The Herbert Commission: Here are the 52 London boroughs that could have been

The Herbert Commission's proposals for 52 London boroughs. Image: CityMetric.

In the first half of the 20th century, London grew rather a lot. Its official government, however, grew not at all.

The result was that, by the 1950s, the city's built up area had achieved a fairly similar form to the one it has today – but the County of London was trapped behind broadly the same boundaries it had held since 1889, and vast swathes of the inner suburbs (Stratford, Acton, Willesden, Tottenham) were left outside.

How modern London was broken up before 1965. The pink area in the middle was the 28 metropolitan boroughs included in London County Council. Image: Wikimedia Commons.

So, in 1957, the Macmillan government appointed a Commission to review how London was governed, under the chairmanship of Sir Edwin Herbert. Its purview covered an area vastly bigger than the then County of London, covering the whole of Middlesex, huge swathes of Surrey, Essex and Kent, and the southern end of Hertfordshire – in effect, the capital's entire urban area.

I've not been able to find a decent map of the Commission’s review area, but the list of councils it covered suggests it looked a lot like the area now enclosed within the M25. Here's an incredibly rough map, just to give you some idea of what we're talking about here:

A very rough map.

In the event, the Herbert Commission didn't include all those places in its proposed Greater London. It dropped Waltham Holy Cross in Essex; Dartford in Kent; and almost all the Hertfordshire authorities, leaving only Cheshunt in. 

 

Another very rough map.

When the Commission published its final report, in October 1960, it proposed the creation of a new Greater London council, which would cover the entire London region and would deal with strategic functions like planning and emergency services. It also proposed a second tier of new London boroughs.

To be precise, 52 London boroughs.

This is of course rather more boroughs than we actually got. Partly that's because the government decided fewer, larger boroughs was the order of the day.

But partly, too, it’s because several of the outer boroughs were eventually excluded from the new authority – mostly because of frantic lobbying from plush commuter suburbs like Esher and Epsom, that remained determined not to be swallowed by the capital. If you've ever wondered why there's a peninsula sticking out of south western London, surrounded by places that are still in Surrey, this is why.

The Kingston peninsula. 

At any rate, when the new Greater London finally saw the light of day in 1965, it included not 52, but 33 local authorities (32 boroughs and the city of London). In many cases, these were arranged rather differently to those that Herbert had proposed.

Here, though, is a quick guide to the London boroughs we could have won.

Click to expand.

Some notes on names and boundaries

On the map above, I’ve generally used historic boundaries, rather than speculating about how the authorities might have fiddled with them before launching the new boroughs.

I've used the names of existing pre-1965 boroughs, or post-1965 London boroughs, wherever possible. Where it's not, I've given the boroughs the name of the area that is either the dominant commercial district, or geographical centre, of the borough.

It's worth noting that these boroughs, if they had come into existence, would probably not have had these names, or these exact borders. But since I'm already into the realm of municipal science fiction here, it didn't seem worth worrying too much about it.

Anyway, what you really want to know is where these boroughs are, or what they contain. So here's a lengthy guide, which only a mad person would read in its entirety.

That which survives

Nine of the boroughs proposed survived the numerous iterations of the plan and still exist in the present day. Those ones are easy, so let's do them first.

City of London

Tower Hamlets – Previously the metropolitan boroughs of Stepney, Bethnal Green and Bow.

Kensington & Chelsea – Previously the metropolitan boroughs of those names.

Hammersmith & Fulham – Previously the metropolitan boroughs of those names.

Kingston-upon-Thames – Previously the Surrey boroughs of Kingston upon Thames, Malden & Coombe and Surbiton.

Merton – Previously the Surrey boroughs of Wimbledon and Mitcham, and the urban district of Merton & Morden.

Sutton – Previously the Surrey boroughs of Beddington and Sutton & Cheam, and the urban district of Carshalton.

Barking & Dagenham – Previously the Essex boroughs of those names.

Harrow – The great survivor of London government, Harrow has existed in pretty much the same boundaries since 1934. So, there you go.

Incidentally, today's boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham and Barking & Dagenham were initially known simply as Hammersmith and Barking. They were renamed in 1979 and 1980 respectively. So, now you know.

Inside the beltway

The vast majority of the Herbert Commission's proposed boroughs covered areas that are inside Greater London today but ended up arranged differently.

There are 37 of these in all (honestly, don’t read all this, it’s not worth it) – but just for information purposes, here's a brief guide to what they would have contained and which boroughs you'll find them in now.

Westminster – The old metropolitan borough of Westminster. Today, that's the whole of the modern City of Westminster south of Oxford Street.

Marylebone – The old metropolitan boroughs of Paddington and St Marylebone. Today, that's the whole of the modern City of Westminster north of Oxford Street.

Clerkenwell – The old metropolitan boroughs of Holborn, Finsbury and Shoreditch. This area – which includes everything from the British Museum to Old Street roundabout – is today broken up between the boroughs of Camden, Islington and Hackney. (It’s also a very odd shape, which makes me wonder if it would have looked exactly like it does on my map, but hey.)

Camden – The old metropolitan boroughs of Hampstead and St Pancras, which is most of modern Camden.

Islington – The old metropolitan borough of Islington, which is most of, well, you can probably guess.

Hackney – The old metropolitan boroughs of Hackney and Stoke Newington, which is most of modern Hackney.

Southwark – The old metropolitan boroughs of Southwark and Bermondsey; basically, the northern third of modern Southwark.

Greenwich – The old metropolitan boroughs of Deptford and Greenwich, which today make up northern Lewisham and western Greenwich.

Lewisham – The old metropolitan borough of Lewisham, in splendid isolation, and without a riverfront.

Woolwich – The old metropolitan borough, today part of Greenwich

Camberwell – The old metropolitan borough of Camberwell, which is the southern bit of modern Southwark.

Lambeth – The old metropolitan borough of Lambeth, which is the eastern half of modern, well, Lambeth.

Battersea – The old metropolitan borough of Battersea, and part of its neighbour Wandsworth. Today this is western Lambeth and eastern Wandsworth. (We’re guessing a bit about which bits of Wandsworth this borough would contain, but we’re happy with our guess.)

Wandsworth – The rest of the old metropolitan borough of Wandsworth.

Richmond – The boroughs of Richmond and Barnes, previously in Surrey, today forming most of Richmond.

Chiswick – The boroughs of Acton, and Brentford & Chiswick. Previously in Middlesex, these are today part of between Ealing and Hounslow respectively.

Willesden – The old Middlesex borough of Willesden, today forming half of Brent.

Hendon – The old Middlesex borough of Hendon, today forming the western half of Barnet.

Barnet – The urban districts of Barnet, East Barnet (both in Hertfordshire) and Friern Barnet, and the borough of Finchley (both in Middlesex). Today this is all in Barnet.

Wood Green – The Middlesex boroughs of Southgate, Hornsey and Wood Green; today the former is in Enfield, the latter pair in Haringey.

Tottenham – The Middlesex boroughs of Tottenham and Edmonton, today in Haringey and Enfield respectively.

Waltham Forest – The Essex boroughs of Walthamstow and Chingford. Today this is most of Waltham Forest.

West Ham – The county borough of that name, repurposed as a London borough. Today that's in Newham. (A county borough, incidentally, was a borough that had all the powers of a county – a sort of primordial unitary authority, basically.)

East Ham – The county borough of East Ham, now a London borough. Today that's in Newham, too. (In the name of simplicity we've assumed the bits of Barking west of the River Roding and – more confusingly – Woolwich north of the River Thames that ended up in Newham would have ended up in the London Borough of East Ham, too.)

Ilford – The Essex borough that today makes up eastern Redbridge. (The north eastern patch, around Hainault, was actually previously in Chigwell, but also ended up in the new Redbridge; we've assumed it would have been in this parallel reality, too.)

Romford – Then an Essex borough, today the northern part of Havering.

Hornchuech – Then an Essex urban district, which today makes up the rest of Havering.

Bexley – The Kent Boroughs of Erith and Bexley, and urban district of Crayford. Today that's most of Bexley.

Orpington – The Kent urban districts of Orpington, and Chislehurst & Sidcup. These are now eastern Bromley and southern Bexley respectively.

Bromley – The Kent boroughs of Bromley and Beckenham, and urban district of Penge, now all safely ensconced in modern Bromley.

Croydon – The old county borough, now the northern half of the London borough of the same name.

Twickenham – Then a Middlesex borough, now part of Richmond.

Hounslow – The Middlesex borough of Heston & Isleworth, now part of Hounslow.

Southall – The Middlesex borough of Southall, and urban district of Hayes & Harlington. These are now split between Ealing and Uxbridge.

Uxbridge – The borough of Uxbridge and urban districts of Ruislip Northwood and Yiewsley & West Drayton. Then they were all in Middlesex, today that's most of Hillingdon.

Ealing – The Middlesex borough of the same name, now part of Ealing.

Wembley – The Middlesex borough of the same name, now the northern half of Brent.

London over the border

And then, there are the six Herbert boroughs which extend beyond today's London.

In the north there's...

Enfield – Which contains the old Middlesex borough of Enfield, as well as the Cheshunt urban district. In the event, the latter was excluded from London, and remained in Hertfordshire.

Woodford – Odd one, this, combining two boroughs which made it into London (Leyton, and Wanstead & Woodford) with an urban district (Chigwell) which remained in Essex. The main thing that these areas have in common now is proximity to the more urban chunks of Epping Forest and the Epping branch of the Central Line. They don't obviously look like a single borough, but let’s assume Herbert and co knew what they were doing.

Moving to the south west...

Staines – The urban district of Feltham (then in Middlesex, now in Hounslow), combined with the urban districts of Staines and Sunbury-on-Thames (today in the Surrey borough of Spelthorne).

Coulsdon – A merger of two Surrey urban districts: Coulsdon & Purley, and Caterham & Warlingham. In the event, the former got swallowed by Croydon, while the latter remains in Surrey as part of Tandridge.

And finally, there were two proposed boroughs that today remain outside London entirely:

Elmbridge – Today a Surrey borough, created from the merger of the urban districts of Esher and Walton & Weybridge.

Epsom – Two Surrey urban districts, Epsom & Ewell and Banstead. Today, the latter is part of Reigate & Banstead, while the former stands alone.

In some ways this bigger London would have made a lot of sense. Most of the suburbs it included which didn't make the final cut – Chigwell, Cheshunt, a huge chunk of Surrey – are contiguous with the capital proper, and serve mainly as dormitory suburbs for it.


 Had it come to pass, though, it would still have meant slightly arbitrary borders in some areas. (Such borders are, seemingly, inevitable.) The Kent town of Dartford, for example, merges into the Bexley suburbs, but was ultimately excluded by Herbert. The Hertfordshire town of Watford is served by both London Underground and London Overground trains – yet that didn't make the cut either.

And a larger number of smaller boroughs would probably have meant weaker boroughs too. What this would have meant for the development of London’s government and its infrastructure is unknowable – but today’s city would almost certainly look different in ways we can’t even imagine.

Anyway. We got to talk about borders for a bit and play with a nice map, and isn't that the important thing, really?

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @jonnelledge.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

In New Zealand, climate change is driving an eco-nationalist revival

The green and pleasant land of the South Island. Image: Getty.

“Ten years ago I would have called them settler f*****g land squatters,” Mike Smith, Maori-dom’s most tenacious activist, said last November as he reflected on the agriculture industry’s central role in driving climate change. “Now I have to try and get these people on board.”

Smith is infamous for taking a chainsaw to Auckland’s most prominent tree on a damp October night in 1994 in protest of the “Pākehā” – or white European –dominated government’s fiscal envelope restraining treaty settlements. Now he’s turned his hand to another cause close-to-home for the Maori, New Zealand’s indigenous population: the environment.

“We’re super vulnerable, like we are to anything,” Smith says. “When it comes to climate change it’s like the poorest people in the world are going to be hit the hardest first, and that’s a lot of us.”

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern appears, at least rhetorically, the most sympathetic leader to his cause in a decade. In her campaign launch speech late last year, she made the future government’s position clear: “Climate change is my generation’s nuclear free moment.”

This message should resonate with followers of her Labour party: the NZ left has long nurtured an environment-orientated “culture-of-protest”. So Ardern’s call to arms was bound to gain her loyal support among children of the 1960s and ‘70s, who led the march against nuclear ship visits, spurring on the government of the time to wriggle out from the US nuclear umbrella, and place a ban on foreign nuclear ship visits.

Now, it is to the tycoons of deep sea oil exploration they aim to close NZ’s ports.

In this, Smith is not short of support locally, with marches run by grassroots organisations and international animal welfare funds beginning to gain traction with every day New Zealanders. In this, Ardern’s prediction is correct: the Coal Action Network Aotearoa (CANA), is reminiscent of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), an earlier cluster of left-wing pacifists and nature lovers who drove the creation of the nuclear free zone.  

In December, 15,000 passionate protesters marched through the capital. And with the government’s recent ban of offshore oil exploration projects, Jeanette Fitzsimons, former Green party co-leader and the head of CANA, is optimistic about similar change to the energy and farming sectors.

The Labour-NZ First-Green party coalition seems focused on setting a new global precedent, weaning NZ away from a United States which has jettisoned the Paris Agreement. The move replicates another 20 years ago, when New Zealand’s anti-nuclear movement was central to an upsurge in New Zealand nationalism. Now, the same sense of going it alone on foreign policy is apparent both locally and in Parliament.

Dr. Gradon Diprose, a senior lecturer at Massey University, argues that this echoes an older expression of colonial nationalism, that saw “New Zealand as a land of natural abundance”. This: “eco-nationalism” is centered on “protecting certain visions of picturesque landscapes and unspoiled natural beauty”. The slogan “Clean, green New Zealand” is prevalent in popular culture and tourism marketing. The public seems to have latched onto it too, and ranked keeping NZ’s waterways “clean and green” top of a recent survey of of kiwis’ top concerns.

Three decades ago, it was the 10 July 1985 sinking of the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior that thrust local activists’ fears into the public eye, resulting in an almost nation-wide expression of climate-protectionism.


The bombing, a French intelligence operation sparked by Greenpeace’s calls for an end to foreign nuclear testing in the Pacific, galvanised a great deal of change to New Zealand’s overseas defence policies. A lack of censure from New Zealand’s Western allies drove Wellington to distance itself from the United States, while the shock of seeing a friendly nation violate NZ’s sovereignty left many at home seething.

Thirty years on, the foreign policy split throughout the Anglosphere, regarding Russian-Western relations, globalism, and the old international rules-based order, is becoming wider. Climate change is just the tip of the iceberg.

Most Kiwis you talk to will shake their heads in disapproval at US president Donald Trump’s scandalous outing last year in Helsinki. But US defiance of internationally brokered climate resolutions is something they can see clearly reflected in rural communities across the country.

The country saw records broken at both ends of the extreme weather spectrum last year. As 2018 kicked off, Kiwis sweltered through the hottest summer on record, while in Golden Bay, a small inlet near the northern tip of the South Island, residents endured the largest flood in 150 years. So, when President Trump tweets “So much for Global Warming”, the majority of New Zealanders look back fondly on NZ’s 1985 decision to boycott the “ANZUS” treaty, putting New Zealand at odds with its war-time ally America on defence legislation.

Public calls to take the same track on environmental regulation have become louder in the wake of Donald Trump’s election. The former US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, received a frosty “unwelcome” while on a flyby to the capital in 2017, with the New York Times’ Washington correspondent, Gardiner Harris remarking: “I’ve never seen so many people flip the bird at an American motorcade as I saw today”. Protests against President Trump’s stance on climate change are beginning to gain greater traction further still, with the hundred-strong “march for science” setting the tone for the new government later that year.

New Zealand certainly isn’t afraid of radicalism, and its activists are persistent. It’s already banned single use plastics in supermarkets. Plenty more is to come, Smith says.

And yes, reform is going to inhibit sometimes vital industries: “It doesn’t matter which way you spin the dice on this, whatever’s being done is going to hurt. People who are looking for a painless way of mitigating climate change, [but] I don’t think there is one.”

But among Smith’s troupe of climate agitators, the feeling is that, without drastic change, “the land”, the heart of the Maori ethos, is going to be hurt far more.

Back in Auckland, NZ’s financial hub, an electric scooter craze is gripping the city. This, too, has gained the support of local environmentalists. In New Zealand, a national sense of pride is always coupled with a certain eccentricity. In a country this size, change always starts small.