The Government has confirmed that on 1st April 2028 the remaining county councils and district councils in England will be abolished and replaced by a new set of unitary councils. This final end of the 1974 fake local government “counties” will be a major boost to the work of the Association of British Counties (ABC) in fostering public understanding of the identities and importance of the real counties.
ABC’s concern now is that the new unitary councils do not repeat the mistake of 1974 and seek to portray themselves as counties. Whilst the new councils will be known just as “councils” and not as “county councils”, there is still a danger that some may be given names that make inappropriate unqualified use of a historic county name.
To be clear, ABC is not opposed to historic county names being used within some council names. But a council should only do this if this makes sense geographically. For some councils the use of a historic county name with appropriate qualification provides the best description of the location and area of that council, e.g. the current Central Bedfordshire Council, West Northamptonshire Council and Cheshire East Council. Other councils do not have areas which are sensibly described by reference to a historic county. For these it is better not to use a county name at all, e.g. the current Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council.
The new local government arrangements in 14 areas of England are now open for public consultation. These consultations present so many options for the new council set-up in each area that it is impossible to know what the final councils will be. Despite this, there are grounds to be optimistic that most of the new councils will not misuse real county names. Nonetheless, there are several areas within which ABC has major concerns.
We are especially worried about the Proposals for local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Each of the four options for the new council set-up presented within this consultation continues the lamentable practice of applying the name “Cambridgeshire” to Huntingdonshire and to the Soke of Peterborough area of Northamptonshire. We illustrate here the proposed council areas and names compared to the historic counties of the area.
The name “North Cambridgeshire and Peterborough” is ridiculously inappropriate for a council area that includes almost the whole of Huntingdonshire. A better name would be “East Cambridgeshire, Peterborough and Huntingdonshire“.
The name “North West Cambridgeshire” is outrageous for a council area that includes Huntingdonshire and the Soke of Peterborough area of Northamptonshire. A better name would be “Peterborough, Huntingdonshire and Fenland“.
The name “North East Cambridgeshire” is wholly inappropriate for a council area that includes the Soke of Peterborough area of Northamptonshire. A better name would be “East Cambridgeshire and Peterborough“.
Whilst the name “Greater Peterborough” doesn’t actually misuse a historic county name, it is a bizarrely contrived name that is inappropriate for an area which includes half of Huntingdonshire. In what sense is this area of Hunts part of a “greater” Peterborough?! The name “Mid Cambridgeshire” for an area which includes the other half of Huntingdonshire is also woeful. Better names would be “Peterborough and West Huntingdonshire” and “East Cambridgeshire and East Huntingdonshire“.
There are several other areas within which ABC has concerns about the proposed names of successor councils. We will return to these in more detail in the next few weeks. Briefly:
- The Proposals for local government reorganisation in Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool imply that the Forest of Bowland, Barnoldswick and Earby, proud Yorkshire places that have suffered for decades under Lancashire County Council, may end up under councils called something along the lines of “North Lancashire“, “Pennine Lancashire“, “East Lancashire” etc. This would be unconscionable. The Yorkshire identity of these areas must be reflected, e.g. by the use of “West Craven” and/or “Bowland” as part of the new council name(s).
- The Proposals for local government reorganisation in Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland propose a “Leicestershire Council” which covers the whole of Rutland but makes no mention of it in the council name. In an alternative proposal, a “North Leicestershire Council” also includes Rutland but makes no mention of it.
- The Proposals for local government reorganisation in Oxfordshire has a proposal in which the present Oxfordshire County Council area become the basis of a new unitary council. Any such council should obviously be called “Oxfordshire and North Berkshire Council“.
The consultations end on 26th March 2026. Once the Government has finally decided on the pattern of unitary local government to be established in each area, it will implement these through a set of Statutory Instruments which will name each new council. Shadow authorities will be elected in May 2027. Ultimately each new council will be able to amend its name from that given in the original Statutory Instrument.
Alongside giving the new councils appropriate names, it is also long since time that the lieutenancies throughout England were re-appointed to the historic counties. This move would fully end county confusion. To leave the lieutenancies based on what will soon be former local government areas would be anachronistic and absurd. This issue is completely ignored by the current consultations.
Finally, a reminder that our friends at Middlesex Heritage are campaigning to see the new council which will include the Spelthorne area of Middlesex be named “West Surrey and South Middlesex Council” rather than just “West Surrey Council“. Get involved by joining their Facebook group. https://www.facebook.com/groups/westsurreysouthmiddlesex
7 thoughts on “2028: An End to County Confusion?”
Thank you for your work. Yes, this is the time we clearly separate East Surrey from South Middlesex and return the name of Middlesex to the Counties Map. Thank you, Lloyd, Walton-on-Thames, Surrey.
Until the media etc stop using ceremonial counties for locations , no one will use historic counties because they have been told that they were abolished in 1974 , maps ,signs , media and politicians all use administrative areas, like Barrow rugby team calling match against Whitehaven as a Cumbrian derby on Facebook, traffic reports saying Greater Manchester for M6 , 52 years of misinformation is not a quick fix.
The blasted “Cumbria” seems to be getting stronger. I’ve been saying this for years and I have yet to be proven wrong. I detest the name “Cumbria”. The main issue is the people having been suckered hook line and sinker by it from the word go on 1st April 1974. The Cumbria brand seems to gather apace and much worse since they abolished the county council in 2023. I knew this would happen and no oner seemed to agree but sadly I have been proven right once again. The reintroduction od Cumberland council and W&Furness council has done.. precisely.. nothing. All that has happened is brand “Cumbria” has grown stronger and stronger. At best, the folks up there see Cumberland as ajust a subset of Cumbria, as do W&F council. They absolutely see their beloved “county” of Cumbria as King of All it encompasses, unfortunately.
Unfortunately, once the current set of local government and “devolution” changes have gone through (assuming the Government doesn’t change its mind of course) then the north-west of England will be the part of the country which continues to suffer the most from county confusion. Not only will the 1974 creations ‘Cumbria’ and ‘Greater Manchester’ persists as mayoral “Strategic Authorities”, but the fake 1974 “Lancashire” will also be the basis of a mayoral Strategic Authority! We’ll be returning to this subject in a future article. If there is any kind of positive it is that the combined / strategic authorities will likely quickly come under pressure to amalgamate and form larger, more-regional bodies. This has has already happened in the case of the North East Strategic Authority. Many may not welcome the idea of a ‘North West’ regional authority, of course, but such a body could finally see an end to Cumbria, GM and the fake Lancashire. Cumbria, in particular, has a very small population for a combined authority. Whatever happens, ourselves, Friends of Real Lancashire, Yorkshire Ridings Society etc. will always fight for the understanding and use of the real counties of this part of England.
Basically another f***k up then. Until we get pre-1974 boundaries and names restored none of us who actually CARE will ever be satisfied.
Totally agree with Michael. Our campaign is a long haul. But the abolition of the remaining county councils and their replacement by local government which is not styled as “counties” is a necessary and important part of a longer term fix. Time will tell, but the extent to which the media etc. would continue to use the ceremonial counties if they remained based on extinct local government areas is debatable. The ceremonial counties in Wales are still based on the 1974 LG “counties” but are not used by the media or even known about by anyone much at all.
East Surrey and west Surrey sounds like the same bollocks as west and East Sussex.