LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

REVIEW OF PART OF THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE OF NEWPORT AND THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF TORFAEN IN THE AREA OF THE COMMUNITIES OF , MALPAS AND CAERLEON

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

REVIEW OF PART OF THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF NEWPORT AND THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF TORFAEN IN THE AREA OF THE COMMUNITIES OF LLANTARNAM, MALPAS AND CAERLEON

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW

4. DRAFT PROPOSALS

5. SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

6. ASSESSMENT

7. PROPOSALS

8. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

10. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

The Local Government Boundary Commission For Wales Caradog House 1-6 St Andrews Place CF10 3BE Tel Number: (029) 20395031 Fax Number: (029) 20395250 E-mail: [email protected] www.lgbc-wales.gov.uk

Edwina Hart AM MBE Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities The National Assembly for Wales

REVIEW OF PART OF THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF NEWPORT AND THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF TORFAEN IN THE AREA OF THE COMMUNITIES OF LLANTARNAM, MALPAS AND CAERLEON

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales (the Commission), have completed the review of part of the boundary between the County Borough of Newport and the County Borough of Torfaen in the area of the Communities of Llantarnam, Malpas and Caerleon. The purpose of the review is to consider whether, in the interests of effective and convenient local government, the Commission should propose changes to the present boundary. The review is being conducted under the provisions of Section 55(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 (the Act) following representations to the Commission from a landowner, whose representations to the Commission in the context of this review are contained in paragraph 2.5 of the Draft Proposals Report and paragraph 5.9 of this Report. His proposal was specifically that the area of land shaded green on the map at Appendix 2 be transferred from Torfaen to Newport, thus utilising the Malpas and Brynglas Tunnels Relief road as the natural authority boundary. The Commission considered that this proposal be extended to transfer the area of land shaded brown on the map at Appendix 2 from the Community of Caerleon to the Community of Malpas, also utilising the Malpas and Brynglas Tunnels Relief Road, in this instance as the natural community boundary. These are the areas of land which have been considered in this review.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 We propose that in the interests of effective and convenient local government, the boundary between the County Borough of Newport and the County Borough of Torfaen in the area of the Communities of Llantarnam, Malpas and Caerleon should remain unchanged. We do however propose that the boundary between the Communities of Caerleon and Malpas should be realigned in the area under review to follow the centre of the Brynglas Tunnels Relief Road from the point where the existing boundary crosses the road in the area of Grove Park to the point where the county boundary crosses the road.

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW

3.1 Section 54(1) 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 in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

1

Procedure

3.2 Section 60 of the Act lays down procedural guidelines which are to be followed in carrying out a review. In line with that guidance, we wrote on 26 January 2001 to Newport County Borough Council, Torfaen County Borough Council, Central Community Council, the Members of Parliament for the local constituencies, the Assembly Members for the area, the local authority associations, the police authority for the area and political parties to inform them of our intention to conduct the review and to request their preliminary views. We invited the County Borough of Newport and the County Borough of Torfaen Councils to submit suggestions for changes to the boundary. We also publicised our intention to conduct the review in local newspapers circulating in the area and asked the councils to display public notices.

4. DRAFT PROPOSALS

4.1 We received representations from Newport County Borough Council; Torfaen County Borough Council; Mr M German AM, and two other interested bodies and residents. These representations were taken into consideration and summarised in our Draft Proposals published on 24 July 2001.

4.2 Our Draft Proposals recommended that the boundary between the County Borough of Newport and the County Borough of Torfaen in the area of the Communities of Llantarnam, Malpas and Caerleon should be realigned in the area under review to follow the northern edge of the Malpas and Brynglas Tunnels Relief Road. The proposed change to the boundary is shown in green on the map at Appendix 2.

4.3 We also proposed that the boundary between Malpas and Caerleon be re-aligned to follow the centre of the road as shown in brown on the map at Appendix 2.

4.4 Copies of the Draft Proposals were sent to all the councils, bodies and individuals referred to in paragraph 3.2 seeking their views. A copy was also sent to anyone who had submitted preliminary comments. By public notice we also invited any other organisation or person with an interest in the review to submit their views. Copies of the Draft Proposals were made available for inspection at the offices of Newport County Borough Council, Torfaen County Borough Council and the Commission and were also deposited at the offices of the Police Authority.

5. SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

5.1 We received representations from Newport County Borough Council; Torfaen County Borough Council; Paul Murphy MP; Rosemary Butler AM, William Graham AM; Authority and 20 other interested bodies and residents. All of these representations were considered carefully before formulating our proposals.

5.2 Newport County Borough Council telephoned to say that they would not be commenting on the Commission’s Draft Proposals Report as they felt that their initial comments objecting to the review were still relevant.

2

5.3 Torfaen County Borough Council objected to the Commission’s Draft Proposals as their position remained the same as that stated in their initial observations. They further pointed out that the link road formed part of the Llantarnam Bypass with the two roundabouts it linked providing the principal access to Torfaen from the south. The proposed realignment of the boundary would also result in access to Llantarnam Hall school being from Newport. The proposed boundary appeared to divide responsibility for maintenance of the western roundabout between Newport and Torfaen County Borough Councils which is unsatisfactory. They suggested that the realignment should rather be along the southern side of the link road and two roundabouts rather than the northern side.

5.4 Rt. Hon. Paul Murphy MP wrote in support of Torfaen County Borough Council’s position regarding this issue.

5.5 William Graham AM opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals. He stated that he had consulted extensively with the residents in the proximity of the land in question and had not received any indication of support for the Commission’s proposals.

5.6 Rosemary Butler AM objected to the Commission’s Draft Proposals. She considered that the request to transfer the land from one authority to another was possibly a crude attempt to circumvent planning policies. She pointed out that the policy of both Newport and Torfaen County Borough Councils was to retain the area as an important gap between the two authorities. Mrs Butler also wrote to the Commission on behalf of five residents of Malpas who objected to the Commission’s Draft Proposals. The residents could see no reason for the proposed change and felt that the current boundary following the stream should be retained.

5.7 Gwent Police Authority stated that the Commission’s proposals would have no impact on policing in the area.

5.8 The Welsh Conservative Party objected to the Commission’s proposal to transfer the land from Torfaen to Newport for the following reasons:

i) Neither Torfaen or Newport County Borough Council supported the proposal. ii) The land had been subject of planning applications for development twice in the past 10 years, both of which had been rejected by Torfaen County Borough Council. iii) The land is closer to Cwmbran development shopping centre than Newport Town centre and they felt that Torfaen have a greater interest in ensuring commercial development does not take place on the land for this reason. iv) The siting of housing or commercial development on the land would have a detrimental effect on the amenity value of houses in Malpas Park which overlook it. v) Since no electors were involved in the transfer it is felt that the only reason the review was requested was that it was believed that Newport Council may look more favourably on a application for planning permission than Torfaen. The Party did not feel that this was proper grounds for transferring the land from Torfaen to Newport.

5.9 A local landowner’s representative supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals. Since the construction of the Malpas Relief Road their clients have been unable to farm the area being reviewed which, as a result of this, has become derelict. Their clients welcomed the prospect of the area being brought under the same planning authority as the land adjoining it

3

to the south. They felt that the review area was a valuable piece of land which should not be allowed to remain a wilderness which they felt was inevitable under the present divided planning jurisdictions.

5.10 The joint owners of land adjoining the review area supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals. They felt that a coordinated approach to the land bounded by the Malpas relief road by a single planning authority would benefit both the owners of the land and the community. They felt that the existing boundary dividing the two adjoining areas between Newport and Torfaen was detrimental to possible future use of the land. This situation also resulted in the land being overgrown and unkempt.

5.11 A local land owner supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals. He felt that it was undesirable to allow the review area to remain derelict and that the whole area of land between the Malpas relief road and the existing housing at Malpas should be under the jurisdiction of one planning authority which could then put it to more beneficial use. He was also concerned that weeds and thistles which had been allowed to grow on the review area could spread to his own land opposite.

5.12 A resident of Malpas objected to the Commission’s Draft Proposals as he considered that the proposal was merely to allow the land owner to sell the land for future development. He felt that the development of the area would destroy its natural beauty and also pointed out that the only access to the land would be through Claremont Estate which he felt would constitute a road safety risk to the Estate’s children.

5.13 Two residents of Malpas wrote to object to the transfer of land from Torfaen to Newport. They felt that there would be no beneficial outcome of the transfer and therefore the status quo should be maintained.

5.14 A resident of Malpas objected to the Commission’s Draft Proposals. He felt that the land should remain as a greenbelt area and that the review had been requested by the landowner purely to obtain planning permission.

