sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aberaman North, Aberdare East, Beddau, Brynna, Christine Chapman, Church Village

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS REPORT AND PROPOSALS

COUNTY BOROUGH OF CYNON TAF

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE OF

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW

4. DRAFT PROPOSALS

5. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

6. ASSESSMENT

7. PROPOSALS

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

9. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

APPENDIX 1 GLOSSARY OF TERMS APPENDIX 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP APPENDIX 3 PROPOSED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP APPENDIX 4 MINISTER’S DIRECTIONS AND ADDITIONAL LETTER APPENDIX 5 SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO DRAFT PROPOSALS

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

FOREWORD

This is our report containing our Final Proposals for Cardiff City and County Council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- 1 -

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

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

Paul Wood Chairman

- 2 -

Mr Minister for Social Justice and Local Government Welsh Assembly Government

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF RHONDDA CYNON TAF

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In accordance with the directions issued by the Minister on 13 January 2009, we, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales (the Commission), have completed the review of electoral arrangements for the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taf and present our Final Proposals for the future electoral arrangements. A glossary of terms used in this report can be found at Appendix 1. In 2009 the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taf had an electorate of 172,820. At present it is divided into 52 divisions returning 75 councillors. The average ratio of members to electors for the County Borough is currently 1:2,304.The present electoral arrangements are set out in detail in Appendix 2.

2. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

2.1 We propose no change in the council size of 75 elected members but a change to the arrangement of electoral divisions that will achieve a significant improvement in the level of electoral parity across the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taf.

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW

3.1 Section 57 of the Local Government Act 1972 (the 1972 Act) lays upon the Commission the duty, at intervals of not less than 10 and not more than fifteen years, to review the electoral arrangements for every principal area in Wales for the purpose of considering whether or not to make proposals to the Welsh Assembly Government for a change in those electoral arrangements.

3.2 The Minister for Social Justice and Local Government of the Welsh Assembly Government has directed the Commission to submit a report in respect of the review of electoral arrangements for the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taf by 30 June 2011.

Electoral Arrangements

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

i) the total number of councillors to be elected to the council;

- 3 -

ii) the number and boundaries of electoral divisions;

iii) the number of councillors to be elected for each electoral division; and

iv) the name of any electoral division.

Rules to Be Observed Considering Electoral Arrangements

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

3.5 The rules also require that:

Having regard to any change in the number or distribution of local government electors of the principal area likely to take place within the period of five years immediately following consideration of the electoral arrangements:

i) subject to paragraph (ii), the number of local government electors shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every electoral division in the principal area;

ii) where there are one or more multi-member divisions, the ratio of the number of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every electoral division in the principal area (including any that are not multi-member divisions);

iii) every ward of a community having a (whether separate or common) shall lie wholly within a single electoral division; and

iv) every community which is not divided into community wards shall lie wholly within a single electoral division.

In considering the electoral arrangements we must have regard to (a) the desirability of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable; and (b) any local ties which would be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary.

Minister’s Directions

3.6 The Minister has directed that the Commission shall consider the desirability of multi member electoral divisions in each county and county borough council in Wales.

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

- 4 -

(a) it is considered that a minimum number of 30 councillors are required for the proper management of the affairs of a county or county borough council;

(b) it is considered that, in order to minimise the risk of a county council or a county borough council becoming unwieldy and difficult to manage, a maximum number of 75 councillors is ordinarily required for the proper management of the affairs of a county or a county borough council;

(c) it is considered that the aim should be to achieve electoral divisions with a councillor to electorate ratio no lower than 1:1,750;

(d) it is considered that decisions to alter the existing pattern of multi and single member electoral divisions should only be taken where such proposals for alteration are broadly supported by the electorate in so far as their views can be obtained in fulfilment of the consultation requirement contained in Section 60 of the Act; and

(e) It is considered that the Commission shall, when conducting reviews under Part 4 of the Act, comply with paragraph 1A of Schedule 11 to the Act that is, the Rules.

The full text of the Directions is at Appendix 4. The Directions were further confirmed in a letter from the Minister on 12 May 2009. A copy of this letter follows the Directions at Appendix 4.

Local Government Changes

3.8 Since the last review there have been two changes to local government boundaries in Rhondda Cynon Taf:

• S.I. 2002 No. 654 (W.70) The Rhondda Cynon Taf and Vale of (, Pont-y-clun, Penllyn, Welsh St. Donats and Pendoylan) Order 2002 and that boundary change has already been reflected in the electoral divisions concerned; and • S.I. 2008 No. 3152 (W.280) The Rhondda Cynon Taf (, Llanharry, and Pont-y-clun Communities) Order 2008 and that boundary changes have already been reflected in the electoral divisions concerned.

3.9 These made changes respectively to: • The part of Rhondda Cynon Taf which is in the community of Llanharry in the area of Brynderwen and Two Hoots to be separated from that county borough and community to form part of the community of Penllyn in the Vale of Glamorgan.

• Part of the Community of Llanharan transferred to the Community of Pont-y- clun forming part of the Cefnyrhendy ward of the Community of Pont-y-clun also forming part of the electoral division of Pont-y-clun.

- 5 -

• Part of the Community of Llantrisant transferred to the Community of Pont-y- clun forming part of the Cefnyrhendy ward of the Community of Pont-y-clun also forming part of the electoral division of Pont-y-clun.

• Part of the Community of Llanharry transferred to the Community of Pont-y- clun forming part of the Maes-y-felin ward of the Community of Pont-y-clun also forming part of the electoral division of Pont-y-clun.

• Part of the Community of Pont-y-clun transferred to the Community of Llanharry forming part of the Llanharry ward of the Community of Llanharry also forming part of the electoral division of Llanharry. We will take these changes into account in our consideration of the new electoral arrangements for Rhondda Cynon Taf.

Procedure

3.10 Section 60 of the Act lays down procedural guidelines which are to be followed in carrying out a review. In compliance with Section 60 of the Act we wrote on 6 April 2009 to Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, all the community councils in the area, the Members of Parliament for the local constituencies and other interested parties to inform them of our intention to conduct the review, to request their preliminary views and to provide a copy of the Welsh Assembly Government’s directions to the Commission. We invited the County Borough Council to submit a suggested scheme or schemes for new electoral arrangements. We also publicised our intention to conduct the review in local newspapers circulating in the County Borough and asked Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council to display a number of public notices in their area. We also made available copies of our electoral reviews guidance booklet. In addition we made a presentation to both City and Community councillors explaining the review process.

4. DRAFT PROPOSALS

4.1 Prior to the formulation of our draft proposals we received representations from Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council; two town and community councils; two councillors; and one other interested body. These representations were taken into consideration and summarised in our Draft Proposals published on 25 January 2010. Those Draft Proposals proposed that the number of elected members should remain the same at 75, retaining an average county ratio of 1:2,304. The following is a summary of our Draft Proposals.

4.2 In our Draft Proposals report we considered the electoral arrangements of the existing electoral divisions of , Cwm Clydach, Cymmer, , Llanharan, Llanharry, , , , , , Town, , , , East, , and , and the level of representation of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected and we proposed that the existing arrangements continued

.

- 6 -

Aberaman North, South and

4.3 The Community of Aberaman has no Community Council and is therefore not divided into community wards for the purposes of community council electoral arrangements. Under the current electoral arrangements for the County Borough Council however the Community of Aberaman is divided on the basis of former District Council wards that were abolished in 1996. One of the rules that the Commission are required to observe requires that ‘every community which is not divided into community wards shall lie wholly within a single electoral division’. As the Community of Aberaman is not divided into community wards then the current situation, whereby the Community is divided between two electoral divisions, is anomalous. As part of the review of electoral arrangements we are required by the rules to make proposals that will rectify this anomaly.

4.4 The Community of Aberaman is divided into two electoral divisions, namely and Aberaman South. The existing Aberaman North electoral division has an electorate of 3,768 (3,664 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,884 electors per councillor which is 18% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Aberaman South electoral division has 3,363 electors (3,269 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,682 electors per councillor which is 27% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Cwmbach electoral division consists of the Community of Cwmbach and has 3,189 electors (3,099 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 3,189 electors per councillor which is 38% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We considered that it would be desirable, to re-arrange the combination of communities that form the electoral divisions in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity and to remove the anomaly mentioned above.

4.5 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the adjoining Communities of Aberaman and Cwmbach to form an electoral division with a total of 10,320 electors (10,032 projected) represented by 4 councillors resulting in a level of representation of 2,580 electors per councillor which is 12% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The amalgamation resulted in a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area but we considered that it would improve the electoral parity. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Aberaman.

Abercynon and

4.6 The existing electoral division consists of the Community of Abercynon and has 4,510 electors (4,226 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1:2,255 electors per councillor which is 2% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Ynysybwl electoral division consists of the Community of Ynysybwl and Coed-y-Cwm and has 3,567 electors (3,367 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 3,567 electors per councillor which is 55% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We considered that it would be desirable to re-

- 7 -

arrange the combination of communities that form the electoral divisions in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

4.7 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the adjoining Communities of Abercynon and Ynysybwl and Coed-y-Cwm to form a new electoral division would give a total electorate of 8,077 (7,593 projected) represented by 3 councillors resulting in a level of representation of 2,692 electors per councillor which is 17% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Abercynon.

Aberdare East and West /

4.8 The Community of Aberdare has no Community Council and is therefore not divided into community wards for the purposes of community council electoral arrangements. Under the current electoral arrangements for the County Borough Council however the Community of Aberdare is divided on the basis of former District Council wards that were abolished in 1996. As we considered with Aberaman at 4.2 to 4.4 above, the current arrangements are anomalous because the Community does not lie wholly within an electoral division as required by the rules. As part of this review of electoral arrangements we are required by the rules to make proposals that will rectify this anomaly.

4.9 The Community of Aberdare is currently divided between two electoral divisions, namely and Aberdare West / Llwydcoed. The existing Aberdare East electoral division consists of the former Aberdare East District Council ward with 5,117 electors (4,976 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,559 electors per councillor which is 11% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Aberdare West / Llwydcoed electoral division consists of the former Aberdare West District Council ward (6,128 electors, 5,790 projected) and the Community of Llwydcoed (1,032 electors, 1,172 projected) with a total of 7,160 electors (6,962 projected) represented by 3 councillors. This gives a level of representation of 2,387 electors per councillor which is 4% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We considered that it would be desirable to re-arrange the combination of communities that form the electoral divisions in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity and to remove the anomaly mentioned above.

4.10 In our Draft proposals report we considered combining the electoral divisions of Aberdare East and Aberdare West / Llwydcoed would form an electoral division with a total electorate of 12,227 (11,938 projected) represented by 5 councillors, resulting in a level of representation of 2,445 electors per councillor which is 7% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Aberdare.

Beddau and Llantrisant Town

4.11 The existing electoral division consists of the Beddau ward of the Community of Llantrisant and has 3,232 electors (3,418 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 3,232 electors per councillor which is 40% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The

- 8 -

existing Llantrisant Town electoral division consists of the Town ward of the Community of Llantrisant and has 3,726 electors (4,114 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 3,726 electors per councillor which is 62% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We considered that it would be desirable to re-arrange the combination of community wards that form the electoral divisions in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

4.12 We noted the representations from Councillor Joyce Cass and the Beddau Ward Labour Party who both suggested making changes to the boundary of Graig ward of the Community of Pontypridd and the Beddau ward of the Community of Llantrisant. For the reasons given at paragraphs 6.1 to 6.3 below we were unable to consider such changes as part of this review.

4.13 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the Beddau and Town wards of the Community of Llantrisant to form a new electoral division giving a total electorate of 6,598 (7,532 projected) represented by 3 councillors resulting in a level of representation of 2,319 electors per councillor which is 1% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The proposal results in an increase of one Councillor representing the area. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Llantrisant.

Church Village and Ton-teg

4.14 The existing electoral division consists of the Church Village ward of the Community of Llantwit Fardre and has 3,435 electors (3,632 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 3,435 electors per councillor which is 49% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Ton-teg electoral division consists of the Ton-teg ward of the Community of Llantwit Fardre and has 3,408 electors (3,603 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,704 electors per councillor which is 26% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We considered that it would be desirable to re-arrange the combination of community wards that form the electoral divisions in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

4.15 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining these two wards of the Community of Llantwit Fardre to form a new electoral division giving a total electorate of 6,843 (7,235 projected) represented by 3 councillors resulting in a level of representation of 2,281 electors per councillor which is 1% below the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. As the proposal joined together two wards of the same Community we were of the view that no local ties would be broken by the fixing of this electoral division boundary. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Church Village.

Ferndale and

4.16 The existing Ferndale electoral division consists of the Community of Ferndale and has 3,200 electors (3,072 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,600 electors per councillor which is 31% below the existing

- 9 -

county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Tylorstown electoral division consists of the Community of Tylorstown and has 3,196 electors (3,074 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,598 electors per councillor which is 31% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

4.17 We noted the representation from Councillor Adams (Tylorstown) who considered that Tylorstown electoral division should retain two councillors. Councillor Adams was of the view that the number of electors was due to increase because of attainers (young people becoming eligible to vote) and to housing developments. We noted however that the projected electoral figures, in respect of Tylorstown, that were supplied to us by Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council did not support this statement. Councillor Adams also asked us to consider the geographical makeup of the division which is made up of villages that have separate identities, independent views and problems. We considered this point and were of the view that combining Tylorstown with a Community of a similar geographic makeup, such as Ferndale, would still allow these various views and problems to be appropriately represented and at the same time achieve substantial improvements in electoral parity.

4.18 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the adjoining electoral divisions of Ferndale and Tylorstown to form a new electoral division giving a total electorate of 6,396 (6,146 projected) represented by 3 councillors resulting in a level of representation of 2,132 electors per councillor which is 7% below the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The amalgamation resulted in a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area but it improved the electoral parity. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Ferndale.

Hawthorn and Taffs Well

4.19 The existing Hawthorn electoral division consists of the Hawthorn (1,616 electors, 1,941 projected) and Rhydfelin Lower (1,165 electors, 1,399 projected) wards of the Community of Pontypridd and has 2,781 electors (3,340 projected) represented a single member with a level of representation of 2,781 electors per councillor which is 21% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Taffs Well electoral division consists of the Community of Taffs Well and has 2,716 electors (3,263 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 2,716 electors per councillor which is 18% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We considered that it would be desirable to re-arrange the combination of communities and community wards that form the electoral divisions in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

4.20 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the electoral divisions of Hawthorn and Taffs Well to form a new electoral division giving a total electorate of 5,497 (6,603 projected) represented by 3 councillors resulting in a level of representation of 1,832 electors per councillor which is 20% below the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. This proposal resulted in

- 10 -

an increase of one Councillor representing the area. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Hawthorn.

Llanharan and

4.21 The existing Llanharan electoral division consists of the Llanharan ward of the Community of Llanharan and has 2,434 electors (2,687 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 2,434 electors per councillor which is 6% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Brynna electoral division consists of the Brynna (2,119 electors, 2,339 projected) and wards of the Community of Llanharan and has 2,919 electors (3,223 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 2,919 electors per councillor which is 27% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We considered that it would be desirable to re- arrange the combination of community wards that form the electoral divisions in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

4.22 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining these adjoining three wards of the community of Llanharan to form a new electoral division giving a total electorate of 5,353 (5,910 projected) represented by 2 councillors resulting in a level of representation of 2,677 electors per councillor which is 9% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Llanharan.

Llwyn-y-pia and

4.23 The existing Llwyn-y-pia electoral division consists of the Community of Llwyn-y-pia and has 1,697 electors (1,652 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 1,697 electors per councillor which is 26% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Trealaw electoral division consists of the Community of Trealaw and has 2,987 electors (2,906 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 2,987 electors per councillor which is 30% above the current county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We considered that it would be desirable to re-arrange the combination of communities that form the electoral divisions in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

4.24 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining these two adjoining electoral divisions of Llwyn-y-pia and Trealaw giving a total electorate of 4,684 (4,558 projected) represented by 2 councillors resulting in a level of representation of 2,342 electors per councillor which is 2% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Llwyn-y-pia.

Mountain Ash East, Mountain Ash West and

4.25 The Community of Mountain Ash has no Community Council and is therefore not divided into community wards for the purposes of community council electoral arrangements. Under the current electoral arrangements for the County Borough Council however the Community of Mountain Ash is divided on the basis of former

- 11 -

District Council wards that were abolished in 1996. As we have considered with Aberaman and Aberdare above, the current arrangements are anomalous because the Community does not lie wholly within an electoral division as required by the rules. As part of the review of electoral arrangements we are required by the rules to make proposals that will rectify this anomaly.

4.26 The Community of Mountain Ash is divided into two electoral divisions, namely and Mountain Ash West. The existing Mountain Ash East electoral division has 2,232 electors (2,090 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 2,232 electors per councillor which is 3% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Mountain Ash West electoral division has 3,176 electors (2,976 projected) represented by 2 councillors. This gives a level of representation of 1,588 electors per councillor which is 31% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Penrhiwceiber electoral division consists of the Community of Penrhiwceiber and has 4,243 electors (3,975 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,122 electors per councillor which is 8% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We considered that it would be desirable to re-arrange the combination of communities that form the electoral divisions in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity and to remove the anomaly mentioned above.

4.27 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the electoral divisions of Mountain Ash East and West and Penrhiwceiber to form a new electoral division giving a total electorate of 9,651 (9,041 projected) represented by 4 councillors resulting in a level of representation of 2,413 electors per councillor which is 5% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The amalgamation resulted in a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area but it improved the electoral parity. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Mountain Ash.

Rhigos and

4.28 The existing electoral division consists of the Community of Rhigos with 688 electors (631 projected) and the Penderyn ward of the Community of Hirwaun with 704 electors (645 projected) giving a total of 1,392 electors (1,276 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 1,392 electors per councillor which is 40% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Hirwaun electoral division consists of the Hirwaun ward of the Community of Hirwaun with 3,128 electors (2,963 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 3,128 electors per councillor which is 36% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We were of the view that it is not an appropriate arrangement for such a wide variation of electoral representation to exist in two adjoining electoral divisions, particularly ones which contain wards of the same community. We considered therefore that it would be desirable to re-arrange the combination of communities and community wards that form the electoral divisions in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

- 12 -

4.29 We noted the representation from Hirwaun Community Council who considered that 1,750 electors per councillor should be a maximum figure and where possible a lesser figure should be encouraged. We mentioned that we would be keeping the level of representation of 1,750 electors per councillor very much in mind as the aim to be worked towards whilst paying attention to the aspirations of local communities having their own identifiable representation. The existing average level of representation in Rhondda Cynon Taf is 2,304 electors per councillor. If it were reduced to 1,750 electors per councillor as suggested then the councillor numbers would rise from 75 to 99. That would not then comply with another of the Minister’s Directions that suggests in order to minimise the risk of a Council becoming unwieldy and difficult to manage a maximum number of 75 councillors is ordinarily required for the proper management of the affairs of a county or a county borough council. We were therefore of the view that a significant increase in the number of councillors representing Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council would not have been beneficial in terms of effective and convenient local government. Nor were we aware of any special circumstances affecting Hirwaun that would call for exceptional consideration. We noted Hirwaun Community Council’s view that multi- member electoral divisions were an acceptable alternative to a higher ratio of electors to councillors.

4.30 We also noted the representation from Rhigos Community Council where they stated that they would wish to stand alone in their own electoral division. The number of electors in the Rhigos Community is however only 688 and, if represented by 1 councillor, the suggested electoral division would be 70% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We did not consider that such a variation between the level of electoral parity in Rhigos and that of the remainder of the County Borough Council would have been desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. As in 4.28, we were not aware of any special circumstances affecting Rhigos that would call for exceptional consideration. We noted that Rhigos is currently combined for electoral purposes with the Penderyn ward of the Community of Hirwaun and considered therefore that it would be appropriate to consider combining the Communities of Rhigos and Hirwaun together to form an electoral division.

4.31 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the Communities of Rhigos and Hirwaun to form a new electoral division to give a total electorate of 4,520 (4,239 projected) represented by 2 councillors resulting in a level of representation of 2,260 electors per councillor which is 2% below the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Hirwaun and Rhigos.

Rhondda and

4.32 The existing Rhondda electoral division consists of the Rhondda ward of the Community of Pontypridd and has 3,279 electors (3,079 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,640 electors per councillor which is 29% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Glyncoch electoral division consists of the Glyncoch ward of the Community of Pontypridd and has 1,975 electors (1,866 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 1,975 electors per councillor which

- 13 -

is 14% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We considered that it would be desirable to re-arrange the combination of community wards that form the electoral divisions in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

4.33 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the Rhondda and Glyncoch wards of the Community of Pontypridd to form a new electoral division which would give a total electorate of 5,254 (4,945 projected) represented by 2 councillors resulting in a level of representation of 2,627 electors per councillor which is 7% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. As the proposal joined together two wards of the same Community we were of the view that no local ties would be broken by the fixing of this electoral division boundary. The amalgamation resulted in a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area but it improved the electoral parity. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Rhondda.

Talbot Green and

4.34 The existing electoral division consists of the Talbot Green ward of the Community of Llantrisant and has 1,992 electors (2,119 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 1,992 electors per councillor which is 14% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Pontyclun electoral division consists of the Community of Pontyclun which has 6,022 electors (6,648 projected) represented by 2 councillors. This gives a level of representation of 3,011 electors per councillor which is 31% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We considered that it would be desirable to re-arrange the combination of communities and community wards that form the electoral divisions in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

4.35 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining Talbot Green ward of the Community of Llantrisant and the electoral division of Pontyclun to form a new electoral division to give a total electorate of 8,014 (8,767 projected) represented by 3 councillors resulting in a level of representation of 2,671 electors per councillor which is 16% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Pontyclun.

Trallwng and Graig

4.36 The existing Trallwng electoral division consists of the Trallwng ward of the Community of Pontypridd and has 2,876 electors (2,716 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 2,876 electors per councillor which is 25% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Graig electoral division consists of the Graig ward of the Community of Pontypridd and has 1,692 electors (1,596 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 1,692 electors per councillor which is 27% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We considered that it would be desirable to re-arrange the combination of community wards that form the electoral divisions in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

- 14 -

4.37 As stated at 4.11 above, we noted the representations from Councillor Joyce Cass and the Beddau Ward Labour Party who both suggested making changes to the boundary of Graig ward of the Community of Pontypridd and the Beddau ward of the Community of Llantrisant. For the reasons given at 6.1 to 6.3 below we are unable to consider such changes as part of this review.

4.38 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining these two wards of the Community of Pontypridd to form a new electoral division to give a total electorate of 4,568 (4,312 projected) represented by 2 councillors resulting in a level of representation of 2,284 electors per councillor which is 1% below the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Trallwng.

Treforest and Rhydfelin Central / Ilan

4.39 The existing electoral division consists of the Treforest ward of the Community of Pontypridd and has 2,486 electors returning a single member with a level of representation of 2,486 electors per councillor which is 8% above the Existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Rhydfelin Central / Ilan electoral division consists of the Ilan and Rhydfelin Central wards of the Community of Pontypridd and has 3,084 electors (3,704 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 3,084 electors per councillor which is 34% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We considered that it would be desirable to re-arrange the combination of community wards that form the electoral divisions in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

4.40 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining these three adjoining wards of the Community of Pontypridd to form a new electoral division to give a total electorate of 5,570 (6,689 projected) represented by 3 councillors resulting in a level of representation of 1,857 electors per councillor which is 19% below the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. This proposal resulted in an increase of one Councillor representing the area. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Treforest.

Tonyrefail West

4.41 The existing Tonyrefail West electoral division consists of the Penrhiw-fer (1,042 electors, 1,146 projected), Thomastown (1,158 electors, 1,274 projected) and Tynybryn (2,212 electors, 2,434 projected) wards of the Community of Tonyrefail with a total of 4,412 electors (4,854 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 4.412 electors per councillor which is 91% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

4.42 In our Draft Proposals report we considered increasing the number of Councillors representing the Tonyrefail West electoral division from 1 to 2. This resulted in a level of representation of 2,206 electors per councillor (4% below the existing and draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor, instead of 91% above), achieving a substantial improvement in electoral parity.

- 15 -

Summary of Draft Proposals

4.43 Our Draft Proposals recommended no reduction in council size but a change to the arrangement of electoral divisions that would achieve a significant improvement in the level of electoral parity across the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taf. We considered that these arrangements provide for effective and convenient local government and met in principle the directions provided by the Welsh Assembly Government.

4.44 Copies of the Draft Proposals were sent to all the councils, bodies and individuals referred to in paragraph 2.8 seeking their views. A copy was also sent to anyone who had submitted preliminary comments. By public notice we also invited any other organisation or person with an interest in the review to submit their views. Copies of the Draft Proposals were made available for inspection at the offices of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council and the Commission.

5. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

5.1 In response to our Draft Proposals report we received representations from 5 Town and Community Councils, Christine Chapman AM, Jane Davidson AM, 21 County Councillors, 2 Town and Community Councillors, 13 interested bodies, 50 residents of Rhondda Cynon Taf and a resident of Preston. A summary of these representations can be found at Appendix 5.

6. ASSESSMENT

Request for Boundary Change

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

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

6.3 Under Section 57(4) of the Act, the principal councils also have a duty to keep under review the electoral arrangements for the communities within their areas, for

- 16 -

the purpose of considering whether to make substantive changes. The principal councils must also consider requests for changes made by a community council or by not less than thirty local government electors of a community and, if they think fit, make an order giving effect to those changes. Therefore the boundaries of communities and community wards are a matter for the principal council to consider in the first instance.

Councillor to electorate ratio

6.4 The Minister's directions include the following at 3.7 (a): "It is considered that the aim should be to achieve electoral divisions with a councillor to electorate ratio no lower than 1:1,750.” The Minister has indicated to the Commission that this means that the number of electors per councillor should not normally fall below 1,750, and this is how the Commission has interpreted and applied the Direction. We bear very much in mind that the directions are provided as guidance and should not be applied without regard to the special circumstances of the particular area: there may well be circumstances, having to do with topography or population etc of the area where it will be considered that an electoral division of fewer than 1,750 electors to be represented by each councillor is appropriate. This was explained in the letter from the Minister (Appendix 4) which stated: “This means that the ratio remains as the aim to be worked towards and not as a goal to be achieved in each case. In doing so attention should be paid to local communities having their own identifiable representation even where the indicative figure of 1,750 electors/ councillor is not always achievable”. In the absence of special circumstances we will aim to propose electoral arrangements in which the level of representation does not fall below 1,750 electors per councillor. We are not constrained in the same way by this direction from proposing electoral arrangement in which the number of electors to be represented by each councillor is, in appropriate cases, higher than 1,750. Throughout this review we will keep the ratio of 1:1,750 very much in mind, and will not normally think it necessary to refer to it expressly in every case.

Council Size

6.5 At present the size of the council at 75 members is at the maximum of the numerical limits advised in the Minister’s direction. The current member to electorate ratio for the council is 1:2,304, which is 32% above 1,750 electors per councillor (see Councillor to electorate ratio above). There are currently 21 multi- member divisions out of a total of 52 electoral divisions.

6.6 We reviewed the electoral arrangements for the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taf in the light of the Welsh Assembly Government’s directions for our guidance and took account of the representations which had been made to us. In our deliberations we considered the ratio of the number of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected, with a view to ensuring that the number of local government electors shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every division in the principal area. We looked at the present multi-member divisions to consider if we should recommend the creation of single member divisions. We considered the size and character of the authority and a wide range of other factors including population density, the local topography, road communications and local ties.

- 17 -

6.7 For the reasons given below we believe that in the interests of effective and convenient local government a council size of 75 would be appropriate to represent the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taf. This determination of the council size results in an average of 2,304 electors being represented by each councillor. We propose a total of 37 electoral divisions with 27 being multi-member and 10 being single member divisions.

Number of Electors

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

Electoral Divisions

6.9 We have considered the boundaries of the existing electoral divisions of Abercynon, Cilfynydd, Cwm Clydach, Cymmer, Gilfach Goch, Llanharry, Llantwit Fardre, Penrhiwceiber, Pentre, Pen-y-graig, Pen-y-waun, Pontypridd Town, Porth, Taffs Well, Tonypandy, Tonyrefail East, Trallwng, Treforest, Treherbert, Treorchy and Ystrad and the ratio and number of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected and we propose that the existing arrangements should continue. We considered changes to the remaining electoral divisions. Details of the current electoral arrangements for the area can be found at Appendix 2.

6.10 In the following section the proposals for each of the new Electoral Divisions are laid out in the same way. The first part of the initial paragraph for each of these gives a historical context by listing all the existing Electoral Divisions or their component parts used to construct each proposed Electoral Division. These components - the Communities and Community Wards - are described as a complete Community together with its current and projected electorates if it was used as such. If only part of a Community is used – i.e. a Community Ward - then the name of that Community Ward, its electorate figures, and the name of its Community will be shown as such. The final part of that paragraph in each section then lists the component parts of the proposed new Electoral Division in the same way - either as whole Communities with current and projected electorates, or as a named Community Ward, its electorate figures and the name of its Community - as before. This method of describing the make-up of Electoral Divisions is also used in the tables at Appendix 2 and 3.

Aberaman North, Aberaman South and Cwmbach

6.11 The existing Aberaman North electoral division has an electorate of 3,768 (3,664 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,884 electors per councillor which is 18% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Aberaman South electoral division has 3,363 electors (3,269 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,682 electors per councillor which is 27% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Cwmbach electoral division consists of the Community of Cwmbach and has 3,189 electors (3,099

- 18 -

projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 3,189 electors per councillor which is 38% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we considered (at 4.3 above) the anomaly caused by the Community of Aberaman not being divided into community wards and also the level of representation of the existing Cwmbach electoral division (paragraph 4.4 above). We proposed combining the adjoining Communities of Aberaman and Cwmbach to form an electoral division with a total of 10,320 electors (10,032 projected) represented by 4 councillors with a level of representation of 2,580 electors per councillor which is 12% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

6.12 We received objections from Christine Chapman AM, Councillor A Christopher (Aberaman North), Councillor L De Vet (Aberaman North) and the Constituency Party of . Christine Chapman AM voiced concerns over creating ‘super wards’ that would be so large that it would be impossible for local councillors to effectively represent all the communities in them. Councillors A Christopher and L De Vet opposed the merger of Aberaman North and South and Cwmbach electoral divisions on the grounds that the artificial amalgamation proposed would not be accepted by residents and it would create a vast area placing excessive demands on a councillor representing many more constituents. They stated that it would have implications for equity and consistency of service received by residents. Another argument put forward was that Aberaman is located on the other side of the main road, railway line and river from Cwmbach. The Cynon Valley Constituency Party of Plaid Cymru expressed disappointment in proposals that created larger electoral divisions and they were concerned that elected members would become distanced from the electorate due to geographically larger areas to represent that have no social cohesion. They recognised the legal requirement to place the Community of Aberaman into a single electoral division but opposed amalgamation with Cwmbach arguing that there is no connection between the two communities and that they are split geographically by the . They proposed that Aberaman become one electoral division with 3 councillors and that Cwmbach remained as an electoral division in its own right with 1 elected member.

6.13 We noted the objections and suggestions for this particular area and we considered that although Aberaman is located on the other side of the main road, river and railway line from Cwmbach, we noted that the main road (A4059) actually crosses the railway line and links Cwmbach with Aberaman. In addition, as the existing ratio of electors to councillors for Cwmbach is currently 38% above the existing county average of 2,304, the Commission is compelled to explore other arrangements to see whether and improvement in electoral parity is achievable. This is illustrated by the fact that if it were represented by two councillors, instead of the existing one, Cwmbach would have a level of representation of 1,594 electors per councillor (31% below the existing county average), which again is unsatisfactory in terms of electoral parity. In addition to this we have to address the anomaly caused by the community of Aberaman having no Community Council and therefore not divided into community wards (as detailed in 4.3 above).

6.14 We note that Cwmbach is not at present connected to any other area by obvious links , but we have explained above that the level of representation (with either one

- 19 -

or two councillors) is unsatisfactory in terms of electoral parity, and we have considered whether it could be cured by a rearrangement of the electoral divisions in the area. In addition we have already drawn attention to the anomaly caused by the fact that at present Aberaman North and Aberaman South, although parts of an un-warded community, are constituted as separate electoral divisions, an anomaly which can be cured by their amalgamation. As Cwmbach and Aberaman are linked by the A4059 and are neighbouring communities, we propose that in the interests of effective and convenient local government the draft proposal of combining Cwmbach with Aberaman North and Aberaman South should be taken forward. This would give a combined electorate of 10,320 represented by 4 councillors with a level of representation of 2,580 electors per councillor which would be 12% above the proposed county average. The projected figures imply that there will be a decline in elector numbers in the area to 10,032 giving a level of representation of 2,508 electors per councillor which brings the variance down to 8% above the proposed projected county average. We propose that the name of the electoral division shall be Aberaman and Cwmbach.

Abercynon and Ynysybwl

6.15 The existing Abercynon electoral division consists of the Community of Abercynon and has 4,510 electors (4,226 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,255 electors per councillor which is 2% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Ynysybwl electoral division consists of the Community of Ynysybwl and Coed-y-Cwm and has 3,567 electors (3,367 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 3,567 electors per councillor which is 55% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the adjoining Communities of Abercynon and Ynysybwl and Coed-y-Cwm to form an electoral division with 8,077 electors (7,593 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,692 electors per councillor which is 17% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

6.16 We received objections from Ynysybwl and Coed-y-Cwm Community Council, Christine Chapman AM, Councillor A Davies (Abercynon), Councillor B Arnold (Ynysybwl), Cynon Valley Constituency party of Plaid Cymru, Royal British Legion Ynysybwl Branch, Ynysybwl Community Centre, Ynysybwl Regeneration Partnership (YRP) and 11 residents of Ynysybwl. Ynysybwl and Coed-y-Cwm Community council strongly objected to the proposal on the grounds that they felt that the community would lose its identity and that it was a 20 mile round trip to Abercynon separated by a mountain. Christine Chapman AM made the point that there were no historic ties between the two areas and that they have different community identities particularly as Ynysybwl has its own community council and Abercynon does not. Councillor Davies objected highlighting the access difficulties between each area, the fact that Abercynon is very large geographically and the possibility that other communities could feel aggrieved at the unfairness if joined with Abercynon if the councillors elected all came from the same village. Councillor Arnold objected on the grounds that the proposal did not take into account local communities having their own identifiable representation and believed that the working name of Abercynon had engendered much public anger, he felt that Ynysybwl would lose its identity and would prefer to retain the status quo. The

- 20 -

Cynon Valley Constituency party of Plaid Cymru objected and believed that the status quo should remain. They state that that anticipated reduction in electors was incorrect and believed that the electorate was more likely to continue to increase. The Royal British Legion opposed the amalgamation and believed the proposed name of Abercynon was an insult to the people of Ynysybwl and that the Commission should take into account topography, separate identities and independent views and issues of the two areas. Ynysybwl Community centre echoed the sentiments of Ynysybwl and Coed-y-Cwm Community Council. YRP wrote in opposition to the draft proposals and after consultation with local residents came to the conclusion that the fact that Abercynon has 900 or more electors than Ynysybwl could mean that Ynysybwl might lose a resident community member as a councillor which would mean that local councillors would be inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community. They go on to say that even though Ynysybwl is currently 55% above the county average, due to favourable topography the current councillor has no difficulty dealing with the electorate. They also point out that Ynysybwl and Coed-y-Cwm have a strong sense of community and identity and fear that that would be lost if amalgamated with Abercynon. Several residents of Ynysybwl made points that terrain, topography, separate history, identity and culture all define the two distinct areas of Ynysybwl and Abercynon. They reiterate the point that it would be a 20 mile round trip to cover both Ynysybwl and Abercynon with no direct public transport links and show concern that Ynysybwl would lose its identity. Three residents suggested combining Ynysybwl with Glyncoch (Pontypridd) represented by 2 councillors

6.17 We noted the objections to the draft proposals and took account of the evidence provided in the representation about the lack of community ties between Ynysybwl and Abercynon. We found this evidence cogent and in the circumstances we concluded that the present electoral division of Abercynon remain as it is with two councillors, with a level of representation of 2,255 electors per councillor, which is 2% below the proposed county average. We propose that the name for this division remain as Abercynon. With regard to Ynysybwl we noted that if it were to be represented by one councillor it would have a level of representation of 3,567 electors per councillor (55% above the proposed county average of 2,304 electors per councillor) or if it were represented by two councillors, it would have a level of representation of 1,783 electors per councillor (22% below the proposed county average). Neither of these levels is satisfactory in terms of electoral parity. Some of the representations suggested that Ynysybwl could be combined with Glyncoch from the Community of Pontypridd, on the grounds that there are links between the two areas, and we have accordingly considered this proposed scheme. Ynysybwl is linked by a main road to Glyncoch (Ynysybwl Road), and Coed-y-Cwm (part of the community of Ynysybwl and Coed-y-Cwm which forms part of the existing Ynysybwl electoral division) is directly linked by the same road to Glyncoch. In the interests of convenient and effective local government we propose to combine Ynysybwl and Glyncoch which will have 5,542 electors represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,771 electors per councillor which is 20% above the proposed county average of 2,304. Projections suggest a decline in electorate which would bring the level of representation down to 2,617 electors per councillor which would be 13% above the proposed county average. We propose that the name of the electoral division shall be Ynysybwl, Coed-y-Cwm and Glyncoch.

