"John B" wrote in message
...

You reckon there are Sussex folk in Tunbridge Wells who're still
disgruntled about being forcibly assimilated into Kent?

I think most of Tunbridge Wells has been in Kent for all living memory - I'm
not sure if the boundaries shifted much in 1974. However, you'll find people
in East Grinstead and the surrounding area who are still disgruntled that
they were shifted from East Sussex to West Sussex in 1974.

D A Stocks

On Dec 31, 1:09*am, "David A Stocks" wrote:
"John B" wrote in message

...

You reckon there are Sussex folk in Tunbridge Wells who're still
disgruntled about being forcibly assimilated into Kent?

I think most of Tunbridge Wells has been in Kent for all living memory - I'm
not sure if the boundaries shifted much in 1974. However, you'll find people
in East Grinstead and the surrounding area who are still disgruntled that
they were shifted from East Sussex to West Sussex in 1974.

TW has been in Kent for all living memory - the shift came in 1888.
But Roland was claiming that that counted as 'recent'.

I'm surprised people in East Grinstead care, though: I'd've expected
allegiances to be to Sussex (in the same way that Yorkshiremen's
allegiances are to Yorkshire, not to N/S/E/W Yorkshire).

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

"John B" wrote in message
...
On Dec 31, 1:09 am, "David A Stocks" wrote:


I think most of Tunbridge Wells has been in Kent for all living memory -
I'm
not sure if the boundaries shifted much in 1974. However, you'll find
people
in East Grinstead and the surrounding area who are still disgruntled that
they were shifted from East Sussex to West Sussex in 1974.

TW has been in Kent for all living memory - the shift came in 1888.
But Roland was claiming that that counted as 'recent'.

I'm surprised people in East Grinstead care, though: I'd've expected
allegiances to be to Sussex (in the same way that Yorkshiremen's
allegiances are to Yorkshire, not to N/S/E/W Yorkshire).


The issue was having the administration moving from Lewes to Chichester. In
1974 EG was on the major route from London to Lewes (the A22 out of EG to
the south is called Lewes Road) so there were/are quite close links between
the two towns. Meanwhile, Chichester is a about as far away from EG as you
can get and still be in Sussex. Getting from one to the other is a major
trek so there's no feeling that they belong together in any way.

D A Stocks

On Dec 31, 12:07*pm, "David A Stocks" wrote:
"John B" wrote in message

...
On Dec 31, 1:09 am, "David A Stocks" wrote:



I think most of Tunbridge Wells has been in Kent for all living memory -
I'm
not sure if the boundaries shifted much in 1974. However, you'll find
people
in East Grinstead and the surrounding area who are still disgruntled that
they were shifted from East Sussex to West Sussex in 1974.
TW has been in Kent for all living memory - the shift came in 1888.
But Roland was claiming that that counted as 'recent'.
I'm surprised people in East Grinstead care, though: I'd've expected
allegiances to be to Sussex (in the same way that Yorkshiremen's
allegiances are to Yorkshire, not to N/S/E/W Yorkshire).

The issue was having the administration moving from Lewes to Chichester. In
1974 EG was on the major route from London to Lewes (the A22 out of EG to
the south is called Lewes Road) so there were/are quite close links between
the two towns. Meanwhile, Chichester is a about as far away from EG as you
can get and still be in Sussex. Getting from one to the other is a major
trek so there's no feeling that they belong together in any way.

There's some logic there - however, given that Crawley, Horsham,
Worthing and Gatwick are in W Sussex, the issue is more that
Chichester (right on the western border) is a daft place to put the
administration for a region whose population is concentrated in its
east.

Not as daft as putting Surrey County Council in London, admittedly...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

In article , (David A
Stocks) wrote:

Chichester is a about as far away from EG as you
can get and still be in Sussex.

I thought Chichester was in Hampshire...

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

John B wrote:

There's some logic there - however, given that Crawley, Horsham,
Worthing and Gatwick are in W Sussex, the issue is more that
Chichester (right on the western border) is a daft place to put the
administration for a region whose population is concentrated in its
east.

Maybe it was like Bonn... the capital was as far from the east as possible
in case of invasion.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

In message
, at
04:19:21 on Thu, 31 Dec 2009, John B remarked:
Not as daft as putting Surrey County Council in London, admittedly...

Was it "put there", or did London 'expand' past it?

The same might have happened in Essex, had the original County Town been
Romford.
--
Roland Perry

On Dec 31, 12:45*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

Not as daft as putting Surrey County Council in London, admittedly...

Was it "put there", or did London 'expand' past it?

The same might have happened in Essex, had the original County Town been
Romford.

It's a bit of an odd saga.

The historic county town of Surrey is Guildford, but for reasons that
aren't entirely clear the county administration was moved to Southwark
in the 1790s. After the Local Government Act 1888 moved Southwark into
the County of London, they had to find a new site - bizarrely, given
that it was already becoming suburban London even at this point, they
chose Kingston.

Following the LGA 1963, Surrey County Council has spent the last 45
years failing to deal with the absurdity of having their
administrative centre outside the county. In 2003, they finally
managed to put forward a plan to move County Hall to Woking... but
then axed it in 2006 at the last minute due to complete ineptitude.

Coincidentally I'm sure, SCC is rock-solid Tory and has been almost
without exception since forever.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:

Following the LGA 1963, Surrey County Council has spent the last 45
years failing to deal with the absurdity of having their
administrative centre outside the county.

I don't think Kingston is a good place to have Surrey's admin, but Surbiton
would be, because it's probably easier to reach from any part of Surrey than
any place that's actually in Surrey.

In 2003, they finally
managed to put forward a plan to move County Hall to Woking... but
then axed it in 2006 at the last minute due to complete ineptitude.

Coincidentally I'm sure, SCC is rock-solid Tory and has been almost
without exception since forever.

I don't understand your point.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

On Dec 31, 1:55*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
Following the LGA 1963, Surrey County Council has spent the last 45
years failing to deal with the absurdity of having their
administrative centre outside the county.

I don't think Kingston is a good place to have Surrey's admin, but Surbiton
would be, because it's probably easier to reach from any part of Surrey than
any place that's actually in Surrey.

Hmm. On that basis, the 19th century location in Southwark would be
ideal.

In 2003, they finally
managed to put forward a plan to move County Hall to Woking... but
then axed it in 2006 at the last minute due to complete ineptitude.

Coincidentally I'm sure, SCC is rock-solid Tory and has been almost
without exception since forever.

I don't understand your point.

I'm suggesting that only a weigh-the-vote council would be
sufficiently inept that it failed to sort something like this out for
50 years. I'm also making a mildly snide jibe against the Tories,
although realistically I suspect that a weigh-the-vote Labour council
would be nearly as inept.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org