sign in sign up
<<
Home , Briton Ferry, Bryncoch North, Cilybebyll, Cwmgors, Cwmllynfell, Gwenda Thomas

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS REPORT AND PROPOSALS

COUNTY BOROUGH OF

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE OF

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW

4. DRAFT PROPOSALS

5. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

6. ASSESSMENT

7. PROPOSALS

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

9. 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 REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO DRAFT PROPOSALS

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

FOREWORD

This is our report containing our Final Proposals for Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council.

In January 2009, the Local Government Minister, Dr Brian Gibbons asked this Commission to review the electoral arrangements in each principal local authority in Wales. Dr Gibbons said:

“Conducting regular reviews of the electoral arrangements in each Council in Wales is part of the Commission’s remit. The aim is to try and restore a fairly even spread of councillors across the local population. It is not about local government reorganisation.

Since the last reviews were conducted new communities have been created in some areas and there have been shifts in population in others. This means that in some areas there is now an imbalance in the number of electors that councillors represent.

The Commission will review the total number of councillors making up each council; the number of councillors representing each electoral division and the name and boundary of each division.

As far as possible, I want to restore fairness so that councillors generally represent the same number of people.” [13 January 2009].

This issue of fairness is set out clearly in the legislation and has been a key principle for our work. The situation which currently exists, where a councillor from one part of the County Borough represents a small number of voters whereas another Councillor may represent many, many more is simply not fair on electors. In practical terms, it means that some areas have an unfair advantage over others in decisions made in the council chamber.

Putting this right is far from simple given the constraints against which the Commission must operate. We cannot just move lines on the map; we have to adhere to existing “building blocks”, which are the Areas and Community Wards which cover the whole of Wales. Sometimes, these do not reflect the current patterns of community life in Wales but, even where this is the case, we have not been able to accept suggestions which cut across these boundaries. This is frustrating for both respondents and the Commission.

We are also required to look to the future and have asked the council to give us predictions of the number of electors in 5 years time. At the best of times this would be challenging but, in the current economic climate, it is particularly difficult.

The publication of our first few draft proposals reports drew some concern that we were moving away from the principle of having one councillor for an electoral division to suggesting far greater use of multi member divisions. The Rules within which we operate envisage that each electoral division shall be represented by one councillor; this could be called the “default position”. However, we can move away from this for a variety of reasons, including where we have found this is the best way of ensuring that electors are more equally represented.

- 1 -

In working up our proposals, we have tried to cater for local ties and those who wish to retain current boundaries. We have looked carefully at every representation made to us. However, we have had to balance these issues and representations against all the other factors we have to consider and the constraints set out above. In particular, the requirement for electoral parity, democratic fairness for all electors, is the dominant factor in law and this is what we have tried to apply. We believe that greater fairness, along with other proposals in our report, will lead to local government which is effective and convenient.

Finally, may I thank the Members and officers of the Principal authority for their assistance in our work, the community and town councils for their contribution and last but most importantly, the ordinary citizens who have taken the time and trouble to make comments and suggestions.

Paul Wood Chairman

- 2 -

Mr Minister for Social Justice and Local Government Welsh Assembly Government

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF NEATH PORT TALBOT

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In accordance with the directions issued by the Minister on 13 January 2009, we, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales (the Commission), have completed the review of electoral arrangements for the County Borough of Neath Port Talbot and present our Final Proposals for the future electoral arrangements. A glossary of terms used in this report can be found at Appendix 1. In 2009 the County Borough of Neath Port Talbot had an electorate of 110,914. At present it is divided into 42 divisions returning 64 councillors. The average ratio of members to electors for the County Borough is currently 1:1,733. The present electoral arrangements are set out in detail in Appendix 2.

2. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

2.1 We propose a reduction in the council size from 64 to 59 elected members and a change to the arrangement of electoral divisions that will achieve a significant improvement in the level of electoral parity across the County Borough of Neath Port Talbot. The proposed average number of electors to councillor for the County Borough is 1,880 and all of the proposed electoral divisions are within 25% of this proposed county average. This compares with an average number of electors to councillor of 1,733 for the existing arrangements with 16 electoral divisions over 25% and 1 electoral division over 50% of the existing county average. There are 20 proposed multi member electoral divisions compared with 15 multi member electoral divisions in the existing electoral arrangements.

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

- 3 -

review of electoral arrangements for the County Borough of Neath Port Talbot by 30 June 2011.

Electoral Arrangements

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

i) the total number of councillors to be elected to the council; ii) the number and boundaries of electoral divisions; iii) the number of councillors to be elected for each electoral division; and iv) the name of any electoral division.

Rules to Be Observed Considering Electoral Arrangements

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

- 4 -

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

(a) it is considered that a minimum number of 30 councillors is required for the proper management of the affairs of a county or county borough council; (b) it is considered that, in order to minimise the risk of a county council or a county borough council becoming unwieldy and difficult to manage, a maximum number of 75 councillors is ordinarily required for the proper management of the affairs of a county or a county borough council; (c) it is considered that the aim should be to achieve electoral divisions with a councillor to electorate ratio no lower than 1:1,750; (d) it is considered that decisions to alter the existing pattern of multi and single member electoral divisions should only be taken where such proposals for 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 confirmed 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 there have been two changes to local government boundaries in Neath Port Talbot:

• 2002 No. 652 (W.69) The Neath Port Talbot and ( and Clydach) Order 2002; and • 2004 No. 2746 (W.244) The Neath Port Talbot and () Order 2004.

3.9 These made minor changes respectively to:

• the boundary of the Trebanos Ward of the Community of (which form the Trebanos electoral division), reducing the electorate by approximately 11 electors; and • the boundary of Ward of the Community of Ystalyfera (which forms the Ystalyfera electoral division), reducing the electorate by approximately 90 electors.

3.10 The name of the Community of Clyne changed in 1997 to Clyne and Melincourt (Clun a Melincwrt).

- 5 -

Procedure

3.11 Section 60 of the Act lays down procedural guidelines which are to be followed in carrying out a review. In compliance with Section 60 of the Act we wrote on 27 February 2009 to Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, all the community councils in the area, the Members of Parliament for the local constituencies and other interested parties to inform them of our intention to conduct the review, to request their preliminary views and to provide a copy of the Welsh Assembly Government’s directions to the Commission. 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 Neath Port Talbot 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. DRAFT PROPOSALS

4.1 We received representations from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council; Community Council and Pontardawe Community Council. We considered all of these representations carefully before we formulated our proposals. These representations were summarised in our Draft Proposals published on 19 October 2009. Our Draft Proposals made the following recommendations.

Allt-wen

4.2 The existing electoral division of Allt-wen consists of the Allt-wen Ward of the Community of and has an electorate of 1,856 (1,947 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,856 electors per councillor which was 7% above the existing county average. In our Draft Proposals report we considered that the level of representation for the Allt-wen electoral division was satisfactory and we therefore proposed retaining the existing arrangement.

Rhos

4.3 The existing electoral division of Rhos consists of the Rhos (1,683 electors, 1,679 projected) and Gellinudd Wards (382 electors, 380 projected) of the Community of Cilybebyll and has an electorate of 2,065 (2,059 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,065 electors per councillor which was 19% above the existing county average. In our Draft Proposals report we considered that the level of representation for the Rhos electoral division was satisfactory and we therefore proposed retaining the existing arrangement.

- 6 -

Aberdulais, Bryn-côch North, Cadoxton and Tonna

4.4 The existing electoral division consists of the Aberdulais (964 electors, 1,218 projected) and Cilfrew (820 electors, 854 projected) wards of the Community of with a total of 1,784 electors (2,072 projected) and returns a single member with a level of representation of 1,784 electors per councillor which is 3% above the current county average. The Cadoxton electoral division consists of the Cadoxton ward of the Community of Blaenhonddan with 1,417 electors (1,524 projected) represented by a single member with a level of representation of 1,417 electors per councillor which is 18% below the current county average. The Tonna electoral division is made up of the Community of Tonna with 1,936 electors (1,938 projected) represented by a single member with a level of representation of 1,936 electors per councillor which is 12% above the current county average. The Bryn-côch North electoral division consists of the Bryn-côch North Ward of the Community of Blaenhonddan with 1,882 electors (1,873 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,882 electors per councillor which is 9% above the current county average ratio.

4.5 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the Aberdulais, Cadoxton, Bryn-côch North and Tonna electoral divisions to form an electoral division with a total of 7,019 electors (7,407 projected) represented by 4 councillors with a level of representation of 1,755 electors per councillor which was 8% below the proposed county average. This amalgamation did not reduce the number of councillors but provided for improved electoral parity in the area. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Aberdulais and Tonna.

Aberavon and Port Talbot

4.6 The existing electoral division consists of the Community of Aberavon with 4,266 electors (4,195 projected) and returns 3 members with a level of representation of 1,422 electors per councillor which is 18% below the current county average ratio. The adjoining Port Talbot electoral division consists of the Community of Port Talbot with 4,521 electors (4,595 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,507 which is 13% below the current county average.

4.7 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the Aberavon and Port Talbot electoral divisions to form an electoral division with a total of 8,787 electors (8,790 projected) represented by 5 councillors with a level of representation of 1,757 which was 8% below the proposed county average. This amalgamation would see a reduction of 1 councillor but improved the electoral parity in the area. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Afan.

Baglan, East and

4.8 The existing electoral division consists of the Craig-y-darren (862 electors, 846 projected) and Cwrt Sart (1,576 electors, 1,572 projected) wards of the Community of Briton Ferry with a total electorate of 2,438 electors (2,418 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,438 electors per councillor which is 41% above the current county average. The

- 7 -

adjoining Briton Ferry West electoral division consists of the Brynhyfryd (1,128 electors, 1,178 projected) and Shelone Wood (1,138 electors, 1,112 projected) wards of the Community of Briton Ferry with a total of 2,266 electors (2,290 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,266 electors per councillor which is 31% above the current county average. The existing electoral division consists of the Community of Baglan and the Community of with 5,685 electors (5,730 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,895 electors per councillor which is 9% above the current county average.

4.9 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the two Briton Ferry electoral divisions and the Baglan electoral division to form an electoral division with a total of 10,389 electors (10,438 projected) represented by 5 councillors with a level of representation of 2,078 electors per councillor which is 9% above the proposed county average. This amalgamation did not reduce the number of councillors but provided for improved electoral parity in the area. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Baglan and Briton Ferry.

Neath Electoral Divisions (, , , )

4.10 The Community of Neath is currently divided into 4 electoral divisions. The existing Neath North electoral division consists of the Castle (657 electors, 799 projected) and Llantwit (2,631 electors, 2,587 projected) Wards of the Community of Neath with a total of 3,288 electors (3,386 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,644 electors per councillor which is 5% below the current county average. The existing Cimla electoral division consists of the Cefn Saeson (2,228 electors, 2,206 projected) and Crynallt (1,071 electors, 1,104 projected) Wards of the Community of Neath with a total of 3,299 electors (3,310 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,650 electors per councillor which is 5% below the current county average. The existing Neath East electoral division consists of the Melyncrythan (2,365 electors, 2,490 projected) and Penrhiwtyn (2,735 electors, 3,167) Wards of the Community of Neath with a total of 5,100 electors (5,657 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,700 electors per councillor which is 2% below the current county average. The existing Neath South electoral division consists of the Gnoll (786 electors, 760 projected) and Mount Pleasant (2,874 electors, 2,789) Wards of the Community of Neath with a total of 3,660 electors (3,549 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,830 electors per councillor which is 6% above the current county average.

4.11 In our Draft Proposals report we considered that it would be desirable to re-arrange the combination of community wards that form the electoral divisions of Neath in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity across the area. We therefore proposed that the wards of the Community of Neath be combined into 3 new electoral divisions as outlined in paragraphs 4.12 to 4.14 below. This re- arrangement would see a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area but improved the electoral parity for the Community of Neath.

4.12 We considered combining the Gnoll (786 electors, 760 projected), Llantwit (2,631 electors, 2,587 projected) and Cefn Saeson (2,228 electors, 2,206 projected)

- 8 -

Wards to form an electoral division with 5,645 electors (5,553 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,882 electors per councillor which was 2% below the proposed county average. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Cimla.

4.13 We considered combining the Crynallt (1,071 electors, 1,104 projected) and Mount Pleasant (2,874 electors, 2,789 projected) Wards to form an electoral division with 3,945 electors (3,893 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,973 electors per councillor which was 3% above the proposed county average. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Mount Pleasant.

4.14 We considered combining the Castle (657 electors, 799 projected), Melyncrythan (2,365 electors, 2,490 projected) and Penrhiwtyn (2,735 electors, 3,167 projected) to form an electoral division with 5,757 electors (6,456 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,919 electors per councillor which was 0.4% above the proposed county average. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Melyncrythan and Penrhiwtyn.

Coedffranc Central, and

4.15 The existing Coedffranc West electoral division consists of the West (671 electors, 766 projected) and West Central (1,334 electors, 1,746 projected) Wards of the Community of Coedffranc with 2,005 electors (2,512 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,005 electors per councillor which is 16% above the current county average. The existing electoral division consists of the East Central (1,337 electors, 1,315 projected) and Central (1,749 electors, 1,817 projected) Wards of the Community of Coedffranc with 3,086 electors (3,132 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,543 electors per councillor which is 11% below the current county average. The existing Coedffranc North electoral division consists of the North Ward of the Community of Coedffranc with 1,857 electors (1,837 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,857 electors per councillor which is 7% above the current county average.

4.16 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the three existing Coedffranc electoral divisions to create an electoral division with 6,948 electors (7,481 projected) represented by 4 councillors with a level of representation of 1,737 which was 9% below the proposed county average. This amalgamation did not reduce the number of councillors but provided for improved electoral parity in the area. We noted that at the initial stage of the review Coedffranc Community Council considered that there should be no change to the electoral divisions covering their community area with the possible exception of an additional councillor for Coedffranc West. However we considered that these options did not provide for effective levels of representation for the Community. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Coedffranc.

- 9 -

Crynant, and Seven Sisters

4.17 The existing Onllwyn electoral division consists of the Community of Onllwyn with 982 electors (994 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 982 electors per councillor which is 43% below the current county average. The Seven Sisters electoral division consists of the Community of Seven Sisters with 1,701 electors (1,786 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,701 electors per councillor which is 2% below the current county average. The existing electoral division consists of the Community of Crynant which has 1,581 electors (1,613 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,581 electors per councillor which is 9% below the current county average.

4.18 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the existing Onllwyn, Seven Sisters and Crynant electoral divisions to create an electoral division with 4,264 electors (4,393 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,132 electors per councillor which was 11% above the proposed county average. This amalgamation would produce a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area but would improve the electoral parity. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Cwm Dulais.

Blaengwrach, , and

4.19 The existing Glynneath electoral division consists of the East (797 electors, 797 projected), Central (1,136 electors, 1,070 projected) and West (822 electors, 809 projected) Wards of the Community of Glynneath with a total of 2,755 electors (2,676 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,378 electors per councillor which is 21% below the current county average. The existing electoral division consists of the Community of Blaengwrach (928 electors, 948 projected) and the West Central Ward of the Community of Glynneath (668 electors, 684 projected) with a total of 1,596 electors (1,632 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,596 electors per councillor which is 8% below the current county average. The existing Resolven electoral division consists of the Communities of Clyne and Melincourt (653 electors, 669 projected) and Resolven (1,855 electors, 1,898 projected) with a combined electorate of 2,508 (2,567 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,508 which is 45% above the current county average. The existing Pelenna electoral division consists of the Community of Pelenna with 953 electors (950 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 953 electors per councillor which is 45% below the current county average.

4.20 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the existing Glynneath, Blaengwrach and Resolven electoral divisions to create an electoral division with 6,859 electors (6,875 projected) represented by 4 councillors with a level of representation of 1,715 electors per councillor which was 10% below the proposed county average. In order to achieve a greater degree of electoral parity we considered that the adjacent Tonmawr Ward (444 electors, 453 projected) of the Community of Pelenna be added to create an electoral division with 7,303 electors (7,328 projected) represented by 4 councillors with a level of representation of

- 10 -

1,826 electors per councillor which was 5% below the proposed county average ratio. The remaining Pont-rhyd-y-fen Ward of the Community of Pelenna was included in the proposed Tair Afon electoral division as described in paragraph 4.34 below. This amalgamation would see a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area but it improves electoral parity. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Cwm Nedd.

Cymmer, and

4.21 The existing Glyncorrwg electoral division which consists of the Glyncorrwg ward of the Community of Glyncorrwg has 888 electors (870 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 888 electors per councillor which is 49% below than the current county average. The other two wards of the Community of Glyncorrwg are Cymmer with 2,232 electors (2,279 projected) and Gwynfi with 1,078 electors (1,049 projected) which form their own single-member electoral divisions with levels of representation which are 29% above and 38% below the present county average ratio respectively.

4.22 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the three existing electoral divisions to create an electoral division coterminous with the Community of Glyncorrwg with 4,198 electors (4,198 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,099 electors per councillor which was 10% above the proposed county average. This amalgamation would see a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area but would improve the electoral parity. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Glyncorrwg.

Cwmllynfell, Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen, Lower

4.23 The existing Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen electoral division consists of the Ward (927 electors, 931 projected) and the Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen Ward (1,401 electors, 1,426 projected) of the Community of Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen with a total of 2,328 electors (2,357 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,328 electors per councillor which is 34% above the current county average. The existing electoral division consists of the Lower Brynamman Ward (731 electors, 735 projected) and the Tai’r Gwaith Ward (351 electors, 362 projected) of the Community of Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen with a total of 1,082 electors (1,097 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,082 electors per councillor which is 38% below the current county average. The existing electoral division consists of the Community of Cwmllynfell with 953 electors (1,009 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 953 electors per councillor which is 45% below the current county average.

4.24 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen, Lower Brynamman and Cwmllynfell electoral divisions to create an electoral division with 4,363 electors (4,463 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,182 electors per councillor which was 14% above the proposed county average. In order to improve electoral parity further we considered that the Penrhiw Fawr Ward (231 electors, 244 projected) of the Community of Cwmllynfell be removed from this proposed electoral division and

- 11 -

included within the proposed Pontardawe electoral division as described in paragraph 4.30 below. The proposed Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen electoral division would then have 4,132 electors (4,219 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,066 electors per councillor which was 8% above the proposed county average. Together with the suggested Pontardawe electoral division, this amalgamation would result in a reduction of 1 councillor representing the Communities of Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen, Pontardawe and Cwmllynfell but would improve the electoral parity in the two electoral divisions covering that area. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen.