- 21 -

Aberdare East and Aberdare West / Llwydcoed

6.18 The existing Aberdare East electoral division consists of the former Aberdare East District Council ward with 5,117 electors (4,976 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,559 electors per councillor which is 11% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Aberdare West / Llwydcoed electoral division consists of the former Aberdare West District Council ward (6,128 electors, 5,790 projected) and the Community of Llwydcoed (1,032 electors, 1,172 projected) with a total of 7,160 electors (6,962 projected) represented by 3 councillors. This gives a level of representation of 2,387 electors per councillor which is 4% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we considered (at 4.8 above) the anomaly caused by the Community of Aberdare not being divided into community wards. We considered combining the electoral divisions of Aberdare East and Aberdare West / Llwydcoed to form an electoral division with a total electorate of 12,227 (11,938 projected) represented by 5 councillors, resulting in a level of representation of 2,445 electors per councillor which is 7% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

6.19 We received objections from Christine Chapman AM, Councillor S Bradwick (Aberdare E), Councillor A Crimmings (Aberdare W / Llwydcoed), Councillor M Forey (Aberdare E), Aberdare East Labour Party, Aberdare West and Llwydcoed Labour Party and Cynon Valley Constituency Party of Plaid Cymru. Christine Chapman AM made the point that creating a ‘super ward’ for Aberdare meant that it would be impossible for local councillors to effectively represent all the communities within them, each having its own identity. Councillors Bradwick, Forey and Crimmings all made similar points, that the proposed division would be too large, with several different communities that require representation for different issues. They also mentioned that the topography of the area making it difficult to visit electors in all areas. The Aberdare East and the Aberdare West / Llwydcoed Labour Parties objections referred to, in summary: that the adoption of these proposals would result in an excessively large ward, which would impose excessive demands upon elected representatives; the increase in the number of councillors would make the electorate more remote from the elected members; and failed to take account of the distinct differences between the villages and the communities in the area. We gave consideration to the contention that the resulting division would be excessively large geographically, but noted that in reality the electors in the proposed division live within an area that is 2.4 miles long and at its widest 3.3 miles wide, it generally follows the road in a ribbon formation on the valley floor. We do not consider this to be an overly large area. The Cynon Valley Constituency Party of Plaid Cymru showed concern over the large size of the proposed division but acknowledged that the present arrangements were unsatisfactory, while regretting that the Commission had so little room for manoeuvre. They supported retaining the link between Llwydcoed and Aberdare West. One resident of Aberdare supported the proposal.

6.20 We noted the objections and considered that the main focus of objection was the geographically large size of the proposed division and the representation level with 5 councillors. Whilst the areas concerned currently have a total of 5 councillors

- 22 -

representing the electorate we have to address the anomaly caused by the community of Aberdare having no Community Council and therefore not divided into community wards (as detailed in 4.8 above). However, Aberdare is divided into North and South electoral divisions on the basis of former district council wards that were abolished in 1996. We have to observe the rule that ‘every community which is not divided into community wards shall lie wholly within a single electoral division’. As Aberdare is not divided into community wards then the fact that the community is divided into two separate electoral divisions is anomalous and has to be rectified by an arrangement which places them in the same division.

6.21 We noted that there are no obvious road links suggesting an alternative area with which Llwydcoed could be combined, but at the same time if Llwydcoed were to become a separate division this would be unsatisfactory (1,032 electors) in terms of electoral parity. As already explained Aberdare East and Aberdare West at present constitute an anomaly, and arrangement needs to be found so as to place them in the same electoral area. Therefore, as Llwydcoed and Aberdare are linked by Llwydcoed Road leading off the A4059, we propose in the interests of convenient and effective local government that the draft proposal of combining Aberdare East and Aberdare West / Llwydcoed should be taken forward. This would give a combined electorate of 12,277 represented by 5 councillors with a level of representation of 2,455 electors per councillor which would be 7% above the proposed county average. The projected figures imply that there will be a decline in elector numbers in the area to 11,938 with a level of representation of 2,388 electors per councillor which is 3% above the projected county average of 2,356. We propose that the name of the electoral division shall be Aberdare and Llwydcoed.

6.22 In the Commissions view the placing of Aberdare East and Aberdare West in the same division was inevitable, and Llwydcoed was already joined to Aberdare West. The number of councillors under this scheme is the same as under the existing arrangements (5). We know that community ties already exist between Llwydcoed and Aberdare West as they currently comprise the electoral division Aberdare West /Llwydcoed. Moreover the electoral parity is improved and as projected figures suggest a decline in electors in this area the electoral parity will be further improved in time.

Beddau and Llantrisant Town

6.23 The existing Beddau electoral division consists of the Beddau ward of the Community of Llantrisant and has 3,232 electors (3,418 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 3,232 electors per councillor which is 40% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Llantrisant Town electoral division consists of the Town ward of the Community of Llantrisant and has 3,726 electors (4,114 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 3,726 electors per councillor which is 62% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the Beddau and Town wards of the Community of Llantrisant to form an electoral division with 6,598 electors (7,532 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,319

- 23 -

electors per councillor which is 1% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

6.24 We received an objection from Beddau & Tyn-y-nant Wards Labour Party who said they could not endorse the proposal as Beddau village which encompasses Tyn-y- nant has its own identity separate from Llantrisant and splitting Beddau from Tyn-y- nant would not make sense. However, they offered two alternative suggestions. The first would be to combine Llantrisant Town, Beddau and Tyn-y-nant and the other to leave Llantrisant Town on its own and combine Beddau and Tyn-y-nant. Both suggestions they said would reflect the community ties better as Beddau village encompasses Tyn-y-nant and has its own identity independent to that of Llantrisant even though facilities in Llantrisant are used by the residents of the other electoral divisions. In support of the draft proposal was a resident of Pontypridd who stated that as Beddau is larger than Llantrisant it should be named Beddau.

6.25 We noted the objection and considered the alternative suggestions made. The representations suggest there to be a sense of community between the areas, and all are within the Community of Llantrisant. The current Tyn-y-nant electoral division consists of the Tyn-y-nant ward of the Community of Llantrisant and has 2,578 electors (2,726 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 2,578 electors per councillor which is 12% above the existing and proposed county average. We therefore propose, in the interests of convenient and effective local government to merge the electoral divisions of Beddau and Tyn-y-nant to form one electoral division with 5,810 electors (6,114 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,937 electors per councillor which is 16% below the proposed county average of 2,304. The name of the electoral division shall be Beddau and Tyn-y-nant. We consider that electoral parity is improved as there will be an increase in elected members representing the area. The projected figures imply that there will be an increase in elector numbers in the area which will bring the level of representation up to 2,038 electors per councillor which will be 12% below the proposed county average.

Church Village and Ton-teg

6.26 The existing Church Village electoral division consists of the Church Village ward of the Community of Llantwit Fardre and has 3,435 electors (3,632 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 3,435 electors per councillor which is 49% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Ton-teg electoral division consists of the Ton-teg ward of the Community of Llantwit Fardre and has 3,408 electors (3,603 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,704 electors per councillor which is 26% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the two wards of the Community of Llantwit Fardre to form an electoral division with 6,843 electors (7,235 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,281 electors per councillor which is 1% below the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

6.27 We received an objection from Llantwit Fardre Community Council which was reiterated by Jane Davidson AM. The objection was on the grounds that there

- 24 -

would be a loss of identity of the village of and that both Church Village and Tonteg should remain separate with 2 councillors each. They stated that the two areas were definable communities and believed that it was inappropriate to suggest changes based on mathematical formulae. Councillor G Bunn (Tonteg) saw merit in the proposal and Councillor J David (Tonteg) and Councillor G Stacey (Tonteg) did not object to the proposal but did suggest that the name of the electoral division should reflect the communities within it and it should be named Church Village and Tonteg.

6.28 We noted the objection to this proposal, that there would be a loss of identity from the amalgamation of Church Village and Tonteg, but reflected that the two areas were and would remain separate villages with their own identity and name, and that the objection did not outweigh the very considerable gain that would arise from our proposal in terms of improved electoral parity. In addition to this we noted that 1 councillor was in support of the proposal and 2 further councillors stated no specific objections to the proposal except a change of name. The two areas are wards of the same community of Llantwit Fardre so already have community ties. We therefore propose, in the interests of convenient and effective local government that the electoral arrangements should be changed as proposed in our Draft Proposals report with 6,843 electors (7,235 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,281 electors per councillor which is 1% below the proposed county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We propose that the name of the electoral division shall be Church Village and Ton-teg.

Ferndale and Tylorstown

6.29 The existing Ferndale electoral division consists of the Community of Ferndale and has 3,200 electors (3,072 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,600 electors per councillor which is 31% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Tylorstown electoral division consists of the Community of Tylorstown and has 3,196 electors (3,074 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,598 electors per councillor which is 31% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the electoral divisions of Ferndale and Tylorstown to form an electoral division with 6,396 electors (6,146 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,132 electors per councillor which is 7% below the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

6.30 We received several objections to the proposal. Councillor A Davies (Ferndale) was opposed to the amalgamation for geographical reasons, she felt that Maerdy and Ferndale were more closely linked and thought it more beneficial to merge those divisions instead. Tylorstown Ward Labour Party strongly opposed the proposal stating their main points of objection being the fact that Tylorstown is a Communities First area and in receipt of funding for that in addition to funding resulting from being 11th in the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation. They feared that being joined with Ferndale may lose Tylorstown crucial funding. A resident of Porth raised a similar concern regarding the fact that Tylorstown is a disadvantaged area, he also suggested the alternative name of Pendyrus should the

- 25 -

amalgamation go ahead. A resident of Tonypandy reiterated the points previously made regarding Tylorstown.

6.31 We noted the representations objecting to the proposal amalgamating Ferndale and Tylorstown. The existing electoral arrangements affecting Tylorstown are unsatisfactory in terms of electoral parity (and would remain unsatisfactory if the level of representation were reduced to one councillor), and the Commission is satisfied that it is necessary to address this disparity. In attempting to gain the best outcome for this area and taking into account the reasons behind the objections we considered that Tylorstown instead be amalgamated with Ynyshir, also an area of deprivation ranking high on the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation therefore both areas share a common factor. Ynyshir currently has 2,457 electors represented by a single member with a level of representation of 2,457 electors per councillor which is 7% above the existing county average. We therefore propose, in the interests of convenient and effective local government that the electoral divisions of Tylorstown and Ynyshir be amalgamated with a total of 5,653 electors (5,368 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,827 electors per councillor which is 23% above the proposed county average. However, projections point to a decline in electorate for this area which would result in an electorate of 5,368, and a level of representation of 2,684 electors per councillor which is 15% above the projected county average. We propose that the name of the electoral division shall be Tylorstown and Ynyshir.

6.32 Similarly, the existing electoral arrangements affecting Ferndale are unsatisfactory in terms of electoral parity (and would remain unsatisfactory if the level of representation were reduced to one councillor), and the Commission is satisfied that it is necessary to address this disparity. We considered that, as suggested, Ferndale could be joined with Maerdy as it has already been stated that they share more community links. This option would ensure greater electoral parity whilst joining two areas that are similar in nature and community. Maerdy currently has 2,391 electors represented by a single member with a level of representation of 2,391 electors per councillor which is 4% above the current county average. Therefore, we propose in the interests of convenient and effective local government that the electoral divisions of Ferndale and Maerdy be amalgamated with a total of 5,591 electors (5,367 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,796 electors per councillor which is 21% above the proposed county average. However, projections point to a decline in electorate for this area which would result in an electorate of 5,367 and a level of representation of 2,684 electors per councillor which is 15% above the projected county average. We propose that the name of the electoral division shall be Ferndale and Maerdy

Hawthorn and Taff’s Well

6.33 The existing Hawthorn electoral division consists of the Hawthorn (1,616 electors, 1,941 projected) and Rhydfelin Lower (1,165 electors, 1,399 projected) wards of the Community of Pontypridd and has 2,781 electors (3,340 projected) represented a single member with a level of representation of 2,781 electors per councillor which is 21% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Taff’s Well electoral division consists of the Community of Taff’s Well and has 2,716 electors (3,263 projected) returning a single member with a level of

- 26 -

representation of 2,716 electors per councillor which is 18% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the electoral divisions of Hawthorn and Taff’s Well to form a new electoral division with 5,497 electors (6,603 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,832 electors per councillor which is 20% below the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

6.34 We received objections from Taff’s Well Community Council who wanted the electoral division to remain as it is as it was an historical area with its own identity, they realised that it may not be possible but offered an alternative name of Lower Taff for the division should the amalgamation go ahead. Councillor T Bates (Hawthorn) objected to the merger as it would make it more difficult for electors to access their councillor if there were 3 of them. She suggested a couple of alternatives, one incorporating a boundary change and the other to add Hawthorn to Rhydfelin as she also opposed the Rhydfelin division being joined to Treforest. Councillor G Bunn (Tonteg) opposed the merger of Hawthorn and Taff’s Well and stated that they were different in everyway with Taffs Well being historically important in its own right. A resident of Taff’s Well objected to the fact that the name Taff’s Well did not appear in the proposed electoral divisions name. He suggested two alternative names of Taff’s Well and District or Ffynnon Daf y Fro.

6.35 We noted the objections to the draft proposals and considered that due to the opposition from both Taff’s Well and the Hawthorn member and the need to reorganise the divisions within the Pontypridd area we propose that the current electoral division of Taff’s Well remains as it is with 1 councillor, we propose that the name for this division remains as Taff’s Well. It will have 2,716 electors represented by a single member with a level of representation of 2,716 electors per councillor which is 18% above the proposed county average of 2,304.

6.36 We also considered that as Taff’s Well was to remain as a stand alone electoral division, that the Hawthorn electoral division could be amalgamated with the Rhydfelin Central / Ilan electoral division as suggested by the Hawthorn councillor. The Rhydfelin Central / Ilan electoral division currently has 3,084 electors represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 3,084 electors per councillor which is 34% above the existing county average of 2,304. Amalgamating these two divisions would improve the electoral parity in the area and would also mean that the division consists purely of wards from the same Community (Pontypridd) which have natural ties. Therefore, we propose in the interests of convenient and effective local government that the electoral divisions of Hawthorn and Rhydfelin Central / Ilan be amalgamated with a total of 5,865 electors (7,044 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,955 electors per councillor which is 15% below the proposed county average of 2,335. Projections suggest a significant increase in electorate to 7,044 with a level of representation of 2,348 electors per councillor which will be 1% higher than projected county average of 2,304. This brings together 4 wards of the Community of Pontypridd, meets the objections regarding Taffs Well remaining a division in its own right and also increases the elected members for the area by 1 resulting in better electoral parity. We propose that the name of the electoral division shall be Pontypridd South.

- 27 -

Llanharan and Brynna

6.37 The existing Llanharan electoral division consists of the Llanharan ward of the Community of Llanharan and has 2,434 electors (2,687 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 2,434 electors per councillor which is 6% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Brynna electoral division consists of the Brynna, 2,119 electors (2,339 projected) and Llanilid wards of the Community of Llanharan and has 2,919 electors (3,223 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 2,919 electors per councillor which is 27% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the adjoining three wards of Llanharan, Brynna and Llanilid of the community of Llanharan to form an electoral division with 5,353 electors (5,910 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,677 electors per councillor which is 9% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

6.38 We received objections from Councillor K Turner (Brynna) and 5 residents of Brynna mainly pointing out that the system as it stands works well as the councillor is directly accountable to the electors, there was also a suggestion for a boundary change between the two electoral divisions. We also received 2 representations of support from Councillors B Stephens and J Williams of Llanharan Community Council stating that the proposed electoral division would mirror the Community Council area and that the County Councillors currently take collective decisions at present and serve the community council. They also state that the areas do work closely together and that they share 9 facilities and amenities in the area as a whole. They believed that the amalgamation is a natural progression and that any future developments would have more chance of success due to having a larger voice and it would improve the local community for the future.

6.39 We noted the opposition to the proposal and we considered that it was not a particularly cogent objection as the two divisions currently make up the community of Llanharan as a whole and there are obvious community links. In addition to this we noted that 2 community councillors were in support of the proposal. The two areas are wards of the same community of Llantwit Fardre so already have strong community ties and share facilities. We therefore propose, in the interests of convenient and effective local government that the electoral division remains as set out in the Draft Proposals report with 5,353 electors (5,910 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,677 electors per councillor which is 16% above the proposed county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We propose that the name of the electoral division shall be Llanharan.

Llwyn-y-pia and Trealaw

6.40 The existing Llwyn-y-pia electoral division consists of the Community of Llwyn-y-pia and has 1,697 electors (1,652 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 1,697 electors per councillor which is 26% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Trealaw electoral division consists of the Community of Trealaw and has 2,987 electors (2,906 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 2,987 electors

- 28 -

per councillor which is 30% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the two adjoining electoral divisions of Llwyn-y-pia and Trealaw with 4,684 electors (4,558 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,342 electors per councillor which is 2% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

6.41 We received one representation in support and one objecting to the draft proposals. Councillor C Ludlow (Trealaw) strongly objected to the amalgamation saying that she could not see the benefit of the change if the collective number of councillors remained the same. A resident of Porth supported the proposals and suggested an alternative name of Ynyscynon for the division, as it is where the two communities meet.

6.42 The existing electoral arrangements affecting Llwyn-y-pia and Trealaw are unsatisfactory in terms of electoral parity (and would remain unsatisfactory if the level of representation were increased to two councillors in each division), and the Commission is satisfied that it is necessary to address this disparity. We have given careful consideration to the objection raised against this proposal, that there was no benefit if the number remains the same (2). Our answer to this objection is that the benefit is that there is a very substantial improvement in electoral parity. We therefore propose that the two divisions be amalgamated as suggested in our Draft Proposals report, and that the name of the electoral division shall be Ynyscynon as suggested. The division will have a total of 4,684 electors (4,558 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,342 electors per councillor which is 2% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

Mountain Ash East, Mountain Ash West and Penrhiwceiber

6.43 The existing Mountain Ash East electoral division has 2,232 electors (2,090 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 2,232 electors per councillor which is 3% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Mountain Ash West electoral division has 3,176 electors (2,976 projected) represented by 2 councillors. This gives a level of representation of 1,588 electors per councillor which is 31% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Penrhiwceiber electoral division consists of the Community of Penrhiwceiber and has 4,243 electors (3,975 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,122 electors per councillor which is 8% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we considered (at 4.25 above) the anomaly caused by the Community of Mountain Ash not being divided into community wards. We considered combining the electoral divisions of Mountain Ash East and West and Penrhiwceiber to form a new electoral division giving a total electorate of 9,651 (9,041 projected) represented by 4 councillors resulting in a level of representation of 2,413 electors per councillor which is 5% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

6.44 We received several representations objecting to the draft proposal. Councillor A Fox (Penrhiwceiber) believed that a merger would have a negative impact creating

- 29 -

a super ward. He also stated that he had spoken to several hundred constituents that all oppose the proposal. He added that Penrhiwceiber is a deprived division with its own identity and problems. Councillor J Ward (Penrhiwceiber) also opposed the amalgamation stating that the three villages that make up the community are unique and that it does not want to lose its identity. She noted that it is a Communities First area and believed the current arrangements work well, she added that merging with Mountain Ash would also be topographically difficult. Penrhiwceiber Branch Labour Party expressed opposition to the proposal and stated that Penrhiwceiber had little interaction with Mountain Ash and is an independent village. They felt the proposed division would be too large and objected to the name. Cynon Valley Constituency Party of Plaid Cymru objected to the amalgamation but acknowledged that Mountain Ash was required to be situated within one electoral division. They suggested a combined Mountain Ash division with 3 members and a separate Penrhiwceiber division with 2 members. A resident of Preston agreed that the proposals put forward in the Commission’s Draft Proposals report offered the best combination, owing to the knock-on effect that alternative combinations would have on neighbouring areas.

6.45 We noted the objections and concluded that the focus of objection was topography, division size and the social and economic differences between the two areas. However, we have to address the anomaly caused by the community of Mountain Ash having no Community Council and therefore not divided into community wards (as detailed in 4.25 above). However, Mountain Ash is divided into East and West electoral divisions on the basis of former district council wards that were abolished in 1996. We have to observe the rule that ‘every community which is not divided into community wards shall lie wholly within a single electoral division’. As Mountain Ash is not divided into community wards then the fact that the community is divided into two separate electoral divisions is anomalous and has to be rectified by locating the two areas in the same division.

6.46 We were mindful of the objections put forward but have to address the Mountain Ash anomaly. Therefore we propose in the interests of convenient and effective local government that Mountain Ash East and West be amalgamated with an electorate of 5,408 (5,066 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,704 electors per councillor which is 17% above the proposed county average of 2,304. Looking at the projections the electorate is due to fall to 5,066 which would give a level of representation of 2,533 electors per councillor which would be 9% above the projected county average. We propose that the name of the electoral division shall be Mountain Ash. This proposal reduces the number of councillors from 3 to 2, but does result in an improvement in electoral parity. We also propose that Penrhiwceiber remains as an electoral division in its own right with 4,243 electors (3,975 projected) represented by 2 Councillors with a level of representation of 2,122 electors per councillor which is 8% below the proposed county average of 2,304. We propose that the division shall retain the name of Penrhiwceiber.

Rhigos and Hirwaun

6.47 The existing Rhigos electoral division consists of the Community of Rhigos with 688 electors (631 projected) and the Penderyn ward of the Community of Hirwaun with

- 30 -

704 electors (645 projected) giving a total of 1,392 electors (1,276 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 1,392 electors per councillor which is 40% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Hirwaun electoral division consists of the Hirwaun ward of the Community of Hirwaun with 3,128 electors (2,963 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 3,128 electors per councillor which is 36% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the Communities of Rhigos and Hirwaun to form an electoral division with 4,520 electors (4,239 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,260 electors per councillor which is 2% below the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

6.48 No representations objecting to the proposals were received. A representation from Hirwaun and Penderyn Community Council was received agreeing with the proposal to amalgamate the two electoral divisions and noting that the two Community Councils within the proposed division would be unaffected by the amalgamation. They also suggested the name of the electoral division be Hirwaun, Penderyn and Rhigos. The Cynon Valley Constituency Party for Plaid Cymru wrote expressing the view that Rhigos and Penderyn interests maybe lost in the larger Hirwaun area but they supported the proposal as it addressed the disparity.

6.49 We noted the representations and considered that as there were no objections and that the proposal did improve the electoral parity for that area. We therefore propose in the interests of convenient and effective local government that the draft proposal is taken forward. We propose to combine the Communities of Rhigos and Hirwaun to form an electoral division with 4,520 electors (4,239 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,260 electors per councillor which is 2% below the proposed county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. We propose that the name of the electoral division shall be Hirwaun, Penderyn and Rhigos.

Rhondda and Glyncoch

6.50 The existing Rhondda electoral division consists of the Rhondda ward of the Community of Pontypridd and has 3,279 electors (3,079 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,640 electors per councillor which is 29% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Glyncoch electoral division consists of the Glyncoch ward of the Community of Pontypridd and has 1,975 electors (1,866 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 1,975 electors per councillor which is 14% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the Rhondda and Glyncoch wards of the Community of Pontypridd to form an electoral division with 5,254 (4,945 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,627 electors per councillor which is 7% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

6.51 We received objections from Pontypridd Town Council, Dr Kim Howells, Christine Chapman AM, Jane Davidson AM, Councillor R Smith (Glyncoch), Councillor D Williams (Glyncoch), Councillor T Leyshon (Rhondda), Pontypridd North East

- 31 -

branch Labour Party, Cynon Valley Constituency Party of Plaid Cymru and three residents of RCT. Pontypridd Town Council supported the principle of reorganisation but was disappointed that the overall proposals did not go further to reduce councillor numbers. They also suggested that Glyncoch and Pontypridd Town electoral divisions could be amalgamated into a two member division. Dr Kim Howells expressed concern over the proposals as Rhondda and Glyncoch electoral divisions belong to different parliamentary constituencies and that even though physically joined at the top of a mountain they were separated by Pontypridd Town with regard to access. He was also concerned that the area, if amalgamated would lose a councillor. Christine Chapman AM reiterated the same points that Dr Howells had made with the fact that the two areas have no historic ties. Jane Davidson AM endorsed the comments made by Councillor. R Smith (Glyncoch) arguing that the two areas do not share a common bond and that they only adjoin at the top of a mountain that isn’t easily accessible. She also pointed out that the proposed electoral division crosses constituency boundaries and could cause confusion for the electorate. Councillors T Leyshon (Rhondda) and D Williams (Glyncoch) made similar points regarding separate identities, access problems, no community ties or links, Glyncoch being a Communities First area whilst Rhondda is not and the crossing of parliamentary boundaries. Cynon Valley Constituency Party of Plaid Cymru and Pontypridd North East Branch Labour also raised the point of crossing a Parliamentary constituency boundary and a suggestion was made to rename Rhondda to better reflect its location within Pontypridd. Three residents of RCT made similar points to those above and a suggestion was made to include Coed y Cwm within the electoral Division of Glyncoch.

6.52 The proposal has already been made (at 6.17 above) that the Glyncoch electoral division be joined with the Ynysybwl division. This meant that the scheme originally put forward for this area in our Draft Proposals was no longer viable. However we also took note of the fact that the existing electoral arrangements in Rhondda were unsatisfactory in terms of electoral parity: if Rhondda were to be represented by one councillor it would have a level of representation 42% above the existing county average; and if it were to be represented by two councillors it would have a level of representation 29% below the existing county average. Neither of these levels was satisfactory in terms of electoral parity. We have therefore considered alternative arrangements to achieve better electoral parity in this area and believe that the Rhondda electoral division could be joined with Graig electoral division to achieve better parity. They share good road links and are part of the same Community of Pontypridd. Graig currently has 1,692 electors represented by a single member with a level of representation of 1,692 electors per councillor which is 27% below the existing county average of 2,304. Therefore in the interests of convenient and effective local government we propose to combine the electoral divisions of Rhondda and Graig with 4,971 electors represented by 2 councillors returning a level of representation of 2,486 electors per councillor which is 8% above the proposed county average of 2,304. We propose that the name of the electoral division shall be Pontypridd West.

Talbot Green and Pont-y-clun

6.53 The existing Talbot Green electoral division consists of the Talbot Green ward of the Community of Llantrisant and has 1,992 electors (2,119 projected) returning a

- 32 -

single member with a level of representation of 1,992 electors per councillor which is 14% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Pont-y-clun electoral division consists of the Community of Pont-y-clun which has 6,022 electors (6,648 projected) represented by 2 councillors. This gives a level of representation of 3,011 electors per councillor which is 31% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the Talbot Green ward of the Community of Llantrisant and the electoral division of Pont-y-clun to form an electoral division with 8,014 electors (8,767 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,671 electors per councillor which is 16% above the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

6.54 We received objections from Councillor P Baccara (Talbot Green), Community Councillor A Moss (with a 389 signatory petition), Pontypridd South West Branch Labour Party, Talbot Green Community Centre & Pavilion Halls Committee and 21 residents of Talbot Green and Pont-y-clun. Councillor Baccara opposed the amalgamation on the grounds that Talbot Green was a totally separate community with no social or community ties to Pont-y-clun, having its own amenities and services and suggested joining Llantrisant instead as they had more in common. He believed that ties would be broken with Llantrisant should Talbot Green be joined with Pont-y-clun. Community Councillor Moss enclosed a petition opposing the amalgamation stating that it would break community links, and its sense of identity would be lost. She believed that a representative for Talbot Green would be lost if integrated with Pont-y-clun, fearing that all 3 councillors could be elected from Pont-y-clun leaving Talbot green with no local representative. Pontypridd South West Branch Labour Party stated that all divisions should be single member rather than multi member. Talbot Green Community Centre & Pavilion Halls Committee wanted to retain the status quo as the present arrangement works well and is concentrated on the needs of Talbot Green, they want to retain their single member and said that if the proposal was to go ahead vital local community links would be broken. The main focus for objection from local residents was that each area would lose its own identity, there were no real community links between the two areas, the division would be too large for independent candidates to cover and a fear of Pont- y-clun taking over the smaller Llantrisant. However, there was support for the proposal from the Beddau & Tyn-y-nant Wards Labour Party who welcomed the amalgamation as the two communities shared similarities and were both affected by large strategic planning issues regarding retail, industrial and housing issues, both have large shopping areas and they felt that there was no particular natural obstacle that separated the two areas.

6.55 We gave consideration to the overwhelming objections to the draft proposal and concluded that due to the strength of opposition from both Talbot Green and Pont- y-clun we believe that the current electoral division of Pont-y-clun should remain as an electoral division in its own right but with an increase in councillor representation which will improve the electoral parity in the area. The name of this electoral division shall be Pont-y-clun with 6,022 electors (6,648 projected) and 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,007 electors per councillor which is 14% below the proposed county average of 2,304.

- 33 -

6.56 We considered that as Pont-y-clun would remain an electoral division in its own right, the result is that Talbot green falls outside any other electoral division, so could also remain as it is and stand alone. Alternatively Talbot Green could join with Llantrisant Town. As in paragraph 6.25, we proposed joining Beddau and Tyn-y- nant leaving Llantrisant Town outside any electoral division. Llantrisant Town currently has 3,726 electors (4,114 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 3,726 electors per councillor which is 62% above the current county average. This is unsatisfactory in terms of electoral parity and we consider that this could be cured by the rearrangement of electoral divisions in the area. Therefore in the interests of convenient and effective local government we propose to combine the electoral divisions of Talbot Green and Llantrisant Town with a total of 5,718 electors represented by 3 councillors returning a level of representation of 1,906 electors per councillor which is 17% below the proposed county average of 2,304. Talbot Green and Llantrisant Town are within the same community of Llantrisant so already have community ties, and they also have good transport links with the main A4119 road and B4595 linking Llantrisant town centre with Talbot Green. We propose that the name of the electoral division shall be Llantrisant and Talbot Green. We consider that electoral parity is improved as there will be an increase in elected members representing the area. The projected figures imply that there will be an increase in elector numbers in the area which will bring the level of representation up to 2,078 electors per councillor which will be 11% below the proposed county average.

Trallwng and Graig

6.57 The existing Trallwng electoral division consists of the Trallwng ward of the Community of Pontypridd and has 2,876 electors (2,716 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 2,876 electors per councillor which is 25% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Graig electoral division consists of the Graig ward of the Community of Pontypridd and has 1,692 electors (1,596 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 1,692 electors per councillor which is 27% below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the two wards of Trallwng and Graig of the Community of Pontypridd to form an electoral division with 4,568 electors (4,312 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,284 electors per councillor which is 1% below the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

6.58 Objections were received from Pontypridd Town Council, Dr Kim Howells, Jane Davidson AM, Councillor J Cass (Graig), Councillor R Fox (Pontypridd Town council), Pontypridd North East Branch Labour Party and 3 residents of Graig. Pontypridd Town Council opposed the amalgamation but said if it were to go ahead it should be called Ynysangharad to reflect where the two areas meet. Dr Howells asked the Commission to reassess the proposal believing it ignored factors expressed by Councillor. J Cass, whose suggestions he endorses. Jane Davidson AM also reiterated the points made by Councillor Cass and added that omitting the name of Graig from the proposed division would not be easily accepted by residents. Councillor Cass objected on the grounds that the distance between the two areas was large and the fact that Graig was closer to Pencoedcae (in Beddau

- 34 -

electoral division), there was no common boundary between the two divisions and residents would not consider them to be linked as there would be a need to travel though another electoral division to get from one side to the other. Several suggestions for a community boundary change were received as a result of this. Pontypridd North East Branch Labour Party stated that the two areas were not neighbouring and that you had to drive through a different electoral division to get from one side to the other, they supported Councillor. Cass and her suggestion to change boundaries. The comments made by the residents of Graig that sent in representations echoed the points already raised.

6.59 We considered the representations in the wider scheme of reorganising the Pontypridd area to achieve better electoral parity. However, as proposed in paragraph 6.52, we have already proposed that Graig be joined with Rhondda to form the Pontypridd West electoral division. The result is that Trallwng falls outside any other electoral division, so could remain as it is and stand alone or alternatively join with neighbouring Treforest. If it were to join with Treforest it would have an electorate of 5,362 (5,701 projected) with 2 councillors giving a level of representation of 2,681 electors per councillor which is 15% above the proposed county average of 2,304. We considered the amalgamation with Treforest and came to the conclusion that it would be better to have single member representation if possible. Therefore in the interests of convenient and effective local government, we propose that Trallwng remains as an electoral division in its own right and shall retain the name of Trallwng with 2,876 electors represented by a single member with a level of representation of 2,876 electors per councillor which is 25% above the proposed county average. However, projections point to a decline in electorate for this area which would result in an electorate of 2,716 and a level of representation of 2,716 electors per councillor which is 17% above the projected county average.

Treforest and Rhydfelin Central / Ilan

6.60 The existing Treforest electoral division consists of the Treforest ward of the Community of Pontypridd and has 2,486 electors returning a single member with a level of representation of 2,486 electors per councillor which is 8% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. The existing Rhydfelin Central / Ilan electoral division consists of the Ilan and Rhydfelin Central wards of the Community of Pontypridd and has 3,084 electors (3,704 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 3,084 electors per councillor which is 34% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the Treforest, Rhydfelin Central and Ilan wards of the Community of Pontypridd to form an electoral division with 5,570 electors (6,689 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,857 electors per councillor which is 19% below the draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

6.61 We received no objections and one representation of support from Town Councillor J Bishop (Treforest) stating that although the community relationship could be strained there were good examples of the two areas working together and suggested an alternative name of Taff Vale.

- 35 -

6.62 We considered the representation in the wider scheme of reorganising the Pontypridd area to achieve better electoral parity. However, as proposed in paragraph 6.36 we have already proposed that Rhydfelin Central / Ilan electoral division be joined with Hawthorn to form the Pontypridd South electoral division. The result is that Treforest falls outside any other electoral division, so could remain as it is and stand alone or as outlined in paragraph 6.59 above it could join with Trallwng. We considered the amalgamation with Trallwng and came to the conclusion that it would be better to have single member representation if possible. Therefore in the interests of convenient and effective local government, we propose that that Treforest remains as an electoral division in its own right and shall retain the name of Treforest with 2,486 electors (2,985 projected) represented by a single member with a level of representation of 2,486 electors per councillor which is 8% above the proposed county average.

Tonyrefail West

6.63 The existing Tonyrefail West electoral division consists of the Penrhiw-fer (1,042 electors, 1,146 projected), Thomastown (1,158 electors, 1,274 projected) and Tynybryn (2,212 electors, 2,434 projected) wards of the Community of Tonyrefail with a total of 4,412 electors (4,854 projected) returning a single member with a level of representation of 4,412 electors per councillor which is 91% above the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed increasing the number of Councillors representing the Tonyrefail West electoral division from 1 to 2. This resulted in a level of representation of 2,206 electors per councillor (4% below the existing and draft proposals county average of 2,304 electors per councillor, instead of 91% above)

6.64 No representations supporting or objecting to the proposals were received. Therefore, in the interests of convenient and effective local government we propose that the draft proposal is taken forward and that the electoral division of Tonyrefail West has an additional councillor taking their level of elected members up to 2 which will improve the electoral parity in the area. We propose that the name of this electoral division shall remain as Tonyrefail West.

Summary of Proposed Arrangements

6.65 The proposed electoral arrangements (as shown at Appendix 3) provide a level of parity that ranges from 17% below to 25% above the proposed county average of 2,304 electors per councillor (based on the existing electoral figures). Eighteen of the electoral divisions have levels of representation more than 10% above or below the proposed county average of 2,304 electors per councillor and the remaining 19 (51%) all less than 10% above or below the proposed county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. This compares with the existing electoral arrangements (as shown at Appendix 2) where the level of parity ranges from 40% below to 91% above the current county average of 2,304 electors per councillor. 21 electoral divisions (40%) having levels of representation more than 25% above or below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor, with 3 (6%) of these being 50% or more above the existing county average, 13 (25%) electoral divisions having levels of representation between 10% and 25% above or below than the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor and the remaining 18

- 36 -

(35%) electoral divisions having levels of representation less than 10% above or below the existing county average of 2,304 electors per councillor.

6.66 In producing a scheme of electoral arrangements it is necessary to have regard to a number of issues contained in the legislation and in the Minister’s Direction. It is often not possible to resolve all of these sometimes conflicting issues because of the requirement of using the existing community and community wards as building blocks of electoral divisions and the varying level of representation that currently exists within these areas. In our proposed scheme we have placed emphasis on achieving improvements in electoral parity, moving towards 1,750 electors per councillor and retaining, where possible, single member electoral divisions. We recognise that the creation of electoral divisions which depart from the pattern which now exists would inevitably bring some disruption to established ‘ties’ between communities and may straddle community council areas in a way which is unfamiliar. We have made every effort to ensure that the revised electoral divisions do reflect logical combinations of existing communities and community wards. We have looked at each of these areas and are satisfied that it would be difficult to achieve electoral arrangements that keep the existing combination of communities and community wards within single electoral divisions without having a detrimental effect on one or more of the other issues that are required to be considered.

