The mess of our current administrative division councils system.

[busestrains]

This has been briefly bought up in the thread about councils that should have their name changed but i thought i would start a new thread to discuss this to avoid going off topic on that one.

Does anyone else think that our whole council system is a complete and utter confusing mess with no consistency at all.

The first issue is that there is a million different types of council systems in use so each area can have a different system of councils.

• Some areas have one Unitary Authority (first level and second level combined) only.

• Some areas have one Unitary Authority (first level and second level combined) and a Parish Council.

• Some areas have a first level County Council and a second level District Council.

• Some areas have a first level County Council and a second level District Council and a third level Parish Council.

• Some areas (eg London and Birmingham and Manchester etc) have one Unitary Authority only but with certain powers and responsibilities that Unitary Authorities normally have (eg transport) transferred to an alternative organisation.

Even what the councils call themselves can vary a lot despite there being no difference in the councils responsibilities.

• With the Unitary Authorities some call themselves "County Council" (eg Durham County Council and Northumberland County Council etc) and some call themselves "Borough Council" (eg Reading Borough Council and Swindon Borough Council etc) and some call themselves "City Council" (eg Brighton & Hove City Council and Plymouth City Council etc) and finally some just call themselves "Council" (eg Medway Council and Wiltshire Council etc) but they all have the same powers.

• With the second tier councils that fall under a County Council some call themselves "Borough Council" (eg Guildford Borough Council and Waverley Borough Council etc) and some call themselves "District Council" (eg Mole Valley District Council and Tandridge District Council etc) and some call themselves "City Council" (eg Canterbury City Council and Winchester City Council etc) despite no differences. The councils have the same status and power and responsibilities so i have no idea why it is so random as to what they call themselves. It varies so much.

• Then we come on to Parish Councils which can be called "Parish Council" (eg East Horsley Parish Council and West Horsley Parish Council etc) or "Town Council" (eg Lewes Town Council and Seaford Town Council etc) or "City Council" (eg Chichester City Council and Salisbury City Council etc) or "Community Council" (eg Queens Park Community Council etc) despite having no difference in responsibilities.

The responsibilities of councils can sometimes be confusing as even in different areas of the same exact type the responsibilities of councils can vary. Lets take bus shelters and allotments for example. In some three tier areas it is the County Council responsible for them. In some three tier areas it is the District Council responsible for them. In some three tier areas it is the Parish Council responsible for them. So it is such a confusing mess with no consistency even in areas of the same type and status.

Then we have the issue of what places are allowed to call themselves "cities" despite not being large enough. The fact that Chichester is allowed to be called a city is a joke. It is a medium sized town at the very most. It is not a city or anywhere close to being a city. We need to have a clearly defined minimum population of a city. There should be a minimum population before you can call yourself a city. Guildford comes quite close to being a city but yet is only called a town.

Then you have the issue of where many cities have huge amounts of the city located outside of the border of the council for that city. Cities expand but the councils fail to change the borders. So you end up with borders going through busy areas with lots of houses and shops and large parts of the city being outside of the borders. I have no idea why our country is so reluctant to change borders.

For example look at Brighton where a good quarter of the city is outside of the Brighton & Hove City Council area. All of Shoreham and Southwick and Fishersgate fall under Adur District Council despite clearly being part of Brighton. So the border should be along the River Adur and all of these areas should be bought in to the Brighton & Hove City Council area as they are clearly part of Brighton. Then look at the suburb of Saltdean where the border line goes half way through a major road with lots of houses and shops. So half of Saltdean is in Lewes District Council and half is in Brighton & Hove City Council when really all of it should be in the Brighton & Hove City Council area. The border should be between Saltdean and Telscombe Cliffs where a clear border exists. Then you have the ridiculous situation at Falmer where the border between Brighton & Hove City Council and Lewes District Council goes half way through the large major Sussex University campus. So half of the campus buildings are in one and half are in the other.

For another example look at Bristol where only about half of the city falls under the Bristol City Council area. An enormous amount of pretty much half of the city is in the South Gloucestershire Council area instead. It is ridiculous. Nottingham is another example where at least half of the city is outside the Nottingham City Council area. All of, Arnold, Beeston, Hucknall, Long Eaton, Netherfield, West Bridgford, etc are outside despite clearly being part of Nottingham. Bournemouth is another example of this with a large part around Corfe Mullen being outside the BCP Council area. So many of our cities have large areas outside of the council borders.

London is another example. The whole Epsom and Ewell and Stoneleigh areas are clearly part of London but yet fall in to Surrey outside of the Greater London area. The border between Greater London and Surrey should be between between Epsom and Ashtead where there is a clear boundary. The current border goes right through the middle of urban residential areas with no clear border. So really Greater London ought to be extended out to include the Epsom and Ewell and Stoneleigh areas. The same also applies around Kingston and Ashford and Caterham where the border really ought to be extended further out. But then on the opposite there are areas of rural countryside around Biggin Hill and Ockenden which are part of Greater London instead of Essex and Kent and Surrey which i find strange.

Also i really think that London (and Birmingham and Manchester etc) would be much better off with just one unitary authority council for all of London rather than multiple separate councils. There is no clear border or division between each council and it is all one city and everything is integrated with people crossing in to the different council areas all the time so one unitary authority would be better. I would scrap all of the borough councils and introduced a Greater London County Council (or maybe call it Middlesex County Council as Greater London covers most of the former Middlesex area) to run the entire area.

This is before i get started on Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland who too have further systems in use confusing it more.

I think we need to choose one council system and apply it throughout the entire country and have some consistency. The current system is such a confusing mess.

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on what should be done about this. What would other members suggest is the best council system to use and the best way to reshape the system and simplify it throughout the country.

 

[THC]

My word, where to begin? Your essential premise is correct - local government in England is confusing to say the least (more so than the other three nations) - but I will make one overarching point, namely that despite partial devolution the UK remains one of the most centralised systems of government of any mature liberal democracy (only Ireland is more centralised in western Europe, and that is about twelve times smaller than the UK by population). Any structural overhaul that does not address this issue will therefore prove little more than window dressing. On that note I'm off to finish the Christmas shopping!

THC

 

[route101]

I found it a bit confusing in England. Southampton is a Unitary Authority in Hampshire but not part of Hampshire County Council. There is councils with Hampshire County Council such as New Forest, Eastleigh etc.

In Scotland its just one council .

 

[Roger1973]

Then there are historic counties, ceremonial counties, administrative counties and the 'counties' that postcodes are grouped in to...

It was complicated before it was all 'simplified' in 1974 - there were 'county boroughs' (akin to today's unitary councils), urban and rural districts, metropolitan and municipal boroughs.

The 1974 reforms were not entirely popular, introducing the metropolitan counties and 'artificial' counties like Humberside.

The metropolitan counties were abolished by the Thatcher government (arguably for party political reasons) and the John Major government re-introduced unitary councils, largely taking urban areas out of the shire counties, again arguably for party political reasons.

I'm inclined to agree that there should be more localism - the idea of a single London wide authority running everything down to local libraries and parks probably won't work. Many people would say the current London boroughs (most of which are the result of merging 2 or more pre-1965 boroughs) are too big for the most local of things, and many tend to be accused of favouring one town centre and neglecting others.

(and by 'localism', I mean real power to the most appropriate level - not Westminster / Whitehall imposed cuts and blame local councils)

 

[Bletchleyite]

In short I totally agree. I would make the following changes:

1. All areas to be "unitary" - County/Borough Councils abolished.
2. Consider the role of Parish Councils and what their boundaries should be. It might actually be worth considering a setup where the Leader of a Parish Council is the City Councillor for that area, and considering again the boundaries so they represent areas people consider to be contiguous.
3. In the big cities, the City Council covers the whole urban and directly associated area. It's stupid, for example, having Old Stratford sitting in Northants when it's part of Milton Keynes.

 

[WizCastro197]

Then we have the issue of what places are allowed to call themselves "cities" despite not being large enough. The fact that Chichester is allowed to be called a city is a joke. It is a medium sized town at the very most. It is not a city or anywhere close to being a city. We need to have a clearly defined minimum population of a city. There should be a minimum population before you can call yourself a city. Guildford comes quite close to being a city but yet is only called a town.

I am not sure if you are aware, but historically towns that had cathedrals, were made cities, Chichester being one of them? Now more modernly, cities are granted by the patent honours likes this earlier this year...

If you think Guildford should become a city, how come you haven't mentioned Woking? I think Surrey functions rather well without any cities and two large hubs (Woking + Guildford), it is also fairly close to London so there really isn't any point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am not sure if you are aware, but historically towns that had Cathedrals, were made cities, Chichester being one of them? Now more modernly, cities are granted by the patent honours likes this earlier this year...

If the poster thinks Chichester is a joke, they'd best not take a trip to St David's!

(Actually do, it's beautiful, but a bit of a so-and-so to get to other than by car, and even then takes a while!)

 

[WizCastro197]

If the poster thinks Chichester is a joke, they'd best not take a trip to St David's!

(Actually do, it's beautiful, but a bit of a so-and-so to get to other than by car, and even then takes a while!)

1,600! It is 5 hours for me, maybe in the future if you say it is beautiful. I can imagine community is probably very important there. But it has a Cathedral so you can't dispute it as a city.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Dec 2022 ==

London is another example. The whole Epsom and Ewell and Stoneleigh areas are clearly part of London but yet fall in to Surrey outside of the Greater London area. The border between Greater London and Surrey should be between between Epsom and Ashtead where there is a clear boundary. The current border goes right through the middle of urban residential areas with no clear border. So really Greater London ought to be extended out to include the Epsom and Ewell and Stoneleigh areas. The same also applies around Kingston and Ashford and Caterham where the border really ought to be extended further out. But then on the opposite there are areas of rural countryside around Biggin Hill and Ockenden which are part of Greater London instead of Essex and Kent and Surrey which i find strange.

Why should these towns be included in London, you haven't provided sufficient reasoning for Caterham/Kingston/Ashford, nor really Epsom & Ewell whist we are at it. You are probably going to come for us here in Redhill & Reigate next! We are 6 miles from Coulsdon.

Just to summarise this quote, you want to take away some of Surrey's larger urban areas but give us countryside in return?

 

[Bletchleyite]

1,600! It is 5 hours for me, maybe in the future if you say it is beautiful. I can imagine community is probably very important there. But it has a Cathedral so you can't dispute it as a city.

It's really a coastal village that has city status, to be fair. But it's a lovely place for a holiday. Similar scenery wise to small Cornish towns, and a similar sort of surfer vibe. So if going to Cornwall is easier, go there instead

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Dec 2022 ==

St Asaph is more of a "non-city" to be honest.

 

[WizCastro197]

It's really a coastal village that has city status, to be fair. But it's a lovely place for a holiday. Similar scenery wise to small Cornish towns, and a similar sort of surfer vibe. So if going to Cornwall is easier, go there instead

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Dec 2022 ==

St Asaph is more of a "non-city" to be honest.

I don’t think I’d mind going a bit further to St David’s if it is worth it as you say and pictures seem to back it up very well. I do understand why you said it seem very Cornish, but it looks great!