Margam and Tai-bach

4.25 The existing electoral division consists of the Communities of Margam with 2,307 electors (2,276 projected) and (0 electors) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,307 electors per councillor which is 33% above the current county average. The existing Tai-bach electoral division consists of the Community of Tai-Bach with 3,915 electors (4,055 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,958 electors per councillor which is 13% above the current county average.

4.26 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the two existing electoral divisions to form an electoral division with a total of 6,222 electors (6,331 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,074 electors per councillor which was 8% above the proposed county average. This amalgamation did not reduce the number of councillors but provided for improved electoral parity in the area. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Mynydd Margam.

Bryn-côch South and Dyffryn

4.27 The existing Dyffryn electoral division consists of the Community of with 2,602 electors (2,600 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,602 electors per councillor which is 50% above the current county average. The existing Bryn-côch South electoral division consists of the Bryn-côch South Ward (4,527 electors, 4,636 projected) of the Community of Blaenhonddan represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,264 electors per councillor which is 31% above the current county average.

4.28 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining these two existing divisions to form an electoral division with a total of 7,129 electors (7,236 projected) represented by 4 councillors with a level of representation of 1,782 electors per councillor which was 7% below the proposed county average ratio. This amalgamation would result in an increase of 1 councillor but would improve electoral parity. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of .

Cwmllynfell, Pontardawe and Trebanos

4.29 The existing Trebanos electoral division consists of the Trebanos Ward of the Community of Pontardawe with 1,115 electors (1,122 projected) represented by 1

- 12 -

councillor with a level of representation of 1,115 electors per councillor which is 36% below the current county average. The existing Pontardawe electoral division consists of the Pontardawe (3,579 electors, 3,770 projected) and Rhyd-y-Fro (557 electors, 575 projected) Wards of the Community of Pontardawe with 4,136 electors (4,345 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,068 electors per councillor which is 19% above the current county average. The existing Cwmllynfell electoral division consists of the Community of Cwmllynfell with 953 electors (1,009 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 953 electors per councillor which is 45% below the current county average.

4.30 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the two existing divisions to form an electoral division with a total of 5,251 electors (5,467 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,750 electors per councillor which was 8% below the proposed county average. As described at paragraph 4.24 above, in order to reduce the under-representation in the proposed Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen electoral division we considered that the adjacent Penrhiw Fawr Ward (231 electors, 234 projected) of the Community of Cwmllynfell be included within the proposed Pontardawe electoral division. The resulting electoral division would have 5,482 electors (5,711 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,827 electors per councillor which was 4% below the proposed county average ratio. Together with the suggested Gwaun-Cae- Gurwen electoral division, this amalgamation would result in a reduction of 1 councillor representing the Communities of Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen, Pontardawe and Cwmllynfell but would improve the electoral parity in the two electoral divisions covering that area. We noted that Pontardawe Town Council considered that there should be no change to the electoral divisions covering their community area. However, we considered that the over representation in the Trebanos electoral division needed to be addressed in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Pontardawe.

Sandfields East and

4.31 The existing electoral division of Sandfields West consists of the Community of Sandfields West with an electorate of 5,162 (5,235 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,721 electors per councillor which is 1% below the current county average. The existing electoral division of consists of the Community of Sandfields East with an electorate of 5,250 (5,536 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,750 which is 1% above the current county average.

4.32 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the Sandfields West and Sandfields East electoral divisions to form an electoral division with 10,412 electors (10,771 projected) represented by 5 councillors with a level of representation of 2,082 electors per councillor which was 9% above the proposed county average. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of Sandfields.

- 13 -

Bryn and Cwmavon and Pelenna

4.33 The existing electoral division, which consists of the Community of Bryn with 745 electors (750 projected) and the Community of Cwmavon with 4,503 electors (4,530 projected) has 5,248 electors (5,280 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,749 electors per councillor which is 1% above the current county average. The existing Pelenna electoral division consists of the Community of Pelenna with 953 electors (950 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 953 electors per councillor which is 45% below the current county average.

4.34 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the Pelenna electoral division with The Bryn and Cwmavon electoral division to form an electoral division with 6,201 electors (6,230 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,067 electors per councillor which was 8% above the proposed county average. In order to improve the parity of this proposed electoral division we considered transferring the Tonmawr Ward of the Community of Pelenna into the proposed Cwm Nedd electoral division as described in 4.20 above. The proposed Tair Afon division would be left with 5,757 electors (5,777 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,919 electors per councillor which was 0.4% above the proposed county average. This amalgamation would see a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area but it improves electoral parity. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Tair Afon.

Godre’r graig and Ystalyfera

4.35 The existing Godre’r graig electoral division consists of the Godre’r graig Ward of the Community of Ystalyfera with 1,220 electors (1,291 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,220 electors per councillor which is 30% below the current county average. The existing Ystalyfera electoral division consists of the Ystalyfera Ward of the Community of Ystalyfera with 2,384 electors (2,366 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,384 electors per councillor which is 38% above the current county average.

4.36 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the two existing electoral divisions to form an electoral division with 3,604 electors (3,657 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,802 electors per councillor which was 6% below the proposed county average. This amalgamation did not reduce the number of councillors but provided for improved electoral parity in the area. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Ystalyfera.

Summary of Draft Proposals

4.37 Our Draft Proposals recommended a reduction in the council size from 64 to 58 elected members and a change to the arrangement of electoral divisions that would achieve a significant improvement in the level of electoral parity across the County Borough of Neath Port Talbot. We considered that these arrangements provided

- 14 -

for effective and convenient local government and met in principle the directions provided by the Welsh Assembly Government.

4.38 Copies of the Draft Proposals were sent to all the councils, bodies and individuals referred to in paragraph 2.8 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 Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council and the Commission.

5. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

5.1 In response to our Draft Proposals report we received representations Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council; 16 Community Councils; Rt. Hon. Peter Hain MP; Dr. Hywell Francis MP; Derek Vaughan MEP; Dr. Brian Gibbons AM; Gwenda Thomas AM; 18 councillors; and 255 other interested bodies and residents. A summary of these representations can be found at Appendix 5.

6. ASSESSMENT

Request for Boundary Change

6.1 Before considering the electoral arrangements for the County Borough of Neath Port Talbot, we would like to respond to the representations that asked the Commission to undertake a review of community and of community ward boundaries. It is evident from these requests that some uncertainty exists about the appropriate machinery for effecting such reviews. We wish to set out the statutory position.

6.2 The Commission completed their programme of Special Community Reviews for the whole of Wales in 1983 and since that time it has been the principal councils’ responsibility to keep the community structure under review. Section 55(2) of the Act requires each principal council in Wales to keep the whole of their area under review for the purpose of considering whether to make recommendations to the Commission for the constitution of new communities, the abolition of communities or the alteration of communities in their area. The Commission consider the principal council’s proposals and report to the Welsh Assembly Government who may, if it thinks fit, by order give effect to any of the proposals.

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

- 15 -

communities and community wards are a matter for the principal council to consider in the first instance.

Councillor to electorate ratio

6.4 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 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 arrangement 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.

Council Size

6.5 At present the size of the council at 64 members is within the numerical limits advised in the Minister’s direction. The current member to electorate ratio for the council is 1:1,733 which is 1% below 1,750 electors per councillor (see Councillor to electorate ratio above). There are currently 15 multi-member electoral divisions out of a total of 42 electoral divisions.

6.6 We reviewed the electoral arrangements for the County Borough of Neath Port Talbot in the light of the Welsh Assembly Government’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 the number of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected, with a view to ensuring that the number of local government electors shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every division in the principal area. We looked at the present multi-member divisions to consider if we should recommend the creation of single member divisions. We considered the size and character of the authority and a wide range of other factors including population density, the local topography, road communications and local ties.

6.7 For the reasons given below we believe that in the interests of effective and convenient local government a council size of 59 would be appropriate to represent the County Borough of Neath Port Talbot. This determination of the council size results in an average of 1,880 electors being represented by each councillor.

- 16 -

Number of Electors

6.8 The numbers shown in Appendix 2 as the electorate for 2009 and the estimates for the electorate in the year 2014 are those submitted to us by Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council.

Electoral Divisions

6.9 We have considered the boundaries of the existing electoral divisions of Allt-wen and Rhos and the ratio and number of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected and we propose that the existing arrangements should continue. We have considered the representations received in respect of our Draft Proposals for the existing electoral divisions of Baglan, Bryn-côch North, Coedffranc North, Neath East (apart from change to division name), Sandfields East, Sandfields West and Tonna and the ratio and number of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected and as a result we propose that the existing arrangements should continue. We considered changes to the remaining electoral divisions. Details of the current electoral arrangements for the area can be found at Appendix 2.

6.10 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.

Aberavon and Port Talbot

6.11 The existing Aberavon electoral division consists of the Community of Aberavon with 4,266 electors (4,195 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,422 electors per councillor which is 18% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Port Talbot electoral division consists of the Community of Port Talbot with 4,521 electors (4,595 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,507 per councillor which is 13% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the existing Aberavon and Port Talbot electoral divisions to form an electoral division with a total of 8,787 electors (8,790 projected) represented by 5 councillors with a level of representation 1,757 electors per councillor which was 8% below the proposed county average.

- 17 -

6.12 We received objections to this proposal from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Dr Brian Gibbons AM, Councillor J Dinham, Councillor T Sullivan, Councillor A Taylor, Aberavon Constituency Labour Party and 21 local residents. The objections raised were on the grounds that Aberavon and Port Talbot were divided by the and with only a narrow corridor of land connecting them and that the two areas had long standing separate identities and each required local representation rather than large multi-member representation.

6.13 We have noted the concerns regarding the difficulties in providing effective representation for, what has been evidenced in the representations, are two distinct areas with limited communication links between them. We are now of the view that these considerations outweigh the improvement in electoral parity provided by our draft proposals for this area. We are of the view therefore that it would be of greater benefit, in terms of effective and convenient local government, for Aberavon and Port Talbot to remain as separate electoral divisions. However, we remain of the view that the levels of over-representation in the existing Aberavon and Port Talbot electoral divisions need to be addressed. We therefore consider that the level of representation for Aberavon should be reduced from 3 to 2 councillors which will result in a level of representation of 2,133 electors per councillor which is 13% above the proposed county average compared with 18% below the existing county average with 3 councillors. We also consider that the level of representation for Port Talbot should be reduced from 3 to 2 councillors which will result in 2,261 electors per councillor giving a ratio which is 20% above the proposed county average compared with 18% below the existing county average with 3 councillors. We note this decrease in electoral parity for the proposed Port Talbot electoral division but we consider that the proposed level of representation is still of an acceptable level for a compact urban area such as Port Talbot. We therefore propose an electoral division of Aberavon comprised of the Community of Aberavon and represented by 2 councillors and an electoral division of Port Talbot comprised of the Community of Port Talbot and represented by 2 councillors.

Aberdulais, Bryn-côch North, Cadoxton and Tonna

6.14 The existing Aberdulais electoral division consists of the Aberdulais and Cilfrew Wards of the Community of Blaenhonddan with a total of 1,784 electors (2,072 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,784 electors per councillor which is 3% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Cadoxton electoral division consists of the Cadoxton Ward of the Community of Blaenhonddan with 1,417 electors (1,524 projected) represented by 1 councillor with level of representation of 1,417 electors per councillor which is 18% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Tonna electoral division is made up of the Community of Tonna with 1,936 electors (1,938 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,936 electors per councillor which is 12% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Bryn-côch North electoral division consists of the Bryn-côch North Ward of the Community of Blaenhonddan with 1,882 electors (1,873 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,882 electors per councillor which is 9% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals

- 18 -

report we proposed combining these electoral divisions to form an electoral division with a total of 7,019 electors (7,407 projected) represented by 4 councillors with a level of representation of 1,755 electors per councillor which is 8% below the proposed county average ratio.

6.15 We received objections to this proposal from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Blaenhonddan Community Council, Tonna Community Council, Peter Hain MP, Gwenda Thomas AM, Councillor D Jones, Councillor J Bryant and three local residents. The objections were on the grounds that there are no direct communication links between Bryn-côch North and Cadoxton and that the Community of Tonna is physically separated from the rest of the proposed electoral division area by the , the Neath and Tennant Canals, the Neath and Dulais Valley railway lines and the A465 dual carriageway.

6.16 We note the objection that there are very limited communication links and physical barriers between the Community of Tonna and the rest of the proposed electoral division and are now of the view that it would be of benefit, in terms of effective and convenient local government, to retain the existing Tonna electoral division with 1,936 electors represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation which is 3% above the proposed county average. We have considered both the objection that there are no direct communication links between Bryn-côch North and Cadoxton and Cllr J Bryant’s suggestion that Aberdulais, Cadoxton, Cilfrew and Tonna should form an electoral division without Bryn-côch North which should form its own electoral division. As stated above, we are no longer convinced that the Community of Tonna should remain part of the proposed electoral division. In view of the inadequate communication links between Bryn-côch North and Cadoxton we are also now of the view that it would be of benefit, in terms of effective and convenient local government, to retain the existing Bryn-côch North electoral division with 1,882 represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation which is 0.1% above the proposed county average. We therefore propose that the existing electoral division of Tonna, comprised of the Community of Tonna and represented by 1 councillor, be retained. We propose that the existing electoral division of Bryn-côch North, comprised of the Bryn-côch North Ward of the Community of Blaenhonddan and represented by 1 councillor, be retained.

6.17 The removal of the existing Tonna and Bryn-côch North electoral divisions from the proposed Aberdulais and Tonna electoral division leaves the Aberdulais, Cilfrew and Cadoxton Wards of the Community of Blaenhonddan which make up the existing Aberdulais (including Cilfrew) and Cadoxton electoral divisions. We are of the view that it would be of benefit, in terms of effective and convenient local government, to combine these two divisions to form an electoral division with 3,201 electors (3,596 projected) and 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,601 electors per councillor which is 15% below the proposed county average. We therefore propose an electoral division of Cadoxton and Aberdulais comprised of the Aberdulais, Cilfrew and Cadoxton Wards of the Community of Blaenhonddan and represented by 2 councillors.

- 19 -

Baglan, Briton Ferry East and Briton Ferry West

6.18 The existing Briton Ferry East electoral division consists of the Craig-y-darren and Cwrt Sart Wards of the Community of Briton Ferry with a total electorate of 2,438 electors (2,418 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,438 electors per councillor which is 41% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Briton Ferry West electoral division consists of the Brynhyfryd and Shelone Wood Wards of the Community of Briton Ferry with a total of 2,266 electors (2,290 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,266 electors per councillor which is 31% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Baglan electoral division consists of the Community of Baglan and the Community of Baglan Bay with 5,685 electors (5,730 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,895 electors per councillor which is 9% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the two existing Briton Ferry electoral divisions and the existing Baglan electoral division to form an electoral division with a total of 10,389 electors (10,438 projected) represented by 5 councillors with a level of representation of 2,078 electors per councillor which is 9% above the proposed county average.

6.19 We received objections from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Briton Ferry Town Council, Dr Brian Gibbons AM, Councillor J C Tallamy, Councillor C Morgan, Aberavon Constituency Labour Party, Baglan Branch Labour Party, Briton Ferry West Communities First Partnership, Rotary Club of Briton Ferry and 96 local residents. Objections were on the grounds that each of the areas in the proposed division have different social and economic status and therefore differing needs which require local representation rather than large overall multi-member representation which would be unable to accommodate these differences. There were also objections on the grounds that the proposal may affect the Communities First status of Briton Ferry West and that Baglan was formerly part of Port Talbot whilst Briton Ferry was formerly part of Neath and therefore the areas had no affinity with each other.

6.20 We have noted the concerns regarding the difficulties in providing effective representation for, what has been evidenced in the representations, are two distinct areas. We are now of the view that these considerations outweigh the improvement in electoral parity provided by our Draft Proposals for this area. We are of the view therefore that it would be of greater benefit, in terms of effective and convenient local government, to retain the existing Baglan electoral division represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,895 electors per councillor which is 1% above the proposed county average. In respect of the existing Briton Ferry East and Briton Ferry West electoral divisions we have noted the concerns raised that Briton Ferry West has Communities First status and should therefore retain its own electoral division. However, we are mindful of the levels of under-representation in both the existing single member Briton Ferry East and Briton Ferry West electoral divisions which are 41% and 31% respectively above the existing county average ratio. In respect of Communities First, the criteria for defining these areas is for the Welsh Assembly Government to decide and it is the Commission’s understanding that local government electoral

- 20 -

arrangements do not affect these criteria. We consider that the most effective way to address the under representation in these two electoral divisions would be to combine them and allocate an additional councillor to the resulting electoral division. This proposed division of Briton Ferry would have 4,704 electors (4,708 projected) with 3 councillors and a level of representation of 1,568 electors per councillor which is 17% below the proposed county average. We therefore propose that the existing electoral division of Baglan, comprised of the Communities of Baglan and Baglan Bay and represented by 3 councillors, be retained. We also propose an electoral division of Briton Ferry comprised of the Community of Briton Ferry and represented by 3 councillors.

Blaengwrach, Glynneath, Resolven and Pelenna

6.21 The existing Glynneath electoral division consists of the East, Central and West Wards of the Community of Glynneath with a total of 2,755 electors (2,676 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,378 electors per councillor which is 21% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Blaengwrach electoral division consists of the Community of Blaengwrach and the West Central Ward of the Community of Glynneath with a total of 1,596 electors (1,632 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,596 electors per councillor which is 8% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Resolven electoral division consists of the Communities of Resolven and Clyne and Melincourt with a total electorate of 2,508 (2,567 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,508 electors per councillor which is 45% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Pelenna electoral division consists of the Community of Pelenna with 953 electors (950 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 953 electors per councillor which is 45% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the existing electoral divisions of Glynneath, Blaengwrach and Resolven together with the Tonmawr Ward of the Community of Pelenna to create an electoral division with a total of 7,303 electors (7,328 projected) represented by 4 councillors with a level of representation of 1,826 electors per councillor which was 5% below the proposed county average. The remaining Pont-rhyd-y-fen Ward of the Community of Pelenna was included in the proposed Tair Afon electoral division as described in paragraph 6.26 below.

6.22 We received objections from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Glynneath Town Council, Cilybebyll Community Council, Pelenna Community Council, Peter Hain MP, Gwenda Thomas AM, Councillor P Rees, Councillor D Morgan, Councillor L Whiteley, Councillor D Davies and several local residents. Particular concern was expressed in the representations at the inclusion of the Tonmawr Ward of the Community of Pelenna in the suggested electoral division as there were no direct communication links between that area and the rest of the division. It was stated that the Tonmawr Ward could only be reached directly by hiking over the mountain from the Neath Valley to the Afan Valley. Other objections were on the grounds that there were no local ties between the combined areas and the local affiliation between community ward and member would be lost and that the proposal to

- 21 -

combine these distinct communities in the same electoral division was unworkable as they had different requirements from their councillors.

6.23 We note the objection that there are very limited communication links and physical barriers between the Community of Pelenna and the rest of the proposed electoral division and are now of the view that it would not be of benefit, in terms of effective and convenient local government, to include the Tonmawr Ward of the Community of Pelenna in the same electoral division as the Communities of Blaengwrach, Glynneath, Clyne and Melincourt and Resolven.

6.24 We also considered the views put to us that Blaengwrach, Glynneath, Clyne and Melincourt and Resolven are distinct Communities with no real ties and different requirements from their councillors. We looked at ways in which this could be resolved but could not find a pattern of electoral divisions which produced satisfactory arrangements. The Community of Resolven, having 1,855 electors could form an electoral division on its own with good electoral parity. However, the Community of Clyne and Melincourt to the south of Resolven has only 653 electors and therefore cannot conveniently form an electoral division on its own, being 62% below the existing county average and 66% below the proposed county average. There are no communication links between the Community of Clyne and Melincourt and the Communities of Blaenhonddan and Pelenna to the south and whilst there are good communication links with the Community of Tonna we have considered in paragraph 6.16 above that it would be in the interest of effective and convenient local government to retain the existing electoral arrangements for the Community of Tonna with a ratio of only 3% above the proposed county average.

6.25 We therefore consider that the only acceptable option for the Community of Clyne and Melincourt is its amalgamation with the Community of Resolven. This would result in an electoral division with 2,508 electors and a level of representation 31% above the proposed county average if represented by 1 councillor. It would be possible to improve this level of electoral parity by including the Community of Blaengwrach to produce an electoral division with 3,436 electors and a level of representation 10% below the proposed county average if represented by 2 councillors. However, we note that there are no direct communication links between the Communities of Resolven and Blaengwrach and that the road link between them involves travelling through the Community of Glynneath. Including the West and West Central Wards of the Community of Glynneath would resolve this issue and produce an electoral division of 4,926 electors which, when represented by 3 councillors, would have a level of representation of 1,642 electors per councillor which is 13% below the proposed county average. The remaining Central and East Wards of the Community of Glynneath could then form a single member division with 1,933 electors and a level of representation 3% above the proposed county average. We therefore propose an electoral division of Cwm Nedd comprised of the Communities of Clyne and Melincourt, Resolven, Blaengwrach and the West and West Central Wards of the Community of Glynneath and represented by 3 councillors. We also propose an electoral division of Glynneath Central and East comprised of the Central and East Wards of the Community of Glynneath and represented by 1 councillor.

- 22 -

Bryn and Cwmavon and Pelenna

6.26 The existing Bryn and Cwmavon electoral division consists of the Communities of Bryn and Cwmavon with a total of 5,248 electors (5,280 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,749 electors per councillor which is 1% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Pelenna electoral division consists of the Community of Pelenna with 953 electors (950 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 953 electors per councillor which is 45% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the existing electoral divisions of Bryn and Cwmavon together with the Pont-rhyd-y-fen Ward of the Community of Pelenna to form an electoral division with 5,757 electors (5,777 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,919 electors per councillor which was 0.4% above the proposed county average. The remaining Tonmawr Ward of the Community of Pelenna was included in the proposed electoral division as described in paragraph 6.21 above.

6.27 We received objections from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Cilybebyll Community Council, Pelenna Community Council, Peter Hain MP, Dr Brian Gibbons AM, Gwenda Thomas AM, Councillor L Whiteley, Aberavon Constituency Labour Party, Bryn Residents Action Group and several local residents. Objections were on the grounds that each community had distinct identities and requirements with a risk of marginalisation and reduced levels of representation in some areas of the proposed electoral division. It was also stated that all of Pelenna is a Communities First area, whilst only parts of Bryn and Cwmavon have this status. Many of the representations stated their concerns about the division crossing the parliamentary constituency boundary between Neath CC and Aberavon CC.

6.28 We consider that, in view of the strong opposition raised to the inclusion of the Tonmawr Ward of the Community of Pelenna in the proposed Cwm Nedd electoral division, the Community of Pelenna should remain wholly within the same electoral division. However, with only 953 electors, its ratio of councillors to electors would be 45% below the existing county average and 49% below the proposed county average, we therefore do not consider it to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government for the Community of Pelenna to form an electoral division on its own. We note that Pelenna has no real communication links to the north and east and that whilst there exists a good road link with the Cefn Saeson and Crynallt Wards of the Town of Neath to the west we consider that these two areas are have such little affinity with each other that it would not be desirable to combine them.

6.29 We consider that the only viable option, if electoral disparity is to be reduced, is to include the Community of Pelenna in an electoral division with the Communities of Bryn and Cwmavon to the south to produce an electoral division of 6,201 electors and 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,067 electors per councillor which is 10% above the proposed county average. We note the comments made regarding Pelenna being a Communities First area. However the criteria for defining these areas are for the Welsh Assembly Government to decide and it is the Commission’s understanding that local government electoral arrangements do not affect these criteria. We also noted the comments made regarding the proposed

- 23 -

electoral division crossing the parliamentary constituency boundary between Neath County Constituency and Aberavon County Constituency. Although including Pelenna in the same electoral division as Bryn and Cwmavon would result in an anomaly whereby the parliamentary constituency boundaries were no longer coterminous with the local government boundaries, such an anomaly would need to be dealt with by means of a review conducted by the parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales who would be informed by this Commission of any changes to local government boundaries necessitating such a review. We therefore propose an electoral division of Bryn Afon comprised of the Communities of Cwmavon, Bryn and Pelenna and represented by 3 councillors.

Bryn-côch South and Dyffryn

6.30 The existing Dyffryn electoral division consists of the Community of Dyffryn Clydach with 2,602 electors (2,600 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,602 electors per councillor which is 50% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Bryn-côch South electoral division consists of the Bryn-côch South Ward (4,527 electors, 4,636 projected) of the Community of Blaenhonddan represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,264 electors per councillor which is 31% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining these two existing divisions to form an electoral division with a total of 7,129 electors (7,236 projected) represented by 4 councillors with a level of representation of 1,782 electors per councillor which was 7% below the proposed county average. This increased the number of councillors representing this area by 1.

6.31 We received objections from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Blaenhonddan Community Council, Dyffryn Clydach Community Council, Peter Hain MP, Councillor D Jones, Councillor M Peters and Dyffryn Clydach Branch. Objections were on the grounds that the proposed division breaks community ties and covers two community council areas. It was also stated that including the Bryn-côch South Ward of the Community of Blaenhonddan in the same electoral division as the Community of Dyffryn Clydach could be detrimental to the services provided to the residents of Blaenhonddan.

6.32 We consider that levels of under-representation in the existing Dyffryn and Bryn- côch South electoral divisions need to be addressed. Options for alternative electoral arrangements for Bryn-côch South are limited. To the south east is Neath and it would be possible to amalgamate Bryn-côch South with the Castle Ward of Neath Town to produce a division with 5,184 electors and 3 councillors giving a ratio of 1:1,728 and variance of 10% below the proposed county average. However, we consider that these areas have little affinity with each other and are effectively divided by the A465 road. To the east is Bryn-côch North and it would be possible to combine the existing Bryn-côch South and Bryn-côch North divisions to produce a division with 6,409 electors and 3 councillors giving a ratio of which would be 12% above the proposed county average. However, this would affect our proposal to retain the existing electoral division of Bryn-côch North as a single member division with a ratio of less than 1% above the proposed county average. We consider that it is in the interests of effective and convenient local government

- 24 -

to retain the existing single member electoral division of Bryn-côch North and therefore we do not propose combining the existing Bryn-côch North electoral division with the existing Bryn-côch South electoral division.

6.33 We consider that options for alternative electoral arrangements for the existing Dyffryn electoral division are also limited. To the north is the existing electoral division of Allt-wen and it would be possible to combine the existing electoral divisions of Dyffryn and Allt-wen to produce a division with 4,458 electors and 2 councillors giving a level of representation of 2,229 electors per councillor which is 17% above the proposed county average. However, this would affect our proposal to retain the existing electoral division of Allt-wen as a single member division with a level of representation 1% below the proposed county average. We consider that it is in the interests of effective and convenient local government to retain the existing single member electoral division of Allt-wen and therefore we do not propose combining the existing Allt-wen electoral division with the existing Dyffryn electoral division. To the south of the existing Dyffryn electoral division is the existing electoral division of Coedffranc North and it would be possible to combine these to produce a division with 4,459 electors and 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,230 electors per councillor which is 17% above the proposed county average. However, this would affect our proposal to retain the existing electoral division of Coedffranc North as a single member division with a level of representation 1% below the proposed county average. We consider that it is in the interests of effective and convenient local government to retain the existing single member electoral division of Coedffranc North and therefore we do not propose combining the existing Coedffranc North electoral division with the existing Dyffryn electoral division.

6.34 For the reasons outlined in paragraphs 6.32 and 6.33 above we consider that the only option to address the under-representations in the existing Bryn-côch South and Dyffryn electoral divisions is to combine them to form an electoral division with 7,129 electors with 4 councillors giving a level of representation of 1,782 electors per councillor which is 5% below the proposed county average. We note the concerns that the proposed electoral division would cover two community council areas but we do not consider that this would be a barrier to effective representation particularly as the overall number of councillors representing Bryn-côch South and Dyffryn will increase by 1 councillor. We therefore propose the electoral division of Neath Abbey comprised of the Community of Dyffryn Clydach and the Bryn-côch South Ward of the Community of Blaenhonddan and represented by 4 councillors.

Neath electoral divisions (Cimla, Neath East, Neath North and Neath South)

6.35 The Community of Neath is currently divided into 4 electoral divisions. The existing Cimla electoral division consists of the Cefn Saeson and Crynallt Wards of the Community of Neath with a total of 3,299 electors (3,310 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,650 electors per councillor which is 5% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Neath East electoral division consists of the Melyncrythan and Penrhiwtyn Wards of the Community of Neath with a total of 5,100 electors (5,657 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,700 electors per councillor which

- 25 -

is 2% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Neath North electoral division consists of the Castle and Llantwit Wards of the Community of Neath with a total of 3,288 electors (3,386 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,644 electors per councillor which is 5% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Neath South electoral division consists of the Gnoll and Mount Pleasant Wards of the Community of Neath with a total of 3,660 electors (3,549 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,830 electors per councillor which is 6% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor.

6.36 In our Draft Proposals report we considered that the wards of the Community of Neath be combined into three new electoral divisions. We proposed combining the Gnoll, Llantwit and Cefn Saeson Wards to form an electoral division with a total of 5,645 electors (5,553 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,882 electors per councillor which was 2% below the proposed county average. We proposed combining the Crynallt and Mount Pleasant Wards to form an electoral division with a total of 3,945 electors (3,893 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,973 electors per councillor which was 3% above the proposed county average. We proposed combining the Castle, Melyncrythan and Penrhiwtyn Wards to form an electoral division with a total of 5,757 electors (6,456 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,919 electors per councillor which was 0.4% above the proposed county average.

6.37 We received objections from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Neath Town Council, Peter Hain MP, Gwenda Thomas AM, the Neath North Labour Party and Councillor P Rees. Objections were on the grounds that there are no local ties between the combined community wards and the local affiliation between community ward and member would be lost and that the proposals would also remove the distinct community of Neath South. It was also suggested that the proposal to combine the Wards of Gnoll and Llantwit with Cefn Saeson in the same division was unworkable as they are different areas with different needs from their councillors and that the Castle Ward is physically separate from the Melyncrythan Ward with the only real link being the Stockhams Corner roundabout. Some of the proposed divisions would be divided by the B4287 road and the historic name of Neath had not been incorporated into the names of the proposed divisions. There was a suggestion that the name Melyncrythan should be replaced by the historic spelling of Melincrythan.

6.38 We note the comments made regarding the naming of proposed electoral divisions and have acted on these. We note the comments made in the representations that our Draft Proposals break local ties and result in divisions divided by the B4287 road. We do not consider that this is a barrier to effective representation in a compact urban area with good communication links such as the Town of Neath and we note that the B4287 has a substantial number of side roads running off both sides into the Mount Pleasant and Crynallt Wards. We note the comments made that the Castle Ward is physically separated from the Melyncrythan Ward and that they should therefore not be included in the same electoral division. We accept that the Castle Ward does have better communication links with Llantwit Ward than

- 26 -

the Melyncrythan Ward and that this would result in stronger local ties between the Castle Ward and the Llantwit Ward rather than the Melyncrythan Ward. We therefore consider that it would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government for the Castle Ward to be included in the same electoral division as the Llantwit, Cefn Saeson and Gnoll Wards. This would produce an electoral division with a total of 6,302 electors represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,101 electors per councillor which is 12% above the proposed county average. We therefore propose an electoral division of Neath – Cimla comprised of the Cefn Saeson, Gnoll, Llantwit and Castle Wards of the Community of Neath represented by 3 councillors.

6.39 Without the inclusion of the Castle Ward the proposed Melyncrythan and Penrhiwtyn electoral division would have a total of 5,100 electors represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,700 electors per councillor which is 10% below the proposed county average. We propose an electoral division of Neath – Melincrythan and Penrhiwtyn comprised of the Melyncrythan and Penrhiwtyn Wards of the Community of Neath and represented by 3 councillors. We also propose an electoral division of Neath – Mount Pleasant comprised of the Mount Pleasant and Crynallt Wards of the Community of Neath and represented by 2 councillors.

Coedffranc Central, Coedffranc North and Coedffranc West

6.40 The existing Coedffranc West electoral division consists of the West and West Central Wards of the Community of Coedffranc with a total of 2,005 electors (2,512 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,005 electors per councillor which is 16% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Coedffranc Central electoral division consists of the East Central and Central Wards of the Community of Coedffranc with a total of 3,086 electors (3,132 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,543 electors per councillor which is 11% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Coedffranc North electoral division consists of the North Ward of the Community of Coedffranc with 1,857 electors (1,837 projected) represented by 1 councillor wit a level of representation of 1,857 electors per councillor which is 7% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the three existing Coedffranc electoral divisions to create an electoral division with a total of 6,948 electors (7,481 projected) represented by 4 councillors with a level of representation 1,737 electors per councillor which was 9% below the proposed county average ratio.

6.41 We received objections to this proposal from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Coedffranc Community Council, Dr Brian Gibbons AM and Aberavon Constituency Labour Party. Objections were on the grounds that creating a multi- member division would marginalise parts of the community and that the proposal amalgamated areas with different needs and aspirations. A further objection was that the proposal had not taken into account future developments and growth. We received support for this proposal from a member of the public.

- 27 -

6.42 In respect of the objection that the proposed electoral division had not taken account of future development and growth, we took full account of the forecast electorate figures we received from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council which indicates an increase of 533 electors for the Community of Coedffranc by 2014. If this increase were to be realised it would result in improved electoral parity for the proposed Coedffranc electoral division by reducing the variance on the proposed county average from 9% above to 5% above. We note the objection that the proposed division amalgamated areas with different needs but we consider that whilst there may be distinct areas in the proposed electoral division those areas also have community ties between them, being all part of the Community of Coedffranc. We therefore consider that this aspect need not be a barrier to effective representation. We note the objections that the proposed electoral division would be large and acknowledge that in terms of electorate, compared with the existing electoral arrangements, this would be the case. We consider that there is scope for reducing the size of the proposed division by retaining the existing Coedffranc North single member electoral division with a level of representation 1% below the proposed county average. We therefore propose that the existing electoral division of Coedffranc North comprised of the North Ward of the Community of Coedffranc and represented by 1 councillor be retained.

6.43 We note that the existing Coedffranc Central electoral division is 11% below the current county average and the existing Coedffranc West electoral division is 16% above the current county average. If these two electoral divisions were combined the resulting electoral division would have 5,091 electors (5,644 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,697 electors per councillor which is 10% below the proposed county average. We are of the view that the improvement in electoral parity achieved by combining the existing Coedffranc Central and Coedffranc West electoral divisions is desirable in the interest of effective and convenient local government. We therefore propose the electoral division of Coedffranc South comprised of the West Central, Central, East Central and West Wards of the Community of Coedffranc and represented by 3 councillors.

Crynant, Onllwyn and Seven Sisters

6.44 The existing Onllwyn electoral division consists of the Community of Onllwyn with 982 electors (994 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 982 electors per councillor which is 43% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The Seven Sisters electoral division consists of the Community of Seven Sisters with 1,701 electors (1,786 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,701 electors per councillor which is 2% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Crynant electoral division consists of the Community of Crynant which has 1,581 electors (1,613 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,581 electors per councillor which is 9% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the existing Onllwyn, Seven Sisters and Crynant electoral divisions to create an electoral division with a total of 4,264 electors (4,393 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,132 electors per councillor which was 11% above the proposed county average.

- 28 -

6.45 We received objections from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Crynant Community Council, Onllwyn Community Council and Peter Hain MP. Objections were on the grounds that there are no local ties between the amalgamated communities and the local affiliation between community and member would be lost. Representations also suggested the proposal to joining the three distinct communities in the same division is unworkable as they are different communities with different needs from their councillors. Objections were also made to the size and rural nature of the division. We also received a representation supporting our Draft Proposal from a local Councillor.

6.46 We have noted the concerns regarding each Community in the valley having their own distinct identity but it is also apparent that these Communities have many similarities as small valley settlements. We consider that the over representation in the existing Onllwyn electoral division needs to be addressed and that the most effective and convenient way to achieve this is by combining the existing Crynant, Onllwyn and Seven Sisters electoral divisions as put forward in our Draft Proposals. We note that the good road communications along the length of the valley would assist the councillors representing these settlements in delivering effective services to the residents. We remain of the view that the improvement in electoral parity achieved by the combining the existing Crynant, Onllwyn and Seven Sisters electoral divisions is desirable in the interest of effective and convenient local government. We propose an electoral division of Cwm Dulais comprised of the Communities of Crynant, Onllwyn and Seven Sisters represented by 2 councillors.

