Extent of London, 'basically London', and the commuter belt

[Thirteen]

For me, it is just Greater London. Full stop.

If Greater London were to expand, I would include the towns of Watford, Dartford, and Epsom, but until that day comes, they are not London, neither are the other parts within the M25. They are provincial towns with London characteristics.

I'd suggest Elstree and Borehamwood should be added to Greater London, they border Edgware, Stanmore and Barnet and a few of the London buses pass through them.

 

[Jimini]

I'd suggest Elstree and Borehamwood should be added to Greater London, they border Edgware, Stanmore and Barnet and a few of the London buses pass through them.

WD6? It's a no from me -- the 292 and the 1-0-seldom (7) don't cut it for me

 

[Magdalia]

"Basically London" is an interesting concept and I would define it by the physical geography of the London Basin.

The northern rim of the London Basin is the Chiltern Hills, railway wise at Stevenage/Hitchin, Luton, Tring, Saunderton and Goring.

The southern rim is the North Downs, railway wise at Guildford, Dorking, Reigate/Redhill and Sevenoaks.

Westward the geographers would go up the Kennet Valley all the way to Savernake Forest but I think the "Basically London" western edge is at Reading, where the River Kennet joins the River Thames.

Metropolitan London does not include all of that. The northern rim is the ridge of hills at Potters Bar, Elstree and Harrow on the Hill, the southern rim is Crystal Palace and the Wall of Death at Sutton. And the western edge is Teddington Lock the highest point where the River Thames is tidal.

In particular any place where the river drainage is not eventually into the River Thames can't be London.

 

[NorthOxonian]

For me there are two definitions of London. There's what I'd call "Metropolitan London" - the bit that feels like a massive city - and "Outer London" - the bit that feels like various medium sized towns that (mostly) run into one another. Obviously there are some places that straddle the border (Putney, Greenwich, and Walthamstow could go either way) but it broadly separates the Greater London area into two distinct regions.

The main reason I make this point is that places like Dartford, and Epsom (as well as some places that actually ended up in London - such as Orpington and Romford) don't particularly feel like they're part of London as a whole, but do feel like a fairly natural extension of "Outer London". Ditto for Staines (and the rest of Spelthorne), Watford/Rickmansworth, Waltham Cross, and Slough. I'd even go as far out as somewhere like Woking, but there the local demographics and skyline probably make it feel more London-like than it otherwise would be (Guildford very definitely doesn't feel like part of London, not even Outer London).

Reading is big enough to have its own sphere of influence and gravity, and in my opinion feels like an entirely separate place from London. It is fairly similar to London, but equally Leeds and Manchester are quite similar and no-one would call them the same place! I may be biased on this however, as I went to uni in Oxford and so Reading and London always had very distinct purposes to me (the former being an everyday place to visit for stuff you couldn't easily get in Oxford or to go to events or evenings out; the latter a much more distant destination that wasn't somewhere I'd go unless I was on some kind of trip there). It is in the commuter belt though - not only because of Reading > London commuters but also West London > Reading commuters, as this is one of the bigger reverse commuters AFAICT.

 

[Kilopylae]

"Basically London" is an interesting concept and I would define it by the physical geography of the London Basin.

The northern rim of the London Basin is the Chiltern Hills, railway wise at Stevenage/Hitchin, Luton, Tring, Saunderton and Goring.

The southern rim is the North Downs, railway wise at Guildford, Dorking, Reigate/Redhill and Sevenoaks.

Westward the geographers would go up the Kennet Valley all the way to Savernake Forest but I think the "Basically London" western edge is at Reading, where the River Kennet joins the River Thames.

Metropolitan London does not include all of that. The northern rim is the ridge of hills at Potters Bar, Elstree and Harrow on the Hill, the southern rim is Crystal Palace and the Wall of Death at Sutton. And the western edge is Teddington Lock the highest point where the River Thames is tidal.

I think I can get behind this—I've always had the sense of the Chilterns as a hard boundary, it corresponds to what makes sense in the south, and it's anchored in a real geographical feature.

How far east does the London Basin go?

 

[AlterEgo]

I think I can get behind this—I've always had the sense of the Chilterns as a hard boundary, it corresponds to what makes sense in the south, and it's anchored in a real geographical feature.

How far east does the London Basin go?

It goes into Suffolk!

I’d suggest the eastern part of “London proper” is Woolwich, which feels like the last proper “place” in London before you hit what doesn’t feel like London. “Basically London” goes out to Dartford, I’d say.

I don’t agree with the poster who suggested Greenwich isn’t London proper. It’s an old village like Hampstead or Blackheath and now completely usurped by London.

 

[Enthusiast]

Orpington doesn't have good transport links to London? Mainline trains to Charing Cross take less than 30 minutes!

Indeed, in fact it's 17 minutes to London Bridge.

However, when considering transport links one needs to look further than just a link to London. To use the area where I provided a photo of the boundary in post #20 as an example, people living in that area (between Orpington and Crockenhill) would take far longer to get to Orpington Station by public transport than they would to get from there to London. In fact, many, especially those living in the farmland area of Hockenden would be unable to get anywhere at all by public transport as there is none.

The London Borough of Bromley is by no means unique in this respect and other outer London boroughs have similar areas where anybody looking at a photograph of the locality would be astounded to learn that, administratively at least, the location is considered part of London.

 

[MotCO]

Indeed, in fact it's 17 minutes to London Bridge.

However, when considering transport links one needs to look further than just a link to London. To use the area where I provided a photo of the boundary in post #20 as an example, people living in that area (between Orpington and Crockenhill) would take far longer to get to Orpington Station by public transport than they would to get from there to London. In fact, many, especially those living in the farmland area of Hockenden would be unable to get anywhere at all by public transport as there is none.

The London Borough of Bromley is by no means unique in this respect and other outer London boroughs have similar areas where anybody looking at a photograph of the locality would be astounded to learn that, administratively at least, the location is considered part of London.

Having lived in Orpington for almost 40 years I understand what you are saying. Maybe the delineation of London is where the Green Belt is. Anything inside would tend to be urban, and outside rural. This may also align with the 020 telephone zone; Bromley town centre is 020, whereas Orpington is 01689.

 

[Magdalia]

How far east does the London Basin go?

Good question! At the eastern edge the River Thames is the dominant geographical feature.

Metropolitan London clearly has to end when it is no longer possible to get from one side to the other. In the modern world that's Dartford, but I think there's a case for going out to the Tilbury/Gravesend ferry.

For "basically London" I go back to drainage. South of the Thames I'd say the River Medway was a river "in its own right" so the Medway valley forms the eastern boundary. North of the Thames it is the River Crouch or the River Blackwater. I doubt that many people regard those rivers as tributaries of the River Thames.

 

[J-2739]

Can London not have several identities within? I wouldn't say that a rural feel (as one may get in outer London) automatically discounts being part of that Greater London whole. So a leafy town like Orpington can still feel 'London' without being so heavily built up and densely populated as Tower Hamlets, for instance.

 

[Enthusiast]

This may also align with the 020 telephone zone; Bromley town centre is 020, whereas Orpington is 01689.

That opens up a fresh can of worms :

London area dialling and post code boundaries.

mods note - split from this thread Pre 65, there were London postcodes given to areas outside the County of London boundary, such as Penge and South Norwood and to this day there are parts of Essex with London telephone numbers, while Orpington and Romford within Greater London have local STD...

www.railforums.co.uk

As you are familiar with the area you may know that Ruxley Manor Garden Centre and a few other properties along the B2173 towards Swanley have London (020) numbers, whereas properties considerably closer to London, such as the Crays and Petts Wood, have 01689 numbers.

 

[Acey]

I and many other oldies still consider Bromley to be in Kent and not London,indeed it's still Bromley Kent as far as postal areas are concerned !
Being the largest and most rural of London Councils ( 30% is farmland ) travel a mile or two south of Bromley Town center and it certainly doesn't feel like you are in London at all !

 

[Millasan]

Call me old school (and I know it's wildly inaccurate these days), but being born and bred in West London, it's always been a postcode thing for me and my old mates. W6 is the place to be (and I was born in Charing X hospital / grew up in Hammersmith).

Many a comedy conversation with other mates -- most notably one who lived in Harold Wood for quite a while. Yeah it's in the "London Borough of Havering", but it's got a RM postcode and an 01708 STD code! London my arse...

I would go by the postcode too, I grew up in NW2 and NW4 and later moved to Croydon and never considered it a part of London due to the postcode. Harold Wood is definitely not London. I've always found it unfair residents in the London borough of Havering are eligible for a Freedom Pass when they reach pension age whereas where I am in Shenfield it's the borough of Brentwood so we don't get that luxury.

