The thread about Dartford started me thinking. Which is the stupidest
boundary in London?

I can think of 2 candidates..

LB Richmond is absurd. Putting Twickenham and Richmond in the same borough
makes no sense, when the only transport links between the two halves of the
borough are 2 road bridges, 1 rail bridge, and a few pedestrian links.

The borough boundary down the middle of Edgware High Street is ridiculous. I
particularly like the way you travel westward away from Edgware High Street
and are greeted by signs that read "LB Harrow - Welcome to Edgware". I'm
sure that as you drive southward from Macedonia you see similar signs that
say "Greece - Welcome to Macedonia"

--
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

John Rowland writes
The thread about Dartford started me thinking. Which is the stupidest
boundary in London?

It all goes back to ancient parish boundaries.

LB Richmond is absurd. Putting Twickenham and Richmond in the same borough
makes no sense, when the only transport links between the two halves of the
borough are 2 road bridges, 1 rail bridge, and a few pedestrian links.

Why should transport links be a factor. A borough s just a way of
administering local government.

Look at an old map of SW Middlesex. See the borough of Twickenham. You
need to group boroughs together in order to form larger units for easier
administration - why not Richmond?

The borough boundary down the middle of Edgware High Street is ridiculous. I
particularly like the way you travel westward away from Edgware High Street
and are greeted by signs that read "LB Harrow - Welcome to Edgware".

Just because you find a sign amusing you concur that a borough boundary
is 'ridiculous'? Why is that sign more amusing than one which might
read 'LB Barnet - Welcome to Edgware'?

The A5 (being on old Roman road) would have been the ancient parish
boundary. So long as that does not affect service delivery, why bother
fiddling with the boundary today?

--
Dave

...

LB Richmond is absurd. Putting Twickenham and Richmond in the same
borough
makes no sense, when the only transport links between the two halves of
the
borough are 2 road bridges, 1 rail bridge, and a few pedestrian links.

Why should transport links be a factor. A borough s just a way of
administering local government.

If only it were just a way of administering local government! These were
the kind of words used when GL was created in the 60s. Now, of course, we
have the media referring to such things as "Biggin Hill in south London",
which is completely crazy.

I am tired of reading GLA material through my door addressed to "Dear
Londoner". They quite clearly have an agenda to Londonise the outer
boroughs that have not previously ever been described as
south/east/west/north London. I have no major problem with the
administrative top tier of local government being based at London Bridge
rather than Maidstone, but I do have a problem with my area having to be
rebranded to "London" because of it.

Most maps also show these administrative areas, and so they do impact on
"where you live". Maybe maps shouldn't be drawn with administrative
counties/areas so prominently. If you address something to Bexley or
Bromley you put "Bexley, Kent, DA5..." or "Bromley, Kent, BR1...". When you
look on a map it appears that Bexley and Bromley aren't in Kent. I am sure
that confuses people.

Nick

From: Dave
Date: 19/07/2003 12:53 GMT Daylight Time

Why should transport links be a factor. A borough s just a way of
administering local government.

And a very silly one at that. In many of the outer boroughs houses that face
each other across the same street and are identical in every respect attract
different amounts of council tax because the borough boundary runs right down
the middle of the road. That boundary might have made sense when there was just
farmland on either side of it, but why didn't anyone bother to tidy things up
after the houses were built?

And how much time is wasted at council tax payers expense by over paid
bureacrats in town halls all over the place scrambling about to find out if
theirs is the odd numbered side of a street or the even numbered side when
someone complains that a street light's out or something similar?

On 19 Jul 2003 16:52:01 GMT, are (Acrosticus)
wrote:

From: Dave
Date: 19/07/2003 12:53 GMT Daylight Time

Why should transport links be a factor. A borough s just a way of
administering local government.

And a very silly one at that. In many of the outer boroughs houses that face
each other across the same street and are identical in every respect attract
different amounts of council tax because the borough boundary runs right down
the middle of the road. That boundary might have made sense when there was just
farmland on either side of it, but why didn't anyone bother to tidy things up
after the houses were built?

And how much time is wasted at council tax payers expense by over paid
bureacrats in town halls all over the place scrambling about to find out if
theirs is the odd numbered side of a street or the even numbered side when
someone complains that a street light's out or something similar?

Remarkably little. It'll be readily available information

Boroughs have agreements between themselves re carriageway
maintenance.

One maintains the road and bills its neighbour for half the cost.


A borough has to have a boundary somewhere!


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

From: Robert Woolley
Date: 19/07/2003 19:11 GMT Daylight Time

A borough has to have a boundary somewhere!

Agreed. But please place it somewhere sensible. Imagine for example that my
original query had related to someone complaining their dustbin hadn't been
emptied, instead of a street light being out: what would these cosy little
highways agreements have contributed to sorting that one out in a cost
efficient manner? Close to naff all I suspect!

Acrosticus writes
A borough has to have a boundary somewhere!

Agreed. But please place it somewhere sensible. Imagine for example
that my original query had related to someone complaining their dustbin
hadn't been emptied, instead of a street light being out: what would
these cosy little highways agreements have contributed to sorting that
one out in a cost efficient manner? Close to naff all I suspect!

Presumably you know in which borough you live, so would know which
council to call.

The point still stands; there has to be a boundary somewhere - and there
will always be *someone* who thinks the boundary should be elsewhere.

--
Dave

Nick writes
Would you prefer they referred to you as 'Dear resident of the and area
formerly part of the county of Middlesex, Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire or
Essex'?

Quite frankly, that would be better.

Quite frankly that's just ridiculous and merely serves to undermine the
rest of your argument.

Ever heard of the 'London Borough of Bromley'? That's its proper name -
see the main page of www.bromley.gov.uk

Yeah, I've heard of it, it's just next door. Their website does appear
rather London-enthusiastic now (it never used to). I have never spoken to
any Bromley councillors who are though.

Well the name of the council will have been the same since it was
formed.

I am sure the vast majority of people in Bexley and Bromley would not
describe themselves as living "in London". All the real Londonders I have
ever met and worked with would never regard such "outlying" areas as Bexley
as part of London either.

And there are many residents living in the Boroughs of Bexley and
Bromley who do not regard themselves as living in Bexley or Bromley; but
living in places such as Orpington or Chislehurst. They may have
objected as strongly to being forced to become 'Bexley' or 'Bromley'
residents as you do to being addressed as a Londoner.

So perhaps we should wind back *all* the 1960s local Government
revisions and go back to having local parish councils only.

There has been no need to put a county as part of your address for many
years. So the correct postal address would end 'Bromley BR1...' or
'Bexley BR5...'.

Correct, but the postal county is still used extensively and I would guess
well over 75% of all mail delivered in the UK still has a county field. So
lots of people will see Bexley and Bromley addressed as Kent (and NEVER
London, which is not acceptable as part of the address).

Of course even when used, postal counties bore no relation to
geographical or political counties. Addresses in Cockfosters would have
a postal town of Barnet, Herts. Despite Cockfosters being in the London
Borough of Enfield and (geographically) in the County of Middlesex.

Part of my point in general is that it may well be sensible to include
places such as Dartford and Swanley as part of the GLA administration (so
Dartford station could be added to Zone 6 etc :-), but this is jeopardised
by the fact that GLA will then want to take away the Kent branding and call
the residents Londoners. People don't want it, it's not necessary, and I
believe it undermines the history and character of the areas they do this
with.

I think you're being *far* too sensitive.

The old GLC slogan was 'Working for London' and used for many years. It
appeared on everything that they made or did. I really don't see what
the difference is today with the GLA.

Let's look at some of the services provided in your area: buses will
have been 'London Transport' since 1933 (and in those days covered a far
wider area than they do today); the local TV news programmes are called
BBC London News and London Tonight; the local evening paper is the
Evening Standard, whose website is called www.thisislondon.co.uk; fires
are extinguished by the London Fire Brigade; crimes investigated by the
Metropolitan Police; even before WWII, water supplied by the
Metropolitan Water Board; accident victims are tended to by the London
Ambulance Service.

So the links to London are far greater than to places like Margate or
Maidstone.

I am not anti-GLA, I just don't want the London branding and to be
artificially separated from the Dartford area.

Nothing has changed in that respect since 1965.

--
Dave

Dave wrote:

So perhaps we should wind back *all* the 1960s local Government
revisions and go back to having local parish councils only.

"Under the New London Plan, they're going to lump all those areas south
of the river together. They're going to call them 'Brighton'."

"Dave" wrote in message
...

So perhaps we should wind back *all* the 1960s local Government
revisions and go back to having local parish councils only.

While I agree with most of your points, I don't know what you mean here.
Before the GLC was formed, we had boroughs (e.g. Bromley, Beckenham) and
urban districts (e.g. Penge, Orpington), and above them in the hierarchy
there was a county council (Kent for those areas). That's not "having local
parish councils only".
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)