I hope OP comes back to voice their opinion on St David’s, presumably to claim it should be downgraded status-wise to a village

 

[ChrisC]

Nottingham is another example where at least half of the city is outside the Nottingham City Council area. All of, Arnold, Beeston, Hucknall, Long Eaton, Netherfield, West Bridgford, etc are outside despite clearly being part of Nottingham.

Arnold, Beeston, Netherfield, West Bridgford, although outside the city boundary, are seen by many as part of Nottingham and to that list I would also add places like Carlton, Gedling and perhaps also Chilwell. I certainly don’t see Hucknall and Long Eaton as being part of Nottingham. They are completely separate towns with their own communities and Long Eaton isn’t even in Nottinghamshire as it’s just over the border in Derbyshire. The tram has certainly made Hucknall feel closer to Nottingham but still not part of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Arnold, Beeston, Netherfield, West Bridgford, although outside the city boundary, are seen by many as part of Nottingham and to that list I would also add places like Carlton, Gedling and perhaps also Chilwell. I certainly don’t see Hucknall and Long Eaton as being part of Nottingham. They are completely separate towns with their own communities and Long Eaton isn’t even in Nottinghamshire as it’s just over the border in Derbyshire. The tram has certainly made Hucknall feel closer to Nottingham but still not part of it.

An interesting question is how to bring those surrounding areas in. I'm not convinced it would make sense for Liverpool City Council to encompass Ormskirk, say, but it does need to be more closely tied to Liverpool than it presently is, being tantamount to a commuter suburb. The City Regions probably do that fairly well (but need some places bringing in), but I am still inclined to think that having entirely separate Councils for, say, Manchester, Salford, Trafford, Stockport, Tameside etc is just grossly wasteful and results in poor decisions "by committee" rather than one Council which dealt with the whole contiguous built-up area (which in Liverpool's case is probably the bit inside the M57 *possibly* plus Kirkby and Maghull which very much act as part of the city itself, and in Manchester's the M60 again *possibly* plus Denton, Hyde and the likes which act as part of the city, so not the likes of Southport, Formby, Ormskirk, Oldham or Wigan, with Stockport being a bit debatable and could go either way).

Perhaps a logical model for that sort of place would be a single City Council* dealing with the main built-up city, Town Councils dealing with subsidiary commuter towns and their affairs, plus a City Region Council overseeing things that relate to the whole urban commuter/association area, e.g. transport, refuse collection (for economies of scale) and the likes.

* i.e. "Manchester, Salford and Trafford Combined City Council", not one for each, etc.

 

[Enthusiast]

London is another example. The whole Epsom and Ewell and Stoneleigh areas are clearly part of London but yet fall in to Surrey outside of the Greater London area. The border between Greater London and Surrey should be between between Epsom and Ashtead where there is a clear boundary. The current border goes right through the middle of urban residential areas with no clear border. So really Greater London ought to be extended out to include the Epsom and Ewell and Stoneleigh areas. The same also applies around Kingston and Ashford and Caterham where the border really ought to be extended further out. But then on the opposite there are areas of rural countryside around Biggin Hill and Ockenden which are part of Greater London instead of Essex and Kent and Surrey which i find strange.

The "country" area of the London Borough of Bromley (and to a similar but perhaps slightly less extent, the LB of Havering) has nothing in common with London whatsoever. Beyond Orpington there are swathes of farmland and open countryside. The small villages of Downe, Cudham, Single Street, Well Hill and Luxted are all part of "Greater London". These areas have scarce bus services (with Single Street and Luxted having none at all) and all are about five miles from the nearest railhead at Orpington. Yet all the residents of these hamlets pay Mayor Kahn's "precept" much of which is used to provide 24 hour bus and tube services to which the resident of these country outbacks have no realistic opportunity to use. Bromley residents have no access to the London Underground. It is only at Beckenham where they have access to the Tram network to Croydon and Wimbledon.

Yes, the administrative divisions of local authorities are confusing. I suggest that all local government is abolished. Their functions can be subsumed into national government departments and administered locally by administrative officials. There is no need for elected local authorities.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, the administrative divisions of local authorities is confusing. I suggest that all local government is abolished. Their functions can be subsumed into national government departments and administered locally by administrative officials. There is no need for elected local authorities.

Welcome to China.

I don't think this makes sense, as local decisions are so different from national decisions that separate local democracy is desirable, or even necessary. Just maybe perhaps not quite as granularly as it is at present (e.g. the Manchester contiguous built up area consisting of two cities and several boroughs).

 

[busestrains]

My word, where to begin? Your essential premise is correct - local government in England is confusing to say the least (more so than the other three nations) - but I will make one overarching point, namely that despite partial devolution the UK remains one of the most centralised systems of government of any mature liberal democracy (only Ireland is more centralised in western Europe, and that is about twelve times smaller than the UK by population). Any structural overhaul that does not address this issue will therefore prove little more than window dressing. On that note I'm off to finish the Christmas shopping!

THC

Ireland seems to be pretty much the same as the UK with county councils managing things in each county. Unless i have understood it wrong and the county councils have less powers and responsibilities than ours.

I found it a bit confusing in England. Southampton is a Unitary Authority in Hampshire but not part of Hampshire County Council. There is councils with Hampshire County Council such as New Forest, Eastleigh etc.

In Scotland its just one council .

Yes there are multiple examples like this. Medway is another one which is in Kent but outside of the Kent County Council area. Then you have a Peterborough which is in Cambridgeshire but outside of the Cambridgeshire County Council area. It is all one big confusing mess.

Then there are historic counties, ceremonial counties, administrative counties and the 'counties' that postcodes are grouped in to...

It was complicated before it was all 'simplified' in 1974 - there were 'county boroughs' (akin to today's unitary councils), urban and rural districts, metropolitan and municipal boroughs.

The 1974 reforms were not entirely popular, introducing the metropolitan counties and 'artificial' counties like Humberside.

The metropolitan counties were abolished by the Thatcher government (arguably for party political reasons) and the John Major government re-introduced unitary councils, largely taking urban areas out of the shire counties, again arguably for party political reasons.

I'm inclined to agree that there should be more localism - the idea of a single London wide authority running everything down to local libraries and parks probably won't work. Many people would say the current London boroughs (most of which are the result of merging 2 or more pre-1965 boroughs) are too big for the most local of things, and many tend to be accused of favouring one town centre and neglecting others.

(and by 'localism', I mean real power to the most appropriate level - not Westminster / Whitehall imposed cuts and blame local councils)

The historic counties and ceremonial counties and administrative counties makes things so confusing. You still get some people saying they live in Middlesex even though that county has not existed for decades. Then you have the Teesside area which is split between two counties. It is all a mess.

In short I totally agree. I would make the following changes:

1. All areas to be "unitary" - County/Borough Councils abolished.
2. Consider the role of Parish Councils and what their boundaries should be. It might actually be worth considering a setup where the Leader of a Parish Council is the City Councillor for that area, and considering again the boundaries so they represent areas people consider to be contiguous.
3. In the big cities, the City Council covers the whole urban and directly associated area. It's stupid, for example, having Old Stratford sitting in Northants when it's part of Milton Keynes.

I do wonder whether or not Parish Councils are a good idea. On one side it is good to have a local level of government to deal with very small minor things that matter to local residents. But on the other hand many Parish Councils have less than one hundred people living in the parish so do not have much work and are run by one person and get very little funding. I think if they were given more funding they might be able to achieve more.

I am not sure if you are aware, but historically towns that had cathedrals, were made cities, Chichester being one of them? Now more modernly, cities are granted by the patent honours likes this earlier this year...

If you think Guildford should become a city, how come you haven't mentioned Woking? I think Surrey functions rather well without any cities and two large hubs (Woking + Guildford), it is also fairly close to London so there really isn't any point.

Guildford does not really need to be made a city. I was just using it as an example that if Chichester is a city than why is Guildford not a city when it has three times the population. Guildford has a cathedral so i am surprised they never made Guildford a city.

If the poster thinks Chichester is a joke, they'd best not take a trip to St David's!

(Actually do, it's beautiful, but a bit of a so-and-so to get to other than by car, and even then takes a while!)

St Asaph and St Davids are both way too tiny to be called cities. I forgot about them having city status but yes they are small minor towns at the most. They do not even have a supermarket in either of these places.

1,600! It is 5 hours for me, maybe in the future if you say it is beautiful. I can imagine community is probably very important there. But it has a Cathedral so you can't dispute it as a city.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Dec 2022 ==


Why should these towns be included in London, you haven't provided sufficient reasoning for Caterham/Kingston/Ashford, nor really Epsom & Ewell whist we are at it. You are probably going to come for us here in Redhill & Reigate next! We are 6 miles from Coulsdon.

Just to summarise this quote, you want to take away some of Surrey's larger urban areas but give us countryside in return?

Yes i think some of the urban areas of Surrey that are basically connected to Greater London with no clear division should be given to a Greater London and some of the rural countryside areas of Greater London should be given to Surrey and Kent instead. This would logically make more sense to put borders where there is a clear boundary so giving those urban areas to Greater London would be best. Greater London is almost entirely an urban county so the few bits of countryside and rural hamlets should go to Surrey and Kent where they would fit in much better.

It's really a coastal village that has city status, to be fair. But it's a lovely place for a holiday. Similar scenery wise to small Cornish towns, and a similar sort of surfer vibe. So if going to Cornwall is easier, go there instead

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Dec 2022 ==

St Asaph is more of a "non-city" to be honest.

It is interesting you say that as when i have been there in the past South West Wales certainly does kind of remind me of Cornwall a bit. Less tourists in the summer compared to Cornwall so it can be a good place to visit. It is indeed a nice area.

I don’t think I’d mind going a bit further to St David’s if it is worth it as you say and pictures seem to back it up very well. I do understand why you said it seem very Cornish, but it looks great!

I hope OP comes back to voice their opinion on St David’s, presumably to claim it should be downgraded status-wise to a village

Yes the fact that St Asaph and St Davids can both be called cities is a joke. They are both small towns at the very most. You could get away with calling them small minor towns but no way should St Asaph or St Davids have been allowed to be called cities. Bangor (Wales) and Bangor (Northern Ireland) and Wells (Somerset) should all not have city status either. We really need a minimum population requirement rule to be introduced for cities to avoid tiny little towns being called cities.

Arnold, Beeston, Netherfield, West Bridgford, although outside the city boundary, are seen by many as part of Nottingham and to that list I would also add places like Carlton, Gedling and perhaps also Chilwell. I certainly don’t see Hucknall and Long Eaton as being part of Nottingham. They are completely separate towns with their own communities and Long Eaton isn’t even in Nottinghamshire as it’s just over the border in Derbyshire. The tram has certainly made Hucknall feel closer to Nottingham but still not part of it.

I suppose Long Eaton has the River Erewash dividing it and Hucknall has a little bit of countryside dividing it so maybe they are not as much part of Nottingham as the other areas. But they still feel like Nottingham to me as there is not much of a clear division. Personally i would move the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire border slightly to just the other side of the M1 motorway.

As for the other part of Nottingham mentioned they really do need to definitely be bought in to the Nottingham City Council area. It is very strange how Nottingham has such a huge area outside of the council area. I think the city has expanded a lot over the years but they have not bothered to move the border further out.

Nearby in Leicester there is also huge amounts of the city outside of the Leicester City Council area. All of Birstall and Oadby and Thurmaston and Wigston and many other areas are outside.

There are really too many cities in the UK with large portions of the city outside of the council area. Another area i have just remembered is like this is Luton which has about half of the town outside of the Luton Borough Council area. All of Dunstable and Houghton Regis are clearly part of Luton but yet they are outside of the Luton Borough Council area. They really need to change the borders here too.

An interesting question is how to bring those surrounding areas in. I'm not convinced it would make sense for Liverpool City Council to encompass Ormskirk, say, but it does need to be more closely tied to Liverpool than it presently is, being tantamount to a commuter suburb. The City Regions probably do that fairly well (but need some places bringing in), but I am still inclined to think that having entirely separate Councils for, say, Manchester, Salford, Trafford, Stockport, Tameside etc is just grossly wasteful and results in poor decisions "by committee" rather than one Council which dealt with the whole contiguous built-up area (which in Liverpool's case is probably the bit inside the M57 *possibly* plus Kirkby and Maghull which very much act as part of the city itself, and in Manchester's the M60 again *possibly* plus Denton, Hyde and the likes which act as part of the city, so not the likes of Southport, Formby, Ormskirk, Oldham or Wigan, with Stockport being a bit debatable and could go either way).

Perhaps a logical model for that sort of place would be a single City Council* dealing with the main built-up city, Town Councils dealing with subsidiary commuter towns and their affairs, plus a City Region Council overseeing things that relate to the whole urban commuter/association area, e.g. transport, refuse collection (for economies of scale) and the likes.

* i.e. "Manchester, Salford and Trafford Combined City Council", not one for each, etc.

They could simply just move the borders which is the easiest way to do it. For some reason we seem very reluctant to move borders as cities expand. In some other countries they manage this fine but not here.

I agree that cities like London and Birmingham and Manchester and Liverpool should have one council. It does seem like a waste of money having so many separate borough councils when it is all one integrated city. They could be saving huge amounts of money every year if they combined them all in to just one council for the entire city and all the suburbs of the city.

I have always found it odd how Formby and Southport are part of Liverpool when they are so far out and have a clear border or rural area separating them. I have no idea why they decided to include them. They would really be better off outside.

The "country" area of the London Borough of Bromley (and to a similar but perhaps slightly less extent, the LB of Havering) has nothing in common with London whatsoever. Beyond Orpington there are swathes of farmland and open countryside. The small villages of Downe, Cudham, Single Street, Well Hill and Luxted are all part of "Greater London". These areas have scarce bus services (with Single Street and Luxted having none at all) and all are about five miles from the nearest railhead at Orpington. Yet all the residents of these hamlets pay Mayor Kahn's "precept" much of which is used to provide 24 hour bus and tube services to which the resident of these country outbacks have no realistic opportunity to use. Bromley residents have no access to the London Underground. It is only at Beckenham where they have access to the Tram network to Croydon and Wimbledon.

Yes, the administrative divisions of local authorities are confusing. I suggest that all local government is abolished. Their functions can be subsumed into national government departments and administered locally by administrative officials. There is no need for elected local authorities.

I actually really like the idea of getting rid of all councils and having everything run by the main government. We still need some sort of divisions of counties and cities and towns and villages for organisational purposes but the functions of the councils themselves could all just be done by the main government. I doubt this will ever happen but that would certainly make everything a lot simpler.

The government could just run lots of different departments that cover the responsibilities of the councils but for the entire UK. For example they could create a refuse service that deals with rubbish and recycling all over the UK and a housing service that deals with housing all over the UK etc. It would probably work much better having everything centralised and the same throughout the country.

I would also get rid of the devolved governments in Scotland and Wales too. I think allowing these to be created was a big mistake. If they want independence than that is fine but i do not like them having their own governments with significant control while still being part of the UK. It creates too many problems. But i suppose that is really a completely different discussion.

Welcome to China.

I don't think this makes sense, as local decisions are so different from national decisions that separate local democracy is desirable, or even necessary. Just maybe perhaps not quite as granularly as it is at present (e.g. the Manchester contiguous built up area consisting of two cities and several boroughs).

China does not operate like that. China has the main first level Chinese government and then the second level province government and then the third level prefecture government and then the fourth level county government and then the fifth level city/town/village government. So in China they have even more levels of local government than what we have.

 

[THC]

Ireland seems to be pretty much the same as the UK with county councils managing things in each county. Unless i have understood it wrong and the county councils have less powers and responsibilities than ours

That is correct. Local authorities in Ireland have fewer powers and duties than their equivalents in the UK.

When I refer to centralisation, what I mean is that powers and duties of government are reserved to the national tier and not devolved to a more local level.

THC

 

[WizCastro197]

.


Guildford does not really need to be made a city. I was just using it as an example that if Chichester is a city than why is Guildford not a city when it has three times the population. Guildford has a cathedral so i am surprised they never made Guildford a city.

Guildford’s cathedral if fairly new, it was opened in 1947, so is an exception to the rule, when I mean historically, I mean historically, very far back, that’s why some cities are referred to as Cathedral Cities.

 

[Typhoon]

• With the second tier councils that fall under a County Council some call themselves "Borough Council" (eg Guildford Borough Council and Waverley Borough Council etc) and some call themselves "District Council" (eg Mole Valley District Council and Tandridge District Council etc) and some call themselves "City Council" (eg Canterbury City Council and Winchester City Council etc) despite no differences. The councils have the same status and power and responsibilities so i have no idea why it is so random as to what they call themselves. It varies so much.

Does it matter what they are called? It is just a name. Living in a City Council area, they would probably want to retain that for tourism reasons. 'City' probably means really old buildings tourists can get photographed outside. Having been brought up in a borough I would have thought 'Borough' meant more towny, 'District' more countrified.

There should be a minimum population before you can call yourself a city. Guildford comes quite close to being a city but yet is only called a town.

Do you demote a 'City' if the population falls? Incidentally, Guildford's football team is called 'Guildford City' and has been for years. Having a cathedral was a sound differentiater between 'City' and 'Town' as, by and large, it was a constant. Only in the last few years have we mucked about with this.

But then on the opposite there are areas of rural countryside around Biggin Hill and Ockenden which are part of Greater London instead of Essex and Kent and Surrey which i find strange.

As of now, but twenty, thirty years time? The last thing we want is change just because developers build a 'Garden' City in the middle of nowhere.

I would scrap all of the borough councils and introduced a Greater London County Council (or maybe call it Middlesex County Council as Greater London covers most of the former Middlesex area) to run the entire area.

As someone born south of the river that would not go down well in some parts!! There are still documents around, around 100 years old, that describe Deptford and Greenwich as 'Kent' and Wandsworth as 'Surrey' (although I'm not sure either county wants them back).

 

[Enthusiast]

I don't think this makes sense, as local decisions are so different from national decisions that separate local democracy is desirable, or even necessary. Just maybe perhaps not quite as granularly as it is at present (e.g. the Manchester contiguous built up area consisting of two cities and several boroughs).

I have a number of friends and relatives all over England. None has any services that are significantly different to those provided by my LA. Any contentious planning issues that my LA turns down go to the government's Planning Inspectorate where they are usually approved (even though they may have been vociferously opposed locally or go against the LA's local overarching plans and priorities). I imagine that's the same elsewhere. Local councils serve no useful purpose except to extend all the disadvantages of party politics into the local refuse department. You don't need local councillors to decide how to empty the bins. Government is the cause of most of the country's ills and forms most of the obstructions to curing them. The country needs far less of it and the smaller the amount of government, the fewer would be the problems of demarcation as outlined in this question .

 

[johncrossley]

Then we have the issue of what places are allowed to call themselves "cities" despite not being large enough. The fact that Chichester is allowed to be called a city is a joke. It is a medium sized town at the very most. It is not a city or anywhere close to being a city. We need to have a clearly defined minimum population of a city. There should be a minimum population before you can call yourself a city. Guildford comes quite close to being a city but yet is only called a town.

City status is nonsense and probably should be abolished.

 

[johnnychips]

City status is nonsense and probably should be abolished.

Possibly.

‘A rose, by any other name, would still smell as sweet’.

Salford and Manchester City councils have exactly the same powers as the metropolitan boroughs like Oldham and Tameside around them.

Though I must say that the city (chest puffs out in pride) where I work, Doncaster, got a bit lucky:

“Sod, Boris, what are we going to do about this ‘Levelling-up’ agenda?”

“Well, we could make one of these oik northern towns a city? How about Middlesbrough? Heard the mayor there is rather sound?”

“He is, PM, but we’ve already given him so many grants and things, it would stand out like a sore thumb. And actually he’s made a bit of a tit of himself about the airport, which is losing a fortune.”

“Well, where is the next nearest place that applied?”

“Erm…Doncaster. I believe it has a racecourse or something. Oh, and it has an airport. “

“Is it a red wall seat?”

“Yes, one of its three MPs is now Conservative.”

“A racecourse and a viable airport! Well jolly well go for it!”

 

[GusB]

I'm not sure if I'd go as far as getting rid of local authorities completely. I think there's a need for local accountability for certain issues - planning being one of them. As far as refuse collection is concerned, I agree that there should be some harmonisation. For example, when I was looking after my dad, I'd put my bins out here on a Tuesday evening, then drive through to his place to put his bins out for collection on Wednesday. My council collects recycling in three different receptacles (glass, plastic/metal and paper/card), while he had one (plastic/metals and paper/card). It just seemed a bit silly that two places that are reasonably close together have different systems. On the other hand, the recycling centre outside Nairn is far better laid out than the one nine miles away and that comes under the control of my council; it's also far better set up for re-use of items, as the staff there will put things that are in good condition aside for someone else to take.

Yes, the administrative divisions of local authorities are confusing. I suggest that all local government is abolished. Their functions can be subsumed into national government departments and administered locally by administrative officials. There is no need for elected local authorities.

That's all very well, but how long would it take for functions "administered locally by administrative officials" to become functions administered regionally, or centrally, with the corresponding reduction in headcount and the increase in frustration as local people struggle to get in touch with people to deal with any issues that may arise? When I started my first job, my employer couldn't adequately describe what "BR" on my payslip meant, and the deduction from my wage was crippling. The solution? I called my local tax office and was advised to bring my last few payslips in. The chap behind the desk looked up some sort of table, made an "ah!" noise and told me he'd sort it; on my very next payslip I had a new tax code and a rather tidy refund.

If central government is unable to deal adequately with current central government functions, how the hell do you expect them to be able to deal with local issues on top of that?

Sorry, but your idea simply doesn't hold water. While none of my current local councillors live in my village, previous councillors have done so and it's amazing how quickly things can get done when they're getting their ear nipped in the pub on a regular basis! I'm not even sure that party politics comes into it that much. Of the two, now retired, councillors who lived nearby, one is pretty much a right-wing libertarian type and the other was actually far more lefty than I'd originally given him credit for! However, some issues transcend party politics and when there was an outcry about the amount of canine-generated waste being left on the pavements, they were all on the same page.

---

I grew up under the two-tier Scottish regional/district council system and, while it wasn't perfect, I think it could be reintroduced with a few changes. Take roads, for example; every week we'd have the district council (cleansing department) sweeper lorry coming round to hoover up the dust from the gutters. I can't remember the exact frequency, but every now and again we'd have the regional council (roads department) "gulley motor" coming round to hoover up the contents of the drains. I see absolutely no reason why there should be two different organisations performing these functions. Neither is accountable to the other, and a failure to carry out a proper job by one can have negative consequences for the other.

Education was a regional responsibility, but libraries were district (leisure and recreation) - again, this doesn't make much sense when the two functions should be more closely linked. This link became more apparent when the post 1996 unitary council decided that it needed to cut library costs and co-located them... in primary schools!

I understand why some people are reluctant towards having more local democracy - all those extra staff! Yes and no. For those on the lower tiers who have a specific job function, their jobs are going to be needed regardless of which tier they happen to fall under. The waste is at the top - if you're in charge of a council that provides village-level services, you certainly don't need a FTSE 100 CEO's salary.

 

[tomuk]

I completely agree that the current administrative divisions / council systems are a mess. The lack of a straightforward system also limits the ability to devolve powers, including borrowing and tax raising powers to areas in England.

Even more recent moves to do this with establishment of city regions and mayors isn't consistent with different powers available to the different city mayors and city regions\combined authorities. Of course where these have been established there has been no move to consolidate those layers below.

One attempt to fix this was the 'Redcliffe Maude' Royal Commission in the sixties this proposed the setting up of mainly unitary councils across the UK within a set of regional provinces, a three tier setup was proposed in the larger 'metropolitan' areas.

There was a lot of dissent to this report including from one of the committee members who published a dissenting report with even more radical proposals. Although the commission was started by the conservative government it was published under a labour government and due to a lot of lobbying by the soon to be redundant district\borough councillors it became very political and part of the 1970 general election campaign. The 1974 Local Government act setting up Humberside, Avon, Cleveland retaining two tiers was the outcome. This much modified outcome the result after various horse trading within Westminster, the Civil Service and wider political circles. As as stated since then their have been various further reforms, abolition of Metropolitan Counties, introduction of unitary authorities, the GLA and London Mayor and now City Regions\Combined Authorities and their mayors. It is interesting how some of these later fixes have reverted the 1974 position back towards Redcliffe Maud.

Now back to today I would propose unitary authorities across the country but a retention of sufficiently large parish\district councils for consultation purposes with limited powers. Above this would be a set of regional authorities I am undecided on whether these would just be the 12 NUTS 2/ITL1 regions or whether a more granular city region\shire region would be better.

A good start for the actual areas would be the Travel to Work Areas established from the census as these establish clear area of influence\commonality.

These would have to be refined based on the minimum viable size for a workable authority. This of course being based on their powers. (Note Adult Social Care should be an NHS responsibility and all schools should be acadamised -albeit with proper oversite of services by the new authorities.) All governmental boundaries such as police, fire, ambulance etc and parliamentary boundaries should be coterminous with each other so oversite and responsibility is clear.

Here are some examples of the TTWA compared to current boundaries for the major cities.

Map of TTWAs ONS

 

[PeterC]

The thing that annoys me is the need to use an tip in your own LA area. Definitely inconvenient when you need to assist elderly relatives living across the county boundary.

 

[Typhoon]

Sorry, but your idea simply doesn't hold water. While none of my current local councillors live in my village, previous councillors have done so and it's amazing how quickly things can get done when they're getting their ear nipped in the pub on a regular basis! I'm not even sure that party politics comes into it that much. Of the two, now retired, councillors who lived nearby, one is pretty much a right-wing libertarian type and the other was actually far more lefty than I'd originally given him credit for! However, some issues transcend party politics and when there was an outcry about the amount of canine-generated waste being left on the pavements, they were all on the same page.

Absolutely right. In many cases the ideal local councillor is the one who is prepared to get off their backside and actually do something. I once voted for a UKIP councillor, not because I thought that voting for him would make an difference to our status vis-a-vis the EU but because he said he would sort out flooding of a local road that had been going on for ages. He was as good as his word and attended local residents' meetings, so he got my vote. His fellow councillor did nothing, so didn't.

Many local decisions are not party based, you just want a councillor who is prepared to put the hours in, and hasn't been proposed on the 'buggins-turn' principle. MPs are no use as many don't live anywhere close to their constituency. The MP for Newark, Notts, lived in Herefordshire and London (may still do). He may not be the worst, I just happen to know that.

The need for local accountability - of course! We have a local issue regarding a local street market. The council leader wants to dissipate it around the outer limits of the shopping area; a few stalls here, a few stalls there; and replace it with benches so that shoppers can stop and 'enjoy the ambience'. I think he's rowed back on cutting down on mature trees and replacing them with saplings. This is a local issue and those who think it is a good idea accountable. Round our way we have seen what happens when things are left to a national body - the Planning Inspectorate. It all goes through on the nod. I doubt it is much different elsewhere.

There is nothing to stop local authorities liaising, mention has been made of shared CEOs - fine; two or more local authorities putting out a contract for refuse collection - depending on which ones, could make a lot of sense. With ingenuity, a lot could be achieved, for instance a mobile library service could serve a location just across the border from its usual run, rather than having one travel miles out of its way. It just needs co-operation. The temptation would be for the regional authority to decide that I problem is too difficult to solve and terminate the service completely.

 

[Enthusiast]

The thing that annoys me is the need to use an tip in your own LA area. Definitely inconvenient when you need to assist elderly relatives living across the county boundary.

Or when you live, as I do, close to your LA's boundary. I have a tip just over half a mile away, but I can't use it because it is in the adjoining LA. Instead I have to take my rubbish to "my" tip which is seven miles away and necessitates passing through a busy town centre. I'm lucky to make the journey to it in under half an hour.

I won't dwell on the abolition of LAs too much as it is somewhat off-topic. Just to add that virtually all my LA's major decisions are decided on party lines and very few major planning applications which the council rejects remain rejected once the decision is passed to the Planning Inspectorate. Local Democracy is all very well provided it works but if, in my experience, it rarely does, it's simply an expensive indulgence.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I feel a bit conflicted on this. On the one hand, yes, the system does seem to be a total mess, with apparently different rules for who controls what in each area. But on the other hand, is the fact that it's a mess causing any serious harm? Can anyone point to - for example - a massive degree of bad decision making that has been specifically caused by the wide variation in different types of council in different areas? (As opposed to bad decision making that is caused by politicians simply not being sufficiently skilled or by usual party politics). To some extent the variation is caused by different areas having different needs: It's not hard, for example, to see that the ideal way of administering a large metropolitan area is probably going to be different from the ideal way of administering a small, largely self-contained, village. It's also partly caused by different local areas choosing different forms of local governance (for example, referenda on mayors, which give different results in different places). Any attempt to simplify/harmonise it all is invariably going to run against people's wishes in at least some areas (and may run counter to the results of recent local referenda). So we probably need to be a bit careful with any changes.

At the same time, I do agree that some of the boundaries need review - especially when boundaries between different authorities cut right through single urban areas, and seem to have little relation to identifiable communities.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Dec 2022 ==

The small villages of Downe, Cudham, Single Street, Well Hill and Luxted are all part of "Greater London". These areas have scarce bus services (with Single Street and Luxted having none at all) and all are about five miles from the nearest railhead at Orpington. Yet all the residents of these hamlets pay Mayor Kahn's "precept" much of which is used to provide 24 hour bus and tube services to which the resident of these country outbacks have no realistic opportunity to use. Bromley residents have no access to the London Underground. It is only at Beckenham where they have access to the Tram network to Croydon and Wimbledon.

On the other hand, presumably, by being part of London, many of these areas get better bus services and with lower fares than they would have done if they'd been in Kent or Surrey. Biggin Hill in particular (which you didn't mention, but is in many ways similar) seems to have an extremely generous almost 'urban' level of bus services that you'd never expect of a typical country town of that size. And is the transport 'precept' that high?

Having said that, I also find it a little strange that these obviously very rural communities are a part of London. I assume there must be some very idiosyncratic local history involved in how that came about.

 

[Typhoon]

The small villages of Downe, Cudham, Single Street, Well Hill and Luxted are all part of "Greater London". These areas have scarce bus services (with Single Street and Luxted having none at all) and all are about five miles from the nearest railhead at Orpington. Yet all the residents of these hamlets pay Mayor Kahn's "precept" much of which is used to provide 24 hour bus and tube services to which the resident of these country outbacks have no realistic opportunity to use. Bromley residents have no access to the London Underground. It is only at Beckenham where they have access to the Tram network to Croydon and Wimbledon.

Scarce?

Cudham - served by R5/R10 circular service. 6 or 7 buses a day in each direction. To Orpington.
Downe - served by 146 to Bromley, approx hourly, seven days a week (late start Sunday)
& - R8 to Orpington and Biggin Hill, 12 buses a day, first bus to Orpington 06:10, last return 20:05, six days a week.

Luxted and Single Street are also served by the R8, I gather that section may be operated as Hail-and-Ride (I tracked a vehicle and it did go along that stretch of road); both are described as 'hamlets'.

(Data from TfL website and bustimes)

Pop over the border into Kent:

Badgers Mount* - School buses only
Eynsford, Shoreham and Otford - two buses a day, Monday to Saturday + school buses
Brasted and Sundridge - three a day Monday to Saturday, 5 on a Sunday (for now)!!

(From GoCoach website and bustimes)

I didn't include Halstead and Knockholt as they benefit from Mayor Khan's R5/R10 (see above) and I know Shoreham (just) and Otford are on the GoCoach DRT map but as was found in #317 https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/demand-responsive-transport.205430/page-11#post-5960987 this may mean a long wait.

You are right about no access to the Underground but, as you mention the nearest railhead is Orpington. From a weekday between 10am and 11am there are 6 trains to London Bridge and 2 to Victoria, with peak hours trains to Blackfriars

I know this only covers public transport and local government covers more than this but this is primarily a public transport forum. I have relatives who live not far from there who I visit from time to time. As someone who relies on public transport (and my own steam), they are on the wrong side of the county border as far as I am concerned.

* - yeah, yeah, I know,

 

[rapmastaj]

My word, where to begin? Your essential premise is correct - local government in England is confusing to say the least (more so than the other three nations) - but I will make one overarching point, namely that despite partial devolution the UK remains one of the most centralised systems of government of any mature liberal democracy (only Ireland is more centralised in western Europe, and that is about twelve times smaller than the UK by population). Any structural overhaul that does not address this issue will therefore prove little more than window dressing. On that note I'm off to finish the Christmas shopping!

THC

Yes, there is a desperate need for more devolution.

In Ireland, at least the counties are very well defined and their boundaries are stable. In the UK, the boundaries and/or names of one or more local authorities change every single year. No wonder the system feels impenetrable. It's a total nightmare.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One more to add...the new North East Combined Authority...but not *all* of the NE, Middlesbrough has been sneakily left out.

I wonder if a Yorkshire (all of it) Mayoralty may follow? I think that would be popular but I just can't see the North West going that way (the return of Greater Lancashire? ) though, the Scousers and Mancs would be at war on the first day and barricade the M62!