newmarket should be in Cambridgeshire?
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 53,0.38124,
And what was going on near Ashby-de-la-Zouch?
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 53,0.38124,
“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
The most common definition of an estuary is that its that section of a river outfall where it mixes with waters in some larger body of water, typically its a sea but there are examples where they mix with water from a large freshwater body of water such as Lake Erie. You can see the mixing zone using the aerial view of the point at which the turbid waters of the Cuyahoga River flow in Lake Erie at Cleveland.someone wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 13:11An estuary is part of a sea. While there is no simple universally accepted definition of one, they all agree on that.the cheesecake man wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:36An estuary is part of a river not a completely different hydrological feature. Calling the Humber a river is correct, just not as precise as calling it an estuary.
Whether or not you wish to argue that The Humber is a river (small "r"), there is no River Humber (big "R"). So if the Ordinance Survey call it that they are unarguably wrong. That is not its name.
Although I have never previously seen anyone argue that Skegness (well, technically Gibraltar Point) and Hunstanton are on opposite sides of a river.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Old ... authuser=0
The exact point at which this occurs varies with the state of the tide and the river flow so its more of a range than a fixed point, however human activities may change this. The land boundary of the estuarine waters of the River Tees is now the fixed point of the Tees Barrage. Some branches of the Amazon have a high enough flow and a narrow enough mouth to remain as fresh water well offshore.
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
As I understand it the reason for the selection of the sections combined was to produce a single sanitary district which would be responsible for public health matters such as providing clean drinking water, sewers, street cleaning, and clearing slum housing.Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 14:03 The racecourse complex is still split. The Rowley Mile course is in Suffolk, the other courses such as the July course and the Cesarewitch course are in Cambridgeshire.
-
- Member
- Posts: 616
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
More than likely down to land ownership - the big landowners didn't like having their estates in multiple counties. So a county would consist of a contiguous area, plus all the land owned by Lord X that would otherwise be in the next county.Big Nick wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 11:41 And what was going on near Ashby-de-la-Zouch?
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 53,0.38124,
If you want really crazy boundaries, look at Cromartyshire. Over 20 separate parts, and Cromarty isn't even in the largest one. All because the Earl of Cromartie didn't like having his land in Ross-shire so had it moved.
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
SMT note. Simon, we don't do that here.someone wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 13:11An estuary is part of a sea. While there is no simple universally accepted definition of one, they all agree on that.the cheesecake man wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:36An estuary is part of a river not a completely different hydrological feature. Calling the Humber a river is correct, just not as precise as calling it an estuary.
Whether or not you wish to argue that The Humber is a river (small "r"), there is no River Humber (big "R"). So if the Ordinance Survey call it that they are unarguably wrong. That is not its name.
Although I have never previously seen anyone argue that Skegness (well, technically Gibraltar Point) and Hunstanton are on opposite sides of a river.
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
Well, I for one would say that they are , well at least Gibraltar Point and Hunstanton. Only last Thursday, I was standing on the green at Hunstanton and looking across the river to the other side and Skeggy although Skegness is round the point that marks estuary from seaside.
However I also accept that there are other and better ways of describing it.
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
An estuary is typically both part of a river and part of a sea (as Keith W says there are some exceptions). Whoever wrote the Wikipedia entry disagrees on this (in my opinion incorrectly), but the Humber is both a river and an estuary. As for whether it's the River Humber (proper noun), well I'll take the evidence of the Ordnance Survey over someone on the internet.someone wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 13:11An estuary is part of a sea. While there is no simple universally accepted definition of one, they all agree on that.the cheesecake man wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:36An estuary is part of a river not a completely different hydrological feature. Calling the Humber a river is correct, just not as precise as calling it an estuary.
Whether or not you wish to argue that The Humber is a river (small "r"), there is no River Humber (big "R"). So if the Ordinance Survey call it that they are unarguably wrong. That is not its name.
Although I have never previously seen anyone argue that Skegness (well, technically Gibraltar Point) and Hunstanton are on opposite sides of a river.
There's a perfectly good logical argument that the sea extends all the way to the tidal limit of a river, in the case of the Thames as far as Teddington lock, the Yorkshire Ouse not far short of York, while the Amazon is tidal 600 miles upstream of the mouth.