 

[Richardr]

These days use of the term "home counties" has fallen away, in part because the regions for many people are more defined by the TV regions. The "wider" London area could be defined by the London TV region - such areas get London news on the regional news, which, in that it is news these days, almost all concentrates on Greater London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

These days use of the term "home counties" has fallen away, in part because the regions for many people are more defined by the TV regions. The "wider" London area could be defined by the London TV region - such areas get London news on the regional news, which, in that it is news these days, almost all concentrates on Greater London.

Are they, though? Linear TV is a medium in terminal decline.

I bet hardly anyone under 25 knows or even cares what their ITV region is. And some of them make no sense, e.g. Milton Keynes is NOT in East Anglia, it is, due to its associations, in the London commuter area, aka the South East.

 

[nlogax]

in part because the regions for many people are more defined by the TV regions.

Thirty years ago maybe. I'm highly doubtful that regional TV plays any meaningful role in individual perception of regional identity now.

 

[181]

Or the equally surprising result that this is considered to be a natural edge of a city:

View attachment 138245

I grew up in the area seen there (post #21 in case the image doesn't appear in the finished post), on the London side of the boundary and with an 01 phone number, but a Surrey postal address and a KT postcode, and actual Surrey not far away. This just felt like the way things were, and I always thought of where I lived as being part of Greater London, but with an element of Surrey-ness that didn't apply to places further in.

The boundary is perhaps somewhat arbitrary, but the same would be true of any boundary through that general area, and the first fields begin less than a mile away; perhaps Long Ditton could be in London, but Claygate and Esher might be a step too far.

The rural extension of the borough of Kingston beyond Chessington has always seemed odd, though; presumably this was added to Surbiton in the 1930s either in anticipation of further development or because it came as a package with the rest of Chessington, and when Greater London was formed there was a desire not to split existing administrative areas. I'm guessing that the rural parts of Bromley have a similar history.

If Greater London were to expand, I would include the towns of Watford, Dartford, and Epsom, but until that day comes, they are not London, neither are the other parts within the M25. They are provincial towns with London characteristics.

I think I'd agree with that, except that to me 'provincial' implies somewhere much further away -- maybe outside the London commuter belt.

For me there are two definitions of London. There's what I'd call "Metropolitan London" - the bit that feels like a massive city - and "Outer London" - the bit that feels like various medium sized towns that (mostly) run into one another. Obviously there are some places that straddle the border (Putney, Greenwich, and Walthamstow could go either way) but it broadly separates the Greater London area into two distinct regions.

The main reason I make this point is that places like Dartford, and Epsom (as well as some places that actually ended up in London - such as Orpington and Romford) don't particularly feel like they're part of London as a whole, but do feel like a fairly natural extension of "Outer London". Ditto for Staines (and the rest of Spelthorne), Watford/Rickmansworth, Waltham Cross, and Slough. I'd even go as far out as somewhere like Woking, but there the local demographics and skyline probably make it feel more London-like than it otherwise would be (Guildford very definitely doesn't feel like part of London, not even Outer London).

Reading is big enough to have its own sphere of influence and gravity, and in my opinion feels like an entirely separate place from London. It is fairly similar to London, but equally Leeds and Manchester are quite similar and no-one would call them the same place! I may be biased on this however, as I went to uni in Oxford and so Reading and London always had very distinct purposes to me (the former being an everyday place to visit for stuff you couldn't easily get in Oxford or to go to events or evenings out; the latter a much more distant destination that wasn't somewhere I'd go unless I was on some kind of trip there). It is in the commuter belt though - not only because of Reading > London commuters but also West London > Reading commuters, as this is one of the bigger reverse commuters AFAICT.

Yes; when I lived in York for a year, somebody asked me if I missed London. I'd probably told them that I came from south-west London, but I suspect they were thinking of places like Westminster, and the South Bank, whereas to me central London was never part of where I lived, but rather a distinct other place that one went to occasionally.

And indeed, no way is Reading in London.

 

[nlogax]

The rural extension of the borough of Kingston beyond Chessington has always seemed odd, though; presumably this was added to Surbiton in the 1930s either in anticipation of further development or because it came as a package with the rest of Chessington, and when Greater London was formed there was a desire not to split existing administrative areas. I'm guessing that the rural parts of Bromley have a similar history.

Jay Foreman already touched on this in his 'Where does London stop?' video. In essence the residents of Chessington didn't seem to mind the recommendations of the Herbert Commission report even though their adjacent neighbours did, so the newly expanded Greater London included this section of land while the surrounding areas didn't.. hence the weird London peninsula.

 

[181]

Jay Foreman already touched on this in his 'Where does London stop?' video. In essence the residents of Chessington didn't seem to mind the recommendations of the Herbert Commission report even though their adjacent neighbours did, so the newly expanded Greater London included this section of land while the surrounding areas didn't.. hence the weird London peninsula.

Yes, that's why Epsom and Ewell aren't in London (if they were, there wouldn't be much of a peninsula), but I don't think it explains the rural area south of Chessington (i.e. the southern part of the peninsula) where there were very few residents to express an opinion either way. I presume that was included because it was (for whatever reason) part of the borough of Surbiton already, and so was included in Kingston and therefore London.

Having said that, I noticed that the map that appears briefly at about the 3-minute mark in the Jay Foreman video shows a rather bigger area than the current Greater London, extending out to the vicinity of Weybridge and I think Cobham in the south-west, so it appears that the presence of fields wasn't at that stage taken as an indication of 'not London', in which case the inclusion of rural south Chessington wouldn't have seemed odd to those drawing the map. (That still doesn't indicate why it was in Surbiton in the frst place, though).

Some quick Googling found this blog post: https://lccmunicipal.com/2019/11/19/just-say-no-defining-the-greater-london-boundary-part-1/, which may be of interest to readers of this thread. It includes a small image of the map showing the oroginal proposals. There's a link at the bottom to the second part, about Epsom and Ewell specifically.

 

[nlogax]

Yes, that's why Epsom and Ewell aren't in London (if they were, there wouldn't be much of a peninsula), but I don't think it explains the rural area south of Chessington (i.e. the southern part of the peninsula) where there were very few residents to express an opinion either way.

I've been reading some interesting history regarding Malden Rushett and the rural area of Lower Chessington. Until the end of the 19th century this was the one of the original Corporation of London coal-tax posts so maintained a sort of local 'this is where London starts' status. Add to that the local church parish was amalgamated with that of Chessington around 1884. This part of the borough does seem to maintain a long term sense of 'belonging' to the slightly more urban area to the north. There were indeed only a few residents having their say, mostly from three farms that used the majority of the land around the main road at least until the early 1960s.

 

[181]

I've been reading some interesting history regarding Malden Rushett and the rural area of Lower Chessington. Until the end of the 19th century this was the one of the original Corporation of London coal-tax posts so maintained a sort of local 'this is where London starts' status. Add to that the local church parish was amalgamated with that of Chessington around 1884. This part of the borough does seem to maintain a long term sense of 'belonging' to the slightly more urban area to the north. There were indeed only a few residents having their say, mostly from three farms that used the majority of the land around the main road at least until the early 1960s.

Thankyou -- that's interesting.

I knew there was a surviving coal tax post somewhere between Esher, Claygate and Hinchley Wood (possibly this one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenpoole/15566582395/), so it's not surprising that there are others in the general area. Wikipedia indicates that they were placed at the boundary of the Metropolitan Police District (which is now that of Greater London, but was further out in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Police_District#/media/File:MPD_1933.png).

 

[nlogax]

One of the Malden Rushett posts sits adjacent to The Star pub on the west side of Kingston Road. It's situated right where the Surrey / Greater London border crosses the road and pub car park.

 

[nw1]

I'd say "London" is basically the Greater London area, i.e. the London boroughs.

Almost everything outside of that doesn't really seem like "London". The extent of the built up area, AFAIK, still approximates closely with Greater London though there are "ribbons" of continuous development beyond that along roads and railways.

The only exceptions are Dartford and Epsom, which I've always lumped with London for whatever reason - though I've never visited either. Perhaps because they seem, on the map, to be part of the continuous urban area and not just on a "ribbon".

"Almost London" would probably go out to Redhill, Woking, Staines, Slough and Watford - basically the limit of those ribbons of development beyond which it's basically open countryside.

As for the commuter area, I'd say a polygon bounded by the east and south coast, Southampton, Salisbury, Bedwyn, Charlbury, Banbury, Northampton, Kettering, Peterborough, Cambridge and I guess Ipswich - though this is really a guess rather than based on actually observing commuter patterns.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2023 ==

Orpington doesn't have good transport links to London? Mainline trains to Charing Cross take less than 30 minutes!

