LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

Review of the Electoral Arrangements of the County of

Final Recommendations Report

June 2021

© LDBCW copyright 2021

You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence or email: [email protected]

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to the Commission at [email protected]

This document is also available from our website at www.ldbc.gov.wales

FOREWORD

The Commission is pleased to present this Report to the Minister for Finance and Local Government, which contains its recommendations for revised electoral arrangements for the County of Monmouthshire. This review is part of the programme of reviews being conducted under the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013, and follows the principles contained in the Commission’s Policy and Practice document. The issue of fairness is at the heart of the Commission’s statutory responsibilities. The Commission’s objective has been to make recommendations that provide for effective and convenient local government, and which respect, as far as possible, local ties. The recommendations are aimed at improving electoral parity, so that the vote of an individual elector has as equal a value to those of other electors throughout the County, so far as it is possible to achieve. The Commission is grateful to the Members and Officers of the County of Monmouthshire for their assistance in its work, to the Community and Town Councils for their valuable contributions, and to all who have made representations throughout the process.

Dr Debra Williams Chair

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES REVIEW OF THE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE COUNTY OF MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Contents Page Chapter 1 Introduction 2 Chapter 2 The Draft Proposals 5 Chapter 3 Summary of Final Recommendations 6 Chapter 4 Assessment 10 Chapter 5 The Final Recommendations 12 Chapter 6 Summary of Recommended Arrangements 32 Chapter 7 Responses to this Report 33 Chapter 8 Acknowledgements 34

APPENDIX 1 GLOSSARY OF TERMS APPENDIX 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP APPENDIX 3 RECOMMENDED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP APPENDIX 4 RULES AND PROCEDURES APPENDIX 5 SUMMARY OF DRAFT REPRESENTATIONS APPENDIX 6 CABINET SECRETARY FOR FINANCE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 23 JUNE 2016 - WRITTEN STATEMENT

1st Edition printed June 2021

The Commission welcomes correspondence and telephone calls in Welsh or English. Mae’r ddogfen ar hon ar gael yn y Gymraeg. This document has been translated into Welsh by Trosol.

The Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales Hastings House Fitzalan Court CF24 0BL

Tel Number: (029) 2046 4819 Fax Number: (029) 2046 4823

E-mail: [email protected] www.ldbc.gov.wales

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Rebecca Evans, MS Minister for Finance and Local Government Welsh Government Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1. The Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales (the Commission) has conducted a review of the electoral arrangements of the County of Monmouthshire. This review was conducted in accordance with the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013 (the Act), specifically Sections 29, 30 and 34-36. 2. Pursuant to the Act, the Commission has completed the review of the electoral arrangements for the County of Monmouthshire and presents its final recommendations for future electoral arrangements. 3. This programme of reviews has come as a result of the former Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government’s Written Statement of 23 June 2016, where the Commission was asked to restart its programme of reviews, with an expectation that all 22 electoral reviews be completed in time for the new arrangements to be put in place for the 2022 local government elections. The Written Statement can be found at Appendix 6. The rules and procedures the Commission follows can be found in the Commission’s Electoral Reviews: Policy and Practice [2016] and outlined in Appendix 4. A Glossary of Terms can be found at Appendix 1, providing a short description of some of the common terminology used within this report. 4. Monmouthshire County Council completed its own review of community areas within Monmouthshire. The Commission submitted its report in relation to that community review to Welsh Government in January 2019. On 15 January 2020 after considering representations made, the former Minister for Housing and Local Government stated that Welsh Government had accepted the recommendations in the Commission’s report. Those recommendations will be implemented by means of an Order of the Welsh Ministers. The Commission is therefore conducting its electoral review on the basis of the community areas in Monmouthshire as they will be once the Order of the Welsh Ministers comes into force. 5. Section 35 of the Act lays down the procedural guidelines which are to be followed in carrying out a review. In compliance with Section 35 the Commission wrote to Monmouthshire County Council, all the community and town councils in the area, the mandatory consultees and other interested parties on 01 July 2020 to inform them of the Commission’s intention to conduct the review and request their preliminary views. This consultation ran from 07 July 2020 to 28 September 2020. The Commission also made copies of its Electoral Reviews: Policy and Practice [2016] document available. 6. The Commission published its Draft Proposals Report on 10 December 2020 and requested views on the proposals. This consultation ran from 17 December 2020 to 10 March 2021. 7. The Commission publicised the review on its website and social media channels and asked Monmouthshire County Council to publicise the review and provided the Council with a number of public notices to display. These were also provided to the community and town councils in the area. In addition, the Commission made a presentation to both county, and town and community councillors to explain the review process and the Commission’s

Page 2

MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT policies. The County Council was invited to submit a suggested scheme for new electoral arrangements.

Page 3

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

This page has been deliberately left blank

Page 4

MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Chapter 2. THE DRAFT PROPOSALS 1. Prior to the formulation of the draft proposals, the Commission received representations from Monmouthshire County Council, five town and community councils, one County Councillor and six members of the public. 2. These representations were taken into consideration and summarised in the Draft Proposals Report published on 10 December 2020. The listed mandatory consultees and other interested parties were informed of a period of consultation on the draft proposals which commenced on 17 December 2020 and ended on 10 March 2021. The Commission asked Monmouthshire County Council to display copies of the report alongside public notices in the area. The Commission’s draft proposals proposed a change to the arrangement of electoral wards that would have achieved a significant improvement in the level of electoral parity across the County of Monmouthshire. 3. The Commission proposed a council of 46 members, an increase from 45. This resulted in a proposed county average of 1,599 electors per member. 4. The Commission proposed 42 electoral wards. 5. The largest under-representation (in terms of electoral variance) within the proposals was in (19% above the proposed county average). At present the greatest under- representation is in Larkfield and St Kingsmark (31% above the proposed county average). 6. The largest over-representation (in terms of electoral variance) within the proposals was in Mardy (21% below the proposed county average). At present the greatest over- representation is in (30% below the proposed county average). 7. The Commission proposed four multi-member wards in the county consisting of four two- member electoral wards. 8. The Commission proposed no changes to 31 electoral wards.

Page 5

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Chapter 3. SUMMARY OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS • The Commission received 39 representations from Monmouthshire County Council, seven Town or Community Councils, 17 County Councillors, three Town or Community Councillors, one Member of the Senedd, two interested bodies and eight members of the public. A summary of those representations can be found at Appendix 5. • The Commission recommends a change to the arrangement of electoral wards that will achieve a marked improvement in the level of electoral parity across the County of Monmouthshire. • The Commission recommends a council of 46 members, an increase from 45. This resulted in a recommended county average of 1,599 electors per member. • The Commission recommends 39 electoral wards. • The largest under-representation (in terms of electoral variance) will be in Bulwark and Thornwell (21% above the recommended county average). At present the greatest under- representation is in Larkfield and St Kingsmark (31% above the recommended county average). • The largest over-representation (in terms of electoral variance) will be in Castle and Larkfield (24% below the recommended county average). At present the greatest over- representation is in Govilon (30% below the recommended county average). • The Commission is recommending 32 single-member wards and seven two-member wards in the county. • The Commission has recommended no changes to 31 electoral wards.

Page 6

MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Summary Maps 1. On the following pages are thematic maps illustrating the current and recommended arrangements and their variances from the recommended county average. Those areas in green are within ±10% of the county average; yellow and hatched yellow between ±10% and ± 25% of the county average; and finally, those in orange and hatched orange between ±25% and ±50% of the county average. 2. As can be seen from these maps, the new arrangements provide for a marked improvement in electoral parity across the county.

Page 7

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Page 8

MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Page 9

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Chapter 4. ASSESSMENT Council size 1. The council size for the County of Monmouthshire has been determined by our council size policy and methodology. This policy can be found in our Electoral Reviews: Policy and Practice [2016] document. The methodology sets out a council size of 46 for the County of Monmouthshire. At present the size of the council at 45 members is one member below the methodology aim. 2. The Commission reviewed the electoral arrangements for the County of Monmouthshire in light of our methodology and took account of the representations which had been made. For the reasons given below, we consider that in the interests of effective and convenient local government, a council size of 46 would be appropriate to represent the County of Monmouthshire. Number of electors 3. The numbers shown as the electorate for 2020 and the estimates for the electorate in the year 2025 are those submitted to the Commission by Monmouthshire County Council. The forecast figures supplied by Monmouthshire County Council show a forecasted increase in the electorate from 73,545 to 79,133. 4. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has also provided its estimated number of persons eligible to vote but who are not on the electoral register. This showed an estimated 3,024 more people eligible to vote than the 2020 electorate. 5. The Commission is aware that the Welsh Government has legislated to extend the franchise to include 16 and 17 year olds and foreign nationals, not currently eligible to vote, at the 2022 local government elections. The Commission‘s Council Size Policy utilises the entire population to determine council size and these two groups were included in the Council Size deliberations. 6. While current 16 and 17 year olds are not in the existing electoral figures provided by the Monmouthshire County Council, those individuals will have been included in the forecasted figures provided by the Council. These figures were taken into consideration in the Commission’s deliberations of these recommendations. 7. Foreign nationals are included in the census data provided by the ONS. These figures were taken into consideration in the Commission’s deliberations of these recommendations. Councillor to electorate ratio 8. In respect of the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward, there is a wide variation from the current county average of 1,634 electors per councillor ranging from 31% below to 28% above. The determination of the council size above results in an average of 1,599 electors being represented by each councillor. 9. In its deliberations the Commission considered the ratio of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected, with a view to proposing changes to ensure that the number of local government electors shall be, as near as may be, the same in every ward in the principal area. The Commission considered the size and character of the council and a wide range of other factors including local topography, road communications, and local ties.

