Review of Preserved Counties in Wales

REVIEW OF PRESERVED COUNTIES IN WALES

Purpose of Report:

To inform Members of the draft proposals of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales regarding the Review of the Preserved Counties Boundaries.

Background:

The ‘Preserved Counties’ were created by the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, and reflect the boundaries of the Welsh Counties as they existed prior to the re-organisation of Local Government in 1996.

These ‘Preserved Counties’ exist for the purposes only of certain statutory provisions which include, for example, H.M. Lieutenants; High Sheriffs; Justices of the Peace; Magistrates Courts; County Constituencies (such as Aberavon and Neath where the High Sheriff is technically the Returning Officer); and certain Licensing matters.

As has already been reported, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales has undertaken a review of the Preserved Counties Boundaries. Following a wide consultation process, a number of proposals have now been published and a further opportunity is given to comment on those proposals.

While there are some changes proposed with regard to the Preserved Counties of Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan, Gwent, Clwyd and Gwynedd, the conclusion with regard to the Preserved County of West Glamorgan is that there should be no change to the boundary. This conclusion is in accord with the representations made by the Council that the ‘status quo’ should prevail.

The full text of the Draft Proposals is attached as an Appendix.

Appendix:

The report of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales on the Draft Proposals with regard to the Review of the Preserved Counties.

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Draft Proposals be noted.

Reasons for Proposed Decision:

The conclusions with regard to the Preserved County of West Glamorgan are in accord with the Council’s wishes, and no further representations are necessary.

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

REVIEW OF PRESERVED COUNTIES

(a) Implementation of Decision:

The decision is to note the matter, and refer to the Policy and Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee for information.

(b) Sustainability Appraisal:

Community Plan impacts Economic Prosperity - no impact Education & Lifelong Learning - no impact Better Health & Well Being - no impact Environment & Transport - no impact Crime & Disorder - no impact

Other impacts Welsh Language - no impact Sustainable Development - no impact Equalities - no impact Social Inclusion - no impact

Report of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales on the Draft Proposals with regard to the Review of the Preserved Counties.

(d) Wards Affected: ALL

(e) Officer Contact:

Peter Davies, Administration and Electoral Services Manager. Tel: 01639-763323. E-mail: [email protected]

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

APPENDIX

REVIEW OF PRESERVED COUNTY BOUNDARIES DRAFT PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW

4. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO DRAFT PROPOSALS

5. ASSESSMENT

6. PROPOSALS

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

8. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

9. THE NEXT STEPS

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 We the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales (the Commission) have completed the first stage of the review of preserved county boundaries as directed by the National Assembly for Wales in directions to us dated 11 March 2002.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 We propose a minor change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan to reflect the recent changes in the boundary between the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taff and the County Borough of The Vale of Glamorgan. We also propose a change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd to include the whole of the unitary authority of Conwy within the preserved county of Clwyd and we propose a change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Gwent and Mid Glamorgan to include the whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly within the preserved county of Gwent.

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW

3.1 Section 54(1A) of the Local Government Act 1972 (the Act) provides that the Commission may in consequence of a review conducted by them make proposals to the National Assembly for Wales for effecting changes appearing to the Commission desirable having regard, in particular, to the purposes for which the preserved counties are retained.

National Assembly for Wales’ directions

3.2 In accordance with Section 56(1c) of the Act the National Assembly for Wales has directed the Commission to conduct a review of the boundaries of the preserved counties of Wales.

Preserved Counties

3.3 A ‘preserved county’ is defined by the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 as follows: "preserved county" means any county created by the 1972 Act as a county in Wales, as that county stood immediately before the passing of this Act but subject to any provision of this Act, or made under the 1972 Act, redrawing its boundaries.

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

3.4 The "preserved counties" were preserved by the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 in order to define county areas for the purposes only of certain statutory provisions listed in Schedule 2 of the 1994 Act. The provisions concerned were found in the following statutes: The Lieutenancies Act 1997; The Sheriffs Act 1887; The Defence Act 1842; The Licensing Act 1964; The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967; The Interpretation Act 1978; The Justices of the Peace Act 1979; The Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980; The Representation of the People Act 1983; The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986; as well as The Local Government Act 1972.

Guidance Booklet

3.5 In order to explain the term ‘preserved county’ and to outline the scope of the review and to explain the procedures which the Commission will follow a guidance booklet has been produced copies of which are available from the Commission and from the Commission’s web site at http://www.lgbc-wales.gov.uk/index.html.

Procedure

3.6 Section 60 of the Act lays down procedural guidelines which are to be followed in carrying out a review. In line with that guidance we wrote on 18 March 2002 to the Unitary Authorities, the Lords-Lieutenant, the Members of Parliament, the Assembly Members, the local authority associations, the police authorities, the political parties and other interested bodies to inform them of our intention to conduct the review, to request their preliminary views and to provide them with a copy of the Commission’s guidance booklet including the National Assembly for Wales’ directions to the Commission. We also publicised our intention to

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE conduct the review in newspapers and asked the councils to display public notices.

4. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

4.1 We received representations from the Lords Lieutenant of Gwent, Mid Glamorgan, and West Glamorgan, Peter Hain MP, Paul Murphy MP, Gareth Thomas MP, Don Touhig MP, William Graham AM, Carwyn Jones AM; Gwenda Thomas AM, Councillor Jeffrey James, Leader of The Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council, The Welsh Conservative Party, Conwy Conservative Association, Isle of Anglesey County Council, Caerphilly County Borough Council, Carmarthenshire County Council, Ceredigion County Council, Conwy County Borough Council, Denbighshire County Council, Gwynedd County Council, Pembrokeshire County Council, Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, Monmouthshire County Council, Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, City and County of Swansea Council, Wrexham County Borough Council, Welsh Local Government Association, North Wales Association of Town Councils, Llandudno Town Council, Gwent Police Authority; and a number of other interested bodies. We considered all of these representations carefully before we formulated our proposals.

4.2 Mr Simon Boyle, Lord Lieutenant of Gwent considered that the opportunity should be taken to remove the anomaly whereby the present boundaries of the preserved counties of Gwent and Mid Glamorgan divide the Caerphilly unitary authority, the Rhymney Valley being in Mid Glamorgan and the Islwyn area in Gwent. He noted that this anomaly would be resolved either by extending Gwent westwards or by extending Mid Glamorgan eastwards. He considered the final choice on whether to include the County Borough of Caerphilly in Mid Glamorgan or Gwent should be made on the advice received from Caerphilly County Borough Council.

4.3 Mary Squire, Clerk to the Lieutenancy of Mid Glamorgan following consultation with the Lord Lieutenant, acknowledged that there was a particular anomaly as far as Mid Glamorgan is concerned in the division of the Caerphilly unitary authority between two Lieutenancy areas. They observed that from the perspective of the Mid Glamorgan Lieutenancy the anomaly had not in practice given rise to any special problems, and that it arguably reflected a continuing difference, both economic and physical, between the communities of the old districts of Rhymney Valley and Islwyn.

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

4.4 Commodore R C Hastie, Lord Lieutenant of West Glamorgan stated that the existing boundaries work satisfactorily particularly as the boundaries of the two unitary authorities exactly mirror the preserved county of West Glamorgan.

4.5 Mr Keith Broadbent, Clerk to the Lieutenancy of West Glamorgan observed that the present area of the preserved county of West Glamorgan worked very well and would not benefit from any change. He considered that its compactness leads to good communication and efficient handling of the Queen’s affairs.

4.6 Rt. Hon. Peter Hain MP requested that the Commission should consider preserving the status quo during their preparation of a Draft Proposals report on this issue.

4.7 Paul Murphy MP, writing in his capacity as MP for Torfaen, stated that, with the extension of Gwent police and health jurisdiction to cover the whole of the Rhymney Valley, it seemed logical to include the whole of the County Borough of Caerphilly within the preserved county of Gwent.

4.8 Gareth Thomas MP, was of the opinion that the boundaries should be left as they are for now for practical reasons.

4.9 Don Touhig MP, took the view, so far as Gwent is concerned, that the preserved county should be enlarged to include the whole of the Caerphilly unitary authority. He pointed out that Gwent County Constabulary had enlarged its area to include the former Rhymney Valley district, thereby encompassing the whole of the Caerphilly unitary authority. In a similar manner, the health service provision, as delivered through the Gwent NHS Hospital Trust, also includes the Rhymney Valley and the whole of the borough of Caerphilly.

4.10 William Graham AM, writing on behalf of the Conservative Group in the National Assembly for Wales, suggested that the part of the unitary authority of Conwy currently in Gwynedd should be transferred to the preserved county of Clwyd. In respect of the preserved county of West Glamorgan they suggested that the Community of Ystradgynlais be transferred from Powys. They also suggested that the Commission gives consideration to the transfer of the former Islwyn Borough Council area now located within Caerphilly unitary authority to the preserved county of Mid Glamorgan. They also suggested that the historic counties of Wales should retain the option to have their own Lord Lieutenant and

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

High Sheriff although they concede that consideration of this issue may be beyond the present terms of the Commission’s review.

4.11 Carwyn Jones AM said that he was content with the present boundaries of the preserved counties and therefore had no observations.

4.12 Gwenda Thomas AM requested that the Commission consider preserving the status quo when preparing Draft Proposals report on this issue.

4.13 Cllr. Jeffrey James, Leader of The Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council supported the retention of the preserved county of South Glamorgan, as amended by the Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan (areas) Order 1996, reflecting the unitary authority areas of The Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council and The City and County of Cardiff Council.

4.14 The Welsh Conservative Party supported the most recent changes to the preserved counties with a small part of Clwyd included in Powys and a few communities in Mid Glamorgan being included in South Glamorgan. They considered that the scope of the Commission’s review should be limited to those areas where a unitary authority is included in more than one preserved county. There are two unitary authorities where this occurs, Conwy which is included partly in Gwynedd and partly in Clwyd, and Caerphilly which is included partly in Gwent and partly in Mid Glamorgan. Their view was that Conwy should be included wholly within Clwyd and that Caerphilly should be included wholly within Mid Glamorgan. The reasons were justified as follows: i. Conwy is split almost equally in area and population between the preserved counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd. In terms of parliamentary constituencies, the three constituencies, Conwy, Meirionydd Nant Conwy and Clwyd West that include part of Conwy also include part of another unitary authority. If Conwy were included in the preserved county of Gwynedd the populations of Gwynedd and Clwyd would become more equal but its area would be much larger. If Conwy were included in the preserved county of Clwyd the population would be much higher than that of Gwynedd. They consider that the most important consideration is affinity and on this basis they consider there is an overwhelming case for Conwy to be included with Clwyd rather than Gwynedd. The largest town within the Gwynedd part of Conwy is Llandudno which has close links to other resorts in Clwyd. The other areas of Conwy unitary authority currently in Gwynedd very much look to

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

Llandudno. They therefore submit that the whole of Conwy should be included within Clwyd rather than Gwynedd. ii. They considered that there are very strong grounds for the whole of Caerphilly being included within the preserved county of Mid Glamorgan rather than Gwent. They considered that as 61% of the electorate in Caerphilly are in Mid Glamorgan with only 39% in Gwent this would cause less disruption. Mid Glamorgan currently has the largest population of any preserved county which would obviously continue if Caerphilly was included wholly within Mid Glamorgan. If however, Caerphilly were to be wholly included within Gwent, then this would become the preserved county with the largest population. Gwent would also be disproportionately much larger in area than any of the four South Wales preserved counties. The area within Gwent is a self contained area coterminous with the parliamentary constituency of Islwyn. The area of Caerphilly in Mid Glamorgan includes not only part of the Caerphilly constituency but also part of the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency showing the close links Caerphilly has with that area. Caerphilly has more in common with Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taff than with rural Monmouthshire and Newport. Caerphilly is just north of Cardiff and has always been part of Glamorgan. The mountain range dividing the unitary authorities of Caerphilly and Torfaen would make a better boundary for the preserved county. For all these reasons they considered that Caerphilly should be included in Mid Glamorgan rather than Gwent.

4.15 Conwy Conservative Association considered that the review should be limited to those areas where a unitary authority is included in more than one preserved county. They expressed the view that the area of the unitary authority of Conwy currently in Gwynedd should be transferred to Clwyd. The reasons they gave were the same as those submitted by the Welsh Conservative Party.

4.16 Isle of Anglesey County Council’s preliminary view was that there were no particular difficulties arising under the current arrangements. At this time, they therefore had no recommendations to make for changes to the preserved counties.

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

4.17 Caerphilly County Borough Council considered that the boundary between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and Gwent should be realigned so that the whole of the unitary authority area of Caerphilly falls within Gwent. The Council considered that this would achieve consistency in boundary considerations and avoid duplication of administrative, judicial and ceremonial functions which would otherwise arise.

4.18 Carmarthenshire County Council confirmed that the Council had no specific proposals for changes to the boundaries of the preserved counties.

4.19 Ceredigion County Council said that they had no issue that they wished to raise regarding the review of preserved county boundaries. The Council however informed the Commission that they had decided to inform the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales that it sees no purpose in continuing with preserved counties.

4.20 Conwy County Borough Council endorsed the view that rather than alter the boundaries of the preserved counties a fundamental decision needs to be taken to modernise the system. The Council acknowledged that the Directions to the Commission from the Welsh Assembly Government related to a Boundary Review rather than a consideration of the appropriateness of retaining preserved counties. The Council considered however that there were anomalies under the system of preserved counties which could not be ignored and pointed out that there were several matters in the legislation applicable to preserved counties which could be streamlined to follow unitary authority boundaries. The Council noted that in respect of the justices’ related legislation, there is a North Wales Commission of the Peace which covers the 6 unitary authorities and that the "Bailiwicks" under the Sheriffs Act are conterminous with local government units. The Council also considered that the name of the preserved county of Gwynedd should be changed to obviate the confusion with the Gwynedd County Council area.

4.21 Denbighshire County Council concluded that there were no strong reasons for changing the current arrangements in North Wales which, to the extent which they impact on the Council, were working satisfactory.

4.22 Gwynedd County Council were not aware of any difficulties or problems which exist under the current arrangements and would be happy to leave the arrangements as they are. They stated that if the Commission

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE felt that the preserved county boundary had to be altered to correspond with an unitary authority boundary then the Council would be in favour of the whole of Conwy being included in the preserved county of Gwynedd.

4.23 Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council considered that, following analysis of each of the provisions applying to the preserved counties, no changes to the existing boundary of the preserved county of Mid Glamorgan should be made. They stated that current arrangements have not thrown up any problem issues and consequently recommended the boundaries remain unaltered.

4.24 Monmouthshire County Council considered that since local government reorganisation, they had benefited from the ability to act jointly with other authorities in Gwent, including Caerphilly County Borough Council. Working in partnership in this way has reflected also the boundaries of police and health authorities. The Council did not wish to see any change that might adversely impact upon the operation of these joint agreements, and whilst they considered that the review would not have such an impact, it seemed to the Council that the extension of the preserved county of Gwent to include the former Rhymney Valley District Council area carried the force of some logic.

4.25 Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council’s view was that that the status quo should prevail. They considered that there are no evident difficulties or problems existing under the current arrangements.

4.26 Pembrokeshire County Council said that there were no technical issues affecting Pembrokeshire arising from the present preserved county boundaries. However, they felt that the principle of continuing the present arrangements should be subject to a separate consultation. They pointed out that there was strong support to bring back the county of Pembrokeshire during the reorganisation of local government in Wales in the early 1990’s and the creation of a Pembrokeshire unitary authority had been welcomed locally. However, they felt that the continuation of the current arrangements for the Lord Lieutenancy and High Sheriff do not sit comfortably with the major changes made in 1996. They felt that the restoration of the Lord Lieutenancy and High Sheriff in Pembrokeshire was a worthy objective. As this issue appears to be outside the scope of the Commission’s directive from the National Assembly for Wales however, a copy of this initial response had been sent to the Secretary of State and the First Minister.

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

4.27 The City and County of Swansea Council considered that, as there were no anomalies regarding the current boundaries, the boundaries of the preserved county of West Glamorgan should remain unchanged.

4.28 Wrexham County Borough Council considered that in general terms unitary authorities should not lie in more than one preserved county. They also considered that, within Wales, the preserved counties should not be a factor in determining Parliamentary or other electoral constituencies.

4.29 The Audit Commission stated that although they have no direct interest in the issue of preserved counties, they do however have a general interest in the issue of effective local administration and in the protection of the public interest in Wales. They considered that there were two issues relevant to the Commission’s review: i) Is the concept of the preserved county still relevant or could the functions assigned to preserved county areas be reassigned to current local authority areas? In their view such a move would be impracticable and inefficient and would lead to the waste of public resources. For example, the creation of an additional 14 Lords- Lieutenant or 14 High Sheriffs would involve the public purse in significant additional cost. To the best of their knowledge, the existing basis for these appointments has not been challenged on practical grounds. Nor do they see any argument for retaining the concept of preserved counties but moving to some other number of units as this would lose the resonance that the preserved counties have with their connection to the local government structure that persisted from 1974 to 1996. They therefore considered that the eight preserved counties should be retained for all or some of their current functions. ii) Do the existing boundaries adequately reflect community and administrative needs or should they be amended? At the time of the passage of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, it was considered that realigning the boundaries of the preserved counties with those of the new unitary authorities was not a necessary step. At a time when local authority boundaries had been the subject of much heated debate, it was felt that a further debate over the alignment of preserved counties and unitary authorities would be unhelpful. Accordingly, subject to minor amendments, the boundaries of the preserved counties were aligned with those of the eight counties extant from 1974 to 1996. This decision created two major anomalies, in Conwy and in Caerphilly. The Audit

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

Commission considered that these two anomalies should now be included in a single preserved county and therefore have to relate to a single Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff etc. The Audit Commission considered that the Conwy unitary authority should be included in the preserved county of Clwyd because the recently established Conwy & Denbighshire Trust overlooks a geographical area that aligns the area of the Conwy unitary authority with that of the Denbighshire unitary authority. They consider that there would be merit therefore, in placing them within the same area for other purposes. They could not see any similar argument for placing Conwy within the preserved county of Gwynedd. The Audit Commission believed that the area of the Caerphilly unitary authority should be included in the area of the preserved county of Gwent for similar reasons. The territorial boundaries of both the Gwent Health Authority and the Gwent NHS Trust encompass all of the Caerphilly unitary authority. Equally, the Gwent Police Force is responsible for policing both parts of Caerphilly. They again could not see any compelling argument for including Caerphilly within the preserved county of Mid Glamorgan.

4.30 Defence Estates Central said that they had no comment to make regarding the Commission’s review.

4.31 Gwent Police Authority pointed out that the whole of the area of the County Borough of Caerphilly is policed by Gwent Police. They therefore asked that the boundary of the preserved county of Gwent be realigned so that the whole of the County Borough of Caerphilly falls within the area currently policed by Gwent Police.

4.32 HM Land Registry said that they had no comments to make.

4.33 North Wales Association of Town Councils considered that the preserved counties were somewhat anachronistic and questioned the purpose and need for their retention.

4.34 Llandudno Town Council wrote in support of the views of the North Wales Association of Town Councils regarding the resolution to abolish the status of "Preserved Counties" and to make alternative arrangements in this regard.

4.35 Wales Association of Community and Town Councils submitted the initial view that it was unfortunate that the directions from the National Assembly only referred to the boundary review rather than

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE deciding whether the various legislative requirements relating to the preserved counties are necessary. They made the following points: i) In Scotland there are area Lord Lieutenancies, so why not in Wales? ii) The work of the Sheriff is usually devolved to an Under Sheriff who relates to a Bailiwick, which are coterminous with the county council areas. Should the Sheriff relate to the county areas? iii) Is the 1842 Defence Act relevant to the twenty first century? iv) The new Commission of the Peace covers several county areas. Is the term county relevant? v) Sea Fisheries now relate to county areas. They considered that local authority boundaries should be more than lines on maps and should reflect historic identities. They noted that is still a tendency for people to continue to relate to the traditional 13 counties of Wales and that it has been suggested that the former counties of Caernarfon and Meirionydd in Gwynedd and Montgomery, Radnor and Brecon in Powys could be designated preserved counties in order to retain their historical identities. These former counties are still used for National Assembly and Parliamentary electoral designations. They conceded, however, that there would be problems restoring the old counties within the Clwyd, Gwent and Glamorgan areas. They considered that it would be easy to designate the twenty two unitary authority areas as preserved counties but felt it was questionable whether the structure of these areas was ‘fully settled’.

4.36 Welsh Local Government Association said that their Member Authorities had been consulted regarding the review and they had not raised any issues of importance for local government generally.

5. ASSESSMENT

5.1 The boundaries of the preserved counties follow the boundaries of the unitary authorities with two major and two minor exceptions. The two major exceptions are in North Wales where the boundary between the preserved counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd divide the unitary authority of Conwy and in South Wales where the boundary between the preserved counties of Gwent and Mid Glamorgan divide the unitary authority of

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

Caerphilly. A minor change to the boundary between the County Borough of Blaenau Gwent and the County Borough Caerphilly in the area of Tafarnaubach Industrial Estate was made by The Blaenau Gwent and Caerphilly (Tredegar and Rhymney) Order 2002 No. 651 (W.68) which came into force on 6th April 2002. This Order did not make a consequential change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Gwent and Mid Glamorgan and therefore an anomaly exists. A minor change to the boundary between the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taff and the County Borough of The Vale of Glamorgan in the area of Llanharry and Penllyn was made by The Rhondda Cynon Taff and Vale of Glamorgan (Llanharry, Pont-y-clun, Penllyn, Welsh St Donats and Pendoylan) Order 2002 No. 654 (W.70). This Order, which came into force on 6th April 2002, did not make a consequential change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan creating a minor anomaly between the preserved county and unitary authority boundaries.

5.2 We have considered the relationship between preserved county and unitary authority boundaries and have taken note of the comments made in respect of this relationship in the representations received. We are of the view that, wherever possible, preserved county boundaries should be aligned with unitary authority boundaries as this has benefits in terms of the identification and administration of preserved counties.

5.3 No representations have been received in respect of anomalies due to the boundaries of the preserved county of Dyfed.

5.4 With the exception of the minor anomaly identified at 5.1 above, no difficulties arising from the boundary between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan have been reported. We are minded therefore to propose a change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan to bring it in line with the boundary between the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taff and the County Borough of The Vale of Glamorgan following the Order which came into force in April 2002.

5.5 The only representation received in respect of an anomaly due to the boundaries of the preserved counties of Powys and West Glamorgan came from the Conservative Group in the National Assembly for Wales who suggested that the Community of Ystradgynlais be transferred from the preserved county of Powys to the preserved county of West Glamorgan. We have noted that others who have an interest in this area consider that the existing boundaries work satisfactorily. We are therefore

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE not aware of any anomaly due to the boundaries of the preserved counties of Powys and West Glamorgan, having regard, in particular, to the purposes for which the preserved counties are retained. We note also that changing the boundary between the preserved counties of Powys and West Glamorgan in the area of Ystradgynlais would create an anomaly between the preserved county boundaries and the unitary authority boundaries. We are constrained by the legislation under which this review is being conducted (Section 56 (1)(c) of the Act) to only make proposals in respect of preserved counties. We are unable therefore to propose changes to unitary authority boundaries as part of this review. An anomaly between the preserved county boundaries and the unitary authority boundaries could only be addressed by conducting a subsequent review of unitary authority boundaries. We consider that there should be no change to the boundaries of the preserved counties of Powys and West Glamorgan.

5.6 A number of the representations we received referred to the anomaly where the boundary between the preserved counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd divides the unitary authority of Conwy. Denbighshire County Council (paragraph 4.21), Gwynedd County Council (paragraph 4.22) and the Isle of Anglesey County Council (paragraph 4.15) were not aware of any difficulties arising from the present boundaries. Gwynedd County Council suggest that, if a change were to be considered, the part of Conwy currently within the preserved county of Clwyd should be included within the preserved county of Gwynedd. The representations from William Graham AM (paragraph 4.10), The Welsh Conservative Party (paragraph 4.14), Conwy Conservative Association (paragraph 4.15) and The Audit Commission (paragraph 4.29) however suggested that the boundary between the preserved counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd be changed so as to include the whole of the unitary authority of Conwy within the preserved county of Clwyd.

5.7 As stated in paragraph 5.2, we are of the view that, wherever possible, preserved county boundaries should be aligned with unitary authority boundaries. We would wish therefore to consider changing the boundary between Clwyd and Gwynedd to include the whole of the Conwy unitary authority within one or other of the preserved counties. Although Gwynedd County Council have suggested including Conwy within the Gwynedd preserved county we have no evidence that this would be desirable having regard, in particular, to the purposes for which the preserved counties are retained. The representations in favour of including Conwy within the preserved county of Clwyd point to the affinity that the part of Conwy currently within the preserved county of

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

Gwynedd has with areas of Clwyd. We have noted that the Conwy & Denbighshire NHS Trust covers the whole area of the two unitary authorities and evidences the close links between the two. We consider therefore, that it would benefit in terms of the identification and administration of the two preserved counties for the whole of the unitary authority of Conwy to be included within the preserved county of Clwyd.

5.8 A number of the representations we received also referred to the anomaly where the boundary between the preserved counties of Gwent and Mid Glamorgan divides the unitary authority of Caerphilly. The Lord Lieutenant of Mid Glamorgan (paragraph 4.3) and Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council (paragraph 4.24) considered that the present boundaries had not given rise to any special problems. William Graham AM (paragraph 4.10) and The Welsh Conservative Party (paragraph 4.14) suggest that the whole of the Caerphilly unitary authority should be included within the preserved county of Mid Glamorgan. The representations from Paul Murphy MP (paragraph 4.7), Don Touhig MP (paragraph 4.9), Caerphilly County Borough Council (paragraph 4.17), Monmouthshire County Council (paragraph 4.25), The Audit Commission (paragraph 4.29) and Gwent Police Authority (paragraph 4.31) however suggested that the whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly be included within the preserved county of Gwent.

5.9 We would wish to consider changing the boundary between Gwent and Mid Glamorgan to include the whole of Caerphilly unitary authority within one or other of the preserved counties. We have noted the argument made by The Welsh Conservative Party that with 61% of the electorate of Caerphilly in Mid Glamorgan and only 39% in Gwent, there would be less disruption caused by including Caerphilly within the preserved county of Mid Glamorgan. They argue that including Caerphilly within Gwent would mean that Gwent would have the largest population of all the preserved counties and would cover a much larger area than the other four South Wales preserved counties. We have also noted the argument that, as part of the unitary authority of Caerphilly is within the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney parliamentary constituency, this evidences the links Caerphilly has with the Merthyr area. Whilst we accept that the Rhymney area may have an affinity with Merthyr Tyfdil, we consider however, that the Rhymney area has an equally strong affinity with the Tredegar and Ebbw Vale areas that are within the preserved county of Gwent.

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

5.10 The representations in favour of including Caerphilly within the preserved county of Gwent point to the fact that the Gwent police and health authorities have had their boundaries changed to include the whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly within their jurisdiction. We consider that this, and the fact that Caerphilly County Borough Council support inclusion within Gwent, is evidence that there currently exist very strong links between the area covered by the Caerphilly unitary authority and those areas within the preserved county of Gwent. We consider therefore, that, having regard to the purposes for which the preserved counties are retained, it would be of benefit to change the boundary between the preserved counties of Gwent and Mid Glamorgan so that the whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly is included within the preserved county of Gwent.

