Talk:Local Government Commission for England (1992)

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)

Phear my references section
! Morwen - Talk 07:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The experience in West Sussex
 * The Oxfordshire Story
 * 

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)

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?"

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?

Membership
Cooksey Commission was ->


 * Sir David Cooksey (chairman)
 * Professor Malcom Grant (deputy chairman)
 * Peter Brokenshire
 * Professor Michael Clarke
 * Ken Ennals CB
 * Bob Scruton (Kent parish councillor, recused on Kent)
 * Helena Shovelton
 * David Thomas
 * Norman Warner


 * Dr Bob Chilton (Chief Executive)

Banham Commission was ->


 * Sir John Banham
 * David Ansbro
 * Professor Michael Chilsholm
 * Christopher Chope OBE
 * Sir Kenneth Couzens KCB
 * Kenneth Ennals CB
 * Profess Michael Grant
 * Brian Hill CBE DL
 * Miss Mary Leigh
 * Mrs Ann Levick
 * Robert Scruton
 * David Thomas
 * Lady Judith Wilcox
 * Clive Wilkinson


 * Martin Eastel (Chief Executive)

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. MRSC 10:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you mind adding a few points from this to cover questions raised at 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. MRSC 19:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Cleveland
The paragraph claiming that Cleveland was somehow different to Humberside and Avon seems contentious, pov and not to be properly referenced. It makes claims that are surely inappropriate to an article of this nature and should be deleted completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcb336 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced information and a proposed FAR
I am a little concerned that this article continues to be listed as an FA, given that it contains many sentences, and indeed at least one whole paragraph, which unfortunately lack any form of referencing. It is perhaps noteworthy that the article was promoted to FA status back in November 2006, given that today our FAC procedure is far more vigorous and exacting; as it stands, I doubt that it would be awarded GA status today, let alone FA status, even though much of it is well written and a lot of effort has clearly gone into authoring it. I would propose that unless this issue can be adequately dealt with soon, then this article should be sent to FAR and face the prospect of being de-listed. FA status is for our very best articles, and in its current status, this article simply isn't one of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Any opinions ? Morwen perhaps would be interested, given that she brought this page to FA status to start with ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything in here comes from one of the cited sources. It might be the standard for how close the little numbers should be to the text has been made stricter?  Morwen (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for your response. The main problem here is that there are sections where the citation is not clear. In most places this is fairly minor; in the "Establishment" section we have a few sentences without citation, such as "The abolition of metropolitan county councils in 1986 left the metropolitan boroughs operating as unitary authorities". Each and every one of those statements needs to have a citation after it. More problematic is the "Other changes" section, where large portions of text have no citations. I'd rather not see this article de-listed, so if you could potentially add the necessary citations in the correct places then that would be fantastic. If not, I feel that this will probably have to go to FAR; bear in mind that under our current policies, an article won't even receive its GA status if it has unreferenced sentences like this in the body of the text. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the things cited are in storage and/or the British Library, and I have little inclination to drag them out (and rejoin the library) just to tidy up the referencing slightly. Morwen (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand (and don't blame you!) but that does mean that I will have to send this article to FAR. Sorry about that! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Stoke and Swindon
I don't know the full history, but the legislation seems to suggest that Stoke and Swindon became unitary authorities in 1997, not 1998. Yamor2 (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)