In fact isn't London Bridge just 15-odd mins by fast service?

 

[Busaholic]

I agree. Basically anywhere where you can vote for the Mayor. (Do residents of the City of London vote for the London Mayor, or are they barred since they have their own Mayor?)

Although you could probably include Southend since their airport is "London Southend Airport"

The City of London has a Lord Mayor, which is an ancient ceremonial post subject to ''Buggins' turn'' and is not voted on by the small resident population. I'm not clear whether they have a vote in the London mayoral election, but they certainly do in the General Election. The Lord Mayor is no longer subject to a gender test.

 

[nw1]

Forgot about that. Yes, I'd basically draw the line at either Southampton or Bournemouth, probably the former. Salisbury has London commuters as does Bournemouth, but they are a *bit* far out for it to be a majority pursuit. Newbury is, but probably not Hungerford (though again there are some). Swindon half and half I guess. Oxford yes. Aylesbury and MK yes, including Northampton to an extent. Bedford yes but Market Ketteringborough debatably. Etc.

Kettingborough and Wellering, as I call them. Or Bonetown, after the notoriously opinionated MP.

 

[Enthusiast]

In fact isn't London Bridge just 15-odd mins by fast service?

Yes it is (see post #37).

 

[Magdalia]

As for the commuter area, I'd say a polygon bounded by the east and south coast, Southampton, Salisbury, Bedwyn, Charlbury, Banbury, Northampton, Kettering, Peterborough, Cambridge and I guess Ipswich - though this is really a guess rather than based on actually observing commuter patterns.

All of these places have some London commuters, but they are not boundaries of commuting. I have known people commuting to London from all of Ely, Grantham, Rugby and Swindon for example.

But just because they have a few commuters that does not make them "commuterland". Their commuters are a tiny proportion of their population and the level of commuting does not have a significant impact on their local economies.

A good indicator of commuterland is station car parks. Stations that have big car parks that get much more use on weekdays than weekends are commuterland. This side of London the significant boundary of commuterland is Audley End, Royston and Huntingdon, all of which have big car parks with a significant difference between weekday and weekend use.

 

[nw1]

A good indicator of commuterland is station car parks. Stations that have big car parks that get much more use on weekdays than weekends are commuterland. This side of London the significant boundary of commuterland is Audley End, Royston and Huntingdon, all of which have big car parks with a significant difference between weekday and weekend use.

I guess Haslemere might be an equivalent boundary on the Portsmouth Direct? Or Basingstoke on the SWML?

South and west of those stations, there is a significant cultural pull towards the Solent conurbation.

 

[Edvid]

To the uninitiated, one Greater London settlement you'd certainly think of as being outside the boundary is North Ockendon; rural, home to a few hundred souls, beyond the M25/A282. When the 1992 boundary review was drafted its residents apparently liked being in LB Havering too much for North Ockendon to be reattributed to Essex, hence the outlying pocket of GL that stretches up to 20 miles from the geographical centre (and doesn't include South Ockendon).

All the post-1965 changes are listed here if anyone wants a read. Incidentally, I see Elstree used to be shared between Hertfordshire and two London boroughs; that must have been fun...

The City of London has a Lord Mayor, which is an ancient ceremonial post subject to ''Buggins' turn'' and is not voted on by the small resident population. I'm not clear whether they have a vote in the London mayoral election, but they certainly do in the General Election. The Lord Mayor is no longer subject to a gender test.

They do. Which means as an administrative county, GL is one square mile bigger ( ) than its ceremonial county form.

 

[sprunt]

Orpington doesn't have good transport links to London? Mainline trains to Charing Cross take less than 30 minutes!

Orpington has superb transport links to London. One steps out of one's front door, and one is in London.

I agree. Basically anywhere where you can vote for the Mayor. (Do residents of the City of London vote for the London Mayor, or are they barred since they have their own Mayor?)

They do. All the London boroughs also have at least* one mayor of their own.

The extent of London isn't a matter of opinion. It's the London boroughs plus the City. Postcodes, dialling codes and whether or not people in Bromley put "Kent" in their address don't come into it.

*I say at least because I don't know whether those that have elected mayors also have a ceremonial mayor.