LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS DRAFT PROPOSALS

COUNTY BOROUGH OF

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF WREXHAM

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 PROPOSED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP APPENDIX 4 MINISTER’S DIRECTIONS AND ADDITIONAL LETTER APPENDIX 5 SUMMARY OF INITIAL REPRESENTATIONS

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 o Cert N : E-mail: [email protected] SGS-COC-005057 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. 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 County Borough of Wrexham 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 County Borough of Wrexham currently has an electorate of 100,941. At present it is divided into 47 divisions (5 of which are multi-member and 42 single- member) returning 52 councillors. The overall ratio of members to electors for the County Borough is currently 1:1,941. The present electoral arrangements are set out in detail in Appendix 2.

2. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

2.1 We propose a change to the arrangement of electoral divisions that will achieve a significant improvement in the level of electoral parity across the County Borough of Wrexham and retains the present council size of 52 elected members. Of the proposed electoral divisions 13 are multi-member divisions and 26 are single member electoral divisions.

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 County Borough of Wrexham 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.

- 1 -

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 1972 Act (as amended by the 1994 Act). These require the Commission to provide for there to be a single member for each electoral division. However, the Minister may direct the Commission to consider the 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;

- 2 -

(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 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 4. The Directions were further explained in a letter from the Minister on 12 May 2009. A copy of this letter follows the Directions at Appendix 4.

Local Government Changes

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

• 2009 No. 2718 (W.230) Wrexham (Communities) Order 2009.

This order made changes to the boundaries of the communities of , Acton, Broughton, , , , , , Holt, , , and .

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 18 February 2010 to Council, 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 County Borough 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 County Borough and asked Wrexham County Borough 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 County Borough and Community councillors explaining the review process.

4. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO DRAFT PROPOSALS

4.1 We received representations from Wrexham County Borough Council, Caia Park Community Council, Town Council, Community Council, Eleanor Burnham AM and a local councillor. We considered all of these representations

- 3 -

carefully before we formulated our proposals. A summary of these representations can be found at Appendix 5.

5. ASSESSMENT

Council size

5.1 At present the size of the council at 52 members is within the numerical limits advised in the Minister’s direction (Appendix 4). The current overall member to electorate ratio for the council is 1:1,941 which is 11% above 1,750 electors per councillor (see Councillor to electorate ratio below). There are currently 5 multi- member divisions. We also noted that, in respect of the number of electors per councillor in each electoral division there is a wide variation from the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor ranging from 37% below (Plas Madoc) to 53% above ().

5.2 We reviewed the electoral arrangements for the County Borough of Wrexham 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 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. Whilst for the most part Wrexham County Borough is classified as urban there are also significant rural areas within the authority and 7 of the existing 47 electoral divisions classified as rural. We have taken this into account when arriving at our Draft Proposals.

5.3 For the reasons given below we believe that in the interests of effective and convenient local government a council size of 52 would be appropriate to represent the County Borough of Wrexham. This determination of the council size results in an average of 1,941 electors being represented by each councillor.

Councillor to electorate ratio

5.4 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.” The Minister has indicated to the Commission that this means that the number of electors per councillor should not normally fall below 1,750, and this is how the Commission has interpreted and applied the Direction. 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 an electoral division of fewer than 1,750 electors to be represented by each councillor is appropriate. This was explained in the letter from the Minister (Appendix 4) which stated: “This means that the ratio

- 4 -

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 level of representation does not fall below 1,750 electors per councillor. We are not constrained in the same way by this direction from proposing electoral arrangements in which the number of electors to be represented by each councillor is, in appropriate cases, higher than 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.

Number of Electors

5.5 The numbers shown in Appendix 2 as the electorate for 2010 and the estimates for the electorate in the year 2014 are those submitted to us by Wrexham County Borough Council. The forecast figures supplied by Wrexham County Borough Council show a forecasted rise in the electorate of 2,515 from 100,941 to 103,456.

Electoral Divisions

5.6 We have considered the electoral arrangements of the existing electoral divisions of Park, Cartrefle, Chirk North, Chirk South, Coedpoeth, Dyffryn Ceiriog / Ceiriog Valley, , , Garden Village, Gresford East and West, Grosvenor, Gwersyllt East and South, Gwersyllt North, Gwersyllt West, Hermitage, Holt, Little Acton, , Minera, , Queensway, Smithfield, and Whitegate 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 can be found at Appendix 2.

5.7 In the following section the proposals for each of the new Electoral Divisions are laid out in the same way. The first part of the initial paragraph for each of these gives a historical context by listing all the existing Electoral Divisions or their component parts used to construct each proposed Electoral Division. These components - the Communities and Community Wards - are described as a complete Community together with its current and projected electorates if it was used as such. If only part of a Community is used - ie a Community Ward - then the name of that Community Ward, its electorate figures, and the name of its Community will be shown as such. The final part of that paragraph in each section then lists the component parts of the proposed new Electoral Division in the same way - either as whole Communities with current and projected electorates, or as a named Community Ward, its electorate figures and the name of its Community - as before. This method of describing the make-up of Electoral Divisions is also used in the tables at Appendix 2 and 3.

- 5 -

Acton and Maesydre

5.8 The existing Acton electoral division consists of the Acton Central (1,074 electors, 1,074 projected) and Acton Park (1,285 electors, 1,285 projected) Wards of the Community of Acton with a total of 2,359 electors (2,359 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 2,359 electors per councillor which is 22% above the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. The existing Maesydre electoral division consists of the Maesydre Ward of the Community of Acton with a total of 1,557 electors (1,557 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 1,557 electors per councillor which is 20% below the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We note that whilst these two adjacent electoral divisions are within the same community area and are of a similar urban nature there is a large disparity between them in the number of electors represented by each councillor. We do not consider that this arrangement in two such similar adjacent electoral divisions is in the interests of effective and convenient local government and have therefore given consideration to alternative electoral arrangements for the area.

5.9 If the existing electoral divisions of Acton and Maesydre were combined they would form an electoral division with a total of 3,916 electors (3,916 projected) which, if represented by 2 councillors, would have a level of representation of 1,958 electors per councillor which is 1% above the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We note that the representations received expressed support for retaining single member divisions within the County Borough. However, we consider that the improvement in parity in the level of representation for these electoral divisions make our proposals desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We note that the amalgamated areas are from the same community with good communication links between them. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Acton. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Bronington

5.10 The existing electoral division consists of the Communities of Bronington (912 electors, 912 projected), Bangor Is-y-Coed (910 electors, 910 projected) and Willington Worthenbury (649 electors, 649 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 2,471 electors per councillor which is 27% above the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We consider that this level of representation varies too significantly from the county average and have therefore given consideration to alternative electoral arrangements for the area.

5.11 We considered removing the Community of Bangor Is-y-Coed from the existing electoral division and including the Community of Hanmer (528 electors, 528 projected) from the existing Overton electoral division instead. The resulting electoral division would have 2,089 electors (2,089 projected) which, if represented

- 6 -

by 1 councillor, would have a level of representation of 2,089 electors per councillor which is 8% above the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We note that the amalgamated areas are of a similar rural nature with good communication links between them and we consider that the Community of Hanmer has community ties with the Bronington area that are at least as strong as those it has with the Overton area. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Bronington. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names. This proposal leaves the Community of Bangor Is-y-Coed outside any electoral division; we have addressed this at paragraph 5.25 below.

Brymbo and Gwenfro

5.12 The existing Brymbo electoral division consists of the Brymbo (2,175 electors, 2,275 projected) and Vron (723 electors, 723 projected) Wards of the Community of Brymbo with a total of 2,898 electors (2,998 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 2,898 electors per councillor which is 49% above the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. The existing Gwenfro electoral division consists of the Gwenfro Ward of the Community of Broughton with a total of 1,233 electors (1,233 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 1,233 electors per councillor which is 36% below the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We note that whilst these two adjacent electoral divisions are of a similar urban nature there is a large disparity between them in the number of electors represented by each councillor. We do not consider that such levels of over and under representation are in the interests of effective and convenient local government and have therefore given consideration to alternative electoral arrangements for the area.

5.13 We propose that the Vron Ward of the Community of Brymbo is transferred from the existing Brymbo electoral division into the existing Gwenfro electoral division. The resulting proposed electoral division consisting of the Brymbo Ward of the Community of Brymbo would have 2,175 electors (2,275 projected) which, if represented by 1 councillor, would have a level of representation of 2,175 electors per councillor which is 12% above the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Brymbo. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names. We further propose an electoral division consisting of the Gwenfro Ward of the Community of Broughton and the Vron Ward of the Community of Brymbo with a total of 1,956 electors (1,956 projected) which, if represented by 1 councillor, would have a level of representation of 1,956 electors per councillor which is 1% above the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. Although the amalgamated areas are from different communities we consider that they are of a similar semi-rural nature with good communication links between them and that the combination would form an effective electoral division. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Gwenfro and Vron. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names. We consider that these proposed electoral divisions present a significant improvement on the existing

- 7 -

levels of representation and are in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

Brynyffynnon and Offa

5.14 The existing Brynyffynnon electoral division consists of the Brynyffynnon Ward of the Community of Offa with a total of 2,352 electors (2,854 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 2,352 electors per councillor which is 21% above (2014, 43% above) the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. The existing Offa electoral division consists of the Offa Ward of the Community of Offa with a total of 1,817 electors (2,101 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 1,817 electors per councillor which is 6% below (2014, 6% above) the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We note that the Brynyffynnon electoral division has a large level of under-representation and that the level of under-representation is forecast to rise significantly by 2014. We have therefore considered alternative electoral arrangements for the area. This could be achieved by amalgamation with an adjacent electoral division, preferably within the urban area of Wrexham Town in which Brynyffynnon is situated. There are two adjacent electoral divisions which would be suitable for amalgamation with Brynyffynnon, the Grosvenor electoral division with 1,805 (1,865 projected) electors and a level of representation which is 7% below the current county average of 1,941 and the Offa electoral division with 1,817 (2,101 projected) electors and a level of representation which is 6% below the current county average of 1,941. Although both of these electoral divisions do not vary significantly from the county average in their levels of representation, we consider that the amalgamation of one of them with the electoral division of Brynyffynnon is necessary in order to address the disparity in that division. Amalgamation with either the Offa or Grosvenor electoral divisions would have a similar impact in terms of improving the level of parity in the Brynyffynnon division. However, the Offa electoral division is in the Community of Offa whilst the Grosvenor electoral division is in the Community of Rhosddu and we therefore consider it would be more appropriate to amalgamate the Brynyffynnon division with the Offa division as they are both within the same community area.

5.15 By combining the existing electoral divisions of Brynyffynnon and Offa an electoral division is formed with a total of 4,169 electors (4,955 projected) which, if represented by 2 councillors, would have a level of representation of 2,085 electors per councillor which is 7% above (2014, 25% above) the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We note that the representations received expressed support for retaining single member divisions within the County Borough. However, we consider that the improvement in parity in the level of representation for these electoral divisions make our proposals desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We note that the amalgamated areas are from the same community with good communication links between them. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of . We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

- 8 -

Bryn and New Broughton

5.16 The existing Bryn Cefn electoral division consists of the Bryn Cefn Ward of the Community of Broughton with a total of 1,558 electors (1,558 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 1,558 electors per councillor which is 20% below the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. The existing New Broughton electoral division consists of the Brynteg (1,325 electors, 1,325 projected) and New Broughton (1,413 electors, 1,613 projected) Wards of the Community of Broughton with a total of 2,738 electors (2,938 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 2,738 electors per councillor which is 41% above the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We note that whilst these two adjacent electoral divisions are within the same community area and are of a similar urban nature there is a large disparity between them in the number of electors represented by each councillor. We do not consider that this arrangement in two such similar adjacent electoral divisions is in the interests of effective and convenient local government and have therefore given consideration to alternative electoral arrangements for the area.

5.17 If the existing electoral divisions of Bryn Cefn and New Broughton were amalgamated they would form an electoral division with a total of 4,296 electors (4,496 projected) which, if represented by 2 councillors, would have a level of representation of 2,148 electors per councillor which is 11% above the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We note that the representations received expressed support for retaining single member divisions within the County Borough. However, we consider that the improvement in parity in the level of representation for these electoral divisions make our proposals desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We note that the amalgamated areas are from the same community and have good communication links between them. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Broughton. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Cefn, and Plas Madoc

5.18 The existing Cefn electoral division consists of the and Penybryn (1,299 electors, 1,325 projected), Cefn (1,961 electors, 1,989 projected) and and Cefn Bychan (612 electors, 636 projected) Wards of the Community of Cefn with a total of 3,872 electors (3,950 projected) and returns 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,936 electors per councillor which is 0.3% below the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. The existing Llangollen Rural electoral division consists of the Community of Llangollen Rural with a total of 1,562 electors (1,562 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 1,562 electors per councillor which is 20% below the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. The existing Plas Madoc electoral division consists of the Plas Madoc Ward of the Community of Cefn with a total of 1,227 electors (1,241 projected) and returns a single member with a level of

- 9 -

representation of 1,227 electors per councillor which is 37% below the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We note the levels of over- representation in the existing Plas Madoc and Llangollen Rural electoral divisions and consider that these need to be addressed in the interests of effective and convenient local government and have therefore given consideration to alternative electoral arrangements for the area.

5.19 We propose that the Cefn Ward of the Community of Cefn be amalgamated with the existing Llangollen Rural electoral division to form an electoral division with a total of 3,523 electors (3,551 projected) which, if represented by 2 councillors, would have a level of representation of 1,762 electors per councillor which is 9% below the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. Although the amalgamated areas are not in the same community we note that they are of a similar semi-rural nature with good communication links between them. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Llangollen Rural and Cefn. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names. We propose that the Cefn Bychan Ward of the Community of Cefn be amalgamated with the existing Plas Madoc electoral division to form an electoral division with a total of 1,839 electors (1,877 projected) which, if represented by 1 councillor, would have a level of representation of 1,839 electors per councillor which is 5% below the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Plas Madoc. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

5.20 The remaining Acrefair and Penybryn Ward in the existing Cefn electoral division is dealt with at paragraph 5.26 below.

Holt

5.21 The existing Holt electoral division consists of the Communities of Abenbury (975 electors, 975 projected), Holt (1,275 electors, 1,275 projected) and Isycoed (301 electors, 301 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 2,551 electors per councillor which is 31% above the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We consider that this level of under-representation is not appropriate for the rural nature of these communities and gave consideration to alternative arrangements. However, the options available for change were limited with the urban area of Wrexham Town to the West and the semi rural area of and Gresford to the north. The more rural areas of Willington Worthenbury and Sesswick to the south had been incorporated into single member divisions with acceptable levels of representation. We were minded to retain single member divisions in rural areas where possible and therefore we did not consider combining the existing division of Holt with other adjacent divisions which would have produced a multi-member electoral division. Similarly, removing one of the communities from the Holt division and amalgamating it with an adjacent proposed division would also have resulted in that division becoming a multi- member division. We therefore consider that it is in the interests of effective and convenient local government to retain the existing Holt electoral division.

- 10 -

Johnstown and Pant

5.22 The existing Johnstown electoral division consists of the Johnstown Ward of the Community of with a total of 2,500 electors (2,530 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 2,500 electors per councillor which is 29% above the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. The existing Pant electoral division consists of the Pant Ward of the Community of Rhosllanerchrugog with a total of 1,683 electors (1,711 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 1,683 electors per councillor which is 13% below the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We note that whilst these two adjacent electoral divisions are within the same community area and are of a similar urban nature there is a large disparity between them in the number of electors represented by each councillor. We do not consider that this arrangement in two such similar adjacent electoral divisions is in the interests of effective and convenient local government and have therefore given consideration to alternative electoral arrangements for the area.

5.23 If the existing electoral divisions of Johnstown and Pant were combined they would form an electoral division with a total of 4,183 electors (4,241 projected) which, if represented by 2 councillors, would have a level of representation of 2,092 electors per councillor which is 8% above the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We note that the representations received expressed support for retaining single member divisions within the County Borough. However, we consider that the improvement in parity in the level of representation for these electoral divisions make our proposals desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. The amalgamated areas are from the same community and have good communication links between them. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Johnstown and Pant. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Marchwiel, Penycae, Penycae and South and Ruabon

5.24 The existing Marchwiel electoral division consists of the Communities of Marchwiel (1,092 electors, 1,092 projected), (312 electors, 312 projected) and Sesswick (476 electors, 476 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 1,880 electors per councillor which is 3% below the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. The existing Penycae electoral division consists of the Eitha Ward (1,572 electors, 1,572 projected) of the Community of Penycae and returns a single member with a level of representation of 1,572 electors per councillor which is 19% below the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. The existing Penycae and Ruabon South electoral division consists of the Groes Ward (921 electors, 921 projected) of the Community of Penycae and the Ruabon South Ward (1,045 electors, 1,071 projected) of the Community of Ruabon and returns a single member with a level of representation of 1,966 electors per councillor which is 1% above the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. The existing Ruabon electoral

- 11 -

division consists of the Ruabon North Ward (2,178 electors, 2,210 projected) of the Community of Ruabon and returns a single member with a level of representation of 2,178 electors per councillor which is 12% above the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We consider that the levels of over representation in the existing Penycae electoral division and under representation in the existing Ruabon electoral division need to be addressed and have therefore given consideration to alternative electoral arrangements for the area.

5.25 As noted in the proposal for the Bronington electoral divisions at 5.11 above the Community of Bangor Is-y-Coed is outside any electoral division. We consider that the Community of Bangor Is-y-Coed has similar community ties with the Marchwiel area as it does with the Bronington area. We therefore considered combining the Deiniol (333 electors, 333 projected) and Piercy (537 electors, 537 projected) Wards of the Community of Marchwiel, the Community of Sesswick (476 electors, 476 projected) and the Community of Bangor Is-y-Coed (910 electors, 910 projected) to form an electoral division with a total of 2,256 electors (2,256 projected) which, if represented by 1 councillor, would have a level of representation of 2,256 electors per councillor which is 16% above the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We consider that the amalgamated areas are of a similar rural nature with good communication links between them and as such would form an effective electoral division. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Marchwiel and Bangor Is-y-Coed. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

5.26 We propose that the Eitha (1,572 electors, 1,572 projected) and Groes (921 electors, 921 projected) Wards of the Community of Penycae be amalgamated with the Acrefair and Penybryn Ward (1,299 electors, 1,325 projected) of the Community of Cefn to form an electoral division with a total of 3,792 electors (3,818 projected) which, if represented by 2 councillors, would have a level of representation of 1,896 electors per councillor which is 2% below the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Penycae and Acrefair. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

5.27 We propose that the Sontley Ward (222 electors, 222 projected) of the Community of Marchwiel be amalgamated with the Community of Erbistock (312 electors, 312 projected) and the Ruabon North (2,178 electors, 2,210 projected) and the Ruabon South (1,045 electors, 1,071 projected) of the Community of Ruabon to form an electoral division with a total of 3,757 electors (3,815 projected) which, if represented by 2 councillors, would have a level of representation of 1,879 electors per councillor which is 3% below the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Ruabon and Erbistock. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

- 12 -

Marford and Hoseley and Rossett

5.28 The existing and Hoseley electoral division consists of the Marford and Hoseley Ward of the Community of Gresford with a total of 1,832 electors (1,838 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 1,832 electors per councillor which is 6% below the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. The existing Rossett electoral division consists of the Community of Rossett (2,525 electors, 2,525 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 2,525 electors per councillor which is 30% above the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We consider that the level of under representation in the existing Rossett electoral division needs to be addressed and we have therefore given consideration to alternative electoral arrangements for the area.

5.29 If the existing electoral divisions of Marford and Hoseley and Rossett were amalgamated they would form an electoral division with a total of 4,357 electors (4,363 projected) which, if represented by 2 councillors, would have a level of representation of 2,179 electors per councillor which is 12% above the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We note that the representations received expressed support for retaining single member divisions within the County Borough. However, we consider that the improvement in parity in the level of representation for these electoral divisions make our proposals desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We also note the good communication links between the amalgamated areas. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Rossett. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Overton

5.30 The existing Overton electoral division consists of the Communities of Overton (1,045 electors, 1,045 projected), South (946 electors, 1,042 projected) and Hanmer (528 electors, 528 projected) with a total of 2,519 electors (2,615 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 2,519 electors per councillor which is 30% above the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We consider that the level of under representation in the existing Overton electoral division needs to be addressed. We have therefore given consideration to alternative electoral arrangements for the area.

5.31 By combining the Communities of Overton and an electoral division is formed with a total of 1,991 electors (2,087 projected) which, when represented by 1 councillor, would have a level of representation of 1,991 electors per councillor which is 3% above the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. The amalgamated areas are of a similar rural nature with good communication links between them. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Overton and Maelor South. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names. The remaining Community of Hanmer would then be included in the proposed Bronington as described at paragraph 5.11 above.

- 13 -

Rhosnesni and Wynnstay

5.32 The existing Rhosnesni electoral division consists of the Rhosnesni Ward of the Community of Acton with a total of 2,967 electors (2,967 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 2,967 electors per councillor which is 53% above the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. The existing Wynnstay electoral division consists of the Wynnstay Ward of the Community of Caia Park with a total of 1,425 electors (1,425 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 1,425 electors per councillor which is 27% below the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We note that whilst these two adjacent electoral divisions are of a very similar urban nature there is a large disparity between them in the number of electors represented by each councillor. The variance from the county average between these two adjacent divisions is large with Rhosnesni being the most under- represented electoral division in the County Borough and Wynnstay one of the most over-represented. We do not consider the disproportionate burden which falls on the elected member for Rhosnesni to be acceptable. We have therefore given consideration to alternative electoral arrangements for the area.

5.33 We considered combining each of these electoral divisions with adjacent divisions within their own community area but could not find a suitable combination which would resolve the issues of the under and over representation as detailed above. By combining the existing electoral divisions of Rhosnesni and Wynnstay an electoral division is formed with a total of 4,392 electors (4,392 projected) which, if represented by 2 councillors, would have a level of representation of 2,196 electors per councillor which is 13% above the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. We note that the existing electoral divisions are not within the same community area but we consider that the good communication links between these compact urban areas means that this should not prove a barrier to effective representation in the proposed new electoral division. We note that the representations received expressed support for retaining single member divisions within the County Borough. However, we consider that the improvement in parity in the level of representation for these electoral divisions make our proposals desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Rhosnesni and Wynnstay. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Summary of Proposed Arrangements

5.34 The proposed electoral arrangements (as shown at Appendix 3) provide a level of parity that ranges from 17% below to 31% above the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor (based on the existing electoral figures). Of the proposed electoral divisions 1 (3%) has a level of representation of between 25% and 50% above or below the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor, 14 (36%) of the proposed electoral divisions have levels of representation of between 10% and 25% above or below the proposed county

- 14 -

average of 1,941 electors per councillor and the remaining 24 (61%) all less than 10% above or below the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor.

5.35 This compares with the existing electoral arrangements (as shown at Appendix 2) where the level of parity ranges from 37% below to 53% above the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor. Of the existing electoral divisions 1 (2%) has a level of representation more than 50% above or below the proposed county average of 1,941 electors per councillor, 10 electoral divisions (21%) have levels of representation between 25% and 50% above or below the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor, 17 (36%) electoral divisions having levels of representation between 10% and 25% above or below than the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor and the remaining 19 (41%) electoral divisions having levels of representation less than 10% above or below the current county average of 1,941 electors per councillor.

5.36 In producing a scheme of electoral arrangements it is necessary to have regard to a number of issues contained in the legislation and in the Minister’s Direction. It is often not possible to resolve all of these sometimes conflicting issues because of the requirement of using the existing community and community wards as building blocks of electoral divisions and the varying level of representation that currently exists within these areas. In our proposed scheme we have placed emphasis on achieving improvements in electoral parity, moving towards 1,750 electors per councillor and retaining, where possible, single member electoral divisions. We recognise that the creation of electoral divisions which depart from the pattern which now exists would inevitably bring some disruption to established ‘ties’ between communities and may straddle community council areas in a way which is unfamiliar. We have made every effort to ensure that the revised electoral divisions do reflect logical combinations of existing communities and community wards. We have looked at each of these areas and are satisfied that it would be difficult to achieve electoral arrangements that keep the existing combination of communities and community wards within single electoral divisions without having a detrimental effect on one or more of the other issues that are required to be considered. We recognise however that there may be different combinations of communities and community wards that better reflect community ties and we would welcome any alternative suggestions.

6. PROPOSALS

6.1 We propose a council of 52 members and 39 electoral divisions as set out in Appendix 3. For purposes of comparison the present electoral arrangements for the County Borough 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 Wrexham County Borough Council and the Office of the Commission in Cardiff.

6.2 This draft scheme represents our preliminary views on the electoral arrangements for the County Borough of Wrexham. We shall welcome any representations in

- 15 -

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 28 January 2011.

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)

November 2010

- 16 - 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 - WREXHAM COUNTY BOROUGH Appendix 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 1

% % variance variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2010 ELECTORATE 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from from COUNCILLORS 2010 RATIO 2014 RATIO County County average average The Acton Central and Acton Park 1 Acton 1 2,359 2,359 22% 2,359 2,359 19% Wards of the Community of Acton The Ward of the 2 Borras Park 1 2,013 2,013 4% 2,013 2,013 1% Community of Acton The Communities of Bangor Is-y- 3 Bronington Coed, Bronington and Willington 1 2,471 2,471 27% 2,471 2,471 24% Worthenbury The Brymbo and Vron Wards of the 4 Brymbo 1 2,898 2,898 49% 2,998 2,998 51% Community of Brymbo The Bryn Cefn Ward of the 5 Bryn Cefn 1 1,558 1,558 -20% 1,558 1,558 -22% Community of Broughton The Brynyffynnon Ward of the 6 Brynyffynnon 1 2,352 2,352 21% 2,854 2,854 43% Community of Offa The Cartrefle Wards of the 7 Cartrefle 1 1,715 1,715 -12% 1,715 1,715 -14% Community of Caia Park The Acrefair and Penybryn, Cefn and 8 Cefn Rhosymedre and Cefn Bychan Wards 2 3,872 1,936 0% 3,950 1,975 -1% of the Community of Cefn The North ward of the Community of 9 Chirk North 1 1,869 1,869 -4% 1,869 1,869 -6% Chirk The South Ward of the Community of 10 Chirk South 1 1,602 1,602 -17% 1,612 1,612 -19% Chirk 11 Coedpoeth The Community of Coedpoeth 2 3,626 1,813 -7% 3,646 1,823 -8% The Communities of ,

Dyffryn Appendix 2 and Llansantffraid Glyn 12 Ceiriog/ 1 1,685 1,685 -13% 1,685 1,685 -15% Ceiriog Ceiriog Valley The Erddig Ward of the Community of 13 Erddig 1 1,662 1,662 -14% 1,662 1,662 -16% Offa WREXHAM COUNTY BOROUGH Appendix 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 2

% % variance variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2010 ELECTORATE 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from from COUNCILLORS 2010 RATIO 2014 RATIO County County average average The and Wards 14 Esclusham 1 2,082 2,082 7% 2,322 2,322 17% of the Community of Esclusham Garden The Garden Village Ward of the 15 1 1,643 1,643 -15% 1,643 1,643 -17% Village Community of Rhosddu Gresford East The East and West Wards of the 16 1 2,222 2,222 14% 2,312 2,312 16% and West Community of Gresford The Grosvenor Ward of the 17 Grosvenor 1 1,805 1,805 -7% 1,865 1,865 -6% Community of Rhosddu The Gwenfro Ward of the Community 18 Gwenfro 1 1,233 1,233 -36% 1,233 1,233 -38% of Broughton The East and South Wards of the Gwersyllt East 19 Community of Gwersyllt 2 3,550 1,775 -9% 3,726 1,863 -6% and South Gwersyllt The North Ward of the Community of 20 1 2,062 2,062 6% 2,066 2,066 4% North Gwersyllt Gwersyllt The West Ward of the Community of 21 1 2,285 2,285 18% 2,335 2,335 17% West Gwersyllt The Hermitage Ward of the 22 Hermitage 1 1,764 1,764 -9% 1,846 1,846 -7% Community of Offa The Communities of Abenbury, Holt 23 Holt 1 2,551 2,551 31% 2,551 2,551 28% and Isycoed The Johnstown Ward of the 24 Johnstown 1 2,500 2,500 29% 2,530 2,530 27% Community of Rhosllanerchrugog The Little Acton Ward of the Appendix 2 25 Little Acton 1 1,844 1,844 -5% 1,844 1,844 -7% Community of Acton Llangollen 26 The Community of Llangollen Rural 1 1,562 1,562 -20% 1,562 1,562 -21% Rural 27 Llay The Community of Llay 2 3,621 1,811 -7% 3,621 1,811 -9% WREXHAM COUNTY BOROUGH Appendix 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 3

% % variance variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2010 ELECTORATE 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from from COUNCILLORS 2010 RATIO 2014 RATIO County County average average The Maesydre Ward of the 28 Maesydre 1 1,557 1,557 -20% 1,557 1,557 -22% Community of Acton The Communities of Erbistock, 29 Marchwiel 1 1,880 1,880 -3% 1,880 1,880 -6% Marchwiel and Sesswick Marford and The Marford and Hoseley Ward of the 30 1 1,832 1,832 -6% 1,838 1,838 -8% Hoseley Community of Gresford The Community of Minera and the 31 Minera Ward of the Community of 1 1,900 1,900 -2% 1,899 1,899 -5% Brymbo The Brynteg and New Broughton New 32 Wards of the Community of 1 2,738 2,738 41% 2,938 2,938 48% Broughton Broughton The Offa Ward of the Community of 33 Offa 1 1,817 1,817 -6% 2,101 2,101 6% Offa The Communities of Hanmer, Maelor 34 Overton 1 2,519 2,519 30% 2,615 2,615 31% South and Overton The Pant Ward of the Community of 35 Pant 1 1,683 1,683 -13% 1,711 1,711 -14% Rhosllanerchrugog The Eitha Ward of the Community of 36 Penycae 1 1,572 1,572 -19% 1,572 1,572 -21% Penycae The Groes Ward of the Community of Penycae and 37 Pen-y-Cae and the South Ward of the 1 1,966 1,966 1% 1,992 1,992 0% Ruabon South Community of Ruabon The Plas Madoc Ward of the 38 Plas Madoc 1 1,227 1,227 -37% 1,241 1,241 -38% Community of Cefn The Ponciau North, Ponciau South Appendix 2 and Rhos Wards of the Community of 39 Ponciau Rhosllanerchrugog and the 2 3,622 1,811 -7% 3,782 1,891 -5% and Pentrebychan Wards of the Community of Esclusham WREXHAM COUNTY BOROUGH Appendix 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 4

% % variance variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2010 ELECTORATE 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from from COUNCILLORS 2010 RATIO 2014 RATIO County County average average The Queensway Ward of the 40 Queensway 1 1,620 1,620 -17% 1,620 1,620 -19% Community of Caia Park The Rhosnesni Ward of the 41 Rhosnesni 1 2,967 2,967 53% 2,967 2,967 49% Community of Acton 42 Rossett The Community of Rossett 1 2,525 2,525 30% 2,525 2,525 27% The North Ward of the Community of 43 Ruabon 1 2,178 2,178 12% 2,210 2,210 11% Ruabon The Smithfield Ward of the 44 Smithfield 1 1,859 1,859 -4% 2,035 2,035 2% Community of Caia Park The Stansty Ward of the Community 45 Stansty 1 1,704 1,704 -12% 1,704 1,704 -14% of Rhosddu The Whitegate Ward of the 46 Whitegate 1 1,944 1,944 0% 1,996 1,996 0% Community of Caia Park The Wynnstay Ward of the 47 Wynnstay 1 1,425 1,425 -27% 1,425 1,425 -28% Community of Caia Park TOTAL: 52 100,941 1,941 103,456 1,990 Ratio is the number of electors per councillor Electoral figures supplied by Wrexham County Borough Council

2010 2,014 Greater than + or - 50% of County average 1 2% 1 2% Between + or - 25% and + or - 50% of County average 10 21% 10 22% Between + or - 10% and + or - 25% of County average 17 36% 18 38% Between 0% and + or - 10% of County average 19 41% 18 38% Appendix 2 WREXHAM COUNTY BOROUGH Appendix 3 PROPOSED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 1

% % variance variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2010 ELECTORATE 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from from COUNCILLORS 2010 RATIO 2014 RATIO County County average average The Acton Central 1,074 (1,074), Acton Park 1 Acton 1,285 (1,285) and Maesydre 1,557 (1,557) 2 3,916 1,958 1% 3,916 1,958 -2% Wards of the Community of Acton The Borras Park Ward of the Community of 2 Borras Park 1 2,013 2,013 4% 2,013 2,013 1% Acton The Communities of Bronington 912 (912), 3 Bronington Hanmer 528 (528) and Willington 1 2,089 2,089 8% 2,089 2,089 5% Worthenbury 649 (649) The Bryn Cefn 1,558 (1,558), Brynteg 1,325 4 Broughton (1,325) and New Broughton 1,413 (1,613) 2 4,296 2,148 11% 4,496 2,248 13% Wards of the Community of Broughton The Brymbo Ward of the Community of 5 Brymbo 1 2,175 2,175 12% 2,275 2,275 14% Brymbo The Brynyffynnon 2,352 (2,854) and Offa 6 Bryn Offa 1,817 (2,101) Wards of the Community of 2 4,169 2,085 7% 4,955 2,478 25% Offa The Cartrefle Ward of the Community of 7 Cartrefle 1 1,715 1,715 -12% 1,715 1,715 -14% Caia Park 8 Chirk North The North ward of the Community of Chirk 1 1,869 1,869 -4% 1,869 1,869 -6%