5.15 Two residents of Malpas objected to the Commission’s Draft Proposals. They were concerned that the land may be developed as they felt there was a lack of access. They wished the land to be retained as a greenbelt area.

5.16 A resident of Malpas objected to the Commission’s Draft Proposals. He pointed out that both Torfaen and Newport County Borough Council’s regarded the area as greenbelt, were against any development of the land and were both content with the current boundary following the natural feature of the stream. He felt that any future development of the land would be detrimental to the Claremont Estate, the road structure of which would be ill suited to cope with the increase of traffic. He also felt that any traffic increase would have safety implications for children on the Estate.

5.17 A resident of Malpas objected to the Commission’s Draft Proposals. She felt that although the change of boundary itself would make no difference to the area, it was the underlying implication of future development which needed to be considered. She pointed out that both Newport and Torfaen Councils were opposed to the change of boundary and felt that the reason for the request was that planning permission for the land may be more easily obtained from Newport Council in the future. She felt that the residents of Caerleon,

4

Malpas and Llantarnam would rather keep their individuality rather than become another mass of buildings. The green-belt area had already been eroded by the bypass resulting in the loss of the majority of Grove Park.

5.18 A resident of Malpas objected to the Commission’s Draft Proposals which he felt were unnecessary. He considered that the only beneficiary of the proposed change would be the landowner.

5.19 A resident of Newport objected to the Commission’s Draft proposals. He pointed out that the land had twice been subject to lengthy and costly enquiries with the result in both instances being that it should remain a green wedge. He felt that the boundary change would result in further planning applications to develop the land and pointed out that government guidelines advise that brownfield sites should be used for development in preference to greenfield sites. He said that there were acres of brownfield sites within Newport and Torfaen which could be developed.

5.20 A resident of Malpas objected to the Commission’s Draft Proposals.

5.21 Two residents of Malpas pointed out that the land being reviewed is designated as being a greenbelt between Newport and Torfaen. They felt that this designation would still remain should the land be transferred to Newport. Local residents would gain nothing from the transfer of the land and therefore the review seemed unnecessary and not in the interests of the public. They did not think that the A4042 relief road was a natural boundary whereas the stream did form a natural boundary.

5.22 Two residents of Malpas objected to the Commission’s Draft proposals as they felt that the land should remain a greenbelt area.

5.23 Two resident of Malpas objected to the Commission’s Draft Proposals. They felt their property would be devalued by any development on the land which would also result in unacceptable traffic levels.

5.24 A resident of Malpas objected to the Commission’s Draft Proposals. He pointed out that access to the land was very restricted.

5.25 A resident of Malpas was concerned that traffic levels within the Claremont estate would increase if it were used as access to the land under review. He pointed out that residents of the Estate had small children who often played on the grass verges and who could be at risk if the traffic increased. He felt that the boundary should remain unchanged as it had not caused problems in the past.

6. ASSESSMENT

6.1 In our Draft Proposals report we noted the concerns raised by Newport County Borough Council and Torfaen County Borough Council regarding the future use of the area land shaded in green on the map at Appendix 2. Both Councils in their Development Plans aim to safeguard this area and adjoining areas as an open gap between Newport and Cwmbran. It appeared to us however that the area of land under consideration was closely linked, both physically and in its nature, to the area of land lying between the built up area of Malpas

5

and the Malpas and Brynglas Tunnels Relief Road that is in Newport (shaded brown on the map at Appendix 2). In our Draft Proposals report we considered that it would be more effective and convenient, in planning terms, to consider these areas as a single unit.

6.2 We noted that the only support for our Draft Proposals came from local landowners or their representatives who all considered that the whole area of land between the Malpas relief road and the existing housing at Malpas should be under the jurisdiction of one planning authority. They felt that the land could then be put to use that is more beneficial rather than remain a waste ground.

6.3 We also noted the representations from the Unitary Authorities, elected representatives and residents of Malpas who were all concerned about the planning implications that may result from the boundary change. All were anxious to retain the area of land under review as a green belt between Newport and Torfaen.

6.4 The proposal to change the boundary between Newport and Torfaen considered in our Draft Proposals report was based on the premise that the bringing together of all of the land between the Malpas relief road and the existing housing at Malpas under one planning authority would be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government. It is clear from the representations that we have received that both Unitary Authorities, elected representatives and residents of the area do not consider that this would be a benefit.