Cwmllynfell, Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen and Lower Brynamman

6.47 The existing Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen electoral division consists of the Cwmgors and Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen Wards of the Community of Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen with a total of 2,328 electors (2,357 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,328 electors per councillor which is 34% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Lower Brynamman electoral division consists of the Lower Brynamman and Tai’r Gwaith Wards of the Community of Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen with a total of 1,082 electors (1,097 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,082 electors per councillor which is 38% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Cwmllynfell electoral division consists of the Community of Cwmllynfell with 953 electors (1,009 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 953 electors per councillor with a ratio which is 45% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the existing Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen and Lower Brynamman electoral divisions together with the Cwmllynfell Ward of the Community of Cwmllynfell to create an electoral division with 4,132 electors (4,219 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation which was 8% above the proposed county average. It was proposed that the remaining Penrhiwfawr Ward of the Community of Cwmllynfell was included in the proposed Pontardawe electoral division as described in paragraph 6.59 below.

- 29 -

6.48 We received objections from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Gwaun Cae Gurwen Community Council, Cwmllynfell Community Council, Peter Hain MP, Councillor A Woolcock, Councillor C Richards, Councillor L G Williams, Neath Constituency Labour Party, Cwmllynfell Traditional Welsh Primary School, Cwmllynfell and Neighbourhood Watch and 107 local residents and other interested parties. Objections were on the grounds that there are no local ties between the amalgamated community wards, they are Community First areas and the local affiliation between community ward and member would be lost. It was also suggested the proposal to joining the distinct communities in the same division is unworkable as they are different communities with different needs from their councillors. Particular concern was expressed regarding the lack of adequate communication links between Cwmllynfell and the rest of the proposed division with the only direct link being through the neighbouring County of .

6.49 We note the point raised regarding the inadequate communication link between the Community of Cwmllynfell and the Community of Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen and we do not consider that it would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government to include the Cwmllynfell Ward of the Community of Cwmllynfell in the same electoral division as the Community of Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen. We note the comments made regarding Communities First areas being included within the proposed electoral division. However, the criteria for defining these areas are for the Welsh Assembly Government to decide and it is the Commission’s understanding that local government electoral arrangements do not affect these criteria. We remain of the view that the over-representation in the existing Lower Brynamman electoral division and the under-representation in the existing Gwaun- Cae-Gurwen electoral division needs to be addressed and that the most effective way to achieve this would be to combine these two divisions to form an electoral division with 3,410 electors represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,705 electors per councillor which is 9% below the proposed county average. We propose an electoral division of Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen comprised of the Community of Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen and represented by 2 councillors.

Cymmer, Glyncorrwg and Gwynfi

6.50 The existing Glyncorrwg electoral division which consists of the Glyncorrwg Ward of the Community of Glyncorrwg has 888 electors (870 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 888 electors per councillor which is 49% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Cymmer electoral division which consists of the Cymmer Ward of the Community of Glyncorrwg has 2,232 electors (2,279 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,232 electors per councillor which is 29% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Gwynfi electoral division which consists of the Gwynfi Ward of the Community of Glyncorrwg has 1,078 electors (1,049 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,078 electors per councillor which is 38% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the three existing electoral divisions to create an electoral division coterminous with the Community of Glyncorrwg with 4,198 electors (4,198 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of

- 30 -

representation of 2,099 electors per councillor which was 10% above the proposed county average.

6.51 We received objections from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Dr Brian Gibbons AM and Aberavon Constituency Labour Party. Objections were on the grounds that the three divisions are Communities First areas, suffer high levels of relative deprivation and, historically, each of the existing electoral divisions cover an area which has its own distinct community identity with strong local traditions. Concerns were also raised on the size and rural nature of the proposed division.

6.52 We note the comments made regarding Communities First areas being included in the proposed electoral division. However, the criteria for defining these areas are for the Welsh Assembly Government to decide and it is the Commission’s understanding that local government electoral arrangements do not affect these criteria. Although we acknowledge that each of the settlement will have their own identities it is also apparent that they will have many similarities as small semi rural settlements within the same community area. Options for alternative arrangements are very limited with the only real communication links running south from the Cymmer Ward to the Community of Cwmavon. Although objections were raised in respect of the size and rural nature of the proposed electoral division we note that there are good communication links throughout the Community of Glyncorrwg which will assist effective representation. We consider that the only way to address the large over and under representations in the existing electoral divisions is to combine them. We propose an electoral division of Glyncorrwg comprised of the Community of Glyncorrwg and represented by 2 councillors.

Godre’r graig, Cwmllynfell and Ystalyfera

6.53 The existing Godre’r graig electoral division consists of the Godre’r graig Ward of the Community of Ystalyfera with 1,220 electors (1,291 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,220 electors per councillor which is 30% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Ystalyfera electoral division consists of the Ystalyfera Ward of the Community of Ystalyfera with 2,384 electors (2,366 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,384 electors per councillor which is 38% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the two existing electoral divisions to form an electoral division with a total of 3,604 electors (3,657 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,802 electors per councillor which is 6% below the proposed county average.

6.54 We received objections from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Ystalyfera Community Council, Pontardawe Town Council and several local residents. Pontardawe Town Council considered that there would be some merit in combining Godre’r Graig with the Pontardawe, Trebanos and Rhydyfro areas. Objections were on the grounds that Godre’r Graig and Ystalyfera were distinct settlements with their own identities and would be disadvantaged by being combined. Also the creation of a two-member ward that was large in area would break the link between

- 31 -

the county councillor and their local area possibly leaving parts of the community marginalised.

6.55 We note the comments made in the representations but we consider that the large over-representations and under-representations in the existing Godre’r Graig and Ystalyfera electoral divisions do need to be addressed. As stated elsewhere in this report we also consider that the large over representation in the neighbouring Cwmllynfell electoral division also needs to be addressed. We note that there is a direct road link running through the Community of Cwmllynfell into the Ystalyfera Ward of the Community of Ystalyfera and that these areas are of a similar rural nature. We consider that it would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government to combine the existing Ystalyfera electoral division with the existing Cwmllynfell electoral division to form an electoral division with 3,337 electors (3,375 projected) and 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,669 electors per councillor which is 11% below the proposed county average. Whilst we acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the need for distinct settlements to have their own representation and the risk of them becoming marginalised we do not consider that the area of the proposed electoral division to be too large to be a barrier to effective representation and note that there are larger rural electoral divisions contained within these proposals. We also consider that the road link between the areas and the slight level of over-representation will also assist in the provision of effective representation for the residents of the proposed electoral division. We propose an electoral division of Ystalyfera and Cwmllynfell comprised of the Community of Cwmllynfell and the Ystalyfera Ward of the Community of Ystalyfera represented by 2 councillors.

Margam and Tai-bach

6.56 The existing Margam electoral division consists of the Communities of Margam (2,307 electors, 2,276 projected) and Margam Moors (0 electors) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,276 electors per councillor which is 33% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Tai-bach electoral division consists of the Community of Tai-Bach with 3,915 electors (4,055 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,958 electors per councillor which is 13% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the two existing electoral divisions to form an electoral division with a total of 6,222 electors (6,331 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,074 electors per councillor which was 8% above the proposed county average.

6.57 We received objections from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Dr Brian Gibbons AM and Councillor A Taylor. Objections were on the grounds that Margam and Tai-bach are different communities with different needs from their councillors and that parts of the electorate in a combined electoral division may feel marginalised. Aberavon Constituency Labour Party considered that the proposed merger of Tai-bach and Margam may have some merit although they noted that the proposed ratio was above the county average.

- 32 -

6.58 We note the concerns raised in the representations that Margam and Tai-bach are different communities with different requirements from their councillors. We acknowledge that a large part of Margam is rural whereas the settlement of Tai- bach is concentrated along the M4 corridor but part of this settlement crosses the boundary between Tai-bach and Margam at Brombil and therefore the residents both sides of the community boundary will have similar concerns and requirements. We also note that there are adequate road links between Tai-bach and Margam and therefore we do not consider that the size of the proposed division will be a barrier against effective representation. We consider that the substantial level of under-representation in the existing Margam electoral division needs to be addressed and that the most effective way to achieve this would be to combine the existing Margam electoral division with the existing Tai-bach electoral division. We propose an electoral division of Mynydd Margam comprised of the Communities of Tai-bach, Margam and Margam Moors and represented by 3 councillors.

Pontardawe, Trebanos and Cwmllynfell

6.59 The existing Pontardawe electoral division consists of the Pontardawe and Rhyd-y- Fro Wards of the Community of Pontardawe with a total of 4,136 electors (4,345 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,068 electors per councillor which is 19% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Trebanos electoral division consists of the Trebanos Ward of the Community of Pontardawe with 1,115 electors (1,122 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 1,115 electors per councillor which is 36% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing Cwmllynfell electoral division consists of the Community of Cwmllynfell with 953 electors (1,009 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 953 electors per councillor which is 45% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the existing electoral divisions of Pontardawe and Trebanos together with the Penrhiwfawr Ward of the Community of Cwmllynfell to form an electoral division with a total of 5,482 electors (5,711 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,827 electors per councillor which was 4% below the proposed county average. It was proposed that the remaining Cwmllynfell Ward of the Community of Cwmllynfell was included in the proposed Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen electoral division as described in paragraph 6.47 above.

6.60 We received objections from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Pontardawe Town Council, Cwmllynfell Community Council, Cilybebyll Community Council, Peter Hain MP, Gwenda Thomas AM, Councillor M Thomas, Councillor C Richards, Neath Constituency Labour Party - Cwmllynfell Ward, Trebanos Branch Labour Party, Rhiwfawr Traditional Welsh Primary School, Cwmllynfell and Rhiwfawr Neighbourhood Watch and several local residents. Objections were on the grounds that there are no local ties between the amalgamated community wards and the local affiliation between community ward and member would be lost. Representations also suggested the proposal to joining the distinct communities in the same division is unworkable as they are different communities with different needs from their councillors and combining them would lead to marginalisation of some areas. The representations raised particular concerns regarding the

- 33 -

communication links between Penrhiw fawr and Pontardawe and stated that to travel from Penrhiw fawr to the rest of the proposed division involved travelling by means of a narrow mountain road with the only alternative involving travelling through Powys. Pontardawe Town Council considered that there would be some merit in combining Godre’r Graig with the Pontardawe, Trebanos and Rhydyfro areas.

6.61 We note the point raised regarding the inadequate communication link between the Community of Cwmllynfell and the Community of Pontardawe and we do not consider that it would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government to include the Penrhiw Fawr Ward of the Community of Cwmllynfell in the same electoral division as the Community of Pontardawe. We noted that Pontardawe Town Council considered that there should be no change to the existing electoral divisions of Pontardawe and Trebanos. However, we remain of the view that the over representation in the Trebanos electoral division needs to be addressed in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We consider that the most effective way to achieve this would be to combine the existing electoral divisions of Pontardawe and Trebanos. We note the Comment made by Pontardawe Town Council that Godre’r Graig could be workably combined with the area of Pontardawe and also note the good communication links that exist between these two areas and would further propose that the Godre’r Graig Ward of the Community of Ystalyfera be included within this proposed division. We consider that this would be an effective way to address the high level of over- representation in the existing electoral division of Godre’r Graig electoral division.

6.62 We consider that it would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government to combine the existing Godre’r Graig electoral division with the existing Pontardawe and Trebanos electoral divisions to produce an electoral division 6,471 electors represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,157 electors per councillor which is 15% above the proposed county average. We propose an electoral division of Pontardawe and Godre’r Graig comprised of the Community of Pontardawe and the Godre’r graig Ward of the Community of Ystalyfera represented by 3 councillors.

Sandfields East and Sandfields West

6.63 The existing electoral division of Sandfields West consists of the Community of Sandfields West with an electorate of 5,162 (5,235 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a ratio of 1:1,721 with a level of representation of 1,721 electors per councillor which is 1% below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. The existing electoral division of Sandfields East consists of the Community of Sandfields East with an electorate of 5,250 (5,536 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,750 electors per councillor which is 1% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the existing Sandfields West and Sandfields East electoral divisions to form an electoral division named Sandfields with 10,412 electors (10,771 projected) represented by 5 councillors with a level of representation of 2,082 electors per councillor which was 9% above the proposed county average.

- 34 -

6.64 We received objections from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council and Dr Brian Gibbons AM. Objections were on the grounds that the size of the proposed electoral division would make it unmanageable from both an electorate and councillor perspective.

6.65 We note the comments made in the representations regarding the large size of the proposed division which, with 10,412 electors, would make it the largest division in terms of electorate in our Draft Proposals. We have received a substantial number of representations objecting to the creation of large multi-member electoral divisions in Neath Port Talbot and we have noted these when considering the other similar large divisions put forward in our Draft Proposals of Baglan and Briton Ferry (10,389 electors) and Afan (8,787 electors) and have concluded that it would not be in the interest of effective and convenient local government to retain those proposals. We are now of the view that the existing electoral divisions of Sandfields East and Sandfields West should not be combined. We propose that the existing electoral divisions of Sandfields East comprised of the Sandfields East Ward of the Community of Sandfields and represented by 3 councillors should be retained. We propose that the existing electoral division of Sandfields West comprised of the Sandfields West Ward of the Community of Sandfields and represented by 3 councillors should be retained.

Summary of Proposed Arrangements

6.66 The proposed electoral arrangements (as shown at Appendix 3) provide a level of parity that ranges from 17% below to 20% above the proposed county average of 1,880 electors per councillor (based on the existing electoral figures). Eleven of the electoral divisions have levels of representation more than 10% above or below the proposed county average of 1,880 electors per councillor and the remaining fifteen (58%) all less than 10% above or below the proposed county average of 1,880 electors per councillor. This compares with the existing electoral arrangements (as shown at Appendix 2) where the level of parity ranges from 49% below to 50% above the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor. One electoral division (2%) having a level of representation more than 50% above or below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor, sixteen electoral divisions (38%) having levels of representation between 25% and 50% above or below than the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor, ten electoral divisions (24%) having levels of representation between 10% and 25% above or below than the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor and the remaining fifteen electoral divisions (36%) having levels of representation less than 10% above or below the current county average of 1,733 electors per councillor.

6.67 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, always bearing in mind the ratio of

- 35 -

1:1,750 as applied in accordance with paragraph 6.4 above, 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 different. 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.

7. PROPOSALS

7.1 We propose a council of 59 members and 26 electoral divisions as set out in Appendix 3. This compares with our draft proposals of 58 councillors and 19 electoral divisions. 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 Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council and the Office of the Commission in Cardiff.

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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

9. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

9.1 Having completed our review of the County Borough of Neath Port Talbot and submitted our recommendations to the Welsh Assembly Government on the future electoral arrangements for the principal authority, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation under the directions issued by the Welsh Assembly Government.

9.2 It now falls to the Welsh Assembly Government, if it thinks fit, to give effect to these proposals either as submitted by the Commission or with modifications, and if the Welsh Assembly Government decides to give effect to these proposals with modifications, it may direct the Commission to conduct a further review.

9.3 Any further representations concerning the matters in the report should be addressed to the Welsh Assembly Government. They should be made as soon as possible, and in any event not later than six weeks from the date that the

- 36 -

Commission’s recommendations are submitted to the Welsh Assembly Government. Representations should be addressed to:

Democracy Team Local Government Policy Division Welsh Assembly Government Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ

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)

August 2010

- 37 - 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

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

-1- Appendix 1

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- NEATH PORT TALBOT Appendix 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 1

% % variance variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2009 ELECTORATE 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from from COUNCILLORS 2009 RATIO 2014 RATIO County County average average 1 Aberavon The Community of Aberavon 3 4,266 1,422 -18% 4,195 1,398 -21% The Aberdulais and Cilfrew wards of 2 Aberdulais 1 1,784 1,784 3% 2,072 2,072 17% the Community of Blaenhonddan The Allt-wen ward of the Community 3 Allt-wen 1 1,856 1,856 7% 1,947 1,947 10% of Cilybebyll The Communities of Baglan and 4 Baglan 3 5,685 1,895 9% 5,730 1,910 8% Baglan Bay The Community of Blaengwrach and 5 Blaengwrach the West Central ward of the 1 1,596 1,596 -8% 1,632 1,632 -8% Community of Glynneath The Craig-y-darren and Cwrt Sart Briton Ferry 6 wards of the Community of Briton 1 2,438 2,438 41% 2,418 2,418 36% East Ferry The Brynhyfryd and Shelone Wood Briton Ferry 7 wards of the Community of Briton 1 2,266 2,266 31% 2,290 2,290 29% West Ferry Bryn and The Communities of Bryn and 8 3 5,248 1,749 1% 5,280 1,760 -1% Cwmavon Cwmavon Bryn-côch The Bryn-côch North ward of the 9 1 1,882 1,882 9% 1,873 1,873 5% North Community of Blaenhonddan Bryn-côch The Bryn-côch South ward of the

10 2 4,527 2,264 31% 4,636 2,318 31% Appendix 2 South Community of Blaenhonddan The Cadoxton ward of the Community 11 Cadoxton 1 1,417 1,417 -18% 1,524 1,524 -14% of Blaenhonddan The Cefn Saeson and Crynallt wards 12 Cimla 2 3,299 1,650 -5% 3,310 1,655 -7% of the Community of Neath NEATH PORT TALBOT Appendix 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 2

% % variance variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2009 ELECTORATE 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from from COUNCILLORS 2009 RATIO 2014 RATIO County County average average Coedffranc The East Central and Central wards of 13 2 3,086 1,543 -11% 3,132 1,566 -12% Central the Community of Coedffranc Coedffranc The North ward of the Community of 14 1 1,857 1,857 7% 1,837 1,837 3% North Coedffranc Coedffranc The West and West Central wards of 15 1 2,005 2,005 16% 2,512 2,512 41% West the Community of Coedffranc 16 Crynant The Community of Crynant 1 1,581 1,581 -9% 1,613 1,613 -9% 17 Cwmllynfell The Community of Cwmllynfell 1 953 953 -45% 1,009 1,009 -43% The Cymmer ward of the Community 18 Cymmer 1 2,232 2,232 29% 2,279 2,279 28% of Glyncorrwg 19 Dyffryn The Community of Dyffryn Clydach 1 2,602 2,602 50% 2,600 2,600 46% The Glyncorrwg ward of the 20 Glyncorrwg 1 888 888 -49% 870 870 -51% Community of Glyncorrwg The East, Central and West wards of 21 Glynneath 2 2,755 1,378 -21% 2,676 1,338 -25% the Community of Glynneath The Godre’r graig ward of the 22 Godre’r graig 1 1,220 1,220 -30% 1,291 1,291 -27% Community of Ystalyfera The Cwmgors and Gwaun-Cae- Gwaun-Cae- 23 Gurwen wards of the Community of 1 2,328 2,328 34% 2,357 2,357 33% Gurwen Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen The Gwynfi ward of the Community of Appendix 2 24 Gwynfi 1 1,078 1,078 -38% 1,049 1,049 -41% Glyncorrwg The Lower Brynamman and Tai’r Lower 25 Gwaith wards of the Community of 1 1,082 1,082 -38% 1,097 1,097 -38% Brynamman Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen NEATH PORT TALBOT Appendix 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 3

% % variance variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2009 ELECTORATE 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from from COUNCILLORS 2009 RATIO 2014 RATIO County County average average The Communities of Margam and 26 Margam 1 2,307 2,307 33% 2,276 2,276 28% Margam Moors The Melyncrythan and Penrhiwtyn 27 Neath East 3 5,100 1,700 -2% 5,657 1,886 6% wards of the Community of Neath The Castle and Llantwit wards of the 28 Neath North 2 3,288 1,644 -5% 3,386 1,693 -5% Community of Neath The Gnoll and Mount Pleasant wards 29 Neath South 2 3,660 1,830 6% 3,549 1,775 0% of the Community of Neath 30 Onllwyn The Community of Onllwyn 1 982 982 -43% 994 994 -44% 31 Pelenna The Community of Pelenna 1 953 953 -45% 950 950 -47% The Pontardawe and Rhyd-y-fro 32 Pontardawe wards of the Community of 2 4,136 2,068 19% 4,345 2,173 22% Pontardawe 33 Port Talbot The Community of Port Talbot 3 4,521 1,507 -13% 4,595 1,532 -14% The Communities of Clyne and 34 Resolven 1 2,508 2,508 45% 2,567 2,567 45% Melincourt, and Resolven The Gellinudd and Rhos wards of the 35 Rhos 1 2,065 2,065 19% 2,059 2,059 16% Community of Cilybebyll Sandfields 36 The Community of Sandfields East 3 5,250 1,750 1% 5,536 1,845 4% East Sandfields Appendix 2 37 The Community of Sandfields West 3 5,162 1,721 -1% 5,235 1,745 -2% West 38 Seven Sisters The Community of Seven Sisters 1 1,701 1,701 -2% 1,786 1,786 1% 39 Tai-bach The Community of Tai-Bach 2 3,915 1,958 13% 4,055 2,028 14% NEATH PORT TALBOT Appendix 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 4

% % variance variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2009 ELECTORATE 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from from COUNCILLORS 2009 RATIO 2014 RATIO County County average average 40 Tonna The Community of Tonna 1 1,936 1,936 12% 1,938 1,938 9% The Trebanos ward of the Community 41 Trebanos 1 1,115 1,115 -36% 1,122 1,122 -37% of Pontardawe The Ystalyfera ward of the Community 42 Ystalyfera 1 2,384 2,384 38% 2,366 2,366 33% of Ystalyfera TOTAL: 64 110,914 1,733 113,645 1,776 Ratio is the number of electors per councillor Electoral figures supplied by Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council

2009 2,014 Greater than + or - 50% of County average 1 2% 1 2% Between + or - 25% and + or - 50% of County average 16 38% 18 43% Between + or - 10% and + or - 25% of County average 10 24% 9 21% Between 0% and + or - 10% of County average 15 36% 14 33% Appendix 2 NEATH PORT TALBOT Appendix 3 PROPOSED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 1 % variance % variance No. OF ELECTORATE ELECTORATE No. NAME DESCRIPTION 2009 RATIO from County 2014 RATIO from County COUNCILLORS 2009 2014 average average 1 Aberavon The Community of Aberavon 4,266 (4,195) 2 4,266 2,133 13% 4,195 2,098 9%

2 Allt-wen The Allt-wen ward of the Community of Cilybebyll 1 1,856 1,856 -1% 1,947 1,947 1%

The Community of Baglan 5,685 (5,730) and 3 Baglan 3 5,685 1,895 1% 5,730 1,910 -1% Baglan Bay 0 (0) 4 Briton Ferry The Community of Briton Ferry 3 4,704 1,568 -17% 4,708 1,569 -19% The Communities of Cwmavon 4,503 (4,530), 5 Bryn Afon Bryn 745 (750) and the Community of Pelenna 3 6,201 2,067 10% 6,230 2,077 8% 953 (950) The Bryn-côch North 1,882 (1,873) ward of the 6 Bryn-côch North 1 1,882 1,882 0% 1,873 1,873 -3% Community of Blaenhonddan The Aberdulais 964 (1,218), Cadoxton 1,417 Cadoxton and 7 (1,524) and Cilfrew 820 (854) wards of the 2 3,201 1,601 -15% 3,596 1,798 -7% Aberdulais Community of Blaenhonddan The Coedffranc North ward of the Community of 8 Coedffranc North 1 1,857 1,857 -1% 1,837 1,837 -5% Coedffranc The West Central 1,334 (1,746), Central 1,749 9 Coedffranc South (1,817), East Central 1,337 (1,315), and West 3 5,091 1,697 -10% 5,644 1,881 -2% 671 (766) wards of the Community of Coedffranc The Communities of Crynant 1,581 (1,613), 10 Cwm Dulais Onllwyn 982 (994) and Seven Sisters 1,701 2 4,264 2,132 13% 4,393 2,197 14% (1,786) The Communities of Blaengwrach 928 (948), Clyne and Merlincourt 653 (669), Resolven 1,855 11 Cwm Nedd (1,898) and the West 822 (809) and West 3 4,926 1,642 -13% 5,008 1,669 -13% Central 668 (684)wards of the Community of Glynneath 12 Glyncorrwg The Community of Glyncorrwg 2 4,198 2,099 12% 4,198 2,099 9% 13 Glynneath Central The Central 1,136 (1,070) and East 797 (797) 1 1,933 1,933 3% 1,867 1,867 -3% The Community of Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen 3,410 14 Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen 2 3,410 1,705 -9% 3,454 1,727 -10% (3,454)

The Communities of Margam 2,307 (2,276), Appendix 3 15 Mynydd Margam 3 6,222 2,074 10% 6,331 2,110 10% Margam Moors 0 (0) and Tai-Bach 3,915 (4,055) The Cefn Saeson 2,228 (2,206), Gnoll 786 (760), 16 Neath - Cimla Llantwit 2,631 (2,587) and Castle 657 (799) 3 6,302 2,101 12% 6,352 2,117 10% wards of the Community of Neath NEATH PORT TALBOT Appendix 3 PROPOSED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 2 % variance % variance No. OF ELECTORATE ELECTORATE No. NAME DESCRIPTION 2009 RATIO from County 2014 RATIO from County COUNCILLORS 2009 2014 average average Neath - Melincrythan The Melyncrythan 2,365 (2,490) and Penrhiwtyn 17 3 5,100 1,700 -10% 5,657 1,886 -2% and Penrhiwtyn 2,735 (3,167) wards of the Community of Neath Neath - Mount The Crynallt 1,071 (1,104) and Mount Pleasant 18 2 3,945 1,973 5% 3,893 1,947 1% Pleasant 2,874 (2,789) wards of the Community of Neath Community of Dyffryn Clydach 2,602 (2,600) and 19 Neath Abbey the Bryn-côch South ward of the Community of 4 7,129 1,782 -5% 7,236 1,809 -6% Blaenhonddan 4,527 (4,636) The Community of Pontardawe 5,251 (5,467) Pontardawe and 20 and the Godre'r Graig Ward of the Community of 3 6,471 2,157 15% 6,758 2,253 17% Godre'r Graig Ystalyfera 1,220 (1,291) 21 Port Talbot The Community of Port Talbot 2 4,521 2,261 20% 4,595 2,298 19% The Gellinudd 382 (380)and Rhos 1,683 (1,679) 22 Rhos 1 2,065 2,065 10% 2,059 2,059 7% wards of the Community of Cilybebyll 23 Sandfields East The Community of Sandfields East 5,250 (5,536) 3 5,250 1,750 -7% 5,536 1,845 -4% The Communities of Sandfields West 5,162 24 Sandfields West 3 5,162 1,721 -8% 5,235 1,745 -9% (5,235) 25 Tonna The Community of Tonna 1,936 (1,122) 1 1,936 1,936 3% 1,938 1,938 1% The Community of Cwmllynfell 953 (1,009) and Ystalyfera and 26 the Ystalyfera Ward 2,384 (2,366) of the 2 3,337 1,669 -11% 3,375 1,688 -12% Cwmllynfell Community of Ystalyfera TOTAL: 59 110,914 1,880 113,645 1,926 Ratio is the number of electors per councillor The number of electors for 2009 and 2014 (in brackets) are included in the description of those electoral divisions which comprise more than one community / community ward. Electoral figures supplied by Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council

2009 2014 Greater than + or - 50% of County average 0 0% 0 0% Between + or - 25% and + or - 50% of County average 0 0% 0 0% Between + or - 10% and + or - 25% of County average 11 42% 7 27% Between 0% and + or - 10% of County average 15 58% 19 73% Appendix 3 Appendix 4

-1- Appendix 4

-2- Appendix 4

-3- Appendix 4

-4- Appendix 5 SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO DRAFT PROPOSALS

Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council considered that the Commission’ Draft Proposals did not take account of important issues such as the need to accept higher or lower councillor/electorate ratios, community coherence considerations, levels of deprivation, councillor workload, natural boundaries between communities and population sparsity. In interpreting the statutory rules the Council believes that the Commission has given too much weight to the requirement to achieve the ratio of 1:1,750 almost to the exclusion of all the other rules and the guidance issued by the Minister. The proposals as drafted would diminish the effectiveness of local representation and be inconvenient for the electorate. The Council considers that the current arrangements are fit for purpose, provide good value for Neath Port Talbot's electorate and are in the best interests of effective and convenient local government. The Commission should take account of the following factors:

• Local government reorganisation in 1996 saw a significant reduction in the number of county and borough councillors in Neath Port Talbot and consequently their workloads, broadened to include all former county and borough functions. In deciding the number of electoral divisions and the respective number of councillors, the Commission should take due cognisance of this workload factor, which has not changed since 1996, and not reduce the number of councillors. • The councillor/electorate ratio in Neath Port Talbot has remained relatively constant over the period since 1996. All of these ratios are in close proximity to the Commission's guideline ratio of 1:1,750, which of itself would support a status quo position. • the urban/rural nature of the county borough means that this overall ratio reflects significant variations in individual electoral division ratios. This is an important factor that the Commission should take into account, particularly as many of the smaller electoral divisions comprise isolated communities in the outlying reaches of the county borough with a strong local sense of community identity. • many of the smaller divisions rank highly in the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation, which is an indicator of councillor workload. • many of the electoral divisions in the former Port Talbot Borough area comprise community areas which are not split into community wards and which have relatively high electorates restricting the scope for change and requiring multi member wards • Almost all of the small single-member electoral divisions are in the outlying areas of the county borough and in Communities First areas, a good indicator of relative deprivation. If the Commission is minded to change any of these electoral divisions, it is difficult to see how this could be achieved given the community / community ward building blocks and the consequent impacts on these distinctive communities. • The Commission appears to have used multi member divisions as a means to achieve electoral "parity". Whilst multi member divisions have some advantages particularly in urban areas which are relatively socially homogenous and where there are common community ties, there are distinct disadvantages where this is not the case. Multi member divisions can lead to disproportionate workloads amongst councillors; fragmented knowledge of local issues; similarly fragmented contact with the public, duplication of effort, feelings that one part of the division is treated more favourably than other parts and, particularly where smaller rural areas

-1- Appendix 5 are combined with urban areas, the electorate can become marginalised either in reality or perception. • The phrase "as nearly as may be" in the legislation recognises that the construction of electoral divisions from the community ward building blocks is by its very nature an inexact science and that consideration of "easily identifiable boundaries", "local ties" and "identifiable representation" will inevitably result in differences in electorates between divisions and, thus, differences in the councillor/electorate ratio.

The Council made the following observations on the proposed divisions:

• The proposed Aberdulais, North, Cadoxton and Tonna electoral division brings together four single member divisions. It is inappropriate to include which is physically separate from the other electoral divisions. Travelling from Bryncoch North to Cadoxton requires a journey through . Tonna is physically separate from the rest of the area with the River Neath, the Neath and Tennant Canals, the Neath and Dulais Valley railway lines and the A465 dual carriageway separating the two areas. Also Bryncoch North and Tonna have no community ties with Aberdulais and Cadoxton. There is a clear possibility that parts of the electorate of the new division would become marginalised and could perceive that they have no representation. The Council believes that the existing single member arrangements for this area should continue. • The proposed Aberavon and Port Talbot division brings together two existing divisions which are physically separated by the M4 motorway, connected only by a small corridor of land. The two divisions are clearly distinct communities in their own right with little in common in respect of their needs or aspirations, Aberavon particularly so both in terms of its history and its sense of community. If it is linked to Port Talbot with its town centre characteristics, it is clear that the electorate would perceive that the needs of Port Talbot would take precedence. Separate, clear representation is required for these two distinct electoral divisions. The Council believes that the existing multi member arrangements for this area should continue. • The proposed Baglan, Briton Ferry East and Briton Ferry West division brings together communities that are entirely distinct with few local ties that connect them. The communities are separated by Briton Ferry woods, the only real connection between the two being the A48 roundabout at Briton Ferry Bridge. The needs of both areas are entirely different, Baglan largely comprising private owner-occupied residential areas whilst Briton Ferry is an older mixed residential area with a commercial/retail centre. Baglan is relatively affluent whilst Briton Ferry has high levels of deprivation, particularly Briton Ferry West which is a Communities First area. Briton Ferry also has a town council whilst Baglan has no community council. Within Briton Ferry there are clear distinctions between the West division - a largely residential Communities First area - and the East division with its more mixed residential/commercial/retail demography. The Council believes it is important to retain two single member divisions for Briton Ferry East and Briton Ferry West. The Council rejects this proposed combination of electoral divisions and considers that the current arrangements should be retained. • The proposed Neath Electoral Divisions (Cimla, Neath East, Neath North, NeathSouth), whilst allowing for small corrections to electoral parity, has taken no account of key characteristics, such as geography, local and historical ties and democratic characteristics. The following points should be taken into consideration:

-2- Appendix 5 1. Within the proposed new electoral division of Cimla, the community ward of Llantwit, which is located in central Neath, has no clear local ties with the Cefn Saeson or Gnoll community wards, which are more appropriately linked to upper and lower Cimla. 2. The proposed new division of Melyncrythan and Penrhiwtyn, the Castle community ward, which includes the Neath Town Centre area, has historical and community ties with the Llantwit community ward and it is physically separate from the Melyncrythan community ward, the only real link being the Stockhams Corner roundabout. There is no natural alignment with the Melyncrythan and Penrhiwtyn community wards which are on the outskirts of the Neath central urban area and have closer ties with Briton Ferry. 3. the proposed electoral division of Mount Pleasant, which would include the Crynallt community ward, again seems anomalous as the Crynallt ward has long standing community ties with the Cefn Saeson ward as part of the Cimla area. The current combinations of community wards clearly reflect the historical links between the different and distinct communities within urban Neath and the existing electoral arrangements should be retained. • The proposed combination of the three current Coedffranc electoral divisions to form the new electoral division of Coedffranc may appear justifiable but the creation of a larger multi member division would marginalise parts of the community. The present Coedffranc West division comprises the West Central and West community wards. The West community ward comprises three small villages lying between and Swansea. It is separated from the remainder of Coedffranc by the M4 motorway. Aligning the Coedffranc West division with the remainder of Coedffranc will marginalise the electorates in these three villages, and these small communities, by their very nature, have different needs and aspirations than the more urban centre of Skewen. Equally the existing Coedffranc North division is separated by the mainline railway line from the Coedffranc Central division. Whilst not as stark as the Coedffranc West example, here again there is a danger of marginalisation and a need to recognise the different needs of a largely residential area compared to the residential town centre characteristics of Coedffranc Central. The Council believes that the existing arrangements for this area should continue. • The proposed Cwm Dulais division comprises three single member divisions; Crynant, Seven Sisters and Onllwyn, each of which has less than 1750 electors. The Seven Sisters and Onllwyn divisions are Communities First areas suffering significant levels of relative deprivation. In comparison, Crynant is relatively affluent. Historically, each village has its own distinct community identity with strong local traditions and each has its own community council. Whilst the proposal to amalgamate the three divisions into a single division returning two councillors is understandable, the Council does not accept that it is justified given the geographical size of the proposed division, its rural sparsity, deprivation levels and the separate and distinct community identities that are evident in these rural communities. A reduction in representation from three councillors to two in a larger single division will have a significant impact on the ability of elected Members to adequately meet the needs of the local electorate, particularly in the more remote upper reaches of the valley. The Council believes that the current arrangements should be retained to ensure the cultural identities and distinctive voices of these three long established villages are not diluted. • The proposal to combine the existing Glynneath, Blaengwrach and Resolven divisions with the Tonmawr ward of Pelenna to create a large multi member division is rejected. The inclusion of the Tonmawr ward, which can only be reached directly