5.11 Our proposal for the whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly to be included within the preserved county of Gwent means that the anomaly between preserved county and unitary authority boundaries caused by the minor change to the boundary between the County Borough of Blaenau Gwent and the County Borough Caerphilly in the area of Tafarnaubach Industrial Estate discussed at 5.1 above would then not need to be considered.

5.12 A number of the representations have questioned the purpose and continuing need for preserved counties. As recognised by those who have written in, under the terms of this review, this is not a question that can be considered by the Commission. We recognise however that it may be appropriate for this issue to be debated and we will report the comments made to the National Assembly for Wales for their consideration.

6. PROPOSALS

6.1 As considered at 5.4 above, we propose a minor change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan to reflect the recent change to the boundary between the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taff and the County Borough of The Vale of Glamorgan.

6.2 For the reasons given at 5.7 above, we propose a change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd to include whole of the unitary authority of Conwy within the preserved county of Clwyd.

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

6.3 For the reasons given at 5.10 above, we propose a change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Gwent and Mid Glamorgan to include whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly within the preserved county of Gwent.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

7.1 We wish to express our gratitude to all persons and bodies who made representations to us.

8. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

8.1 All observations on this draft report should be sent to: The Secretary Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales Caradog House 1-6 St Andrews Place Cardiff CF10 3BE not later than 20 September 2002.

9. THE NEXT STEPS

9.1 When we have considered the comments made to us in response to this draft report we shall submit our recommendations to the National Assembly for Wales in the form of a report and proposals. Following the publication of our final proposals report there will be a further period of consultation. It will then fall to the National Assembly for Wales, if they think fit, to implement our recommendations either with or without modifications.

MRS S G SMITH LLB (Chair) J E DAVIES ICSA IPFA (Deputy Chair) D H ROBERTS BSc DMS MBCS MIMgt (Member) E H LEWIS BSc. DPM FRSA FCIPD (Secretary)

July 2002

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

The Preserved Counties And Their Areas The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 defined the areas of the preserved counties as follows:

Name Area

The county of Clwyd, but excluding the communities Clwyd of Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant, Llansilin and Llangedwyn. Dyfed The county of Dyfed. Gwent The county of Gwent. Gwynedd The county of Gwynedd. The county of Mid Glamorgan, but excluding the Mid Glamorgan* communities of Wick, St Bride's Major, Ewenny and Morgannwg Ganol Pentyrch. The county of Powys with the addition of the Powys communities of Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant, Llansilin and Llangedwyn from the county of Clwyd. The county of South Glamorgan with the addition of South Glamorgan* the communities of Wick, St Bride's Major, Ewenny De Morgannwg and Pentyrch from the county of Mid Glamorgan. West Glamorgan Gorllewin The county of West Glamorgan. Morgannwg.

* The boundary between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan was amended by The Bridgend and The Vale of Glamorgan (Areas) Order 1996.

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

PROVISIONS APPLYING TO PRESERVED COUNTIES

1. The Lieutenancies Act 1997

A Lord-Lieutenant is appointed by the Crown for each county in England, each county in Wales and each area in Scotland. The counties in Wales for the purposes of the 1997 Act are the preserved counties. The Lord- Lieutenant acts as the Queen’s representative who manages the Queen’s civic affairs and arranges royal visits.

2. The Sheriffs Act 1887

The Act provides for the appointment of Sheriffs (known when appointed for a county as High Sheriffs) to carry out certain functions to do with the administration of justice, as well as ceremonial functions. The counties in Wales for the purposes of the annual appointment of a Sheriff are the preserved counties.

3. The Defence Act 1842

In Section 19 of the Defence Act 1842 (valuing of premises in default of agreement) and in Sections 23 and 24, "county" in relation to Wales means a preserved county.

4. The Licensing Act 1964

In Section 85 (parties organised for gain), 188 (closing of licensed premises in case of riot) and 193 (disqualification of justices) of the Licensing Act 1964, "county" in relation to Wales means a preserved county.

5. The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967

In Section 10 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 (jurisdiction in relation to fishery) in relation to Wales, the reference to a county includes a reference to a preserved county.

6. The Interpretation Act 1978

In Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 (words and expressions defined), "Wales" is defined as ‘the combined area of the counties which were created by Section 20 of the Local Government Act 1972, as

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE originally enacted, but subject to any alteration made under Section 73 of that Act (consequential alteration of boundary following alteration of watercourse).’

7. The Justices of the Peace Act 1979

In Section 1 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (commission areas), Section 4 of that Act (petty sessions areas) and Section 19 of that Act (general provisions as to magistrates’ courts committees), references to counties are in relation to Wales references to preserved counties.

8. The Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980

In Section 1 (issue of summons to accused or warrant for his arrest), Section 2 (jurisdiction to deal with charges) and Section 3 (offences committed on boundaries etc.) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, references to counties are in relation to Wales references to preserved counties.

9. The Representation of the People Act 1983

In the provisions of section 177 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (local election offence punishable summarily), "county" in relation to Wales means a preserved county. In Schedule 1 to that Act (parliamentary election rules), in the Appendix, in the entry relating to the form of the certificate to be endorsed on the writ, in relation to any constituency in Wales "county" in this form refers to a preserved county.

10. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986

In paragraph 4 sub-paragraph (1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (rules for redistributing seats), "county" means in relation to Wales a preserved county.

11. The Local Government Act 1972 (as amended by the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and The National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999)

Sub-section (1A) of Section 54 of this Act (proposals for changes in local government areas in Wales) provides "The Welsh Commission may, in consequence of a review conducted by them under this Part of this Act make proposals to the National Assembly for Wales for effecting changes in the area of a preserved county which appear to the Commission to be

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE desirable having regard, in particular, to the purposes for which the preserved counties are retained." Section 56(1) of this Act (power of the National Assembly for Wales to direct holding of reviews) provides : "(1) The National Assembly for Wales may direct the Welsh Commission to conduct a review of- (a) Wales as a whole, (b) any one or more local government areas or parts of such areas in Wales, or (c) any one or more preserved counties or parts of such counties, for the purpose of considering whether or not to make such proposals in relation to the area reviewed as are authorised by section 54 above and what proposals, if any, to make; and the Commission shall, if they think fit, formulate such proposals accordingly."

In Section 224 of this Act (arrangements by principal councils for custody of documents) "county", in relation to Wales, means a preserved county.

In Section 269 of this Act (meaning of "England" and "Wales"), "Wales" means the combined area of the preserved counties and "England" does not include any area which is included in any of the preserved counties.

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

LOCAL VOICES PILOT STUDY

Purpose of Report:

To inform Members of the Council’s participation in the Welsh Assembly Government’s Local Voices Pilot Study.

Background:

The White Paper, “Local Voices – Modernising Local Government in Wales”, gave a commitment to develop the idea of a regular survey of service users across Wales to measure their perception of the quality of local government services. A small team of Assembly officials assisted by representatives of the WLGA and two local authority representatives (Flintshire and Neath Port Talbot) has led the development of the Local Voices project. This partnership based approach to obtaining the public’s views about local government services contrasts starkly with the more prescriptive English approach.

A feasibility study, carried out by Opinion Research Services Ltd on behalf of the Assembly, concluded that a national “Local Voices” survey for Wales was indeed feasible. The study proposed a survey questionnaire consisting of a core set of questions with each local authority having the opportunity of adding questions to this standard core for the survey in their particular area. The survey would therefore provide good comparative data across Wales, adding value by allowing individual local authorities to use the survey to obtain views on local priority issues.

The Assembly accepted the recommendations of the study report and tenders were sought for questionnaire design and the conduct of a pilot study. The study envisaged the participation of four local authorities and, in April, Cabinet accepted the Assembly’s invitation to participate. The other pilot authorities are Blaenau Gwent, Cardiff and Gywnedd.

Currently, Opinion Research Services are designing the core questions for the personal interview survey of 300 households in each of the pilot authorities’ areas – the 300 households will be selected randomly using the Postal Address File for each area. The core content of the survey questionnaire will be known later this month when consideration can be given to the questions that we would wish to include from our local perspective. A further more detailed report will be presented to your next meeting.

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

Recommendation:

Members are requested to note the report.

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

LOCAL VOICES PILOT STUDY

(a) Implementation of Decision:

The decision is to note the matter.

(b) Sustainability Appraisal:

Community Plan Impacts:

Economic Prosperity - no impact Education & Lifelong Learning - no impact Better Health & Well Being - no impact Environment & Transport - no impact Crime & Disorder - no impact

Other Impacts:

Welsh Language - no impact Sustainable Development - no impact Equalities - no impact Social Inclusion - no impact

Local Voices Feasibility Study and Pilot Study specification.

(d) Officer Contact:

Philip Graham, Corporate Strategy and Performance Management Officer, Ext 3171, [email protected]

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DATA – CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S DIRECTORATE

Purpose of Report:

Members will recall that information for the first quarter of the current financial year i.e., 1st April to 30th June, relating to the Chief Executive’s and Finance and Corporate Services Directorates was reported to Cabinet Committee at its meeting on 31st July 2002.

The purpose if this report is to provide Members with performance management data relating to the first quarter for the Chief Executive’s Directorate that was not available at the time of the meeting on 31st July;

This information is contained in the table attached at Appendix A.

Background:

Each Cabinet Committee is responsible for monitoring the performance of those activities within their remit and to this end will be provided with quarterly performance management data. Policy and Resources Cabinet Committee has specific responsibility for monitoring the performance of activities relating to the Chief Executive’s and Finance and Corporate Services Directorates.

This will include examining the actual performance achieved against predetermined targets, as specified in the Authority’s “Improvement Plan”, and will include both statutory and local performance indicators.

Response time to correspondence:

L 4 Response time to correspondence (in 8 working days)

Actual (1st Quarter) – 49% Target – 75%

Members will recall that following consideration of the data presented to the meeting held on 31st July 2002, the following was agreed:

“… that Officers further consider the data in relation to L 4 (Response time to correspondence – in eight working days) and, if verified as correct, report back on the action to be taken to improve performance.”

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

Preliminary validation of the data used to calculate the first quarter response times indicates that this data was correct. However, a more detailed examination of the systems that produce this data will shortly be undertaken by Internal Audit as a matter of priority.

For Members information, this matter was discussed at a recent meeting of the Corporate Directors Group when it was agreed that each Directorate would take appropriate steps to improve the response times to public mail.

Recommendation:

Members are requested to note the performance information contained in this report and are invited, where considered appropriate, to make recommendations in relation to this data.

Members are further requested to note the action taken to address the problems associated with the Authority’s poor response times to public mail.

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DATA

(a) Implementation of Decision:

The decision is to note the matter.

(b) Sustainability appraisal:

Community Plan Impacts

Economic Prosperity - no impact Education & Lifelong Learning - no impact Better Health & Well Being - no impact Environment & Transport - no impact Crime & Disorder - no impact

Other Impacts

Welsh Language - no impact Sustainable Development - no impact Equalities - no impact Social Inclusion - no impact

The Neath Port Talbot Improvement Plan – 2002 / 2003. Data collection working papers: 1/4/02 – 30/6/02

(d) Officer Contact:

Norman Humphreys, Principal Best Value and Performance Management Officer, Extension 3757. [email protected]

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

Appendix A Policy and Resources Cabinet Committee

Quarterly Performance Management Report – Chief Executive / Finance & Corporate Services Directorates

NAWPI No. Performance Indicator Actual Target Actual Performance 2001/2002 2002/2003 1st 2nd 3rd 02 / 03 Quarter Quarter Quarter

Corporate Governance 1.10 The number of working days/shifts lost to sickness absence 16.2 12.9 1.96 1.12 Ill health retirements as a percentage of the total workforce 1.18 1.16 0.16 1.13 The number of staff declaring that they meet the Disability Discrimination Act disability definition as a percentage of the total 1.46 1.60 1.25 workforce 1.14 Minority ethnic community staff as a percentage of the total workforce 0.68 0.80 0.66

PR -CC-100902-REP-CE 1

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DATA – OVERVIEW

Purpose of Report:

The Executive is responsible for performance management, and included in the range of functions for Policy and Resources Cabinet Committee is the requirement to monitor Executive performance for a wide range of activities throughout the Authority. Similarly, the Policy and Resources Scrutiny Committee will undertake a scrutiny overview monitoring role.

In accordance with their wider “overview” role, the purpose of this report is to provide Members with first quarter data that has been reported to other Cabinet Committees.

This information is contained in the Table attached at Appendix A.

Background:

Each Cabinet Committee is responsible for monitoring the performance of those activities within their remit and to this end will be provided with quarterly performance management data. Additionally, as part of its overview role, this information will be reported to Policy and Resources Cabinet Committee (and in turn be scrutinised by the Policy and Resources Scrutiny Committee).

This will include examining the actual performance achieved against predetermined targets, as specified in the Authority’s “Improvement Plan” and will include both statutory and local performance indicators.

Members are advised that data, relating to the first quarter of the current financial year, was not reported to the following Cabinet Committees: -

Social Services and Housing (23/8/02) Technical Services (29/8/02)

This data, together with data for the second quarter, will be reported to the next appropriate meetings of these Cabinet Committees.

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE Matters arising:

The following information is included to ensure that Members are aware of any comments/concerns raised by the other Cabinet Committees during their consideration of the performance management data relating to their particular areas of responsibility:

Economic, Environment & Consumer Services Cabinet Committee – 8/8/02

L(BR) 4 - % of Building Regulations applications determined in three weeks

Actual (1st Quarter) – 62% Target – 96%

Members were advised that the performance achieved during the first quarter was adversely affected by changes to the Building Regulations that came into effect on 1st April 2002. As a result of these changes a significant number of plans had to be returned to applicants for amendment to ensure their compliance with the requirements of the new regulations.

Recommendation:

Members are requested to note the performance information contained in the attached Appendix and are invited, where considered appropriate, to make recommendations in relation to this data.

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DATA

(a) Implementation of Decision:

The decision is to note the matter.

(b) Sustainability appraisal:

Community Plan Impacts

Economic Prosperity - no impact Education & Lifelong Learning - no impact Better Health & Well Being - no impact Environment & Transport - no impact Crime & Disorder - no impact

Other Impacts

Welsh Language - no impact Sustainable Development - no impact Equalities - no impact Social Inclusion - no impact

The Neath Port Talbot Improvement Plan – 2002 / 2003. Data collection working papers: 1/4/02 – 30/6/02

(d) Officer Contact:

Norman Humphreys, Principal Best Value and Performance Management Officer, Extension 3757. [email protected]

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE

Appendix A Policy and Resources Cabinet Committee

Quarterly Performance Management Data – Overview Report

PI No. Performance Indicator Actual Target Actual Performance (See Note f 2001/2002 2002/2003 1st 2nd 3rd 02 / 03 below) Quarter Quarter Quarter

Education 2.1 Average GCSE/GNVQ points score of 15/16 year olds in the Council’s schools 37 39 2.2 Percentage of pupils in the Council’s schools in the previous summer achieving 5 or more GCSE’s at grades A* - C or the vocational 49 51 equivalent 2.3 Proportion of pupils in the Council’s schools achieving one or more GCSE’s at grade G or above or vocational equivalent 94 94 2.4a Proportion of 11 year olds in the Council’s schools in the previous summer achieving Level 4 or above in the National Curriculum Key 75 73 Stage 2 Mathematics test

Note: (a) 1st Quarter = 1 April – 30 June, 2nd Quarter = 1 April –30 September, 3rd Quarter = 1 April – 31 December, 4th Quarter = 1 April – 31 March (b) All the data presented in these tables is cumulative (i.e 2nd Quarter data includes data shown for the 1st Quarter). (c) Financial data has been calculated on the basis of one of three options – (1) FIS data; (2) FIS data +/- known variations; (3) Original budget. The option used appears alongside the data. (d) Denotes data that is only available on an annual basis (e) NA – Not Applicable (f) NAWPI unless prefixed by BVPI (Statutory Best Value PI - 2000/2001) or L (Local PI) (g) * Entered in the “Target 2002 / 2003” column indicates Target for 2002/03 not set. Subject to Members’ approval these non-statutory PI’s will be deleted during the current financial year.

PR-CC-100902-REP-CE