The Full Wiki

More info on Local Government Commission for England (1992)

Local Government Commission for England (1992): Map


Wikipedia article:

Map showing all locations mentioned on Wikipedia article:

The Local Government Commission for England was the body responsible for reviewing the structure of local government in England from 1992 to 2002. It was established under the Local Government Act 1992, replacing the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. The Commission could be ordered by the Secretary of State to undertake "structural reviews" in specified areas and recommend the creation of unitary authorities in the two-tier shire counties of England. The Commission, chaired by John Banham, conducted a review of all the non-metropolitan counties of England from 1993 to 1994, making various recommendations on their future.

After much political debate and several legal challenges, the Commission's proposals resulted in the abolition of Berkshire county council and the counties of Avon, Clevelandmarker, Hereford and Worcester and Humberside (created in 1974). Combined with a second wave of reviews in 1995, under the chairmanship of David Cooksey, the Commission's proposals led to the creation of unitary authorities covering many urban areas of England, including cities like Bristolmarker, Hullmarker, Leicestermarker, Derbymarker, Nottinghammarker, Stoke-on-Trentmarker and Plymouthmarker. Reforms in the rest of Great Britain followed a different course.

Following the structural review, the Commission then reviewed electoral arrangements in English local authorities, re-warding based on population changes. It was replaced by the Boundary Committee for England in 2002, which finished this review cycle in 2004.


Local government was at the time organised under the Local Government Act 1972, which had been passed during Edward Heath's Conservative administration. Before this, local government in England had been a mixed system, with large urban areas being covered by unitary authorities called county boroughs, and the rest of the country having administrative county councils and many smaller district councils, with different competences. The 1972 Act abolished county boroughs, making them districts in two-tier counties. This, and the consequent loss of education, social services and libraries to county control, was strongly regretted by the larger towns outside the new metropolitan counties, such as Bristol, Plymouth, Stoke, Leicester and Nottingham. The abolition of metropolitan county councils in 1986 left the metropolitan boroughs operating as unitary authorities.

Michael Heseltine, who had been a junior local government minister during the passage of the Local Government Act 1972, was appointed as Secretary of State for the Environment (and thus responsible for local government) in John Major's first cabinet of 1990. Heseltine was an enthusiast for unitary local government, and was also an early proponent of the idea of directly elected mayors, to be taken up by Tony Blair's government in the 2000s.

A wide range of political opinion had always favoured in principle the establishment of unitary authorities. The Labour Party had planned to implement the Redcliffe-Maud Report in the 1970s, and the party's 1982 statement of policy "Labour's Programme 1982" said "There is an irrational split of functions between the two tiers compounded by a confusing overlap of responsibilities ... We favour the creation in England and Wales of unitary authorities". Heseltine announced in 1991 that the government would be looking at the creation of unitary authorities in the non-metropolitan counties as part of a more general review of local government, including the abolition of the Community Charge, or poll tax, and oversaw the passage of the 1992 Act through Parliament.

Heseltine was replaced by Michael Howard in April 1992 after the 1992 general election. Whilst Heseltine had expressed a wish for most of the country to become unitary authorities, Howard issued revised guidance on the basis that the "two-tier structure may be appropriate in some areas", and that the costs of reorganisation might be too much for the recession-hit UK economy to take.

The Commission, chaired by John Banham (named to the post in November 1991, before the legislation had been passed to create the Commission), started the reviews in July 1992. The process was originally supposed to take some years, with the shire counties being considered in five waves, or "tranches", and it was hoped that the reforms would come into effect from 1994 to 1998. The process took longer than expected, with the Commission unable to recruit enough staff until November 1992. The first tranche, covering Avon, Clevelandmarker, Derbyshiremarker, County Durham, Gloucestershiremarker, the Isle of Wightmarker, Humberside, Lincolnshiremarker, North Yorkshire and Somersetmarker was nearly done by the end of 1993. Banham had said that the Commission was expecting "early wins" in Cleveland, Humberside and Avon: three counties created in 1974, based on rivers, that had not achieved public acceptance.

Although Cleveland was and continues to be lumped together with Avon and Humberside, in reality it was a very different case, having achieved widespread acceptance amongst its residents and lacking any significant movement for abolition as in for example Humberside. Fears that the abolition of Cleveland would lead to a general lack of identity and a greatly reduced public voice appear to have been well founded and continue to rankle with residents to the present day.

The first recommendation, published in 1993, was the quite uncontroversial one to make Isle of Wightmarker a unitary authority. The island had been split between South Wightmarker and Medinamarker boroughs, with an Isle of Wight County Council, since 1974.


Three more final reports, for Cleveland, Derbyshire and Durham, were published in November 1993. In both Derbyshire and Durham, unitary authorities would be created covering the large urban areas, but the rest of the county would remain two-tier in structure.

A new Secretary of State, John Selwyn Gummer, had taken over in May, and he did not like these proposals, or the long time it took to produce them. Gummer sped-up the work plan and directed that all remaining reviews should start in December and be complete by the end of 1994. Gummer also issued new guidance, making it clear that wholly unitary solutions should be preferred, particularly ones smaller than existing counties but larger than existing districts. He further announced that Derbyshire and Durham would be referred back to the Commission for consideration under the new guidance. Gummer accepted the Commission's proposal to abolish Cleveland, but asked the Commission to consider Durham and Derbyshire again under the new guidance. The Labour Party, while remaining broadly in favour of unitary authorities, attacked the Commission for inconsistency. The leader of the Labour-controlled Derbyshire County Council questioned the inclusion of Derbyshire in the first tranche, which otherwise consisted mainly of counties newly created in 1974 and their neighbours.

The revised guidance included wording as follows:

In some areas the commission may wish to recommend a continuation of the existing two-tier structure.
But the government expects that to be the exception, and that the result will be a substantial increase in the number of unitary authorities in both urban and rural areas.

Lancashire and Derbyshire County Councils, fearing their abolition under the new guidance, took a case to the High Courtmarker, seeking a judicial review that it was illegal. On 28 January, the High Court ruled in their favour, deleting the sentence in dispute, implying that the Commission should consider retaining the status quo, either in part or wholly, as an option as well.

The commission recommended that Avon and Humberside should be abolished and broken up into four unitary authorities each. It also recommended that the rump Somersetmarker be broken up into three unitary authorities (West, South and Mid). It suggested that North Yorkshire be split into three unitary authorities – one for Yorkmarker, and two others to be called "West Riding of Yorkshire" and "North Riding of Yorkshire" (the proposed West Riding would have taken in only a small part of the historic West Riding of Yorkshire, while the proposed North Riding would have included most of the historic North Riding of Yorkshire). It recommended no change in Lincolnshiremarker and Gloucestershiremarker. The County Councils of Avon, Cleveland and Somerset sought judicial review to stop these proposals going forward, but the High Court found them within the law.

The government accepted most of these recommendations, but also kept the status quo in Somerset ("after taking account of the number and strength of the representations which I received opposing the recommendations"), and in North Yorkshire retained a rump two-tier North Yorkshire without York ("in the light of the strong representations which I have received opposing the Commission's recommendations for North and West Riding") – both reportedly the subject of strong lobbying by local Conservative MPs. The government did not accept the recommendations of the Commission on Gloucestershire, and announced its intention to refer the county back. These changes were implemented in 1996.

Remaining tranches

The Commission's draft recommendations for Cambridgeshire.
The purple area is Huntingdonshire, the yellow area the proposed Peterborough & The Fens authority, and the pink area the proposed City & County of Cambridge.

Reviews continued throughout 1994, with draft proposals published for consultation, outlining the Commission's preferred option and other options. The Commission made extensive usage of MORI polling in each of the local areas affected to determine which options were more popular locally. For example, in Cambridgeshire, the Commission outlined three options for a split of the county into unitary authorities, the preferred option being a three-way split between the "City & County of Cambridge" (consisting of Cambridgemarker, South Cambridgeshiremarker, East Cambridgeshiremarker), Huntingdonshiremarker and Peterboroughmarker & The Fensmarker.LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Cambridgeshire. October 1994.

In final reports delivered in October 1994, the Commission recommended Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire county councils be abolished and replaced with four and three unitary authorities respectively. In other counties, it backed down from more radical draft proposals, and it recommended no change in Cambridgeshire, Cheshiremarker, Cumbriamarker, Lancashiremarker, Kentmarker and Oxfordshire. In Hampshire it recommended that Southamptonmarker, Portsmouthmarker and New Forestmarker become unitary authorities.

A further batch of reports was delivered in December, recommending that Norfolk, Northamptonshiremarker, Northumberlandmarker, Suffolk, Surreymarker, Warwickshiremarker, West Sussexmarker should remained unchanged. In Hereford and Worcester, Worcestershire would become a two-tier county whilst Herefordshiremarker become a unitary authority. In Leicestershiremarker, Leicestermarker and Rutlandmarker would become unitary authorities, with the rest of the county remaining two-tier – a pattern followed also in County Durham (Darlington), Devonmarker (Plymouthmarker and Torbaymarker), East Sussexmarker (Brighton & Hovemarker), Essex (Southend-on-Seamarker), Nottinghamshiremarker (Nottinghammarker), Staffordshire (Stoke-on-Trentmarker) and Wiltshiremarker (Thamesdown). The Commission recommended the abolition of two county councils – Berkshire (which was to have five unitary authorities) and Dorset (which was to have four).

The final batch of recommendations was published in January 1995, slightly missing the deadline, and recommended no change for Cornwall, Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire and Shropshire. In Derbyshire it recommended the creation of a unitary city of Derbymarker with the remainder of the county remaining two-tier.

In a January 1995 interview, Banham explained the decision-making process of the Commission was based strongly on local opinion, noting that although a fully unitary solution for much of the country would commend all-party support in the House of Commons, he thought it would cause "mayhem" when implemented. He also advocated the creation of more parish councils in unparished areas. In a letter to The Times in March 1994, he noted he had the attitude that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Government reaction

On 2 March 1995, Gummer announced to the Commonsmarker that the government would not fully accept the Commission's proposals and certain districts would be referred to the Commission for a further review. He also announced John Banham's resignation in protest at this.

For Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Dorsetmarker the government did not accept the Commission's recommendations for an entirely unitary structure, and decided to only make Lutonmarker, Milton Keynesmarker, Bournemouthmarker and Poolemarker unitary, with the rest of those counties remaining two-tier.

The proposal to abolish Berkshire County Council was accepted by the government. The Commission had recommended five unitary authorities in Berkshire, based on the districts of Newbury, Readingmarker, Wokingham, Sloughmarker, with Bracknell Forestmarker and Windsor and Maidenheadmarker districts merging to form a "Royal East Berkshire". Gummer decided to make each district a unitary authority. The proposal for an entirely unitary structure had been strongly supported by the County Council earlier, though with time and a change in political composition of the Council, it changed its mind and took this decision to court, seeking to have the entire Order declared invalid. The High Court ruled in their favour, but the Court of Appeal quashed this decision. This led to the implementation of unitary authorities of Berkshire to be delayed from 1997 to 1998.

In Hampshire, the Commission had proposed unitary authorities for the cities of Portsmouthmarker and Southamptonmarker, which were accepted by the government, and the larger and more rural New Forestmarker district, which the government did not accept.

In many counties that were to remain unchanged, the government had reservations about specific districts. Gummer identified as candidates on his 2 March statement the districts of Basildonmarker, Blackburn, Blackpoolmarker, Broxtowemarker, Dartford, Exetermarker, Gedlingmarker, Gillinghammarker, Gloucestermarker, Graveshammarker, Haltonmarker, Huntingdonshiremarker, Northamptonmarker, Peterboroughmarker, Rochester upon Medwaymarker, Rushcliffemarker, Thurrockmarker, Warringtonmarker. Shadow Environment Secretary Frank Dobson suggested that Cambridgemarker, Ipswichmarker, Norwichmarker, Oxfordmarker and The Wrekin be added to this list: Norwich and the Wrekin were. Spelthorne was added at the request of the local MP, David Wilshire.

Cooksey commission

The new commission was under the chairmanship of Sir David Cooksey, previously the chairman of the Audit Commission. The commission published draft proposals on the districts referred back to it in September 1995. It recommended unitary status for Blackpool, Blackburn, Halton, Northampton, Peterborough, Thurrock, Warrington and the Wrekin, and also that Rochester upon Medway and Gillingham should form a Medway Towns unitary authority.

The final recommendations deleted Northampton from this list, deciding that "as with Exeter and Gloucester, the separation of Northampton from its county would have a significant and detrimental effect". The government announced its acceptance of these recommendations in March 1996, and these changes were implemented in 1998.

The Commission decided against unitary status for the three districts around Nottingham: Gedling, Broxtowe and Rushcliffe. Of the three, only Rushcliffe Borough Council supported a change. It considered but came down against unifying Dartford and Graveshammarker as a unitary authority (supported by Dartford but rejected by Gravesham). Exeter was considered too small. The Commission noted that Gloucestermarker's proximity to Cheltenhammarker would cause issues and that the two towns should be governed together. The Commission rejected the case of Huntingdonshire (a historic county, and the constituency of the Prime Minister, John Major), noting that there was "no exceptional county allegiance" and doubting the capacity of Huntingdonshire and the viability of the remaining Cambridgeshire. The Commission noted that tight boundaries for Norwich would cause a problem for unitary government, but that an extension would likely be strongly opposed. In Spelthorne the Commission was concerned about the lack of "internal coherence of the area" and its size.

While finding against a Basildon unitary authority, the Commission recommended the removal of Billericaymarker and Wickfordmarker from Basildon district and their addition to Brentwoodmarker and Rochfordmarker districts, leaving Basildon district focused on the Basildon New Town. The boundary alterations proposed between Basildon, Rochford and Brentwood were never implemented.

The Commission also recommended boundary revisions between Peterborough and Huntingdonshire to incorporate the entire southern township of Peterborough in the city, and also boundary changes between Spelthorne and Runnymedemarker as a result of changes in the path of the River Thames. The Peterborough changes were implemented as part of the Order for Peterborough, coming into force in 1998, The Cambridgeshire (City of Peterborough) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996 SI 1996/1878 and the alterations to the boundary between Runnymede and Spelthorne were implemented on 1 April 1997.

The Commission was directed in 1996 to review local government in the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton in Merseyside, as a result of local demand for Southportmarker to be removed from that borough. The final report recommended no change in the existing structure of local government in Sefton.

In 1996, the Commission began a periodic electoral review of every local authority in England, reviewing the existing wards and electoral divisions and altering them to take into account changes in the electorate. This work was taken over by the Boundary Committee for England in 2002, and completed in 2004.

Summary of proposals

County Commission recommendations Government reaction Date in force
Avon four unitary authorities (Bristolmarker, North Somerset, Bath and North East Somerset, South Gloucestershire) accepted 1996
Bedfordshire three unitary authorities (Bedfordmarker, Lutonmarker and Midmarker & South Beds)LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Bedfordshire. October 1994. Lutonmarker unitary authority only; two-tier remainder 1997
Berkshire five unitary authorities (existing districts, with merger of Bracknell Forestmarker and Windsor and Maidenheadmarker as Royal East Berkshire)LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Berkshire. December 1994. six unitary authorities (one for each district) 1998
Buckinghamshire four unitary authoritiesLGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Buckinghamshire. October 1994. Milton Keynesmarker unitary authority only; two-tier remainder 1997
Cambridgeshire no change Huntingdonshiremarker and Peterboroughmarker referred back; Peterborough accepted 1998
Cheshiremarker no changeLGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Cheshire. October 1994. Haltonmarker and Warringtonmarker referred back; both accepted 1998
Clevelandmarker four unitary authorities (Hartlepoolmarker, Middlesbroughmarker, Redcar and Clevelandmarker, Stockton-on-Teesmarker)LGCE. Final recommendations on the future local government of Cleveland and Durham. November 1993 accepted 1996
Cornwallmarker no change accepted  –
Cumbriamarker no change accepted  –
Derbyshiremarker Derbymarker and North East Derbyshire (North East Derbyshiremarker, Bolsovermarker, Chesterfield); two-tier reminder referred back under new guidelines  –
Derbymarker unitary authority; two-tier remainder accepted 1997
Devonmarker Plymouthmarker and Torbaymarker unitary authorities; two-tier remainder Exetermarker referred back; rejected 1998
Dorsetmarker four unitary authorities (Bournemouthmarker, Poolemarker, East Dorset and West Dorset) Bournemouth and Poole unitary authorities only; two-tier remainder 1997
Durham Darlington unitary authority; two-tier remainder referred back under new guidelines  –
Darlington unitary authority; two-tier remainder accepted 1997
East Sussexmarker Brighton and Hovemarker unitary authority; two-tier remainder accepted 1997
Essex Southend-on-Seamarker unitary authority; two-tier remainder Basildonmarker and Thurrockmarker referred back; Thurrock accepted 1998
Gloucestershiremarker no change referred back under new guidance  –
no change Gloucestermarker referred back; rejected  –
Hampshire Southamptonmarker, Portsmouthmarker and New Forestmarker unitary authorities; remainder two-tier Southampton and Portsmouth unitary authorities only; two-tier remainder 1997
Hereford and Worcester Herefordshiremarker unitary authority; two-tier Worcestershire accepted 1998
Hertfordshiremarker no change accepted  –
Humberside four unitary authorities (East Riding of Yorkshire, Hullmarker, North Lincolnshiremarker, North East Lincolnshiremarker) accepted † 1996
Isle of Wightmarker one unitary authority accepted 1995
Kentmarker no change Dartford, Gillinghammarker, Graveshammarker and Rochester upon Medwaymarker referred back; Dartford and Gravesham rejected, Gillingham and Rochester joined to form Medway Towns unitary authority 1998
Lancashiremarker no change Blackpoolmarker and Blackburn referred back; accepted 1998
Leicestershiremarker Leicestermarker and Rutlandmarker unitary authorities; two-tier remainder accepted 1997
Lincolnshiremarker no change accepted  –
Norfolk no change Norwichmarker referred back; rejected  –
North Yorkshire three unitary authorities (West Riding of Yorkshire, North Riding of Yorkshire, Yorkmarker) York unitary authority accepted; two-tier remainder 1996
Northamptonshiremarker no change Northamptonmarker referred back; rejected  –
Northumberlandmarker no change accepted  –
Nottinghamshiremarker Nottinghammarker unitary authority; two-tier remainder Broxtowemarker, Gedlingmarker, Rushcliffemarker referred back; rejected 1998
Oxfordshire no change accepted  –
Shropshiremarker no change The Wrekin referred back; accepted 1998
Somersetmarker three unitary authorities (West, Mid and South) rejected; two-tier status quo kept  –
Staffordshire Stoke-on-Trentmarker unitary authority; two-tier remainder accepted 1998
Suffolk no change accepted  –
Surreymarker no change Spelthorne referred back; rejected  –
Warwickshiremarker no change accepted  –
West Sussexmarker no change accepted  –
Wiltshiremarker Thamesdown unitary authority; two-tier remainder accepted 1998

† since the government rejected the Commission's proposal for a West Riding of Yorkshire authority to include parts of North Yorkshire and the Goolemarker area of Humberside, Goole became part of the new East Riding of Yorkshire instead.


On 1 April 1995, the Isle of Wightmarker became a unitary authority.

Two small areas were ceded from Surreymarker and Buckinghamshire to Berkshire, giving it a border with Greater Londonmarker.
On 1 April 1996, the unpopular counties of Avon, Humberside and Clevelandmarker were split into unitary authorities. Avon became Bath and North East Somerset, North Somerset, South Gloucestershire and Bristolmarker. Each of Cleveland's four districts became a unitary authority. The part of Humberside north of the River Humbermarker became part of the new East Riding of Yorkshire, apart from Hullmarker, which constituted a unitary authority itself. In the Lincolnshire part of Humberside, two new unitary authorities, North Lincolnshiremarker and North East Lincolnshiremarker, were formed. Also at this time, the City of Yorkmarker was expanded and separated from North Yorkshire.
On 1 April 1997, the districts of Bournemouthmarker, Darlington, Derbymarker, Leicestermarker, Lutonmarker, Milton Keynesmarker, Poolemarker, Portsmouthmarker, Rutlandmarker and Southamptonmarker became unitary authorities. Brightonmarker and Hovemarker were merged to form the Brighton and Hovemarker unitary authority.
On 1 April 1998, Blackpoolmarker, Blackburn with Darwen (a renamed Blackburn), Haltonmarker, Nottinghammarker, Peterboroughmarker, Plymouthmarker, Stoke-on-Trentmarker, Southend-on-Seamarker, Swindon (Thamesdown), Telford and Wrekin (The Wrekin), Torbaymarker, Thurrockmarker and Warringtonmarker became unitary authorities. Rochester upon Medwaymarker and Gillinghammarker were merged to form the Medway unitary authority.

Also, Hereford and Worcester was abolished and replaced by the unitary authority of Herefordshiremarker and the shire county of Worcestershire. Berkshire was split into six unitary authorities, but not formally abolished.

Other changes

The local government reform did not affect police force areas, or fire and rescue service areas, but resulted in the setting of many more joint boards for such authorities: previously county councils were represented on these bodies, and the creation of new unitary authorities meant that the apportionment of representatives was adjusted.

In addition to having their county councils abolished, Avon, Humberside and Cleveland were abolished as non-metropolitan counties. This, and the fact that many of the new unitary authorities were in themselves non-metropolitan counties, led to the concept of ceremonial counties for the Lieutenancy, which would include the areas made part of unitary authorities. In Avon, Bristolmarker became a ceremonial county in itself, with the other parts allocated to Somersetmarker and Gloucestershiremarker. Cleveland was simply partitioned between County Durham and North Yorkshire, along the line of the River Teesmarker. Humberside was split between Lincolnshiremarker and the new ceremonial East Riding of Yorkshire (including Hull). In 1997, Rutlandmarker became a ceremonial county as well as a unitary authority, to be followed in 1998 by Herefordshiremarker and Worcestershire.

The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics used for European regional statistics were also altered, in part to be consistent with the new local government boundaries.


  1. Local Government Act 1992. 1992 c. 19. part II.
  2. The Local Government Commission for England (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001 SI 2001/3962
  3. LGCE. Final Recommendations on the Future Local Government of: Basildon & Thurrock, Blackburn & Blackpool, Broxtowe, Gedling & Rushcliffe, Dartford & Gravesham, Gillingham & Rochester Upon Medway, Exeter, Gloucester, Halton & Warrington, Huntingdonshire & Peterborough, Northampton, Norwich, Spelthorne and the Wrekin. December 1995.
  4. The Runnymede and Spelthorne (Borough Boundaries) Order 1996 SI 1996/1684.
  5. LGCE. Final Recommendations on the Future Local Government of Sefton. November 1997
  6. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset. December 1993.
  7. The Avon (Structural Change) Order 1995. SI 1995/493.
  8. The Bedfordshire (Borough of Luton) (Structural Change) Order 1995 SI 1995/1776
  9. The Berkshire (Structural Change) Order 1996 SI 1996/1879
  10. The Buckinghamshire (Borough of Milton Keynes) (Structural Change) Order 1995 SI 1995/1769
  11. The Cheshire (Boroughs of Halton and Warrington) (Structural Change) Order 1996 SI 1996/1863.
  12. The Cleveland (Structural Change) Order 1995 SI 1995/187
  13. The Cleveland (Further Provision) Order 1995 SI 1995/1747
  14. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Cornwall. January 1995.
  15. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Cumbria. October 1994.
  16. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Derbyshire. November 1993.
  17. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Derbyshire. January 1995.
  18. The Derbyshire (City of Derby) (Structural Change) Order 1995 SI 1995/1773
  19. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Devon. December 1994.
  20. The Devon (City of Plymouth and Borough of Torbay) (Structural Change) Order 1996 SI 1996/1865]
  21. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Dorset. December 1994.
  22. The Dorset (Boroughs of Poole and Bournemouth) (Structural Change) Order 1995 SI 1995/1771
  23. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of County Durham. December 1994.
  24. The Durham (Borough of Darlington) (Structural Change) Order 1995 SI 1995/1772
  25. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of East Sussex. December 1994.
  26. The East Sussex (Boroughs of Brighton and Hove) (Structural Change) Order 1995 SI 1995/1770
  27. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Essex. December 1994.
  28. The Essex (Boroughs of Colchester, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock and District of Tendring) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996 SI 1996/1875
  29. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Gloucestershire. January 1995.
  30. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Hampshire. October 1994.
  31. The Hampshire (Cities of Portsmouth and Southampton) (Structural Change) Order 1995 SI 1995/1775
  32. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Hereford and Worcester. December 1994.
  33. The Hereford and Worcester (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996 SI 1996/1867
  34. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Hertfordshire. January 1995.
  35. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of North Yorkshire, Humberside and Lincolnshire. January 1994.
  36. The Humberside (Structural Change) Order 1995 SI 1995/600
  37. The Isle of Wight (Structural Change) Order 1994 SI 1994/1210
  38. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Kent. October 1994.
  39. The Kent (Borough of Gillingham and City of Rochester upon Medway) (Structural Change) Order 1996 SI 1996/1876
  40. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Lancashire. October 1994.
  41. The Lancashire (Boroughs of Blackburn and Blackpool) (Structural Change) Order 1996 SI 1996/1868
  42. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Leicestershire. December 1994.
  43. The Leicestershire (City of Leicester and District of Rutland) (Structural Change) Order 1996 SI 1996/507
  44. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Norfolk. December 1994.
  45. The North Yorkshire (District of York) (Structural and Boundary Changes) Order 1995 SI 1995/610
  46. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Northamptonshire. December 1994.
  47. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Northumberland. December 1994.
  48. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Nottinghamshire. December 1994.
  49. The Nottinghamshire (City of Nottingham) (Structural Change) Order 1996 SI 1996/1877
  50. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Oxfordshire. October 1994.
  51. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Shropshire. January 1995.
  52. The Shropshire (District of The Wrekin) (Structural Change) Order 1996 SI 1996/1866
  53. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Staffordshire. December 1994.
  54. The Staffordshire (City of Stoke-on-Trent) (Structural and Boundary Changes) Order 1995 SI 1995/1779
  55. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Suffolk. December 1994.
  56. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Surrey. December 1994.
  57. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Warwickshire. December 1994.
  58. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of West Sussex. December 1994.
  59. LGCE. Final Recommendations for the Future Local Government of Wiltshire. December 1994.
  60. The Wiltshire (Borough of Thamesdown) (Structural Change) Order 1995 SI 1995/1774
  61. The Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Surrey (County Boundaries) Order 1994 SI 1994/330

Embed code:

Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address