-3- Appendix 5 by hiking over the mountain from the Neath Valley to the Afan Valley, is unworkable and does not stand up to any reasonable examination. The Resolven division has its own clear individual community identities and is some distance away from its neighbouring divisions of Glynneath and Tonna. In addition to its local ties, historical traditions and easily identifiable boundaries, the needs and aspirations of Resolven are distinct from those of Glynneath and Blaengwrach. Potentially the Resolven electorate could become marginalised within the larger division with a perceived, if not real, lack of representation. The same arguments apply in respect of Blaengwrach. Whilst the existing division does include the West Central community ward of Glynneath, if the division was to be subsumed within a larger Glynneath / Blaengwrach division, then the Blaengwrach electorate would become marginalised with the perception that local needs and aspirations would be less significant compared to Glynneath. The situation is further complicated with the proposed division comprising no less than four community/town councils. The Council believes that the current arrangements should be retained. • The proposed Glyncorrwg division consists of the existing three single member divisions; Cymmer, Glyncorrwg and Gwynfi, the latter two having electorates less than 1750. These three divisions are Communities First areas and suffer high levels of relative deprivation. Historically, each division, in its own valley within a valley, has its own distinct community identity with strong local traditions. Whist the proposal to amalgamate the three divisions into a single division returning two councillors is understandable; the Council does not accept that it is justified given the geographical size of the proposed division, its rural sparsity, deprivation levels and the separate and distinct community identities that are evident in these rural communities. A reduction in representation from three councillors to two in a larger single division will have a significant impact on the ability of elected Members to adequately meet the needs of the local electorate. The Council believes that the current arrangements should be retained. • The proposed Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen division consists of the existing divisions of Lower Brynamman, Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen and Cwmllynfell, each with their own community identities and strong local traditions. The Lower Brynamman and Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen divisions are Communities First areas with high levels of deprivation. The proposed two member division will almost certainly result in either Lower Brynamman or Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen becoming marginalised. The inclusion of Cwmllynfell is unworkable as a journey from Cwmllynfell to the rest of the proposed division involves travelling several miles and detouring out of Neath Port Talbot through neighbouring Carmarthenshire. The proposal would also destroy Cwmllynfell's longstanding local ties with Penrhiwfawr. The Council does not accept that the proposal is justified given the geographical size of the proposed division, its rural sparsity, deprivation levels and the separate and distinct community identities that are evident in these rural communities. The Council believes that the current arrangements should be retained. • Given the current councillor/electorate ratio for the existing divisions of and Margam, each well over 1:1,750, the proposal to amalgamate these into one division returning three councillors is not supported. Creating a larger multi member division invites the disadvantages highlighted earlier in respect of multi member divisions with parts of the electorate feeling marginalised in terms of representation. The existing arrangements should be retained. • The proposal to combine the Bryncoch South and Dyffryn divisions into a single division returning four councillors, whilst increasing representation and moving nearer to a ratio of 1:1,750, is not supported. This proposal would have all the disadvantages of a larger multi member division whilst having the further

-4- Appendix 5 complication of the proposed division containing two community councils, part of Blaenhonddan and Dyffryn Clydach. The retention of the existing divisional boundaries is preferred with the number of councillors being increased by one in each case. • The proposed Pontardawe division again proposes to split the existing Cwmllynfell division and is not supported. The proposal to include Penrhiwfawr in a larger Pontardawe division will clearly result in this small community being swallowed up in the more urban Pontardawe division. Additionally, Penrhiwfawr is physically remote from Pontardawe. Whilst there is a narrow country lane linking the two, the main road links require long journeys through other electoral divisions in the upper reaches of the Amman and Swansea Valleys. The inclusion of Trebanos in an enlarged Pontardawe division is not supported. This small village on the outskirts of Pontardawe has its own distinct community identity, its own specific needs and aspirations and no clear local ties with Pontardawe. The issues of marginalisation and lack of identifiable representation feature strongly in this case. The Council considers that the current arrangements should be retained. • The proposal to combine the two Sandfields divisions into a larger multi member division is not supported. The existing multi member divisions are sufficient in size and representation to be retained unchanged. The likelihood of realising the disadvantages of multi member divisions increases as the size and representation of the division increases and a division of 10,500 electors returning 5 councillors is considered unmanageable from both an electorate and elected Member perspective. The existing arrangements should continue. • The proposal to include the remainder of Pelenna, the community ward, with the current Bryn & Cwmavon division to create a larger division returning three councillors is not supported. Tonmawr and Pontrhydyfen, which combined comprise the Community of Pelenna, should be included in the same electoral division. Pelenna has its own community Council; Bryn & Cwmavon does not. Pelenna is in the Neath Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies; Bryn & Cwmavon are in the Aberavon Constituencies. If they are included in the proposed division, the two villages will be isolated and marginalised. Additionally, all of Pelenna is a Communities First area, whilst only parts of Bryn & Cwmavon have this status. This larger division also increases the likelihood that the village of Bryn will become marginalised with no identifiable representation. The high levels of relative deprivation in Pelenna, the distinct community identities and local traditions in the two villages of Tonmawr and Pontrhydyfen and their remoteness highlight the significant risks of the area being included in a larger division alongside Bryn & Cwmavon. To prevent the marginalisation of these local communities the Council believes that the existing single member Pelenna division should be retained. Consequently, there should be no change to the current Bryn & Cwmavon division. • The proposal to combine the two divisions of Godre'rgraig and Ystalyfera into a multi member division returning two councillors is not supported. There is a clear danger that the electorate in Godre'rgraig will be marginalised and perceive a lack of representation in respect of their needs and aspirations. The current arrangements should be retained.

Baenhonddan Community Council were opposed to the Commission’s Draft Proposals and supported the views of Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council and Peter Hain MP. They considered that the existing electoral arrangements in their area should be retained as the inclusion of Blaenhonddan in an electoral division with Dyffryn Clydach and Tonna would result in confusion for the electors.

-5- Appendix 5 Briton Ferry Town Council objected to the Commission’s Draft Proposals and made the following points:

• The Communities of Briton Ferry and Baglan are separate entities and have nothing in common and no natural alignment; • Briton Ferry has its own school whilst Baglan looks toward Port Talbot for education services; • The large size of the proposed electoral division would make it difficult for individual members to monitor and control; • Electors would feel disenfrancised if councillors did not live in their ward; • The presence of a traveller site in Briton Ferry West makes it difficult to accurately predict population figures; • Baglan is an affluent area whilst Briton Ferry is a Communities First area; • Briton Ferry has a Town Council whilst Baglan does not.

Cilybebyll Community Council supported the Commission’s proposals in respect of their Community. However, they considered that the Commission’s Draft Proposals contained several unsatisfactory anomalies:

• The proposals appear to be based on a predetermined number of 58 councillors resulting in an average ratio of councillors to electors well above the minimum requirement. A smaller average ratio would allow for more rational proposals; • The proposals to link Tonmawr to Glynneath and Rhiwfawr to Pontardawe do not take account of the physical separation of these areas or the inadequate communication links between them; • Linking Pontrhydyfen with Cwmavon crosses a parliamentary constituency boundary; • The division of Pelenna Community Council area undermines local accountability; • The linking of communities with community councils to communities without community councils is inconsistent; • Very large electoral divisions will distance councillors from electors; • The name Neath should not be discarded from the local government electoral arrangements for that town.

Coedffranc Community Council were opposed to the Commission’s Draft Proposals. They considered that the proposal to combine Coedffranc into a multi-member electoral division did not reflect the needs of the people of Coedffranc and reduced accountability. They pointed out that the existing electoral arrangements for Coedffranc had worked well for 30 years.

Crynant Community Council were opposed to the Commission’s Draft Proposals which they considered would have serious geographical or community consequences for the villages in their Community. They said that each village of the Dulais Valley had its own strong identity and excellent rapport with their respective councillors and that to dismantle this would reduce traditional communities and the system of local democratic accountability. They considered that the existing arrangements of single member electoral divisions for each of the Dulais Valley villages should be retained and they fully supported the comments made by Rt Hon Peter Hain MP.

Cwmllynfell Community Council were opposed to the Commission’s Draft Proposals. They considered that the Commission had not taken account of natural communities, local

-6- Appendix 5 ties, population sparsity, geographical separation and easily identifiable boundaries in formulating their Draft Proposals and had placed too much emphasis on trying to achieve councillor to elector ratios of no less than 1:1,750. Some of the proposals joined communities which had nothing in common or any traditional ties. They pointed out that Cwmllynfell was divided from Gwaun Cae Gurwen and Lower Brynamman by a mountainous area of common land. There was no direct route between Cwmllynfell and Gwaun Cae Gurwen and it is necessary to travel through Carmarthenshire in order to reach one from the other. They considered that the inclusion of Penrhiw Fawr in an electoral division with Pontardawe was not practical as there were poor road links between these areas by means of a mountain road with the only alternative involving travelling through Powys. The villages of Cwmllynfell and Penrhiw Fawr have natural ties and community interests whilst neither had any such links with Gwaun Cae Gurwen or Pontardawe. Dividing Cwmllynfell and Penrhiw Fawr would result in the breakup of these strong ties. Cwmllynfell and Penrhiw Fawr had enjoyed single member representation for a considerable time reflecting their community ties, they would each become a minority in the proposed electoral divisions reducing their level of representation.

Dyffryn Clydach Community Council were opposed to the Commission’s proposal to include Bryn Coch South in the same electoral division as Dyffryn Clydach. They said that the existing arrangements worked well with the whole Community of Dyffryn Clydach being represented by one member. They suggested an alternative would be for the area of Brookfield, Taillwyd Road and Mill race in the Community of Blaenhonddan to be included in the Dyffryn Clydach electoral division and be given two members as this would result in a ratio of 1:1,605 being closer to the county average than the existing ratio. If this suggested change were not possible then they considered that the existing electoral arrangements should be retained for Dyffryn Clydach.

Glynneath Town Council opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals. They said that whilst the aim to seek consistency across electoral divisions in terms of numbers of electors to councillors was not unreasonable they considered that it should not be paramount where communities would be adversely affected and the Commission’s proposals would have an adverse affect on communities. They considered that multi- member wards should only be in place where they did not result in a loss of community identity and that the Commission’s proposals went too far in favour of multi-member divisions. The proposal for the Neath Valley showed a lack of local knowledge and research as Tonmawr is several road miles away and socially distant from the remainder of the proposed electoral division (Cwm Nedd) whilst the remainder of that divisionis far to large and result in a loss in the sense of community which currently exists in the Neath Valley.

Gwaun Cae Gurwen Community Council said that the existing electoral arrangements for their Community should be retained and that account should be taken of the rural urban area of the Upper Amman valley, which is geographically isolated with poor connections. They said that Cwmllynfell was a considerable distance away and that including it within the electoral division would present a considerable task for a councillor and leave them out of touch with the community. They pointed out that Lower Brynamman, Tairgwaith and Cwmgors is a Community First area where a lot of good work was going on and their closeness with essential to maintain good relationships.

Neath Town Council were opposed to the Commission’s proposals which they considered would not best serve the electorate. They said that the proposed changes did not respect the relationship between members and their electorate, long term community

-7- Appendix 5 relationships or current ties between communities their schools etc. The existing arrangements respected the nature and needs of local communities in Neath. They considered that the proposed division of Cimla brought together three separate communities with few natural interests or issues in common. Placing Crynallt with Mount Pleasant was illogical as Crynallt has close affinities and interests with Cimla. Melincrythan and Penrhiwtyn are very different to Neath North and the Castle Ward in the Town centre has a different electorate to both Melincrythan and Penrhiwtyn. Castle would benefit from its own individual councillor and will lose its elected member under the proposals. They also opposed the Commission’s decision not to use the name Neath in the proposed electoral divisions as this did not acknowledge the long history and distinction.

Onllwyn Community Council objected to the Commission’s proposals which they considered would result in less representation for their community which is isolated at the head of the Dulais Valley.

Pelenna Community Council said that the Commission’s proposal to combine the Tonmawr Ward of their Community with the Glynneath, Blaengwrach, Resolven and Clyne and Melincourt Communities would result in the Community of Pelenna being divided between two electoral divisions and two constituencies. They pointed out that there was no connection or communication between Tonmawr and Glynneath, Blaengwrach, Resolven and Clyne and Melincourt and the elected representative would have to undertake long journeys to reach Tonmawr from the other communities in the proposed electoral division. It would also break an important historic link between Tonmawr and Pontrhydyfen and Pontrhydyfen residents had no desire to join the Communities of Bryn and Cwmavon which formed a separate valley and did not make a natural fit.

Pontardawe Town Council were opposed to the Commission’s proposals for their community which they considered were unworkable. They considered that if change were necessary then it would make more sense to join Godrergraig with Trebanos, Pontardawe and Rhydyfro.

Resolven Community Council were opposed to the Commission’s Draft Proposals. They considered that the proposals put too much emphasis on electoral parity with little thought to important traditional community links and local geography by joining communities that are seperated by natural features or ware miles apart.

Tonna Community Council objected to the Commission’s proposal to join Tonna with Aberdulais, Cadoxton and Bryncoch in the same electoral division. They said that Tonna was separated from these areas by the Neath River, the Neath Canal, the Tennant Canal, the Neath and Dulais Valley railway lines and the A465 dual carriageway. Tonna is an active community with participation from residents on many community activities and they considered that merger with Blaenhonddan would result in a loss of community identity. They considered that the forecast electorate figures for Tonna were inaccurate and did not take account approved planning applications, new houses and unoccupied premises awaiting occupation.

Ystalyfera Community Council were opposed to the Commission’s proposal to combine Ystalyfera and Godre’rgraig in the same electoral division. They said that the existing arrangements for their Community should be retained.

-8- Appendix 5 Rt Hon Peter Hain MP said that the Commission’s Draft Proposals put much too large and rigid an emphasis on achieving the 1:1,750 ratio between Councillor and voters. The result has been to divide longstanding local communities and undermining the vital link between Councillors and the communities they represent. Little thought had been given to the local geography in the area when joining communities which are physically separated by natural landmarks or are miles apart. In addition a number of the proposals fail to acknowledge important traditional community links and individual identities. Instead of improving democracy, the proposals would remove the important link between the local community and their County Borough Councillor. Creating large wards served by muiti- member Councillors would mean distinct communities or valley villages would lose their very 'own' representative.

He made the following points:

• The decision to combine Aberdulais, Cilfrew, Cadoxton, Tonna and Bryncoch North into one ward called Aberdulais-Tonna is impractical. The geography of the area means that Aberdulais, Cilfrew Cadoxton and Bryncoch North are all separated from Tonna by the A465, a major dual carriageway through the Neath valley. in addition to this Tonna is physically separated from the other villages by the River Neath, the Neath Canal and major flood plains. The proposed ward would encompass an area that is four miles apart at its perimeters from Pen-y-Wern at the top of Bryncoch North to the Wenallt in Tonna. There are no direct bus links and a car journey could take fifteen minutes or more. The proposed Aberdulais-Tonna ward would also be represented by four Councillors but without the vital current connections between Councillor and community. The proposal does not reduce the number of Councillors, only the number of wards, losing the vital local link between voter and representative. Naming the ward Aberdulais-Tonna ignores the distinct, traditional communities of Bryncoch, Cilfrew and Cadoxton each of which has a proud identity and a strong community self-identity, currently with a local person as a Councillor who is identifiable within each village. • The rearrangement of the four existing Neath electoral divisions involves a great deal of change for Neath residents even though under the current arrangements the ratio between Councillor and electorate for the four existing wards are all within 6 per cent of achieving your aim ratio of 1:1,750. • The proposals to join the Gnoll, Llantwit and Cefn Saeson, three extremely different communities, into a new ward called Cimla seems to be a case of changing the boundaries to reach the required ratio without making any change to the number of Councillors. Under the current system each of these is represented by one Councillor in their respective Neath South, Neath North and Cimla wards, giving them a total of three, the same number that will represent the new Cimla ward, but removing the longstanding affiliation the electorate has to their respective ward and elected representative. The same can also be said of the proposal to join the Crynallt and Mount Pleasant wards into the new Mount Pleasant Ward. • In creating these new Cimla and Mount Pleasant wards the distinct community of the Cimla would be separated into two different wards using the B4287 as a dividing line. As there is no alteration in the number of councillors that would be representing the Cimla and the existing ratio is 1:1650, just a hundred short of your required ratio why do the electoral arrangement in the Cimla need to be changed. • The Melincrythan and Penrhiwtyn ward would encompass three wards that are very different. Whilst the Melincrythan and Penrhiwtyn are just outside of Neath Town centre and have a separate identity, the Castle ward is in the heart of Neath town centre and has quite different needs.

-9- Appendix 5 • The old and valued Neath name will be wiped off the electoral map. • To amalgamate all the villages in the Dulais valley into one ward would be to ignore the proud, traditional separate identities of each of these former distinct pit villages and their different needs. Not all the Dulais valley is covered by the regeneration programme, for example. Local democracy and accountability would again be undermined by a "super-ward" six miles from one end to the other. • The proposal to Join together Tonmawr and the Neath valley is unworkable. Tonmawr is not in the Neath valley but the Pelenna valley and while your report describes Tonmawr as being an "adjacent" ward it is actually separated by a mountainous region. It could take half an hour or much more to get from Glynneath at the top of the Neath valley to Tonmawr in the Pelenna valley. On top of this you would have to travel through four other proposed wards to join the main bulk of the ward in the Neath valley. • The decision to split the existing Cwmllynfell ward ignores the local geography of the area. The wards of Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen and Lower Brynamman are close together in the Amman Valley and are five miles away from Cwmllynfell in the Upper . These communities are physically separated by a mountainous region known as the Gwrhyd. To travel from Gwaun-Cae-Guwen to Cwmllynfell you have to travel along the A4068 and the A4069 both of which are poor roads especially in the Winter. • The suggestion to split Cwmllynfell and Rhiwfawr will leave the two villages under- represented. There is a strong community feeling between the two and these proposals would be extremely detrimental and does not take account of longstanding community links and local geography. Cwmllynfell and Rhiwfawr have a joint Community Council, namely Cwmllynfell Community Council and to separate the two would impact on the Community Council. • The decision to join Rhiwfawr in the proposed "Pontardawe" ward does not take into consideration the close ties Rhiwfawr has to the village of Cwmllynfell. Rhiwfawr ward is six miles away and you would have to travel through the villages of Ystalyfera and Godre'r graig. Links are via a minor road and take more that quarter of an hour. Alternatively via a road over the mountain to Rhydyfro which may well be shorter but is little more than a remote tarmac farm track, difficult to traverse. Rhiwfawr and Pontardawe are vastly contrasting wards. Rhiwfawr is an isolated rural village with very different needs from the largely urban Pontardawe. This would lead to disjointed representation, massively short changing Rhiwfawr especially. There would also be an impact on the Community Councils. Rhiwfawr is currently represented on the Cwmllynfell Community Council whilst Pontardawe has its own Town Council. • The proposal for Dyffryn Clydach along with the Aberdulais-Tonna division would mean splitting the Community of Bryncoch. Despite Bryncoch being separated into Bryncoch North and Bryncoch South for electoral purposes there is a distinct community feeling and the needs of both wards are very similar. This common community spirit would be undermined by these proposals. The suggested names of "Neath Abbey" and "Aberdulais-Tonna" would remove the proud Bryncoch name from the electoral map. • Joining Pontrhydyfen with a ward outside of the Neath constituency will be confusing and lead to ineffective representation with Pelenna effectively loosing its Councillor. It would have repercussions on the co-terminus Parliamentary and Welsh Assembly boundaries. For the purposes of County Borough elections Pontrhydyfen would be in the Aberavon constituency but for Welsh Assembly elections and General Elections it would be in the Neath constituency. This decision would separate the communities of Tonmawr and Pontrhydyfen in the

-10- Appendix 5 Pelenna valley, genuinely adjacent communities with similar needs which under the existing system are well represented by a local County Councillor who lives in the Ward. To go ahead with this proposal would also have consequences for the Community Council. Currently Pontrhydyfen is represented on the Pelenna Community Council but Bryn and Cwmavon do not have a Community Council. • Single member wards in the Neath Constituency, most of which represent Valley village seats, are of great value to the community they represent where often voters will only elect someone who is from that village. The nature of these villages and their former mining communities mean that multi-member wards would damagingly erode the democratic process, resulting in even lower voter turnout and a genuine feeling that democracy is moving further away from the people.