Owen
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
There have been several attempts by Newmarket itself to get it transfered into Cambridge, most recently (I think) in the 1970s reorganisations, but every time the Government has listened more to people who want to keep it in Suffolk surrounded by Cambridgeshire on four side.Big Nick wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 11:41 Surely all of Newmarket should be in Cambridgeshire?
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 53,0.38124,
In the absence of being added to Cambridgeshire, Newmarket has rather ironically annexed bits of Cambridgeshire into Suffolk.
-
- Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2019 01:20
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
That's because the current BoW is a complete mish mash of village, towns and outer Reading suburbs. It's what they created for the bit of eastern Berks that had nowhere else to go at the time really.trickstat wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 08:12As things stand, Wokingham is the most populous of the Berkshire authorities which is surprising to outsiders likeme.Micro The Maniac wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 06:34To be honest, just as using the M4 as the southern boundary makes sense, using the A329(M)/A3290 as the eastern boundary provides a clear line. Yes, this would mean the Winnersh Triangle falls into the area... and I'd include the Thames Valley Business Park as this is (in effect) just a spur of the A3290unrepentantfool wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 21:38 I kinda get your case with Sonning, but there are a significant amount of fields between Charvil/Twyford and Reading. They belong in a rural authority, the eastern towns in Reading moved into their correct LA would make Wokingham unviable, the rump being merged with Bracknell Forest to form “East Berks” council. Twyford/Ruscombe/Wargrave and all the other northern villages in Woky district would then head into Windsor and Maidenhead as they would be even further from the population centre of the district. And that area has good rail and road connections to Maidenhead anyway.
But I agree that merging Bracknell Forest and Wokingham seems logical
-
- Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2019 01:20
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
Winnersh Triangle would make perfect sense being in Reading, it contains a sizeable P and R serving the town centre, although the resulting "East Berks" wouldn't be very happy if the office park was moved in and they lost the business rates.Micro The Maniac wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 06:34To be honest, just as using the M4 as the southern boundary makes sense, using the A329(M)/A3290 as the eastern boundary provides a clear line. Yes, this would mean the Winnersh Triangle falls into the area... and I'd include the Thames Valley Business Park as this is (in effect) just a spur of the A3290unrepentantfool wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 21:38 I kinda get your case with Sonning, but there are a significant amount of fields between Charvil/Twyford and Reading. They belong in a rural authority, the eastern towns in Reading moved into their correct LA would make Wokingham unviable, the rump being merged with Bracknell Forest to form “East Berks” council. Twyford/Ruscombe/Wargrave and all the other northern villages in Woky district would then head into Windsor and Maidenhead as they would be even further from the population centre of the district. And that area has good rail and road connections to Maidenhead anyway.
But I agree that merging Bracknell Forest and Wokingham seems logical
TVBP would definitely be moved in, the River could perfectly well be the boundary until a line from the skew bridge carrying the A4 over the Great Western Main Line and the Thames, because that's where Reading ends and Sonning starts.
South of the line, the Old Loddon would generally be a good boundary for the new Borough, until Winnersh Triangle where it should follow the B3270/M4.
- the cheesecake man
- Member
- Posts: 2480
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
My dictionary doesn't so clearly they don't all agree.someone wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 13:11An estuary is part of a sea. While there is no simple universally accepted definition of one, they all agree on that.the cheesecake man wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:36An estuary is part of a river not a completely different hydrological feature. Calling the Humber a river is correct, just not as precise as calling it an estuary.
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
Aye, it is true that you can have estuaries which are not connected to a sea. One way of categorizing them is where chemically different waters mix.KeithW wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 14:34The most common definition of an estuary is that its that section of a river outfall where it mixes with waters in some larger body of water, typically its a sea but there are examples where they mix with water from a large freshwater body of water such as Lake Erie.
The problem is whether you use a definition based on hydrology and how the flow and mixing of waters, or a geological one about the features where it happens. The latter is the more common basis and all technical definitions start with something to the effect that "an estuary is a partly enclosed coastal water which…" before going on to add specific criteria.
But while strictly an estuary does not need to feature a seat, more commonly it does not have to feature a river. Lagoons, bays, fjords, rias, sounds etc. are often estuaries. The Wadden Sea itself is an estuary.
While it is not quite the same as looking to Cardiff from Weston-super-Mare, but my dad lives near Skegness so looking across from Hunstanton always feels very strange to me. Though probably in part because I would never call it the Wash a river!
Fair enough, though you should probably question why they are in a minority as very few other officiazl organizations call it that. Such as in the environment agency's current strategy consultation:
https://consult.environment-agency.gov. ... egyreview/
Usually where I have seen "River Humber" used in any sort of official capacity, it is done so inconsistently with its real name.
And please describe me correctly, I am someone on the internet who used to live in Hull! I still miss the sight of coming home by train along the Hessle foreshore and under the Humber Bridge. I would put my emotional connection to the estuary ahead of that of some cartographer's in an office somewhere, presumably, near River Southampton Water.
Sure, but most dictionaries are wrong about most technical definitions because they have to simplify what can be vast topics into one or two sentences.the cheesecake man wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 13:52My dictionary doesn't so clearly they don't all agree.
There is famously an entire scientific paper on the topic of just defining what they are, and it did not resolve the issue! Though I think, it being from a geological perspective, it was what lead to all subsequent definitions begin by stating that they are enclosed bodies of costal water.
The dictionary on my computer says they are the tidal mouth of a large river. As with KeithW's example, that is not correct. And seiches, as effect the Great Lakes, are not tides though they have a similar effect. And stormwater can also form estuaries where natural barriers otherwise keep waters separate during dry seasons. The rain during wet seasons cause the water to overflow these and mix. Despite the etymology, an estuary does not have to be caused by a tide.
I would agree with owen b that you should not take my word as just someone on the internet who used to live in Hull, but there is plenty of scientific discussion on line. If you want accuracy then please source it from geologists and hydrologists rather a dictionary. Even a lexicographer will tell you that is not the purpose of one.
Put it another way, my dictionary also says a motorway is "a dual-carriageway road designed for fast traffic, with relatively few places for joining or leaving." No one would dare say that on here without fear of being told how a motorway is only a special road restricted to class I and II traffic, and that they can have any speed limit, number of carriageways, or frequency of junctions. But for most people that is a generally acceptable description of their experience of them, it is only those interested in what a motorway actually is that will find it insufficient or wrong.
No idea what is not done, but while it is an interesting discussion to me, it is way off topic of the effect on roads of boundary changes.
- Vierwielen
- Member
- Posts: 5712
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
- Location: Hampshire
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
Merging Bracknell Forest and Wokingham might seem logical when you look at a map, but I don't think that the locals would agree - the two towns are very different.Micro The Maniac wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 06:34To be honest, just as using the M4 as the southern boundary makes sense, using the A329(M)/A3290 as the eastern boundary provides a clear line. Yes, this would mean the Winnersh Triangle falls into the area... and I'd include the Thames Valley Business Park as this is (in effect) just a spur of the A3290unrepentantfool wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 21:38 I kinda get your case with Sonning, but there are a significant amount of fields between Charvil/Twyford and Reading. They belong in a rural authority, the eastern towns in Reading moved into their correct LA would make Wokingham unviable, the rump being merged with Bracknell Forest to form “East Berks” council. Twyford/Ruscombe/Wargrave and all the other northern villages in Woky district would then head into Windsor and Maidenhead as they would be even further from the population centre of the district. And that area has good rail and road connections to Maidenhead anyway.
But I agree that merging Bracknell Forest and Wokingham seems logical
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
... in which case the Humber would be called the Trent and be the estuarine part of the Trent. (Or be called the Ouse and be the estuarine part of the Ouse.)KeithW wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 14:34The most common definition of an estuary is that its that section of a river outfall where it mixes with waters in some larger body of water, typically its a sea ...someone wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 13:11An estuary is part of a sea. While there is no simple universally accepted definition of one, they all agree on that.the cheesecake man wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:36An estuary is part of a river not a completely different hydrological feature. Calling the Humber a river is correct, just not as precise as calling it an estuary.
Whether or not you wish to argue that The Humber is a river (small "r"), there is no River Humber (big "R"). So if the Ordinance Survey call it that they are unarguably wrong. That is not its name.
