sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alun Michael, Cathays (electoral ward), Cathays Park, Cyncoed, Heath (electoral ward), Julie Morgan

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

REVIEW OF BOUNDARIES IN THE AND COUNTY OF

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

REVIEW OF COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF CARDIFF

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. CARDIFF CITY AND COUNTY COUNCIL’S PROPOSALS

3. THE COMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION

4. PROCEDURE

5. PROPOSALS

6. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS

7. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

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

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Cardiff City and County Council have conducted a review of the community boundaries and community electoral arrangements under Sections 55(2) and 57 (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 (the Act). In accordance with Section 55(2) of the Act Cardiff City and County Council submitted a report to the Commission detailing their proposals for changes to a number of community boundaries in their area.

1.2 The Commission attach the Report of Cardiff City and County Council as Commission Appendix 1 to the Commission's Report and Proposals. Cardiff's Report has 6 Appendices, to which the Commission will refer, and in order to avoid confusion, whenever the Commission refers to an Appendix it will be described either as a "Commission Appendix" or a "Cardiff Appendix.

1.3 In the course of its review Cardiff City and County Council considered a number of proposals submitted to the Council in the form of representations. These proposals are listed by the Council at Cardiff Appendix 6.

1.4 We have considered Cardiff City and County Council’s report in accordance with Section 55(3) of the Act and submit the following report on the Council’s recommendations.

2. CARDIFF CITY AND COUNTY COUNCIL’S PROPOSALS

2.1 Cardiff’s proposals were submitted to the Commission on 9th June 2008 and the report is attached as Commission’s Appendix 1. The Council also passed on three representations to the Commission, two from and one from a resident of Ash Grove (including a survey of residents’ views), these are summarised at Commission Appendix 2(i). The Commission itself has received a number of representations about the proposals and these are summarised at Commission Appendix 2(ii). The Commission have taken all these representations into account.

2.2 As a result of their review the Council have recommended changes to the boundaries between the communities of Old St. Mellons and Trowbridge. Cardiff’s recommendations are set out at the end of their Report at Commission Appendix 1.

3. THE COMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION

3.1 We first considered whether the City and County Council had conducted their review in accordance with the procedure set out in the Act. We then considered whether the proposals recommended were apt for securing effective and convenient local government.

4. PROCEDURE 4.1 Section 60 of the Act requires the Council to take such steps as they think fit to secure that persons who may be interested in the review are informed of the proposal to conduct the review and subsequently of the draft proposals which are to -1- be placed on deposit at the Council’s offices. The final proposals report is also required to be placed on deposit at the Council’s offices for a period of six months.

4.2 We are satisfied that the Cardiff City and County Council have conducted the review in accordance with the procedure set out in Section 60 of the Act.

5. PROPOSALS

5.1 The Council has made three suggestions (listed in full at Commission Appendix 1):

· Changes to the boundary between Old St. Mellons and Trowbridge · Change the name of the Community to · Change the name of the Community to Roath

5.2 The first proposal will be considered in detail at 5.6 and subsequent paragraphs below.

5.3 The second and third proposals are in respect of a change of community name. As indicated at 1.1 above, this review of community boundaries is being carried out under section 55(2) of the Act. This permits such changes to communities that are allowed under section 54, i.e. abolishing communities, creating new communities and changing community boundaries. As there are no proposals for changing the boundaries of the existing Roath and Plasnewydd Communities the only change would be the name and there is no provision for this under section 54. We are therefore unable to propose these name changes as part of this review.

5.4 The Act does make provision for changing the name of a community under section 76. This however requires a request (made by a community council or community meeting) to be made to the principal council. Neither community has a community council so a request for a change of community name will need to have arisen from a community meeting. We recommend that Cardiff City and County Council gives further consideration to these proposals.

5.5 The Council also rejected the following suggestions:

· Changes to the boundary between and Whitchurch · Changes to the boundary between Lisvane and · Changes to the boundary between and Rhiwbina

These changes have also been considered in detail at 5.12, 5.14, and 5.16 below.

Old St. Mellons and Trowbridge

5.6 The eastern part of the suggested boundary change involves a change to the community boundary from the centre of to the boundaries of properties within Trowbridge (areas 1 and 3 on the map at Commission Appendix 3). We noted that this proposed boundary line clearly divided those properties that are accessed from the Community of Old St. Mellons from those that are accessed from the Community of Trowbridge.

-2- 5.7 Following a visit to the area we suggest a minor change to the Council’s proposal so that the boundary utilises the footpath and the property boundaries behind Limewood Close to avoid a section of undefined boundary. Our suggested amendment to the Council’s boundary is shown and marked in blue within area 1 on the map at Commission Appendix 3. We also suggest a change to the proposed boundary at area 2 on the map at Commission Appendix 3. We consider that the boundary in this area would be more clearly defined if it were to utilise the centre of the road - Llaneirwg Way - running parallel with the property line behind numbers 8- 10 Alderwood Close as shown and marked in blue on the map at Commission Appendix 3 (area 2,). This line will then continue until it reaches and joins the line of the current boundary shown and marked in red on that map.

5.8 In the western section of the boundary we have made two changes to the boundary proposed by the Council. The Council proposed moving the boundary to include Kenneth Treasure Court into Old St. Mellons as residents access is gained from that community. For the sake of clarity we have made a small adjustment in blue to that suggested boundary to utilise the centreline of Greenway Road as shown on Commission Appendix 4 (area 4).

5.9 The second change in this section is a Cardiff City and County Council proposal to bring Canopus Close into Trowbridge as shown on the map at Commission Appendix 3 (area 5). Following a visit to the area we noted that that both Canopus Close and the adjoining Duncan Close shared access to Greenway Road and the type of houses were similar in design and build. It appeared to us therefore that it would be of desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government for the two areas to be within the same community. As Duncan Close is currently within the Community of Rumney, we considered that rather than including Canopus Close within the Community of Trowbridge it may be more appropriate to include it with Duncan Close within the Community of Rumney. To that end we wrote to the residents of Canopus Close and other interested parties asking for their views. These representations are summarised at Commission Appendix 2(ii)

5.10 Along with responses from those residents we received representations from MP for Cardiff North, County Councillor Dianne Rees (/ Old St. Mellons), County Councillor Jane Rogers (Pontprennau/ Old St. Mellons), Old St. Mellons Community Council, and 13 residents of Canopus Close (one of whom attached a petition with 21 signatures). We also met with two of the residents at our offices.

5.11 As a result of these representations, an alternative suggestion was made to consider the inclusion of Duncan Close into the Community of Old and residents were contacted by letter to that effect. The response indicated that most residents of Duncan Close already considered that they were included in the Community and would be in favour of a change to the boundary which would formalise that arrangement. This suggestion is shown on the map at Commission Appendix 5 which includes Duncan Close in the southerly re-alignment of the proposed new boundary which is outlined in blue.

Rhiwbina and Whitchurch

5.12 Cardiff City and County Council considered and rejected a suggested change to the boundary between the Communities of Rhiwbina and Whitchurch that would see Ash

-3- Grove transfer to Rhiwbina as shown on the map at Commission Appendix 1, Cardiff Appendix 1. The Council passed on a letter from a resident of Ash Grove that includes a survey of the residents who feel that a change of Community boundary is necessary (Commission Appendix 2(i)). We considered both Cardiff’s report and the views of the residents.

5.13 On making a site visit to the area we noted that one part of the suggested boundary followed the common party wall between two semi-detached properties. It was also noted that the suggested boundary excluded a large number of properties in Caedelyn Road which seem to be of a similar age and style to Ash Grove, together with some adjoining residential blocks in Curlew Close and a lone bungalow within the playing field area behind Ash Grove. It appeared to us that this was an area which shared the same characteristics and that it would not be appropriate to consider Ash Grove in isolation. We were of the view, moreover, that the current boundary, which runs along Northern Avenue, represents a clearly defined boundary. We are of the view that it would not be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government, therefore, to propose this change to the boundary between the Communities of Rhiwbina and Whitchurch.

Lisvane and Llanishen

5.14 Cardiff City and County Council considered and rejected a suggested change to the boundary between the Communities of Lisvane and Llanishen as shown on the map at Commission Appendix 1, Cardiff Appendix 2. The Council passed on two letters from Lisvane Community Council that supported this change (Commission Appendix 2(i)). We considered both Cardiff’s report and the views of Lisvane Community Council.

5.15 We have inspected both the current and the suggested boundaries and are of the view that suggested boundary offered no improvement on the existing boundary as being well defined and containing similar areas in terms of community of interest. We are of the view therefore that it would not be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government to propose this change to the boundary between the Communities of Lisvane and Llanishen.

Heath and Rhiwbina

5.16 Cardiff City and County Council also considered and rejected a suggested change to the boundary between the Communities of Heath and Rhiwbina as shown on the map at Commission Appendix 1, [Cardiff Appendix 3].

5.17 Following a visit to the area we are of the view that the suggested boundary divides properties of similar age and character and does not appear to be as clearly defined as the existing boundary. We are of the view therefore that it would not be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government to propose this change to the boundary between the Communities of Heath and Rhiwbina

6. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS

6.1 In considering the various changes to the community boundaries it was also necessary for us to take account of the effects on the electoral arrangements for community councils and the principal authority, which would result from these -4- changes. This section of our report details our proposals for consequential changes to the electoral arrangements. The electoral statistics used in this report were provided by Cardiff City and County Council.

Community Council Electoral Arrangements

6.2 The Community of Old St. Mellons has a community council but is not warded and currently has 1,804 electors represented by 9 councillors. Under our proposals the number of electors will increase by 43.

6.3 The Community of Rumney (6,624 electors) and the Community of Trowbridge (10,698 electors) do not have community councils.

County Council Electoral Arrangements

6.4 The electoral division of Old St. Mellons/ Pontprennau has 6,474 electors represented by 2 councillors. Under our proposals the number of electors will increase by 43.

6.5 The electoral division of Rumney has 6,575 electors represented by 2 councillors. Under our proposals the number of electors will decrease by 43.

6.6 The electoral division of Trowbridge has 10,698 electors represented by 3 councillors. Under our proposals the number of electors will not change.

6.7 The Commission is of the view that for all of the above electoral divisions the changes to the number of electors because of the proposed boundary changes are not so significant as, at this time, to require either an increase or a decrease in the number of councillors representing each electoral division. Within the next few years we are due to conduct a review of the electoral arrangements for all of the principal councils in Wales and we and we have recently received directions from the Welsh Assembly Government to guide us in the conduct of the review. At that time we will look in detail at the electoral arrangements for Cardiff City and County Council and will take into account any changes that arise from these proposed changes to community boundaries.

7. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

7.1 Having completed our consideration of the review of the community boundaries in the City and County of Cardiff and submitted our recommendations to the Welsh Assembly Government, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation under the Act.

7.2 It now falls to the Welsh Assembly Government, if it thinks fit, to accept them or to direct either the Commission or the County Council to conduct a further review.

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

-5- Democracy Team Local Government Policy Division Welsh Assembly Government Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ

MR P J WOOD (Chair)

REV. HYWEL MEREDYDD DAVIES BD (Deputy Chair)

Mr J BADER (Member)

E H LEWIS BSc. DPM FRSA FCIPD (Secretary)

February 2009

-6- APPENDIX 1 ______CITY AND COUNTY OF CARDIFF COMMUNITY REVIEW FINAL PROPOSALS has conducted a review of its communities in accordance with S55 and S57 Local Government Act 1972.

In January 2007 the Council announced its intention to review the community boundaries within Cardiff and invited the views of interested parties.

It was the Council's aim during the course of the review to determine what changes (if any) to the boundaries, or electoral arrangements of the communities may be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government, and to make recommendations as appropriate to the Local Government Boundary Commission and the National Assembly of Wales.

This review will be followed by a separate review of the County Council electoral divisions, to be conducted by the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales which will make recommendations to the National Assembly for Wales. In reviewing the electoral divisions, the Commission will take note of any changes to the communities that arise from this review.

Representations to the initial review and the Council draft proposals have been received and after careful consideration, the following proposals to change the communities are proposed by the Council;

1. Changes to the boundary between the communities of Old St. Mellons and Trowbridge to include properties with direct access to Newport Road, Chapel Road, and Old Hill in the Old St. Mellons Community.

2. The name of Roath Community be changed to Penylan Community.

3. The name of Plasnewydd Community be changed to Roath.

Copies of plans showing the proposal to change the Trowbridge/Old St. Mellons boundary can be examined at the offices of the Council at the address below and can be viewed at www.cardiff.gov.uk/vote.

Any person or body having an interest in the final review proposals are invited to send their comments on the proposals in writing not later than 1 September 2008 to:

The Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales, Caradog House, 1-6 St Andrews Place, Cardiff CFIO 3BE, or by e-mail to [email protected]

Byron Davies Chief Executive Cardiff County Council 19 May 2008

-1- APPENDIX 1 CARDIFF COUNCIL CYNGOR CAERDYDD

EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING: 10 APRIL 2008

CARDIFF COMMUNITY BOUNDARY REVIEW

REPORT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AGENDA ITEM: 4

PORTFOLIO: CORPORATE

Reason for this Report

1. To inform the Executive of the outcome of the second and final consultation that has been undertaken in relation to the Community Review and to approve, for recommendation to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales, final proposals for changes to Community areas in Cardiff.

Background

2. The Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBC) has advised all Welsh local authorities to conduct a review of their community boundaries in readiness for the next review of electoral divisions that will take place following the local elections in 2008.

3. Cardiff Council has responsibility for reviewing the boundaries and electoral arrangements of the 32 Communities within Cardiff, of which 6 are represented by Community Councils. Final proposals for any changes need to be submitted to the LGBC in early 2008. The agreed boundaries will form the building blocks for the electoral division boundaries which the LGBC are due to review following the 2008 local elections.

4. The Community Boundary Review could have significant consequences for the future electoral division structure of Cardiff as the Electoral Division Review will look only at the boundaries of communities to form electoral divisions and for the level of Member representation within those divisions. The electoral division review is unlikely to provide opportunities for any boundary changes.

5. Proposals for any changes will be considered by the LGBC on the basis of being ‘desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government’. It will be necessary to demonstrate that the Council has consulted widely with all interested parties during the course of the review.

6. The Chief Executive published the necessary statutory notices to begin the Community Boundary Review in January 2007 and invited the views of stakeholders and other relevant parties. Political Group Leaders were included as key consultees.

-2- APPENDIX 1

Issues

7. Following the initial request for views, a total of 2 formal representations were received from members of the public, 4 from Community Councils and 1 from a local Councillor. These representations included 4 proposals for boundary changes and 1 proposal for the name of a community to be changed. The representations, with detailed plans, were reported in full to the Executive Business Meeting in October 2007.

8 The Executive considered those representations and formulated proposals in October 2007. The proposals were placed on deposit at County Hall and on the Council’s web site. All stakeholders and other interested parties were notified of the detail. Responses to the proposals are detailed in Cardiff Appendix 5.

9. A request has been received from the Clerk to Community Council to consider increasing to number of Community councillors in the Radyr South ward from 3 to 4. There has been significant residential development in that ward since the numbers were originally fixed and the proposal would result in an improved balance of representation throughout the Community of Radyr.

RADYR AND COMMUNITY COUNCIL Ward Current number Electors Electors per of seats seat Morganstown ward 4 1680 420 Radyr North ward 4 1204 301 Radyr South ward 3 1472 490

The average number of electors per seat in all Cardiff communities is 284.

10. This proposal would be regarded as an amendment to the electoral arrangements of the community and as such can be undertaken by the Council without reference to the LGBCW.

Local Member Consultation

11. Ward Members and Clerks to the Community Councils have been consulted on two separate occasions. The comments received in response to the initial request for views are included in Cardiff Appendix 6. They were considered in the formulation of proposals agreed at Executive Business meeting in October 2007. Representations received to those proposals are included in Cardiff Appendix 5.

Reasons for Recommendations

12. To enable the Council to comply with the request from the Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBC) that all Welsh local authorities conduct a review of their community boundaries and arrangements in readiness for the next review of electoral divisions that will take place following local elections in 2008.

-3- APPENDIX 1 Legal Implications

13. The Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales and principal Councils have a duty to keep under review their community boundaries pursuant to Part IV of the Local Government Act 1972.

Financial Implications

14. There are no direct financial implications for the Council arising from this report.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Executive is recommended to agree that:-

(1) the following proposals be submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales:

· Changes to the boundary between Old St. Mellons and Trowbridge as set out in Cardiff Appendix 4.

· The name of Roath Community be changed to Penylan Community.

· The name of the Plasnewydd Community be changed to Roath Community.

(2) the following Community proposals be rejected:

· Changes to the boundary between Rhiwbina and Whitchurch (Cardiff Appendix 1).

· Changes to the boundary between Lisvane and Llanishen (Cardiff Appendix 2).

· Changes to the boundary between Heath and Rhiwbina (Cardiff Appendix 3).

(3) the Chief Executive be authorised to make an Order under S57 (4) Local Government Act 1972 to increase the number of community Councillors for the Radyr South ward of the Community of Radyr and from 3 to 4.

BYRON DAVIES Chief Executive 31 March 2008 The following Appendices are attached: Cardiff Appendix 1 – Boundary Proposal for Rhiwbina/Whitchurch Cardiff Appendix 2 – Boundary Proposal for Lisvane/ Llanishen Cardiff Appendix 3 – Boundary Proposal for Heath/Rhiwbina Cardiff Appendix 4 – Amended Boundary Proposal for Old St. Mellons/Trowbridge (1) Cardiff Appendix 5 – Representations to proposals Cardiff Appendix 6 – Summary of representations to initial request for views and to proposals

-4- APPENDIX 1

CARDIFFCARDIFF APPENDIX APPENDIX 1 1

-5- APPENDIX 1

CARDIFF APPENDIX 2

-6- APPENDIX 1

CARDIFF APPENDIX 3

-7- APPENDIX 1

REV. HYWEL MEREDYDD DAVIES BD CARDIFF APPENDIX 4

-8- APPENDIX 1

CARDIFF APPENDIX 5

REPRESENTATIONS TO PROPOSALS OF EBM OCTOBER 2007 From Comment Lisvane / Llanishen (see map at Cardiff’s appendix 2)

Lisvane Requesting that the Views of Lisvane Community Council be formally referred Community to the Local Boundary Commission. The issues of part of Mill Road, Lisvane Council Road and all of Mill Close being in Llanishen, has over the years, caused a great deal of confusion. The majority of residents believe that both areas are in the Lisvane Ward; particularly as for some their postal and ecclesiastical address is given as Lisvane. Even the County Planning Department has in the past sought the Community Council’s views on property’s which are on the Llanishen section of these roads. Given the local perception and the natural boundary of the Main Road and Railway Line the Community Council is of the view that an amendment to the Ward boundary would be the sensible solution.

Plasnewydd / Penylan

Resident of I object to the proposal ...to change the name of Plasnewydd Community to North Cardiff Roath Community. because it will cause confusion in terms of historical records. There is an existing Roath Community (at Penylan) in Cardiff and its community based records may in future all too easily confused with those for the proposed new Roath Community (at Plasnewydd). This would not be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

Plasnewydd I would recommend that this objection is not acceded to. Member 1 The community currently know as Roath covers the same area as the electoral ward of Penylan (the name of the ward having been changed from Roath to Penylan at the time of the last boundary review for Cardiff). With the ward now being known as Penylan (a move that was welcomed by residents there at the time), then I believe it only makes sense for the community name to also be changed to Penylan so that the community name and the ward name now match. People living in this community tend to associate much more with the name of Penylan than with the name of Roath.

In relation to the community currently known as Plasnewydd, I would note that the postal address throughout this community is Roath and Roath is the area name with which local residents tend to identify. The term Plasnewydd is not a name with which people particularly identify, and it tends only to be used in official communications from Cardiff Council. Ask any resident of this community the name of the area they live in and they would respond by saying 'Roath'. Some of them do not realise that their area is being referred to at all when the term Plasnewydd is used. I believe this is good reason to change the community name to Roath. I also believe that the name of the electoral ward should subsequently be changed to Roath at the time of the next boundary review.

I believe once these changes are made, the situation will be much less confusing than it is at present as the official names of the communities will much better match the perceptions of local residents with regards to their views on the areas in which they live. There will also be a much greater correlation between community names and postal addresses in both communities.

-9- APPENDIX 1 Plasnewydd I have read the attached letter of objection and I think that the gentleman is member 2 confused the Roath Community which I believe he is referring to is The Roath Community Hall which is in Roath (Plasnewydd) not Penylan. There is a large amount of confusion amongst residents as to which area of Cardiff they live in for political purposes on arriving in Plasnewydd. This problem does get resolved shortly afterwards through a delivery of the Plasnewydd Focus but it is a genuine problem which does need resolving. A change in the name of the ward to Roath is a solution which makes common sense.

Penylan A degree of confusion exists with regard to the geographical areas covered by member 1 Roath, Penylan and Plasnewydd (and also and if it comes to that). The following examples might help to clarify (or confuse still further) the situation.

Prior to local government reorganisation, and the creation of unitary authorities in 1996, half the present electoral division of Penylan was known as Waterloo and the other half as Penylan for County Council purposes, but the whole of the present Penylan was known as Roath for City Council purposes. As things stand at present, Roath Library is in Adamsdown, Roath Court, Roath Recreation Ground, School, and Roath Community Centre are in Plasnewydd and Roath Park is in Cyncoed/Plasnewydd. Penylan Library is in Plasnewydd but Roath Mill Gardens and Cyncoed Gardens are in Penylan.

In view of the confusion that already exists, the proposal to change the current Community names of Roath to Penylan and Plasnewydd to Roath could not confuse matters any further.

Penylan Supports the views of the previous member. member 2 Rhiwbina / Whitchurch (see map at Cardiff’s appendix 1)

Resident 1 Last week I called at every house on Ash Grove (37) which are, at present, within the Rhiwbina Boundary, and asked each resident if they wished to remain within that boundary or within the proposed boundary behind the houses, bring them back within the Whitchurch Boundary.

Everyone that I spoke to, apart from the two residents who wish to remain in Rhiwbina and one resident who was not available, regard themselves as part of Whitchurch and always use “Whitchurch” as their postal address and do not recognise “Rhiwbina”.

I should be most grateful if you would pass the enclosed lists to the Boundary Commission in the hope that they will look again at the decision taken to keep us within the Rhiwbina Boundary and accept the wishes of the majority of the residents of Ash Grove who wish to revert to being part of the Whitchurch Community again.

I hope my decision to go to every house and find out exactly how they feel will not have been in vain.

32 Whitchurch 2 Rhiwbina 2 empty houses 1 not available.

I hope you will realise I am not a time-waster.

-10- APPENDIX 1

Resident 2 I have lived in Ash Grove, Whitchurch for twenty years and whoever changed it to Rhiwbina should be shot! Ash Grove has always been Whitchurch and so has Manor Way come to that. We have Whitchurch Station on the same side of the road, just a few yards away, is anyone proposing to change that to Rhiwbina? That could cause some confusion! We also have Whitchurch Golf Club, I imagine they would cause a hue and cry if you changed them!

The deeds to my house clearly state that I live in Whitchurch and here I shall remain, unless someone demands that my deeds are changed.

Rhiwbina has always been at the other side of Cae Delyn park, my in-laws have always lived in Whitchurch, even before Ash Grove was the A470 and there was just a lane going to the golf club, they all know it as Whitchurch.

Please let us have our boundaries back where they should be, I doubt the Rhiwbina residents want us anyway!

Resident 3 I have lived on Ash Grove, Whitchurch , (Postal Address) Cardiff for 32 years, first at No22 for 20yrs and now at No2 for the past 12 years. My children all attended Eglwys Newydd Primary School and then Whitchurch High School. I shop at Whitchurch village and only use Rhiwbina when catching the train into town. Why then, would I consider myself to live in Rhiwbina? - the only time I am considered to live in Rhiwbina is when it comes to election time! Therefore I believe the properties in Ash Grove should be moved to Whitchurch ward ASAP.

-11- APPENDIX 1 CARDIFF COMMUNITY REVIEW CARDIFF APPENDIX 6 Summary of representations to initial request for views and to proposals of EBM October 2007 Respondent Summary of Original Decision of Subsequent Representation Representation Executive Business Meeting Oct 07

Lisvane Community Lisvane That 124 properties in No action Lisvane Community Council Community the lower half of Mill has requested that its Council Road, Mill Close, representations be forwarded Millgate, Woodside to the Local Government Court and a section of Boundary Commission for Lisvane Road in Wales. Llanishen be moved into the Lisvane Community.

The current boundary is not geographically distinct and the proposal is to realign it with the railway line and Lisvane Road for greater clarity.

(See Cardiff’s appendix 2)

Plasnewydd Community Councillor for That the name of the 1. 1. Objection from a resident Plasnewydd Plasnewydd Community Agree to of North Cardiff on the be changed to Roath change the grounds that it would cause Community. name of confusion in terms of Plasnewydd historical records. There is The name Plasnewydd community an existing Roath Community is not one with which to Penylan to (at Penylan) and its local residents of the match the community-based records Plasnewydd Community existing may in future be confused particularly identify. Penylan with those for the proposed The postal address electoral new Roath Community (at throughout the area is division. Plasnewydd). This would not Roath and this is the be desirable in the interests of name for the area with 2 effective and convenient local which local residents Agree to government. identify. change the name of 2. Four ward members of Currently many local Plasnewydd Penylan and Plasnewydd residents are confused community supporting original proposals by official to Roath with of the Executive. communications from which

-12- APPENDIX 1 the Council which refer residents to Plasnewydd. They more readily do not always realise identify. that means information relating to Plasnewydd actually applies to them. This would be resolved by the community and ward being known as Roath in future.

Rhiwbina/Whitchurch/Heath Communities Rhiwbina That 37 properties in No action Repeated representations Residents Ash Grove, Rhiwbina, from Rhiwbina residents. be moved into the Whitchurch (Ash Grove has not Community. previously been part of the Whitchurch Community). Ash Grove is currently split between Whitchurch & Rhiwbina. The resident in the Rhiwbina area does not associate with Rhiwbina and would like to move back to Whitchurch where they were before a previous boundary review.

(See Cardiff’s Appendix 1)

Whitchurch That 756 properties in No action None Resident the north west area of Heath be moved into the Rhiwbina Community. (See Cardiff’s Appendix 3)

Old St. Mellons Trowbridge Community That 393 properties in Amended None Heritage Park, proposal as Canopus Close, shown in Orchard Park, Orchard Cardiff’s Close and properties Appendix 4. with access from Newport Road be moved from the Trowbridge Community

-13- APPENDIX 1 to the Old St. Mellons Community. See Cardiff’s Appendix 4.

Radyr and Morganstown Community Radyr and Late representation. To increase the number of Morganstown community councillors in the Community Radyr South ward of the Council Community from 3 to 4. To balance elector/ member ratios within the three wards of the community.

-14- APPENDIX 1

-15- APPENDIX 2

Summary of Representations

(i) Representations forwarded by Cardiff City and County Council in respect of Whitchurch/ Rhiwbina & Llanishen/ Lisvane.

1. The clerk of Lisvane Community Council wrote to the City and County of Cardiff on two occasions offering observations on why local residents consider the proposed change in the Llanishen/ Lisvane boundary to be a natural one and supporting the proposed change.

2. A resident of Ash Grove in Rhiwbina wrote to the City and County of Cardiff explaining her opposition to the proposed change in the boundary between Whitchurch and Rhiwbina. To support her argument that Ash Grove has always been part of Whitchurch the resident conducted a poll of her neighbours and provided a list of 52 names which appear to support her request that Ash Grove be transferred to Whitchurch Community.

(ii) Representations to Local Government Boundary Commission in respect of Trowbridge and Old St Mellons.

Canopus Close

1. We wrote to the residents of Canopus Close asking for their views on the Cardiff council-proposed boundary change which would bring Canopus Close out of Old St Mellons Community and into Trowbridge Community, and the alternative suggestion that Canopus Close be placed into Rumney Community. Of the 49 residents and six councillors contacted we have received a representation from the local MP, three representations from councillors and 13 from residents all of which are not in favour of the change and wishing Canopus Close to remain in the community of Old St. Mellons. The majority of respondents were concerned with the negative effect that the change of Community would have on the value of their home and both their home and motoring insurance premiums.

2. Julie Morgan MP wrote: “I understand that Canopus Close is geographically closer to Old St. Mellons. More importantly, I believe the residents have a clear social attachment to this community which they do not wish to surrender. As you may be aware, the sense of community in Old St. Mellons is particularly strong. Social and sporting activities are regularly organised by the residents and I am told of a number of successful campaigns to improve the facilities and environment in Old St. Mellons, started by members of the community. For 20 years, the residents of Canopus Close have participated actively in organising, attending and supporting various events held in Old St. Mellons and feel very strongly that they should be allowed to remain a part of this community.”

3. Councillor Diane Rees (City and County of Cardiff) considered that: “…The fact that Canopus Close can only be accessed from Old St. Mellons by foot resulted following a road reconfiguration some years ago. However the people of Canopus Close would consider themselves to be members of the Community of

-1- APPENDIX 2 Old St. Mellons and strongly express that they are happy being a part of that community. They consider the pedestrian access via the path of Chapel Row, which is only two minutes may from their property, to be connecting them directly to Newport Road, the church, shops and public houses. A number of residents stress the historic position of their houses in relation to Old St. Mellons village. There is no advantage to the City and County of Cardiff for Canopus Close to be removed from the Old St. Mellons community boundary and placed in the Trowbridge/ Rumney district.”

4. Councillor Jane Rogers (City and County of Cardiff) considered that: “Through a petition, the residents of Canopus Close have made their opinions very clear in that they wish to stay within the community of the Old St. Mellons. In your letter, you state that there are houses like those in Duncan Close and I wish to ask that these houses are also included in the Old St. Mellons boundary area.”

5. Councillor Gwen Jones (Old St. Mellons Community Council) said that: “We have heard from the residents of Canopus Close who have voiced their opinion that they wish to stay in our area.”

6. Nine residents expressed their wish to stay in the Old St. Mellons Community due to its social aspects as well as its historical status as a district.

7. One resident was concerned about the bureaucratic approach to merely ignoring previous decisions made by other agencies.

8. Four residents were concerned that the value of their homes would be negatively affected by moving out of the Old St. Mellons community, and that their premiums for both home and motor insurance would increase because of the boundary change.

9. One resident felt that her child would be disadvantaged by no longer being eligible to attend Old St. Mellons School.

10. A Petition signed by 21 residents of Canopus Close - was also sent on 28th October to Julie Morgan, the MP for Cardiff North, and to the Secretary of the Commission and was entitled; “We, the undersigned, ask the Commission to reconsider this amendment to the boundary.”

11. The petitioner further requested a meeting with the Commission to discuss the matter further, face-to-face. This meeting was arranged for the morning of November 26th 2008 and two petitioners attended the meeting.

Duncan Close

12. A further letter on the subject was sent to the residents of Duncan Close asking for their views on a suggested boundary re-alignment which would bring Duncan Close into Old St Mellons community with Canopus Close. This letter was copied to Mr (MP for Cardiff South), Ms Lorraine Barratt AM and Mr Jonathan Morgan AM as well as the local County and Community councillors.

-2- APPENDIX 2 13. A map showing this proposed new boundary alignment is shown at Commission Appendix 5

14. Eight responses from 15 residents of Duncan Close shared a unanimous decision to accept the suggestion that the boundary be changed to include Duncan Close in the Community of Old St Mellons - indeed, seven of those responses thought that Duncan Close was already included in Old St Mellons Community.

-3-