He also made the following proposals:

• The Aberdulais, Cadoxton, Tonna Wards would be best served separately as single member wards to maintain the close relationship between councillor and electorate. • Crynant, Onllwyn, Seven Sisters are three distinctive pit villages which should have their own independent Councillor so that each ward's needs are effectively represented. • Pelenna: Tonmawr and Pontrhydyfen should not be separated instead the status quo should remain to protect the common identities of these villages. • Both Resolven and Blaengwrach wards should continue to be represented by one Councillor each to maintain the link between the Councillor and voters as well as their traditional identities. • Cwmllynfell and Rhiwfawr should continue to be represented by one councillor and should not be separated. Under the Commission's proposals they would be separated and lose their representation. • Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen and Lower Brynamman should continue being served by one councillor each to ensure that their proud identities continue to be well represented. • Trebanos should not be joined with Pontardawe as it is a distinct village with different needs from Pontardawe town. Joining Trebanos would create anxiety amongst the village and a feeling that its identity will be lost as it is absorbed into Pontardawe town. • As a distinct community Dyffryn Clydach should carry on being represented by one councillor. • The existing ward of Cimla has a strong community feel and should remain a single ward with two Councillors. • The existing wards of Pontardawe and Glynneath are multi-member wards with strong community bonds and their local ties would require them to continue to be represented in this manner. • It would be possible to improve electoral parity by altering the boundaries of the existing electoral divisions of Neath East, Neath North, Neath South, Bryncoch North and Bryncoch South.

Dr Hywell Francis MP said that he broadly supported the points made by Dr Brian Gibbons AM. He also considered that the Commission’s proposals failed to take account of the representation at Parliamentary and Assembly level and the two constituencies in Neath Port Talbot and the different patterns of communities across those two constituencies.

-11- Appendix 5 Derek Vaughan MEP was opposed to the Commission’s Draft Proposals which he considered would damage democracy and accountability in Neath Port Talbot. He said that the electoral arrangements needed to take into consideration historical, social and transport links between communities and should ensure that communities have their own identifiable representation. The Commission’s proposals gave undue prominence to creating large multi-member divisions without ensuring that clearly distinct areas were not put together damaging the link between councillors and their communities. Large multi- member divisions also lead to duplication of councillors work and confusion amongst electors regarding appropriate representation and a possible perception that some parts of the division are more favoured than others. The Commission’s proposals give little consideration to rural sparsity, deprivation, councillor workload and community ties.

Dr Brian Gibbons AM was opposed to the Commission’s Draft Proposals. He made the following points:

• The proposals have little regard for community boundaries, identities, geography or basic infrastructure of Neath Port Talbot and produce electoral divisions with no real community coherence. This undermines the link between elected members and the communities they represent; • The proposals place undue weight on electoral parity at the expense of the democratic representation of communities; • The proposed ratio of councillors to electors of 1:1,912 is a greater deviation from 1:1,750 than the ratio for the existing arrangements of 1:1,733; • The proposal to merge the existing divisions of Aberavon and Port Talbot ignores the separate identities of these communities and that they are seperated by the Afan River. Travel through the proposed division would not be easy without private transport. Each community has populations with social disadvantage which require local representation rather than the multi-representational proposals; • The proposal to merge the existing Baglan and Briton Ferry divisions ignores the different identities and needs of these communities. Briton Ferry tends to identify with Neath whilst Baglan is geographically discrete. Briton Ferry West is a largely Communities First area which would benefit from its own member; • The proposal to merge the existing Coedffranc electoral divisions into a single electoral division does not take account of the impact of the Landarcy urban village and the proposed second Swansea University campus. The traffic flow network in the Coedffranc area would need to be taken into consideration and a new combination of electoral divisions for Coedffranc should be drawn up which took account of the impact of these new developments on population size; • The proposal to merge Cymmer Glyncorrwg and Gwynfi does not take account that these areas have some of the highest concentrations of social and economic disadvantage in Wales and need strong and readily available community representation. Whilst there is an imbalance of representation in these areas the worst of this could be possibly addressed by combining Cymmer and Glyncorrwg; • The proposal to merge the existing Margam and Taibach divisions ignores the different identities and needs of these communities. The existing arrangements for these communities seem to work well and merging them is a totally disproportionate response to their relatively high elector to councillor ratios; • The proposal to merge the existing Sandfields East and Sandfields West divisions would not be an improvement on the existing electoral arrangements as it would weaken the democratic representation of these socially and economically deprived areas whereas the existing arrangement were already in line with the 1:1,750 ratio;

-12- Appendix 5 • The proposal to merge Bryn, Cwmavon and Pelenna takes little account of community identities and political representation. Pelenna is in the Neath constituency and looks to Neath rather than Port Talbot whereas Bryn and Cwmavon are in the Aberavon constituency. Whilst the existing arrangements for Bryn, Cwmavon and Pelenna may be viewed as problematic they are far more sensible than the proposal to merge them.

Gwenda Thomas AM said that the Commission should aim to ensure that every vote carried the same weight by preserving established communities and maintaining the link between the councillor and the community. The Commission’s proposals did not recognise local community ties or result in easily identifiable boundaries. The proposals for Pelenna and Rhiwfawr were examples of where the Commission had divided communities without regard for their community ties and identities and join them with areas they are geographically distant or isolated from. She considered that identifiable representation would be lost with large multi-member electoral divisions and pointed out that the proposal for an Aberdulais Tonna electoral division was an example of this due to the substantial physical barriers in the division such as the Neath River and A465. The mergers of Llantwit and Cimla in Neath and Resolven and Glynneath were two further examples of distinct, separate and different areas and communities being merged by the Commission’s proposals.

Cllr S Hunt supported the Commission’s proposals for Dulais Valley.

Cllr A Taylor objected to the Commission’s proposal to merge the Margam and Taibach electoral divisions. He pointed out that the proposed electoral division of Mynydd Margam covered a large geographical area containing four large distinct communities and several smaller ones, some of which have little social or economic similarities with each other. The large area of the proposed division will also mean democratic representation and accountability will become more distant from the electorate rather than closer and more effective. It would also create differing and conflicting workloads for the members making it difficult for them to have detailed knowledge of the communities and build up a relationship with electors. He considered that the Draft Proposals lacked any knowledge of the geography and social and economic history of Neath Port Talbot and that the existing electoral arrangements should be retained.

Cllr A Woolcock objected to the Commission’s Draft Proposals. He considered that the reduction in the number of councillors was disappointing when the workload of councillors had increased significantly following the local government reorganisation of 1996. He pointed out that Neath Port Talbot already had a councillor to elector ratio of 1:1,733 which was forecast to rise to 1:1,776 in 2014 making the proposed changes unnecessary. Consideration should be given to urban and rural differences, sparsity, deprivation and isolated communities when looking at the electoral arrangements as these all impacted on councillor workloads. The proposal to join Lower Brynamman and Gwaun Cae Gurwen with Cwmllynfell did not take account of the fact that Cwmllynfell is approximately four miles away from these areas and that dividing Cwmllynfell from Rhiwfawr would split a long established community. Creating large multi-member electoral divisions would be to the detriment of local democracy and remove the vital link between a community and their elected councillor.

Cllr D Morgan said that the Commission’s proposals appeared to place consistency in numbers of electors per councillor above consideration to communities in respect of their individuality, independence and the cohesive forces within them which would adversely

-13- Appendix 5 affect the communities involved. He considered that the proposals went too far in favour of large multi-member divisions which could result in a loss of community identity. The proposals were also inconsistent in the treatment of the upper Neath Valley compared with the upper Swansea Valley. The upper Neath Valley had been largely amalgamated into a single electoral division of Cwm Nedd whereas the upper Swansea Valley had been divided into comparatively smaller electoral divisions. He also pointed out that the inclusion of Tonmawr within the Cwm Nedd electoral division was not practical as it was several road miles away from the rest of the proposed electoral division and was geographically and socially different from it.

Cllr J C Tallamy was opposed to the Commission’s proposal to combine the Communities of Baglan and Britton Ferry in the same electoral division. He considered that the proposed electoral division was too large and unwieldy with 5 members and could result in a lack of cooperation between councillors representing the areas resulting in a poorer service for the electors. He pointed out that Baglan was formerly part of Port Talbot Borough whilst Britton Ferry was formerly part of Neath Borough and there was a history of rivalry between them.

Cllr C Morgan objected to the Commission’s proposal to combine the Communities of Baglan and Britton Ferry in the same electoral division. He said that the two communities were completely different and had nothing in common as Baglan was more affluent than Briton Ferry. There is no natural affinity between them as Briton Ferry looks towards Neath and Baglan looks towards Port Talbot. He pointed out that Briton Ferry West was a Communities First Ward and that Briton Ferry had a Town Council whilst Baglan did not, and queried whether the proposals would impact on these arrangements. He considered that the large area of the proposed electoral division would make it difficult for elected members to represent properly and there was a change that if all elected members came from the same community then the other community would be left with no representation. He also pointed out that Travellers site in Briton Ferry West made forecasting population very difficult.

Cllr L Whiteley was opposed to the Commission’s proposal to divide the Community of Pelenna between two electoral divisions. He considered that the inclusion of the Tonmawr Ward with Glynneath, Blaengwrach and Resolven was not practical as there was no direct communication between Tonmawr and these areas as they were divided by a mountain between the Neath Valley and the Afan Valley. He pointed out that the villages of Tonmawr and Pontrhydyfen were united under the Communities First Programme which gave an indication of their relative deprivation. He suggested including Oakwood and Cwm Ifan Bach within the existing Pelenna electoral division instead.

Cllr M Peters said that existing arrangements for the Dyffryn Division worked well and should remain unchanged. He suggested that it may be acceptable for the Taillwyd / Brookfield area of Bryn Coch South to be included in the Dyffryn Division as this only involved some 545 electors.

Cllr D Davies said that the Commission’s proposals for the Neath Valley would be damaging to local democracy. He considered that the Commission had proposed putting together five completely different and independent communities to make the Cwm Nedd electoral division and that this would cause confusion amongst residents and create a perception that there is a disparity of representation between the communities making up the proposed electoral division. It would also cause unnecessary duplication of work between councillors and did not take account of rural sparsity, deprivation, councillor

-14- Appendix 5 workloads, community ties or the individuality of communities. He pointed out that there was no evidence of support for the proposals from the electorate of the existing Resolven division.

Cllr J Dinham, Cllr T Sullivan and Cllr A Taylor objected to the Commission’s proposal to merge the Aberavon and Port Talbot electoral divisions. They said that a distinct geographical split present in the Aberavon division already and merger with the Port Talbot division would add another geographical split on top of that. They did not considered that the electoral figures for Aberavon were accurate as there were new developments for housing both current and planned which went against the forecast decline in numbers of electors. They said that councillors were elected on their abilities and are answerable to all electors not just a half or third of the electors in their divisions. They considered that political bias may result in councillors not sharing information in large multi-member divisions.

Cllr D Jones objected to the Commission’s proposal to combine Aberdulais, Bryncoch North, Cadoxton and Tonna in an electoral division. She said that each was totally representative and accountable to a recognised electorate and the proposed electoral division would result in a strong possibility of many electors being disenfranchised because of unaccountable representation resulting in inequality. She pointed out that Tonna was seperated from Aberdulais, Bryncoch North and Cadoxton by a major highway and two rivers. She considered that the Commission’s proposals also did not to account of community boundaries and that including the Bryncoch South Ward of the Community of Blaenhonddan in the same electoral division as the Community of Dyffryn Clydach could have serious consequences on the services provided to the residents of Blaenhonddan. She pointed out that Schedule 11 of the Local Government Act 1972 required that regard should be had to the need to fix boundaries which are easily identifiable and which recognise local community ties.

Cllr P Rees was opposed to the Commission’s Draft Proposals. He considered that the proposals ignored geographical consequences and would have a detrimental effect on the communities involved. The proposal to join Pelenna with Glynneath and Resolven and the proposals in the Dulais Valley would cause community disruption. He pointed out that the proposals for Neath would remove the distinct community of Neath South and result in a community divided by the B4287 road with no significant improvement to the councillor / elector ratio.

Cllr M Thomas objected to the Commission’s proposal to include Trebanos in the same electoral division as Pontardawe. He considered that taking away the Councillor representing Trebanos would leave the village disadvantaged as there had always been considerable emphasis on Pontardawe Town in the past and Trebanos would lose the representation that had ensured that they had a voice on the County Council and received a share of amenities. He pointed out that Trebanos village had been represented at County level since 1874 and considered that every village should have its own elected representative and council. The proposed division could result in Trebanos being represented by a member with no knowledge of the village and could detrimental to the Welshness of Trebanos and its identity as an Ancient Borough.

Cllr J Bryant considered that the Commission had put a great deal of weight on the 1:1,750 ratio and forming multi-member divisions with little regard to communities, topography and road links. He said that the proposal to include Bryncoch North, Cadoxton, Aberdulais and Tonna was unworkable as Bryncoch North and Cadoxton are

-15- Appendix 5 seperated by the Marchywell mountain with only a single track road joining them meaning that for all practical purposes they are unconnected. If all four members came from the Aberdulais / Tonna area then Bryncoch North would be left without any representation. He pointed out that travelling from the north end of Bryncoch North to the north end of Tonna would entail a 10 mile journey crossing the A465 dual carrigeway, Neath River and several other canals and rail lines. He suggested that Aberdulais, Cadoxton, Cilfrew and Tonna should form a division without Bryncoch North which should have its own division or be joined with Rhos and Allt-wen.

Cllr C Richards was opposed to the Commission’s Draft Proposals. He considered that the Commission had placed too much emphasis on the 1:1,750 councillor to elector ratio at the expense of other considerations. The reduction in the number of single member divisions would destroy local democracy and local representation in the mainly valley areas of Neath Port Talbot as it removed clearly identifiable representation for clearly identifiable communities. There is a lot of affinity between Cwmllynfell and Rhiwfawr and they have been linked together for a long time. Joining Cwmllynfell with Gwaun Cae Gurwen, Lower Brynamman, Cwmgorse and Tairgwaith would not benefit Cwmllynfell at all and may leave it with no local government representation at all. There is no identifiable community boundary between Cwmllynfell and these areas which are 4 to 5 miles away. Similarly there is no affinity between Rhiwfawr and Pontardawe with only a single track road mountain road between them, a journey of 4 miles, or an alternative route of 5 miles through Powys. He considered that councillors for Pontardawe would not represent the residents of Rhiwfawr in a fair and equitable manner.

Cllr L G Williams was opposed to the Commission’s Draft Proposals. She pointed out that the existing electoral arrangements worked very well and conformed with the guidance issued by the Welsh Assembly. She said that combining Gwaun Cae Gurwen and Cwmllynfell in the same electoral division produced a councillor to elector ratio far higher than the 1:1,750 ratio given in the guidance. The rural nature of the proposed division and the Communities First status of some of its areas would mean that the councillor’s workload would be impractical. Cwmllynfell is six miles away from Gwaun Cae Gurwen and travel between them involves travelling through Carmarthenshire. Cwmllynfell is connected to Rhiwfawr under a community council whilst Gwaun Cae Gurwen has its own community council. The proposed division would not reflect this arrangement of community councils serving small traditional communities which are entirely different in make up.

Aberavon Constituency Labour Party considered that the Commission’s Draft Proposals had ignored local communities, geographical locations and constituency boundaries and that the aim of the councillor to elector ratio in the Ministers Directions should not be at the expense of local community identity. They made the following points:

• that the proposed Tair Afon division, consisting of the Pontrhydyfen Ward of the Community of Pelenna and the Communities of Cwmavon and Bryn, would cross the boundary between the parliamentary constituencies of Neath and Aberavon leading to confusion amongst the electorate regarding which MP / AM represented them; • the inclusion of Aberavon and Port Talbot in the same division did not take account of the fact that they are divided by the River Afan which clearly delineates the two communities;

-16- Appendix 5 • the inclusion of Baglan and Briton Ferry in the same division did not take account of the fact that they were previously in the separate boroughs of Neath and Port Talbot and that Briton Ferry has a community council whilst Baglan does not; • Glyncorrwg and Gwynfi have strong identities developed as a result of industries in their areas and these are not reflected in the Commission’s Draft Proposals which puts them in the same division; • The inclusion of the Coedffranc Wards in the same electoral division will result in the loss of identity of the areas of and .

They also considered that the proposed merger of Sandfields and the proposed merger of Taibach and Margam may have some merit although their ratios were above the county average.

Neath Constituency Labour Party, Cwmllynfell Ward objected to the Commission’s proposals for Cwmllynfell which they considered would not improve democracy but destroy community spirit. The ratio of 1:1,750 was impossible to achieve in mountainous areas such as Cwmllynfell and would prevent the elderly electorate from meeting their councillors in their own homes. They considered that including Rhiwfawr with Pontardawe and Cwmllynfell with Lower Brynamman showed a lack of knowledge of the areas concerned.

Neath North Labour Party considered that the Commission’s proposals put too much emphasis on electoral parity and had not taken account of local geography or different types of communities. The proposal to join Gnoll and Llantwit with Cefn Saeson in the same division is unworkable as they are different communities with different needs from their councillors. The proposal to join Crynallt with Mount Pleasant also joins two differing communities and as a whole these two proposals break up the distinct community of Cimla. The proposal to join Melincrythan and Penrhiwtyn with Castle does not take account of Castle being part Neath Town centre and very different socially from the rest of the proposed division.