Although I have never previously seen anyone argue that Skegness (well, technically Gibraltar Point) and Hunstanton are on opposite sides of a river.
An estuary cannot by itself be a river; it needs to have an upstream segment (river with a small r, you might say).
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
Hi ChrisChris Bertram wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 15:06I wanted to come back to this because I wasn't sure that this was quite true. And bearing in mind that maps showing county boundaries before 1974 drew Warwickshire as including the whole of Birmingham in its present form (almost anyway, there have been some minor changes since then), I needed to check this. Birmingham - which has always been in Warwickshire no matter how large or small - has grown considerably since 1848. The area I live in - Kings Heath - was absorbed in 1911 as part of the Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District. This was historically part of Worcestershire, and there are bits and pieces of evidence around the area that provide evidence for this, such as the recently-closed North Worcestershire Golf Club in Northfield, and a building on a side street near me which clearly had something to do with the County Council, as there is the emblem of the Worcestershire pear above the door. Not all of the Urban District was absorbed, but the article states that "The Urban District was finally abolished in 1911 as part of the provisions of the Greater Birmingham Act, when much of its area was incorporated into the County Borough of Birmingham, and thereby became associated with Warwickshire." And this is reflected in the mapping of much of the 20th century.Steven wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 08:01Absolutely all the time! This is exactly the reason that historic counties (which haven't changed since the Detached Parts Act of 1848) are preferred as a static geography over administrative areas.Telstarbox wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 22:47 I know that some council districts have been merged recently such as those in Buckinghamshire and Suffolk, but is land ever moved between districts nowadays?
Now I know that Steven will say "But that's just Wikipedia, so what?". So I looked further. This page shows how the city boundaries expanded from 1838 up to 1931, after which they remained unchanged until 1974. The areas absorbed were variously part of Worcestershire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire - but the key piece of information for me is footnote 22, which reads "22. By Art. V of the order altering the city boundaries, the boundaries of the counties of Staffs., Warws. and Worcs. were correspondingly altered so that the whole city should be in the county of Warwick for civil purposes." This says to me that there was a schedule attaching to the Greater Birmingham Act of 1911 covering how county boundaries were henceforth to be drawn. Later additions to the city were already within Warwickshire, meaning that no further change to county boundaries were necessary.
Something similar happened in Sheffield, when some southern suburbs that lay within Derbyshire were transferred into the County Borough of Sheffield, and became part of the West Riding for these "civil purposes", whatever they were. And again, the mapping, including road atlases, show Dore and Totley and Abbeydale and so on within the West Riding of Yorkshire. It may have happened to other cities as well, if you know please do tell.
Then we come to Dudley - in 1966 Dudley's borough boundaries were expanded to take in most of Sedgley, Coseley and Brierley Hill, all of which were in Staffordshire, while Dudley itself had been a detached part of Worcestershire, one not "tidied up" by the Counties (Detached Parts) Act of 1848. Several sources that I have found state that as a result Dudley itself was transferred into Staffordshire. This one I'm not so sure of, even though it might make sense - maps continued to show Dudley in its island of Worcs within Staffs, and the people of Dudley itself would, I think, have been annoyed to be told that they were in any sense Staffordians, whereas the folk of Kings Norton and Northfield seem to have accepted their transition, and allegiance to, for example, Warwickshire cricket club is pretty universal. Of course, the fact that Worcestershire continued to play county matches in Dudley up until the demise of the Dudley cricket ground due to mining subsidence would have helped affirm their allegiance. Against that, however, we have this. This shows the history of Dudley as a registration area, and there is a note saying "All the areas in Dudley registration district became part of the county of Staffordshire on 1.4.1966." And this page seems to back it up. So perhaps it is true that Dudley moved to Staffs, but it never seeped into peoples' consciousness. And it only lasted eight years anyway before the 1974 reorganisation.
Why is this important? Well, it affects the baseline that we use for traditional counties. Some of the post-1848 changes were pretty significant, and as I say were the basis for the mapping that followed their implementation. So perhaps it would make sense to use the final "frozen in time" boundaries as of 1974 for our wiki? I think it makes sense, what do you all think?
I used to follow CBRD for ages, had no idea the author was also a fellow heathen!
Here's an interesting one for you regarding Kings Norton and it's move from Worcs: This shows the City boundary from Kings Norton South Ward 's POV https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads ... rton_south
Take a look at the top right hand corner at the estate between Bells Lane and Walker's Heath Road. The boundary map shows Chelworth Road and those around it, plus Moundsley Hall as outside of the City, still in Worcestershire. Moundsley Hall's Contact Us page https://www.moundsleyhall.com/contact also lists it's address as Kings Norton, B38, but no mention of Birmingham itself. It looks to me like this part of Kings Norton still exists in Worcs as part of Wythall. Sure enough on the ground too there are Worcestershire style Road Signs in a similar font and style as the rest of Wythall and the Birmingham Coat of Arms doesn't appear on them either. I thought it was fascinating myself.
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: Moving a borough / district boundary
Hi Skyline, welcome to SABRE.Skyline wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 15:13Hi ChrisChris Bertram wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 15:06I wanted to come back to this because I wasn't sure that this was quite true. And bearing in mind that maps showing county boundaries before 1974 drew Warwickshire as including the whole of Birmingham in its present form (almost anyway, there have been some minor changes since then), I needed to check this. Birmingham - which has always been in Warwickshire no matter how large or small - has grown considerably since 1848. The area I live in - Kings Heath - was absorbed in 1911 as part of the Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District. This was historically part of Worcestershire, and there are bits and pieces of evidence around the area that provide evidence for this, such as the recently-closed North Worcestershire Golf Club in Northfield, and a building on a side street near me which clearly had something to do with the County Council, as there is the emblem of the Worcestershire pear above the door. Not all of the Urban District was absorbed, but the article states that "The Urban District was finally abolished in 1911 as part of the provisions of the Greater Birmingham Act, when much of its area was incorporated into the County Borough of Birmingham, and thereby became associated with Warwickshire." And this is reflected in the mapping of much of the 20th century.
Now I know that Steven will say "But that's just Wikipedia, so what?". So I looked further. This page shows how the city boundaries expanded from 1838 up to 1931, after which they remained unchanged until 1974. The areas absorbed were variously part of Worcestershire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire - but the key piece of information for me is footnote 22, which reads "22. By Art. V of the order altering the city boundaries, the boundaries of the counties of Staffs., Warws. and Worcs. were correspondingly altered so that the whole city should be in the county of Warwick for civil purposes." This says to me that there was a schedule attaching to the Greater Birmingham Act of 1911 covering how county boundaries were henceforth to be drawn. Later additions to the city were already within Warwickshire, meaning that no further change to county boundaries were necessary.
Something similar happened in Sheffield, when some southern suburbs that lay within Derbyshire were transferred into the County Borough of Sheffield, and became part of the West Riding for these "civil purposes", whatever they were. And again, the mapping, including road atlases, show Dore and Totley and Abbeydale and so on within the West Riding of Yorkshire. It may have happened to other cities as well, if you know please do tell.
Then we come to Dudley - in 1966 Dudley's borough boundaries were expanded to take in most of Sedgley, Coseley and Brierley Hill, all of which were in Staffordshire, while Dudley itself had been a detached part of Worcestershire, one not "tidied up" by the Counties (Detached Parts) Act of 1848. Several sources that I have found state that as a result Dudley itself was transferred into Staffordshire. This one I'm not so sure of, even though it might make sense - maps continued to show Dudley in its island of Worcs within Staffs, and the people of Dudley itself would, I think, have been annoyed to be told that they were in any sense Staffordians, whereas the folk of Kings Norton and Northfield seem to have accepted their transition, and allegiance to, for example, Warwickshire cricket club is pretty universal. Of course, the fact that Worcestershire continued to play county matches in Dudley up until the demise of the Dudley cricket ground due to mining subsidence would have helped affirm their allegiance. Against that, however, we have this. This shows the history of Dudley as a registration area, and there is a note saying "All the areas in Dudley registration district became part of the county of Staffordshire on 1.4.1966." And this page seems to back it up. So perhaps it is true that Dudley moved to Staffs, but it never seeped into peoples' consciousness. And it only lasted eight years anyway before the 1974 reorganisation.
Why is this important? Well, it affects the baseline that we use for traditional counties. Some of the post-1848 changes were pretty significant, and as I say were the basis for the mapping that followed their implementation. So perhaps it would make sense to use the final "frozen in time" boundaries as of 1974 for our wiki? I think it makes sense, what do you all think?
I used to follow CBRD for ages, had no idea the author was also a fellow heathen!
Here's an interesting one for you regarding Kings Norton and it's move from Worcs: This shows the City boundary from Kings Norton South Ward 's POV https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads ... rton_south
Take a look at the top right hand corner at the estate between Bells Lane and Walker's Heath Road. The boundary map shows Chelworth Road and those around it, plus Moundsley Hall as outside of the City, still in Worcestershire. Moundsley Hall's Contact Us page https://www.moundsleyhall.com/contact also lists it's address as Kings Norton, B38, but no mention of Birmingham itself. It looks to me like this part of Kings Norton still exists in Worcs as part of Wythall. Sure enough on the ground too there are Worcestershire style Road Signs in a similar font and style as the rest of Wythall and the Birmingham Coat of Arms doesn't appear on them either. I thought it was fascinating myself.
Much though I'd love to take credit for CBRD, now Roads.co.uk, I must direct all compliments and congratulations to Chris5156, aka Chris Marshall, the true author of the site, a Yorkshireman by origin and now a resident of the Smoke.
However, what you're pointing out is an example of where government hasn't caught up with development - that little corner is indeed still in Worcestershire. In fact I'm sure the boundary must run through a house or two, such that you could be having a bath with your head in Birmingham and your feet in the district of Bromsgrove. I'm actually surprised that this hasn't been tidied up. A somewhat similar situation in Frankley was resolved by moving the new developed area into Birmingham and setting up a parish council for it. This area is too small to have its own parish, of course, but perhaps the residents have resisted incorporation into Birmingham for reasons best known to themselves.
I'm not normally a fan of pulling towns and villages into a city because they're just outside it; it can have a disastrous effect on the existing district and county that they're in, see the expansion of York for an example, Ryedale district lost around half of its population and hence an awful lot of council tax income making it (a large rural district) only marginally sustainable, but in this case I don't think much damage would be done.
“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
Ah apologies! And thanks, long time reader, first time poster. Is that development post-1974 creation of the West Mids? Are there any other examples? I think I read earlier that part of the City of Birmingham was under Solihull MBC? Is that Castle Bromwich? The Edgbaston North B17 and Bearwood Boundary is also a curious one that doens't make sense to me.Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 15:31Hi Skyline, welcome to SABRE.Skyline wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 15:13Hi ChrisChris Bertram wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 15:06 I wanted to come back to this because I wasn't sure that this was quite true. And bearing in mind that maps showing county boundaries before 1974 drew Warwickshire as including the whole of Birmingham in its present form (almost anyway, there have been some minor changes since then), I needed to check this. Birmingham - which has always been in Warwickshire no matter how large or small - has grown considerably since 1848. The area I live in - Kings Heath - was absorbed in 1911 as part of the Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District. This was historically part of Worcestershire, and there are bits and pieces of evidence around the area that provide evidence for this, such as the recently-closed North Worcestershire Golf Club in Northfield, and a building on a side street near me which clearly had something to do with the County Council, as there is the emblem of the Worcestershire pear above the door. Not all of the Urban District was absorbed, but the article states that "The Urban District was finally abolished in 1911 as part of the provisions of the Greater Birmingham Act, when much of its area was incorporated into the County Borough of Birmingham, and thereby became associated with Warwickshire." And this is reflected in the mapping of much of the 20th century.
Now I know that Steven will say "But that's just Wikipedia, so what?". So I looked further. This page shows how the city boundaries expanded from 1838 up to 1931, after which they remained unchanged until 1974. The areas absorbed were variously part of Worcestershire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire - but the key piece of information for me is footnote 22, which reads "22. By Art. V of the order altering the city boundaries, the boundaries of the counties of Staffs., Warws. and Worcs. were correspondingly altered so that the whole city should be in the county of Warwick for civil purposes." This says to me that there was a schedule attaching to the Greater Birmingham Act of 1911 covering how county boundaries were henceforth to be drawn. Later additions to the city were already within Warwickshire, meaning that no further change to county boundaries were necessary.
