LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS DRAFT PROPOSALS

CITY OF NEWPORT

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT

DRAFT PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW

4. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO DRAFT PROPOSALS

5. ASSESSMENT

6. PROPOSALS

7. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

APPENDIX 1 GLOSSARY OF TERMS APPENDIX 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP APPENDIX 3 MINISTER’S DIRECTIONS AND ADDITIONAL LETTER APPENDIX 4 SUMMARY OF INITIAL REPRESENTATIONS APPENDIX 5 PROPOSED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP

The Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales Caradog House 1-6 St Andrews Place CARDIFF CF10 3BE Tel Number: (029) 2039 5031 Fax Number: (029) 2039 5250 E-mail: [email protected] www.lgbc-wales.gov.uk FOREWORD

Those who have received this report containing our Draft Proposals will already be aware of this Review of Electoral Arrangements for all local authority areas in Wales.

An important principle for our work is to aim to achieve a better democratic balance within each council area so that each vote cast in an election is, so far as reasonably practicable, of the same weight as all others in the council area. The achievement of this aim, along with other measures, would be conducive to effective and convenient local government. At the beginning of this review process we have found some considerable differences between the numbers of voters to councillors not only between council areas in Wales, but also within council areas themselves.

The Commission is constrained by a number of things in the way we undertake our work:

• The basic “building blocks” for electoral divisions are the areas into which Wales is divided. These community areas were set up over 30 years ago and despite the work already done by some local authorities and also ourselves, there are still many places where the community areas do not reflect the present pattern of community life.

• The accuracy of the information on the numbers of residents in each council area in 5 years time challenges all – the future is difficult to predict. The Commission has therefore adopted a cautious approach in using these projections.

• The legal rules by which we operate are also quite strict and again place limitations on what we can do for each electoral division.

This report provides our initial recommendations on what has to be done within this council area. We wish to provide a better democratic balance together with electoral arrangements which contribute to there being effective and convenient local government wherever you live in Wales.

Paul Wood Chairman

- 1 - 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 We, the members of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales, have completed the first stage of the review of electoral arrangements for the City of Newport and present our Draft Proposals for the future electoral arrangements. A glossary of terms used in this report can be found at Appendix 1. The City of Newport currently has an electorate of 102,726. At present it is divided into 20 divisions (2 of which are single-member and 18 multi-member) returning 50 councillors. The overall ratio of members to electors for the City is currently 1:2,055. The present electoral arrangements are detailed at Appendix 2.

2. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

2.1 We propose a reduction in the council size from 50 to 45 elected members and a change to the arrangement of electoral divisions that will achieve a significant improvement in the level of electoral parity across the City of Newport.

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW

3.1 Section 57 of the Local Government Act 1972 (the 1972 Act) lays upon the Commission the duty, at intervals of not less than 10 and not more than fifteen years, to review the electoral arrangements for every principal area in Wales for the purpose of considering whether or not to make proposals to the Welsh Assembly Government for a change in those electoral arrangements.

3.2 The Minister for Social Justice and Local Government of the Welsh Assembly Government has directed the Commission to submit a report in respect of the review of electoral arrangements for the City of Newport by 30 June 2011.

Electoral Arrangements

3.3 The “electoral arrangements” of a principal area are defined in section 78 of the 1972 Act as:

i) the total number of councillors to be elected to the council;

ii) the number and boundaries of electoral divisions;

iii) the number of councillors to be elected for each electoral division; and

iv) the name of any electoral division.

Rules to Be Observed Considering Electoral Arrangements

3.4 We are required by section 78 to comply, so far as is reasonably practicable, with the rules set out in Schedule 11 to the Act. These require the Commission to provide for there to be a single member for each electoral division. However, the Welsh Assembly Government may direct the Commission to consider the

- 2 - desirability of providing for multi-member electoral divisions for the whole or part of a principal area.

3.5 The rules also require that:

Having regard to any change in the number or distribution of local government electors of the principal area likely to take place within the period of five years immediately following consideration of the electoral arrangements:

i) subject to paragraph (ii), the number of local government electors shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every electoral division in the principal area;

ii) where there are one or more multi-member divisions, the ratio of the number of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every electoral division in the principal area (including any that are not multi-member divisions);

iii) every ward of a community having a community council (whether separate or common) shall lie wholly within a single electoral division; and

iv) every community which is not divided into community wards shall lie wholly within a single electoral division.

In considering the electoral arrangements we must have regard to (a) the desirability of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable; and (b) any local ties which would be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary.

Minister’s Directions

3.6 The Minister has directed that the Commission shall consider the desirability of multi member electoral divisions in each county and county borough council in Wales.

3.7 The Minister has also given the following directions to the Commission for their guidance in conducting the review:

(a) it is considered that a minimum number of 30 councillors is required for the proper management of the affairs of a county or county borough council;

(b) it is considered that, in order to minimise the risk of a county council or a county borough council becoming unwieldy and difficult to manage, a maximum number of 75 councillors is ordinarily required for the proper management of the affairs of a county or a county borough council;

(c) it is considered that the aim should be to achieve electoral divisions with a councillor to electorate ratio no lower than 1:1,750;

(d) it is considered that decisions to alter the existing pattern of multi and single member electoral divisions should only be taken where such proposals for

- 3 - alteration are broadly supported by the electorate in so far as their views can be obtained in fulfilment of the consultation requirement contained in Section 60 of the Act; and

(e) It is considered that the Commission shall, when conducting reviews under Part 4 of the Act, comply with paragraph 1A of Schedule 11 to the Act that is, the Rules.

The full text of the Directions is at Appendix 3. The Directions were further confirmed in a letter from the Minister on 12 May 2009. A copy of this letter follows the Directions at Appendix 3.

Local Government Changes

3.8 Since the last review of electoral arrangements there has been one change to local government boundaries in Newport:

• 2002 No.3271 (W.309) The Newport (Malpas and ) Order.

This made a minor change to the boundary between the Communities of Caerleon and Malpas and consequentially the boundary between the electoral divisions of Caerleon and Malpas. The change did not involve the transfer of any electors.

Procedure

3.9 Section 60 of the 1972 Act lays down procedural guidelines which are to be followed in carrying out a review. In compliance with Section 60 of the 1972 Act we wrote on 25 February 2009 to , all the community councils in the area, the Members of Parliament for the local constituencies, 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. We invited the City Council to submit a suggested scheme or schemes for new electoral arrangements. We also publicised our intention to conduct the review in local newspapers circulating in the City and asked Newport City Council to display a number of public notices in their area. We also made available copies of our electoral reviews guidance booklet. In addition we made a presentation to both City and Community councillors explaining the review process.

4. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO DRAFT PROPOSALS

4.1 We have received representations from Michelstone-y-Fedw Community Council, Nash Community Council, Newport Labour Group, Newport West and Newport East Conservative Association, Labour Party, Stow Hill Ward Labour Party, Tredegar Park Ward Labour Party and a resident. We considered all of these representations carefully before we formulated our proposals. A summary of these representations can be found at Appendix 4.

- 4 - 5. ASSESSMENT

Request for a Community Boundary Change

5.1 Before considering the electoral arrangements for the City of Newport, we would like to respond to the representations that asked us to make changes to electoral division boundaries that are community or community ward boundaries. For such changes to take place it would first be necessary to undertake a review of community or community ward boundaries. It is evident from these requests that some uncertainty exists about the appropriate machinery for effecting such reviews. We wish to set out the statutory position.

5.2 Section 55(2) of the 1972 Act (as amended by the 1994 Act) requires each principal council in Wales to keep the whole of their area under review for the purpose of considering whether to make recommendations to the Commission for the constitution of new communities, the abolition of communities or the alteration of communities in their area. We consider the principal council’s proposals and report to the Welsh Assembly Government which may, if it thinks fit, by order give effect to any of the proposals.

5.3 Under Section 57(4) of the 1972 Act (as amended by the 1994 Act), the principal councils also have a duty to keep under review the electoral arrangements (which include the community ward boundaries) for the communities within their areas, for the purpose of considering whether to make substantive changes. The principal councils must also consider requests for changes made by a community council or by not less than thirty local government electors of a community and, if they think fit, make an order giving effect to those changes.

5.4 Changes to the boundaries of communities and community wards are therefore a matter for the principal council to consider in the first instance and may not be considered by us as part of this review. We will use the community and community wards as they exist at the start of this review as the building blocks for the proposed electoral divisions.

Councillor to electorate ratio

5.5 The Minister's directions include the following at 3.7 (a): "It is considered that the aim should be to achieve electoral divisions with a councillor to electorate ratio no lower than 1:1,750." We bear very much in mind that the directions are provided as guidance and should not be applied without regard to the special circumstances of the particular area: there may well be circumstances, having to do with topography or population etc of the area where it will be considered that a ratio below 1:1,750 is appropriate. This was explained in the letter from the Minister (Appendix 3) which stated: “This means that the ratio remains as the aim to be worked towards and not as a goal to be achieved in each case. In doing so attention should be paid to local communities having their own identifiable representation even where the indicative figure of 1,750 electors/councillor is not always achievable”. In the absence of special circumstances we will aim to propose electoral arrangements in which the ratio does not fall below 1:1,750. We are not constrained in the same way by this direction from proposing electoral arrangement

- 5 - in which the ratio is, in appropriate cases, higher than 1:1,750. Throughout this review we will keep the ratio of 1:1,750 very much in mind, and will not normally think it necessary to refer to it expressly in every case.

Council size

5.6 At present the size of the council at 50 members is within the criteria set out in the directions issued by the Minister (Appendix 3). The current overall councillor to electorate ratio for the council is 1:2,055. There are currently 2 single-member and 18 multi-member divisions. We noted that there are currently two electoral divisions, Stow Hill and Langstone that have councillor to electorate ratios that are below 1:1,750. We also noted that, in respect of councillor to electorate ratios there is a wide variation from the current overall ratio of 1: 2,055 ranging from 23% below (Stow Hill) to 39% above (Tredegar Park).

5.7 We reviewed the electoral arrangements for the City of Newport in the light of the Minister’s directions for our guidance and took account of the representations which had been made to us. In our deliberations we considered the ratio of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected, with a view to proposing changes to ensure that the number of local government electors shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every division in the principal area. We looked at the present multi-member divisions to consider if we should recommend the creation of single member divisions. We considered the size and character of the authority and a wide range of other factors including population density, the local topography, road communications and local ties.

5.8 For the reasons given below we believe that in the interests of effective and convenient local government a council size of 45 would be appropriate to represent the City of Newport. This determination of the council size results in an average of 2,283 electors being represented by each councillor.

Number of Electors

5.9 The numbers shown as the electorate for 2009 and the estimates for the electorate in the year 2014 are those submitted to us by Newport City Council. The forecast figures supplied by Newport City Council show a rise in the electorate of 7,385 from 102,727 to 110,112. It is noted however that over half of this projected increase takes place in the Community of where, because of projected housing developments, the number of electors is set to rise from 258 to 4,405. This significant increase will have an impact on not only the Llanwern electoral division but also on the county ratio which would be set to increase from 1:2,055 to 1:2,202 if the number of councillors remains at 50. It is understood however that the Llanwern development is not due to start until 2010 at the earliest and is to be phased over a number of years. Given the present economic situation we consider that there is reason to expect that there may be only a modest increase in the number of electors over the next few years and that it would be reasonable for the electoral arrangements for the area to be considered rather on the basis of the current electoral figures albeit with some flexibility to allow for a more modest increase to take place in the take place in the shorter term. The electoral arrangements for these areas may, following a request made by the Council, be

- 6 - reconsidered at a later time, should significant changes in the number of electors merit a further review.

Electoral Divisions

5.10 We have considered the electoral arrangements of the existing electoral divisions of Caerleon and Victoria and the ratio of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected and we propose that the existing arrangements should continue. We considered changes to the remaining electoral divisions. Details of the current electoral arrangements for Caerleon and Victoria can be found at Appendix 2.

Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury

5.11 The existing Allt-yr-yn electoral division consists of the Community of Allt-yr-yn and has 6,629 electors (6,767 projected) represented by 3 councillors which gives a current ratio of 1:2,210. The existing Shaftesbury electoral division consists of the Community of Shaftesbury and has 3,804 electors (3,846 projected) represented by 2 councillors which gives a current ratio of 1:1,902.

5.12 Combining the two existing electoral divisions would create an electoral division with 10,433 electors (10,613 projected) which, if represented by 5 councillors would result in a ratio of 1:2,087. We noted that there are good road links between Allt-yr- yn and Shaftesbury (via and Queens Hill). We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Alway and Ringland

5.13 The electoral division consists of the Community of Alway with 5,629 electors (5,611 projected) represented by 3 councillors which gives a ratio of 1:1,876 which is 9% below the current county average ratio. The adjoining Ringland electoral division consists of the Community of Ringland with 6,040 electors (6,248 projected) represented by 3 councillors which gives a ratio of 1:2,013 which is 2% below the current county average ratio. Combining the two divisions would form an electoral division with a total of 11,669 electors (11,859 projected) which, if represented by 5 councillors, gives a ratio of 1:2,334 which is 2% above the proposed county average ratio. There are good access links between these two electoral divisions and both are Communities First areas. This amalgamation would see a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area but it improves the electoral parity. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Alway and Ringland. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

- 7 - Beechwood and St. Julians

5.14 The Beechwood electoral division consists of the Community of Beechwood with 5,567 electors (5,320 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a ratio of 1:1,856 which is 10% below the current county average ratio. The adjoining electoral division of St. Julians consists of the Community of St. Julians with 6,264 electors (6,025 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a ratio of 1:2,088 which is 2% above the current county average ratio. Combining the Beechwood and St. Julians electoral divisions would form a division with a total of 11,831 electors (11,345 projected) which, if represented by 5 councillors, would have a ratio of 1:2,366 which is 4% above the proposed county average ratio. This amalgamation would see a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area but it improves the electoral parity. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Beechwood and St. Julians. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Bettws and Malpas

5.15 The Bettws electoral division consists of the Community of Bettws with 5,499 electors (5,403 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a ratio of 1:1,833 which is 11% below the current county average ratio. The adjoining Malpas electoral division consists of the Community of Malpas with 6,113 electors (6,017 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a ratio of 1:2,038 which is 1% below the current county average ratio. Combining the Bettws and Malpas electoral divisions would form a division with a total of 11,612 electors (11,420 projected) which, if represented by 5 councillors, would have a ratio of 1:2,322 which is 2% above the proposed county average ratio. This amalgamation would see a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area but it improves the electoral parity. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Bettws and Malpas. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Gaer and Tredegar Park

5.16 The Tredegar Park electoral division consists of the Community of Tredegar Park currently with 2,862 electors (3,461 projected) represented by 1 councillor which gives a ratio that is 39% above the current county average ratio. The Gaer electoral division consisting of the Community of Gaer has 6,413 electors (6,386 projected) represented by 3 councillors which gives a ratio of 1:2,138 which is 4% above the current county average ratio. The proposed Gaer and Tredegar Park electoral division would have 9,275 electors (9,847 projected) which if represented by 4 councillors would have a ratio of 1:2,319 which is 2% above the proposed county average ratio. We consider that this proposed arrangement gives a better degree of electoral parity than the existing arrangements for the area and we put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Gaer and Tredegar Park. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

- 8 - Graig and Marshfield

5.17 The Graig electoral division consists of the Community of Graig which has 4,635 electors (4,722 projected) represented by 2 councillors giving a ratio of 1:2,318 which is 13% above the current county average ratio. The Marshfield electoral division consists of the Communities of (1,344 electors, 1,689 projected), Marshfield (2,228 electors, 2,799 projected), Michaelstone-y-Fedw (230 electors, 289 projected) and (648 electors, 814 projected) with a total of 4,450 electors (5,591 projected) represented by 2 councillors which gives a ratio of 1:2,225 which is 8% above the current county average ratio. If the two electoral divisions are combined the resultant electoral division would have 9,085 electors (10,313 projected) which, if represented by 4 councillors, would have a ratio of 1:2,271 which is 1% below the proposed county average ratio. We consider that this proposed arrangement gives a better degree of electoral parity than the existing arrangements for the area and we put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Graig and Marshfield. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Langstone and Llanwern

5.18 The Langstone electoral division consists of the Communities of Langstone (2,474 electors, 2,550 projected), (324 electors, 334 projected) and (638 electors, 658 projected) with a total of 3,436 electors (3,542 projected) represented by 2 councillors giving a ratio of 1:1,718 which is 16% below the current county average ratio. In order achieve a greater level of electoral parity across the City, consideration was given to combining Langstone with the adjoining Llanwern electoral division. The Llanwern electoral division consists of the Communities of (1,581 electors, 1,562 projected), Goldcliff (257 electors, 254 projected), Llanwern (258 electors, 4,405 projected) and Redwick (173 electors, 171 projected) giving a total of 2,269 electors (6,392 projected) represented by 1 councillor.

5.19 We noted the representation from Nash Community Council, supported by Newport Labour Group and Newport West and Newport East Conservative Association, which suggested that the Community of Nash, which is currently included within the Liswerry electoral division, be included within the Llanwern electoral division. During the previous review the Commission moved the Community of Nash from the Llanwern to the Liswerry electoral division on the grounds that, at the time, it provided a substantial improvement in electoral parity and that this outweighed the concerns that were raised about the breaking of community ties. We have noted that the Community of Nash has only 231 electors (225 projected) and as such would not have a significant effect if removed from the Liswerry electoral division (7,423 electors, 7,734 projected) or added to an electoral division that included similar communities such as Goldcliff and Redwick. Having considered the evidence of community ties and the small number of electors in the Community of Nash we are now of the view that the Community of Nash should be included within a proposed Langstone and Llanwern electoral division.

5.20 Combining the existing Langstone and Llanwern electoral divisions with the addition of the Community of Nash would form a division with a total of 5,936 electors which,

- 9 - if represented by 3 councillors, gives a ratio of 1:1,979 which is 13% below the proposed county average ratio. Although this currently gives a ratio that is lower than that is proposed for any other area in Newport it does allow, to a degree, for an increase in the number of electors that may arise due to developments in the area. We consider that this proposed arrangement gives a better degree of electoral parity than the existing arrangements for the area and we put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Langstone and Llanwern. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Liswerry

5.21 The existing electoral division of Liswerry consists of the Community of Liswerry and the Community of Nash with 7,423 electors represented by 4 councillors which gives a ratio of 1:1,856 which is 10% below the current county average ratio. As considered at 5.18 above we propose removing the Community of Nash from the Liswerry electoral division. This will then leave a division with 7,192 electors which, if represented by 3 councillors, gives a ratio of 1:2,397 which is 5% above the proposed county average ratio. We have noted that this option reduces the number of councillors representing the Liswerry area by 1. We put this scheme forward as a proposal.