Baglan Branch Labour Party objected to the Commission’s proposals for Baglan and Briton Ferry and said that the existing electoral arrangements should be retained. They said that the large size of the proposed division would create difficulties for elected members and that there was a chance that all elected members may come from the same community leaving the other community without local representation. Housing developments were taking place in Baglan and more were planned meaning that it could be necessary for more councillors in Baglan. They pointed out that the councillor to elector ratio for the existing Baglan division of 1:1,895 was already higher than the target ratio of 1:1,750 and the proposal would increase this again to 1:2,088 which did not take account of the additional housing planned for Baglan.

Trebanos Branch Labour Party objected to the Commission’s proposals for their area which they said appeared to be based entirely on electoral figures. Although Rhiwfawr and Pontardawe are adjacent to each other they have no historical connection or cultural or social links and are separated by the Gwrhyd mountain. They considered that Rhiwfawr residents may be suspicious of being represented by a member from Pontardawe and could be reluctant to get involved in local politics. Joining Trebanos with Pontardawe was also flawed because Trebanos has always been a distinct village with its own identity and councillors. When Trebanos has been part of the Pontardawe ward it was considered that councillors favoured the larger conurbations in Pontardawe to the detriment of Trebanos. The electorate for Trebanos could be increased from 1,115 by

-17- Appendix 5 means of adjusting the boundary between Trebanos and Pontardawe to achieve a more equitable elector to councillor ratio. Multi-member electoral divisions are not desirable due to the confusion they cause to residents and the loss of identifiable representation.

Plaid Cymru Dyffryn Clydach Branch were opposed to the Commission’s proposal to include Dyffryn Clydach and Bryncoch South which they considered would damage the community spirit that had existed in Dyffryn Clydach for many years. They wished the existing electoral arrangements to be retained although they accepted that the existing Dyffryn division was under represented and suggested this could be resolved by an additional councillor being allocated together with a review of the boundary between their Community and the Community of Blaenhonddan. In respect of the existing division they considered that Dyffryn Clydach was a more appropriate name than Dyffryn. They suggested that if the proposed division were adopted then more suitable names would be Dyffryn Clydach, Mynachlog Nedd or Abaty Nedd.

Briton Ferry West Communities First Partnership objected to the Commission’s proposal to include Briton Ferry and Baglan in the same electoral division as they considered that Briton Ferry and Baglan had no affinity with each other. He said that Baglan was an affluent area whilst Briton Ferry West had been identified by the Welsh Assembly as a deprived area which was supported by Communities First. Also Briton Ferry had a Town Council which had worked hard to provide better services for Briton Ferry residents who had paid the precept for it and he considered that it would be unfair for Baglan residents to benefit from this.

Neath Port Talbot Communities First Sub-Ward Team considered that the Commission’s Draft Proposals were not sympathetic with natural organic communities and could result in divisions where cohesion currently exists. The Commission needed to be aware of the pressures faced by local councillors working in wards that experienced multiple deprivation and that the creation of larger electoral divisions would result in an unwieldy and difficult to manage workload for councillors and alienate the electorate. They considered that the Commission’s Draft Proposals did not take account of local needs and concerns, the impact on community councils, the impact on the Communities First Programme and Partnerships and how the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation would reflect the changes.

Rotary Club of Briton Ferry objected to the Commission’s proposal to include Briton Ferry and Baglan in the same electoral division. They pointed out that Briton Ferry had more affinity with Neath than Baglan as the use of Cwrt Sart School by children from Neath East showed. They considered that Briton Ferry would lose its identity under the proposed electoral division which may also affect the services provided by Briton Ferry Town Council.

Bryn Residents Action Group opposed the Commission’s proposal to include Pelenna in the same division as Bryn and . They said that the existing electoral division with two members had a ratio of 1:1,749 which is 1% above the county average whereas the proposed division of Bryn, Cwmafan and Pontrhydyfen with only one member had a ratio of 1:2,065 which is 8% above the county average. There was a good working relationship between their organisation and the two existing councillors and the proposals would reduce their access to their councillor. They also objected to the name of Tair Afon for the proposed electoral division and said that the names Bryn and Cwmafan should be retained for the electoral division name.

-18- Appendix 5 A Szulik, Headteacher Cwmllynfell Traditional Welsh Primary School, opposed the Commission’s proposal to include Cwmllynfell in the same division as Lower Brynamman and Gwaun Cae Gurwen as she considered that Cwmllynfell was a clearly defined community which has no links with either of those areas. She pointed out that travelling from Cwmllynfell to Lower Brynamman involved a four mile journey which was partly through Carmarthenshire. She considered that the proposals may leave whole communities not represented at any level of government.

L Brier, Headteacher Rhiwfawr Traditional Welsh Primary School, opposed the Commission’s proposal to include Rhiwfawr in the same division as Pontardawe. She said that Rhiwfawr was closely linked to its neighbouring community of Cwmllynfell and had nothing in common with Pontardawe which is five miles away across the Gwrhyd mountain or six miles away travelling through Powys. She considered that the interests of Rhiwfawr and its school would not be well served by councillors from Pontardawe who would have little knowledge of the village and that this would be detrimental to Rhiwfawr as a community.

Cwmllynfell and Rhiwfawr Neighbourhood Watch objected to the Commission’s proposals. They considered that striving for electoral parity at the expense of democracy would destroy long established pride and community spirit in the areas involved. They said that the proposals to join Rhiwfawr with Pontardawe and Cwmllynfell with Lower Brynamman went against the geography and topography of these areas.

D Leavens, Chairman of Briton Ferry Men’s Pensioners objected to the Commission’s proposals for Briton Ferry and Baglan. He said that the demands of the large number of electorate for the proposed division would not be shared equally particularly as one Briton Ferry member is a Cabinet Member who would have the most responsibility. It would be difficult for councillors to monitor areas of the division which fell outside their local knowledge. He considered that the proposal would put Briton Ferry Town Council in jeopardy and mean Briton Ferry West would lose its Communities First Ward status. He considered that the existing electoral arrangements worked well.

G R Clarke, resident of Neath, considered that the Commission’s Draft Proposals gave little consideration to natural geographical or topographical boundaries or to the cultural, social, welfare and communal requirements which were unique and widely diversified to each of the communities in Neath Port Talbot. He considered that the Draft Proposals could isolate or fragment communities.

B Lewis, resident of Godre’rgraig, was opposed to the proposal to merge Godre’r graig with Ystalyfera. He considered that Godre’r graig was a distinct community with its own identity and would be disadvantaged by being combined with the larger Ystalyfera as their needs would not be given the same consideration as they were being represented by their own councillor. The creation of a large 2 member ward would break the link between the county councillor and their local community.

L Thomas, resident of Cwmllynfell, was opposed to the proposal to merge Cwmllynfell with Gwaun Cae Gurwen and the proposal to merge Rhiwfawr with Pontardawe. She pointed out that Cwmllynfell and Rhiwfawr were a considerable distance away from Gwaun Cae Gurwen and Pontardawe and had nothing in common with them and could end up with no local representation at county level. She considered that the existing arrangements gave each community its own representation and should be retained.

-19- Appendix 5 W Griffiths, resident of Cwmllynfell, was opposed to the proposals to merge Cwmllynfell with Gwaun Cae Gurwen and Rhiwfawr with Pontardawe. He pointed out that these areas had nothing in common with each other and would not have been suggested by anyone with local knowledge. He considered that the existing arrangements should be retained as they worked well.

S Murphy, resident of Neath, J Clifford, resident of Cimla, said that the Commission’s draft proposals did not take into account local geography and broke long standing community ties. He made the following points:

• There is a major dual carriageway running between Tonna and Cilfrew, Cadoxton and Bryncoch. They are miles apart at their perimeters with differing community needs; • Gwaun Cae Gurwen and Brynamman are miles away from Cwmllynfell and are seperated by the Gwrhyd; • Rhiwfawr is miles away from Pontardawe and can only reached by a narrow mountain road through Rhyd-y-fro; • Tonmawr is in a different valley to Glynneath and it could take half an hour or more to travel from Glynneath in the Neath Valley to Tonmawr in the Pelenna Valley; • Joining Pontrhydyfen with communities outside of the Neath constituency will cause confusion and lead to ineffective representation; • The proposed large electoral divisions will break the link between communities and their County Borough Councillor and it will be impossible to effectively represent all the communities in each large electoral division.

T L Gibbs, resident of Port Talbot said that the pairing of the upper Neath Valley (Glynneath) with the Tonmawr was impractical as they were separated by step sided hills and not directly served by roads. The task of travelling between Tonmawr and the Neath Valley would make electoral representation difficult. He considered that the economic conditions of these areas was very different meaning the residents required different solutions and representation. He pointed out that Tonmawr and Pontrhydyfen were closely connected.

M Cole, resident of Neath, said that the Commission’s proposals divided long standing communities and created areas containing physical barriers such as mountains and trunk roads. He considered that communities were very important and largely dictated by the geography of the area and should be taken into account in the Commission’s proposals.

J & M Uzzell Edwards, residents of Rhiwfawr, opposed the Commission’s proposal to include Rhiwfawr in the same electoral division as Pontardawe. They pointed out that the two areas were separated by the Gwrhyd mountain with only a single track road connecting them. They said that Rhiwfawr and Pontardawe were totally different with different needs and problems and that Rhiwfawr would be marginalised if linked to Pontardawe.

R V Evans, resident of Neath, said that geographically large electoral divisions would further alienate the electorate from their local councillors.

H Johnson, resident of Neath Abbey, supported the views of Rt Hon Peter Hain MP. He considered the Commission’s proposals to be ill conceived and contrary to the idea of local democracy.

-20- Appendix 5 M Richards said that Bryn-coch North would be totally isolated from Aberdulais, Cadoxton, Cilfrew and Tonna by the exclusion of Bryn-coch South. He considered that the electoral division should be comprised of Bryn-coch, Cadoxton, Cilfrew, Aberdulais and . He said that the residents of Dyffryn Clydach and Neath Abbey considered themselves to be part of Skewen and had no connection with Bryn-coch which was seperated from these areas by a river and a small valley.

J Howells, resident of Bryncoch said that the Commission’s proposals joined together communities which were neither similar or close to each other. He considered that representation was as much about having representatives with local knowledge and understanding of local issues for their areas as it was about equality of numbers of electors to councillors.

A Jenkins, resident of Pontardawe, objected to the Commission’s proposals for Aberdulais, Cilfrew, Cadoxton, Tonna, Bryncoch North, Cwmllynfell, Gwaun Cae Gurwen, Lower Brynamman, Rhiwfawr, Pontardawe, Tonmawr, the Neath Valley, Pontrhydyfen, Cwmavon and Bryn. She considered that these proposals showed no knowledge of the areas concerned in terms of community identity, road links and local geography. She pointed out that Rhiwfawr and Pontardawe were miles away from each other and joined only by a narrow mountain road and that Pontrhydyfen was being included in a division outside of the Neath constituency.

Dr D Edwards, resident of Trebanos, said that the Commission’s proposals showed a disregard for local democracy and a lack of understanding of local communities with no consideration to local geography or differing types of communities. If the proposals were implemented they would widen the gap between electors and councillors.

J Myers, resident of Ystalyfera was opposed to the inclusion of Godre’r graig in the same electoral division as Ystalyfera. He considered that Godre’r graig was different to Ystalyfera and needed its own representation to ensure that its needs were given adequate consideration.

P Davies, resident of Briton Ferry, objected to the Commission’s proposal to merge Baglan with Briton Ferry. He said that Baglan and Briton Ferry are two separate entities with nothing in common, Baglan being part of Port Talbot and Britton Ferry being part of Neath. Briton Ferry has a community council and has a Communities First area unlike Baglan and the proposals could cause problems with these arrangements.

F Kingdom, resident of Briton Ferry objected to the Commission’s proposal to merge Baglan with Briton Ferry. He said that Baglan, Briton Ferry East and Briton Ferry West were three communities which were completely different in character and had nothing in common. Briton Ferry West has deprived status and receives assistance. He considered that the existing arrangements worked well and that single member electoral divisions enabled electors to see who was responsible for their services.

L Pennington, resident of Preston, made the following points regarding the Commission’s Draft Proposals:

• The proposal to merge the existing Coedffranc electoral divisions appears to be one of the better options available for that community;

-21- Appendix 5 • Resolven does not have any direct connection with Tonmawr and it is unusual to have electoral divisions containing communities which have no direct links between them; • Penrhiw Fawr has little direct road links with Pontardawe and it appears to be proposed on the grounds of electorate figures rather than community interests.

He also considered that some of the proposed electoral divisions should have names which more fully reflect the areas they incorporate. He made the following suggestions:

• The proposed Aberdulais and Tonna electoral division should be named Aberdulais / Bryn-coch / Tonna; • The proposed Afan electoral division should be named Aberavon / Port Talbot; • The proposed Cimla electoral division should be named Llantwit / Cefn Saeson; • The proposed Melyncrythan and Penrhiwtyn electoral division should be named Neath Central and East; • The proposed Glyncorrwg electoral division should be named Cymmer / Glyncorrwg / Gwynfi; • The proposed Gwaun Cae Gurwen electoral division should be named Cwmllynfell / Gwaun Cae Gurwen; • The proposed Pontardawe electoral division should be named Pontardawe / Trebanos / Pen Rhiw-fawr; • The proposed Ystalyfera electoral division should be named Graig Arw.

W Evans considered that the Commission’s Draft Proposals showed a complete lack of knowledge of the area of Neath Port Talbot.

C Henrywood, resident of Neath, considered that Melyncrythan / Melyncryddan should be referred to by its historical spelling of Melincrythan / Melincryddan.

C A Williams supported the views of Rt Hon Peter Hain MP.

A letter in standard form received from 21 residents of Port Talbot / Aberavon:

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you with grave concerns re the merging of the Aberavon Ward in Neath Port Talbot CBC. Aberavon is an old established electoral division that enjoys a long established history. The argument over declining numbers does not hold water when you see the number of new developments being built with more being planned. Aberavon is already

A letter in standard form received from 42 residents of Briton Ferry and a similar letter together with a petition of 51 signatures of Briton Ferry residents:

Dear Sir

Review of Electoral Arrangements for he County of Neath Port Talbot

I wish to object to the proposals as shown in paragraph 5.11 of the report in respect of Baglan, Briton Ferry East and Briton Ferry West on the following grounds:-

-22- Appendix 5 (a) The two communities have distinct characteristics with nothing in common due to their geographical position, Baglan being the more affluent ward reflected in the cost of private housing. (b) The geographical vastness of the proposed ward will make it extremely difficult to monitor and control as an elected member. (c) Should all five members be residents of one of these wards that would result in many of the electorate having no representation (d) In the days of the predecessor Authority West County Council the Electoral division was Briton Ferry and Neath East consequently there is no natural alignment with Baglan (e) Briton Ferry West is a Communities First Ward so how will this affect future funding as Baglan is not in this category (f) Briton Ferry Town Council provides vital services to the electorate of Briton Ferry and sets a precept accordingly. Baglan does not have a Community Council consequently if the proposals were enacted upon this would place the future of Briton Ferry Town Council in jeopardy resulting in the loss of services to the Briton Ferry residents (g) Accepting that it is difficult to forecast population figures Briton Ferry West s home to a Travellers site which sees fluctuation in population making forecasting impossible. (h) A relevant factor that needs to be taken into account relates to children post eleven who invariably are educated in the Comprehensive schools in Port Talbot and not at Cwrt Sart Community Comprehensive School in Briton Ferry, indicating that there is no common bond between Briton Ferry and Baglan.

I hope you will carefully consider these representations and the original decision will be revoked as the present system in Briton Ferry of the electorate being represented by both County Borough and Town Councillors is working well.

Yours sincerely,

A letter in standard form received from 87 residents of Tairgwaith, 9 residents of Gwaun Cae Gurwen, 2 residents of Cwmgors, 2 residents of Brynamman, 2 residents of Neath, a resident of Skewen, a resident of Rhyd-y-fro, a resident of Cwmllynfell, a resident of Neath Abbey and a resident of Bryn Coch (total 107):

Dear Sir,

I write in response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales draft proposals regarding Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council and wish to make the following comments:

Firstly I note that the draft proposal recommends reducing the number of elected Councillors by six. I find this decision to be totally against the guidelines set out by the Minister namely review of electoral arrangements (It is considered that a minimum of 30 councillors is required and where there may be a risk of council becoming unwieldy and difficult to manage a maximum of 75 councillors is ordinarily required for the proper management of the affairs of a county borough council). I wish to note that Neath Port Talbot County borough council has 64 elected councillors; this is well below the recommendations set out by the Minister.

-23- Appendix 5 The Electoral division of Gwaun Cae Gurwen which includes both Cwmgors Ward and Gwaun Cae Gurwen Ward are represented by 1 Councillor. These villages are in close proximity to each other.

The Electoral division of Lower Brynamman consists of the Lower Brynamman Ward and the Tairgwaith Ward. Lower Brynamman and Tairgwaith are two wards that have a significant number of rural electors, the draft is stating a councillor elector ratio of 1 : 1082 which is below the aims of 1 : 1750 but it needs to be noted that there is a far greater area to cover due to the proximity of a number of these electors, therefore the workload for this councillor is excessive. It should also be noted that the divisions of Gwaun Cae Gurwen and Lower Brynamman are within a radius of 2 miles.

The Electoral division of Cwmllynfell consists of the Community of Cwmllynfell and Penrhiwfawr, two villages that have a very close community link. If the proposal to remove Penrhiwfawr from Cwmllynfell goes ahead I feel this will have a severe detrimental effect on this community. The Councillor who represents this division has a far greater knowledge of the needs of the community and may have a ratio of 1 : 1 184 which is below the aim of 1 : 1750 but it needs to be noted that this a rural area where electors are spread out and therefore the councillors workload is still excessive.

As already noted the electoral divisions of Lower Brynamman and Gwaun cae Gurwen are within a 2 miles radius, the electoral division of Cwmllynfell is 4 miles away, so how can you justify your recommendation of reducing 1 councillor and expecting 2 councillors to cover a ward over 4 miles away.

The Commission's proposals have not taken into account the geography of the County Borough or the natural boundaries between the communities. Creating multi member wards would remove the important and vital link the electors have with their councillor.

Therefore I request that these areas continue to be represented by these 3 Councillors of whom the electors chose to represent them.

Yours faithfully

-24-