Page 10

MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Judgement and Balance 10. In producing a scheme of electoral arrangements, the Commission must have regard to a number of issues contained in the legislation. The Commission’s recommended scheme has placed emphasis on achieving improvements in electoral parity whilst maintaining community ties wherever possible. The Commission has made every effort to ensure that the revised electoral wards, in the Commission’s view, are an appropriate combination of existing communities and community wards. 11. In some areas, because of the number of electors in a community or community ward, the Commission has considered the retention or creation of multi-member wards in order to achieve appropriate levels of electoral parity. This issue often arises in urban areas where the number of electors is too high to form a single-member ward. It also may arise in more rural wards where the creation of single-member wards would result in substantial variances in electoral parity. The Commission acknowledges the established practice of single-member wards within the County of Monmouthshire and this is reflected in the Commission’s proposals. 12. The Commission has looked at each area and is satisfied that it would be difficult to achieve electoral arrangements that keep the existing combination of communities and community wards, without having a detrimental effect on one or more of the other issues that the Commission must consider. Electoral Ward Names 13. The Commission is naming electoral wards and not the places within the recommended electoral wards. In the creation of these final recommendations, the Commission has considered the names of all the electoral wards proposed in Welsh and English, where appropriate. For these final recommendations the Commission has considered names of either electoral wards or communities that appear in Orders, where they exist; those that will be included in the upcoming Monmouthshire Community Order; those recommended by the Commissioner; and, in the representations it has received. 14. The Commission consulted with the Welsh Language Commissioner on the suitability of the names in their draft form prior to the publication of these final recommendations, with a particular focus on the Welsh language names. This recognises the Welsh Language Commissioner’s responsibility to advise on the standard forms of Welsh place-names and their specialist knowledge in the field. It must be clear that these recommendations are not proposals for changes to any place names. At each recommendation an indication is given of the Welsh Language Commissioner’s recommended alternative and, where they differ, the specific recommendation and why the Welsh Language Commissioner has proposed an alternative to the Commission’s recommended name.

Page 11

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Chapter 5. THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Commission’s recommendations are described in detail in this chapter. For each new proposal the report sets out: • The name(s) of the existing electoral wards which wholly or in part constitute the recommended ward; • A brief description of the existing electoral wards in terms of the number of electors now and projected, and their percentage variance from the recommended county average; • Key arguments made during the draft consultation (if any). Although not all representations are mentioned in this section, all representations have been considered and a summary can be found at Appendix 5; • The views of the Commission; • The composition of the recommended electoral ward and the recommended name; • A map of the recommended electoral ward (please see key at page 14).

Retained Electoral Wards 2. The Commission has considered the electoral arrangements of the existing electoral wards and the ratio of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected. It is recommended that the existing arrangements should be retained within the following electoral wards. Names displayed in bold within the list below denote the electoral wards where the existing geography and electoral ward names have been prescribed within Orders, and which the Commission is recommending to retain and also those arising from the Monmouthshire Community Review published January 2019 to be prescribed by Welsh Government Order.

• Bulwark and Thornwell • Magor East • • Magor West • • Mardy • Caldicot Cross • Osbaston • Cantref • • Croesonen • Park • • Pen Y Fal • • Portskewett • Dewstow • Raglan • Gobion Fawr • • • Severn • Grofield • • Lansdown • St Arvans • • West End • Llangybi Fawr • •

Page 12

MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

3. The Commission received a number of alternative recommendations for electoral ward names from the Welsh Language Commissioner, however it is the policy of the Commission to retain names for electoral wards where there is no recommendation to change the electoral arrangements for that electoral ward. Therefore, the Commission has recommended to retain electoral ward names that it recommended using in the Monmouthshire Community Review published in January 2019 unless it received local support for alternative names. The Commission has also not been able to consult on the alternative recommendations. Any comments on the alternative name recommendations can be sent to the Minister for Finance and Local Government. • The electoral ward of Caerwent to be given the Welsh language name of Caer- went and the English language name of Caerwent. The Welsh Language Commissioner has recommended the single name of Caer-went. The Welsh Language Commissioner recommends adopting the single form of Caer-went for use in both languages as this is the form recommended in the national standard reference work. If the difference between the Welsh form and the form commonly used in English consists of only one or two letters, the Welsh Language Commissioner recommends using a single form, with preference being given to the Welsh form. • The electoral ward of Caldicot Castle to be given the Welsh language name of Castell Caldicot and the English language name of Caldicot Castle. The Welsh Language Commissioner has recommended the Welsh language name of Castell Cil-y-coed. The Welsh Language Commissioner recommends using Cil-y-coed as the Welsh form as it's very well-established. Both Cil-y-coed and Caldicot are used by the Local Authority according to Welsh Language Commissioner records and preceding the name with the Welsh 'Castell' is a logical coinage. • The electoral ward of Caldicot Cross to be given the single name of Caldicot Cross. The Welsh Language Commissioner has recommended the Welsh language name of Croes Cil-y-coed. The Welsh Language Commissioner recommends that Croes Cil-y-coed is a logical and expected coinage if the cross element refers to the cross in the middle of the town. • The electoral ward of Croesonen to be given the Welsh language name of Croesonnen and the English language name of Croesonen. The Welsh Language Commissioner has recommended the single name of Croesonnen. If the difference between the Welsh form and the form commonly used in English consists of only one or two letters, the Welsh Language Commissioner recommends using a single form, with preference being given to the Welsh form. • The electoral ward of Llanelly to be given the Welsh language name of Llanelli and the English language name of Llanelly. The Welsh Language Commissioner has recommended the single name of Llanelli. The Welsh Language Commissioner recommends adopting the single form of Llanelli for use in both languages as this is the form recommended in the national standard reference work. If the difference between the Welsh form and the form commonly used in English consists of only one or two letters, the Welsh Language Commissioner recommends using a single form, with preference being given to the Welsh form.

Page 13

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

• The electoral ward of Pen Y Fal to be given the Welsh language name of Pen-y- fâl and the English language name of Pen Y Fal. The Welsh Language Commissioner has recommended the single name of Pen-y-fâl. Pen-y-fâl is the form recommended in the national standard reference work in the context of Mynydd Pen-y-fâl. The hyphen is used in Welsh place-names when the Welsh definite article (y/yr) occurs before a final monosyllable; hyphens are used before and after the definite article in order to highlight the individual elements and aid pronunciation. There is no need for the uppercase letter for the Welsh definite article (y) nor the 'fâl' element, however the circumflex is essential to ensure correct pronunciation. If the difference between the Welsh form and the 'English' form consists of only one or two letters, the use of a single form is recommended, with preference being given to the Welsh form. • The electoral ward of Raglan to be given the Welsh language name of Rhaglan and the English language name of Raglan. The Welsh Language Commissioner has recommended the single name of Rhaglan. Rhaglan is the form recommended in the national standard reference work. If the difference between the Welsh form and the form commonly used in English consists of only one or two letters, the Welsh Language Commissioner recommends using a single form, with preference being given to the Welsh form. • The electoral ward of Portskewett to be given the Welsh language name of Porth Sgiwed and the English language name of Portskewett. The Welsh Language Commissioner has recommended the Welsh language name of Porthsgiwed. The name of a settlement is usually written as one word in order to distinguish between settlements and topographical features. • The electoral ward of St Arvans to be given the single name of St Arvans. The Welsh Language Commissioner has recommended Welsh language name of Llanarfan. The Place-names Standardisation Panel recognise Llanarfan as the standard Welsh form. 4. Whilst the Commission is recommending to preserve the geographical arrangements within the electoral wards listed above, it is recommending to introduce new electoral ward names for the following (names displayed in bold throughout the remainder of this report denote the Commission’s recommended electoral ward names): • The electoral ward of Magor East to be given the Welsh language name of Dwyrain Magwyr gyda Gwndy and the English language name of Magor East with . The Commission has recommended this form due to the representations it has received. The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. 5. In its Draft Proposals report the Commission proposed that the Town wards of Bulwark and Thornwell form two single-member electoral wards and that the Maple Avenue and Larkfield Town wards are combined to form a single-member electoral ward. In light of the representations received the Commission has recommended that the existing arrangements are retained for the Bulwark and Thornwell electoral ward. 6. The Commission acknowledges that the future level of representation for Portskewett is projected to be 70% above the recommended county average if the existing arrangement Page 14

MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

remains. The Commission would recommend that if this increase in electorate is realised, that the levels of electoral variance in this area would be addressed in future electoral reviews. Recommended Electoral Wards 7. The Commission considered changes to the remaining electoral wards. Details of the current electoral arrangements can be found at Appendix 2. The Commission’s recommended arrangements can be found in Appendix 3.

Page 15

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Govilon and 8. The existing Govilon electoral ward is comprised of the Govilon ward of the Community of . It has 1,123 electors (1,123 projected) represented by one councillor which is 30% below the recommended county average. 9. The existing Llanfoist Fawr electoral ward is composed of the Llanfoist and wards of the Community of Llanfoist Fawr. It has 1,860 electors (2,176 projected) represented by one councillor which is 16% above the recommended county average. 10. In its Draft Proposals the Commission proposed to use the Community of Llanfoist Fawr to form an electoral ward. 11. The Commission received five representations in response to the Draft Proposals regarding this area from Monmouthshire County Council, County Councillor Jane Pratt (Llanelly Hill) County Councillor Richard John (), County Councillor and MS for South Wales East Laura Jones (Wyesham) and Monmouthshire County Council Conservative Group. 12. Monmouthshire County Council stated that it would prefer to see single-member wards in the area, however, it accepts the need to create a two-member ward due to the inappropriate levels of electoral representation that exist. 13. County Councillor Jane Pratt (Llanelly Hill) supported the proposals for the area. She also supported the re-naming of the Llanelly electoral ward. 14. County Councillor Richard John (Mitchel Troy), County Councillor and MS for South Wales East Laura Jones (Wyesham) and Monmouthshire County Council Conservative Group supported the draft proposals for the area. 15. The Commission recommends that the Community of Llanfoist Fawr forms an electoral ward of 2,983 electors (3,299 projected). If represented by two councillors this would result in a level of representation that is 7% below the recommended county average. 16. The Commission proposed the Welsh language name of Llan-ffwyst Fawr a Govilon and the English language name of Llanfoist Fawr and Govilon. The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended Welsh language name however recommended Llanfoist fawr and Gofilon as the English language name and stated that Gofilon is the form recommended in the national standard reference work. The Commission received no representations regarding the name. 17. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the Welsh language name of Llan-ffwyst Fawr a Gofilon and the English language name of Llanfoist Fawr and Govilon. The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended Welsh language name however recommended Llanfoist fawr and Gofilon as the English language name. Any comments on the recommended names can be sent to the Minister for Finance and Local Government. 18. It is the view of the Commission that this arrangement best addresses the existing inappropriate levels of electoral variance in the area. This arrangement would see the whole of the community within one electoral ward and would build on established communication and social links in the area. The Commission considers that this recommendation would provide for effective and convenient local government.

Page 16

MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Page 17

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Llanbadoc and 19. The existing electoral ward is comprised of the Community of Llanbadoc. It has 1,131 electors (1,161 projected) represented by one councillor which is 29% below the recommended county average. 20. The existing Usk electoral ward is comprised the Town of Usk. It has 1,947 electors (1,987 projected) represented by one councillor which is 22% above the recommended county average. 21. In its Draft Proposals the Commission proposed to combine the Community of Llanbadoc and the Town of Usk to form an electoral ward. 22. The Commission received six representations in response to the Draft Proposals regarding this area from Monmouthshire County Council, Llanbadoc Community Council, County Councillor Brian Strong (Usk), County Councillor Richard John (Mitchel Troy), County Councillor and MS for South Wales East Laura Jones (Wyesham) and Monmouthshire County Council Conservative Group. 23. Monmouthshire County Council stated that it would prefer to see single-member wards in the area, however, it accepts the need to create a two-member ward due to the inappropriate levels of electoral representation that exist. 24. Llanbadoc Community Council stated that one community councillor supported in principle the draft proposals for the area. A possible alternative would be to split the community wards into different electoral wards. 25. County Councillor Brian Strong (Usk) supported the draft proposals for the area. The Councillor stated that their where strong links between Usk and its neighbouring communities. 26. County Councillor Richard John (Mitchel Troy), County Councillor and MS for South Wales East Laura Jones (Wyesham) and Monmouthshire Conservative Group supported the draft proposals for the area. 27. The Commission recommends that the Community of Llanbadoc and the Town of Usk are combined to form an electoral ward of 3,078 electors (3,148 projected). If represented by two councillors would result in a level of representation that is 4% below the recommended county average. 28. The Commission proposed the Welsh language name of Llanbadog a Brynbuga the English language name of Llanbadoc and Usk. The Welsh Language Commissioner agreed with the Welsh language name however recommended the English language name of Llanbadog and Usk stating that Llanbadog was the only form recommended by the Place-names Standardisation Panel. The Commission received no representations regarding the name. 29. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the Welsh language name of Llanbadog a Brynbuga and the English language name of Llanbadoc and Usk. The Welsh Language Commissioner agreed with the Welsh language name however recommended the English language name of Llanbadog and Usk. Any comments on the recommended names can be sent to the Minister for Finance and Local Government. 30. The Commission considers that this recommendation would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. Page 18

MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Page 19

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Mitchel Troy and United 31. The existing Mitchel Troy electoral ward is comprised of the Community of Mitchel Troy. It has 1,151 electors (1,181 projected) represented by one councillor which is 28% below the recommended county average. 32. The existing electoral ward is comprised of the Community of Trellech United. It has 1,940 electors (1,986 projected) represented by one councillor which is 21% above the recommended county average. 33. In its Draft Proposals the Commission proposed that the community ward of the Community of Trellech United is combined with the Community of Mitchel Troy. As a consequence, the Commission proposed that the remainder of Trellech United be used to form an electoral ward. The Commission noted that the proposal would split the Community of Trellech United. The Commission stated that it would welcome representations on the alternative proposal to combine the Communities of Mitchell Troy and Trellech United to form a multi-member ward. 34. The Commission received seven representations in response to the Draft Proposals regarding this area from Monmouthshire County Council, Mitchel Troy United Community Council, Trellech United Community Council, County Councillor Richard John (Mitchel Troy), Monmouthshire County Council Conservative Group and two local residents. 35. Monmouthshire County Council supported the proposal as proposed by the Commission. Whilst it would prefer to see electoral wards made up of whole communities, the Council consider the proposal to be preferable to creating a large rural multi-member ward in the area. 36. Mitchel Troy United Community Council, Trellech United Community Council and two local residents opposed the proposal to remove the Penallt community ward from the Trellech United electoral ward. They preferred the alternative proposed by the Commission to combine the Communities of Mitchel Troy and Trellech United to form a two-member electoral ward. 37. County Councillor Richard John (Mitchel Troy) and Monmouthshire County Council Conservative Group supported the draft proposals for the area. 38. The Commission recommends that the Communities of Michel Troy and Trellech United be combined to form an electoral ward of 3,091 electors (3,167 projected). If represented by two councillors this would result in a level of representation that is 3% below the recommended county average. 39. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the Welsh language name of Llanfihangel Troddi a Thryleg Unedig and the English language name of Mitchel Troy and Trellech United. The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. Any comments on the recommended name can be sent to the Minister for Finance and Local Government. 40. The Commission notes that this recommendation would return a rural multi-member ward. However, the recommended arrangement has the support of both the Community Councils affected by the recommendation.

Page 20

MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

41. It is the view of the Commission that this scheme best addresses the existing levels of electoral variance. The Commission considers that this recommendation would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

Page 21

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Page 22

MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Drybridge 42. The existing Drybridge electoral ward is composed of the Drybridge and Town wards of the Town of . It has 3,522 electors (3,662 projected) represented by two councillors which is 10% above the recommended county average. 43. In its Draft Proposals the Commission proposed that the Drybridge ward of the Town of Monmouth form a single-member electoral ward and the Town ward of the Town of Monmouth form a single-member electoral ward. 44. The Commission received four representations in response to the Draft Proposals regarding this area from Monmouthshire County Council, Monmouthshire County Council Conservative Group and two local residents. 45. Monmouthshire County Council, Monmouthshire County Council Conservative Group and a local resident supported the draft proposals for the area. 46. The other local resident opposed it as their property would be moved from Town to Drybridge. This objection is in response to a Community Review published in 2018. 47. The Commission recommends that the Drybridge ward of the Town of Monmouth is used to form an electoral ward of 1,772 electors (1,912 projected). If represented by one councillor this would result in a level of representation that is 11% above the recommended county average. 48. The Commission proposed the single name of Drybridge. The Welsh Language Commissioner agreed with the proposed name. The Commission received no representations regarding the name. 49. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the single name of Drybridge. The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. Any comments on the recommended name can be sent to the Minister for Finance and Local Government. 50. As a consequence, the Commission proposes that the Town ward of the Town of Monmouth is used to form an electoral ward of 1,750 electors (1,750 projected). If represented by one councillor this would result in a level of representation that is 9% above the recommended county average. 51. The Commission proposed the Welsh language name of Y Dref and the English language name of Town. The Welsh Language Commissioner agreed with the proposed name. The Commission received no representations regarding the name. 52. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the Welsh language name of Y Dref and the English language name of Town. The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. Any comments on the recommended names can be sent to the Minister for Finance and Local Government. 53. The Commission considers that the recommended arrangement provides for two single- member wards which is the preference of the Council, and the arrangements as recommended would provide for effective electoral wards, which would build on the established community, communication and social links within the area. 54. The Commission considers that this recommendation would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

Page 23

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Page 24

MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Page 25

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Chepstow Castle, Larkfield and St Kingsmark 55. The existing electoral ward is comprised of the Chepstow Castle ward of the Town of Chepstow. It has 1,369 electors (2,527 projected) represented by one councillor which is 14% below the recommended county average. 56. The existing Larkfield and St Kingsmark electoral ward is composed of the Larkfield, Mount Pleasant and St Kingsmark wards of the Town of Chepstow. It has 4,173 electors (4,173 projected) represented by two councillors which is 31% above the recommended county average. 57. In its Draft Proposals the Commission proposed that single-member wards were created from the five town wards of the Town of Chepstow. It proposed that the Bulwark, Thornwell, St Kingsmark and Mount Pleasant town wards form single-member wards. It was also proposed that the Larkfield and Maple Avenue town wards are combined to form a single-member ward. 58. The Commission received 14 representations in response to the Draft Proposals regarding this area from Monmouthshire County Council, Chepstow Town Council, County Councillor Armand Watts (Thornwell), County Councillor Paul Pavia (Larkfield), County Councillor Martin Brady (St Kingsmark), County Councillor Richard John (Mitchel Troy), County Councillor and MS for South Wales East Laura Jones (Wyesham), Town Councillor Yvonne Havard (Chepstow Town Council), Town Councillor Tom Kirton (Chepstow Town Council), Town Councillor Hilary Beach (Chepstow Town Council), Monmouthshire County Council Conservative Group, Monmouthshire Labour Party and two local residents. 59. Monmouthshire County Council supported the alternative proposals submitted by local county councillors which require changes to the County and Community boundaries. The Council stated that should the Commission not be minded to accept these proposals then the Commission should consider a multi-member ward for Thornwell and Bulwark. 60. Chepstow Town Council opposed the draft proposals for Chepstow. The Town Council proposed boundary changes and alternative arrangements for the Town. 61. County Councillor Armand Watts (Thornwell), Town Councillor Yvonne Havard (Chepstow Town Council), Town Councillor Hilary Beach (Chepstow Town Council), Town Councillor Tom Kirton (Chepstow Town Council), Monmouthshire Labour Party and two local residents opposed the draft proposals for Chepstow. They supported the boundary changes and alternative arrangements as proposed by Chepstow Town Council. 62. County Councillor Richard John (Mitchel Troy), County Councillor and MS for South Wales East Laura Jones (Wyesham), County Councillor Paul Pavia (Larkfield) and Monmouthshire County Council Conservative Group opposed the draft proposals for the Town of Chepstow. They supported the arrangement that was originally proposed by Monmouthshire County Council. This arrangement would see two two-member wards and two single-member wards in the Town. 63. County Councillor Martin Brady (St Kingsmark) opposed the proposals in relation to the St Kingsmark ward. Councillor Brady supported a larger St Kingsmark ward with two ward representatives to avoid communities being divided. 64. The Commission recommends that the Chepstow Castle and Larkfield wards of the Town of Chepstow are used to form an electoral ward of 2,435 electors (3,593 projected). If Page 26

MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

represent ed by two councillors would result in a level of representation that is 24% below the recommended county average. 65. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the Welsh language name of Castell Cas- a Larkfield and the English language name of Chepstow Castle and Larkfield. The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended names. Any comments on the recommended names can be sent to the Minister for Finance and Local Government. 66. As a consequence, the Commission recommends that the St Kingsmark ward of the Town of Chepstow is used to form an electoral ward of 1,535 electors (1,535 projected). If represented by one councillor would result in a level of representation that is 4% below the recommended county average. 67. The Commission proposed the single name of St Kingsmark. The Welsh Language Commissioner proposed the Welsh language name Llangynfarch stating that this name has been recorded since the twelfth century and despite falling out of wide use and circulation for centuries it is recorded in several standard reference works and there seems to be increasing local awareness of the name. The Commission received no representations regarding the name. 68. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the single name of St Kingsmark. The Welsh Language Commissioner proposed the Welsh language name of Llangynfarch. Any comments on the recommended name can be sent to the Minister for Finance and Local Government. 69. As a further consequence, the Commission recommends that the Mount Pleasant ward of the Town of Chepstow is used to form an electoral ward of 1,572 electors (1,572 projected). If represented by one councillor would result in a level of representation that is 2% below the recommended county average. 70. The Commission proposed the single name of Mount Pleasant. The Welsh Language Commissioner agreed with the proposed name. The Commission received no representations regarding the name. 71. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the single name of Mount Pleasant. The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. Any comments on the recommended name can be sent to the Minister for Finance and Local Government. 72. The Commission considered the representations received and the alternative arrangements proposed by Chepstow Town Council which were supported by a number of the other representations received for the area. However, it is the view of the Commission that the recent community review addressed the issues within communities across Monmouthshire and to make further changes would add a degree of confusion to the electorate and would undermine the work of the community review. The Commission has also been unable to obtain substantive figures for the boundary changes as proposed by Chepstow Town Council from Monmouthshire County Council. 73. The Commission is recommending to retain the existing arrangements in the Bulwark and Thornwell electoral ward as stated in chapter 5 paragraph 5. The Commission considers that the recommended electoral wards would build on the established community,

Page 27 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

communication and social links within the area and best address the existing and future electoral variance in the Town. The Commission considers that these recommended electoral wards would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

Page 28

MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Page 29

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Page 30

MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Page 31

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Chapter 6. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ARRANGEMENTS 1. The existing electoral arrangements (as shown at Appendix 2) provide for the following levels of electoral representation within the county: • Electoral variance ranges from 31% below the current county average (Govilon and Llanbadoc) to 28% above the current county average (Larkfield and St Kingsmark) of 1,634 electors per councillor. • Four electoral ward have levels of representation more than 25% above or below the current county average of 1,634 electors per councillor. • 16 electoral wards have levels of representation between 10% and 25% above or below the current county average of 1,634 electors per councillor. • 20 electoral wards have levels of representation less than 10% above or below the current county average of 1,634 electors per councillor. 2. In comparison with the existing electoral arrangements shown above, the recommended electoral arrangements (as shown in Appendix 3) illustrate the following improvements to the electoral representation across the county: • Electoral variance ranges from 24% below the recommended county average (Chepstow Castle and Larkfield) to 21% above the recommended county average (Bulwark and Thornwell) of 1,599 electors per councillor. • None of the electoral wards have levels of representation more than 25% above or below the recommended county average of 1,599 electors per councillor. • 13 electoral wards have levels of representation between 10% and 25% above or below the recommended county average of 1,599 electors per councillor. • 26 electoral wards have levels of representation less than 10% above or below the recommended county average of 1,599 electors per councillor. 3. As described in Chapter 4 and Appendix 4, in producing a scheme of electoral arrangements the Commission must have regard to a number of issues contained in the legislation. It is not always possible to resolve all of these, sometimes conflicting, issues. In the Commission’s recommended scheme, the Commission has placed emphasis on achieving improvements in electoral parity whilst maintaining community ties wherever possible. The Commission recognises that the creation of electoral wards which depart from the pattern which now exists would inevitably bring some disruption to existing ties between communities and may straddle community council areas. The Commission has made every effort to ensure that the revised electoral wards do reflect logical combinations of existing communities and community wards. 4. The Commission has looked at each area and is satisfied that it would be difficult to achieve electoral arrangements that keep the existing combination of communities and community wards without having a detrimental effect on one or more of the other issues that it must consider.

Page 32

MONMOUTHSHIRE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Chapter 7. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT 1. Having completed the review of the County of Monmouthshire and submitted the Commission’s recommendations to the Welsh Government on the future electoral arrangements for the principal authority, the Commission has fulfilled its statutory obligations under the Act. 2. It now falls to the Welsh Government, if it thinks fit, to give effect to these recommendations either as submitted, or with modifications. The Welsh Government may also direct us to conduct a further review. 3. Any further representations concerning the matters in this report should be addressed to the Welsh Government. They should be made as soon as possible and, in any event, not later than six weeks from the date the Commission’s recommendations are submitted to the Welsh Government. Representations should be addressed to:

Local Government Democracy Team Democracy, Diversity and Remuneration Division Welsh Government Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ

Or by email to:

[email protected]

Page 33

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Chapter 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1. The Commission wishes to express its gratitude to the , all the town and community councils and other interested bodies and persons who made representations to us during the course of developing these final recommendations. We, the undersigned, commend this recommendations report.

Dr. DEBRA WILLIAMS (Chair)

CERI STRADLING (Deputy Chair)

DAVID POWELL (Member)

JULIE MAY (Member)

THEODORE JOLOZA (Member)

SHEREEN WILLIAMS MBE OStJ (Chief Executive)

[June 2021]

Page 34

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 1 – GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Commission The Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales.

Community (area) The unit of local government that lies below the level of the Principal Council.

Community Council An elected council that provides services to their particular community area. A Community Council may be divided for community electoral purposes into community wards.

Community / Town An area within a Community Council created for community electoral ward purposes.

County Average Elector to Councillor average for the principal authority area.

Directions Directions issued by Welsh Ministers under Section 48 of the Act.

Electoral wards The areas into which Principal Councils are divided for the purpose of electing county councillors, previously referred to as electoral divisions. Electoral review A review in which the Commission considers the electoral arrangements for a Principal Council.

Electoral variance How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward varies from the county average; expressed as a percentage.

Electorate The number of persons registered to vote in a local government area.

Estimated The estimated number of eligible persons (18+) within a local Population of government area who are eligible to vote. These figures have been Eligible Voters sourced from the Office of National Statistics’ 2015 Ward population estimated for Wales, mid-2015 (experimental statistics). Interested party Person or body who has an interest in the outcome of an electoral review such as a community or town council, local MP or AM or political party. Order Order made by an implementing body, giving effect to proposals made by the Principal Council or the Commission.

Over- Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward compared to representation the county average.

APPENDIX 1

Principal area The area governed by a Principal Council: in Wales a county or .

Principal council The single tier organ of local government, responsible for all or almost all local government functions within its area. A county or county borough council. Projected The five-year forecast of the electorate. electorate

Split Community A Community which is divided between two, or more, Electoral Wards.

The Act The Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013.

Town Council A Community Council with the status of a town are known as Town Councils. A Town Council may be divided for community electoral purposes into wards. Under- Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward compared to representation the county average.

MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Appendix 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP % variance % variance No. OF 2020 2020 ELECTORATE 2025 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from County from County COUNCILLORS ELECTORATE RATIO 2025 RATIO average average Bulwark and 1 The proposed Bulwark, Maple Avenue and Thornwell wards of the Town of Chepstow 2 3,854 1,927 18% 3,854 1,927 10% Thornwell 2 Caerwent The proposed Community of Caerwent 1 1,798 1,798 10% 1,798 1,798 2%

3 Caldicot Castle The proposed Caldicot Castle ward of the Town of Caldicot 1 1,349 1,349 -17% 1,609 1,609 -9%

4 Caldicot Cross The proposed Caldicot Cross ward of the Town of Caldicot 1 1,567 1,567 -4% 1,599 1,599 -9%

5 Cantref The proposed Cantref and Citra wards of the Town of 1 1,688 1,688 3% 1,688 1,688 -4%

6 Chepstow Castle The proposed Chepstow Castle ward of the Town of Chepstow 1 1,369 1,369 -16% 2,527 2,527 44%

7 Croesonen The proposed Croesonen ward of the Community of 1 1,551 1,551 -5% 1,551 1,551 -12%

8 Crucorney The proposed Communities of Crucorney and Grosmont 1 1,652 1,652 1% 1,712 1,712 -3%

The proposed Community of Devauden and the Llangwm and wards of the 9 Devauden 1 1,312 1,312 1,342 1,342 proposed Community of -20% -24%

10 Dewstow The proposed Dewstow ward of the Town of Caldicot 1 1,459 1,459 -11% 1,459 1,459 -17%

11 Drybridge The proposed Drybridge and Town wards of the Town of Monmouth 2 3,522 1,761 8% 3,662 1,831 4%

12 Gobion Fawr The proposed Communities of Gobion Fawr and Llanarth 1 1,674 1,674 2% 1,694 1,694 -4%

13 Goetre Fawr The proposed Community of Goetre Fawr 1 1,857 1,857 14% 1,857 1,857 6%

14 Govilon The proposed Govilon ward of the Community of Llanfoist Fawr 1 1,123 1,123 -31% 1,123 1,123 -36%

15 Grofield The proposed Grofield ward of the Town of Abergavenny 1 1,823 1,823 12% 1,917 1,917 9%

16 Lansdown The proposed Lansdown ward of the Town of Abergavenny 1 1,740 1,740 6% 1,790 1,790 2%

Larkfield and St The proposed Larkfield, Mount Pleasant and St Kingsmark wards of the Town of 17 2 4,173 2,087 28% 4,173 2,087 19% Kingsmark Chepstow

18 Llanbadoc The proposed Community of Llanbadoc 1 1,131 1,131 -31% 1,161 1,161 -34%

19 Llanelly The proposed Community of Llanelly 2 3,315 1,658 1% 3,315 1,658 -6%

20 Llanfoist Fawr The Llanellen and Llanfoist wards of the Community of Llanfoist Fawr 1 1,860 1,860 14% 2,176 2,176 24% MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Appendix 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP % variance % variance No. OF 2020 2020 ELECTORATE 2025 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from County from County COUNCILLORS ELECTORATE RATIO 2025 RATIO average average The proposed Community of Llangybi and the and Llantrisant wards of the 21 Llangybi Fawr 1 1,502 1,502 -8% 1,522 1,522 -13% proposed Community of Llantrisant Fawr 22 Llantilio Crossenny The proposed Communities of and Whitecastle 1 1,683 1,683 3% 1,713 1,713 -3%

23 Magor East The proposed Magor East and Undy wards of the Community of 2 3,110 1,555 -5% 4,092 2,046 16%

24 Magor West The proposed Magor West ward of the Community of Magor with Undy 1 1,643 1,643 1% 1,643 1,643 -7%

The proposed Mardy and Sgyridd wards, and the Pantygelli ward of the Community of 25 Mardy 1 1,258 1,258 -23% 1,694 1,694 -4% Llantilio Pertholey

26 Mitchel Troy The proposed Community of Mitchel Troy 1 1,151 1,151 -30% 1,181 1,181 -33%

27 Osbaston The proposed Osbaston ward of the Town of Monmouth 1 1,714 1,714 5% 1,714 1,714 -3%

28 Overmonnow The proposed Overmonnow ward of the Town of Monmouth 1 1,470 1,470 -10% 1,862 1,862 6%

29 Park The proposed Park ward of the Town of Abergavenny 1 1,546 1,546 -5% 1,582 1,582 -10%

30 Pen Y Fal The proposed Pen Y Fal ward of the Town of Abergavenny 1 1,538 1,538 -6% 1,640 1,640 -7%

31 Portskewett The proposed Community of Portskewett 1 1,900 1,900 16% 2,924 2,924 66%

32 Raglan The proposed Community of Raglan 1 1,745 1,745 7% 1,835 1,835 4%

33 Rogiet The proposed Community of Rogiet 1 1,400 1,400 -14% 1,422 1,422 -19%

34 Severn The proposed Severn and The Village wards of the Town of Caldicot 1 1,752 1,752 7% 1,752 1,752 0%

35 Shirenewton The proposed Communities of and Shirenewton 1 1,782 1,782 9% 1,816 1,816 3%

36 St Arvans The proposed Communities of St Arvans and 1 1,540 1,540 -6% 1,562 1,562 -11%

37 Trellech United The proposed Community of Trellech United 1 1,940 1,940 19% 1,986 1,986 13%

38 Usk The proposed Town of Usk 1 1,947 1,947 19% 1,987 1,987 13%

39 West End The proposed West End ward of the Town of Caldicot 1 1,382 1,382 -15% 1,382 1,382 -21%

40 Wyesham The proposed Wyesham ward of the Town of Monmouth 1 1,725 1,725 6% 1,817 1,817 3%

TOTAL: 45 73,545 1,634 79,133 1,759 MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Appendix 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP % variance % variance No. OF 2020 2020 ELECTORATE 2025 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from County from County COUNCILLORS ELECTORATE RATIO 2025 RATIO average average Ratio is the number of electors per councillor Electoral figures supplied by Monmouthshire County Council Population figures supplied by the Office for National Statistics

2020 2025 Greater than + or - 50% of County average 0 0% 1 2.5% Between + or - 25% and + or - 50% of County average 4 10% 4 10.0% Between + or - 10% and + or - 25% of County average 16 40% 13 32.5% Between 0% and + or - 10% of County average 20 50% 22 55.0% MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Appendix 3 RECOMMENDED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP

% variance % variance No. OF 2020 2020 ELECTORATE 2025 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from County from County COUNCILLORS ELECTORATE RATIO 2025 RATIO average average Bulwark and The proposed Bulwark, Thornwell and Maple Avenue 1 2 3,854 1,927 21% 3,854 1,927 12% Thornwell wards of the Town of Chepstow 2 Caerwent The proposed Community of Caerwent 1 1,798 1,798 12% 1,798 1,798 5% The proposed Caldicot Castle ward of the Town of 3 Caldicot Castle 1 1,349 1,349 1,609 1,609 Caldicot -16% -6% The proposed Caldicot Cross ward of the Town of 4 Caldicot Cross 1 1,567 1,567 1,599 1,599 Caldicot -2% -7% The proposed Cantref and Llanwenarth Citra wards of 5 Cantref 1 1,688 1,688 1,688 1,688 the Town of Abergavenny 6% -2% Chepstow Castle and The proposed Chepstow Castle and Larkfield wards of 6 2 2,435 1,218 -24% 3,593 1,797 4% Larkfield the Town of Chepstow The proposed Croesonen ward of the Community of 7 Croesonen 1 1,551 1,551 1,551 1,551 Llantilio Pertholey -3% -10%

8 Crucorney The proposed Communities of Crucorney and Grosmont 1 1,652 1,652 3% 1,712 1,712 0% The proposed Community of Devauden and the 9 Devauden Llangwm and Llansoy wards of the proposed Community 1 1,312 1,312 -18% 1,342 1,342 -22% of Llantrisant Fawr 10 Dewstow The proposed Dewstow ward of the Town of Caldicot 1 1,459 1,459 -9% 1,459 1,459 -15%

11 Drybridge The proposed Drybridge ward of the Town of Monmouth 1 1,772 1,772 11% 1,912 1,912 11% The proposed Communities of Gobion Fawr and 12 Gobion Fawr 1 1,674 1,674 1,694 1,694 Llanarth 5% -2%

13 Goetre Fawr The proposed Community of Goetre Fawr 1 1,857 1,857 16% 1,857 1,857 8%

14 Grofield The proposed Grofield ward of the Town of Abergavenny 1 1,823 1,823 14% 1,917 1,917 11% The proposed Lansdown ward of the Town of 15 Lansdown 1 1,740 1,740 1,790 1,790 Abergavenny 9% 4% The proposed Community of Llanbadoc and the Town of 16 Llanbadoc and Usk 2 3,078 1,539 3,148 1,574 Usk -4% -9%

17 Llanelly The Community of Llanelly 2 3,315 1,658 4% 3,315 1,658 -4% Llanfoist Fawr and 18 The Community of Llanfoist Fawr 2 2,983 1,492 -7% 3,299 1,650 -4% Govilon The proposed Community of Llangybi and the 19 Llangybi Fawr Gwernesney and Llantrisant wards of the proposed 1 1,502 1,502 -6% 1,522 1,522 -12% Community of Llantrisant Fawr MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Appendix 3 RECOMMENDED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP

% variance % variance No. OF 2020 2020 ELECTORATE 2025 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from County from County COUNCILLORS ELECTORATE RATIO 2025 RATIO average average

20 Llantilio Crossenny The proposed Communities of Skenfrith and Whitecastle 1 1,683 1,683 5% 1,713 1,713 0% The proposed Magor East and Undy wards of the 21 Magor East with Undy 2 3,110 1,555 4,092 2,046 Community of Magor with Undy -3% 19% The proposed Magor West ward of the Community of 22 Magor West 1 1,643 1,643 1,643 1,643 Magor with Undy 3% -4% The proposed Mardy and Sgyrrid wards, and the 23 Mardy 1 1,258 1,258 1,694 1,694 Pantygelli ward of the Community of Llantilio Pertholey -21% -2% Mitchel Troy and The proposed Communities of Mitchel Troy and Trellech 24 2 3,091 1,546 -3% 3,167 1,584 -8% Trellech United United The proposed Mount Pleasant ward of the Town of 25 Mount Pleasant 1 1,572 1,572 1,572 1,572 Chepstow -2% -9%

26 Osbaston The proposed Osbaston ward of the Town of Monmouth 1 1,714 1,714 7% 1,714 1,714 0% The proposed Overmonnow ward of the Town of 27 Overmonnow 1 1,470 1,470 1,862 1,862 Monmouth -8% 8%

28 Park The proposed Park ward of the Town of Abergavenny 1 1,546 1,546 -3% 1,582 1,582 -8% The proposed Pen Y Fal ward of the Town of 29 Pen Y Fal 1 1,538 1,538 1,640 1,640 Abergavenny -4% -5%

30 Portskewett The proposed Community of Portskewett 1 1,900 1,900 19% 2,924 2,924 70%

31 Raglan The proposed Community of Raglan 1 1,745 1,745 9% 1,835 1,835 7%

32 Rogiet The proposed Community of Rogiet 1 1,400 1,400 -12% 1,422 1,422 -17% The proposed Severn and The Village wards of the 33 Severn 1 1,752 1,752 1,752 1,752 Town of Caldicot 10% 2%

34 Shirenewton The proposed Communities of Mathern and Shirenewton 1 1,782 1,782 11% 1,816 1,816 6% The proposed Communities of St Arvans and Wye 35 St Arvans 1 1,540 1,540 1,562 1,562 Valley -4% -9% The proposed St Kingsmark ward of the Town of 36 St Kingsmark 1 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 Chepstow -4% -11%

37 Town The proposed Town ward of the Town of Monmouth 1 1,750 1,750 9% 1,750 1,750 2%

38 West End The proposed West End ward of the Town of Caldicot 1 1,382 1,382 -14% 1,382 1,382 -20%

39 Wyesham The proposed Wyesham ward of the Town of Monmouth 1 1,725 1,725 8% 1,817 1,817 6% MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Appendix 3 RECOMMENDED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP

% variance % variance No. OF 2020 2020 ELECTORATE 2025 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from County from County COUNCILLORS ELECTORATE RATIO 2025 RATIO average average TOTAL: 46 73,545 1,599 79,133 1,720 Ratio is the number of electors per councillor Electoral figures supplied by Monmouthshire County Council

2020 2025 Greater than + or - 50% of County average 0 0% 1 2.6% Between + or - 25% and + or - 50% of County average 0 0% 0 0.0% Between + or - 10% and + or - 25% of County average 13 33% 10 25.6% Between 0% and + or - 10% of County average 26 67% 28 71.8% APPENDIX 4 RULES AND PROCEDURES

Scope and Object of the Review

1. Section 29 (1) of the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013 (the Act) lays upon the Commission the duty, at least once in every review period of ten 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 Government for a change in those electoral arrangements. In conducting a review the Commission must seek to ensure effective and convenient local government (Section 21 (3) of the Act).

2. The former Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government of the Welsh Government asked the Commission to submit a report in respect of the review of electoral arrangements for the County of Monmouthshire before the 2022 local government elections.

Electoral Arrangements

3. The changes that the Commission may recommend in relation to an electoral review are:

(a) such changes to the arrangements for the principal area under review as appear to it appropriate; and

(b) in consequence of such changes:

(i) Such community boundary changes as it considers appropriate in relation to any community in the principal area;

(ii) Such community council changes and changes to the electoral arrangements for such a community as it considers appropriate; and

(iii) Such preserved county changes as it considers appropriate.

4. The “electoral arrangements” of a principal area are defined in section 29 (9) of the 2013 Act as:

i) the number of members for the council for the principal area;

ii) the number, type and boundaries of the electoral wards;

iii) the number of members to be elected for any electoral ward in the principal area; and

iv) the name of any electoral ward. APPENDIX 4

Considerations for a review of principal area electoral arrangements

5. Section 30 of the Act requires the Commission, in considering whether to make recommendations for changes to the electoral arrangements for a principal area, to:

(a) seek to ensure that the ratio of local government electors to the number of members of the council to be elected is, as near as may be, the same in every electoral ward of the principal area;

(b) have regard to:

(i) the desirability of fixing boundaries for electoral wards which are and will remain easily identifiable;

(ii) the desirability of not breaking local ties when fixing boundaries for electoral wards.

6. In considering the ratio of local government electors to the number of members, account is to be taken of:

(a) any discrepancy between the number of local government electors and the number of persons that are eligible to be local government electors (as indicated by relevant official statistics); and

(b) any change to the number or distribution of local government electors in the principal area which is likely to take place in the period of five years immediately following the making of any recommendation.

Local government changes

7. The last local government Order was in 2002. Monmouthshire County Council completed its own review of community areas within Monmouthshire. The Commission submitted its report in relation to that community review to Welsh Government in January 2019. On 15 January 2020 after considering representations made, the Minister for Housing and Local Government indicated that Welsh Government had accepted the recommendations in the Commission’s report. The Commission understands that those recommendations will be implemented by means of an Order of the Welsh Ministers.

Procedure

8. Chapter 4 of the Act lays down procedural guidelines which are to be followed in carrying out a review. In compliance with this part of the Act, the Commission wrote on 01 July 2020 to Monmouthshire County Council, all the Town and Community Councils in the area, the Members of Parliament for the local constituencies, the Assembly Members for the area, and other interested parties to inform them of our intention to conduct the review and to request their preliminary views. The Commission invited the County Council to submit a suggested scheme or schemes for new electoral arrangements. The Commission also requested Monmouthshire County Council display a number of public notices in their area. The Commission also made available copies of the Electoral Reviews: Policy and Practice APPENDIX 4 document. In addition, the Commission made a presentation to both County and Community councillors explaining the review process.

9. In line with Section 35 of Chapter 4 of the Act, the Commission published its Draft Proposals Report on 10 December 2020, notifying the listed mandatory consultees and other interested parties that a period of consultation on the draft proposals would commence on 17 December 2020 and end on 10 March 2021. The Commission met with Monmouthshire County Council Group Leaders and Chief Executive to discuss the Draft Proposals and the process of developing the Final Recommendations. The Commission invited the County Council and other interested parties to submit comments on the Draft Proposals and how they could be improved. The Commission also asked Monmouthshire County Council to display copies of the report alongside public notices in the area.

10. The boundaries of the recommended electoral wards are shown by continuous blue lines on the map placed on deposit with this Report at the Offices of Monmouthshire County Council and the Office of the Commission in Cardiff, as well as on the Commission’s website (http://ldbc.gov.wales).

Policy and Practice

11. The Commission published the Electoral Reviews: Policy and Practice document in October 2016. This document details the Commission’s approach to resolving the challenge of balancing electoral parity and community ties; it sets out the issues to be considered and gives some understanding of the broad approach which the Commission takes towards each of the statutory considerations to be made when addressing a review’s particular circumstances. However, because those circumstances are unlikely to provide for the ideal electoral pattern, in most reviews compromises are made in applying the policies in order to strike the right balance between each of the matters the Commission must consider.

12. The document also provides the overall programme timetable, and how this was identified, and the Commission’s Council Size Policy. The document can be viewed on the Commission’s website or are available on request.

Crown Copyright

13. The maps included in this report, and published on the Commission’s website, were produced by the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales under licence from Ordnance Survey. These maps are subject to © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction will infringe Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Any newspaper editor wishing to use the maps as part of an article about the draft proposals should first contact the copyright office at Ordnance Survey. Appendix 5 SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOR THE COMMISSIONS DRAFT CONSULTATION ON THE REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS IN THE COUNTY OF MONMOUTHSHIRE

1. Monmouthshire County Council wrote on 26th January 2021 stating that the Council welcomed the draft proposals report from the Commission and is pleased to see that much of the proposals contained in the Councils own scheme are reflected in the draft proposals. The Council’s working group met to consider the draft proposals, as well as this response being approved at a meeting of full council on the 14th of January 2021. The Council wish to pass on the observations below for consideration in drafting the final proposals for the review;

Chepstow - The working group received detailed alternative proposals from the County Councillors for the Thornwell and St Christophers wards which the individual members will submit to the Commission as an alternative proposal for the area. Their proposal would require changes to the County and Community boundaries with Thornwell extending to include the Western Avenue area within its ward and the northern Bulwark boundary extended to follow Mathern Road and incorporate Bulwark school and shops within the Bulwark ward. The Council support the proposals contained in the individual member responses.

Magor with Undy - The Commission has proposed a single member Magor West ward and a dual member Magor East and Undy ward. The Council understand that the exception in Chepstow has been made due to the forecast electorate taking effect at a later date so the current arrangements only require a single councillor. The electorate forecast for the Magor East ward is similar to that of Chepstow Castle but an exception hasn’t been made in this ward. Additionally, the current level of electorates across all three wards are consistent at their current level and provide parity in terms of representation. The Council would wish to see single member wards retained where possible and suggest that the consideration of the impact on future electorate be considered at the next electoral review when the variance in electorates across the wards will have taken effect.

Govilon & Llanfoist / Llanbadoc & Usk - The Council notes the proposals for the above two areas to become multimember wards. Whilst the Council would ideally prefer to see single member wards where possible it accepts the need to multimember these two areas given the variation in electorates for the adjoining wards being significantly under or above the desired electorate level and that merging the two areas together provides a more equal level of representation.

Mitchel Troy - The Council supports the proposal put forward by the Commission for the Mitchel Troy ward. Whilst the Council would prefer to see whole communities contained within a County ward, it notes the example in Devauden and Llangybi where there is also a cross over between

- 1 - Appendix 5 county and community boundaries. Additionally, the Council consider this option preferable to creating a large rural multimember ward in combining the Mitchel Troy and Trellech United county wards.

2. Community Council emailed on 10 January 2021 supporting the draft proposals in relation to Llanover.

3. Mitchel Troy Community Council emailed on 02 March 2021 opposing the proposals to include Penallt with the Mitchel Troy area. They recommend creating a large multi-member County ward covering both Trellech United and Mitchel Troy with two County Councillors.

4. Trellech United Community Council emailed on 22 January 2021 opposing the proposals to remove the Penallt community ward from the Community of Trellech United and including it with the Community of Mitchel Troy. The Community Council proposes that the communities of Mitchel Troy and Trellech United are combined, represented by two councillors.

5. Llantilio Pertholey Community Council emailed on 03 March 2021 opposing the Community Review changes relating to the Croesonen West and Lansdown Wards.

6. Chepstow Town Council emailed on 03 March 2021 opposing the proposals for the Bulwark, Thornwell and Larkfield wards, they propose alternative arrangements, involving redrawing ward boundaries within the Town.

7. Raglan Community Council emailed on 08 March 2021 opposing the changes from the Community Review and wishes the Commission to reconsider the changes made during that review in relation to the Raglan area.

8. Llanbadoc Community Council emailed on 10 March 2021 and did not submit a council view and instead has offered the comments of two of their councillors for consideration;

Llanbadoc and Usk- One Community Councillor supports in principle the proposals for the new ward of Llanbadoc and Usk. As a possible alternative to the proposals, if available, they suggest splitting the wards of the Community Council into different County seats. The joining of the two may also lead to a stronger voice for the agricultural community within Llanbadoc and concerns have been raised as to whether Llanbadoc itself will become marginalised under the new arrangements with Usk issues becoming pre-eminent.

Govilon & Llanfoist / Llanbadoc & Usk – One Community Councillor refers to the past Community Review and believes both reviews should have been ongoing together at the same time which could have helped with formulating the draft proposals.

Appendix 5

9. County Councillor Roger Harris (Croesonen Ward) emailed on 23 January 2021 attaching a submission from a number of ward constituents who were unhappy with the removal of all Vale View properties and a large proportion of Llwynu Lane from the Community of Llantilio Pertholey to the Community of Abergavenny as a result of the Monmouthshire Community Review. They requested a return to the status-quo.

10. County Councillor Maureen Powell (Castle Ward) emailed on 26 February 2021 supporting the new arrangements for the council boundaries in Abergavenny. They also support single member wards for the town.

11. County Councillor Paul Jordan (Cantref Ward) emailed on 01 March 2021 supporting the draft proposals in relation to the Cantref Ward.

12. County Councillor Jane Pratt (Llanelly Hill) emailed on 03 March 2021 supporting the proposals for Llanelly and Llanfoist Fawr and Govilon. They also support the re-naming of the Llanelly Ward.

13. County Councillor Sheila Woodhouse (Grofield Ward) emailed on 03 March 2021 supporting the proposals made in the Community Review and in particular for the Grofield Ward.

14. County Councillor Armand Watts (Thornwell Ward) emailed on 04 March 2021 supporting the representations submitted by Chepstow Town Council and Monmouthshire County Council on the boundary changes for Larkfield, Bulwark, and Thornwell, Chepstow

15. County Councillor Phil Murphy (Caerwent Ward) emailed on 05 March 2021 supporting the draft proposals in relation to the Caerwent ward.