7. PROPOSALS

7.1 We propose a council of 75 members and 37 electoral divisions as set out in Appendix 3. For purposes of comparison the present electoral arrangements for the County Borough are given at Appendix 2. The boundaries of the proposed electoral divisions are shown by continuous yellow lines on the map placed on deposit with this Report at the Offices of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council and the Office of the Commission in Cardiff.

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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

9. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

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

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

- 37 -

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

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

MR P J WOOD (Chairman)

REV. HYWEL MEREDYDD DAVIES BD (Deputy Chairman)

Mr D J BADER (Member)

E H LEWIS BSc. DPM FRSA FCIPD (Secretary)

November 2010

- 38 - Appendix 1 Glossary of terms

Commission The Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales

Council size The number of councillors elected to the council

Directions issued to the Commission by the Government Directions under Section 59 of the 1972 Act

How many Councillors there should be on the council of local government area, the parts into which the area Electoral should be divided for the purpose of electing councillors, arrangements the number of councillors for each electoral division, and the name of any electoral area

The divisions into which principal areas are divided for the Electoral purpose of electing councillors, sometimes referred to divisions colloquially as wards

Electoral A review in which the Commission considers electoral review arrangements for a local government area

The number of persons entitled to vote in a local Electorate government area The comparison between an electoral division and the Electoral parity county average of the number of electors represented by a single councillor. Government The Welsh Assembly Government

Person or body who has an interest in the outcome of an electoral review such as the principal council concerned, Interested person local MPs, AMs and political parties, community and town councils

Multi Electoral division within a principal area represented by member more than one councillor division

Order made by the Government, giving effect to the Order proposals of the Commission, either as submitted or with modifications

The area governed by a principal council: in Wales, a Principal area County or County Borough

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

The five-year forecast of the number of electors provided Projected electorate by the Council for the area under review

- 1 - Appendix 1 Body or individual person who responds to the Respondent Commission’s consultation by making representations or suggesting alternative proposals

Rules to be observed by the Commission in considering Rules electoral arrangements

Single Electoral division of a principal authority represented by member one councillor division

The Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the 1994 The 1972 Act Act

The 1994 Act The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994

A principal council - the single tier organ of local government, responsible for all or almost all local Unitary government functions within its area, which in Wales authority replaced the two tier system of county councils and district councils: a County Council, or a County Borough Council The electoral areas of Community Councils (not all Wards Community Council areas are warded). The term is also used to describe the principal council electoral divisions

- 2 - COUNTY BOROUGH OF RHONDDA CYNON TAF Appendix 2 Page 1 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP

NO OF % variance % variance ELECTORATE 2009 ELECTORATE 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION COUNCILLORS from County from County 2009 RATIO 2014 RATIO 2009 average average

That part of the Community of Aberaman specified in relation to the existing district ward of Aberaman North in column 2 of 1 Aberaman North 2 3,768 1,884 -18% 3,664 1,832 -21% Schedule 1 to the Borough of Cynon Valley (Electoral Arrangements) Order 1983(a) That part of the Community of Aberaman not contained in the 2 Aberaman South 2 3,363 1,682 -27% 3,269 1,635 -30% electoral division of Aberaman North 3 Abercynon The Community of Abercynon 2 4,510 2,255 -2% 4,226 2,113 -9% That part of the Community of Aberdare specified in relation to the existing district ward of Aberdare East in column 2 of 4 Aberdare East 2 5,117 2,559 11% 4,976 2,488 7% Schedule 1 to the Borough of Cynon Valley (Electoral Arrangements) Order 1983 The Community of Llwydcoed and that part of the Community of 5 Aberdare West/Llwydcoed Aberdare not contained in the electoral division of Aberdare 3 7,160 2,387 4% 6,962 2,321 0% East 6 Beddau The Beddau ward of the Community of Llantrisant 1 3,232 3,232 40% 3,418 3,418 47% 7 Brynna The Brynna and Llanilid wards of the Community of Llanharan 1 2,919 2,919 27% 3,223 3,223 39% 8 Church Village The Church Village ward of the Community of Llantwit Fardre 1 3,435 3,435 49% 3,632 3,632 56% 9 Cilfynydd The Cilfynydd ward of the Community of Pontypridd 1 2,142 2,142 -7% 2,022 2,022 -13% 10 Cwm Clydach The Community of Cwm Clydach 1 2,117 2,117 -8% 2,060 2,060 -11% 11 Cwmbach The Community of Cwmbach 1 3,189 3,189 38% 3,099 3,099 33% 12 Cymmer The Communities of Cymmer and 2 4,407 2,204 -4% 3,929 1,965 -15% 13 Ferndale The Community of Ferndale 2 3,200 1,600 -31% 3,072 1,536 -34% 14 Gilfach Goch The Community of Gilfach Goch 1 2,450 2,450 6% 2,696 2,696 16% 15 Glyncoch The Glyncoch ward of the Community of Pontypridd 1 1,975 1,975 -14% 1,866 1,866 -20% 16 Graig The Graig ward of the Community of Pontypridd 1 1,692 1,692 -27% 1,596 1,596 -31% The Hawthorn and Rhydfelen Lower wards of the Community of 17 Hawthorn 1 2,781 2,781 21% 3,340 3,340 44% Pontypridd 18 Hirwaun The Hirwaun ward of the Community of Hirwaun 1 3,128 3,128 36% 2,963 2,963 27% 19 Llanharan The Llanharan ward of the Community of Llanharan 1 2,434 2,434 6% 2,687 2,687 16% 20 Llanharry The Community of Llanharry 1 2,644 2,644 15% 2,920 2,920 26% 21 Llantrisant Town The Town ward of the Community of Llantrisant 1 3,726 3,726 62% 4,114 4,114 77% The and Llantwit Fardre wards of the Community of 22 Llantwit Fardre 2 4,661 2,331 1% 4,928 2,464 6% Llantwit Fardre 23 Llwyn-y-pia The Community of Llwyn-y-pia 1 1,697 1,697 -26% 1,652 1,652 -29% 24 Maerdy The Community of Maerdy 1 2,391 2,391 4% 2,295 2,295 -1% That part of the Community of Mountain Ash specified in relation to the existing district ward of Mountain Ash East in 25 Mountain Ash East 1 2,232 2,232 -3% 2,090 2,090 -10% column 2 of Schedule 1 to the Borough of Cynon Valley (Electoral Arrangements) Order 1983 That part of the Community of Mountain Ash not contained in 26 Mountain Ash West 2 3,176 1,588 -31% 2,976 1,488 -36% the electoral division of Mountain Ash East 27 Penrhiwceiber The Community of Penrhiwceiber 2 4,243 2,122 -8% 3,975 1,988 -14%

28 Pentre The Community of Pentre 2 4,033 2,017 -12% 3,920 1,960 -16% Appendix 2 29 Pen-y-graig The Community of Pen-y-graig 2 4,152 2,076 -10% 4,040 2,020 -13% 30 Pen-y-waun The Community of Pen-y-waun 1 2,022 2,022 -12% 1,851 1,851 -20% 31 Pont-y-clun The Community of Pont-y-clun 2 6,022 3,011 31% 6,648 3,324 43% 32 Pontypridd Town The Town ward of the Community of Pontypridd 1 2,289 2,289 -1% 2,161 2,161 -7% 33 Porth The Community of Porth 2 4,448 2,224 -3% 4,235 2,118 -9% COUNTY BOROUGH OF RHONDDA CYNON TAF Appendix 2 Page 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP

NO OF % variance % variance ELECTORATE 2009 ELECTORATE 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION COUNCILLORS from County from County 2009 RATIO 2014 RATIO 2009 average average

The Community of Rhigos and the Penderyn ward of the 34 Rhigos 1 1,392 1,392 -40% 1,276 1,276 -45% Community of Hirwaun 35 Rhondda The Rhondda ward of the Community of Pontypridd 2 3,279 1,640 -29% 3,366 1,683 -28% The Ilan and Rhydfelen Central wards of the Community of 36 Rhydfelen Central/Ilan 1 3,084 3,084 34% 3,704 3,704 59% Pontypridd 37 Taffs Well The Community of Taffs Well 1 2,716 2,716 18% 3,263 3,263 40% 38 Talbot Green The Talbot Green ward of the Community of Llantrisant 1 1,992 1,992 -14% 2,119 2,119 -9% 39 Ton-teg The Ton-teg ward of the Community of Llantwit Fardre 2 3,408 1,704 -26% 3,603 1,802 -23% 40 Tonypandy The Community of Tonypandy 1 2,652 2,652 15% 2,580 2,580 11% The Coedely, Collena and Tylcha wards of the Community of 41 Tonyrefail East 2 4,265 2,133 -7% 4,692 2,346 1% Tonyrefail The Penrhiw-fer, Thomastown and Tynybryn wards of the 42 Tonyrefail West 1 4,412 4,412 91% 4,854 4,854 109% Community of Tonyrefail 43 Trallwng The Trallwng ward of the Community of Pontypridd 1 2,876 2,876 25% 2,716 2,716 17% 44 Trealaw The Community of Trealaw 1 2,987 2,987 30% 2,906 2,906 25% 45 Treforest The Treforest ward of the Community of Pontypridd 1 2,486 2,486 8% 2,985 2,985 28% 46 Treherbert The Community of Treherbert 2 4,306 2,153 -7% 4,186 2,093 -10% 47 Treorchy The Community of Treorchy 3 5,905 1,968 -15% 5,741 1,914 -18% 48 Tylorstown The Community of Tylorstown 2 3,196 1,598 -31% 3,074 1,537 -34% 49 Tyn-y-nant The Tyn-y-nant ward of the Community of Llantrisant 1 2,578 2,578 12% 2,726 2,726 17% 50 Ynyshir The Community of Ynyshir 1 2,457 2,457 7% 2,294 2,294 -1% 51 Ynysybwl The Community of Ynysybwl and Coed-y-Cwm 1 3,567 3,567 55% 3,367 3,367 45% 52 Ystrad The Community of Ystrad 2 4,507 2,254 -2% 4,385 2,193 -6% TOTALS: 75 172,820 2,304 174,342 2,325

Ratio is the number of electors per councillor. The number of electors for 2009 and 2014 (in brackets) are included in the description of those electoral divisions which comprise more than one community / community ward.

Electoral figures supplied by Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council Appendix 2

2009 2014 Greater than + or - 50% of County average 36%48% Between + or - 25% and + or - 50% of County average 18 35% 19 37% Between + or - 10% and + or - 25% of County average 13 25% 18 35% Between 0% and + or - 10% of County average 18 35% 11 21% COUNTY BOROUGH OF RHONDDA CYNON TAF Appendix 3 PROPOSED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 1

NO. OF ELECTORATE % variance from ELECTORATE % variance from No. NAME DESCRIPTION 2009 RATIO 2014 RATIO COUNCILLORS 2009 County average 2014 County average

1 Aberaman and Cwmbach The Communities of Aberaman 7,131 (6,933) and Cwmbach 3,189 (3,099) 4 10,320 2,580 12% 10,032 2,508 8%

2 Abercynon The Community of Abercynon 2 4,510 2,255 -2% 4,226 2,113 -9%

3 Aberdare and Llwydcoed The Communities of Aberdare 11,245 (10,766) and Llwydcoed 1,032 (1,172) 5 12,277 2,455 7% 11,938 2,388 3%

The Tyn-y-nant 2,578 (2,726) and Beddau 3,232 (3,418) wards of the Community of 4 Beddau and Tyn-y-nant 3 5,810 1,937 -16% 6,114 2,038 -12% Llantrisant

The Church Village 3,435 (3,632) and Ton-teg 3,408 (3,603) wards of the Community of 5 Church Village and Ton-teg 3 6,843 2,281 -1% 7,235 2,412 4% Llantwit Fardre

6 Cilfynydd The Cilfynydd ward of the Community of Pontypridd 1 2,142 2,142 -7% 2,022 2,022 -13%

7 Cwm Clydach The Community of Cwm Clydach 1 2,117 2,117 -8% 2,060 2,060 -11%

8 Cymmer The Communities of Cymmer 3,844 (3,653) and Trehafod 563 (563) 2 4,407 2,204 -4% 4,216 2,108 -9%

9 Ferndale and Maerdy The Communities of Maerdy 2,391 (2,295) and Ferndale 3,200 (3,072) 2 5,591 2,796 21% 5,367 2,684 15%

10 Gilfach Goch The Community of Gilfach Goch 1 2,450 2,450 6% 2,696 2,696 16%

11 Hirwaun, Penderyn and Rhigos The Communities of Hirwaun 3,832 (3,608) and Rhigos 688 (631) 2 4,520 2,260 -2% 4,239 2,120 -9%

12 Llanharan The Community of Llanharan 2 5,353 2,677 16% 5,910 2,955 27% 13 Llanharry The Community of Llanharry 1 2,644 2,644 15% 2,920 2,920 26% The Town 3,726 (4,114), and Talbot Green 1,992 (2,119) wards of the community of 14 Llantrisant and Talbot Green 3 5,718 1,906 -17% 6,233 2,078 -11% Llantrisant

The Efail Isaf 1,019 (1,077) and Llantwit Fardre 3,642 (3,851) wards of the Community of 15 Llantwit Fardre 2 4,661 2,331 1% 4,928 2,464 6% Llantwit Fardre

16 Mountain Ash The Community of Mountain Ash 2 5,408 2,704 17% 5,066 2,533 9%

17 Penrhiwceiber The Community of Penrhiwceiber 2 4,243 2,122 -8% 3,975 1,988 -14% 18 Pentre The Community of Pentre 2 4,033 2,017 -12% 3,920 1,960 -16% 19 Pen-y-graig The Community of Pen-y-graig 2 4,152 2,076 -10% 4,040 2,020 -13% 20 Pen-y-waun The Community of Pen-y-waun 1 2,022 2,022 -12% 1,851 1,851 -20% 21 Pont-y-clun The Community of Pont-y-clun 3 6,022 2,007 -13% 6,648 2,216 -5%

The Hawthorn 1,616 (1,941), Rhydfelin Lower 1,165 (1,399), Ilan 963 (1,148) and Rhydfelin 22 Pontypridd South 3 5,865 1,955 -15% 7,044 2,348 1% Central 2,121 (2,556) wards of the Community of Pontypridd

23 Pontypridd Town The Town ward of the Community of Pontypridd 1 2,289 2,289 -1% 2,161 2,161 -7% Appendix 3

24 Pontypridd West The Rhondda 3,279 (3,079) and Graig 1,692 (1,596) wards of the Community of Pontypridd 2 4,971 2,486 8% 4,675 2,338 1%

25 Porth The Community of Porth 2 4,448 2,224 -3% 4,235 2,118 -9%

26 Taff's Well The Community of Taff's Well 1 2,716 2,716 18% 3,263 3,263 40% COUNTY BOROUGH OF RHONDDA CYNON TAF Appendix 3 PROPOSED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Page 2

NO. OF ELECTORATE % variance from ELECTORATE % variance from No. NAME DESCRIPTION 2009 RATIO 2014 RATIO COUNCILLORS 2009 County average 2014 County average

27 Tonypandy The Community of Tonypandy 1 2,652 2,652 15% 2,580 2,580 11%

The Coedely 1,313 (1,445), Collena 1,649 (1,814) and Tylcha 1,303 (1,433) wards of the 28 Tonyrefail East 2 4,265 2,133 -7% 4,692 2,346 1% Community of Tonyrefail

The Penrhiw-fer 1,042 (1,146), Thomastown 1,158 (1,274) and Tynybryn 2,212 (2,434) 29 Tonyrefail West 2 4,412 2,206 -4% 4,854 2,427 4% wards of the Community of Tonyrefail

30 Trallwng The Trallwng ward of the Community of Pontypridd 1 2,876 2,876 25% 2,716 2,716 17%

31 Treforest The Treforest ward of the Community of Pontypridd 1 2,486 2,486 8% 2,985 2,985 28% 32 Treherbert The Community of Treherbert 2 4,306 2,153 -7% 4,186 2,093 -10% 33 Treorchy The Community of Treorchy 3 5,905 1,968 -15% 5,741 1,914 -18%

34 Tylorstown and Ynyshir The Communities of Tylerstown 3,196 (3,074) and Ynyshir 2,457 (2,294) 2 5,653 2,827 23% 5,368 2,684 15%

35 Ynyscynon The Communities of Llwyn-y-pia 1,697 (1,652) and Trealaw 2,987 (2,906) 2 4,684 2,342 2% 4,558 2,279 -2%

Ynysybwl/Coed-y-Cwm and The Community of Ynysybwl and Coed y Cwm 3,567 (3,367) and the Glyncoch 1,975 36 2 5,542 2,771 20% 5,233 2,617 13% Glyncoch (1,866) ward of the Community of Pontypridd

37 Ystrad The Community of Ystrad 2 4,507 2,254 -2% 4,385 2,193 -6% TOTALS: 75 172,820 2,304 174,312 2,324

Ratio is the number of electors per councillor The number of electors for 2009 and 2014 (in brackets) are included in the description of those electoral divisions which comprise more than one community / community ward.

Electoral figures supplied by Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council Appendix 3 2009 2014 Greater than + or - 50% of County average 00%00% Between + or - 25% and + or - 50% of County average 1 3% 4 11% Between + or - 10% and + or - 25% of County average 17 46% 16 43% Between 0% and + or - 10% of County average 19 51% 17 46% Appendix 4

Appendix 4

Appendix 4 Appendix 4

Appendix 5 SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO DRAFT PROPOSALS

Hirwaun and Penderyn Community Councils wrote to agree to the amalgamation of the electoral divisions of Hirwaun and Rhigos and suggested a name of Hirwaun, Penderyn and Rhigos. They also noted that the two Community Councils would be unaffected by the proposed electoral division.

Llantwit Community Council wrote to oppose the proposal to merge Church Village and Tonteg electoral divisions. They do not believe we have met the directions given by the Minister. They believe it has been a mathematical exercise and there has been a total loss of identity of the village Tonteg, which has appeared in records since the Normans.

They note the projected figures for the two divisions are 3,632 and 3,603 which are both double 1,750. Therefore, they believe both divisions should remain separate and have two councillors each. They believe regard has no been made to communities but mathematical formulae. It should be possible to recognise that communities require different representation based on social, economic and ethnicity reasons. Formulae should be variable to reflect these needs. The Council are of the opinion that the Ministers Directions have a maximum number of 75 Councillors and that that has been the overriding factor in the way the review has been conducted. It is strongly recommended that the proposals submitted to the Welsh Assembly Government have a deeper regard for communities.

Taffs Well Community Council wrote to state their wish to remain as Taffs Well but realise that this is not feasible. They have offered a suggestion for the proposed division name of Lower Taff as the Taff runs through all the combined areas and will areas where they feel they may have lost their identity will be in a division of a new name and not one of the amalgamated communities.

Pontypridd Town Council wrote to strongly oppose the proposals and offered the following comments: 1. The Council support the principle of reorganisation but the proposals fail to reduce councillor numbers and cost savings. 2. The partnering of particular wards is nonsensical and goes against the natural geography. 3. Whilst the Council is against the proposed Graig and Trallwng merger, if it were to go ahead it should be called Ynysangharad in order to signify the area of land between the two wards. 4. They suggest the Glyncoch and Pontypridd Town wards could be made into a two member division. This could be called Town or Graig-Yr-Hesg as this name links the two areas.

Ynysybwl and Coed-y-cwm Community Council wrote to strongly object to the proposal to place their community into the Abercynon electoral division, as they felt that their community would lose its identity. This is also a concern of the public as they claim a petition has been set up with a huge response so far. It is a 20 mile round trip to Abercynon from Ynysybwl and they are separated by a mountain.

Dr Kim Howells former MP for Pontypridd wrote to express his deep concerns at the proposed changes in the constituency of Pontypridd. He draws attention to the difficulties

- 1 - Appendix 5 and widespread hostility to the proposed merger of the Rhondda and Glyncoch wards and endorses the Beddau and Tynant ward Labour Party’s response to the proposals.

Dr Howells is especially concerned about the proposed Rhondda and Glyncoch wards which ‘belong’ to different parliamentary constituencies. The two divisions will lose a councillor at the same time as trying to come to terms with the geographic reality of being separated by Pontypridd Town. They may be contiguous to each other, in that they have a common boundary that runs high above both communities along the ridge of a dividing hill, but to travel via vehicle to one another citizens and Councillors would have to negotiate their way through Pontypridd as well as crossing constituencies.

Dr Howells asks the Commission to reassess the proposal to merge the Graig and Trallwng divisions in Pontypridd. He believes it ignores a whole host of factors expressed in the enclosed representation by Councillor Joyce Cass. He endorses a proposal from Councillor Cass to change the boundary of Graig to include the village of Penycoedcae which would obviate the need for the proposed merger.

Christine Chapman AM wrote to state that the Commission does not appear to have taken the need to recognise ‘local community ties’ due consideration in the proposals for the County Borough. In addition, the report fails to account for local geography, the differing types of communities and the vital link between Councillor and its electorate. She believes the proposals have been based purely on figures, not people, with too much emphasis placed on achieving the 1:1,750 ratio at the cost of losing that vital community link.

With regard to specific proposals; The proposal to merge Glyncoch with the Rhondda division does not take the 2.5 mile distance between the divisions or their separation by a mountain into account. She notes that the Rhondda name would not apply to Glyncoch as they have no historic ties with Rhondda and the areas have completely different identities. She also notes that the new division would cross the Parliamentary constituency boundary.

She believes the same can be said of the proposal for Abercynon and Ynysybwl who each have their own individual community identities. Furthermore, the village of Ynysybwl has its own Community Council while Abercynon does not.

The proposals to create ‘super wards’ for Aberaman, Aberdare and Mountain Ash mean that it would be impossible for local Councillors to effectively represent all the communities within them, each with their own unique identity.

She believes that if the Report’s proposals are implemented it would only serve to widen the gap between citizens and their locally elected representatives at a time when politics is held in such low repute. With voter apathy and voter turnout at an all time low, losing that vital local link would result in further disaffection from the political process. She goes onto say that local Councillors work extremely hard to build links and foster relationships with their constituents, local groups and organisations. Understanding the needs of individual communities which they serve and being able to respond effectively to them is key.

- 2 - Appendix 5 Jane Davidson AM wrote to reiterate the points made by Councillors to her:

Trallwng and Graig Councillor Joyce Cass has stated that there is no ‘common boundary’ between the two wards and to travel between them you must travel through another ward. The communities are also distinct and residents would not consider them to be linked. It is acknowledged that the number of electors is below the county average but there are a number of developments that are likely to increase the electorate.

There is a suggestion of moving the boundaries although this is acknowledged that it could not be done as part of this review. It is also noted that the proposed name of Trallwng would not be easily accepted by Graig residents as this area is one of the oldest residential areas in the locality. It is noted that residents of both areas would use the services of the town centre but would be unlikely to use the community facilities available in the opposing ward.

Hawthorn and Taffs Well Councillor Teressa Bates suggested rather than making a multi member division, create 3 single member divisions called Taffs Well, Hawthorn and . An alternative could also be to combine Hawthorn and Rhydfelen wards to create a single multi member division.

Church Village and Tonteg Llantwit Fardre Community Council raised concerns with the proposed amalgamation. Firstly, the figure of 2,304 electors per councillor does not work and is beyond the directions of a ratio no less than 1:1,750. They believe that given the increases in electors for both communities for 2014 that an increase of 1 councillor for each division is a more acceptable solution than an amalgamation.

They are also concerned at the loss of the name Tonteg. They note the village has been in records since the Normans (the castle in question is a CADW site). They state that the two areas are definable communities and as such believe it inappropriate to suggest ward changes based upon mathematical formulae.

Councillor John David had no specific comments or objections but believes that designating the whole area Church Village does not accurately suggest the communities within the area and that an alternative name would be desirable.

Rhondda and Glyncoch Councillor Robert Smith states that the two wards do not share a common bond and only adjoin at one point on a mountain top which could only be passed via a hike or using an off-road vehicle. The use of the ‘building blocks’ therefore adds weight to these areas not to be combined. He also takes issue with the projected figures for the Rhondda ward where he has been given projected figures of 3,554 by the electoral officers.

The Assembly Member also notes that this proposal crosses constituency boundaries and could cause confusion for the electorate.

Treforest and Rhydfelin Central / Ilan Councillor Bates points out that a natural boundary separates the two distinct communities. The river that forms this boundary could make it difficult for the elected representatives to see constituents in times of flood.

- 3 - Appendix 5

Councillor Brian Arnold (Ynysybwl) wrote to object most strongly to the proposal to amalgamate Ynysybwl with Abercynon. He points to the Ministers directions whereby the Commission pay attention to local communities having their own identifiable representation and multimember divisions should be created when broadly supported by the electorate. He believes that we have not given this due consideration and is aware that a petition will be submitted against the proposals including the working name.

He acknowledges that the present electorate is above the county average but under the proposals a councillor would be responsible for 8,077 electors. He goes on to note that in the foreword the principle of achieving a better democratic balance but suggests the weight of opposition to our proposals is so great that if they were adopted then the electors would be alienated and disenfranchised and could stay at home in protest at the next election.

He believes that the working name of Abercynon has engendered much public anger in Ynysybwl. On the basis its historical and cultural past as well as its future identity the electorate feels its identity is being sacrificed in a number crunching exercise. He believes there is significant support for the present arrangements to continue due to its unique situation.

Councillor Paul Baccara (Talbot Green) wrote to oppose the proposal to amalgamate the Pontyclun and Talbot Green electoral divisions. He states that Talbot Green is a community wholly within itself and not a part of any other community, especially Pontyclun. They have their own community centre, pavilion hall, post office, library, police station, schools, etc. If it were to merge then it should be with Llantrisant Town as they share a church and war memorial and there is a plaque in the centre of Talbot Green showing the 13th Century boundary of Llantrisant Town. There are no cultural, shopping, religious, community, leisure or historic ties with Pontyclun.

He notes the cautious increase in electors to 2014 but believes this will increase due to it being a sought after area to live and three areas of land which could be used for further development. The division also has a major hospital, three shopping centres and two schools for the Councillor to deal with.

He believes this proposal where the electoral division for Talbot Green is Pontyclun but Community Council is Llantrisant will confuse local loyalties and break long held ties. He is convinced the people of Talbot Green wish to remain within Llantrisant Community Council and be a single member electoral division. The boundaries are well defined rivers and roads and the Commission would be breaking centuries of community ties with Llantrisant.

Councillor Teressa A Bates (Hawthorn) wrote to express her unhappiness with the proposal to merge Taffs Well with Hawthorn electoral divisions. She believes that with three councillors, it would make it more difficult for people to access their Councillor.

She suggests two alternatives, one being a boundary change, the other to add Rhydfelin to Hawthorn to create a multi-member division. She also feels it is wrong to incorporate the present ward of Rhydfelin in to the new Treforest division as the river dividing the wards floods making it difficult for Councillors to meet its constituents at that time. She also believes there are many other alternatives which could be investigated in the Pontypridd area.

- 4 - Appendix 5

Councillor Steven Bradwick (Aberdare East) wrote to express his concerns for the proposals for Aberdare and Llwydcoed. He fears that all the good work achieved during his time as Councillor could be lost as the new division would be so large. Aberdare East is presently the fourth largest division which he has broken down into 8 areas to more easily manage the division, make contact with electors, hold successful street surgeries, and attend PACT meetings and Neighbourhood Watch. He also goes on patrol with the police every two months to see problems and feedback to people what the police are doing for them.

Aberdare East comprises of 8 areas, which includes 3 housing estates, all with their own commitments and different needs. The needs of these areas are totally different to those of Aberdare West and Llwydcoed. Account has also not been taken of those not on the electoral register or developments on the Aberdare hospital site where a further 600 homes are being planned.

The size of the proposed division would be over 10 miles which would penalise non- drivers as it would be difficult to cover the division with public transport. The relationship between Councillor and elector will be lost in such a large division, increasing voter apathy in politics.

Councillor Gordon Bunn (Tonteg) sees merit in our proposals for Tonteg but is utterly amazed at the suggestion to merge Hawthorn and Taffs Well. He understands the need for the reduction in ratio but historical importance should be given greater consideration.

Taffs Well and Hawthorn were previously in different UDC’s and everything about Taffs Well is different to Hawthorn. The core population still strongly believes in the old ‘filltir sgwar’ sentiment.

Councillor Joyce Cass (Graig) wrote to oppose the proposed amalgamation of the Graig and Trallwng divisions. She claims the divisions have no boundary and to reach one division from another would have to pass either through Pontypridd Town or Treforest divisions. She fails to understand why the Commission have not proposed to incorporate Pencoedcae (within the Beddau division) as a change of boundary.

She points to the Ministers directions and the aim of 1:1,750 that cannot always be achieved. She believes that the projected figure provided is too low as new flats have received planning permission which would make the figure a higher one. She also points out that the Graig ward is the oldest residential area in Pontypridd and is a unique community. It does not deserve to lose either its name or its identity.

Councillor Anthony Christopher (Deputy Leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf Council and representative for Aberaman North) wrote to oppose the merger of the Aberaman North and South and Cwmbach electoral divisions. He believes the objective of achieving greater electoral parity has resulted in a desktop exercise to create artificial electoral divisions.

He states that what is known locally as Aberaman is primarily Aberaman North and the proposal adds to this the separate communities of , Cwmamman and a small part of Godreaman as well as Cwmbach which is located on the other side of the main arterial road, the A4059, River Cynon and a railway line. This artificial amalgamation would not be accepted by residents. This also creates a vast entity which would place

- 5 - Appendix 5 excessive demands with a member representing many more constituents and associated casework. This has implications for equity and consistency of service received by residents.

In addition, there are several anomalies in the existing boundaries of the electoral divisions, and whilst it is recognised that the Commission cannot consider these as part of this review, he believes these should be resolved before any mergers of electoral divisions.

Councillor Ann Crimmings (Aberdare West / Llwydcoed) wrote to express her concern at the proposal to merge Aberdare East, West and Llwydcoed. Since being elected she has worked tirelessly to forge relationships within the communities. This has taken time as the already large area is split into seven ‘communities’ each with their own unique character, strong identity and own needs. Her local knowledge of these communities and understanding their needs has been key to her success.

She attends regular PACT meetings, works with the police and community to address issues, various liaison meetings, and School governing bodies to gain the confidence of the community. These relationships in a larger division she fears would be lost, highlighting the 11 schools in the proposed division as a problem.

Representing an electorate over the topography of the merged areas would prove extremely difficult to an elected member who drives and owns a mode of transport; she cannot imagine how a non driver would manage to serve the community as there is no direct bus service.

She urges us to review the proposal as both areas have numerous developments already agreed with further areas allocated for development, along with many residents are not on the electoral register. At present there is a low turnout at elections and moving the elected member further away from voters will result in a further decrease.

Councillors John David (Tonteg) and Graham Stacey (Church Village) wrote collectively to suggest the proposed Church Village division be named Church Village and Tonteg or Church Village / Tonteg. They make no specific comments or objections but believe the working name does not accurately reflect the communities that it will comprise of.

Councillor Albert Davies MBE (Abercynon) wrote to oppose the proposal to merge the Abercynon and Ynysybwl electoral divisions. Councillor Davies has lived in Abercynon all his life and represented Abercynon for 39 years. He points out there are three routes between the two communities: via Grovers Hill, via and over the mountain which is virtually impassable by motor vehicle.

He highlights the difficulty that three Councillors could be elected from one village which could make the other communities feel aggrieved at the unfairness of the situation. He also points out that the Abercynon ward is very large, which is particularly noticeable during the severe winter we had this year. He also asks if the six communities within Abercynon would keep their own personal identities.

Councillor Annette Davies (Ferndale) wrote to oppose the amalgamation of Ferndale and Tylorstown due to the geographical area. As Maerdy and Ferndale have always been linked she feels it would be more beneficial to merge these two divisions.

- 6 - Appendix 5 Councillor Mike Forey (Aberdare East) and Councillor Steven Bradwick (Aberdare East) wrote collectively to express their opposition to proposals for Aberdare and Llwydcoed. They believe the objective of electoral parity has resulted in a desktop exercise to combine existing divisions regardless of the artificial demarcations that creates.

Aberdare East already comprises of a number of separate communities. This proposal would exacerbate the aggregation of what is essentially different and separate communities to form an artificial electoral division that is unlikely to be accepted by residents. Coping with the present workload of Aberdare East is already a formidable challenge. To increase the size of division would create an unmanageable entity and place excessive demand on elected representatives. They point out that large multi- member divisions results in members having many more constituents and associated casework to deal with. This has implications for equality and consistency of service received by residents.

They also question the projected fall in electors given the substantial level of development envisaged in the Local Development Plan. They also note there are several anomalies in the existing electoral division boundaries and, whilst they acknowledge this can not be considered as part of this review, should be resolved before any mergers take place.

Councillor Adam Fox (Penrhiwceiber) wrote to express his strong opposition to the proposal to amalgamate Mountain Ash East, West and Penrhiwceiber. He believes that the proposal would have a serious negative impact on all the communities involved. To create a ‘super-ward’ would be in nobody’s interest, particularly the people.

He believes the report focuses on electors ahead of the people, citing that he helps all the people in his division not just the registered electors. He notes that Penrhiwceiber is a very deprived division where he is frequently asked to help people as they lack basic skills. He notes that the proposed name is unacceptable and that the Penrhiwceiber village has its own identity and independent ethos. In his opinion the exclusion of this name from the division is not an option.

He states that if the proposals were adopted the division would be too big. For example there would be 8 primary schools and one secondary school. The topography would be daunting. He can also walk to all parts of the division within ten minutes making representation and visibility to the electorate much better. The larger division would also discriminate against non drivers due to the sheer size of the division. The recent snowfall meant that driving was not an option and walking dangerous but he still had to help constituents at that time.

In conclusion, he believes that if the proposal were implemented the detrimental impact on the people and electors would be huge. Councillors need to be visible at a time when political apathy is huge and these recommendations would increase that apathy. He also notes that the several hundred constituents he has spoken to about this issue all oppose this proposal and were concerned with the lack of knowledge in respect of the area.

Councillor Tina Leyshon (Rhondda) wrote to oppose the proposal to merge Glyncoch with the Rhondda divisions for the following reasons: 1. The proposed division crosses constituency boundaries. 2. Glyncoch is a Community First area, Rhondda is not. 3. The divisions are not linked by any roads.

- 7 - Appendix 5 4. The Rhondda division covers a very large area with 5 villages, 4 primary schools, a countryside park, an industrial estate and the driving centre for the whole of the council. The reason is Community is called Rhondda is because there is so many areas it couldn’t be named after just one.

Councillor Christina Ludlow (Trealaw) wrote to strongly object to the plan to amalgamate Trealaw with and to name the new electoral division Llwynypia. As the larger division is Trealaw the new division should be called Trealaw.

She cannot see the benefit in changing the boundary if the Commission are to keep the same number of councillors. Once the old hospital site is turned over to housing there will be an influx of people into Llwynypia. The best option would therefore be to leave the divisions as they are.

Councillor Roger Kenneth Turner (Brynna) wrote to oppose the amalgamation of Llanharan and Brynna. He believes creating a multi-member division would be a backward step, breaking the line of accountability between councillor and electorate and is a detriment to all. He goes onto suggest a boundary change to include Maes-y-Gobaith housing estate in the neighbouring Llanharan electoral division.

Councillor Linda De Vet (Aberaman North) wrote with an identical letter to Councillor Anthony Christopher.

Councillor Jane Ward (Penrhiwceiber) wrote to oppose the proposal to amalgamate Mountain Ash East, West and Penrhiwceiber. She notes that there are many unregistered electors in her division, citing an example of a constituent trying to visit a partner in prison but being unable to do so as they have no ID and are not a registered elector.

She states that the three villages which make up the Community are unique and proud of what they do in their own village. They do not want to lose their identity by being linked with Mountain Ash. She also notes that the Community First ward which is indentified through the register of deprivation caused by the closure of industry in the valley.

She believes that the present arrangements currently sustain the two councillors and give the electors the help and support they require. If they were to merge with Mountain Ash this would not be possible because of the topography of the area.

Councillor Doug Williams (Glyncoch) wrote to describe the proposal to merge Glyncoch and Rhondda as a disgrace. Glyncoch is a community made up of primarily ex-council house stock with its own unique identity. It has its own doctor’s surgery, chemist, clubs, library, two schools, community centre and shops.

There is a very active community partnership made up of a number of voluntary groups and an active and successful Communities First group. The local authority chose Glyncoch to launch a project called ‘Green Glyncoch’ which aims to turn Glyncoch into a sustainable community giving residents a sense of ownership and pride in where they live. They also have a Green and Friendly Action Group (GAFA) and Ymlaen Glyncoch working on community projects.

He then refers to sections of a guidance document produced by the former Boundary Committee for England regarding detached wards and community identity and suggests these both apply to Glyncoch.

- 8 - Appendix 5

He notes Glyncoch is two and a half miles away from the Rhondda electoral division and you have to pass through other electoral divisions to get their from Glyncoch. There is no identification between the two areas. He also suggests the projected figure for Glyncoch and does not take into account previously vacant properties, the reluctance of residents to return their canvass forms and that Glyncoch has been identified as an area for affordable housing to be built.

He fails to understand the justification of the proposals, believes that a division should not cross parliamentary constituency lines and will not get people to engage in basic local politics.

Town Councillor Jonathan Bishop (Treforest Town Council) wrote to support the proposed creation of a multi member ward including Treforest. He believes that although the relationship between the communities can be strained, there are examples where they work together. He believes the name should be Taff Vale as it is a more neutral name reflecting the division’s relationship with the and the former runs through it.

He then goes onto state his beliefs about reforming local and national governance in Wales.

Community Councillor Bob Fox (Graig ward – Pontypridd Town Council) wrote to suggest an alternative name to the proposed Trallwng and Graig division. He suggested that Ynysangharad would be a better name as the topography of the two wards is divided by Ynysangharad war Memorial Park. He believes it would be unfair and inappropriate that the name Trallwng would take preference over Graig.

Community Councillor Arlene Moss (Talbot Green ward – Llantrisant Community Council) wrote to oppose the proposal to amalgamate the Pontyclun and Talbot Green electoral divisions enclosing a petition of 389 signatories. She reports that she works hand in hand with the Councillor for Talbot Green and questions his commitment should he be required to be part of the Pontyclun community too. Historically, Pontyclun has always been a separate entity with Talbot Green always having links to Llantrisant.

She believes a representative for Talbot Green would be lost if they were integrated with the Pontyclun community, fearing that all three Councillors could come from Pontyclun. Old, even ancient, community links would be broken overnight, leaving her with no Councillor. Losing hundreds of years of special links with Llantrisant would be wrong. She also claims developments on the area would push the electorate well above the figure of 2,104 [this figure differs from the one provided to the Commission by the County Borough Council].

As well as the size of the electorate the Councillor for Talbot Green must also look after the school, hospital, many retail stores, the bus and police stations, town centre shopping, hotels restaurants and hi-tech businesses

She therefore objects on the breaking of community links, special relationships, community events and its sense of identity being lost forever.

Community Councillor Barry Stephens (Llanharan Community Council) wrote to support the proposal to amalgamate the Llanharan and Brynna electoral divisions. The

- 9 - Appendix 5 single division will mirror the Community Council area and the current County Councillors serve the Community Council and take collective decisions at present. There are a number of shared facilities and any future developments would have more chance of success due to the larger voice.

Community Councillor Jeff Williams (Llanharan Community Council) wrote to support the proposal to amalgamate the Llanharan and Brynna electoral divisions. He notes that 35 years ago when Brynna was proposed to be merged with Llanharan Community they thought the area would ‘lose out’. However, common sense prevailed and both communities work together closely and they now share nine facilities and amenities. He believes the proposal makes sense and is a natural progression because they already have such close links and will undoubtedly improve the local community in the future.

Rhondda Cynon Taf County Labour Party wrote to endorse the views expounded to the Commission by the RCT Labour Group and individual County Borough Councillors.

Aberdare East Labour Party wrote to express their concerns about the proposals for Aberdare and Llwydcoed. 1. The creation of a larger electoral division will further distance the electorate from its representatives. Residents currently complain about a lack of Councillors and there is low voter turnout and this will exacerbate the problem. They point to the time when there was Urban District Councils and County Councils and the UDC’s voter turn out was higher, suggesting distancing members from the electorate discourages people from voting. 2. Electors often complain they only see Councillors at election time but they believe this to be untrue in their area. They hold annual campaigns but even this can sometimes be inadequate. More than doubling the geographical size of the area and number of electors will only exacerbate the situation. 3. Arithmetic equations showing average ratios of electors to Councillor is an aid towards equity for local authority structures and to the number of Councillors required, however, spreading the process to wider geographical areas produces a problem. A Councillor represents the whole electorate, in this case over 12,000 people. This compounds the existing problem of building relationships between representatives and their constituents even more difficult and less productive. They note that not all Councillors are equally productive and creating a 5 member division provides an opportunity for the ‘disappearance’ of individuals leaving the more conscientious to bear the workload. 4. The existing area and workload of a Councillor requires diligence and understanding of individual problems within their area. Expanding the area and having to create new relationships of new diverse neighbourhoods is not only unnecessary but counterproductive. Councillors are already involved in community groups such as PACT and Communities First, creating a larger structure would adversely affect these locally developed initiatives. 5. MPs and AM’s must look after a whole constituency and employ administrative and research staff to give an overall picture. The operative word for a Councillor is local. They operate different levels of public services, e.g. refuse, etc., and they need manageable areas with which they are familiar to operate and provide a service particular to the needs of the individuals and their communities.

- 10 - Appendix 5 Aberdare West and Llwydcoed Labour Party wrote to voice their concerns about the proposals for Aberdare and Llwydcoed. 1. The present Aberdare West / Llwydcoed area is very large without the addition of Aberdare East. A Councillor representing the whole area, two and a half miles from mountain top to mountain top, even with their own mode of transport would experience considerable difficulties in reaching some parts of the division. A Councillor replying on public transport would find it impossible and would be discouraged from standing. 2. The Aberdare West / Llwydcoed division has a distinct set of village communities each with its own identity, characteristics and problems. It has no affinity with Aberdare Town which has one village area. The present division is fairly manageable with considerable effort from the Councillors who attend meetings, are governors of the schools (of which there would be 11 with the proposal) in addition to working for the electorate. Councillors build a rapport with residents which would be almost impossible with a larger area. 3. The creation of a larger electoral division will further distance the electorate from its representatives. Residents currently complain about a lack of Councillors and there is low voter turnout and this will exacerbate the problem. They point to the time when there was UDC’s and County Councils and the UDC’s voter turn out was higher, suggesting distancing members from the electorate discourages people from voting. 4. They claim that large areas of the Aberdare West / Llwydcoed have planning permission granted with building to take place in the not too distant future. Also there are large amounts of let properties with people not on the electoral register. Therefore the numbers quoted are not really accurate and do not tell the whole story. 5. They are not against change and understand that the joining of the two divisions solves the anomaly of communities lying wholly within an electoral division but they feel there has to be a balance between the proposals and the needs of the electorate and councillors. Local Government should mean local, concerned with services at a local level. This is what the public are interested in: accessible councillors, whom they know and recognise and can do the job. They believe nothing to be gained from the proposals and ask us to reconsider in the interests of everyone concerned.

Beddau & Tyn-y-nant Wards Labour Party wrote to offer their views on the proposals. Pontyclun They welcome our proposal to amalgamate Pontyclun and Talbot Green as the two communities share many similarities in that they both have large shopping areas and are both often affected by large strategic planning issues such as large housing, retail and industrial estate developments. They also feel the effects of developments such as highways and traffic in the area are best represented on a more strategic level and for the benefit of both communities and will lead to better decision making. They see no particular natural obstacle which demarcates the two communities.

Llantrisant They cannot endorse this proposal but do offer two alternatives: Alternative 1: Merge Llantrisant Town, Beddau and Tyn-y-nant divisions to form a Llantrisant division with four Councillors. They believe this is a superior proposal because it preserves local ties that would be broken with the Commissions proposal. Beddau and Llantrisant Town are separated by the natural obstacle of Llantrisant common, giving Llantrisant and Beddau separate and distinct identities. However, they feel combing all

- 11 - Appendix 5 these divisions into one multi-member division, all served by one Community Council, would allow for better decision making at a more strategic level within the authority for large projects and protect more rural elements and hamlets from unwanted urban development. Beddau village which encompasses Tynant has its own separate identity to Llantrisant which has regular monthly PACT meetings, a common doctor’s surgery, chemists, shopping cent and rugby team which plays inn Tynant. They feel the proposal to divide the village whilst making numerical sense will provoke confusion and opposition from the village. Alternative 2: Beddau and Tynant merge to form a division called Beddau with 3 Councillors. This would be identical to the old County Council division. Llantrisant Town would then remain a separate entity. They feel this would preserve local ties that would be broken under the Commissions proposals.

They urge us to reconsider the proposals which would divide a Beddau, leaving the Rugby Club House, political and community groups in Llantrisant which would be serving Beddau. They feel strongly that any proposals should reflect the community that exists and strongly hope the Commission refrains from committing an injustice on the people of the village of Beddau.

Penrhiwceiber Branch Labour Party wrote to express their opposition to the proposal to amalgamate Mountain Ash East, West and Penrhiwceiber. They believe that if the proposal were implemented it would have a catastrophic impact on all the community, its institutions and its people. Penrhiwceiber is an independent village that has little interaction with Mountain Ash.

The electoral division is felt to be too large and alien to most people and increase voter apathy at the expense of all political parties and institutions. They also express concern at the number of electors identified, there are many within the division who are not on the electoral roll. They also note that the proposed name is unacceptable and shows disrespect for the Community.

Pontypridd North East Branch Labour Party wrote to oppose the changes to local authority divisions in the Pontypridd area, in particular the Trallwng and Graig. They believe this proposal makes no sense are the two wards are not neighbouring and you must travel through Pontypridd Town to get to the other ward. They emphasised the suggestion of Councillor Cass as a solution.

The other area of concern for them is the proposal to merge Rhondda and Glyncoch as it crosses a constituency boundary. They also believe that the Rhondda division should be renamed to better reflect its location within the Pontypridd area.

Pontypridd South West Branch Labour Party wrote to endorse the views expressed to the Commission by the Pontyclun Ward Labour Party that all wards should single member rather than multi-member as proposed by the Commission.

Tylorstown Ward Labour Party wrote to strongly oppose to the proposal to amalgamate the Tylorstown and Ferndale electoral divisions for the following reasons: • They believe the electorate figures which we have been provided are inaccurate, do not take into account future developments and not enough has been done to ascertain the true position. They have agreed that this is a desktop exercise that takes no account of geographical, social or economic make up of the division. They suggest a door to door survey be done.

- 12 - Appendix 5 • The proposed division is made up of 6 wards each with their own separate identity and needs. Tylorstown had major difficulties when the four wards were joined. The South-East Wales valley areas are very patriotic and territorial. This will be made impossible if forced to be represented by a remote town area. • Tylorstown is a Communities First area and benefits from this scheme. Ferndale is not and they believe it is likely this will change if the proposal goes ahead. They cite the example of the amalgamation of with Ferndale losing its status as a result of the merger with the town. • Tylorstown is 11th in the Wales Index of Multiple Deprivation and they receive support and funding as a result of this. They are concerned that a merger with Ferndale would lead to a substantial loss of funding to tackle the socio-economic needs of the residents of the division. They also believe they are likely to lose the ‘On Track’ programme which also helps the local residents. • A key issue is that of councillor workload. At present the Councillors for Tylorstown work 30 hours a week, adding Ferndale to this workload would undermine their ability to represent the electors. • Due to the high numbers of benefit recipients and low-income families the area is blighted with a wide variety of problems which the present two Councillors struggle to deal with at times. The amalgamation will make dealing with these problems even more difficult. • As Councillors can only sit on two governorships at anytime and 9 schools in the proposed division 3 schools will be omitted from having a councillor on the board. • The building of the phase 1 Rhondda Fach relief road has bought an influx of families and children into the division, again disputing the figures provided to the Commission. This was fought for to add more positive aspects to the area. • The boundary commission has carried out a desk top exercise and have created draft proposals based on numbers of electorate and not the underlying needs of a community. Areas of high deprivation have greater issues to deal with and the evidence shows that councillors who represent these areas will have a greater workload than Councillors who represent affluent divisions. • Ferndale is part of the Heads of the Valleys scheme, while Tylorstown is not. They believe this could severely affect the grants structure that is currently implemented. The complexity of a division receiving grants for one small town whilst other areas of the larger division lose out is fundamentally inane. Ferndale receives funding as a town. • They question the impact of 3 Councillors coming from the same area. Would constituents from another area be forgotten?

Welsh Liberal Democrats wrote to support the introduction of a Single Transferable Vote in local government elections. This would have repercussions on the sizes of divisions and number of multi-member divisions.

With regard to the retention of community links, they believe some of the proposals seem to be rather arbitrarily decided upon with scant regard to geography. They also oppose divisions which split constituency boundaries.

Cynon Valley Constituency Party of Plaid Cymru wrote to express their disappointment of proposals to create larger divisions. They are concerned that larger wards present a grave risk that the relationship between Councillor and electorate becomes a distant one. They note that increasing division makes it easier for the Commission to improve parity but it leaves Councillors representing enormous areas lacking social cohesion. Multiple Councillors representing a ward does not mean that each individual Councillor represents

- 13 - Appendix 5 a fraction of the division but the entire division and electorate. The electorate is likely as a consequence to feel that representation is more remote.

Proposed Divisions Hirwaun Although they expressed concern that Rhigos and Penderyn interests may be lost in the larger Hirwaun area, as the proposal addresses the significant disparity they agree with the proposal.

Penywaun Agree that no change is necessary.

Aberdare They are concerned at the sheer size of the ward and would prefer retention of the present arrangements but note the requirement of the Local Government Act 1972 to amalgamate the present divisions. They believe that it is extremely regrettable that these definitions still hold sway and there is so little room to manoeuvre for the Commission. They also support the Community of Llwydcoed retaining its links with Aberdare notwithstanding the fact that it adds over 1,000 electors to the division.

Aberaman As with Aberdare they acknowledge the requirement under law to place the Community of Aberaman entirely in one division but oppose the amalgamation with the Community of Cwmbach. There is little, if any, connection between the two areas and are divided geographically by the river Cynon. Joining the two areas would be a retrograde step.

They offer an alternative proposal of an Aberaman division with the Community of Aberaman represented by three councillors and Cwmbach represented by one. They appreciate the proposed ratio of 1:3,189 for Cwmbach varies more than usual from the average but feel the Commission should make an exception in this instance, especially given the anticipated decline in electorate. The Community of Cwmbach stands on its own with no obvious connection with other Communities. They also request that the Commission earnestly considers the requirement to change to multi-member divisions only where they are ‘broadly supported by the electorate’.

Mountain Ash As with Aberdare and Aberaman they acknowledge the requirement under law to place the Community of Mountain Ash entirely in one division. However, they do not consider the amalgamation of Penrhiwceiber with Mountain Ash as necessary. They invite consideration of a Mountain Ash division with 3 councillors and Penrhiwceiber with 2 councillors. This represents a slightly greater variance from the proposals but gives closer representation to the people.

Abercynon They do not agree with this proposal. They believe the status quo should remain. They realise that the current arrangements for Ynysybwl would provide a ratio of 1:3,567 but believe that the anticipated reduction in electors is incorrect. They believe the electorate is more likely to continue to increase and have therefore proposed an additional Councillor for the division.

- 14 - Appendix 5 Rhondda As this proposal crosses Parliamentary constituency lines they would discourage such a proposal and wish to retain the status quo.

Cilfynydd They do not object to this proposal.

Royal British Legion, Ynysybwl branch, wrote to oppose the proposed amalgamation of Ynysybwl with Abercynon. They believe the proposed name of Abercynon is an insult and a humiliation of the people of Ynysybwl. They believe that due to their geographical isolation they have a stronger community identity than most divisions, indeed the translation of ‘ynys’ is ‘island’ in Welsh.

They asked that we take into account the topography of the area, the separate identities and independent views and issues of the villages therein. They emphasise that present and past Councillors for Ynysybwl have been from the area and most would know the individuals residence to contact them. If the new Councillor were from Abercynon it would require a 20 mile round trip, a journey which cannot be made by public transport without inconvenience and expense.

The present Councillor does not consider the higher than average number of electors a burden, on the contrary it is easier because of the geographically tight nature of the division They suggest increasing the number of councillors for Ynysybwl to bring down the Councillor per elector ratio rather than impose an unpopular merger.

If the merger were to go ahead they have suggested alternative names of Ynysybwl and Abercynon, Clydach-Cynon or Ynys-Cynon.

Talbot Green Community Centre and Pavilion Halls Committee wrote to oppose the proposal to amalgamate the Pontyclun and Talbot Green electoral divisions. The present member for Talbot Green is very hands on with the halls, its users and their community events. They fear that the three Councillors as part of the larger Pontyclun will concentrate on the bigger Pontyclun halls and citizens and not their activities.

The Committee also works closely with the Llantrisant Community Council. They feel that being part of Llantrisant Community but having an RCT Councillor for Pontyclun would be confusing and they would like one defined member for Talbot Green within RCT. They feel that if the proposal goes ahead there would be many community links broken and many user groups unrepresented at the County Borough Council. This proposal is not wanted or needed.

Ynysybwl Community Centre wrote to strongly oppose the proposed amalgamation of Ynysybwl with Abercynon. The geography of the area is such that it would require a 20 mile round trip with no direct bus route to get from one to the other. Ynysybwl is a community in its own right and any proposed amalgamation would result in it’s losing its identity and local representative.

Ynysybwl Regeneration Partnership (YRP) wrote to oppose the proposal to merge the Abercynon and Ynysybwl electoral divisions. After consulting extensively with local residents they make the following points: 1. The Abercynon ‘voting block’ outweighs the Ynysybwl electorate by approximately 900 votes. The new arrangements open up the possibility that Ynysybwl may lose a

- 15 - Appendix 5 resident community member as a Councillor. The invaluable reserve of mutual trust and shared knowledge that exists between Councillor and the electorate. 2. In the above scenario local Councillors would then be inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community. Community members relying on public transport would have a 20 mile round trip or further. This would be inconvenient or even impossible. Even those with a car would have to use narrow country lanes or mountain roads which are frequently impassable during severe weather. 3. Although the document states that the Ynysybwl division is 55% above the county average electors per councillor, the local Councillor stated that the large electorate is administered without difficulty due to the favourable topography and accessibility of the division. Currently the local Councillor is in close proximity to all of his electorate. 4. The people of Ynysybwl and Coed-Y-Cwm are very proud of their community giving it a strong sense of identity. Although the communities have worked together successfully in the past and are regarded as good neighbours, submission into the larger Abercynon division would undoubtedly entail the erosion of local identity for Ynysybwl residents. They highlight RCT and WAG programmes which they have received funding for which promoted the values of local communities and identity and this proposal will mean this will all be lost. 5. They also point to the directions from the Minister highlighting that ‘attention should also be paid to local communities having their own identifiable representation’. YRP believes that this recommendation would fly in the face of this direction.

19 Residents of Pontyclun wrote to oppose the proposal to amalgamate the Pontyclun and Talbot Green electoral divisions. They believe that the proposal will stop the right of the people to elect an independent Councillor. If the proposal goes ahead the mega division would be far too large for an independent to canvas meaning only the large national parties could and would canvas the whole ward.

Talbot Green has its own identity and close links to Llantrisant, not Pontyclun, these long standing cultural, community and neighbourhood links would be broken and lost forever if this proposal on enacted.

Two Residents of Brynna wrote to oppose to the proposal to amalgamate the Llanharan and Brynna electoral divisions. The present system works very well with Councillors directly accountable to the residents. It would be a very large area for two Councillors to cover. They also suggest a boundary change.

A Resident of Graig described the proposal to amalgamate the Graig and Trallwng electoral divisions as daft. He believes that the proposed division name would be confusing to visitors and suggests a name of North and South Trallwng. He is of the opinion that the divisions are physically divided and does not believe the Commissions consultation process is genuine.

A Resident of Brynna wrote to strongly object to the proposal to amalgamate the Llanharan and Brynna electoral divisions. The present system works very well with Councillors directly accountable to the residents. The Commission is requested to leave Brynna alone.

A Resident of Talbot Green wrote about his concern for the proposal to amalgamate Talbot Green ward with Pontyclun electoral division. He points out that at the moment they have a single point of contact but under the proposals they would have three and have no

- 16 - Appendix 5 idea who is working for them. He believes the merged area far too big and the losers would be the electorate.

He believes the proposal goes against Government thinking where, wherever possible, devolved power is devolved to local communities but under this proposal Talbot Green would lose its identity and swallowed up by the bigger Pontyclun. He believes that with the business sites, hospital and shopping malls Talbot Green needs its own Councillor.

He points out that Talbot Green is part of the Llantrisant Community who do great work for the community, in conjunction with the Talbot Green Councillor. He does not believe this will continue to happen if their Councillors are elected from Pontyclun. Very old and needed community ties would be broken.

Two Residents of Ynysybwl wrote making the following observations on the proposal to merge the Abercynon and Ynysybwl electoral divisions: 1. The proposal will be to the detriment of Ynysybwl who would lose their slight representation they currently have with their own Councillor. 2. Ynysybwl would be better served with one representative with a higher ratio. 3. There is no public transport between the two communities making visits to a local representative difficult for the elderly, disabled or disadvantaged families. 4. It takes no account of the physical terrain; there is a mountain between the two areas. 5. There is a difference in culture. One has access to the A470 the other being a little valley community of Ynysybwl. 6. It will impact on democracy as only political parties will be able to fund a canvass the larger area whilst independent candidates would not be able to cover all of the ground. 7. Ynysybwl would lose its identity. 8. If change is vital it makes more sense to join with Glyncoch with two Councillors.

They also made the following general observations on the review: 1. It appears the proposals are based purely on numbers; bear no relationship to geographical area, access to the electorate, the service of democracy, or plain common sense. 2. They are concerned that the changes are not done for the good of democracy and representation but for political reasons and to the benefit of political parties. 3. A full time body set up to persistently tinker with boundaries and electoral figures is a waste of public money. 4. They note the Commission has been careful no to join different EU Objective 1 and 2 status communities.

A Resident of Pontyclun wrote to oppose the proposal to amalgamate the Pontyclun and Talbot Green electoral divisions. She states the two communities are separate and distinctive civil societies highlighting local shops and facilities which are separate. She believes that single member divisions clarify accountability and representation to the elector and increasing the distance between the people and their representative undermines democratic politics. She believes the Commission aim of reducing the variation in ratios as more important than the democratic experience of having representatives from their community.

A Resident of Taff’s Well wrote to object to the name Taff’s Well not appearing in the proposed Hawthorns division. He notes that Taff’s Well or Ffynnon Daf is historically much

- 17 - Appendix 5 older than the fairly modern Hawthorn and to leave out the name Taff’s Well is preposterous. The well dates back to Roman times and has been used for hundreds of years. He proposed a name of Taff’s Well and District or better still, Ffynnon Daf a Fro.

A Resident of Rhondda Cynon Taf wrote with to draw attention to anomalies in the boundaries of the wards and divisions and oppose some proposals.

He notes that the various anomalies in communities and ward come as a result of previous reviews dating to the 1980’s which have not subsequently been amended. While accepting that the anomalies exist he believes the Commission are now propose a ‘year zero’ approach by which the Commission restores massive multi-member wards, just to satisfy some basic principles that have evidently been easily overlooked in the past.

It is his personal belief that boundaries should be meaningful and easily identifiable by electors. This is necessary for Electoral Registration Officers and Returning Officers to discharge their statutory duties to encourage registration and participation in elections. He suggests that the proposals fail to meet those criteria, specifically in Aberaman North / South / Cwmbach. Demographically Aberaman and Cwmbach are dramatically different. Aberaman consists in the main of traditional, older terraced housing stock, while Cwmbach is split between much newer modern "estate" type housing, about 50% of which is Social Housing. He contends that this would make the job of any elected representatives extremely difficult, if not impossible.

The proposed merger of Glyncoch and Rhondda Electoral Divisions, apart from the fact that you have to drive through Trallwng, Pontypridd Town and Graig Electoral Divisions to get from Glyncoch to Rhondda E. D., the Commission has apparently failed to take into account that Glyncoch will be in the Cynon Valley Parliamentary Constituency from the date of the Dissolution of Parliament, while Rhondda E. D. remains in the Pontypridd Parliamentary Constituency.

A Resident of Brynna Gwynion wrote to remonstrate against the proposal to amalgamate Brynna and Llanharan. He believes the present arrangements are working well and need not be changed. He does not wish for his address to change to Llanharan. There is an excellent community spirit in Brynna and they do not wish to be swallowed up in the Llanharan electoral divisions. The local Councillors work well with the community and are under no more pressure now than under the proposed arrangements. He believes there should not be change for changes sake.

A Resident of Graig wrote to oppose the proposal to amalgamate the Craig and Trallwng electoral divisions. She wanted to know what impact this would have on residents where it to go ahead. She stated that Trallwng is two miles away, the other side of the town and she is much closer to Pencoedcae and .

A Resident of Pentre wrote to ask the Commission to reconsider the proposal to amalgamate the Tylorstown and Ferndale electoral divisions. In his opinion Tylorstown is a ‘special case’. Tylorstown is one of the most deprived communities in Wales with four Communities First areas. He suggests we also make a site visit to the area to consider the topography as the Community of is perched on top of a mountain. He believes that these factors make it difficult for a Councillor to serve and represent and that the present ratio is not unreasonable.

- 18 - Appendix 5 A Resident of Graig wrote to oppose the proposal to amalgamate the Craig and Trallwng electoral divisions. He believes that, whilst he agrees with the need for larger divisions, the proposal is strange as Trallwng is very much the other side of town, separated by a railway line, river, main road and shops. Graig's strongest links are with Penycoedcae (Beddau division) and Maesycoed (Rhondda division) from a community perspective.

A Resident of Aberdare wrote to suggest that some of the proposals are unworkable. He suggests the proposals for Rhondda and Glyncoch, Trallwng and Graig and Treforest and Rhydfelin Central / Ilan are ridiculous. Rhondda and Glyncoch and Trallwng and Craig both require journeys through Pontypridd to get to the other. He suggests any changes made within Pontypridd should include the town centre itself. He suggests that the Commission has not visited the areas and draws similar conclusions with proposals in other counties. He also suggested that the Commission should have conducted a community review before the electoral review to allow better proposals.

He suggests his own scheme made up as follows: • Aberaman North, Aberaman South and Cwmbach combined to form a 4 member division called Aberaman & Cwmbach. • Abercynon, Ynysybwl & Coed-y-Cwm and Glyncoch combined to form a 4 member division called Abercynon & Cwmbach. • Aberdare East and Aberdare West / Llwydcoed combined to form a 5 member division called Aberdare. • Ferndale, Tylorstown, Ynyshir and Maerdy combined to form a 5 member division called Rhondda Fach. • Hirwaun, Penywaun and Rhigos combined to form a 3 member division. • Llanharan, Brynna and Llanharry combined to form a 3 or 4 member division. • Llantrisant Town, Beddau, Talbot Green and Tyn-y-Nant combined to form a 5 member division called Llantrisant. • Llantwit Fardre, Church Village and Tonteg combined to form a 5 member division. • Mountain Ash East, Mountain Ash West and Penrhiwceiber combined to form a 4 member division called Mountain Ash & Penrhiwceiber. • Penygraig, Tonypandy, Cwm Clydach and Llwynypia combined to form a 5 member division called Mid Rhondda. • Pontyclun Community form a 3 member division called Pontyclun. • Rhondda, Trallwng, Pontypridd Town, Cilfynydd and Graig combined to form a 5 member division called Pontypridd. • Porth, Cymmer and Trealaw combined to form a 5 member division called Porth. • Tonyrefail East, Tonyrefail West and Gilfach Goch combined to form a 5 member division. • Treforest, Rhydfelen Central / Ilan, Hawthorn and Taffs Well combined to form a 5 member division called Treforest & Taffs Well. • Treorchy and Treherbert combined to form a 4 member division called Upper Rhondda. • Ystrad and Pentre combined to form a 4 member division called Ystrad Rhondda.

A Resident of Preston wrote to express his opinions on the following proposed divisions:

Aberdare and Hirwaun, Rhigos and Pen-y-Waun He ahs grave concerns about the democratic validity of creating a 5 member division, making Councillor per voter calculations almost meaningless. Given the arithmetic and geography he would suggest the Commission move away from creating 5 member wards

- 19 - Appendix 5 wherever possible. There are clear advantages and disadvantages of the proposals and the emphasis should be on democratic representation rather than numerical tidiness. He has suggested alternatives of a two-member Aberdare East, two-member Hirwaun and Rhigos and a four-member Aberdare West/Llwydcoed and Pen-y-Waun.

Aberaman Whilst agreeing with the proposal and suggesting the name Aberaman/Cwmbach, he notes Cwmbach is a substantial geographical area with over 3,000 electors. As such the removal from the electoral map does seem logical.

Mountain Ash and Abercynon He notes that the Mountain Ash wards could be combined to form a two member division this would have knock on effects elsewhere in the review area. He believes the best combination of divisions in the area has been found. However, he suggests the divisions are renamed Mountain Ash/Penrhiwceiber and Abercynon/Ynysybwl.

Church Village, Llantrisant Fardre, Llantrisant and Pontyclun He made various suggestions for an alternative but it would result in divisions of an excessive and democratically questionable size, therefore he is of the opinion that little real change has been proposed and can see no credible alternatives.

Ferndale He believes there is no other credible alternative to the Commissions proposals but suggests an alternative name of Tylorstown/Penrhys/Ferndale.

Hawthorn and Treforest He has suggested an alternative of a single member division based on the Treforest ward with the same name and the remaining areas (Rhydfelin Central, Ilan, Hawthorn and Taffs Well) merging to create a four-member division named Nantgarw/Rhydfelin.

Trallwng and Graig He suggests an alternative name of Pontypridd South and East.

Rhondda and Pontypridd Town He suggests an alternative of combining the proposed Rhondda division with Pontypridd Town to form a three-member division called Pontypridd North and Glyncoch.

Cwm Clydach, Tonypandy, Penygraig and Llwyn-y-pia He notes the number of councillors in the area is 6 and to create a six-member division is unacceptable. He therefore suggests that Tonypandy and Cwm Clydach are similar communities with a natural relationship and be combined to form a two-member division called Tonypandy/Cwm Clydach.

He goes onto suggest combing the three remaining divisions, retaining cohesion in the Tonypandy area, to form a four-member divisions called Trealaw / Llwyn-y-pia / Pen-y- graig.

Tonyrefail East and West He would prefer to see councillors representing an entire community area and therefore suggests combining the two divisions to form a four-member division called Tonyrefail.

- 20 - Appendix 5 Two Residents of Ynysybwl wrote to register their opposition to the proposal to merge the Abercynon and Ynysybwl electoral divisions. They feel no regard has been made to the topography of the area as Ynysybwl is in its own valley quite independent of the Abercynon area. They also feel that their smaller number of electors will be dominated by the larger Abercynon which could affect their democratic rights and possibly produce inequality of services.

A Resident of Ynysybwl wrote to oppose the proposed amalgamation of Ynysybwl with Abercynon. She believes the proposal defies belief. Ynysybwl has a distinct history and identity quite separate to Abercynon which is on the other side of the mountain.

She asked that we take into account the topography of the area, the separate identities and independent views and issues of the villages therein. She emphasise that present and past Councillors for Ynysybwl have been from the area and most would know the individuals residence to contact them. If the new Councillor were from Abercynon it would require a 20 mile round trip to reach them.

The present Councillor does not consider the higher than average number of electors a burden; on the contrary it is easier because of the geographically tight nature of the division. They suggest increasing the number of Councillors for Ynysybwl to two to make electoral parity more even.

A Resident of Ynysybwl wrote to ask the Commission to rethink these unworkable and unnecessary changes. They also find it unbelievable that the number of Councillors have remained the same in the current financial circumstances. They also believe that it is impossible to achieve the results outlined in the draft that each are would have a similar number of electors.

They believe local Councillors should be local and it is vitally important that a village like theirs keeps its identity and Councillor who is know to the public and can be called upon to answer concerns. Looking at maps to amalgamate areas does not always give a true reflection of the distance or bus routes that have to be negotiated by a Councillor.

They believe these proposals are badly timed and consideration of any changes should be set aside. They are also concerned that the name Ynysybwl will disappear from the divisions.

A Resident of Porth wrote to offer his thoughts on the following proposals:

Trealaw and Llwynypia He agrees with the Commissions proposals but has suggested an alternative name of Ynyscynon as this is where the two communities meet.

Tylorstown and Ferndale Notwithstanding the Commission’s raison d’être of parity he would suggest the Commission reconsiders this proposal for the crucial reason that the Tylorstown community is so disadvantaged that the electors can ill afford to lose their elected representative. The WAG index of deprivation clearly indicates that Tylorstown is one of the most deprived areas in Wales. He understands that a fairness of Councillor to elector is important but the case of Tylorstown is an exception as it is so severely disadvantaged and deprived. He points out that while he is not a resident there now he was born and raised in the community and has family relations still residing in the area.

- 21 - Appendix 5

However, if the proposals are maintained the new ward should be called Pendyrus. This is because it is the meeting point of the two wards and is the name of the male choir which draws members from both areas.

Pontypridd area He asks for a review of the proposals in the Pontypridd area as some seems bizarre. Particularly, the proposals to combine Rhondda with Glyncoch and Trallwng with Graig. The geographical constraints render these proposals incomprehensible. The Rhondda division name also adds to the general confusion and should be changed for the final proposals.

A Resident of Brynna wrote to express a definite no to the proposed combination of Brynna and Llanharan.

A Resident of Ynysybwl wrote to reiterate those of the Ynysybwl Community Centre.

A Resident of Pontypridd wrote to agree with the proposal to join Llantrisant to the Beddau electoral division. He indicates that as the village of Beddau is larger than Llantrisant and the division should be named Beddau. He indicated that Llantrisant should join Beddau or Beddau should be left alone.

A Resident of Tonypandy wrote to ask the Commission to reconsider the proposal to merge Tylorstown with Ferndale. He believes that Tylorstown, one of the most deprived areas in Wales, would benefit from the greater focus and attention of its own representation.

However, if the proposal were to go ahead, a more appropriate name would be Pendyrus, the same as that of the successful choir of the area.

A Resident of Ynysybwl wrote to object most strongly to the proposed merger between Ynysybwl and Abercynon. The reasons are stated below: 1. Geographically, the communities are far apart. 2. There are no strong links between the two communities. They have nothing in common. 3. Ynysybwl has one road in and out. Given the size of Abercynon all three Councillors could be elected from there. 4. Ynysybwl is a small village and proud of its community spirit. It has rugby teams, a drama group, a pony club, a ladies choir, a ramblers group, an outdoor pursuit centre and more. 5. A more appropriate merger would with Glyncoch.

A Resident of Graig wrote to oppose the proposal to amalgamate the Craig and Trallwng electoral divisions. They believe that the proposal makes no sense given that the Graig is closer to Pencoedcae and Maesycoed than Trallwng. She would like to see common sense prevail before taxpayer money is wasted on senseless and unnecessary boundary changes.

A Resident of Ynysybwl wrote to oppose the proposal to merge the Abercynon and Ynysybwl electoral divisions. She states that Ynysybwl is a stand alone community which is separated from Abercynon by a mountain. Travelling between the two is round trip of 20 miles and there is no direct public transport route.

- 22 - Appendix 5

Ynysybwl is a village with its own identity and needs which are different to Abercynon. She believes the village is often forgotten and being swallowed up in a division with Abercynon would make matters worse. She believes the village’s identity needs protecting and requests we go back to the drawing board. She acknowledges that the present elector to Councillor ratio is not ideal but the proposal is not the answer: The goal cannot be achieved at the expense of local communities with separate identities and independent views.

Two Residents of Ynysybwl wrote to oppose the proposal to amalgamate Abercynon, Ynysybwl and Coed-y-Cwm. They believe that the advantage of greater parity is outweighed by the following disadvantages: 1. Local knowledge is paramount. 2. Geographical problems – there are three routes between Abercynon and Ynysybwl: a. Over the mountain top. b. Through Grovers – a narrow country lane. c. Through Pontypridd.

A Resident of Brynna wrote to strongly protest against the concept of ‘dual representation’, or multi-member divisions. He believes casting two votes for two different candidates begets confusion and conflict. It is irrational and a distortion of the mature understanding of democracy. In practical terms it places barriers before Councillors to work towards the public good.

A Resident of Rhondda Cynon Taf believes the proposals are a disgrace and is amazed that such a document has been prepared.

He completely fails to understand how the Commission can merge the electoral divisions of Glyncoch with Rhondda. The Commission has apparently failed to take into account that Glyncoch will be in the Cynon Valley Parliamentary Constituency from the date of the next Parliamentary Election while Rhondda E.D. remains in the Pontypridd Parliamentary Constituency.

He also believes it would been simple to include Coed Y Cwm within the Electoral Division of Glyncoch and let Ynysybwl stand on its own, that at least would have kept both areas within the Cynon Valley Constituency. He is aware there would have been a problem with the Community of both Pontypridd and Ynysybwl but he feels that could have been easily sorted, and no different to other proposals the Commission has made.

There have been many problems in the past with elections being called in cross border boundaries and the proposals go no way to address this, in fact they will create additional costs should there be bye elections. He was under the impression that the purpose of the review was to provide a democratic process at the least cost.

He concludes his observations stating the boundary review process should have started with the Communities followed by the Electoral Divisions and finally by the Parliamentary Constituencies. Unfortunately for whatever reason the Parliamentary was done first, that has caused major problems for the electoral process. The proposal for the Electoral Divisions of Rhondda Cynon Taf only add to those problems.

- 23 -