I was looking at a list of the biggest cities in the UK and I noticed that Tyne and Wear are counted seperately since there's a bit of countryside between them.
I go to google earth and I check and I see it, a few fields between the tyneside urban area and the wearside urban area.
The Sunderland dogs, Marsden Quarry, a few fields south of Boldon, fields south of Cleadon, the angel of the north being lonlely ,Springwell being a bit on the small side.
There are quite a few areas where just a few new houses could bridge the gap between the two and get Tyne and Wear counted as one city.

Of course. Having them counted as such is unimportant. Nobody is every going to make building decisions on behalf of such silly 'My dad is bigger than yours' city-nationalism.
But still....they're empty areas right by the urban areas and aren't exactly beauty spots (except up in Marsden).

Its got me wondering. Will we ever see building on any of these areas? Has it ever been discussed?

Never. They are two separate places, and each have their own city. The question of when Tyneside will be regards as Greater Newcastle? Is a more realistic and relevant question.

You miss the point. I'm not talking about officially becoming one city.

Isn't virtually all of the land you mention designated as green belt? In which case, "never" is probably the correct answer - or at least not until such a time that decisions that were relevant for 1948 are revised for the needs of today and the future.

The most obvious area for urban link up would seem to be the A1018 corridor via Cleadon, and possibly Whitburn/Marsden. Other than those, areas of development would appear to be impractical (Boldon Bank for example is too hilly).

It's worth noting that, despite the gaps north and south of Springwell and Penshaw, Washington, Houghton-le-Spring and Hetton-le-Hole and surrounds are counted by the ONS as Tyneside, so there's no tangible, sensible reason why the whole of the Tyneside-Wearisde agglomeration can't be counted together.

You miss the point. I'm not talking about officially becoming one city.They are merged into one in some cases. I live in North Tyneside but my adress is Tyne and Wear, this is also what I have to look for when I'm online for local stores, facilities etc. Not only that but we have the Tyne and Wear Metro and it was named such before it even ventured into Wearside. I relise that you wern't on about them becoming one city, first of niether of them in their own rights are cities. Their isn't really much I can add. In terms of address they are calssed as one under the name Tyne and Wear already, so I guess an answer to your question would be, they are classed as one now but under a joint name.

They are merged into one in some cases. I live in North Tyneside but my adress is Tyne and Wear, this is also what I have to look for when I'm online for local stores, facilities etc. Not only that but we have the Tyne and Wear Metro and it was named such before it even ventured into Wearside. I relise that you wern't on about them becoming one city, first of niether of them in their own rights are cities. Their isn't really much I can add. In terms of address they are calssed as one under the name Tyne and Wear already, so I guess an answer to your question would be, they are classed as one now but under a joint name.

*facepalm*
Everyone knows this. That's not what I was on about.

Its got me wondering. Will we ever see building on any of these areas? Has it ever been discussed?I guess the Boldon Business Park was one attempt to provide a critical mass of enterprise in one of those barren spaces. I was doubtful that it would become a well developed business community when the Quadrus Centre (pic) was being developed 7 or 8 years ago. At that time, there were just a few isolated units occupied.
But now, there are many more offices and workspaces there, plus an hotel, though its hard to imagine the park expanding much further to the north or east under present conditions, and the major roads limit its expansion to the west or south, and its expansion in those directions which would be crucial in linking continuously through to Jarrow or Sunderland.

http://82.39.246.179/photos/Quadrus Centre.jpg(pic: Mick Garratt)

But its not just major roads that challenge expansion outwards from Boldon : here's some of the other "challenges" to expansion.

http://82.39.246.179/photos/Pond next to Quadrus centre.jpg(pic: Les Hull)

Then there's the adjoining Wetlands nature reserve, too.

*facepalm*Don't fret. I'm sure he means well and is relatively harmless!

The Green Belt is there with a purpose of preventing what is described as the coalesence of Gateshead, Sunderland and South Tyneside. Over time there may be a need to strategically release some of that land if there is a need for additional housing and employment land that cannot be accommodated elsewhere, but it does have to be a very robust case.

I can refer to a previous attempt by South Tynside to allocate land for the Tyne Wear Strategic Employment site a few years ago, on land between the A19, A194, A184 and Fellgate - approx 130ha. The principle for allocating such as site came from Regional Planning Guidance in 2001 and after a search of land between Washington, Gateshead, Sunderland and South Tyneside, the site mentioned above was chosen from 7 alternatives as the preferred location and this allocation was proposed in the Regional Spatial Strategy.

Not surprisingly, Fellgate residents were not too happy (and that is an understatement) and the residents association took their objections,with Friends of the Earth to the RSS Examination. The case put forward was that there was no need for this area of Greenbelt to be released, as demand for 'strategic' employment land south of the Tyne could be accommodated on brownfield sites, albeit less prominently than on an obvious prestige business park development. The Inspector agreed and deleted the proposal before the Regional Spatial Strategy was adoped.

This should give you some idea that Green Belt land, rather than being sacred, can only be released as a last resort and only if the objectives, that is preventing coalesence between major settlements, can still be achieved. In South Tyneside, there is in fact land that could still be developed that is on the edge of Hebburn that is not in the Greenbelt. This is at Monkton fell adjacent to where the old cokeworks were and the isolated hell hole that is the Lukes Lane housing estate. If it does get developed, I just hope it's a lot more than the usual standard house types arranged round a DB32 textbook layout and/or typical bland industrial/business park development.

Well I'm afraid I don't get your question. If you are meaning for the councils in each area to merge into one big super council then the answer is never. If you mean the land between the two areas being developed so there is nothing between them then it would be down to laws of greenbelt land being scrapped and home developers to build on the land, which won't be for a very long time yet.

I am not 100% sure where the green belt land lies exactly. There is a good chance that any authority can build on their greeneblt though- just looks at Great Park in Newcastle that, unless I am mistaken greenbelt.

If you look at a map you will see that Birtley is attached to Washington so, in a way Tyneside and Wearside are already joined. This route is the most likely way that Gateshead and Sunderland will join- I would image that Sunderland would want to join up Washington and Sunderland and that 'missing' green bit is right next to the A19- ideal for industry.

Great Park was indeed green belt, though I think the council needed special approval from the DoE to remove it from the greenbelt (if not a public inquiry).

South Tyneside and Sunderland should merge with County Durham, and Newcastle and North Tyneside should merge with Northumberland. Let's go back to ancient boundaries.

Leaving the proud sovereign city state that is Gateshead...

Yes exactly where does Gateshead go? Traditionally it was in Co. Durham but in modern times it faces more and more to Newcastle- indeed many in Gateshead have more' loyalty' to Newcastle than it would to Sunderland or South Shields or distant Durham.

South Tyneside and Sunderland should merge with County Durham, and Newcastle and North Tyneside should merge with Northumberland. Let's go back to ancient boundaries.



My preference would be a 'North East Durham' conurbation, containing South Tyneside, the City of Sunderland and the old Easington district, and then a 'Greater Tyneside' area, comprising Newcastle, North Tyneside and Gateshead. Despite ancient boundaries (for which a lot of people have an affection and respect), there's no way Gateshead fits more with Sunderland than Newcastle so a reorganisation of these matters should reflect that. It's probable that Hebburn, Jarrow and (western) Washington also would fit better with Tyneside, but we would have to even things up a bit.

This is, of course, a quite separate discussion to the one initiated by Tyr, which is an issue of the physically linking of built-up areas irrespective of county or local authority boundaries.

I know this is the wrong thread but you couldnt have a 'Greater Tyneside' minus a quarter of Tyneside (South Tyneside) attached to Wearside. Its nonsensical. The 'loyalty' of people from South Tyneside is a bit of a myth anyway. I know someone who works in a school in Hebburn and they say most of the kids support Newcastle and are they often see them in Newcastle city centre or Metro Centre- they never hear the kids saying they have been to sunderland for a day out- or that the sixth fomers have been sneaking into pubs in Sunderland- it is always Newcastle or South Shields.
IMO maybe the older generations have a more loyalty to co durham or sunderland- but younger people seem to have more links to Newcastle. Being trendy is generally important and the nightlife and trendier shops of newcastle or drinking in the city centre or jesmond means it more attractive to belong to Newcastle than to Sunderland or the old pit towns of Durham who just dont have the same 'trendy' echos. Just my thoughts though- I could be very wrong. I often am.

In terms of a physical urban area or conurbation, I agree that Tyneside and Wearside are just about unified already. In terms of would they officially merge. I doubt it, because if the Tyne - Wear rivalry. I don't think anyone is particularly proud of Tyne and Wear. People have always thought of themselves as Tynesiders or Wearsiders. Of course there are situations such as high numbers of Sunderland fans in South Tyneside, while Washington which is officially in Sunderland has large numbers of Newcastle fans. But generally, I think people identify themselves with the Tyne or the Wear.

As to whether Newcastle will eventually annex/incorporate the rest of Tyneside, it's probable but by no means definite. It's not a new idea. The idea was very seriously proposed during the 1930s, but was dropped and then forgotten about due to World War 2. Otherwise, it is very likely to have gone ahead.

Tyne and Wear means little these days, and I agree that we should revert to the pre 1974 boundaries. I don't see this as a barrier to a unified Tyneside because even though The likes of Newcastle, Tynemouth and Wallsend were ceremonially in Northumberland, and Gateshead and South Shields in Durham, they were county boroughs and conducted their own affairs. So they could still do this, have the one authority but cermonially have the North in Northumberland andthe South in Durham. I believe this is already the case in Bristol where some parts of the city are in Gloucestershire and others in Somerset.

I know this is the wrong thread but you couldnt have a 'Greater Tyneside' minus a quarter of Tyneside (South Tyneside) attached to Wearside. Its nonsensical. The 'loyalty' of people from South Tyneside is a bit of a myth anyway. I know someone who works in a school in Hebburn and they say most of the kids support Newcastle and are they often see them in Newcastle city centre or Metro Centre- they never hear the kids saying they have been to sunderland for a day out- or that the sixth fomers have been sneaking into pubs in Sunderland- it is always Newcastle or South Shields.
IMO maybe the older generations have a more loyalty to co durham or sunderland- but younger people seem to have more links to Newcastle. Being trendy is generally important and the nightlife and trendier shops of newcastle or drinking in the city centre or jesmond means it more attractive to belong to Newcastle than to Sunderland or the old pit towns of Durham who just dont have the same 'trendy' echos. Just my thoughts though- I could be very wrong. I often am.


Then a 'South East Northumberland' (plus Gateshead) area? I agree about Hebburn, Jarrow etc as I said in my post, and to a certain degree the same will be true of some in South Shields (though more residents of South Tyneside work in City of Sunderland than Newcastle). However some areas of South Tyneside should never have not been in Sunderland - East and West Boldon, Cleadon, Whitburn for example - and were only included to make South Tyneside a viable entity. All of which shows how muddled the so-called rivalry actually is. We're drifting off the original topic a bit.

Remember the old shields at either end of the Tyne Tunnel?

South of the Tyne = Durham. North of the Tyne = Northumberland.

'Nuff said.

Remember the old shields at either end of the Tyne Tunnel?

South of the Tyne = Durham. North of the Tyne = Northumberland.

'Nuff said.

It would be nice if everything was that simple; but that's an oversimplification; up to the 19th century and the Counties (Detached Parts) Act of 1844 some areas including Holy Island, Farne Islands and Bedlington were exclaves of County Durham.

My point is that these things are not fixed in perpetuity and holding on to the belief that they are, would be very naive.

I know someone who works in a school in Hebburn and they say most of the kids support Newcastle and are they often see them in Newcastle city centre or Metro Centre- they never hear the kids saying they have been to sunderland for a day out- or that the sixth fomers have been sneaking into pubs in Sunderland- it is always Newcastle or South Shields.
Because Newcastle is better for pubs, shops, etc.... Most people from the north east for a good night out go to Newcastle. Means nothing to do with loyalty.

Remember the old shields at either end of the Tyne Tunnel?

South of the Tyne = Durham. North of the Tyne = Northumberland.

'Nuff said.

Tell that to the traitors in Gateshead who insist on supporting Newcastle instead of the proper south of the Tyne team, Sunderland :P

But anyway, that means little. Modern London was once upon a time part of many counties.

Overall re the weird local government divergence: Leave it the way it is now. Tyne and Wear with small local councils within that.

Tell that to the traitors in Gateshead who insist on supporting Newcastle instead of the proper south of the Tyne team, Sunderland :P

.

What has being south of the Tyne got to do with it? It is Tyneside and Wearside. Gateshead is on the south banks of the Tyne so any 'loyalty' is to the City that is on their doorstep and they naturally gravitate to.

GBDT

What has being south of the Tyne got to do with it? It is Tyneside and Wearside. Gateshead is on the south banks of the Tyne so any 'loyalty' is to the City that is on their doorstep and they naturally gravitate to.

GBDT

It is to do with mackems trying to claim South Tyneside/Gateshead as their own, instead of concentrating on their rightful home where Sunderland city centre is. SOUTH OF THE WEAR.

God help us were the matter ever determined by the collective knuckle-dragging of tribal soccer "fans".

God help us were the matter ever determined by the collective knuckle-dragging of tribal soccer "fans".


I wasn't referring to football loyalties. Just that if you are in Gateshead it is easier to go to Newcastle for shopping, entertainment, etc than to Sunderland. Doing this builds up your loyalty/connections to Newcastle.

GBDT

I wasn't referring to football loyalties. Just that if you are in Gateshead it is easier to go to Newcastle for shopping, entertainment, etc than to Sunderland. Doing this builds up your loyalty/connections to Newcastle.

GBDT

Exactly. If you live in Gateshead and you see St James Park across the river or the city centre from the end of you street your hardly likley to grow much connections to Sunderland are you?

If kids are growing up on South TYNESIDE, and you grow up goin shopping with your mam to the town or Metro Centre or end up going out in Newcastle on Saturday night, and well basically you never set foor in Sunderland you are unlikely to becoming feeling very attached to Wearside are you? As I said maybe older generations may well have more affections to Sunderland if you live south of the tyne because they will remember when they were part of Durham and Newcastle was another county so you supported your own county and in those days, maybe the amenities in Sunderland and Newcastle/ Tyneside wasnt much different so you mgith ave gone to Sunderland if you lived in Tyneside but Newcastle developed a lot from the 1990's onwards and Sunderland, well didnt. There is no reason for people from Tyneside to visit Sunderland- perhaps maybe for an odd concert or theatre visit or an air show. Thats pretty much that.

Gateshead is the Geordie south bank...:)

I wasn't referring to football loyalties. Just that if you are in Gateshead it is easier to go to Newcastle for shopping, entertainment, etc than to Sunderland. Doing this builds up your loyalty/connections to Newcastle.

GBDT

Are we asking whether the conurbation will merge or whether they will become closer politically? If the former, Gateshead is already continuous with Washington at south Heworth, with only a golf course separating the two. If Washington then spreads towards Nissan you would have a 'C' shape conurbation from Whitley bay west to Newcastle, south as far as Washington then east to Sunderland.

If the latter, never, theres too much local infighting as it is, and the respective councils have already chosen sides!

As far as football loyaties go, I have no idea, the sport is lost on me.... My Grandad (a staunch Newcastle fan) maintains that the proportion of Sunderland loyalties in NT stem from years ago, when the collieries of Percy Main, Backworth, Preston etc were SAFC, while the shipyards and fisheries were NUFC. Mind, he is losing it a bit these days.

Newcastle developed a lot from the 1990's onwards and Sunderland, well didnt. There is no reason for people from Tyneside to visit Sunderland- perhaps maybe for an odd concert or theatre visit or an air show. Thats pretty much that.

Just to comment on the quoted post - I completely agree with the general point, but I didn't notice anything particularly different start happening from the 1990s onwards. Nothing that hadn't happened 'similarly' in many of the immediately previous years and eras.

I would say that Newcastle, as a distinct 'Regional Capital City', has always been very, very different from all other places in North East England, and if any "more rapid acceleration" (even further away from other places around it) took place at all, it was from a start-date sometime in the mid-1960s.

Irrespective of population figures and random 'Local Authority boundaries', Newcastle has always (in my lifetime) had the look, 'smell' (even) and feel, of a very big city (not just in the City Centre, but in many of its lively suburbs) and nowhere else in this part of the country is like that at all.

On the subject of 'merger', well that is another issue altogether . . .

Just to comment on the quoted post - I completely agree with the general point, but I didn't notice anything particularly different start happening from the 1990s onwards. Nothing that hadn't happened 'similarly' in many of the immediately previous years and eras.

I would say that Newcastle, as a distinct 'Regional Capital City', has always been very, very different from all other places in North East England, and if any "more rapid acceleration" (even further away from other places around it) took place at all, it was from a start-date sometime in the mid-1960s.

Irrespective of population figures and random 'Local Authority boundaries', Newcastle has always (in my lifetime) had the look, 'smell' (even) and feel, of a very big city (not just in the City Centre, but in many of its lively suburbs) and nowhere else in this part of the country is like that at all.

On the subject of 'merger', well that is another issue altogether . . .


I think that pretty much sums it up, it's way beyond football rivalries :okay:

What has being south of the Tyne got to do with it? It is Tyneside and Wearside. Gateshead is on the south banks of the Tyne so any 'loyalty' is to the City that is on their doorstep and they naturally gravitate to.

GBDT

agreed, the Tyne has always been the reason for the conurbation's existence, and is not a dividing line but the main centre for the surrounding area. it's more a joining seam than cut. saying the Tyne is some sort of massive dividing line, with newcastle-orientated places only north of it, is as daft as saying the Wear is also a dividing line, with "real" sunderland only to the south of it (as that is where the city centre is).

personally i couldnt care whether the two conurbations merge, there is already a sense of 'overlap', most noticeably in washington and south tyneside, where loyalties are often split 50:50.

though not sure about horokei's claim that south tynesiders work more in sunderland than Newcastle, as more south tynesiders work in Gateshead, Newcastle and north tyneside combined (ie the true extent of newcastle) than sunderland. also, the last travel to work stats for south shields showed a decent amount working in newcastle city centre, while the numbers working in sunderland centre were too low to be included in the report.

agreed, the Tyne has always been the reason for the conurbation's existence, and is not a dividing line but the main centre for the surrounding area. it's more a joining seam than cut. saying the Tyne is some sort of massive dividing line, with newcastle-orientated places only north of it, is as daft as saying the Wear is also a dividing line, with "real" sunderland only to the south of it (as that is where the city centre is).

personally i couldnt care whether the two conurbations merge, there is already a sense of 'overlap', most noticeably in washington and south tyneside, where loyalties are often split 50:50.

though not sure about horokei's claim that south tynesiders work more in sunderland than Newcastle, as more south tynesiders work in Gateshead, Newcastle and north tyneside combined (ie the true extent of newcastle) than sunderland. also, the last travel to work stats for south shields showed a decent amount working in newcastle city centre, while the numbers working in sunderland centre were too low to be included in the report.


Indeed johnny, my SOUTH OF THE WEAR remark was to emphasise the daft "dividing line" i admit it was as subtle as a sledgehammer. :naughty:

What has being south of the Tyne got to do with it? It is Tyneside and Wearside. Gateshead is on the south banks of the Tyne so any 'loyalty' is to the City that is on their doorstep and they naturally gravitate to.

GBDT

Its much much easier and cheaper for me to get to Edinburgh than to London, I do go there far more often, yet when it comes to football its the England team I'll be shouting for, not Scotland.
Traditionally Sunderland=Co.Durham, Newcastle=Northumberland.
I live nearer to Newcastle, I regularly go to Newcastle, never to Sunderland unless there's a match, I've studied in Newcastle, I've worked in Newcastle, the stream near my house flows into the Tyne. I still support Sunderland. Its the traditional Durham team.
Its unfortunate for Sunderland really that football made its big step up to major major business in the 90s when we had a very rare occasion of Newcastle being succesful and Sunderland being pretty rubbish. A lot of alliances shifted in that period and I fear they may be somewhat set now.
It used to be rather clear cut that South Shields for instance was Sunderland territory. Now...its all rather confused.

