The inquiry was described as an "unmitigated disaster" for proponents of reformed local government in the capital, as the commission failed to reach a unanimous decision.
There was further impetus for enlargement as London experienced an acute housing crisis caused by both financial shortfalls and land shortages.
[8] The city corporation was the port sanitary authority with jurisdiction along a considerable stretch of the Thames Estuary and also managed a number of open spaces beyond the boundaries of the administrative county such as Burnham Beeches and West Ham Park.
Their boundaries were "irregular, following for the most part, those of the parochial units from which the areas had been built up, and corresponded neither with the physical features of the districts or with the grouping of the population."
"[9]They strongly recommended that the boundaries of Greater London for local government, police, public transport coordination, electricity and water supply should be made to coincide.
[9] They were unable to describe the exact outer boundary of this enlarged area, except that it should be larger than the Metropolitan Police District but smaller than the entirety of London and the Home Counties.
[2] The LCC recognised the need for a second tier of local authorities, and suggested that they should have greater powers than the existing metropolitan borough councils.
In order for these to be "strong, independent local authorities" many of the existing boroughs and districts would need to be merged into larger units.
They also proposed the creation of a statutory London and Home Counties Advisory Committee to advise the relevant minister on matters of interest to the whole area.
The report suggested that transport, town planning, housing and main drainage would be the major functions that the committee would oversee, and that it would cover an area with a 25-mile radius from central london.
[2] The report recommended that steps be taken to "encourage" amalgamation of the smaller authorities that lay outside the administrative county, but within the Metropolitan Police District.
They did not consider the case for or against the creation of new county boroughs, as this issue was the subject of another royal commission under the chairmanship of the Earl of Onslow dealing with the whole of England and Wales.
The product of the general rate would be distributed among the various local authorities of the equalisation area in proportion to their day population, thereby making those who lived in outer London but worked in the centre, contribute to services in the central boroughs.
[2] The commissioners noted that their scheme could be put into operation rapidly using figures already gathered, and did not involve the creation of any new local or central authorities or officers.
It would also discourage excessive expenditure as there would be a uniform rate across the capital and no single local authority would benefit from a general increase.
[2] Hiley and Talbot did not sign the majority report, noting that its "suggestion merely for some kind of coordination of services through the machinery of an advisory committee seems to us altogether inadequate".
They did not go into detail of either the areas of the proposed boroughs nor the exact division of functions between the two tiers which they recognised would take considerable work to define.
Their reasons were that they felt they could not fulfill their commission without recommending a thorough reform of local government, rather than the appointment of ad hoc advisory committees or authorities.
[2] They proposed a single central authority for the entire Greater London area (the Metropolitan Police District with slightly modified boundaries).