9 Chirk South The South Ward of the Community of Chirk 1 1,602 1,602 -17% 1,612 1,612 -19%

10 Coedpoeth The Community of Coedpoeth 2 3,626 1,813 -7% 3,646 1,823 -8% The Communities of Ceiriog Ucha 230 (230), Dyffryn Glyntraian 654 (654) and Llansantffraid Glyn Appendix 3 11 Ceiriog/ 1 1,685 1,685 -13% 1,685 1,685 -15% Ceiriog 801 (801) Ceiriog Valley

12 Erddig The Erddig Ward of the Community of Offa 1 1,662 1,662 -14% 1,662 1,662 -16% WREXHAM COUNTY BOROUGH Appendix 3 PROPOSED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 2

% % variance variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2010 ELECTORATE 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from from COUNCILLORS 2010 RATIO 2014 RATIO County County average average The Bersham 91 (91) and Rhostyllen 1,991 13 Esclusham (2,231) Wards of the Community of 1 2,082 2,082 7% 2,322 2,322 17% Esclusham The Garden Village Ward of the Community 14 Garden Village 1 1,643 1,643 -15% 1,643 1,643 -17% of Rhosddu Gresford East The East 908 (998) and West 1,314 (1,314) 15 1 2,222 2,222 14% 2,312 2,312 16% and West Wards of the Community of Gresford The Grosvenor Ward of the Community of 16 Grosvenor 1 1,805 1,805 -7% 1,865 1,865 -6% Rhosddu The Gwenfro 1,233 (1,233) Ward of the Gwenfro and 17 Community of Broughton and the Vron 723 1 1,956 1,956 1% 1,956 1,956 -2% Vron (723) Ward of the Community of Brymbo The East 1,876 (1,876) and South 1,674 Gwersyllt East 18 (1,850) Wards of the Community of Gwersyllt 2 3,550 1,775 -9% 3,726 1,863 -6% and South Gwersyllt The North Ward of the Community of 19 1 2,062 2,062 6% 2,066 2,066 4% North Gwersyllt Gwersyllt The West Ward of the Community of 20 1 2,285 2,285 18% 2,335 2,335 17% West Gwersyllt The Hermitage Ward of the Community of 21 Hermitage 1 1,764 1,764 -9% 1,846 1,846 -7% Offa The Communities of Abenbury 975 (975), 22 Holt 1 2,551 2,551 31% 2,551 2,551 28% Holt 1,275 (1,275) and Isycoed 301 (301)

The Johnstown 2,500 (2,530) and Pant 1,683 Appendix 3 Johnstown 23 (1,711) Wards of the Community of 2 4,183 2,092 8% 4,241 2,121 7% and Pant Rhosllanerchrugog The Little Acton Ward of the Community of 24 Little Acton 1 1,844 1,844 -5% 1,844 1,844 -7% Acton WREXHAM COUNTY BOROUGH Appendix 3 PROPOSED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 3

% % variance variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2010 ELECTORATE 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from from COUNCILLORS 2010 RATIO 2014 RATIO County County average average Llangollen The Community of Llangollen Rural 1,562 25 Rural and (1,562) and the Cefn 1,961 (1,989) Ward of 2 3,523 1,762 -9% 3,551 1,776 -11% Cefn the Community of Cefn 26 Llay The Community of Llay 2 3,621 1,811 -7% 3,621 1,811 -9% The Communities of Sesswick 476 (476) and Marchwiel and Bangor Is-y-Coed 910 (910) and the Deiniol 27 Bangor Is-y- 1 2,256 2,256 16% 2,256 2,256 13% 333 (333) and Piercy 537 (537) Wards of the Coed Community of Marchwiel The Community of Minera 1,238 (1,238) and 28 Minera the Bwlchgwyn 662 (661) Ward of the 1 1,900 1,900 -2% 1,899 1,899 -5% Community of Brymbo Overton and The Communities of Maelor South 946 29 1 1,991 1,991 3% 2,087 2,087 5% Maelor South (1,042) and Overton 1,045 (1,045) The Acrefair and Penybryn 1,299 (1,325) Pen-y-Cae Ward of the Community of Cefn and the 30 2 3,792 1,896 -2% 3,818 1,909 -4% and Acrefair Eitha 1,572 (1,572) and Groes 921 (921) Wards of the Community of Pen-y-Cae The Plas Madoc 1,227 (1,241) and 31 Plas Madoc Rhosymedre and Cefn Bychan Wards 612 1 1,839 1,839 -5% 1,877 1,877 -6% (636) of the Community of Cefn The Ponciau North1,072 (1,160), Ponciau South 980 (980) and Rhos 1,009 (1,009) Wards of the Community of 32 Ponciau 2 3,622 1,811 -7% 3,782 1,891 -5% Rhosllanerchrugog and the Aberoer 255 Appendix 3 (255) and Pentrebychan 306 (378) Wards of the Community of Esclusham The Queensway Ward of the Community of 33 Queensway 1 1,620 1,620 -17% 1,620 1,620 -19% Caia Park WREXHAM COUNTY BOROUGH Appendix 3 PROPOSED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 4

% % variance variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2010 ELECTORATE 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from from COUNCILLORS 2010 RATIO 2014 RATIO County County average average The Rhosnesni 2,967 (2,967) Ward of the Rhosnesni Community of Acton and the Wynnstay 34 2 4,392 2,196 13% 4,392 2,196 10% and Wynnstay 1,425 (1,425) Ward of the Community of Caia Park The Community of Rossett 2,525 (2,525) and 35 Rossett the Marford and Hoseley 1,832 (1,838) Ward 2 4,357 2,179 12% 4,363 2,182 10% of the Community of Gresford