Indeed johnny, my SOUTH OF THE WEAR remark was to emphasise the daft "dividing line" i admit it was as subtle as a sledgehammer.
Its not daft, its historic and natural. The Tyne is a much bigger, harder to cross river than the Wear. That's why the Northumbria/Durham border was drawn there.

But anyway. That's not important for anything here. Notice the smilie on my original comment and the sillyness of it (traitors? Its football!).

Hell...none of this politics is relevant let alone the football...weird divergence

Its much much easier and cheaper for me to get to Edinburgh than to London, I do go there far more often, yet when it comes to football its the England team I'll be shouting for, not Scotland.
Traditionally Sunderland=Co.Durham, Newcastle=Northumberland.
I live nearer to Newcastle, I regularly go to Newcastle, never to Sunderland unless there's a match, I've studied in Newcastle, I've worked in Newcastle, the stream near my house flows into the Tyne. I still support Sunderland. Its the traditional Durham team.
Its unfortunate for Sunderland really that football made its big step up to major major business in the 90s when we had a very rare occasion of Newcastle being succesful and Sunderland being pretty rubbish. A lot of alliances shifted in that period and I fear they may be somewhat set now.
It used to be rather clear cut that South Shields for instance was Sunderland territory. Now...its all rather confused.


Its not daft, its historic and natural. The Tyne is a much bigger, harder to cross river than the Wear. That's why the Northumbria/Durham border was drawn there.

But anyway. That's not important for anything here. Notice the smilie on my original comment and the sillyness of it (traitors? Its football!).

Hell...none of this politics is relevant let alone the football...weird divergence


So take away your out of date opinions of football, you're agreeing with Newcastle Historian. :)

I have always found it puzzling as to why many people see the Tyne as some sort of a major dividing line making what lies on its North bank vastly different and therefore officially a separate place to what lies on its South bank. Its a joke really when you take in to account that the Tyne is actually a pretty narrow river by international standards. A little over 100 metres separates Newcastle from Gateshead, yet they are seen as two entirely different places. :ohno:

Basically, a big city has grown up around a 14 mile stretch of river yet we feel the need to chop it up into four pieces and make them seem sort of the same place but actually no 'officially' they are not the same place. What a strange, strange country we live in.

Basically, a big city has grown up around a 14 mile stretch of river yet we feel the need to chop it up into four pieces.


Very succinctly put, hollow, and in total agreement with my own views on the pointless absurdities of the meaningless Local Authority boundaries that help to continually 'drag us down' (in-fighting / parochialism, etc) in this otherwise great city and region of ours.

I have always found it puzzling as to why many people see the Tyne as some sort of a major dividing line making what lies on its North bank vastly different and therefore officially a separate place to what lies on its South bank. Its a joke really when you take in to account that the Tyne is actually a pretty narrow river by international standards. A little over 100 metres separates Newcastle from Gateshead, yet they are seen as two entirely different places. :ohno:

Basically, a big city has grown up around a 14 mile stretch of river yet we feel the need to chop it up into four pieces and make them seem sort of the same place but actually no 'officially' they are not the same place. What a strange, strange country we live in.

Agreed. I have lived in and around Newcastle for 10 years now, having moved up from Houghton where I grew up. When I lived down there I hardly ever visited Newcastle apart from special occasions and always imagined Newcastle, Gateshead and all their surrounding areas to be much more cohesive. It was only when I moved up here that I realised a lot of people in Newcastle seem to think of Gateshead as being a very seperate place. Seems odd considering, as you say, how close these places are with a lot of road and pedestrian links. I guess people from the North side of the river have little need to go to Gateshead, yet people from Gateshead probably spend a lot of time crossing the river into Newcastle.

When I lived in Houghton I never considered "boundaries" as round there you have smallish towns with almost countryside in between. You knew where you were. However, living in Newcastle I think it is when a group of towns is actually one massive urban sprawl people start to focus on these boundaries, just because it's hard to know when you're leaving one town and entering another.