Ketton Rural District
| Ketton | |
|---|---|
.svg) Ketton Rural District shown within Rutland in 1970. | |
| Area | |
| • 1911 | 17,735 acres (71.77 km2) |
| • 1961 | 17,735 acres (71.77 km2) |
| Population | |
| • 1901 | 2,835 |
| • 1971 | 3,639 |
| History | |
| • Origin | Rural sanitary district |
| • Created | 1894 |
| • Abolished | 1974 |
| • Succeeded by | Rutland |
| Status | Rural district |
| Government | Ketton Rural District Council |
| • HQ | Stamford |
| Subdivisions | |
| • Type | Civil parishes |
Ketton was a rural district in Rutland, England from 1894 to 1974, covering the east of the county. The district was named after Ketton.[1]
The rural district was formed by the Local Government Act 1894 from the part of the Stamford rural sanitary district in Rutland. At the same time, the remainder of Stamford RSD, which lay in Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and the Soke of Peterborough became Uffington Rural District, Easton on the Hill Rural District and Barnack Rural District respectively.[2] The rural district council's offices remained in Stamford, Lincolnshire, outside the district.[3]
In 1960 the Local Government Commission for England proposed the abolition of the county of Rutland. The bulk of the county was to become part of Leicestershire, with Ketton RD transferred to a greatly enlarged Cambridgeshire.[4] The plans were not carried through, however and it was not until 1974 that the rural district was abolished by the Local Government Act 1972 and merged into a single Rutland district.
Parishes
[edit]The rural district consisted of nine civil parishes:[2]
References
[edit]- ^ Great Britain Historical GIS / University of Portsmouth, Ketton Rural District. Retrieved 2008-06-27. Archived 30 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ a b F A Youngs Jr., Guide to the Local Administrative Units of England, Vol II: Northern England, London, 1991
- ^ "No. 45823". The London Gazette. 10 November 1972. p. 13361.
- ^ Mergers of Midland Counties Proposed: Rutland And Huntingdonshire Would Lose Independence, The Times, 2 March 1960