6.5 The case for the transfer of land from Torfaen to Newport is however an attractive one, which is well put in the representations contained in paragraph 5.10 above: “..a coordinated approach to the land bounded by the Malpas relief road by a single planning authority would benefit both the owners of the land and the community. They felt that the existing boundary dividing the two adjoining areas between Newport and Torfaen was detrimental to possible future use of the land.” We see the force of this argument and, although consideration of a particular planning application or issue is not within the factors which the Commission is entitled to take into account, the consideration of the planning process as a whole is, as being in the interests of effective and convenient local government. After all, the administration of the planning system is, at least in part, a function of local government.

6.6 However, we are not aware of any other factors in the case which are relevant, for example, to the provision of services which would support the transfer of the land, and we are bound to be cautious in making a recommendation on an issue which is both isolated and highly contentious. In the particular case our proposals are opposed by both the local authorities who among their other functions have responsibility for the planning process. This is opposition which, quite apart from all the other representations against the proposal which have been received, we cannot possibly ignore. We have after all to be responsive to local opinion which is itself a strong indicator of where the interests of effective and convenient local government lie.

6.7 In light of those considerations and having taken careful account of all the representations made to us, we have now concluded that we are unable to recommend, as being in the interests of effective and convenient local government, that there be any change to the boundary between the County Boroughs of Newport and Torfaen in the area of the review.

6.8 In our Draft Proposals report, we also considered the boundary between the Communities of Caerleon and Malpas within the County Borough of Newport. We noted that the area of the

6

Community of Caerleon between the brook that forms the current boundary and the Malpas and Brynglas Tunnels Relief Road was effectively cut off from the rest of the Community of Caerleon. We therefore proposed that the boundary between Caerleon and Malpas be re- aligned to follow the centre of the road as shown on the map at Appendix 1. We noted that none of the representations received in response to our Draft Proposals made reference to this particular proposal. As no issues have been raised that would contra-indicate the change proposed, we therefore propose the change to the boundary between the Communities of Caerleon and Malpas indicated on the map at Appendix 1.

7. PROPOSALS

7.1 We have undertaken the review in accordance with the directions issued by the National Assembly for Wales and make no proposal to change the boundary between the County Borough of Newport and the County Borough of Torfaen in the area of the Communities of Llantarnam, Malpas and Caerleon. We do however propose that the boundary between the Communities of Caerleon and Malpas should be realigned in the area under review to follow the centre of the Brynglas Tunnels Relief Road from the point where the existing boundary crosses the road in the area of Grove Park to the point where the county boundary crosses the road. The proposed change to the boundary is shown in green on the map at Appendix 1.

7.2 A detailed map to a larger scale showing the proposed new boundary can be inspected at the offices of Newport County Borough Council and Torfaen County Borough Council and at the office of the Commission in Cardiff.

8. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS

8.1 Under Section 54 (1) (e) of the Act, the Commission may make proposals for change of electoral arrangements for any local government area which is consequential on any proposed change in local government areas. The change to the boundary between the Communities of Caerleon and Malpas do not affect any electors there will be no consequential effects on the electoral arrangements.

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

9.1 We wish to express our gratitude to the principal councils for their assistance during the course of the review and to all bodies and persons who made representations to us.

10. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

10.1 Having completed our review of part of the boundary between the County Borough of Newport and the County Borough of Torfaen in the area of the Communities of Llantarnam, Malpas and Caerleon and submitted our recommendations to the National Assembly for Wales, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation under the directions issued by the National Assembly for Wales.

7

10.2 It now falls to the National Assembly for Wales, if it thinks fit, to implement them with or without modifications by means of an Order or to direct the Commission to conduct a further review. Such an Order will not be made earlier than a period of six weeks from the date that the Commission’s recommendations are submitted to the National Assembly for Wales.

10.3 Any further representations concerning the matters in the report should be addressed to the National Assembly for Wales. They should be made as soon as possible, and in any event not later than six weeks from the date that the Commission’s recommendations are submitted to the National Assembly for Wales. Representations should be addressed to: Local Government Modernisation 2 Division National Assembly for Wales Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ

MRS S G SMITH LLB (Chair)

J DAVIES (Deputy Chair)

D H ROBERTS BSc. DMS MBCS MIMgt (Member)

E H LEWIS BSc. DPM FRSA FCIPD (Secretary)

March 2002

8