REVIEW OF PART OF THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF CEREDIGION AND THE COUNTY OF PEMBROKESHIRE IN THE AREA OF THE COMMUNITIES OF CARDIGAN AND CILGERRAN
REPORT AND PROPOSALS
- INTRODUCTION
- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW
- DRAFT PROPOSALS
- REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS
- ASSESSMENT
- PROPOSALS
- CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS
- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
- RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT
Sue Essex AM
Minister for Finance, Local Government and Public Services
The National Assembly for Wales
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report concerns the review of part of the boundary between the County of Ceredigion and the County of Pembrokeshire in the area of Cardigan and Cilgerran. We decided to undertake this review as a result of a request from Cilgerran Community Council, supported by St. Dogmaels Community Council that the area identified on the map at Appendix 5 be included in Pembrokeshire rather than Ceredigion, and for the area to be divided between the Communities of St. Dogmaels and Cilgerran.
2.1 We propose that no change is made to the boundary between the County of Ceredigion and the County of Pembrokeshire in the area of Cardigan and Cilgerran.
3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW
3.1 Section 54(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 (the Act) provides that the Commission may in consequence of a review conducted by them make proposals to the National Assembly for Wales for effecting changes in principal areas appearing to the Commission desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.
Procedure
3.2 Section 60 of the Act lays down procedural guidelines that are to be followed in carrying out a review. In line with that guidance, we wrote on 11 June 2004 to the principal councils, the community councils, the Members of Parliament for the local constituencies, the Assembly Members for the area, the local authority associations, the police authority for the area, the local health boards, political parties and residents of the area to inform them of our intention to conduct the review, to request their preliminary views. We invited the principal councils to submit suggestions for changes to the boundary. We also publicised our intention to conduct the review in local newspapers circulating in the area and asked the councils to display a number of public notices.
4.1 In response to our initial invitation, we received representations from Ceredigion County Council, Pembrokeshire County Council, Cardigan Town Council, Cilgerran Community Council, Simon Thomas MP, Councillor Alan Wilson and thirteen residents. In our Draft Proposals published on 17 December 2004 we considered the issues raised in the representations.
Community of Interest
4.2 We reported that Pembrokeshire County Council, Cilgerran Community Council and nine residents made the point that the area in question is a rural, sparsely populated area which would incorporate naturally with an area which is also predominantly rural. Cilgerran Community Council and nine residents further stated that the residents of the area under review felt they lived in forgotten territory (in terms of the provision of local government services) and they considered that the area had a natural affinity with the villages of Cilgerran and St. Dogmaels.
4.3 Ceredigion County Council stated that there was a strong affinity between the area in question and the town of Cardigan which provided essential daily services and facilities for the inhabitants of the area. The town was also a major centre of employment for the area. Cardigan Town Council considered that there were strong historical reasons for the western side of the river Teifi to be in Ceredigion. They considered that the area under review had no allegiance with either Cilgerran or St. Dogmaels but that the residents enjoyed the services and facilities of Cardigan Town and Ceredigion. Simon Thomas MP had received no complaints or comment about the location of the present boundary and considered the present arrangement did not cause anyone trouble. Councillor Wilson having canvassed the area on two occasions had not had this issue raised with him by residents. He reported that there had also been no response to him following articles on this issue in the local papers.
4.4 Having considered all of the points raised on this issue in the representations we received at the initial stage of the review we considered in our Draft Proposals that although there was some evidence of residents in the area having local ties with Cilgerran or St. Dogmaels, the evidence of strong local ties with the town of Cardigan had not been contraindicated. We were of the view therefore that on balance, the suggested change to the boundary would provide no advantage in terms of community of interest.
Access to Services
4.5 Cilgerran Community Council and nine residents pointed out that many of Ceredigion services such as Social Services were based in Aberystwyth whereas Pembrokeshire headquarters were in Haverfordwest which was closer.
4.6 Ceredigion County Council considered that under the present arrangements the residents accessed services such as schools, the library, the day centre and the leisure centre provided by the Council in the town of Cardigan. They considered that retaining the area within Ceredigion would preclude the need for the introduction of cross-boundary services. Two residents indicated that they were happy with the present situation and relied on Cardigan for all their requirements and services.
4.7 In our Draft Proposals report, we noted that whereas Aberystwyth was 40 miles from the area under review and Haverfordwest was 30 miles, Ceredigion County Council headquarters (including a Social Services Contact Centre) were in Aberaeron which was 24.5 miles from the area. We were of the view therefore that the suggested change to the boundary would not provide an improvement in terms of convenient access to local government services for the residents of the area under review.
Public Transport
4.8 Cilgerran Community Council and nine residents stated that all of the public transport services in the area are operated by Pembrokeshire Council. We received no evidence that this statement was incorrect and accepted that as the area under review contains two main roads from Pembrokeshire to Cardigan Town this was likely to be the case. We considered that this is a significant but not a determining factor in our assessment of the suggested change to the boundary.
Education
4.9 Pembrokeshire County Council stated that the whole of the area in question was within the catchment area of St. Dogmaels Primary School. Cilgerran Community Council and nine residents stated that most of the children residing in the area attend Cilgerran or St. Dogmaels Primary Schools within Pembrokeshire.
4.10 Cardigan Town Council stated that, over recent years, children from the area in question had attended St. Dogmaels, Cardigan, Cilgerran and Penparc Primary Schools.
4.11 From the evidence that was provided at the initial stage of the review it was not possible to assess the impact in terms of the provision of education the suggested boundary change would have. Given that in the area there are only some 40 households, it appeared that only a small number of school pupils would be affected. We considered therefore that any benefits in terms of education provision that might accrue from the suggested change would not be significant and would be balanced by the continuation of the existing cross-boundary arrangements.
Highway Maintenance
4.12 Pembrokeshire County Council considered that as the two main roads in the area (the A487 and the A478) meet at the roundabout south of the Bridgend area of Cardigan, this made a natural cut off point in terms of highways responsibilities. Cilgerran Community Council and nine residents stated that the Ceredigion parts of the A478 and A487 were gritted by Pembrokeshire from their depot at Crymych. It was also stated that, since the last change to the boundary, confusion had arisen in the Briscwm area in respect of road maintenance and that road maintenance vehicles had to travel past Ceredigion properties to service St. Dogmaels and Cilgerran. A resident believed that Pembrokeshire would be more sympathetic to the request for speed restrictions on the A478 outside his cottage.
4.13 Ceredigion County Council considered that there were no difficulties existing under current arrangements for the area to continue to receive a highway maintenance service from the Council. Cardigan Town Council stated that during the last few years the A478 route out of Cardigan had received major investment from Ceredigion County Council and prior to this the Town Council had funded street lights in the Troedyrhiw area.
4.14 It appeared from the initial representations that there was a degree of cross-boundary cooperation in place between Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire County Councils in respect of the provision of highway maintenance services for the area under review. We considered that it was unclear from the information that had been provided whether there would be a significant benefit in terms of cost and efficiency should this arrangement be replaced by provision by a single authority as a result of the proposed change.
Planning
4.15 One of the residents wrote to say that he was not satisfied with the services of Ceredigion County Council, particularly in relation to planning applications. We received no other representations in respect of this issue and given the lack of evidence that the problem is related to the provision of this service to the area under review, we were unable to attach any weight to this representation in respect of our deliberations.
Development
4.16 Councillor Wilson expressed concern that the loss of the area in question would constrict the future development of Cardigan Town. We noted that this was not an immediate problem as Councillor Wilson stated that until 2016 there was currently sufficient land to develop the town.
Refuse Collection
4.17 Pembrokeshire County Council considered that as their refuse vehicle already travelled through the area at present, it would only require a minor extension of the existing route to collect the refuse. Cilgerran Community Council and nine residents stated that, since the last change to the boundary, confusion had arisen in the Briscwm area in respect of refuse collection and that refuse vehicles had to travel past Ceredigion properties to service St. Dogmaels and Cilgerran. One Troedyrhiw resident made the point that the Pembrokeshire collection service drove past his front door.
4.18 Ceredigion County Council considered that there were no difficulties existing under current arrangements for the area to continue to receive a refuse collection service from the Council.
4.19 From the information provided by both County Councils at the initial stage of the review, we concluded that it was not possible to assess the extent of the likely costs/savings to the refuse collection service that might result as a consequence of the suggested change to the boundary. It was unclear therefore from the information that had been provided whether the change to the boundary would provide a significant benefit in respect of the refuse collection service.
Council Tax/Precept
4.20 A number of residents who wrote to us at the initial stage of the review were of the view that the level of services provided by Pembrokeshire were of better quality and more efficient and that the change would provide them with a more reasonable level of council tax.
4.21 For their part, Ceredigion County Council made the point that, following the recent change to the boundary which resulted in the unification of St Dogmaels within Pembrokeshire, this additional change would lead to more people paying their council tax to one Authority yet continuing to receive many services from another, without any contribution to the cost. Cardigan Town Council made the point that residents of the area used the services and facilities of Cardigan Town many of which were provided by organisations partly funded by Cardigan Town Council and Ceredigion County Council. They argued that the change would reduce the respective precept and council tax bases but not reduce the use the residents make of these services and facilities. The Town Council pointed to the reduction in their revenue due to the St. Dogmaels boundary change despite an increase in the precept and that the further loss of residents would require a further increase in the precept to keep to current income levels. In all they estimated the cumulative effect of the St. Dogmaels change and this proposal would be a 17% reduction based on the 2002/03 precept. Councillor Wilson also expressed his concern with regard to the effect the change would have on amenities and services provided by Cardigan Town Council and Ceredigion County Council given the reduction in revenue.
4.22 We stated in our Draft Proposals that, in previous reports we have made it clear that differences in Council Tax should not be a determining factor for us in deciding the boundary between two principal council areas and we made this point again in relation to our current deliberations. In addition, whilst we noted the comments made in representations about the effect of the recent boundary changes in the area of St Dogmaels on the revenues of Ceredigion County Council and Cardigan Town Council, we did not consider that the effect of any change in the current case (affecting only some 40+ properties) would be a significant and determining factor on Council revenues, whichever side of the boundary the properties were to lie.
Specific Operational Problems
4.23 In their representation, Cilgerran Community Council highlighted two areas where they considered there were operational problems under the present arrangements. The two areas were visited during site visits to the area.
4.24 In respect of Nantperchellan near Penybryn, it did appear that the property was in an anomalous position in that although the farmhouse was in Ceredigion, access to it was from Pembrokeshire. The householder's view however was that this was not a significant problem.
4.25 In respect of Glanpwllafon, from the information that had been submitted, we were not of the view that there were any significant issues in terms of the provision of local government services in respect of the properties in this area which arise as a result of their situation in relation to the existing county boundary. In respect of the maintenance of the old stone road bridge we have noted that the boundary follows the centre of the Afon Piliau and as such crosses the centre of the bridge. The maintenance of the bridge appeared therefore to be a shared responsibility between the County Councils.
4.26 From the information we had at the time of our Draft Proposals, we did not consider that there were significant problems in terms of effective and convenient local government in these two areas. We reported that the problems that did exist did not in our view represent a determining factor in our consideration of the whole area under review.
Welsh Language
4.27 According to the 2001 Census the proportion of people (over 3 years of age) who either speak, read or write Welsh in Ceredigion is 54%, which compares to 24% in Pembrokeshire.
4.28 The proportions of Welsh speakers in each of the electoral divisions in the area under review are as follows:
|
Electoral Division |
Unitary Authority |
Able to speak Welsh |
|
Cilgerran |
Pembrokeshire |
52.51% |
|
St. Dogmaels |
Pembrokeshire |
51.18% |
|
Cardigan-Teifi |
Ceredigion |
50.39% |
4.29 Given that the levels of Welsh speaking in the Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion electoral divisions are very similar, it appeared to us that, in respect of the suggested change to the boundary, there were no major issues concerning the Welsh language.
Boundary Issues
Police Boundary
4.30 Cilgerran Community Council and nine residents reported that since the 2003 change to the boundary, the local Police had been confused about their divisional boundaries (Dyfed-Powys Police operate a county coterminous policy).
4.31 No representation reporting problems was received from Dyfed-Powys police who were included in the initial distribution. As the change to the boundary was relatively recent (1 April 2003) we considered it likely that there may have been some initial confusion but we considered that this was unlikely to be a continuing problem.
Site Visit
4.32 The two areas were visited during the site visits mentioned at paragraph 4.23 above. The purpose of the visit was to inspect the existing county boundary, the suggested county boundary and the suggested Cilgerran/St. Dogmaels community boundary. Our findings are detailed below.
Existing County Boundary
4.33 The existing county boundary was inspected at the two points indicated in the representation from Cilgerran Community Council.
4.34 The first point was Nantperchellan Farm. The property is reached by a long drive, gated at the bottom. The drive up to the bridge over the Afon Piliau is in Pembrokeshire whereas the farmhouse and outbuildings are in Ceredigion.
4.35 We spoke to the householder who informed us that her family had experienced no real problems due to the boundary. The only inconvenience that they had experienced was when they were seeking to resolve the situation regarding the bridleway across their land where they had had to consult with both county councils.
4.36 The second point was Glanpwllafon. We noted the proximity of the properties to the river (Afon Piliau) which forms the county boundary at this point. We also noted the bridge referred to by Cilgerran Community Council in their representation. The bridge, which used to be on the main road, is now part of the access road to the houses. The Boundary Stone mentioned in the representation lies on the north-western side of the bridge. We noted however that the present county boundary crosses the middle of the bridge, and not through the boundary stone.
Proposed County Boundary
4.37 The county boundary suggested by Cilgerran Community Council and Pembrokeshire County Council was inspected to see if it followed clearly defined features and was easily identifiable.
4.38 We noted that whereas in the main the suggested county boundary followed features such as paths, tracks or field boundaries, at certain points the suggested boundary did not follow identifiable features.
Proposed Cilgerran/St. Dogmaels Community Boundary
4.39 The proposed community boundary was also inspected to see if it followed clearly defined features and was easily identifiable. As with the suggested county boundary, we noted that in the main the suggested community boundary followed features such as paths, tracks or field boundaries. At certain points however the suggested boundary did not follow identifiable features.
Defined Boundary
4.40 Cilgerran Community Council and nine residents considered that the Ridgeway roundabout would provide a more natural, clearly defined boundary.
4.41 Ceredigion County Council, Cardigan Town Council and Councillor Wilson made the point that the suggested boundary change would include within Pembrokeshire the area used in recent years for the Cardigan Agricultural Show. This would mean either holding the Cardigan show in Pembrokeshire or having to move the show to another venue.
4.42 As detailed above, a site visit was made to the area and an inspection was made of the suggested county and community boundaries. In respect of the county boundary, we were of the view that the boundary as suggested is not wholly effective. We noted that, in part, the suggested boundary does not follow discernible features. We are of the view that to avoid confusion a county boundary should follow identifiable geographic features wherever possible. We were however of the view that our concerns in respect of the effectiveness of the suggested boundary should not be a determining factor in our considerations as it was likely that appropriate adjustments could be made.
4.43 In respect of the suggested community boundary, we also had some concerns but we were of the view that these were not so significant in terms of the provision of community council services that they would have a detrimental impact on the effectiveness of the boundary.
4.44 Our Draft Proposals concluded that we were of the view that we had insufficient evidence at that stage to consider that the proposal by Cilgerran Community Council would be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government. We proposed therefore not to adopt the suggested change to the boundary between the County of Ceredigion and the County of Pembrokeshire put forward by Cilgerran Community Council.
4.45 Copies of the Draft Proposals were sent to all the councils, bodies and individuals referred to in paragraph 3.2 seeking their views. A copy was also sent to anyone who had submitted preliminary comments. By public notice we also invited any other organisation or person with an interest in the review to submit their views. Copies of the Draft Proposals were made available for inspection at the offices of Ceredigion County Council, Pembrokeshire County Council and the Commission and were also deposited at the offices of the Dyfed Powys Police Authority.
5. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS
5.1 We received representations from Ceredigion County Council, Cardigan Town Council, Cilgerran Community Council, Ceredigion Local Health Board, Pembrokeshire Health Board and a resident. All of these representations were considered carefully before formulating our proposals.
5.2 Ceredigion County Council supported the Commission's Draft Proposals and considered that there was no evidence of support for a boundary change. A copy of the representation can be found at Appendix 1.
5.3 Cardigan Town Council refuted the claims made in the representations presented in the Draft Proposals. They considered that there was no natural affinity between Penybryn and Cilgerran with the former looking more to Cardigan for its needs. In terms of services they considered that Ceredigion gave equal if not better service than Pembrokeshire with the majority of services based in Aberaeron and not Aberystwyth as some of the representations claimed. They denied that Cilgerran was isolated and 'forgotten' and pointed out that the area had a nominated councillor on Cardigan Town Council and also highlighted improvements that had been carried out to the roads at Penybryn and Glanpwllafon. They considered that there was already effective and convenient local government in the area and that any change would cause unnecessary disruption. The full text of this representation can be found at Appendix 2.
5.4 Cilgerran Community Council regrettably accepted the findings of the Commission's Draft Proposals. A copy of this representation can be found at Appendix 3.
5.5 Ceredigion Local Health Board supported the Commission's proposal for no change to the boundary.
5.6 Pembrokeshire Health Board supported the Commission's Draft Proposals.
5.7 A resident of Pantygrwndy still considered that changing the boundary was sensible and capable of implementation. A copy of this representation can be found at Appendix 4.
6. ASSESSMENT
6.1 We have noted that the majority of representations received in respect of our Draft Proposals support the proposal for no change to be made to the boundary.
6.2 We consider that the representations have provided us with no new evidence that the suggested change to the boundary would be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government.
7. PROPOSALS
7.1 Having considered all of the evidence available to us, we propose no change to the boundary between the County of Ceredigion and the County of Pembrokeshire in the area of Cardigan and Cilgerran.
8.1 Under Section 54 (1) (e) of the Act, the Commission may make proposals for change of electoral arrangements for any local government area which is consequential on any proposed change in local government areas. As we propose no change to a local government area, we make no proposals for consequential changes to the electoral arrangements.
9.1 We wish to express our gratitude to the principal councils and all the community councils for their assistance during the course of the review and to all bodies and persons who made representations to us.
10.1 Having completed our review of part of the boundary between the County of Ceredigion and the County of Pembrokeshire in the area of Cardigan and Cilgerran and submitted our recommendations to the National Assembly for Wales, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation.
10.2 It now falls to the National Assembly for Wales, if it thinks fit, to implement them with or without modifications by means of an Order or to direct the Commission to conduct a further review. Such an Order will not be made earlier than a period of six weeks from the date that the Commission's recommendations are submitted to the National Assembly for Wales.
10.3 Any further representations concerning the matters in the report should be addressed to the National Assembly for Wales. They should be made as soon as possible, and in any event not later than six weeks from the date that the Commission's recommendations are submitted to the National Assembly for Wales. Representations should be addressed to:
Local Government Modernisation 2 Division National Assembly for Wales Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQMRS S G SMITH LLB (Chair)
J DAVIES ICSA IPFA (Member)
D H ROBERTS BSc DMS MBCS MCMI (Member)
E H LEWIS BSc. DPM FRSA FCIPD (Secretary)
May 2005
Response of Ceredigion County Council to the Draft Proposals of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales in respect of the Review of Part of the Boundary between the County of Ceredigion and the County of Pembrokeshire in the area of the communities of Cardigan and Cilgerran
The Council welcomes and strongly supports the Draft Proposals dated December 2004. It believes that there is no evidence of any support for a boundary change from the inhabitants concerned and concurs with the Commission's view that there is insufficient evidence that the proposal of Cilgerran Community Council would lead to more effective and convenient local government.
E M B Morgan Director of Corporate and Legal Services Ceredigion County Council Neuadd Cyngor Ceredigion Penmorfa ABERAERON SA46 0PA23 February 2005
27/5/2005