The Communities of Ruabon 3,223 (3,281) Ruabon and 36 and Erbistock 312 (312) and the Sontley 222 2 3,757 1,879 -3% 3,815 1,908 -4% Erbistock (222) Ward of the Community of Marchwiel The Smithfield Ward of the Community of 37 Smithfield 1 1,859 1,859 -4% 2,035 2,035 2% Caia Park The Stansty Ward of the Community of 38 Stansty 1 1,704 1,704 -12% 1,704 1,704 -14% Rhosddu The Whitegate Ward of the Community of 39 Whitegate 1 1,944 1,944 0% 1,996 1,996 0% Caia Park TOTAL: 52 100,941 1,941 103,456 1,990 Ratio is the number of electors per councillor The number of electors for 2010 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 Wrexham County Borough Council

2010 2,014 Greater than + or - 50% of County average 0 0% 0 0% Between + or - 25% and + or - 50% of County average 1 3% 1 3%

Between + or - 10% and + or - 25% of County average 14 36% 16 41% Appendix 3 Between 0% and + or - 10% of County average 24 61% 22 56% Appendix 4

- 1 - Appendix 4

- 2 - Appendix 4

- 3 - Appendix 4

- 4 - Appendix 5 SUMMARY OF INITIAL REPRESENTATIONS

Wrexham County Borough Council requested that the Commission to take the following points of principle into account:

• There was a general consensus in the Council that there should be no reduction in councillors. The average electors per councillor is already above the Welsh Assembly Government guidance figure and it was considered that current councillor workloads are unmanageable. If the number of councillors was decreased then there could be an unsustainable increase in demands on councillors. • The Commission should consider population density and the fact that in some divisions there is a high turnover of residents which is not necessarily reflected in the electoral statistics, e.g. students and migrant workers. • Special consideration should be made to divisions with large numbers of students. They were not necessarily reflected in electoral figures but their needs are often met by councillors. • The Council very strongly consider that single member divisions offered clear benefits and accountability to the electorate. Large multi member divisions can result in significant increases in work load for individual councillors, in terms of contact with electors and number of enquiries received. They considered that there should be no such multi member divisions in Wrexham. If changes were to be made they should be towards single member divisions. There was no evidence of public support for increasing the number of multi member divisions in Wrexham. • The mixed urban/rural nature of the County Borough means that the overall ratio reflects variations in individual electoral division ratios. A large electorate in a tight geographical division is easier to manage than a smaller electorate in a large geographical location.

Caia Park Community Council offered the following observations:

• The average ratio of electors per councillor across the County Borough exceeds 1:1,750 and therefore there is no reason to alter the current arrangements. • The Council did not support the introduction of more multi member divisions as this could lead to confusion and lack of accountability. They considered that this went against the Commissions principle of effective and efficient local government. • Whilst the five Caia Park divisions are below the 1:1,750 ratio this does not take into account the higher than average ‘transient’ population who are not registered to vote. • Some divisions in Caia Park are amongst the highest in Wales in terms of child poverty and social deprivation. This brings additional challenges such as a higher degree of inter agency working and complex family problems which places extra demands on councillors. • There are high numbers of under 18’s residing in Caia Park who do not appear on the electoral role but still need the support of their councillor.

Chirk Town Council wrote to state their opposition to multi member divisions and to request that the Commission keep the status quo. They considered that multi member divisions were confusing for the electorate and may cause friction as one councillor may appear to be doing more work than the other. Although the two divisions of Chirk North and Chirk South have unequal registered electors, they worked very well with one councillor which has proved to be the best option. They consider that the councillor to

- 1 - Appendix 5 elector ratio of 1:1.750 should not be the only consideration, especially in rural areas. They considered that broad electoral support would be required to alter the existing electoral pattern.

Rhosddu Community Council wrote to give their conclusions on the community as follows:

1. The total number of councillors for Wrexham County Borough Council is well within the guidelines so no alteration is required. 2. The 3 wards of Rhosddu Community are coterminous with Wrexham County Borough Council electoral divisions. 3. The number of electors for the 3 electoral divisions are very similar and there is no need to re-align boundaries to create more equal areas. 4. The boundaries of the 3 electoral divisions are well defined, logical and are well known to the electorate. 5. The 3 electoral divisions are single member which makes it clear and easy to understand for the electorate. The 3 members are well publicised so contacting them is easy. 6. The names of the 3 electoral divisions are well known to the electorate and relate to well know geographical areas within Wrexham.

Eleanor Burnham AM considered that multi member divisions were confusing to electors and that large electoral divisions weakened the link between electors and their councillor, increased travel times for councillors and took no account of local cultural identities and ties.

Councillor Alan Edwards (New Broughton and Brynteg) wrote to express his concerns for his division which has over 2,500 constituents and was used as example of the unfair boundaries with the neighbouring ward of Gwenfro only having 1,500 constituents. He considered that these divisions should not be combined to make two or even three member divisions as this would not result in a fairer system. Just combining two divisions would not mean less work for councillors but more work as each councillor would consider that the whole 4,000 constituents were their responsibility.

The benefit of a single member ward was that the constituents know their councillor and he is the only one accountable to them which is how it should be. Having spoken to the councillors in the two member divisions that already exist in Wrexham the majority would rather have one councillor per ward. One of the biggest drawbacks of two member divisions are that on some occasions work is duplicated when a constituents approaches both councillors with the same query. Another drawback of a two member ward is accountability. A councillor in a single member ward knows he is accountable for his constituents and they know who to come to for help, advice or indeed to criticise. This is not always the case in a two member division system.

He stated that in his own division, with a new development about to take place over the next few years it may well have over 3,000 electors in the future so it is understandable that the Commission looking at changes, however he considered that it would be fairer on the constituents of his villages to know their councillor.

He requested that the Commission leave the boundaries as they are but if it was necessary to equal out his division and that of Gwenfro and Bryn Cefn then single member wards should be employed as this would be fairer on the councillor and also and more importantly on the constituents.

- 2 -