REVIEW OF COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES IN THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF WREXHAM

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 Borough of Wrexham as directed by the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Public Services in her Direction to us dated 30 June 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 July 2006 to The Community Councils of Abenbury, Acton, Bangor Is-y-Coed, Broughton, Brymbo, Caia Park, Ceiriog Ucha, Coedpoeth, Esclusham, Glyntraian, Gresford, Gwersyllt, Holt, Isycoed, Llansantffraid Glyn Ceiriog, Marchwiel, Minera, Offa, Rhosddu, Rossett, Sesswick and Willington Worthenbury, the Member of Parliament for the local constituency, the Assembly Members for the area 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 Wrexham County Borough 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 local newspapers 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 (8 September 2006) was given on the web sites of both the Commission and Wrexham County Borough Council.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 We propose that:

• the boundary between the Communities of Abenbury and Caia Park in the area of Llwyn Onn be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix E;
• the boundary between the Communities of Abenbury and Caia Park in the area of Thornleigh be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix K;
• the boundary between the Communities of Caia Park and Holt in the area of Fairways be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix K;
• the boundary between the Communities of Coedpoeth and Minera be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix N;
• the boundary between the Communities of Brymbo and Broughton be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix O;
• the boundary between the Communities of Gresford and Rhosddu be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix P;
• the boundary between the Communities of Gwersyllt and Rhosddu be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix Q;
• the boundary between the Communities of Marchwiel and Sesswick be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix R;
• the boundary between the Communities of Holt and Isycoed be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix S.

3. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

3.1 We received representations from Abenbury, Acton, Broughton, Brymbo, Caia Park, Ceiriog Ucha, Coedpoeth, Esclusham, Glyntraian, Gresford, Gwersyllt, Holt, Isycoed, Llansantffraid Glyn Ceiriog, Minera, Offa, Rossett, Sesswick and Willington Worthenbury Community Councils, Bwlchgwyn Residents Association, Councillor Morris, (Holt Electoral Division), Councillor Penny (Bieston Ward, Holt Community Council), Councillor Squires (Abenbury Community Council), 95 letters from local residents and a petition with 722 signatures and a petition with 202 signatures. Details of all of these representations can be found at Appendix C.

4. ASSESSMENT

4.1 Suggested changes to community boundaries have been made in the following areas: Abenbury, Acton, Caia Park and Holt; Coedpoeth, Brymbo and Minera; Brymbo and Broughton, Gresford, Llay and Gwersyllt; Llansantffraid Glyn Ceiriog and Glyntraian; Llansantffraid Glyn Ceiriog and Ceiriog Ucha; Glyntraian and Chirk; Sesswick and Marchwiel.

4.2 A number of the representations suggesting changes to the community boundaries make reference to the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) published by Wrexham County Borough Council ( Appendix D). The UDP defines a number of settlement areas that act as containment areas for the future development of housing, employment and community services. We consider that the UDP could have significant implications for the communities within the Wrexham County Borough area and that these implications should be carefully considered by the Commission when determining community boundaries.

Abenbury, Acton, Caia Park and Holt

4.3 Caia Park Community Council have suggested that three areas of adjoining communities be transferred to Caia Park. The three areas are: Llwyn Onn where the existing boundary between Caia Park and Abenbury divides the estate; Thornleigh; and Fairways estate.

Llwyn Onn

4.4 The map at Appendix E shows the area suggested by Caia Park Community Council to be transferred from the Community of Abenbury. Abenbury Community Council has submitted a counter-proposal that takes in an area from Caia Park into Abenbury. This is shown on the map at Appendix F.

4.5 Caia Park Community Council make the point that the Wrexham UDP includes the whole of the Llwyn Onn estate within the Wrexham Town settlement area. They consider that the area is separate from the rural settlement of Abenbury and that there are community facilities within Caia Park that are close by. They also consider that the residents of the area access services in Wrexham.

4.6 Abenbury Community Council and others consider that in terms of the provision of services and the satisfaction of the residents, the existing arrangements work well. They are of the view that the loss of the residents of Llwyn Onn (and Thornleigh) would significantly reduce the number of electors in Abenbury and call into question the viability of the community. Concerns were also expressed that as the community charge portion of the council tax was higher in Caia Park than Abenbury, the residents in the area under review would have to pay council tax at a higher rate if transferred. A number of residents of Abenbury (particularly from Llwyn Onn) have written to oppose the transfer of their area to Caia Park.

4.7 We considered that the existing boundary between the Communities of Abenbury and Caia Park at Llwyn Onn is clearly anomalous as it divides the Llwyn Onn Estate. We are of the view that the whole of Llwyn Onn should be either within the Community of Abenbury or the Community of Caia Park, as there do not appear to be any local ties with the other adjoining Community, Marchwiel. We do not consider Abenbury Community Council's counter-proposal is appropriate, as it would involve the transfer of a number of properties that have links to the Caia Park Community.

4.8 We have noted the strong objections from residents to the transfer to Caia Park and in particular their concerns about difference in the community charge, and the effect on house prices and insurance. In respect of the community charge we have noted that, for Band D properties for 2005/06 there is a £36.54 difference between Abenbury and Caia Park. We are of the view that the circumstances of the 2005/06 community charges are not necessarily the same as those in future years, as the impact of community charge on the individual tax payer will depend on the level of Community Council net expenditure and the personal circumstances of the individual, and these can vary from year to year. With regard to the variations in community charge resulting from our proposals we confirm that our general approach to considering what proposals to make in the interests of effective and convenient local government, is that normally little weight should be accorded to consequential changes in individual council tax, and they should certainly not be determinative. In respect of house prices we are of the view that the proposed change will have little impact as part of the Llwyn Onn estate is already in the Caia Park Community and we have no evidence that the house prices in this area have been detrimentally affected. We also consider the situation regarding insurance would be similarly unaffected as we understand that this is usually determined by postcode. In any event we take the view that as with the level of council tax these individual factors should carry little weight with the Commission in considering the interests of effective and convenient local government.

4.9 We consider that Caia Park Community Council's proposal for Llwyn Onn has merit in that it combines the Llwyn Onn estate into one community. We are of the view that the area in question has more community of interest with a Wrexham Town Community than the Community of Abenbury that is more rural in nature. We also note that the proposed boundary ensures that the Wrexham Town settlement defined in the UDP is contained within a Wrexham Town Community in this area. We conclude therefore that the change suggested by Caia Park Community Council to transfer the whole of the Llwyn Onn estate into the Whitegate Ward of the Community of Caia Park would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

Thornleigh

4.10 The map at Appendix G shows a further area suggested by Caia Park Community Council to be transferred from the Community of Abenbury. Abenbury Community Council has again submitted a counter-proposal that takes in the Willow Court area from Caia Park into Abenbury in addition to retaining the Thornleigh area. This is shown on the map at Appendix H.

4.11 As with the Llwyn Onn area, Caia Park Community Council make the point that the Wrexham UDP includes the Thornleigh area within the Wrexham Town settlement area. They consider that this area is also separate from the rural settlement of Abenbury and that the residents of the area access services in Wrexham. They also make the point that adjacent properties in Cefn Road and Bryn Estyn Lane fall within the Community of Caia Park.

4.12 Abenbury Community Council and others object to the proposal to transfer the Thornleigh area to Caia Park. As with Llwyn Onn they consider that the residents are happy with the existing arrangements.

4.13 We consider that the existing boundary between the Communities of Abenbury and Caia Park in the area of the Thornleigh development is anomalous as it separates Thornleigh from the adjacent settlement at Willow Court and we are of the view that these two areas have a common community of interest. We also consider that Thornleigh is a continuation of the settlement area in the north-eastern part of Caia Park. We conclude therefore that the change to the boundary to include Thornleigh within the Cartrefle Ward of the Community of Caia Park would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

4.14 We noted that Caia Park Community Council's proposal for Thornleigh ( Appendix G) includes an area of undeveloped land to the south and east that is not included within the Wrexham Town settlement area shown on the UDP map. As there does not appear to us to be any connection between this area of land and Thornleigh development and to achieve consistency with the UDP, we propose that this area of land remain in the Abenbury Community. Our proposed change to the boundary in this area is illustrated on the maps at Appendices K and L.

Fairways

4.15 The map at Appendix I shows the area suggested by Caia Park Community Council to be transferred from the Bieston Ward of the Community of Holt to the Cartrefle Ward of the Community Of Caia Park. Councillor Morris (Holt Electoral Division, Wrexham County Borough Council) has submitted a counter-proposal that takes in an area from Caia Park into Holt. This is shown on the map at Appendix J.

4.16 Caia Park Community Council again make the point that this area is included within the Wrexham Town settlement area in the UDP. They consider that the residents of the area access services in Wrexham and that the area has no affinity with Holt village that is five miles away.

4.17 Councillor Morris considered that socially and economically the residents of the Fairways estate have more affinity with Holt than Caia Park. He was of the view that residents of the area supported and used facilities in Holt and did not use facilities in Caia Park. He considered that Holt Community Council had forged good links with the estate. A number of residents of the Fairways estate wrote in opposition to proposals to transfer the area to Caia Park. One of these residents added that if they were to be transferred from the Holt Community they would prefer to transfer to the Acton Community rather than Caia Park.

4.18 The Fairways estate forms part of the Bieston Ward of the Community of Holt. Councillor Penny (Bieston Ward, Holt Community Council) and three residents expressed the view that the Bieston Ward should either become part of another community (other than Holt) or form a community in its own right. The view was expressed that the residents of Bieston were not well served by Holt Community Council and that they used the facilities in Borras (part of the Acton Community) or Gresford. In respect of the suggestion that the Bieston Ward forms a community in its own right, we are not satisfied that there is sufficient support for this proposal and we are of the view that the Fairways estate is markedly different in character to the rest of the Bieston Ward. We do not consider therefore that the formation of a separate Bieston Community would be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government.

4.19 We noted that Acton Community Council and a resident opposed the transfer of the area of the Bieston Ward into the Acton Community. The Community Council considered that the Llan-y-pwll link road dual carriageway separated the Bieston ward from their area.

4.20 It appears to us from the information we have considered that the Fairways development has an affinity with both the adjacent settlement areas in the Communities of Acton and Caia Park. We noted that the Holt Road (A534), which separates Acton from the part of the Bieston Ward containing the Fairways estate, was not a dual carriageway and that access roads to both settlements joined this road and therefore did not present a major barrier to communications between the two areas.

4.21 We consider that the Fairways estate is part of the Wrexham Town area and as such should be included within one of the Communities within Wrexham Town. We have noted Caia Park Community Council's proposal to transfer the Fairways estate from the Bieston Ward of the Community of Holt to the Cartrefle Ward of the Community of Caia Park and consider the change would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We do however consider that the Fairways estate may have an equally strong community of interest with the Rhosnesni Ward of the Community of Acton. We are of the view that should the transfer of the Fairways estate to Acton be considered an option then it would be appropriate to consider extending the boundary line along Bryn Estyn Lane so that the Old Gardens estate is transferred from the Community of Caia Park to the Community of Acton. We would welcome representations on this alternative proposal.

4.22 We noted that Caia Park Community Council's proposal for the Fairways area ( Appendix H) includes two cottages shown on the map as Bryn Estyn Cottages that are not included within the Wrexham Town settlement area defined in their UDP. We noted that the only access to these cottages was through Caia Park and along Bryn Estyn Lane. We considered that these cottages have stronger links to the Wrexham Town area than those with the Community of Holt and should therefore be included in the transfer. The proposed change for Fairways is illustrated on the map at Appendix K and the alternative change to take Fairways and Old Gardens into Acton is illustrated on the map at Appendix L.

Conclusions

4.23 Our proposals for the boundaries of the Communities of Abenbury, Caia Park and Holt have implications for the size and therefore perhaps the viability of Abenbury and to a lesser extent Holt Community Councils. Under our proposals the Abenbury Community would have 274 electors. We note however that this would still be more than the rural Ceiriog Ucha Community that has 236 electors. As we have no evidence at this stage that the proposed Abenbury Community would not be viable we make no recommendations for further change. If at some point in the future the viability of Abenbury Community is called into question consideration may be given to amalgamating with one of the adjoining communities such as Holt, Isycoed or Sesswick. Under our proposals the Bieston Ward of the Community of Holt would have 67 electors (1,097 electors are in the Holt Ward). We are of the view that whilst the Holt Community, with what would be 1,103 electors, would remain viable we do have doubts about the desirability of retaining the existing warding arrangements within the community. This issue is considered in section 6 where we consider the consequential effects on the electoral arrangements for community councils and the principal authority, which would result from our proposed changes.

Coedpoeth, Brymbo and Minera

4.24 Coedpoeth Community Council wrote to Wrexham County Borough Council prior to the start of the review suggesting that the Communities of Coedpoeth, Minera and the village of Bwlchgwyn (from the Brymbo Community) be amalgamated to become one Community Council. In response to our initial letters, we have received correspondence from Minera and Brymbo Community Councils, Bwlchgwyn Residents Association (including a petition with 202 signatures) and 48 residents all opposing the suggested change.

4.25 We received further correspondence from Coedpoeth Community Council informing us that in the light of the public meetings in Bwlchgwyn and Minera they have submitted to us an amended proposal. This proposal suggests a change to the boundary between Coedpoeth and Minera so that the shaded area on the map at Appendix M is transferred from Minera to Coedpoeth. The Council considers that this is a logical boundary when considering the location of the properties and their distance from the remainder of Minera. They point out that the Bryn Hyfryd estate has a Coedpoeth postal address and residents have expressed their support for this submission.

4.26 We considered Coedpoeth Community Council's original proposal and noted the objections to the proposal. We came to the view that the proposal provided no demonstrable benefits in terms of effective and convenient local government for the area. We therefore went on to consider the Coedpoeth amended proposal for a change to the boundary between the Coedpoeth and Minera Communities.

4.27 We considered that the area suggested for transfer into Coedpoeth did appear, from the evidence of a site visit, to be contiguous with the Community of Coedpoeth and that the area was included in the Coedpoeth settlement area as defined in Wrexham's UDP. We are of the view therefore that the suggested change would be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government and would propose accordingly.

4.28 We noted that the Wrexham UDP settlement area for Coedpoeth included additional areas of Minera, which were not included in the Coedpoeth proposal. These included some properties in an area to the south of the suggested amendment and the industrial area to the north of the suggested amendment. We considered that the area to the south of the suggested amendments was closely connected to the Community of Coedpoeth and noted that the access to the properties was through Coedpoeth and not Minera. We are of the view therefore that this additional area should be included within the Community of Coedpoeth. In respect of the industrial area we consider that as this area has little or no impact on the provision of community services, this area should also be transferred to the Community of Coedpoeth. This change would have the benefit of achieving consistency between the UDP settlement boundaries and the community boundaries in this area. The proposed change is illustrated on the map at Appendix N.

Brymbo and Broughton

4.29 In their correspondence with Wrexham CBC prior to the start of the review, Brymbo Community Council suggested that the Broughton side of Broughton Road, Kent Road and Cefn Road in the Lodge, Green Road, Queens Road, Holland Road and Halcog be brought within the area of Brymbo Community. We noted that these proposals appeared consistent with the UDP settlement areas for Brymbo and Broughton.

4.30 Broughton Community Council are opposed to the change as they consider the areas in question have a close affinity with the Community of Broughton whereas Brymbo Community Council are of the view that because of their geographical proximity to Brymbo Community there is an argument for including them within the Brymbo boundary.

4.31 Following a site visit to the area we consider that the proposal by Brymbo Community Council has merit in that there appears to be a community of interest between the area in question and the Community of Brymbo. We also consider that the change would have the benefit of achieving consistency between the UDP settlement areas and the community boundaries. We therefore propose the change to the boundary between the Communities of Brymbo and Broughton illustrated on the map at Appendix O.

Gwersyllt, Gresford and Rhosddu

4.32 Three residents of the Rhosrobin area of Gwersyllt expressed the view that their area was remote from the community facilities in Gwersyllt village and suggested that a new community be formed comprising Old/New Rhosrobin and Pandy (one resident suggested also including the village of Bradley).

4.33 It is not clear to us from the representations where the boundary could be drawn to create the suggested new community. The Community of Gwersyllt is divided into four wards; North, East, West and South. The villages of Old and New Rhosrobin and Pandy are in the South ward and the village of Bradley is in the East ward. Both of these wards include areas of housing that appear to us to be closely linked with Gwersyllt village.

4.34 Wrexham's UDP defines the settlement area of Gwersyllt as covering parts of all four Wards of the Community of Gwersyllt. Separate settlement areas are defined for Bradley and New/Old Rhosrobin. The Pandy Industrial Estate and the Rhosddu Industrial Estate, which are both part of the South Ward of Community of Gwersyllt, are included in the Wrexham Town settlement area.

4.35 From the information that has been provided to us at this stage we are unable to recommend the suggested change, as it is unclear as to the benefits in terms of effective and convenient local government. We would welcome further comments on this suggested change.

4.36 Gresford Community Council considered that as several areas in Gresford lay on the opposite side of the A483 to the main part of the Community, 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.

4.37 The existing boundary between Gresford and Llay is defined to follow the course of the River Alyn. We noted however that it appears that the course of the river has been changed in the construction of the A483 (T) dual carriageway so that in two places the boundary no longer follows the course of the river. We are of the view that the A483 (T) would constitute a more clearly recognisable boundary between the Communities of Gresford and Llay than the River Alyn. We noted however that as the Community of Llay 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 Llay. We therefore commend this suggested change to Wrexham County Borough Council who may undertake their own review under Section 55(2) of the Act.

4.38 We have noted that at the southern end of the Gresford/Llay boundary, Wrexham's UDP includes an industrial area between the railway line and the A483 (T) within the Wrexham Town settlement. We also noted that the Pandy and Rhosddu Industrial Estates, which are both part of the South Ward of Community of Gwersyllt, are included in the Wrexham Town settlement area. In order to ensure that the area of the Wrexham Town settlement is contained within Communities associated with Wrexham Town, we propose that the area between the railway line and the A483 (T) and the Pandy Industrial Estate are included within the Garden Village ward of the Community of Rhosddu. Furthermore we propose that the area of the Rhosddu Industrial Estate and the adjoining housing be included within the Stansty ward of the Community of Rhosddu with the boundary between the two wards being extended northwards to follow the line of Wat's Dyke. These changes are illustrated on the maps at Appendices P and Q.

Llansantffraid Glyn Ceiriog, Glyntraian and Ceiriog Ucha

4.39 Glyn Ceiriog Community Council suggested two small changes to their boundary, one to transfer Hafod y Garreg from the Ceiriog Ucha Community and one to transfer Pant Farm from the Glyntraian Community.

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

4.41 As we understand it both Hafod y Garreg and Pant Farm are isolated farms surrounded by large areas of land. It is not clear from the information that has been provided to us where the intended boundary should be drawn around these farms. From the information that has been provided to us at this stage, we are unable to assess what benefits may accrue from the suggested changes in terms of effective and convenient local government. We therefore make no recommendations at this stage and welcome further representations concerning these suggestions.

4.42 We have noted that although the name of the community was defined by Order as Ceiriog Ucha the Community Council uses the name Ceriog Uchaf. It is our view that the Uchaf form is appropriate. As at this stage we have no proposals to make in respect of the community boundary and it is outside our remit to make a proposal as part of this review to change the community name. We therefore commend this suggested change to Wrexham County Borough Council who may make such a change under Section 76 of the Act.

Glyntraian and Chirk

4.43 In their representation Glyntraian Community Council have suggested a change to the boundary between their Community and Chirk. We considered that the proposed change was not desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. Furthermore we noted that as the Community of Chirk 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 the boundary of the Community of Chirk.

Sesswick and Marchwiel

4.44 Sesswick Community Council made two suggestions for changes to the boundary between Marchwiel (Deiniol Ward) and Sesswick. The first suggestion is in the area of Bedwell Brook and appears to involve one property and is illustrated on the map at Appendix R. The second change follows the line of the proposed southern access road to the industrial estate. As the line of this road is still to be decided the map provided by the Community Council only shows an approximate line and therefore has not been mapped. No correspondence was received at the initial stage of the review from Marchwiel Community Council or from any other interested party.

4.45 In respect of the change in the area of Bedwell Brook we considered the suggested change had merit as the suggested boundary followed clearly defined features and appeared to be a more appropriate boundary than the existing one in this area. We therefore provisionally recommend this change to the boundary and welcome further representations in respect of the proposed change to the boundary between Sesswick and Marchwiel.

4.46 In respect of the change to the boundary between the Communities of Sesswick and Marchwiel to follow the line of the proposed southern access road to the industrial estate we feel unable to make any proposals at this stage. Wrexham County Borough Council have informed us that their Executive Board gave authority for the submission of a planning application for the new road on 5 July 2005 but we understand the application has yet to be submitted. The Executive Board at their meeting adopted a preferred route but the proposed improvement will be subjected to various statutory procedures including the possibility of a public enquiry. These procedures may result in alterations to or even the abandonment of the scheme. We consider that the most appropriate action would be for Wrexham County Borough Council to continue to monitor the progress of the scheme and to conduct a review of the boundary between Sesswick and Marchwiel as and when the precise road layout is known.

Isycoed and Holt

4.47 Isycoed Community Council suggested that Oatlands Farm, Ridley Wood be wholly included within the area of Isycoed Community rather than in Holt Community. As the existing boundary in this area appears anomalous, we considered that this suggestion had merit. We therefore propose the change to the boundary between the Communities of Isycoed and Holt as illustrated on the map at Appendix S.

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 Abenbury, Caia Park, Holt, Coedpoeth, Minera, Brymbo, Broughton, Gwersyllt, Gresford, Llay, Rhosddu, Sesswick and Marchwiel should be realigned in the area under review to follow the boundaries shown in green on the maps at Appendices E, K (or L), N, O, P, Q, R and S.

5.2 Detailed maps to a larger scale showing the proposed new boundaries can be inspected at the offices of the Wrexham County Borough 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 Borough of Wrexham 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 Wrexham County Borough Council.

Community Council Electoral Arrangements

6.2 The Community of Abenbury is not warded and currently has 479 electors represented by 8 councillors. Under our proposals the electorate will reduce to 274. We noted that in order to maintain a similar level of representation that currently exists within the Community of Abenbury it would be necessary to reduce the number of councillors to 5. In our Guide to Representation on Community Councils published in 1976 however, we suggested that the minimum representation for a community council should be 7 councillors. We note that The Ceiriog Ucha Community within the Wrexham County Borough has 236 electors represented by 8 councillors. As the Ceiriog Ucha community covers a larger area and is more rural than the Abenbury we consider that following the proposed changes to the community boundary, Abenbury Community Council will be represented by 7 councillors.

6.3 The Community of Caia Park is currently divided, for Community electoral purposes, into the community wards of Cartrefle, Queensway, Smithfield and Whitegate. The following table shows the number of electors and councillors for each ward.

6.4 Under our proposals the number of electors in the Cartrefle ward will rise to 2,224 and the number of electors in the Whitegate ward will rise to 2,493 electors. We noted that in order to maintain a similar level of representation that currently exists within the Community of Caia Park it would be necessary to increase the number of councillors by 1 to 13. If the numbers of councillors were then allocated in proportion to the number of electors, the electoral arrangements for the Community of Caia Park would be as follows:

 6.5 The Community of Holt is currently divided for Community electoral purposes into the community wards of Bieston and Holt. The following table shows the number of electors and councillors for each ward.

 6.6 Under our proposals for the Community of Holt, the number of electors in the Bieston ward will reduce to 67 and the number of electors in the Holt ward will reduce to 1,095. As we stated at 4.23 above, we have doubts about the desirability of retaining the existing warding arrangements within the community. In terms of number of electors, the Bieston ward would be the smallest community ward in Wrexham County Borough. In considering whether a community should be divided into wards Schedule 11 (4) of the 1972 Act states that "regard shall be had to the questions whether - (a) the number or distribution of the local government electors for the community is such as to make a single election of parish or community councillors impracticable or inconvenient; and (b) it is desirable that any area or areas of the parish or community should be separately represented on the parish or community council." We are of the view that in the revised Community of Holt, it would not be impracticable or inconvenient for there to be a single election of community councillors and we are not of the view that it would be desirable for the remainder of the Holt ward to be separately represented on the community council. We propose therefore that the revised Community of Holt with 1,162 electors is not warded and the number of councillors is reduced from 11 to 10.

6.7 The Community of Coedpoeth is currently divided for electoral purposes into North and South community wards. The following table shows the number of electors and councillors for each ward.

6.8 The boundary between the North and South wards of the Community of Coedpoeth follows the middle of the High Street (A525). We consider that it would be appropriate for this boundary to be extended into the new area as shown on the map at Appendix N. Under our proposals for the community of Coedpoeth the number of electors in the North ward will increase to 2,648 and the number of electors in the South ward will rise to 1,150. In order to maintain a similar level of representation to that which currently exists within the Community of Coedpoeth we propose that the number of councillors representing the North ward to be raised to 11 and in the South ward to 5.

6.9 The Community of Minera is not warded and currently has 1,240 electors represented by 12 councillors. Under our proposals the electorate will reduce to 905.In order to maintain a similar level of representation to that which currently exists within the Community of Minera we propose that the number of councillors be reduced to 9.

6.10 The Community of Brymbo is currently divided for electoral purposes into the community wards of Brymbo, Bwlchgwyn, and Vron. The following table shows the number of electors and councillors for each ward.

6.11 Under our proposals for the Community of Brymbo, the Brymbo ward will increase by 459 electors to 1,828. In order to maintain a similar level of representation to that which currently exists within the Community of Brymbo we propose that the number of councillors representing the Brymbo ward to be raised to 10.

6.12 The Community of Broughton is currently divided for electoral purposes into the community wards of Bryn Cefn, Brynteg, Gwenfro and New Broughton. The following table shows the number of electors and councillors for each ward.

 6.13 Under our proposals for the Community of Broughton, the Bryn Cefn ward will decrease by 459 electors to 981. In order to maintain a similar level of representation to that which currently exists within the Community of Broughton we propose that the number of councillors representing the Bryn Cefn ward to be reduced to 3. We have also noted the disparity in representation between the Brynteg, Gwenfro and New Broughton wards. We consider that an appropriate level of representation for the Brynteg, Gwenfro and New Broughton wards is 4 councillors each. This will give a total of 15 councillors representing the Community of Broughton.

6.14 The Community of Gwersyllt is currently divided for electoral purposes into the community wards of Gwersyllt East, Gwersyllt North, Gwersyllt South and Gwersyllt West. The following table shows the number of electors and councillors for each ward.

6.15 Under our proposals for the Community of Gwersyllt, the Gwersyllt South ward will decrease by 571 electors to 757. In order to maintain a similar level of representation to that which currently exists within the Community of Gwersyllt we propose that the number of councillors representing the Gwersyllt South ward to be reduced to 2. We have also noted the disparity in representation between the Gwersyllt West ward and the Gwersyllt East and Gwersyllt North wards. We consider that an appropriate level of representation for the Gwersyllt West ward is 5 councillors. This will retain a total of 17 councillors representing the Community of Gwersyllt.

6.16 Under our proposals for the Community of Gresford the number of electors in the Gresford West ward of the Community of Gresford will remain the same. We noted that the boundary between the West and East wards of the Community and Gresford follows the B5445 the route of which has been changed in the construction of the junction with the A483 (T). We therefore propose a small change to the ward boundary so that it follows the new route of the B5445 down to the roundabout to meet the amended community boundary. This change, which is illustrated on the map at Appendix P, does not involve the transfer of any electors between the two wards.

6.17 The Community of Rhosddu is currently divided for electoral purposes into the community wards of Garden Village, Grosvenor and Stansty. The following table shows the number of electors and councillors for each ward.

6.18 Under our proposals areas adjacent to both the Garden Village and Stansty wards will be transferred into the Community of Rhosddu. We consider therefore that it would be appropriate for the community ward boundary to be extended into the new area as shown on the map at Appendix O. Under our proposals for the Community of Rhosddu, the Garden Village ward will increase by 413 electors to 2,088 and the Stansty ward will increase by 158 electors to 1,824. In order to maintain a similar level of representation to that which currently exists within the Community of Rhosddu we propose that the number of councillors representing the Garden Village ward to be raised to 5. This will give a total of 13 councillors representing the Community of Rhosddu.

6.19 Under our proposals for the Community of Marchwiel, the Deiniol ward will decrease by 1 elector to 326. We consider that this small change to the number of electors does not merit a change to the number of councillors representing this ward.

6.20 Under our proposals the Community of Sesswick will increase by 1 elector to 471. We consider that this small change to the number of electors does not merit a change to the number of councillors representing this community.

6.21 Under our proposals the Community of Isycoed will increase by 2 electors to 293. We consider that this small change to the number of electors does not merit a change to the number of councillors representing this community.

County Borough Council Electoral Arrangements

6.22 The Brymbo electoral division consisting of the Brymbo and Vron wards of the Community of Brymbo currently has 2,023 electors represented by one councillor. The proposed amendment to the boundary between the Communities of Brymbo and Broughton would see a rise in the number of electors to 2,482.

6.23 The Bryn Cefn electoral division, which is coterminous with the Bryn Cefn ward of the Community of Broughton, currently has 1,440 electors represented by one councillor. The proposed amendment to the boundary between the Communities of Brymbo and Broughton would see a fall in the number of electors in the Bryn Cefn electoral division to 981.

6.24 The Cartrefle electoral division, which is coterminous with the Cartrefle ward of the Community of Caia Park, currently has 1,564 electors represented by one councillor. The proposed amendments to the boundaries between the Community of Caia Park and the Communities of Abenbury and Holt would see a rise in the number of electors in the Cartrefle electoral division to 2,222.

6.25 The Coedpoeth electoral division, which is coterminous with the Community of Coedpoeth, currently has 3,463 electors represented by two councillors. The proposed amendment to the boundary between the Communities of Coedpoeth and Minera would see a rise in the number of electors to 3,798.

6.26 The Garden Village electoral division, which is coterminous with the Garden Village ward of the Community of Rhosddu, currently has 1,675 electors represented by one councillor. The proposed amendment to the boundary between the Communities of Rhosddu and Gwersyllt would see a rise in the number of electors to 2,088.

6.27 The Gresford East and West electoral division consisting of the East and West wards of the Community of Gresford currently has 2,188 electors represented by one councillor. The proposed amendment to the boundary between the Communities of Gresford and Rhosddu would see no change in the number of electors.

6.28 The Gwersyllt East and South electoral division consisting of the East and South wards of the Community of Gwersyllt currently has 3,191 electors represented by two councillors. The proposed amendment to the boundary between the Communities of Gwersyllt and Rhosddu would see a fall in the number of electors to 2,620.

6.29 The Holt electoral division consisting of the Communities of Abenbury, Holt and Isycoed currently has 2,558 electors represented by one councillor. The proposed amendment to the boundaries between the Community of Caia Park and the Communities of Abenbury and Holt and the proposed amendment between the Community of Isycoed and Holt would see a fall in the number of electors to 1,729.

6.30 The Marchwiel electoral division consists of the Communities of Erbistock, Marchwiel and Sesswick. The minor change proposed to the boundary between the Communities of Marchwiel and Sesswick would have no effect on the total number of electors within the Marchwiel electoral division.

6.31 The Minera electoral division, consisting of the Community of Minera and the Bwlchgwyn ward of the Community of Brymbo, has 1,881 electors represented by one councillor. The change proposed to the boundary between the Communities of Coedpoeth and Minera would see a fall in the number of electors to 1,546.

6.32 The Stansty electoral division, which is coterminous with the Stansty ward of the Community of Rhosddu, currently has 1,666 electors represented by one councillor. The proposed amendment to the boundary between the Communities of Rhosddu and Gwersyllt would see a rise in the number of electors to 1,824.

6.33 The Whitegate electoral division, which is coterminous with the Whitegate ward of the Community of Caia Park, currently has 2,324 electors represented by one councillor. The proposed amendments to the boundaries between the Communities of Caia Park and Abenbury would see a rise in the number of electors in the Whitegate electoral division to 2,493.

6.34 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 the principal councils in Wales and we anticipate that we will receive directions from the National Assembly for Wales to guide us in the conduct of the review. At that time we will look in detail at the electoral arrangements for Wrexham County Borough 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 Wrexham County Borough 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 10 May 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 National Assembly for Wales in the form of a report and proposals. It will then fall to the National Assembly for Wales, if they think fit, to implement our recommendations either with or without modifications

MRS S G SMITH LLB (Chair)

J DAVIES ICSA IPFA (Deputy Chair)

D H ROBERTS BSc DMS MBCS MCMI (Member)

E H LEWIS BSc. DPM FRSA FCIPD (Secretary)

February 2007

---

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

5/3/2007