The County Borough of Teesside was a short lived county borough and civil parish in the North Riding of Yorkshire (Northern England) geographical county, around the Teesside agglomeration. It was a 1968 merger of 7 council areas into a single district in. It was the third union of its type and the last to take place until the 1974 reform which replaced it with the wider county of Cleveland.
The borough was governed separately of the North Riding County Council, including areas north of the Tees which were previously in the county of Durham and are currently in County Durham.
Until the 18th century Stockton-on-Tees was the only town in what would become the county borough, it had a population of 21,070 in 1851. Middlesbrough, with a population of 3,397 in 1851, became the second town in 1853 and became the larger settlement increasing to 81,711 in 1891 while Stockton had 80,665. Thornaby in 1892 and Redcar in 1922 followed in town status with urban districts (townships) of Billingham, Eston and Saltburn-and-Marske also formed in this time.
Predecessor authorities
The River Tees formed the historic county boundary between Yorkshire and Durham. A continuous conurbation had built up around the mouth of the river, increasing greatly in population from the nineteenth century as the industrial potential of the area was developed.
LGD = Local Government District MB = Municipal Borough, CB = County Borough, UD = Urban District
Formation
Local Government Commission for England
Under the Local Government Act 1958 a Local Government Commission for England was established to review administrative structures throughout the country.
The commission published draft proposals for the North Eastern General Review Area in April 1962 and a final report in October 1963. The report recommended the creation of a single county borough for the Teesside area as it:
...seemed to us necessary to ensure that the pattern of local government was such as to make the planning of development and the organisation of services fully effective, and to make certain that new development, such as houses, main roads, bridges and shops would match the growth and location of industry instead of perpetuating the patterns of the past. We were impressed by the need on Tees-side for more housing to relieve overcrowding, to replace outworn properties, and to meet the increase in population due to industrial expansion. Yet unless Teesside could be planned as a whole, it seemed to us impossible to ensure that new houses would be built in places most convenient for the people who would live in them, as it was difficult for the present ten separate housing authorities, each with their own housing list, to do other than build within or near their own boundaries... With the southern moorland, the coast and the river, Tees-side has a splendid setting and it ought to be made worthy of its 400,000 inhabitants. This task requires a comprehensive plan for the whole area designed to secure the benefit of its port, its industries and its commerce, the reclamation of its marshlands, the building of new roads and bridges, the renewal of obsolete parts of the old riverside development, the designing of new centres and the provision of new amenities. This formidable task gives scope not for ten authorities to develop or redevelop ten towns but for a single authority to work out the details of the probable future growth and needs of Tees-side, and then prepare and carry out a single plan for the whole area.
Reaction
Reaction to the proposals was divided. The councils of Middlesbrough, Stockton, Thornaby, Redcar and Saltburn & Marske warmly welcomed the report. The two other towns due to be amalgamated, Billingham and Eston, were opposed.
The two county councils of Durham and Yorkshire, North Riding, completely rejected the commission's report. The chairman of Durham County Council, whose county was also to lose areas to the county boroughs of Hartlepool and Sunderland, described it as "the biggest menace to the north-east since the war". Sir Timothy Kitson, Member of Parliament for the Yorkshire constituency of Richmond, set out the losses to the North Riding: the administrative county was to lose about 25% of its population (reduced from about 428,000 to 318,000), and about 40% of its rateable value (down from £15.8 to £9.3 million). The chairman of North Riding County Council believed the proposals to be detrimental to the majority of the inhabitants of the administrative county.