please empty your brain below
We could go back to what used to written on Post Boxes in the City of London - London (ie the City) and Country (for example: Trafalgar Square or Bow).

Elsewhere in the London Postal District it was 'London' and 'All other places'.

Martin | 10.02.19 - 8:19 a.m. | #

A google image search brought up pictures of such boxes outside the City. Some of them say London (Numbered Postal Districts and Abroad) and Country. So anywhere in (the former) Middlesex wouldn't be London, either inner or outer.

Martin | 10.02.19 - 8:25 a.m. | #

What purpose is served by this boundary ? What is the difference between being inner or outer ?

kev | 10.02.19 - 8:44 a.m. | #

While working for the GLA there was quite a lot of discussion around what was inner or outer London. This definition is important for planning policy such as how much parking a new development should provide or how dense new development can be.

When we did some analysis of what are the characteristics of inner London an alternative boundary we suggested was the north and south circular. Every where inside the north/south circular shares more characteristics than those areas beyond. Unfortunately this split many boroughs in two which was not deemed acceptable.

dg writes: Map.

Flare | 10.02.19 - 9:55 a.m. | #

A N/S-Circular definition would nudge Inner London a lot further north (with a centre somewhere around The Angel Islington).

Ten complete boroughs north of the Thames would be included, but zero complete boroughs south of the Thames.

Of course when the Ultra Low Emission Zone is extended in 2021, this is exactly the Inner/Outer split we're going to get.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 10.02.19 - 10:25 a.m. | #

kev, The most important role undertaken by inner London boroughs was that together they formed a joint committee to run education across their entire area. This started with the London School Board in 1870 and ran right through to the Inner London Education Authority, which was finally abolished in 1990.

Charles | Homepage | 10.02.19 - 10:47 a.m. | #

The 'statutory definition' is curiously indirect, presumably because at the time of the 1963 Act, the new boroughs didn't yet have agreed names. So section 1 of the Act defines inner London boroughs (not, to be super pedantic, inner London) as being the first twelve entries in the list of areas in Schedule 1, all defined in terms of the then current local government structure.

So Greenwich is not inner London by virtue of being Greenwich, but by being 'The metropolitan borough of Greenwich and so much of the metropolitan borough of Woolwich as lies south of the boundary referred to in paragraph 1 of Part II of this Schedule.'

But the list in schedule 1 has 32 entries not 33: it does not include the City of London. So DG is I think wrong to say that inner London is defined statutorily as the boroughs he lists plus the City.

There is though yet another twist. Section 2 of the Act defines Greater London as 'the area comprising the areas of the London boroughs, the City and the Temples.' And section 30 defines the Inner London Education Area as being Greater London less the outer boroughs.

The net effect of all that is that the City is not part of inner London, but was part of the Inner London Education Authority (which technically was a special committee of the GLC rather than an entity in its own right, but that's probably one too many rabbit holes for one comment).

marek | 10.02.19 - 11:57 a.m. | #

I'd say if Greenwich is included then so should Newham, because that greyed-out chunk spoiling the rough circle just look wrong to me!

Cornish Cockney | 10.02.19 - 12:03 p.m. | #

If they split Greenwich into the old metropolitan boroughs, then Greenwich/Charlton could be inner London and Woolwich outer London...

Just from transport zones, if 1-3 is inner and 4-6 outer, Woolwich Arsenal is the first station in zone 4.

Mikey C | 10.02.19 - 12:43 p.m. | #

I would reform the London boroughs and cull them back to no more than 24 boroughs each of similar population size. Some of the 1965 boroughs make no sense in 2019 due to massive population shifts and development growth in the last 54 years.

Andrew Jarman | 10.02.19 - 1:56 p.m. | #

The highlighted area just looks odd. Add Newham, or remove Greenwich east of the peninsula, and it would look a lot nicer. As it stands, inner London looks weird.

TheLupineOne | 10.02.19 - 2:09 p.m. | #

@marek The City has a long history of all manner of anomalies. The text seems to dance all over the place but the key point is that the City is not a *borough* so doesn't appear in the definition of "inner London boroughs".

The term "Inner London" (with a capital "I") is little used in the Act except as part of "Inner London Education Authority". "inner London" is almost always followed by "boroughs" and the legislation sometimes adds the City and the Temples or the Common Council afterwards and sometimes doesn't, reflecting where the City doesn't and does have powers separately.

In as far as there's a distinction, the Act isn't directly defining a place called "Inner London" but rather is categorising authorities within Greater London as being "inner London boroughs" and then assigning specific matters that either apply only to "inner London boroughs" or apply to them plus the City and the Temples.

(One minor difference between the ILEA area and the County of London is North Woolwich which became part of Newham and was outside ILEA authority.)

Tim Roll-Pickering | Homepage | 10.02.19 - 2:46 p.m. | #

Here's a rabbithole for telephone exchange pedants. Comments (3)

diamond geezer | Homepage | 10.02.19 - 7:36 p.m. | #

Here's a rabbithole for county border pedants. Comments (4)

diamond geezer | Homepage | 10.02.19 - 8:02 p.m. | #

Yes, am not sure why Greenwich is Inner London but not Newham. It just makes the map look lopsided.

Adrian | 11.02.19 - 2:21 p.m. | #

As a former Newham resident, I think it should be counted as 'inner'.

X-Plaistow | 11.02.19 - 2:40 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy