News:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Kent Boundary 1850  (Read 13140 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: Kent Boundary 1850
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2013, 21:28:46 »
Residents of the southern parts of Walderslade and Lordswood may consider themselves living in Chatham, but the former pay their council taxes to Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, and the latter to Maidstone Borough Council.
A similar situation exists with regard to Crayford/Dartford. Crayford is clearly a physical part of Dartford, with open country between it and Bexley (although not quite so much as with Walderslade/Tonbridge & Malling, and Lordswood/Maidstone). Yet it is part of the London Borough of Bexley!

But not only does a borough boundary run through a continuous built-up area (nothing uncommon in that – it applied to Rochester/ Chatham and Chatham/Gillingham before the advent of Medway Council) but the county boundary follows the same line. Hence, as an example, North Road is in Dartford, Kent and Heath Road is in Crayford, London, yet their back gardens adjoin!

Going south there are similar but less blatant situations: Coldblow is in London, Maypole is in Kent; Sidcup is in London, Joyden’s Wood is in Kent.

Than all the way to the coast there are no more ‘close-encounters’, presumably because it is easier to find clear divisions between populated areas
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: Kent Boundary 1850
« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2013, 10:15:52 »
The second DA is the local code, like the 0AJ in my post code (ME5 0AJ), which applies to just 12 houses, all of which have different numbers - which is why only the house number and postcode is needed to identify an address. The fact that it is DA in the case of Bexleyheath Academy is a coincidence.

Dartford may be in Kent but its postcode area extends beyond, just as Tonbridge is in Kent but the TN postcode area extends well into Sussex.

If pass passes for Bexley residents are issued from London, does that not prove that it's not in Kent?
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline sheppey_bottles

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 944
  • Appreciation 56
Re: Kent Boundary 1850
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2013, 09:12:27 »
The postcode DA, is for Dartford sorting office, kent. Even that postcode has DA twice just to reinforce the kent aspect. Everyone knows and says Bexley is kent. That is until you talk about the bus pass of course, then it becomes part of London..well it does with my Mum and Dad :)

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: Kent Boundary 1850
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2013, 08:59:10 »
  http://www.bexleyheathacademy.org/
They try to make it all London but everyone knows they live in kent really,
Their postal address is 'Bexleyheath Academy, DA6 7DA'. The rest is irrelevant, so they can put whatever county they wish.

The county they are in depends on which authority they pay their Business Rates to, which is of concern only to them, so why bother?.
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline numanfan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 539
  • Appreciation 125
    • www.move2medway.co.uk
Re: Kent Boundary 1850
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2013, 08:36:27 »
Is it possible to see the other half of that map, please.

I've started a new thread here http://www.kenthistoryforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=17053.0 as we would have gone off topic.
www.move2medway.co.uk - take the journey

Minsterboy

  • Guest
Re: Kent Boundary 1850
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2013, 06:26:13 »
Is it possible to see the other half of that map, please.

Offline sheppey_bottles

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 944
  • Appreciation 56
Re: Kent Boundary 1850
« Reply #16 on: October 21, 2013, 23:29:10 »
When I send a letter to my parents in Bexleyheath I always address it as Kent, they also have a Dartford postcode DA. Even a local school and lots on Google still use Kent in the address..see here and click on contact us..

  http://www.bexleyheathacademy.org/

They try to make it all London but everyone knows they live in kent really,

Offline linyarin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
  • Appreciation 45
    • Cliffe History
Re: Kent Boundary 1850
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2013, 23:18:09 »
Somewhere I recall reading that, at one time, the parish of Cliffe was not considered to be part of Kent.

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: Kent Boundary 1850
« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2013, 21:38:41 »
Surely, it is the residents of Bromley that are turning logic on its head by saying that it is in Kent when it is an Outer London Borough, having no connection whatever with Kent – even ‘Kent’ as part of its postal address is inapplicable.

It is similar with Chatham. What was once the area administered by Chatham Town Council is now just four electoral wards of Medway Unitary Authority (although I was wrong to state that the name had disappeared – it lingers on in the name of ’Chatham Central’ ward). And as with Bromley, it is no longer in Kent although Medway Council does ‘buy-in’ the services of Kent Police and Fire Brigade.

Residents of the southern parts of Walderslade and Lordswood may consider themselves living in Chatham, but the former pay their council taxes to Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, and the latter to Maidstone Borough Council.

Strood was a part of Rochester from the time of Rochester’s Charter of 1460 and perhaps before but, like Rochester, is now just a part of Medway Council.

If Residents of Strood wish to feel that it is different to that place on the other side of the river, then they are free to do so. Perhaps it is, from the aspect of pleasant places to live and from the local amenities, but that does not deny the fact that is not a separate town and it is not in Kent. But by all means let us debate the merits of changes because more are on their way, or were until they were recently scuppered.
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline pr1uk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
  • Appreciation 8
Re: Kent Boundary 1850
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2013, 21:03:12 »
Sorry, Peterchall, you're standing logic on its head.  Where government decides to place council boundaries for electoral or administrative purposes has nothing to do with the reality of where places are or what people have always understood the place names to mean.  Yorkshire, for example, is clearly understood as an area, which alas includes a dog's breakfast of local authorities of all types.  Middlesex remains as a recognisable area for all cricketers despite the fact that you can't find it on a modern map. Ask any Bromley resident where he lives and it is still Bromley, Kent notwithstanding that for administrative purposes the town is within the outer London Borough of Bromley.  Strood residents (I was one many moons ago) are quite certain where they live and it is distinct from from the (no longer a city) area across the river.  Places are what people call them, not what governments decide they belong to.  Long may it be so!

I totally agree, all I know was when I went over the bridge I was leaving the City of Rochester and entering Strood. I also know the council members allowed the City title to lapse, even though they were given warnings, but as long as I live it will still be the City of Rochester and on the opposite side of the river to me.
To be contented in life you must learn the difference between what you want and what you need
-Peter

Sirenetta

  • Guest
Re: Kent Boundary 1850
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2013, 17:58:15 »
Sorry, Peterchall, you're standing logic on its head.  Where government decides to place council boundaries for electoral or administrative purposes has nothing to do with the reality of where places are or what people have always understood the place names to mean.  Yorkshire, for example, is clearly understood as an area, which alas includes a dog's breakfast of local authorities of all types.  Middlesex remains as a recognisable area for all cricketers despite the fact that you can't find it on a modern map. Ask any Bromley resident where he lives and it is still Bromley, Kent notwithstanding that for administrative purposes the town is within the outer London Borough of Bromley.  Strood residents (I was one many moons ago) are quite certain where they live and it is distinct from from the (no longer a city) area across the river.  Places are what people call them, not what governments decide they belong to.  Long may it be so!

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: Kent Boundary 1850
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2013, 15:29:16 »
At one time the urban area of Strood was a part of Rochester because it was administered by Rochester Council; it never was a separate entity. There was a 'Strood Rural District Council', which administered the surrounding villages, such as Hoo, Halling, etc

Before the introduction of postcodes, postal addresses of places were related to the nearest sorting office, hence ‘Cuxton, ROCHESTER, Kent’ as an example. Without ‘Rochester’ (which it was recommended should be printed) the post office would not know which sorting office to send the post to. While we generally included ‘Kent’, it was unnecessary.

Now all that is necessary is the number of the premises and the postcode.

Apart from being named in the Parliamentary Constituencies of ‘Rochester and Strood’, ‘Chatham and Aylesford’, or ‘Gillingham and Rainham’, neither Strood, Rochester, Chatham, Gillingham, or Rainham exist as separate and complete places - in fact 'Chatham' does not exist at all!.

See: http://www.medway.gov.uk/councilanddemocracy/electionsandregistration/electoralboundaries.aspx
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline chasg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
  • Appreciation 13
Re: Kent Boundary 1850
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2013, 11:47:15 »
I remember in one of the Sherlock Holmes stories (The Man with the Twisted Lip?) Holmes and Watson visit a house in Lee, in Kent. It's now London SE12.

Offline pr1uk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
  • Appreciation 8
Re: Kent Boundary 1850
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2013, 11:46:57 »
Boundaries are on the whim of political people who change them to get more votes and more money and power I was working away from this area for over 34 years. Before I left the City of Rochester was just that (still is to me) now walk across the bridge to Strood and they say that is also Rochester I live in Cuxton my postal address is Rochester !! ridicules.
To me Strood is Strood and the City of Rochester is just that and I can see a time when this side of the river will become a part of greater greater London one day.
To be contented in life you must learn the difference between what you want and what you need
-Peter

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: Kent Boundary 1850
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2013, 11:25:41 »
Strictly speaking all that is required is the house (or premises) number and the postcode.
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

 

BloQcs design by Bloc
SMF 2.0.11 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines