"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
...
In article , Richard J.
writes
Personally, having been brought up in Orpington and Bromley in the 1940's
and '50's, I viewed my parents' insistence that we were in Kent as
absurd.
Kent was where you went for a day out. We were quite clearly part of the
Greater London conurbation, as a quick glance at an Ordnance Survey map
made
clear even then. To draw boundaries through the middle of suburbs and
pretend one side is London and the other is Kent doesn't make any sense
except for historical studies.

I always considered that the best definition of "Greater London" was the
area served by the red "Central Area" buses, pre 1970. But that's only
my personal opinion!

Incidentally, if I have one other point to make in this interesting if
sometimes heated debate, it's a thought that occurred to me when I saw
the first posting to it by John Rowland: *wherever* you put boundaries
in built up areas, there will be *some* anomalies.

I realise that, but the difficulties that council boundaries create for
projects means that council boundaries should be placed where it is least
likely that a project will need to span them. From that point of view,
council boundaries should run through residential areas, and where possible
give a *WIDE* berth to libraries, leisure centres, municipal dumps and every
other council run facility - that way, people have democratic control of and
financial responsibility for the services that they use.

I don't know if Edgware High Street has Christmas lights, but if so, does it
need negotiation every year between the two boroughs which control the
streetlamps on the different sides of the road?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes