REVIEW OF COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES IN THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF WREXHAM

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW
4. DRAFT PROPOSALS
5. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS
6. ASSESSMENT
7. PROPOSALS
8. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS
9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
10. THE NEXT STEPS

---

Brian Gibbons AM

Minister for Social Justice and Local Government

Welsh Assembly Government

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 We the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales (the Commission) have completed 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).

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 F;
• the boundary between the Communities of Acton, Caia Park and Holt in the area of Fairways be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix F;
• the boundary between the Communities of Coedpoeth and Minera be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix G;
• the boundary between the Communities of Brymbo and Broughton be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix H;
• the boundary between the Communities of Gresford and Gwersyllt be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix I;
• the boundary between the Communities of Marchwiel and Sesswick be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix J;
• the boundary between the Communities of Holt and Isycoed be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix K.

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW

3.1 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).

Procedure

3.2 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.

4. DRAFT PROPOSALS

4.1 In response to our initial invitation, 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. In our Draft Proposals published on 2 March 2006, we considered the issues raised in the representations.

4.2 Suggested changes to community boundaries were 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.

4.3 We noted that 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 considered that the UDP could have significant implications for the communities within the Wrexham County Borough area and that we should carefully consider these implications when determining community boundaries.

Abenbury, Acton, Caia Park and Holt

4.4 Caia Park Community Council 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

4.5 Caia Park Community Council suggested that the part of the Llwyn Onn estate currently within the Community of Abenbury be transferred to the Community of Caia Park. Abenbury Community Council submitted a counter-proposal that would take in an area from Caia Park into Abenbury.

4.6 Caia Park Community Council made the point that the Wrexham UDP included the whole of the Llwyn Onn estate within the Wrexham Town settlement area. They considered that the area is separate from the rural settlement of Abenbury and that community facilities within Caia Park were close by. They also considered that the residents of the area access services in Wrexham.

4.7 Abenbury Community Council and others considered that, in terms of the provision of services and the satisfaction of the residents, the existing arrangements worked well. They were of the view that the loss of the residents of Llwyn Onn (and Thornleigh) would significantly reduce the number of electors in Abenbury and would 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) opposed the transfer of their area to Caia Park.

4.8 In our Draft Proposals report we considered that the existing boundary between the Communities of Abenbury and Caia Park at Llwyn Onn was clearly anomalous as it divided the Llwyn Onn Estate. We were 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 did not appear to be any local ties with the other adjoining Community, Marchwiel. We did not consider Abenbury Community Council's counter-proposal to be appropriate, as it would involve the transfer of a number of properties that have links to the Caia Park Community.

4.9 We noted in our report 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 noted that, for Band D properties for 2005/06 there is a £36.54 difference between Abenbury and Caia Park. We stated our view that the circumstances of the current 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 confirmed 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 were of the view that the proposed change would have little impact as part of the Llwyn Onn estate was already in the Caia Park Community and we had no evidence that the house prices in this area had been detrimentally affected. We also considered the situation regarding insurance would be similarly unaffected as we understood that this was usually determined by postcode. In any event we took 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.

4.10 We considered that Caia Park Community Council's proposal for Llwyn Onn had merit in that it combined the Llwyn Onn estate into one community. We were of the view that the area in question had more community of interest with a Wrexham Town Community than the Community of Abenbury that was more rural in nature. We also noted that the proposed boundary ensures that the Wrexham Town settlement defined in the UDP is contained within a Wrexham Town Community in this area. In our Draft Proposals report we concluded 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

4.11 We considered the suggestion by Caia Park Community Council to transfer the area known as Thornleigh from the Community of Abenbury to the Community of Caia Park. As with the Llwyn Onn area, Caia Park Community Council again made the point that the Wrexham UDP includes the Thornleigh area within the Wrexham Town settlement area. They considered 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 made the point that adjacent properties in Cefn Road and Bryn Estyn Lane fall within the Community of Caia Park.

4.12 Abenbury Community Council submitted a counter-proposal to take in the Willow Court area from Caia Park into Abenbury in addition to retaining the Thornleigh area. Abenbury Community Council and others objected to the proposal to transfer the Thornleigh area to Caia Park as they considered that the residents were happy with the existing arrangements.

4.13 We considered 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 were of the view that these two areas have a common community of interest. We also considered that Thornleigh is a continuation of the settlement area in the north-eastern part of Caia Park. We concluded 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 included an area of undeveloped land to the south and east that was not included within the Wrexham Town settlement area shown on the UDP map. As there did not appear to us to be any connection between this area of land and Thornleigh development and to achieve consistency with the UDP, we proposed that this area of land remained in the Abenbury Community.

Fairways

4.15 Caia Park Community Council suggested the transfer of the Fairways estate from the Bieston Ward of the Community of Holt to the Cartrefle Ward of the Community Of Caia Park. Caia Park Community Council again made the point that this area was included within the Wrexham Town settlement area in the UDP. They considered 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.

4.16 Councillor Morris (Holt Electoral Division, Wrexham County Borough Council) submitted a counter-proposal that took in an area from Caia Park into Holt. Councillor Morris considered that socially and economically the residents of the Fairways estate had 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.

4.17 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 were not satisfied that there was sufficient support for this proposal and we were of the view that the Fairways estate is markedly different in character to the rest of the Bieston Ward. We did not consider therefore that the formation of a separate Bieston Community would be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government.

4.18 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.

4.19 It appeared to us 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.

4.20 We considered 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 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 considered the change would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We did however consider that the Fairways estate might have an equally strong community of interest with the Rhosnesni Ward of the Community of Acton. We were 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 welcomed representations on this alternative proposal.

4.21 We noted that Caia Park Community Council's proposal for the Fairways area included 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.

4.22 Our draft proposals for the boundaries of the Communities of Abenbury, Caia Park and Holt had implications for the size and therefore perhaps the viability of Abenbury and to a lesser extent Holt Community Councils. Under our draft proposals the Abenbury Community would have had 274 electors. We noted however that this would still be more than the rural Ceiriog Ucha Community that had 236 electors. As we had no evidence at that stage that the proposed Abenbury Community would not be viable we made no recommendations for further change. We considered that if at some point in the future the viability of Abenbury Community was called into question consideration may be given to amalgamating with one of the adjoining communities such as Holt, Isycoed or Sesswick. Under our draft proposals the Bieston Ward of the Community of Holt would have had 67 electors (1,097 electors were in the Holt Ward). We were of the view that whilst the Holt Community would remain viable we did have doubts about the desirability of retaining the existing warding arrangements within the community. We considered this issue in section 6 of our Draft Proposals report where we considered 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

4.23 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 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.

4.24 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 suggested a change to the boundary between Coedpoeth and Minera to transfer an area from Minera to Coedpoeth. The Council considered that this was a logical boundary when considering the location of the properties and their distance from the remainder of Minera. They pointed out that the Bryn Hyfryd estate has a Coedpoeth postal address and residents had expressed their support for this submission.

4.25 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.

4.26 In our Draft Proposals report we considered that the area suggested for transfer into Coedpoeth appeared, from the evidence of a site visit, to be contiguous with the Community of Coedpoeth and we noted that the area was included in the Coedpoeth settlement area as defined in Wrexham's UDP. We were of the view therefore that the suggested change would be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government and we proposed accordingly.

4.27 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 were of the view therefore that this additional area should be included within the Community of Coedpoeth. In respect of the industrial area we considered that as this area had little or no impact on the provision of community services, the industrial area should also be transferred to the Community of Coedpoeth. We noted that this change would have the benefit of achieving consistency between the UDP settlement boundaries and the community boundaries in the area.

Brymbo and Broughton

4.28 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. Broughton Community Council however were opposed to the change as they considered the areas in question have a close affinity with the Community of Broughton.

4.29 Following a site visit to the area we considered that the proposal by Brymbo Community Council has merit in that there appeared to be a community of interest between the area in question and the Community of Brymbo. We also considered that the change would have the benefit of achieving consistency between the UDP settlement areas and the community boundaries. In our draft proposals report we therefore proposed a change to the boundary between the Communities of Brymbo and Broughton.

Gwersyllt, Gresford and Rhosddu

4.30 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). It was not clear to us from the representations where the boundary could be drawn to create the suggested new community. We noted that 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 appeared to us to be closely linked with Gwersyllt village. From the information that was provided to us at that stage we were unable to recommend the suggested change, as it was unclear as to the benefits in terms of effective and convenient local government. We welcomed further comments on this suggested change.

4.31 In our Draft Proposals report we noted that 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 however, 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 proposed that the area of the Pandy Industrial Estate be included within the Garden Village ward of the Community of Rhosddu. Furthermore we proposed 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.

4.32 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. 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 was not included in the Directions for the Review (Appendix A), we were unable, in this review, to make any recommendations in respect of changes to the boundary of the Community of Llay. We therefore commended this suggested change to Wrexham County Borough Council to consider undertaking their own review under Section 55(2) of the Act.

4.33 We noted that at the southern end of the Gresford/Llay boundary, Wrexham's UDP includes an area of Gresford which consists of an industrial area between the railway line and the A483 (T) within the Wrexham Town settlement. In order to ensure that the area of the Wrexham Town settlement is contained within Communities associated with Wrexham Town, we proposed that this area be included within the Garden Village ward of the Community of Rhosddu.

Llansantffraid Glyn Ceiriog, Glyntraian and Ceiriog Ucha

4.34 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. 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.

4.35 It was our understanding that both Hafod y Garreg and Pant Farm are isolated farms surrounded by large areas of land. It was not clear to us where the intended boundary should be drawn around these farms. From the information that was provided, we were unable to assess what benefits may accrue from the suggested changes in terms of effective and convenient local government. We therefore made no recommendations at that stage and welcomed further representations concerning these suggestions.

4.36 We noted that although the name of the community was defined by Order as Ceiriog Ucha the Community Council uses the name Ceriog Uchaf. It was our view that the Uchaf form is appropriate. We therefore commended this suggested change to Wrexham County Borough Council who may make such a change under Section 76 of the Act.

Glyntraian and Chirk

4.37 In their representation Glyntraian Community Council 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 was not included in the Directions for the Review ( Appendix A), we were unable, in this review, to make any recommendations in respect of changes the boundary of the Community of Chirk.

Marchwiel and Sesswick

4.38 Sesswick Community Council made two suggestions for changes to the boundary between Marchwiel (Deiniol Ward) and Sesswick. The first suggestion was in the area of Bedwell Brook and involved an area including one property. The second suggested change follows the line of the proposed southern access road to the industrial estate. We noted in our report that the line of this road was still to be decided and had not been mapped. We noted that no correspondence was received at the initial stage of the review from Marchwiel Community Council or from any other interested party.

4.39 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 recommended this change to the boundary and welcomed further representations in respect of the proposed change to the boundary between Sesswick and Marchwiel.

4.40 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 felt unable to make any proposals at that stage. Wrexham County Borough Council had 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 understood 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 considered 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.

Holt and Isycoed

4.41 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. In our Draft Proposals report we therefore proposed a change to the boundary between the Communities of Holt and Isycoed.

5. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

5.1 In response to our Draft Proposals report we received representations from Wrexham County Borough Council, Abenbury, Acton, Broughton, Caia Park, Gwersyllt, Holt, Minera and Sesswick Community Councils, Martyn Jones MP, Lesley Griffiths AM, Janet Ryder AM, Karen Sinclair AM, Councillor Morris (Holt Electoral Division), Councillor Price (Minera Electoral Division), Councillor Wilkinson (Bryn Cefn Electoral Division), Councillor Nelmes (Minera Community Council), 104 residents of Llwyn Onn, 7 residents of Fairways (plus a petition 94 residents) and 41 residents of Minera (and a resident of another area with an interest in Minera plus a petition of 288 residents of Minera). A summary of these representations can be found at Appendix C.

5.2 In their representation Minera Community Council considered that our draft proposal in respect of the boundary between Minera and Coedpoeth should be ruled out because of a perceived lapse in the our procedures. This was in respect of the representation from Coedpoeth Community Council, suggesting a revision to their initial proposal (as considered at 4.24 above), being received after the date by which initial observations were to be provided to us.

5.3 In response we informed Minera Community Council that our statutory obligations on the procedure to be adopted in its reviews are set out in section 60 of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended. They are in summary to consult persons interested in the subject matter of the review, and to secure that interested persons are informed of any draft proposals. The Act does not prescribe in detail what means or timetable the we should follow in carrying out this consultation, but we observe that the main principle of section 60 is to give all those who may have an interest in the review the opportunity to make their views known by means of consultation. We have developed the bare statutory requirements on procedure in our published Guidance Notes. This guidance is intended to be flexible, and, in order to ensure that we have in our possession as much available information as possible in carrying out our task, we will for example have regard to submissions which do not meet the our time limit, provided always that interested persons have an opportunity to make their views known, and of course that we have an opportunity to consider them fully. We considered that in the case raised by Minera Community Council that objective had been met and that the procedure had operated fairly: that is, as a result of the draft proposals, supported by full reasoning, contained in the Draft Proposals Report, Minera Community Council and interested parties had the opportunity to consider the proposals and to make their full views known.

6. ASSESSMENT

Abenbury and Caia Park

6.1 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed two areas be transferred from the Community of Abenbury to the Community of Caia Park. The two areas are the divided estate of Llwyn Onn and the Thornleigh estate.

Llwyn Onn

6.2 Having considered all of the representations received in response to our Draft Proposals we remain of the view that the existing situation, whereby the Llwyn Onn estate is split by the boundary between the Communities of Abenbury and Caia Park, is not beneficial in terms of effective and convenient local government. We remain of the view therefore that the whole of the Llwyn Onn estate should be contained within one Community area because it is a cohesive estate, constructed as a natural unity. We have therefore considered the alternative suggestions for resolving this anomaly, either changing the boundary so that the whole of the Llwyn Onn estate is within the Community of Caia Park or changing the boundary so that the whole of the Llwyn Onn estate and other properties to the south of Abenbury Road are within the Community of Abenbury.

6.3 We have noted that in response to our proposal in respect of Llwyn Onn, one resident of Abenbury Fields, in the Community of Caia Park, wrote in support of Abenbury Community Council's suggestion to draw the boundary along the Abenbury Road to combine Abenbury Fields and all of the Llwyn Onn estate into the Community of Abenbury. As stated at 4.8 above, in deliberating our Draft Proposals we did not consider this suggestion to be appropriate, as it would involve the transfer of a number of properties that have links to the Caia Park Community. The area between the south of the Abenbury Road and the River Clywedog has been part of the Community of Caia Park since that community was formed by the Wrexham Maelor (Communities) Order 1985. Prior to 1985 the area was in the Community of Wrexham. We consider therefore that as this area has long standing links with the areas of Wrexham Town and Caia Park it should remain within the Community of Caia Park and not be included within the Community of Abenbury.

6.4 We have noted that of those residents of the Abenbury part of Llwyn Onn who responded, all were against the proposal to move their area within the Community of Caia Park. We noted however that no reasons for this opposition were given to add to those previously expressed within the initial representations submitted to us and considered in our Draft Proposals report. It appears from the representations that a large majority of the residents within the Abenbury part of Llwyn Onn wish to remain in Abenbury. The wishes of these residents would be met by the alternative suggestion made by Abenbury Community Council considered in our Draft Proposals report. This suggestion, to include the whole of the Llwyn Onn estate and other properties to the south of Abenbury Road within the Community of Abenbury would however involve the transfer of a number of properties that are currently in and have links to the Community of Caia Park and are in the Wrexham Town settlement area defined in the UDP. For these reasons we do not consider the alternative suggestion made by Abenbury Community Council to be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government.

6.5 The representations made by Abenbury Community Council and others questioned the reference, in our Draft Proposals report, to Abenbury as a rural community. This was not our intention. In our Draft Proposals report, at paragraph 4.9, in comparing Abenbury with Caia Park, we refer to Abenbury as being 'more rural in nature'. We consider this comparison to be correct and, although the point is not determinative, it is well illustrated by the maps at Appendices E and F.

6.6 In their response to our Draft Proposals, Abenbury Community Council reiterated their concerns with regards to the effect the proposed changes would have on the viability of their community. In our Draft proposals report we stated that we had no evidence at that stage that the proposed Abenbury Community would not be viable. We suggested that if such evidence became known to us then consideration might be given to amalgamating the Abenbury Community with one of the adjoining communities. An alternative to this is that Abenbury could be grouped with some neighbouring community or communities under a common community council (Section 29 of the Act).

6.7 We do not consider that the further representations we have received have provided us with sufficient evidence to question the viability of the proposed Abenbury Community. Indeed we have noted that the Llwyn Onn is a relatively recent development and that prior to this Abenbury Community Council existed for many years with a smaller number of electors (325 in 1979, 350 in 1996).

6.8 We have noted that Wrexham County Borough Council in their representation support the change proposed in our Draft Proposals report.

6.9 We remain of the view that the anomaly whereby the Llwyn Onn estate is split between two community areas is detrimental to effective and convenient local government in the area. We consider that our proposed boundary, which includes the whole of the Llwyn Onn estate within the Whitegate Ward of the Community of Caia Park, shown on the map at Appendix E, is clearly defined. We consider such a change to be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government and so recommend.

Thornleigh

6.10 In his representation Councillor Morris asked us to consider the emerging Wrexham County Borough Council's Local Development Plan in respect of Thornleigh. He considered that the Plan would seem to indicate that the estate would increase in size thus leading to a future boundary anomaly. We understand from Wrexham County Borough Council that the earliest the emerging Local Development Plan will be starting is 2010. We are satisfied that, for the foreseeable future, the boundary around the Thornleigh estate as proposed in our Draft Proposals report will contain the extent of the housing development in this area. We therefore propose the change to the boundary between the Communities of Abenbury and Caia Park as illustrated on the map at Appendix F for the reasons given in our Draft Proposals report and set out at Paragraphs 4.11 to 4.14 of this Report.

Acton, Caia Park and Holt

6.11 In our Draft Proposals report we considered a 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 also considered a proposal to transfer the Fairways estate, from the Community of Holt, and additionally the Old Gardens estate, from the Community of Caia Park, to the Rhosnesni Ward of the Community of Acton. We welcomed representations on these alternative proposals.

6.12 We have noted that, in response to our Draft Proposals, Acton Community Council reiterated their initial comments that the current boundaries of the Acton Community were very clearly defined and that the transfer of the Fairways estate to the Rhosnesni Ward of the Community of Acton would make the Rhosnesni Ward too large. Caia Park Community Council remains of the view that it would be preferable to include the Fairways estate within their area. Holt Community Council remain opposed to the transfer of the Fairways estate from their area and in particular were of the view that there was no evidence that the residents of Fairways had any affinity with or used the services in Caia Park. Councillor Morris considered that given the objections from residents that the area should remain within Holt. He did consider however that the Fairways had more of an affinity with the Community of Acton than the Community of Caia Park.

6.13 We have also noted the representations from residents of Fairways who support a move into Acton in preference to Caia Park. They have provided a number of reasons why they feel an affinity with the Rhosnesni Ward of the Community of Acton.

6.14 In our Draft Proposals report we considered 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 the representations made in response to our Draft Proposals and consider that whilst no substantial additional points have been made in objection to the proposal, much additional information has been provided in support of the community links between the Fairways and the Community of Acton. We remain of the view that the Fairways estate should be included within either the Acton or Caia Park Community areas. From the representations we have received we are of the view that the residents of Fairways have much stronger community ties to the Rhosnesni Ward of the Community of Acton than they do with the Cartrefle Ward of the Community of Caia Park. We consider that the Old Gardens estate and adjoining area, currently within the Cartrefle Ward of the Community of Caia Park, form, with the Fairways estate, a cohesive area. We are therefore of the view that the Old Gardens estate, which adjoins the Fairways, should be transferred from the Community of Caia Park to the Community of Acton.

6.15 We consider that a change to the boundaries of the Communities of Acton, Caia Park and Holt as illustrated on the map at Appendix F to be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government and so propose.

6.16 We note the concerns expressed regarding the effect the proposed change would have on the levels of representation for both the Acton Community Council and Wrexham County Borough Council. Whilst we consider this to be an important issue it is one that we consider as a consequence of a community boundary change rather than as a determining factor in the consideration of such a change. These issues in respect of the change to the boundaries between the Communities of Acton, Caia Park and Holt are considered at paragraphs 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.23, 8.26 and 8.29 below.