Something similar happened in Sheffield, when some southern suburbs that lay within Derbyshire were transferred into the County Borough of Sheffield, and became part of the West Riding for these "civil purposes", whatever they were. And again, the mapping, including road atlases, show Dore and Totley and Abbeydale and so on within the West Riding of Yorkshire. It may have happened to other cities as well, if you know please do tell.
Then we come to Dudley - in 1966 Dudley's borough boundaries were expanded to take in most of Sedgley, Coseley and Brierley Hill, all of which were in Staffordshire, while Dudley itself had been a detached part of Worcestershire, one not "tidied up" by the Counties (Detached Parts) Act of 1848. Several sources that I have found state that as a result Dudley itself was transferred into Staffordshire. This one I'm not so sure of, even though it might make sense - maps continued to show Dudley in its island of Worcs within Staffs, and the people of Dudley itself would, I think, have been annoyed to be told that they were in any sense Staffordians, whereas the folk of Kings Norton and Northfield seem to have accepted their transition, and allegiance to, for example, Warwickshire cricket club is pretty universal. Of course, the fact that Worcestershire continued to play county matches in Dudley up until the demise of the Dudley cricket ground due to mining subsidence would have helped affirm their allegiance. Against that, however, we have this. This shows the history of Dudley as a registration area, and there is a note saying "All the areas in Dudley registration district became part of the county of Staffordshire on 1.4.1966." And this page seems to back it up. So perhaps it is true that Dudley moved to Staffs, but it never seeped into peoples' consciousness. And it only lasted eight years anyway before the 1974 reorganisation.
Why is this important? Well, it affects the baseline that we use for traditional counties. Some of the post-1848 changes were pretty significant, and as I say were the basis for the mapping that followed their implementation. So perhaps it would make sense to use the final "frozen in time" boundaries as of 1974 for our wiki? I think it makes sense, what do you all think?
I used to follow CBRD for ages, had no idea the author was also a fellow heathen!
Here's an interesting one for you regarding Kings Norton and it's move from Worcs: This shows the City boundary from Kings Norton South Ward 's POV https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads ... rton_south
Take a look at the top right hand corner at the estate between Bells Lane and Walker's Heath Road. The boundary map shows Chelworth Road and those around it, plus Moundsley Hall as outside of the City, still in Worcestershire. Moundsley Hall's Contact Us page https://www.moundsleyhall.com/contact also lists it's address as Kings Norton, B38, but no mention of Birmingham itself. It looks to me like this part of Kings Norton still exists in Worcs as part of Wythall. Sure enough on the ground too there are Worcestershire style Road Signs in a similar font and style as the rest of Wythall and the Birmingham Coat of Arms doesn't appear on them either. I thought it was fascinating myself.
Much though I'd love to take credit for CBRD, now Roads.co.uk, I must direct all compliments and congratulations to Chris5156, aka Chris Marshall, the true author of the site, a Yorkshireman by origin and now a resident of the Smoke.
However, what you're pointing out is an example of where government hasn't caught up with development - that little corner is indeed still in Worcestershire. In fact I'm sure the boundary must run through a house or two, such that you could be having a bath with your head in Birmingham and your feet in the district of Bromsgrove. I'm actually surprised that this hasn't been tidied up. A somewhat similar situation in Frankley was resolved by moving the new developed area into Birmingham and setting up a parish council for it. This area is too small to have its own parish, of course, but perhaps the residents have resisted incorporation into Birmingham for reasons best known to themselves.
I'm not normally a fan of pulling towns and villages into a city because they're just outside it; it can have a disastrous effect on the existing district and county that they're in, see the expansion of York for an example, Ryedale district lost around half of its population and hence an awful lot of council tax income making it (a large rural district) only marginally sustainable, but in this case I don't think much damage would be done.
Another favourite of mine is Redstone Farm Road. Half of the road is B28 Hall Green, the other half B91 Olton. It's dead strange seeing Birmingham road signs on one side and Solihull on the other.