REVIEW OF COMMUNITY REVIEW OF COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES IN THE COUNTY OF THE ISLE OF ANGLESEY

DRAFT PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS
4. ASSESSMENT
5. PROPOSALS
6. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
8. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT
9. THE NEXT STEPS

---

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 We the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales (the Commission) have completed the first stage of the review of Community Boundaries in the County of The Isle of Anglesey as directed by the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Public Services in her Direction to us dated 20 September 2006 ( Appendix A).

1.2 The purpose of the review is to consider whether, in the interests of effective and convenient local government, the Commission should propose changes to the present community boundaries. The review is being conducted under the provisions of Section 56(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 (the Act).

1.3 Section 60 of the Act lays down procedural guidelines, which are to be followed in carrying out a review. In line with that guidance we wrote on 7 November 2006 to The Community Councils of Cwm Cadnant, Penmynydd, Menai Bridge, Holyhead, Trearddur, Rhoscolyn, Pentraeth, Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf and Llanddyfnan, the Member of Parliament for the local constituency, the Assembly Members for the area under review and other interested parties to inform them of our intention to conduct the review and to request their preliminary views. Prior to the start of the review the Isle of Anglesey County Council received a number of suggestions for community boundary changes. A list of these was enclosed with this initial letter ( Appendix B). We also publicised our intention to conduct the review in a local newspaper circulating in the area and asked the Councils to display public notices. Notification of the start of the review and the closing date for representations to be made (12 January 2007) was given on the web sites of both the Commission and the Isle of Anglesey County Council.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 We propose that:

• the boundary between the Communities of Holyhead and Trearddur be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix D;
• the boundary between the Communities of Cwm Cadnant and Penmynydd be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix F;
• the boundary between the Communities of Cwm Cadnant and Pentraeth be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix G; and
• the boundary between the Communities of Pentraeth and the Community of Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix I.

3. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

3.1 We received representations from Holyhead Town Council, Rhoscolyn Community Council, Trearddur Community Council, Cwm Cadnant Community Council, Menai Bridge Town Council, Penmynydd and Star Community Council, Pentraeth Community Council, Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf Community Council and Llanddyfnan Community Council, Ieuan Wyn Jones AM, Mark Isherwood AM, Councillor P J Dunning, Councillor W J Williams and a number of residents. Details of all of these representations can be found at Appendix C.

4. ASSESSMENT

4.1 We have considered suggested changes to community boundaries in the following areas: Holyhead, Trearddur, Rhoscolyn, Pentraeth, Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf, Llanddyfnan, Cwm Cadnant, Penmynydd and Menai Bridge.

Holyhead / Trearddur / Rhoscolyn

4.2 Holyhead Town Council suggest that the three communities making up Holy Island (Holyhead, Trearddur and Rhoscolyn) be combined together to form a single community area. The Town Council considered that they are well placed to take on the additional responsibilities of the other two areas. We noted however the objections to this suggestion made by Trearddur and Rhoscolyn Community Councils and a number of residents ( Appendix C) and also the concerns of the two Assembly Members who wrote to us. Having considered the points raised in the representations and having made a site visit to the area we are of the view that the three areas are different in nature and that the existing arrangement of three separate community councils best meets the interests of effective and convenient local government in the area.

4.3 Holyhead Town Council also suggested that their area should at least be increased to include the new retail park in Penrhos and the Ty Mawr development. In a further representation they also requested that consideration be given to transferring to them the aluminium works from the Trearddur Community as this would ensure that all major industrial sites currently bordering Holyhead Town would be within their Community. We noted that these areas formed part of the Holyhead development area as defined in the Ynys Môn Unitary Development Plan (2001). We consider that the Penrhos retail park, the forthcoming Ty Mawr development and the aluminium works are closely linked with the Community of Holyhead. We consider that a change to the community boundary in this area is desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We therefore propose a change to the boundary between the Community of Holyhead and the Community of Trearddur as detailed on the map at Appendix D.

Cwm Cadnant / Penmynydd

4.4 Cwm Cadnant Community Council suggested a change to the boundary between their Community and the Community of Penmynydd as illustrated on the map at Appendix E. The Council considered that, as planning applications for the Penhesgyn Waste Site came under their jurisdiction, it would be beneficial, in terms of planning considerations, if the properties on the road leading to the site that are currently located in Penmynydd were also in Cwm Cadnant. Having studied detailed maps and made a visit to the area we are of the view that the area proposed for transfer by Cwm Cadnant Community Council has an affinity with the Community of Penmynydd. We are of the view that as the main access to the waste site is through the Community of Penmynydd, it would be of benefit, in terms of planning considerations, if the whole area of the waste site and its environs were included within the area of the Community of Penmynydd. We are of the view that the area of the Community of Cwm Cadnant that lies to the West of Pentraeth Road (A5025) has an affinity with the Community of Penmynydd. We note that the majority of the houses are in the south of the area, near to the B5420, the road from Menai Bridge to Penmynydd. As the most pronounced physical feature in the area was the A5025 we chose that as the proposed boundary. We consider that a change to the community boundary in this area is desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We therefore propose a change to the boundary between the Community of Cwm Cadnant and the Community of Penmynydd as detailed on the map at Appendix F.

Cwm Cadnant / Menai Bridge

4.5 Cwm Cadnant Community Council also suggested that the boundary between their community and the Community of Menai Bridge be realigned as illustrated on the map at Appendix E. The Council considered that the suggested boundary would be clearer than the existing boundary and the change would alleviate confusion in respect of planning consultation. Following a site visit to the area we have concerns with the suggested boundary as it would divide properties on either side of the road between two community areas. We are of the view that the existing boundary is clear in that it follows identifiable geographically features. We are not satisfied that the suggested change would be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government. We do not therefore propose any change to the boundary between the Communities of Cwm Cadnant and Menai Bridge.

Cwm Cadnant / Pentraeth

4.6 Cwm Cadnant Community Council also suggested that the boundary between their community and the Community of Pentraeth in the area of the junction of Black Horse Lane, Pen-y-garnedd and the A5025 should be realigned as illustrated on the map at Appendix E. The Council considered this would tidy the boundary as it would include properties in respect of which similar planning applications had been received by their Council. Following a site visit to the area we noted that the suggested boundary had the advantage of uniting a small group of dwellings within a single community area. We also noted that the suggestion solved an anomaly in the existing boundary which splits neighbouring houses between the two communities. We noted however that the boundary suggested by Cwm Cadnant Community Council was undefined for part of its length. We also noted that there was a more clearly defined and shorter alternative boundary that follows a stream and a road which would unite the properties in the area within Pentraeth rather than Cwm Cadnant. We are of the view that this group of properties have local ties with the Community of Pentraeth and that the alternative boundary is more clearly defined. We consider that a change to the community boundary in this area is desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We therefore propose a change to the boundary between the Community of Cwm Cadnant and the Community of Pentraeth as detailed on the map at Appendix G.

Pentraeth / Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf

4.7 Pentraeth Community Council suggested that their northwestern boundary be extended to take in part of the Community of Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf in the vicinity of Rhôs y Gâd as illustrated on the map at Appendix H. They considered that their proposed realignment of the boundary would straighten the community boundary line and strengthen Pentraeth in terms of size and population. We noted however Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf Community Council's objections to the suggested change. Having made a site visit to the area we are of the view that the area suggested for transfer by Pentraeth Community Council does have an affinity with the Community of Pentraeth. We noted that there had been a small amount of development in the area since the last review of community boundaries in 1978. We consider that the suggested boundary follows clearly identifiable geographical features and resolves the boundary anomaly at Bryn Farm. We are of the view that a change to the community boundary in this area is desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We therefore propose a change to the boundary between the Community of Pentraeth and the Community of Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf as detailed on the map at Appendix I.

Pentraeth / Llanddyfnan

4.8 Pentraeth Community Council also suggested that their north western boundary be extended to take in part of the Community of Llanddyfnan in the vicinity of Tyn-y-pwll as illustrated on the map at Appendix H. We noted however the objections to this proposal made by Llanddyfnan Community Council and Councillor W J Williams (Llanddyfnan Electoral Division). On making a visit to the area we noted that there did not appear to be any developments in this area since the last review in 1978 and that the suggested boundary did not appear to be an improvement on the existing boundary. We are not satisfied that the suggested change would be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government. We do not therefore propose any change to the boundary between the Communities of Pentraeth and Llanddyfnan.

Llanddyfnan / Llangefni

4.9 We noted Llanddyfnan Community Council's suggestion that the boundary between their community and the Community of Llangefni should be altered to include the areas of Rhosmeirch and Marianglas. We noted however that as the Community of Llangefni is not included in the Directions for the Review ( Appendix A), we are unable, in this review, to make any recommendations in respect of changes to the boundary of the Community of Llangefni. We therefore refer this suggested change to the Isle of Anglesey County Council who may consider undertaking a review under Section 55(2) of the Act.

5. PROPOSALS

5.1 Having considered the evidence available to us at this stage of our review we propose that the boundaries of the Communities of Holyhead and Trearddur, Cwm Cadnant and Penmynydd, Cwm Cadnant and Pentraeth, and Pentraeth and Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf should be realigned in the area under review to follow the boundaries shown in green on the maps at Appendices D, F, G and I.

5.2 Detailed maps to a larger scale showing the proposed new boundaries can be inspected at the offices of the Isle of Anglesey County Council and at the office of the Commission in Cardiff.

5.3 This draft report details our proposal for change to the community boundaries in the County of the Isle of Anglesey and we would welcome comments on the proposals.

6. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS

6.1 In considering the various changes to the community boundaries it was also necessary for us to take account of the effects on the electoral arrangements for community councils and the principal authority, which would result from these changes. This section of our report details our proposals for consequential changes to the electoral arrangements. We would also welcome comments on this aspect of our report. The electoral statistics used in this report were provided by the Isle of Anglesey County Council.

Community Council Electoral Arrangements

6.2 The proposed change to the boundary between the Communities of Holyhead and Trearddur would mean the transfer of 13 electors from the Community of Trearddur to the London Road Ward of the Community of Holyhead and an area with no electors from the Community of Trearddur to the Kingsland Ward of the Community of Holyhead. The existing electoral arrangements for the Community of Holyhead are as follows:

* Electors per councillor

6.3 We noted Holyhead Town Council's suggestion that their existing number of members should be reduced from 21 to 14, leaving two members for each of the seven electoral wards within their community as they considered that this would be sufficient representation to cover their existing area. We have noted that a number of areas have experienced difficulties in recruiting sufficient numbers of councillors. We therefore welcome the suggestion to reduce the number of councillors. We are concerned that the Community Wards of Maeshyfryd and Porthyfelin that have significantly higher numbers of electors than the other Wards would be underrepresented by only having two councillors. We consider that a more appropriate level of representation for the Maeshyfryd and Porthyfelin Wards would be three councillors each. Having taken this consideration into account and the increased number of electors in the London Road and Kingsland as a result of the proposed change, we propose revised electoral arrangements for the Community of Holyhead as follows:

6.4 The proposed change to the boundary between the Communities of Holyhead and Trearddur would mean a reduction of 13 electors to 1,358 electors for the Community of Trearddur. The Community of Trearddur is un-warded with currently 1,371 electors being represented by 12 councillors. Although the reduction represents only a small change to the number of electors, we are concerned that this would increase what is already a high level of representation. We consider that there may be merit in reducing the number of councillors representing the Community of Trearddur and would welcome the views of interested parties.

6.5 The proposed change to the boundary between the Communities of Cwm Cadnant and Penmynydd would see the transfer of 32 electors from the Llansadwrn Ward of the Community of Cwm Cadnant to the Community of Penmynydd. In addition, the proposed change to the boundary between the Communities of Cwm Cadnant and Pentraeth would see the transfer of 3 electors from the Llansadwrn Ward of the Community of Cwm Cadnant to the Community of Pentraeth.The existing electoral arrangements for the Community of Cwm Cadnant are as follows:

6.6 We consider that with the reduction in the number of electors from 284 to 252 it would be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government to remove the warding arrangement for the Community of Cwm Cadnant and for the remaining 1,755 electors to be represented by 12 councillors as we consider that this would be an appropriate level of representation for the area.

6.7 The existing Community of Penmynydd has 294 electors represented by 8 councillors. The proposed change to the boundary between the Communities of Cwm Cadnant and Penmynydd would see the number of electors in the Community of Penmynydd increase to 323. We are of the view that the current electoral arrangements provide a proportionally high level of representation; we do not therefore propose a corresponding increase in the number of councillors for the Community of Penmynydd.

6.8 The proposed change to the boundary between the Community of Pentraeth and the Community of Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf would see the transfer of 33 electors from the Llanbedrgoch Ward of the Community of Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf to the Community of Pentraeth. The existing electoral arrangements for the Community of Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf are as follows:

6.9 With the decrease in the number of electors in the Llanbedrgoch Ward from 429 to 396 we consider an appropriate level of representation for this Ward to be 2 councillors. We therefore propose revised electoral arrangements for the Community of Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf are as follows:

6.10 The existing Community of Pentraeth has 849 electors represented by 11 councillors. The proposed change to the boundary between the Communities of Cwm Cadnant and Pentraeth and the proposed change to the boundary between the Communities of Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf and Pentraeth would see the number of electors in the Community of Pentraeth increase to 885. We consider that 11 councillors remains an appropriate level of representation for this area and therefore make no proposals for changes to the electoral arrangements of the Community of Pentraeth.

County Borough Council Electoral Arrangements

6.11 The Kingsland Electoral Division consists of the Kingsland Ward of the Community of Holyhead and currently has 959 electors represented by 1 councillor. The proposed change to the boundary between the Communities of Holyhead and Trearddur would mean no change to the number of electors in the Kingsland Electoral Division.

6.12 The London Road Electoral Division consists of the London Road Ward of the Community of Holyhead and currently has 991 electors represented by 1 councillor. The proposed change to the boundary between the Communities of Holyhead and Trearddur would mean the number of electors in the London Road Electoral Division would increase to 1,004.

6.13 The Cwm Cadnant Electoral Division consists of the Community of Cwm Cadnant and currently has 1,787 electors represented by 1 councillor. The proposed change to the boundary between the Communities of Cwm Cadnant and Penmynydd would mean the number of electors in the Cwm Cadnant Electoral Division would decrease to 1,755.

6.14 The Llanfihangel Ysgeifiog Electoral Division consists of the Communities of Llanfihangel Ysgeifiog and Penmynydd and currently has 1,428 electors represented by 1 councillor. The proposed change to the boundary between the Communities of Cwm Cadnant and Penmynydd would mean the number of electors in the Llanfihangel Ysgeifiog Electoral Division would increase to 1,457.

6.15 The Llanbedrgoch Electoral Division consists of the Benllech 'A' and Llanbedrgoch Wards of the Community of Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf and currently has 1,244 electors represented by 1 councillor. The proposed change to the boundary between the Community of Pentraeth and the Community of Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf would mean the number of electors in the Llanbedrgoch Electoral Division would decrease to 1,211.

6.16 The Pentraeth Electoral Division consists of the Communities of Llanddona and Pentraeth and currently has 1,348 electors represented by 1 councillor. The proposed change to the boundary between the Community of Pentraeth and the Community of Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf would mean the number of electors in the Pentraeth Electoral Division would increase to 1,381.

6.17 We are of the view that for all of the above electoral divisions the changes to the number of electors as a consequence of the proposed boundary changes are not so significant as, at this time, to require either an increase or a decrease in the number of councillors representing each electoral division. Within the next few years we are due to conduct a review of the electoral arrangements for all of principal councils in Wales and we anticipate that we will receive directions from the Welsh Assembly Government to guide us in the conduct of the review. At that time we will look in detail at the electoral arrangements for the Isle of Anglesey County Council and will take into account any changes that arise from these proposed changes to community boundaries.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

7.1 We wish to express our gratitude to the Isle of Anglesey County Council and the Community Councils for their assistance and to all persons and bodies who made representations to us.

8. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

8.1 All observations on this draft report should be sent to:

The Secretary

Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales

Caradog House

1-6 St Andrews Place

Cardiff

CF10 3BE

not later than 21 September 2007.

9. THE NEXT STEPS

9.1 When we have considered the comments made to us in response to this draft report we shall submit our recommendations to the Welsh Assembly Government in the form of a report and proposals. It will then fall to the Welsh Assembly Government, if it thinks fit, to implement our recommendations either with or without modifications.

MRS S G SMITH LLB (Chair)

D H ROBERTS BSc DMS MBCS MCMI (Deputy Chair)

REV. HYWEL MEREDYDD DAVIES BD (Member)

E H LEWIS BSc. DPM FRSA FCIPD (Secretary)

July 2007

---

[About] [News] [Publications] [Boundary] [Electoral] [Community] [Home] [Web Map] [Links] [Cymraeg] [Enquiry] [Search]