Coedpoeth and Minera

6.17 In our Draft Proposals report we considered a suggested boundary change by Coedpoeth Community Council and proposed a change to the boundary between the Communities of Coedpoeth and Minera. We have noted that in response to our draft proposals, Wrexham County Borough Council supported the proposed change but Minera Community Council and a number of other interested parties and residents objected to the proposal. When considering our draft proposals it appeared to us that the areas of housing on both sides of the A525 road to the north of the Community of Coedpoeth were contiguous with the settlement of Coedpoeth. From the representations we have received in response to our draft proposals we have noted the strength of feeling expressing the affinity that the residents of this area have with the Community of Minera. One of the residents' comments on the' very defined social demarcation line that separates the communities'. We have also noted the proximity of the area in question to Minera village and the fact that it is connected to the village by an almost continuous strip of properties along the south side of Minera Hall Road (B5426).

6.18 Given the expression of shared community of interest by the residents of Minera and the lack of any additional supporting evidence we are now of the view that the suggested change would not be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government. We are also of the view that the Industrial Estate to the north of the residential area should remain within the Community of Minera. We do however remain of the view that the area in the south of the suggested change (adjacent to The Smelt) as considered at 4.27 above, should be transferred to the Community of Coedpoeth.

6.19 We propose a change to the boundary between the Community of Coedpoeth and the Community of Minera as illustrated on the map at Appendix G. We consider that this change will be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government.

Brymbo and Broughton

6.20 In our Draft Proposals report we considered the change to the boundary between the Communities of Brymbo and Broughton as suggested by Brymbo Community Council. We considered that the suggested change had merit, as it appeared to us that there was a community of interest between areas, currently within the Community of Broughton, and the Community of Brymbo. In response to our Draft Proposals report we received objections to the proposal from Broughton Community Council, Martyn Jones MP and Councillor Wilkinson all of whom questioned the perceived community of interest between areas contained within the proposal and the Community of Brymbo.

6.21 We noted that in her representation Councillor Wilkinson did agree that there could be a case for realigning the boundary as she considers the current boundary along Green Road and Holland Road to be confusing. Councillor Wilkinson suggested an alternative boundary that would see areas that she considers to have strong community ties with Broughton remaining in that Community. We noted that in respect of the Lodge area, she considered that there should be a boundary change to ensure that both sides of the road were in the same community and that the area had stronger community links with Broughton.

6.22 We have carefully considered the representations referred to above, and the alternative boundary change suggested by Councillor Wilkinson and are of the view that the suggestion has merit. From the information that has been provided to us we are now of the view that Brynmally Park/Station Road area has community links with Broughton rather than Brymbo and should therefore remain within the Broughton Community area. It remains our view that the area including Queens Road, Green Road, Holland Road and Halcog have a community of interest with and routes of access thorough Brymbo. We have also noted the views expressed regarding the Lodge area and have considered the position of Lodge relative to both Brymbo and Broughton. We are now of the view that the Lodge also has community links with Broughton rather than Brymbo and should therefore remain within the Broughton Community area.

6.23 We consider that a change to the boundary between the Communities of Brymbo and Broughton would be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government. We therefore propose the changes to the boundary as illustrated on the map at Appendix H.

Gwersyllt, Gresford and Rhosddu

6.24 In our Draft Proposals report we noted the extent of the Wrexham Town settlement area in the UDP and proposed that part of the existing Community of Gwersyllt be included within the Community of Rhosddu. We have noted however both Wrexham County Borough Council and Gwersyllt Community Council's objections to our draft proposals for the area. In view of this opposition and the lack of any representations made in support, we have decided not to pursue our earlier proposal to change the boundary between the Communities of Gwersyllt and Rhosddu.

6.25 We noted however that part of the area we had proposed to be transferred from the Community of Gresford to the Community of Rhosddu consisted of industrial areas that had no access via the Community of Gresford. This lack of access pointed very clearly in favour of transferring the two industrial areas to community areas from which there was access. To overcome this weakness it was our original plan to transfer the two areas to the Community of Rhosddu with a substantial area of the Community of Gwersyllt (as considered at 4.31 and 4.33 above). We have now considered, for the reasons given at 6.24 above, not proceed with the change to the boundary between the Communities of Gwersyllt and Rhosddu and, as the access to these two industrial areas is through the Community of Gwersyllt, we consider that it would be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government to include these areas within the Community of Gwersyllt. We therefore propose a change to the boundary between the Community of Gresford and the Community of Gwersyllt as illustrated on the map at Appendix I.

6.26 In our Draft Proposals report we noted the proposal from Gresford Community Council for a change to their boundary with the Community of Llay to follow the line of the A483 (T). We explained that that as the Community of Llay was not included in the Directions for the Review (Appendix A), we were 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 to consider undertaking their own review under Section 55(2) of the Act.

Llansantffraid Glyn Ceiriog, Glyntraian and Ceiriog Ucha

6.27 In our Draft Proposals report we considered Glyn Ceiriog Community Council suggestion of 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. From the information that was provided at that stage, we were unable to make a recommendation and welcomed further representations concerning these suggestions. In response to our Draft Proposals report we did not receive any comments in respect of theses suggested changes. We therefore do not make any proposals in respect of the boundaries of the communities of Llansantffraid Glyn Ceiriog, Glyntraian and Ceiriog Ucha.

Marchwiel and Sesswick

6.28 We noted the continued support of this proposal by Sesswick Community Council and the absence of any other representations regarding our proposed change to the boundary between the Communities of Sesswick and Marchwiel. We remain therefore of the view that our proposed change to the boundary follows clearly defined features and is a more appropriate boundary than the existing one in this area. We therefore propose a change to the boundary between the Communities of Marchwiel and Sesswick as illustrated on the map at Appendix J.

6.29 In respect of the change to the boundary proposed by Sesswick Community Council to follow the line of the proposed southern access road to the industrial estate we remain of the view that this is not the appropriate time to consider this change. We consider that the most appropriate action would be for Wrexham County Borough Council to continue to monitor the progress of the road scheme and to conduct a review of the boundary between Sesswick and Marchwiel as and when the precise road layout is known.

Holt and Isycoed

6.30 We noted that none of the representations received in response to our Draft Proposals made reference to this particular proposal. As no issues have been raised that would contra-indicate the change proposed, we remain of the view that the proposal would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government, and we therefore propose the change to the boundary between the Communities of Holt and Isycoed indicated on the map at Appendix K.

7. PROPOSALS

7.1 Having considered all of the evidence available to us we propose that the boundaries of the Communities of Acton, Abenbury, Caia Park, Holt, Coedpoeth, Minera, Brymbo, Broughton, Gwersyllt, Gresford, Sesswick and Marchwiel should be realigned in the area under review to follow the boundaries shown in green on the maps at Appendices E, F, G, H, I, J, and K.

7.2 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.

8. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS

8.1 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. The electoral statistics used in this report were provided by Wrexham County Borough Council.

Community Council Electoral Arrangements

8.2 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 therefore propose that Abenbury Community Council be represented by 7 councillors.

8.3 The Community of Acton is currently divided, for Community electoral purposes, into the community wards of Acton Central, Acton Park, Borras Park, Little Acton, Maesydre and Rhosnesni. The following table shows the number of electors and councillors for each ward.
* Electors per Councillor

8.4 We have noted that under the current electoral arrangements the existing Rhosnesni ward has a disproportionate level of representation when compared with the other wards. Under our proposals the number of electors in the Rhosnesni ward will increase by 667 to 2,890. In order to maintain a similar level of representation to that which currently exists within the Community of Acton we propose that the electoral arrangements for the area to be as shown in the following table.

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

8.6 Under our proposals the number of electors in the Cartrefle ward will fall by 7 to 1,557 and the number of electors in the Whitegate ward will rise by 169 to 2,493 electors. In order to achieve some consistency in the level of representation across the awards we propose the electoral arrangements for the Community of Caia Park should be as follows:

8.7 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.

8.8 Under our proposals for the Community of Holt, the number of electors in the Bieston ward will reduce by 624 to 67 and the number of electors in the Holt ward will reduce by 2 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.

8.9 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.

8.10 Under our proposals for the community of Coedpoeth the number of electors in the South ward will increase by 5 to 1,062. We consider that this small change to the number of electors does not merit a change to the number of councillors representing this ward we therefore propose no changes to the electoral arrangements of the Community of Coedpoeth.

8.11 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 1,235. We consider that this small change to the number of electors does not merit a change to the number of councillors representing this community.

8.12 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.