Pillgwenlly and Stow Hill

5.22 The electoral division which consists of the Community of Pillgwenlly has 3,844 electors (4,503 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a ratio of 1:1,922 which is 6% below the current county average ratio. The Stow Hill electoral division which consists of the Community of Stow Hill has 3,173 electors (3,128 projected) represented by 2 councillors which gives a projected ratio of 1:1,564 that is 23% lower than the current county average ratio and is 9% below the 1:1,750 ratio.

5.23 We have noted the view expressed by Stow Hill Ward Labour Party and a resident that the Stow Hill electoral division should remain on its own. Newport West and Newport East Conservative Association also consider that no changes should be made to the Stow Hill electoral division. The point was made that the number of electors will increase over the next 5-10 years view due to proposed developments and that this would improve the electoral parity between this and other areas. We noted however that the immediate future of these developments is uncertain and that the five-year forecast figure for the number of electors provided by Newport City Council shows a reduction in the number of electors in this area.

5.24 We consider that it would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient government to combine the Community of Stow Hill a Community First area, with an adjoining area to form an electoral division that will provide a better degree of electoral parity than the present arrangements. To this end we propose an electoral division that consists of the Community of Pillgwenlly and the Community of Stow Hill which are both Community First areas. The new Pillgwenlly and Stow Hill electoral division will have 7,017 electors which, if represented by 3 councillors, gives a ratio of 1:2,339 which is 2% higher than the proposed county average ratio.

- 10 - We have noted that this option reduces the number of councillors representing the Pillgwenlly/Stow Hill area by 1 but it improves the electoral parity. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Pillgwenlly and Stow Hill. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Rogerstone

5.25 The Rogerstone electoral division consists of the Community of Rogerstone with 7,731 electors (8,209 projected) which gives a ratio of 1:2,577 which is 25% above the current county average ratio. We have considered the representation from Rogerstone Community Council that suggests either splitting the area into three single-member electoral divisions based on the existing Community Wards or by changing boundaries forming two two-member electoral divisions.

5.26 As we have explained at 5.1 to 5.4 above, in this review of electoral arrangements we will be using the existing communities and community wards as the building blocks for the proposed electoral divisions. We may not therefore propose the option suggested by Rogerstone Community Council to form two two-member divisions. In considering the option suggested to form three single-member electoral divisions we noted that the East Ward currently has 2,310 electors (2,453 projected), the North Ward currently has 2,450 electors (2,601 projected) and the West Ward has 2,971 electors (3,155 projected). If these form single-member electoral divisions they would have ratios that were 12%, 19% and 45% above the current county average ratio. We did not consider that this arrangement provided an appropriate level of electoral parity either between the three areas or with the county average and therefore do not propose splitting Rogerstone into three single- member electoral divisions.

5.27 We have also considered the representations from Newport Labour Group and Newport West and Newport East Conservative Association who both consider that the number of members representing the Rogerstone electoral division should be increased from 3 to 4. We have noted that such an increase in the level of representation would produce a councillor to electorate ratio of 1:1,933 (based on the current electorate) which is 6% below the current county average ratio and is 15% below the proposed county average ratio. If the level of representation remains the same as it is at present (3 councillors) however the councillor to electorate ratio would be 1:2,577 which is 13% above the proposed county average ratio. We consider that under our proposed arrangements the 3-member model for Rogerstone provides a better degree of parity with the other electoral divisions in Newport than does the suggestion to increase the number of councillors to 4.

5.28 We have considered the boundaries of the existing electoral division of Rogerstone and the ratio and number of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected and we propose that the existing arrangements should continue. Details of the current electoral arrangements for the area can be found at Appendix 2.

- 11 - Names

5.29 For the proposed new electoral divisions which have been formed by combining existing electoral divisions we have, for convenience, given them combined names (e.g. Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury). It may however be appropriate for new, single names to be given and we would welcome suggestions for alternative names. Where English language names are suggested we would also wish to consider if there is a Welsh language alternative.

Summary of Proposed Arrangements

5.30 The proposed electoral arrangements (as shown at Appendix 4) provide a level of parity that ranges from 13% below to 13% above the proposed county average ratio (based on the existing electoral figures) with just two of the electoral divisions with ratios more than 10% higher than the proposed county average ratio and the remaining 10 (83%) all within 10% of the proposed county average ratio. This compares with the existing electoral arrangements where 2 electoral divisions (10%) have ratios which are more than 25% above or below the current county average ratio, 8 (40%) have ratios between 10 and 25% higher than the current county average ratio and the remaining 10 (50%) electoral divisions having ratios less than 10% above or below the current county average ratio.

6. PROPOSALS

6.1. We propose a council of members and electoral divisions as set out in Appendix 5. For purposes of comparison the present electoral arrangements for the City of Newport are given at Appendix 2. The boundaries of the proposed electoral divisions are shown by continuous yellow lines on the map placed on deposit with this Report at the Offices of Newport City Council and the Office of the Commission in Cardiff.

6.2. This draft scheme represents our preliminary views on the electoral arrangements for the City of Newport. We shall welcome any representations in respect of these proposals. We will consider carefully all representations made to us in respect of them before formulating our final proposals and submitting them to the Welsh Assembly Government.

7. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

7.1. All observations on this draft scheme 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 22 December 2009.

- 12 - MR P J WOOD (Chairman)

REV. HYWEL MEREDYDD DAVIES BD (Deputy Chairman)

Mr D J BADER (Member)

E H LEWIS BSc. DPM FRSA FCIPD (Secretary)

October 2009

- 13 - Appendix 1

GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT

Commission The Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales

Council size The number of councillors elected to the council

Directions issued to the Commission by the Government Directions under Section 59 of the 1972 Act

How many Councillors there should be on the council of local government area, the parts into which the area Electoral should be divided for the purpose of electing councillors, arrangements the number of councillors for each electoral division, and the name of any electoral area

The divisions into which principal areas are divided for the Electoral purpose of electing councillors, sometimes referred to divisions colloquially as wards

Electoral A review in which the Commission considers electoral review arrangements for a local government area

The number of persons entitled to vote in a local Electorate government area The principle that votes within a principal area should carry equal weight, measured by a comparison between Electoral parity an electoral division and the county average of the number of electors represented by a single councillor. Government The Welsh Assembly Government

Person or body who has an interest in the outcome of an electoral review such as the principal council concerned, Interested person local MPs, AMs and political parties, community and town councils

Multi Electoral division within a principal area represented by member more than one councillor division

Order made by the Government, giving effect to the Order proposals of the Commission, either as submitted or with modifications

The area governed by a principal council: in Wales, a Principal area County or County Borough

- 1 - Appendix 1

In Wales, one of the unitary authorities: a County or Principal council County Borough council

The five-year forecast of the number of electors provided Projected electorate by the Council for the area under review

Body or individual person who responds to the Respondent Commission’s consultation by making representations or suggesting alternative proposals

Rules to be observed by the Commission in considering Rules electoral arrangements

Single Electoral division of a principal authority represented by member one councillor division

The Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the 1994 The 1972 Act Act

The 1994 Act The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994

A principal council - the single tier organ of local government, responsible for all or almost all local Unitary government functions within its area, which in Wales authority replaced the two tier system of county councils and district councils: a County Council, or a County Borough Council The electoral areas of Community Councils (not all Wards Community Council areas are warded). The term is also used to describe the principal council electoral divisions

- 2 - CITY OF NEWPORT Appendix 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 1

% % variance variance No. OF ELECTORAT 2009 ELECTORAT 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from from COUNCILLORS E 2009 RATIO E 2014 RATIO County County average average 1 Allt-yr-yn The Community of Allt-yr-yn 3 6,629 2,210 8% 6,767 2,256 2% 2 Alway The Community of Alway 3 5,629 1,876 -9% 5,611 1,870 -15% 3 Beechwood The Community of Beechwood 3 5,567 1,856 -10% 5,320 1,773 -19% 4 Bettws The Community of Bettws 3 5,499 1,833 -11% 5,403 1,801 -18% 5 Caerleon The Community of Caerleon 3 6,333 2,111 3% 6,277 2,092 -5% 6 Gaer The Community of Gaer 3 6,413 2,138 4% 6,386 2,129 -3% 7 Graig The Community of Graig 2 4,635 2,318 13% 4,722 2,361 7% The Communities of Langstone, 8 Langstone 2 3,436 1,718 -16% 3,542 1,771 -20% Llanvaches and Penhow 9 Liswerry 4 7,423 1,856 -10% 7,734 1,934 -12% The Communities of Liswerry and Nash The Communities of Bishton, Goldcliff, 10 Llanwern 1 2,269 2,269 10% 6,392 6,392 190% Llanwern and Redwick 11 Malpas The Community of Malpas 3 6,113 2,038 -1% 6,017 2,006 -9% The Communities of Coedkernew, 12 Marshfield Marshfield, Michaelstone-y-Fedw and 2 4,450 2,225 8% 5,591 2,796 27% Wentlooge 13 Pillgwenlly The Community of Pillgwenlly 2 3,844 1,922 -6% 4,503 2,252 2% 14 Ringland The Community of Ringland 3 6,040 2,013 -2% 6,248 2,083 -5% 15 Rogerstone The Community of Rogerstone 3 7,731 2,577 25% 8,209 2,736 24% 16 Shaftesbury The Community of Shaftesbury 2 3,804 1,902 -7% 3,846 1,923 -13% 17 St. Julians The Community of St. Julians 3 6,264 2,088 2% 6,025 2,008 -9% 18 Stow Hill The Community of Stow Hill 2 3,173 1,587 -23% 3,128 1,564 -29% 19 Tredegar Park The Community of Tredegar Park 1 2,862 2,862 39% 3,461 3,461 57% 20 Victoria The Community of Victoria 2 4,613 2,307 12% 4,930 2,465 12% TOTAL: 50 102,727 2,055 110,112 2,202

Ratio is the number of electors per councillor Appendix 2 Electoral figures supplied by Newport City Council

2009 2014 Greater than + or - 50% of County average 0 0% 2 10% Between + or - 25% and + or - 50% of County av. 2 10% 2 10% Between + or - 10% and + or - 25% of County av. 8 40% 8 40% Between 0% and + or - 10% of County average 10 50% 8 40% Appendix 3

- 1 - Appendix 3

- 2 - Appendix 3

- 3 - Appendix 3

- 4 - Appendix 4

SUMMARY OF INITIAL REPRESENTATIONS

Michaelstone-y-Fedw Community Council wrote to say that Michalestone-y-Fedw comes under the Ward of Marshfield and they can see no advantage if this changes. The children of Michaelston attend Marshfield Primary School and and are involved in after school activities in Marshfield as they are natural neighbours. Therefore they hope that there are no plans to change this or change the catchment area for the schools.

Nash Community Council wrote to say they would like to return to the Llanwern area as they were previously. They stated that Liswerry is not rural and that they are finding that their problems are very different to Liswerry and their real rural problems take a back seat.

Newport Labour Group wrote in support of the representations from Rogerstone, Stow Hill and Tredegar Park Ward Labour Party groups. They considered that because of the number of electors, Rogerstone would be entitled to four councillors and that boundaries for this Ward may need looking at. They realised that the ratio of councillors to electors in the Stow Hill Ward is below the minimum suggested in the guidelines and considered that the suggestion for a slight change to the boundary makes sense. They fully supported the observations made by Tredegar Park Ward and considered their suggested boundary changes make sense. As the Liswerry Ward is mainly urban, they considered that it would be sensible to return the Nash community to the Llanwern Ward from the Liswerry Ward. They noted that there are developments taking place in the Liswerry Ward that will see an increase in population. They also noted that there are developments taking place in Newport East and, in this connection, considered that it would not be prudent to change any other boundaries at this point in time.

Newport West and Newport East Conservative Association noted that since the last review there have been no marked change in the total electorate of Newport, limited shifts in the total electorates within wards and the existing ratio is 1 councillor : 2,000 voters. They considered therefore that there is little justification for any change in the number of councillors. They noted that whilst there is approval for further housing within the city there is no major project underway which will create a serious imbalance in ward representation in the near future. They considered that the current economic climate makes it highly unlikely that any such development will be started in the near future. They proposed that Newport should continue to be represented by 50 councillors and they proposed minor changes as follows:

1. The movement of the Nash Community (231 elector) from the Liswerry electoral division to the Llanwern electoral division. They considered that this change would be welcomed by the residents of Nash Community and would reduce the electorate in the Liswerry electoral division. 2. The reduction of the number of members representing the Liswerry electoral division from 4 to 3. 3. The increase in the number of members representing the Rogerstone electoral division from 3 to 4.

They supported the current boundaries in the rest of the electoral divisions across the Local Authority Area.

- 1 - Appendix 4

Rogerstone Labour Party wrote to say when considering possible changes to the existing arrangement of a single multi-member ward, they bound themselves by the rules set out in paragraphs 5.13 and 5.14 of the “Guidance Note”.

They observed that the existing Community has developed over 100 year. One feature of the development has been the spread of the urban area of Newport out from its centre to the far boundaries of the Community. A consequence of that is the Community is quite heterogeneous in character. There are mixes of old and new development and of private and social housing. These are spread in different ways over the area.

They were of the view that East, North and West wards of Rogerstone community provide an adequate means of defining much more homogeneous areas each with its own broad character and concerns. They considered the differences in the areas are substantial by eye and by statistics fro the Office for National Statistics (neighbourhood statistics 2001 census):

• North Ward 40% adults top A/B “social grade” (SG) (defined by occupation), 15% in D/E SG. • East Ward 15% adults top A/B “social grade” (SG) (defined by occupation), 40% in D/E SG.

Some problems are common to all residents, but clear socio-economic differences between the wards suggest that there would be marked benefit in each ward if one city councillor were dedicated to their characteristic problems.

There are three primary schools in Rogerstone one in each ward and each broadly serving a ward.

Alleged drawbacks of single councillor wards are the lack of a team approach and difficulties may occur if one councillor becomes unfit. They do not feel these issues should over-ride their conclusion for Rogerstone.

They considered that the substantial development in the area and its increase in size justify their views.

They also stated that if the Commission relax their guidance so that community boundaries could be changed they suggested that the Community be split into two two- member wards.

Stow Hill Ward Labour Party wrote to say that as an interested party they appreciated that the marginally low number of registered electors for the 2 councillors may indicate a need for a boundary change. They considered that any reduction in the electoral area was unacceptable and would hope to avoid reduced numbers that could see the area being represented by 1 councillor.

Their priorities are for Stow Hill community to stay intact and to maintain the collective identity that they feel people associate with the community. Stow Hill is also a Communities First area.

- 2 - Appendix 4

The division has a high proportion of private rented accommodation and hostels and consequently have many residences who feel themselves less likely to put down long-term roots in the community. These people are unlikely to include themselves on the electoral role. Therefore is likely that the numbers of recorded potential voters under-states the true number of residents.

Fundamental to the identity of the Stow Hill electoral division is that it encompasses the City Centre. They considered that this brings so many opportunities to the people there, and sometimes challenges what they have been able to support through Communities First which have included and integrated the whole community and maintained the strongest aspects of its identity.

Substantial re-development and building projects are planned for the area. Planning permission had been granted for 370 resident and a further 270 planned for the future. They considered that the new residents will increase the ward’s occupancy to levels acceptable to the Commission over the next 5-10 years.

They also suggest an actual change to the boundary to incorporate an area of Allt-yr-yn into the Stow Hill division.

Tredegar Park Ward Labour Party wrote to say that they were concerned about the numbers the Commission were working from, because as a Councillor you are expected to represent the ward residents including persons not on the Electoral roll.

They also suggested a change to the boundary which would give a clear boundary lines for Tredegar Ward and adjoining wards.

Resident of Stow Hill wrote to say she had been a resident of Stow Hill for 25 years and felt that the break up of the area would damage the quality of life in the Community, thus would be a retrograde step. The following views were stated for consideration:

• The inner city area of Stow Hill is a very old, established community with a strong identity. • It is a Community First area. • It is a growing residential area with substantial re-development and building projects which have been granted planning permission.

- 3 - CITY OF NEWPORT Appendix 5 PROPOSED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 1

% variance No. OF ELECTORATE ELECTORATE % variance from No. NAME DESCRIPTION 2009 RATIO from County 2014 RATIO COUNCILLORS 2009 2014 County average average Allt-yr-yn and The Communities of Allt-yr-yn 6,629 1 5 10,433 2,087 -9% 10,613 2,123 -13% Shaftesbury (6,767) and Shaftesbury 3,804 (3,846) Alway and The Communities of Alway 5,629 2 5 11,669 2,334 2% 11,859 2,372 -3% Ringland (5,611) and Ringland 6,040 (6,248) Beechwood and The Communities of Beechwood 5,567 3 5 11,831 2,366 4% 11,345 2,269 -7% St Julians (5,320) and St. Julians 6,264 (6,025) Bettws and The Communities of Bettws 5,499 4 5 11,612 2,322 2% 11,420 2,284 -7% Malpas (5,403) and Malpas 6,113 (6,017) 5 Caerleon The Community of Caerleon 3 6,333 2,111 -8% 6,277 2,092 -14% The Communities of Gaer 6,413 Gaer and 6 (6,386) and Tredegar Park 2,862 4 9,275 2,319 2% 9,847 2,462 1% Tredegar Park (3,461) The Communities of Coedkernew 1,344 (1,689), Graig 4,635 (4,722), Graig and 7 Marshfield 2,228, (2,799), 4 9,085 2,271 -1% 10,313 2,578 5% Marshfield Michaelstone-y-Fedw 230 (289) and Wentlooge 648 (814). The Communities of Langstone 2,474 (2,550), Llanvaches 324 (334), Langstone and Penhow 638 (658), Bishton 1,581 8 3 5,936 1,979 -13% 10,159 3,386 38% Llanwern (1,562), Goldcliff 257 (254), Llanwern 258 (4,405), Redwick 173 (171) and Nash 231 (225) 9 Liswerry The Community of Liswerry 3 7,192 2,397 5% 7,509 2,503 2% Pillgwenlly and The Communities of Pillgwenlly 3,844 10 3 7,017 2,339 2% 7,631 2,544 4% Stow Hill (4,503) and Stow Hill 2,862 (3,461) 11 Rogerstone The Community of Rogestone 3 7,731 2,577 13% 8,209 2,736 12% 12 Victoria The Community of Victoria 2 4,612 2,306 1% 4,930 2,465 1% TOTAL: 45 102,726 2,283 110,112 2,447 Ratio is the number of electors per councillor The number of electors for 2009 and 2014 (in brackets) are included in the description of those electoral divisions which comprise more than one community / community ward. Electoral figures supplied by Newport City Council

2009 2014

Greater than + or - 50% of County average 0 0% 0 0% Appendix 5 Between + or - 25% and + or - 50% of County average 0 0% 1 8% Between + or - 10% and + or - 25% of County average 2 17% 3 25% Between 0% and + or - 10% of County average 10 83% 8 67%