16. County Councillor Brian Strong (Usk Ward) emailed on 07 March 2021 supporting the draft proposals to combine the current Usk Town ward with the Llanbadoc ward to create a two member ward.

17. County Councillor Jamie Treharne (Overmonnow Ward) emailed on 08 March 2021 supporting the proposals set out in the Draft Proposals Report.

18. County Councillor Richard Roden (Osbaston Ward) emailed on 08 March 2021 supporting the proposals in relation to the Osbaston area.

19. County Councillor Paul Pavia (Larkfield) emailed on 08 March 2021 opposing the representations submitted by Monmouthshire County Council and Chepstow Town Council.

- 3 -

Appendix 5 They think the Commission need to revisit the original proposals submitted by Monmouthshire County Council in July 2020, which had cross party agreement.

20. County Councillor Ann Webb (St Arvans Ward) emailed on 09 March 2021 opposing the changes made during the Community Review in relation to the St Arvans Ward.

21. County Councillor Peter Clarke (Llangibby Fawr Ward) emailed on 09 March 2021 supporting the proposals in relation to Llangibby Fawr area.

22. County Councillor RJW Greenland (Devauden Ward) emailed on 09 March 2021 supporting the draft proposals in relation to the Devauden ward.

23. County Councillor Martin Brady (St Kingsmark Ward) emailed on 09 March 2021 opposing the proposals in relation to Chepstow and suggested that the Chepstow Castle and Larkfield wards should be combined to form a two-member ward “Greater Chepstow Castle” and that the Bulwark and Thornwell wards should be combined to form a two-member ward “Greater Bulwark.”.

24. County Councillor Richard John (Mitchel Troy Ward) emailed on 09 March 2021 offering the following comments on the proposals;

They support the move of the Penallt ward into the Mitchel Troy area to even up the electoral numbers but can equally support the case for creating a two-member ward, which would achieve greater parity without breaching community council boundaries.

They support the creation of the following two-member wards;

Bulwark, Thornwell and Maple Avenue.

Larkfield and Chepstow Castle.

Govilion and Llanfoist.

Usk and Llanbadoc.

Magor East and Undy - They believe the Magor East ward in the should be called “Magor East and Undy.”

25. County Councillor Louise Brown (Shirenewton Ward) emailed on 10 March 2021 opposing changes made during the Community Review and asks the Commission to reconsider the proposals to redistrict the number of Community Councillors in each community area.

Appendix 5 26. County Councillor Laura Anne Jones (Wyesham ward) and Senedd Member (South Wales East) emailed on 10 March 2021 offering their support to most of the proposals. She however comment on the wards below;

Bulwark and Thornwell should form their own electoral ward represented by two-members.

Larkfield and Chepstow Castle should form their own electoral ward represented by two- members.

27. Town Councillor Yvonne Havard emailed on 04 March 2021 supporting the representation submitted by Chepstow Town Council.

28. Town Councillor Cllr Tom Kirton emailed on 08 March 2021 in support of Chepstow Town Council and Monmouthshire County Councils amendments to the boundary changes for Larkfield, Bulwark, and Thornwell, Chepstow.

29. Town Councillor Hilary Beach emailed on 09 March 2021 in support of the representation submitted by Chepstow Town Council.

30. Monmouthshire County Council Conservative Group emailed on 03 March 2021 supporting most of the draft proposals. They express their views on the following proposals;

Magor with Undy- They support the Draft Proposals of a single member ward of Magor West and a two-member ward of Magor East including the community wards of Magor East and Undy. They believe that where there are obvious solutions to address variation in the five- year projection without breaching community boundaries, there is a strong case for doing so. Three single member wards in Magor and Undy would build in future disparity, which would be unfair on both residents and elected members. They support the proposed ward names. Historically the wards in the Magor and Undy area have been known as ‘Mill’ and ‘The Elms’. This has caused unnecessary confusion.

Chepstow – In Chepstow, they support the original proposals submitted by Monmouthshire County Council in July 2020 with cross party agreement, namely:

A two-member ward of Thornwell, Bulwark and Maple Avenue. A two-member ward of Larkfield and Chepstow Castle. A single member ward of Mount Pleasant. A single member ward of St Kingsmark.

31. Monmouthshire Labour Party emailed on 03 March 2021 supporting the representation submitted by Chepstow Town Council.

- 5 -

Appendix 5 32. A local resident emailed on 21st December 2020 opposing the proposals to combine the Penallt community ward of the Community of Trellech United and Mitchel Troy. They propose Trellech United is extended to include the whole Mitchel Troy electoral ward and have 2 county councillors representing it.

33. A local resident emailed on 26th January 2021 opposing the proposals to move them from the Town ward of the Town of Monmouth to the Drybridge electoral ward.

34. A local resident emailed on 01 February 2021 highlighting that residents of Llywnu Lane and Vale View are unhappy with the boundary changes brought by the Community Review. They refer to future building developments in the area and think that the boundaries should revert to their pre-community review state.

35. A local resident emailed on 02 February 2021 offering their comments in relation to the Mitchel Troy and Trellech United electoral wards. They prefer the idea of a two-member ward so that issues can be dealt with by the most appropriate or available member. However, they note the importance of geographical, cultural and travel links that tie to Penallt and to other Trellech United villages. These links mean that Penallt, and wards stay within the same electoral ward so that issues facing them both can be addressed simply and effectively. They request the Commission review the alternative solution suggested by Monmouthshire Council of creating a two-member ward for Trellech United and Mitchel Troy.

36. A local resident emailed on 05 March 2021 supporting the draft proposals in relation to the Monmouth, Drybridge and Monmouth Town wards. They are fully in favour of these wards having a single member to represent them.

37. A local resident emailed on 09 March 2021 supporting the representation submitted by Chepstow Town Council.

38. A local resident emailed on 09 March 2021 supporting the representation submitted by Chepstow Town Council.

39. A local resident emailed on 09 March 2021 supporting the representation submitted by Chepstow Town Council.

APPENDIX 6

WRITTEN STATEMENT BY THE WELSH GOVERNMENT

TITLE LOCAL ELECTIONS AND ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

DATE Thursday 23rd JUNE 2016

MARK DRAKEFORD, CABINET SECRETARY FOR FINANCE AND BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Local Authority Elections (Wales) Order 2014 provided for local elections in Wales to be delayed for a year, from May 2016 to May 2017. This allowed the elections to be separated from the Assembly elections.

At the present time, the Local Government Act 1972 provides that ordinary elections to local government in Wales take place on the first Thursday of May every four years. Therefore, the next local government elections would normally take place in May 2021. Since the implementation of the provisions of the Wales Act 2014, elections to the National Assembly take place on a five-yearly cycle. The policy of the Welsh Government is that elections at local level should also be placed on a five year cycle. It is intended that councillors elected next May will therefore hold office until May 2022.

The Wales Bill, currently before Parliament, includes provisions which would enable the Assembly to legislate to determine the term of office for local government. As the Bill is currently in draft form and should these provisions, for any reason, not come into force, the Welsh Government could use the same powers under the Local Government Act 2000 as we did in 2014 to delay the elections by a year. This statement therefore provides clarity to local government as to the length of office of those to be elected next year.

1 APPENDIX 6

In the light of this, I have considered the decision made last year in relation to the electoral arrangements of some principal councils. It was determined that reviews conducted by the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales in relation to nine principal areas would not be implemented, given the intention that councils elected in 2017 would only serve a short term prior to mergers.

However, even though the elections in May next year will now result in a full term, due to their proximity, the arrangements which would be required and the disruption for potential candidates, I do not intend to implement any changes to current electoral arrangements in advance of the 2017 elections resultant from those reviews. The councils concerned are , Ceredigion, Conwy, Denbighshire, Gwynedd, Monmouthshire, Pembrokeshire, Powys and Torfaen.

The decision that councils will be elected for a full term also means that the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission (the Commission) will return to its normal ten-year cycle of reviews of electoral arrangements. I expect the Commission to publish a new, prioritised programme as soon as possible which takes into account the age of the current arrangements in some areas and the amount of change since the last review was undertaken. I will ask the Commission, in planning their work, to start by revisiting the nine outstanding reviews, with a view to presenting fresh reports on these at the very start of their programme.

It is my intention that reviews of electoral arrangements in principal councils will be conducted against a set of common criteria to be agreed through the Commission. I also expect electoral reviews to have been completed for all 22 authorities within the next local government term.

These arrangements provide clarity for those considering standing for election in 2017 and also set out a long term planning horizon for local authorities and their public service partners. However, I want to be clear that discussions on the reform agenda are on-going with local authorities and other stakeholders. I will be proposing a way forward on local government reform in the Autumn.

2

© LDBCW Copyright 2021