REVIEW OF COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES IN THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF WREXHAM

DRAFT PROPOSALS

Appendix C

Summary of Representations Received Prior to Draft Proposals

HOLT (Bieston Ward) / ACTON

Acton Community Council were opposed any change to the boundary of the Community of Acton. They considered that it would not be desirable for the Bieston Ward of the Community of Holt to be transferred into their Community as the areas were separated by the Llan-y-pwll link road dual carriageway.

Holt Community Council were opposed any change to the boundary of the Community of Holt and that they did not endorse the suggestion made by one of their Councillors that part of the Bieston ward be transferred into Acton.

A resident of Wrexham was opposed to transfer of Bieston to the Community of Acton.

A resident of the Fairways estate (part of Bieston Ward) considered that transfer of the Fairways Estate to the Community of Acton would be acceptable (as opposed to the transfer to Caia Park).

HOLT (Bieston Ward)

Cllr. Grace Penny, resident of Llan-y-pwll stated that she served as community councillor for the Bieston ward and felt no affinity with the village of Holt. Residents of her area used services and facilities in Borras and Gresford rather than Holt. She considered that the Bieston ward had not received sufficient support from Holt Community Council and had not benefited from the precept they had paid. She suggested that Bieston was large enough to form a community in its own right and if this as not possible then Bieston should be transferred to a more supportive community.

A resident of Llan-y-pwll requested that the Commission consider re-establishing the former Community of Bieston that was disbanded and amalgamated with Holt. She considered that the area of the former community of Bieston had not received any support or funding since the community was dissolved.

A resident of Llan-y-pwll did not consider that the concerns of Bieston were addressed by Holt Community Council and that residents used the facilities in Borras and Wrexham rather than Holt.

A resident of Llan-y-pwll did not consider that the needs of Bieston were addressed by Holt Community Council. He said he used the facilities in Borras rather than Holt and objected to his local taxes being used in Holt.

GWERSYLLT

Gwersyllt Community Council opposed to any change to the boundary of the Community of Gwersyllt.

A resident of Old Rhosrobin stated that Gwersyllt was one of the largest communities in Wrexham and considered that it was too large to manage all its areas adequately. She said that Old Rhosrobin had the largest industrial estate in Gwersyllt but despite the rates generated by this there were no amenities provided. All the amenities in the community were situated in Gwersyllt village that was remote from Old Rhosrobin. She considered that a new community should be formed consisting of the areas of Rhosrobin, Pandy and Bradley.

A resident of Rhosrobin considered that Rhosrobin had unsatisfactory provision of footpaths and no safe access to the amenities that were all situated in Gwersyllt village. She considered that Rhosrobin did not therefore geographically fit well within the Community of Gwersyllt and that a new community should be formed consisting of the areas of Old / New Rhosrobin and Pandy.

A resident of Rhosrobin stated that she did not feel any real affinity with the Community of Gwersyllt because most of the community facilities and events were situated a considerable distance away from Rhosrobin and it was necessary to cross a busy road to reach them. She considered that Rhosrobin did not have any facilities and that they would be better served by forming a separate community with Pandy and Gresford.

CAIA PARK / ABENBURY

Abenbury Community Council opposed any boundary change, which would detrimentally affect the operation of their Council and lead to a reduction of services to its residents. They objected to the proposal that part of Cefn Road, Thornleigh and Llwyn Onn Park be transferred to the Community of Caia Park for the following reasons:

the change would cause internal disruption to the Community Council, as two of the eight councillors would be lost;
the Council had served the Llwyn Onn Park and Thornleigh areas well. The areas would not receive the same services and attention being part of the larger Caia Park Community;
residents were satisfied with the existing arrangement and there was no support for a change;
Llwyn Onn Park and Thornleigh make up approximately half of the population of the Abenbury Community and their transfer would lead to the viability of Abenbury Community being thrown into doubt;
there was a strong argument for parts of Caia Park to be transferred into Abenbury with the existing boundary being drawn along the Abenbury Road and Cefn Road. Also the northern boundary should follow the Cefn Road to the roundabout and then along Bryn Estyn until reaching the watercourse boundary;
Llwyn Onn Park and Thornleigh had no real affinity with Caia Park and the residents would have to pay higher council tax if transferred whilst the income for Abenbury Community would be halved.

Cllr R Squires, Chairman of Abenbury Community Council suggested that the boundary between the Communities of Caia Park and Abenbury be changed to run along the Abenbury Road until it meets the Marchwiel Community boundary at Kings Mill. This would include the whole of Llwyn Onn Park within Abenbury, which he considered that this would have the following advantages:

increased precept to Abenbury would assist the council to carry out necessary works such as street lighting;
increased number of dwellings within the community would increase the number of potential community councillors available;
the developments at Llwyn Onn Park and Frog Hall would be in the same community and within the community councillor's ability to understand fully the needs of residents;
most properties in Llwyn Onn Park are owner occupied and therefore the needs of the occupiers are more in keeping with those in Abenbury;
if Llwyn Onn Park were transferred into Caia Park the boundary would cut across open land; and
if Llwyn Onn Park were transferred into Caia Park a cash shortfall would result for Abenbury Community Council resulting in an inability to support existing disbursements.

He rejected the suggestion that Thornleigh should be transferred into the Community of Caia Park on the grounds that the existing boundary was clear and unambiguous whereas changing it would mean drawing a boundary across fields with no clear boundary markers.

Caia Park Community Council suggested the following changes to the existing boundary:

The developments known as Thornleigh, Oakhurst and Rhosnesni Farm currently in the Community of Abenbury should be transferred to the Community of Caia Park for the following reasons:
1. the area concerned is included in the Wrexham Town settlement limit and is separate from the rural settlement of Abenbury;
2. residents of the area access services in Wrexham; and
3. adjacent properties in Cefn Road and Bryn Estyn Lane fall within the Community of Caia Park.

The development known as Llwyn Onn Park, currently divided between the Communities of Abenbury and Caia Park should be included in its entirety within the Community of Caia Park for the following reasons:

there are community facilities in Caia Park situated in close proximity to the area;
the area concerned is included in the Wrexham Town settlement limit and is separate from the rural settlement of Abenbury;
residents of the area access services in Wrexham; and
Llwyn Onn Park is currently divided between two communities leading to confusion amongst residents.

Cllr M Morris, Holt Ward, Wrexham County Borough Council considered the boundary between Abenbury and Caia Park required reviewing as it currently divided the Llwyn On Park estate. He considered that the most logical boundary would be along the line of the Abenbury Road. Additionally the boundary at Cefn Road should be realigned to include all properties on the eastern side bounded by Bryn Estyn Lane within the Community of Abenbury. He considered that these areas belonged within Abenbury for the following reasons:

transferring the proposed areas to Caia Park would make Abenbury Community unsustainable in terms of local democracy as it would be reduced to approximately 100 properties at Pentre Maelor and a few scattered farms;
Llwyn Onn Park has an affinity with the rural nature of Abenbury and a representative on Abenbury Community Council.

A resident of Llwyn Onn Park opposed the transfer of Llwyn Onn Park from the Community of Abenbury into the Community of Caia Park. He considered that those parts of Llwyn Onn Park currently in Caia Park should be transferred into Abenbury.

A resident of Abenbury opposed the transfer of any part of the Community of Abenbury into the Community of Caia Park.

Two residents of Llwyn Onn Park opposed the transfer of Llwyn Onn Park from the Community of Abenbury into the Community of Caia Park as they considered that it would mean an increase to their council tax to pay for facilities they would not benefit from.

A resident of Llwyn Onn Park opposed the transfer of Llwyn Onn Park from the Community of Abenbury into the Community of Caia Park as he considered that it would mean an increase to his council tax to pay for facilities he would not benefit from.

Two residents of Llwyn Onn Park opposed the transfer of Llwyn Onn Park from the Community of Abenbury into the Community of Caia Park. They considered that there was no affinity between the two areas.

Two residents of Llwyn Onn Park opposed the transfer of Llwyn Onn Park from the Community of Abenbury into the Community of Caia Park. They said that they were more than satisfied with the community representation they currently received. They considered that the transfer would result in an increase in their community tax and that the value of their property would decrease and their home insurance increase.

Two residents of Llwyn Onn Park considered that the boundary between Abenbury and Caia Park should be changed to transfer their property from Caia Park into Abenbury.

A resident of Llwyn Onn Park opposed the transfer of Llwyn Onn Park from the Community of Abenbury into the Community of Caia Park as he considered that it would result in a decrease in the value of property in Llwyn Onn Park.

A resident of Llwyn Onn Park opposed the transfer of Llwyn Onn Park from the Community of Abenbury into the Community of Caia Park as she considered that the value of her property would decrease as a result.

A resident of Llwyn Onn Park opposed the transfer of Llwyn Onn Park from the Community of Abenbury into the Community of Caia Park. She considered that the transfer would result in an increase to her council tax and decrease the value of her property.

Two residents of Llwyn Onn Park opposed the transfer of Llwyn Onn Park from the Community of Abenbury into the Community of Caia Park, as they felt better served by a smaller community council. They considered that the transfer would result in an increase to their council tax, car and home insurance whilst decreasing the value of their property.

A resident of Llwyn Onn Park opposed the transfer of Llwyn Onn Park from the Community of Abenbury into the Community of Caia Park as she considered that the requirements of the two communities differed greatly.

Two residents of Llwyn Onn Park opposed the transfer of Llwyn Onn Park from the Community of Abenbury into the Community of Caia Park as they considered that they would receive a worse service from a large community council than the existing smaller community council of Abenbury. They also considered that their council tax would increase and that the value of their property would decrease.

A resident of Llwyn Onn Park opposed the transfer of Llwyn Onn Park from the Community of Abenbury into the Community of Caia Park. He considered that Abenbury Community Council had a good reputation for looking after residents whilst keeping down costs. He also considered that the proposed transfer would lower the value of his property. He suggested that the existing boundary should be changed to follow the Cefn road and Abenbury road to incorporate all of Llwyn Onn Park within Abenbury.

A resident of Llwyn Onn Park opposed the transfer of Llwyn Onn Park from the Community of Abenbury into the Community of Caia Park and considered that the resulting increase in council tax would not benefit Llwyn Onn Park residents.

Two residents of Llwyn Onn Park considered that the existing boundary was not acceptable as it divided Llwyn Onn Park. And that the whole of Llwyn Onn Park should be in the Community of Abenbury. They considered that Llwyn Onn Park had more affinity with rural Abenbury than urban Caia Park.

Two residents of Abenbury Fields supported the transfer of Abenbury Fields from Caia Park into Abenbury with the boundary being realigned to follow the Abenbury Road and Cefn Road. They pointed out that the estate was accessed via Abenbury and considered that joining a smaller community would be more beneficial than remaining part of the larger community of Caia Park.

A resident of Llwyn Onn Park supported the transfer of those parts of Llwyn Onn Park currently in the Community of Caia Park into the Community of Abenbury with the existing boundary being realigned to follow the Abenbury Road. She considered that Llwyn Onn Park had a rural aspect that fitted in with Abenbury rather than Caia Park.

A resident of Abenbury Fields supported the transfer of Abenbury Fields from Caia Park into Abenbury with the boundary being realigned to follow the Abenbury Road. She considered that Abenbury fields would be better served by the smaller Abenbury Community Council and did not gain any benefit from paying higher council tax under Caia Park Community Council, as she never used their facilities.

A resident of Abenbury Fields considered that Abenbury Fields should be transferred from Caia Park to Abenbury as he wished to be part of a smaller caring community.

A resident of Llwyn Onn Park opposed the transfer of Llwyn Onn Park from the Community of Abenbury into the Community of Caia Park as he wished to remain under the smaller Abenbury Community.

CAIA PARK / HOLT (Fairways Estate, part of Bieston Ward)

Caia Park Community Council proposed that the development adjacent to the A534 Wrexham to Holt Road should be included in its entirety within the Community of Caia Park for the following reasons:

the area concerned is included in the Wrexham Town settlement limit;
residents of the area access services in Wrexham; and
the area is approximately five miles away from Holt village and therefore has no direct affinity with it.

Holt Community Council opposed any change to the boundary of the Community of Holt. They carried out a survey covering every house on the new development at Holt Road (Fairways Estate) and out of the 300 plus houses they had received 140 replies, all of which were in favour of staying in Holt. They considered that the residents of the area felt a strong affinity with the Community of Holt and acknowledged the work that the Council had carried out on their behalf.

Cllr M Morris, Holt Electoral Division, Wrexham County Borough Council stated that whilst it was acknowledged that the Fairways estate was some distance from the village of Holt, the Community of Holt was by nature a diverse community combining rural areas with more populous housing estates and it was inevitable that some properties would be situated away from the focus of the village centre. He opposed the transfer of the Fairways estate into Caia Park for the following reasons:

the land on which the Fairways estate was built had valued historic connections to Holt;
socially and economically the Fairways estate had more affinity with Holt and residents supported and used facilities located in Holt;
there was no evidence to suggest that residents of the Fairways estate used facilities in Caia Park;
good links had been forged between Holt Community Council and the estate and there were plans to ensure better social inclusion in the future.

He considered that there may be a case for considering the transfer of properties bounded by the Holt Road, Cefn Road roundabout and Bryn Estyn Lane from Caia Park into Holt.

Two residents of the Fairways opposed the transfer of the Fairways estate from the Community of Holt into the Community of Caia Park. They considered that the estate had strong links with Holt and a good relationship with the community council.

A resident of the Fairways opposed the transfer of the Fairways estate from the Community of Holt into the Community of Caia Park. He considered that the Fairways estate had nothing in common with Caia Park and that there would be no advantage for residents in the proposed transfer. He considered that the transfer and any change in postcode would result increased costs for residents in council tax, car and home insurance.

Two residents of Sunningdale Park opposed the transfer of their area from the Community of Holt into the Community of Caia Park, as they did not feel any affinity with that community.

A resident of the Fairways opposed the transfer of the Fairways estate from the Community of Holt into the Community of Caia Park. They objected to the increase in council tax, which would result from such a move.

Two residents of the Fairways opposed the transfer of their area from the Community of Holt into the Community of Caia Park, as they did not consider that the change would be of benefit to the residents and would result in higher precept charges.

Two resident of Holt opposed the transfer of the Fairways estate from the Community of Holt into the Community of Caia Park as the residents of the estate had close links with the Community of Holt.

A resident of the Fairways opposed the transfer of the Fairways estate from the Community of Holt into the Community of Caia Park. He considered that Holt Community Council had successfully represented the estate in the past and that it was in the best interests of the residences of Fairways estate to remain within the Community of Holt.

A resident of the Fairways opposed the transfer of the Fairways estate from the Community of Holt into the Community of Caia Park, as this would mean an increase in community council precept. She considered that Holt Community Council was very active and supportive and she was satisfied with the services they provided. Historically the area of the Fairways estate had been in Holt for many generations.

A resident of the Fairways opposed the transfer of the Fairways estate from the Community of Holt into the Community of Caia Park. He said that the area had been part of Holt for many generations and benefited from having a very active community minded council.

A resident of the Fairways opposed the transfer of the Fairways estate from the Community of Holt into the Community of Caia Park. He said he felt a greater affiliation with the Holt Community than Caia Park and that Holt Community Council had been pro-active in dealing with issues on the estate in recent years. The area of the Fairways estate had been in Holt for many generations.

A resident of the Fairways opposed the transfer of the Fairways estate from the Community of Holt into the Community of Caia Park.

A resident of the Fairways opposed the transfer of the Fairways estate from the Community of Holt into the Community of Caia Park. She said that Holt Community Council had handled any issues on the estate efficiently and effectively. She considered that expanding the Community of Caia Park would mean that less time was spent concentrating on the area that needed the council's full attention.

Pro Forma Letter - 'I would prefer to stay within the boundary of Holt - Yes'

Signed by 9 people.

COEDPOETH / MINERA / BRYMBO (Bwlchgwyn)

Minera Community Council opposed the proposal to merge Minera and Bwlchgwyn with the Community of Coedpoeth for the following reasons:

Coedpoeth community council rates are three times higher than those in Minera and highest of all Wrexham communities. Coedpoeth Community Council had a reputation for extravagance and high spending whilst Minera Community Council had tackled costs and kept its rates unchanged for 5 years.
The merger would potentially result in the loss of some of the valuable services currently provided to Minera residents such as the street lights which had one tenth the failure rate of any in Wrexham for half the maintenance costs.
Minera is the site of valuable rural and historical assets that have 200 years of history and would not be of prime concern to urban Coedpoeth.
Minera Community Council is not constrained by politics and is therefore able to take regulatory action to remedy issues that are damaging to residents.

The Council also submitted a petition:

'Minera Residents response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales review, to merger the ward of Minera with Coedpoeth.'

Strongly Disagree - 703 signatures. Disagree - 10 signatures. Agree with Coedpoeth - 2 signatures. Don't Know - 7 signatures.

Brymbo Community Council stated that a public meeting for Bwlchgwyn residents had been held in response to the suggested transfer of Bwlchgwyn to the Community of Coedpoeth. At that meeting the 72 residents of Bwlchgwyn had voted unanimously that they wished to remain in the Community of Brymbo.

Coedpoeth Community Council submitted two proposals, the second being an amended proposal based in part on the first:

The first proposal was originally submitted to Wrexham County Borough Council in September 2004 and involved the amalgamation of the Communities of Coedpoeth and Minera together with the Bwlchgwyn Ward of the Community of Brymbo. The Council considered that this merger would have the following benefits:

A centralised community council covering the amalgamated area would be more efficient and cost effective - only one community council chamber and clerk would be required for the combined area and the number of community councillors could be reduced;
All three villages are linked together socially and economically making a merger of the areas a natural progression;
All three villages straddle a 3 kilometre stretch of the A525 and the residents use the substantial retail and recreational facilities in Coedpoeth.

The second proposal was submitted in light of the public meetings held in Minera and Bwlchgwyn in response to the proposed merger. The Council proposed that the boundary between Coedpoeth and Minera be amended on the north side of the A525 Ruthin Road to include the Five Crosses public house, Algrove Place and the Bryn Hyfryd estate within Coedpoeth. In addition the boundary should be amended on the south side of the A525 Ruthin Road to include Nant Lais and properties up to the British Legion within Coedpoeth. They considered that this boundary was logical given the distance of the properties from the remainder of Minera and that the Bryn Hyfryd estate had a Coedpoeth postal address.

The Council considered that many of the reasons stated in support of their original first proposal also applied to their revised proposal.

Bwlchgwyn Residents Association informed the Commission that a public meeting for Bwlchgwyn residents had been held in response to the suggested transfer of Bwlchgwyn to the Community of Coedpoeth. The meeting had been attended by representatives of Brymbo, Coedpoeth and Minera Community Councils who had addressed the meeting giving their views on the proposals. At that meeting 76 residents of Bwlchgwyn had voted to reject the merger of Bwlchgwyn with the Community of Coedpoeth.

The Association also included a petition, which had been carried out after the public meeting:

'We, the undersigned residents of the village of Bwlchgwyn, Wrexham wish to make a clear representation to the Boundary Commission for Wales. Coedpoeth Community Council has recently expressed a desire to annex Bwlchgwyn and the Ward of Minera. We have no desire to be absorbed by Coedpoeth Community Council but would choose to remain with Brymbo Community Council for the time being.' - 202 signatures

A resident of Minera opposed any change to the Community of Minera.

A resident of Minera opposed the amalgamation of the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth, as he could not see any benefit for Minera. He considered that such a change would significantly reduce the representation of Minera on the Council. He pointed out that Minera was a rural community whilst Coedpoeth was urban and that an amalgamated council would not look after the interests of a rural area because of the imbalance of representation. He also said that Coedpoeth was the highest spending community council in Wrexham and this would mean a large increase in precept for any Minera resident transferred to Coedpoeth.

Two residents of Minera opposed the amalgamation of the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth as they considered that the resulting increase in their council tax would be unacceptable.

Two residents of Minera opposed the amalgamation of the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth, as they did not think that their interests would be better handled by Coedpoeth. They considered that such a change would significantly reduce the representation of Minera on the Council and result in a significant increase in community charges.

A resident of Minera opposed the amalgamation of the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth.

A resident of Minera opposed the amalgamation of the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth. He considered that as the village of Minera was much older than Coedpoeth it should retain its separate identity. Also, Minera's level of representation on the Council would be significantly reduced if it were merged with Coedpoeth and council tax would increase with little benefit to Minera.

A resident of Minera opposed the amalgamation of the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth. He considered that Minera was a largely rural area whereas Coedpoeth was an urban community. He also considered that smaller community councils were more independent from party politics and therefore were better able to represent the views of local inhabitants.

Two residents of Minera opposed the amalgamation of the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth. They considered that Coedpoeth Community Council had wasted money on unnecessary street lighting and that Minera would lose its identity if amalgamated with Coedpoeth.

A resident of Minera opposed the amalgamation of the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth. He considered that Minera's precept would increase as a result and could not see any benefit for Minera by such a move. He considered that Minera, as a rural community had no affinity with the more urban Coedpoeth. Also, Minera's level of representation on the Council would be significantly reduced if it were merged with Coedpoeth.

Two residents of Minera opposed the amalgamation of the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth.

Two residents of Minera opposed any change to the boundary between the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth. They considered that the existing boundary between Minera and Coedpoeth was well defined and easily identifiable. Linking the two communities ignored the existing sense of community within each area.

Two residents of Minera opposed any change to the boundary between the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth. They considered that Minera would lose its identity if merged with Coedpoeth and that whilst the community charge would increase it was doubtful whether there would be any improvement in the services provided to residents.

A resident of New Brighton opposed any change to the boundary between the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth as he considered that it would mean the loss of rural identity of his village. He objected to the increase in community charge that would result from the change and did not consider that the residents of New Brighton would benefit from it.

A resident of Wrexham opposed any change to the boundary between the Communities of Minera and Coedpoeth.

A resident of Minera opposed the amalgamation of the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth as he as he considered that it would be detrimental to the community spirit of the village of Minera. Also he did not think that the historic community of Minera had any real affinity with the newer community of Coedpoeth and amalgamating them would result in the residents of Minera would have much less say in their own affairs. He also considered that the expenditure of Coedpoeth Community Council was beyond its means and that their council tax was the highest in Wrexham

A resident of Minera opposed the amalgamation of the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth as he considered that the Minera had no affinity with Coedpoeth and would lose its identity.

A resident of Minera opposed the amalgamation of the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth as she considered that it would result in an erosion of democratic accountability and would loss of Minera's identity

A resident of Minera opposed the amalgamation of the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth as he considered that the two communities were distinctly separate and different with their own identities and characters. Minera is rural community whilst Coedpoeth is urban. He also considered that the amalgamation would result in an imbalance of council members in favour of Coedpoeth and therefore Minera would not be adequately represented.

A resident of Bwlchgwyn opposed the amalgamation of the Bwlchgwyn with the Community of Coedpoeth as he considered that it would result in an increase in his community charge.

A resident of Bwlchgwyn opposed the amalgamation of the Bwlchgwyn with the Community of Coedpoeth.

A resident of Bwlchgwyn opposed the amalgamation of the Bwlchgwyn with the Community of Coedpoeth. He also considered that Bwlchgwyn, as a rural village, had more in common with rural villages in Minera such as Gwynfryn, New Brighton and Wern and suggested that it would be better suited in Minera than either Brymbo or Coedpoeth.

Pro Forma Letters from 25 residents referred to the public meeting held in Minera School Hall on 3 August 2006 where the general consensus was that the existing arrangements should be retained. The amalgamation of the Community of Minera with the Community of Coedpoeth was opposed for the following main reasons:

Community council rates would be double that which was currently being paid by Minera residents;
The number of community councillors representing Minera would be reduced from 12 to 3;
Minera's efficient and cheap street lighting would be lost;
Minera residents would have to contribute to the cost of Coedpoeth's 3 community halls;
The loss of Minera Community Council would result in a lessening of the ability to fight for local issues;
Although residents of Wern, New Brighton and Minera use facilities such as shops in Coedpoeth without contributing towards them, these facilities benefit from the increased volume of trade;
It was suggested that Coedpoeth Community Council had overspent its existing budget and was therefore not efficient or responsible in its application of public funds;
Although it was perceived that Coedpoeth would benefit from the merger in terms of increased grants, it was not considered that there would be any benefit for Minera;
Residents of Minera have opposed suggested merger with Coedpoeth in the past; and
It was considered that the transfer would only in the interests of Wrexham County Borough Council, which would have fewer wards to deal with.

BROUGHTON / BRYMBO

Broughton Community Council strongly opposed the proposals for changes to the existing boundary put forward by Brymbo Community Council. They considered that the areas involved had a close affinity with Broughton.

Brymbo Community Council confirmed their suggestion that the Broughton side of Broughton Road, Kent Road, Cefn Road in the Lodge, Green Road, Queens Road, Holland Road, and Halcog be brought within the area of Brymbo Community. They are of the view that because of their geographical proximity to Brymbo Community there is an argument for including them within the Brymbo boundary.

CEIRIOG UCHA / LLANSANTFFRAID GLYN CEIRIOG

Glyn Ceiriog Community Council suggested that Hafod y Garreg be transferred from the Ceiriog Ucha Community.

Ceiriog Uchaf Community Council had no objection to the transfer of Hafod y Garreg to the Community of Llansantffraid Glyn Ceiriog.

GLYNTRAIAN / LLANSANTFFRAID GLYN CEIRIOG

Glyn Ceiriog Community Council suggested that Pant Farm be transferred from the Glyntraian Community.

Glyntraian Community Council objected to the proposal that Pant Farm be transferred from Glyntraian to the Community of Llansantffraid Glyn Ceiriog as they considered that it lay within the natural boundary of their community. They proposed however that the area between 'Castle Mill' in Glyntraian and 'Pontfaen Bridge' in the Community of Chirk be transferred to the Community of Glyntraian.

GRESFORD / GWERSYLLT / LLAY / RHOSDDU

Gresford Community Council considered that the boundaries of Gresford, Gwersyllt, Llay and Rhosddu should be changed to take account of the new 'natural' boundary of the A483 Wrexham bypass and roundabout. They pointed out that several areas in Gresford lay on the opposite side of the A483 to the main part of the Community.

SESSWICK / MARCHWIEL

Sesswick Community Council proposed two alterations to the boundary between the Communities of Sesswick and Marchwiel:

That the boundary at Bryn Afon be amended to continue along the line of Bedwell Brook until meeting the A528 and then follows the A528 south to meet the present boundary.
That the boundary between Five Folds and Cross Lanes be amended to follow the line of the new access road to the Wrexham Industrial Estate when it is completed.

ISYCOED / HOLT

Isycoed Community Council proposed that the existing boundary between the Communities of Isycoed and Holt be realigned to include Oatlands Farm, Ridley Wood within the Community of Isycoed.

OTHER AREAS

Offa Community Council had no observations to make.

Rosset Community Council could see no need for any change to their boundaries.

Esclusham Community Council considered their existing boundary to be both practical and logical and did not wish to see any changes made.

Willington Worthenbury Community Council were satisfied with their existing boundaries.

5/3/2007