LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS REPORT AND PROPOSALS

COUNTY AND CITY OF NEWPORT

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT

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 CARDIFF CF10 3BE Tel Number: (029) 2039 5031 Cert No: SGS-COC-005057 Fax Number: (029) 2039 5250 E-mail [email protected] www.lgbc-wales.gov.uk

Mr Carl Sargeant Minister for Social Justice and Local Government Welsh Assembly Government

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT

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 City of Newport 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 2010, the City of Newport had an electorate of 103,093. At present it is divided into 20 divisions returning 50 councillors. The average ratio of members to electors for the City is currently 2,062. The present electoral arrangements are set out in detail in Appendix 2.

2. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

2.1 We propose a reduction in the council size from 50 to 46 elected members and a change to the arrangement of electoral divisions that will achieve a significant improvement in the level of electoral parity across the City of Newport.

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 City of Newport by 30 June 2011.

Electoral Arrangements

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

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

ii) the number and boundaries of electoral divisions;

- 1 -

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

iv) the name of any electoral division.

Rules to Be Observed Considering Electoral Arrangements

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

3.5 The rules also require that:

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

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

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

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

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

Subject to these rules, and to those rules referred to in paragraph 2.4, 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:

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

- 2 -

(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.

Local Government Changes

3.8 Since the last review of electoral arrangements there has been one change to local government boundaries in Newport:

• 2002 No.3271 (W.309) The Newport (Malpas and ) Order.

This made a minor change to the boundary between the Communities of Caerleon and Malpas and consequentially the boundary between the electoral divisions of Caerleon and Malpas. The change did not involve the transfer of any electors.

Procedure

3.9 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 25 February 2009 to , all the community councils in the area, the Members of Parliament for the local constituencies, the local authority associations, the police authority for the area and political 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 City 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 City and asked Newport City Council to display a number of public notices in their area. In addition we made a presentation to both City and Community councillors explaining the review process.

- 3 -

4. DRAFT PROPOSALS

4.1 Prior to the formulation of our draft proposals we received representations from Michelstone-y-Fedw Community Council, Nash Community Council, Newport Labour Group, Newport West and Newport East Conservative Association, Labour Party, Ward Labour Party, Tredegar Park Ward Labour Party and a resident. We considered all of these representations carefully before we formulated our proposals. These representations were taken into consideration and summarised in our Draft Proposals published on 19th October 2009. The 2009 electoral figures were used in our Draft Proposals report but as Newport City Council have subsequently supplied us with the 2010 figures these have been substituted in the following summary of our Draft Proposals.

Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury

4.2 The existing Allt-yr-yn electoral division consists of the Community of Allt-yr-yn and has 6,559 electors (6,774 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,186 electors per councillor. The existing Shaftesbury electoral division consists of the Community of Shaftesbury and has 3,719 electors (3,888 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,944 electors per councillor.

4.3 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the two existing electoral divisions to create an electoral division with 10,278 electors (10,662 projected) represented by 5 councillors with a level of representation of 2,056 electors per councillor. We noted that there are good road links between Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury (via and Queens Hill). We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury.

Alway and Ringland

4.4 The electoral division consists of the Community of Alway with 5,601 electors (5,632 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,867 electors per councillor which is 9% below the current county average. The adjoining Ringland electoral division consists of the Community of Ringland with 6,174 electors (6,550 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,058 electors per councillor 2,183 which is just below the current county average.

4.5 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the two divisions to form an electoral division with a total of 11,775 electors (12,182 projected) represented by 5 councillors with a level of representation of 2,355 electors per councillor which was 3% above the proposed county average ratio. There are good access links between these two electoral divisions and both are Communities First areas. This amalgamation would see a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area but it improves the electoral parity. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Alway and Ringland.

- 4 -

Beechwood and St. Julians

4.6 The Beechwood electoral division consists of the Community of Beechwood with 5,553 electors (5,309 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,851 electors per councillor which is 10% below the current county average. The adjoining electoral division of St. Julians consists of the Community of St. Julians with 6,214 electors (5,941 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,071 electors per councillor which is less that 1% above the current county average.

4.7 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the Beechwood and St. Julians electoral divisions to form a division with a total of 11,767 electors (11,250 projected) represented by 5 councillors with a level of representation of 2,353 electors per councillor which was 3% above the proposed county average. This amalgamation would see a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area but it improves the electoral parity. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Beechwood and St. Julians.

Bettws and Malpas

4.8 The Bettws electoral division consists of the Community of Bettws with 5,499 electors (5,458 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,816 electors per councillor which is 12% below the current county average. The adjoining Malpas electoral division consists of the Community of Malpas with 6,033 electors (5,860 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,011 electors per councillor which is 2% below the current county average.

4.9 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the Bettws and Malpas electoral divisions to form a division with a total of 11,612 electors (11,482 projected) represented by 5 councillors with a level of representation of 2,296 electors per councillor which is less that 1% above the proposed county average. This amalgamation would see a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area but it improves the electoral parity. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Bettws and Malpas.

Gaer and Tredegar Park

4.10 The Tredegar Park electoral division consists of the Community of Tredegar Park currently with 2,976 electors (3,886 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation that is 44% above the current county average. The Gaer electoral division consisting of the Community of Gaer has 6,360 electors (6,316 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,138 electors per councillor which is 3% above the current county average.

4.11 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed a combined Gaer and Tredegar Park electoral division with 9,336 electors (10,202 projected) represented by 4 councillors with a level of representation of 2,334 electors per councillor which was 2% above the proposed county average. We considered that this proposed arrangement produced a greatly improved level of electoral parity than the existing

- 5 -

arrangements for the area and we put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Gaer and Tredegar Park.

Graig and Marshfield

4.12 The Graig electoral division consists of the Community of Graig which has 4,676 electors (4,931 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,338 electors per councillor which is 13% above the current county average. The Marshfield electoral division consists of the Communities of (1,441 electors, 1,441 projected), Marshfield (2,218 electors, 2,218 projected), Michaelstone-y-Fedw (245 electors, 245 projected) and (648 electors, 648 projected) with a total of 4,552 electors (4,552 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,276 electors per councillor which is 10% above the current county average.

4.13 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the two electoral divisions to form a division with 9,228 electors (9,483 projected) represented by 4 councillors with a level of representation of 2,307 electors per councillor which was 1% above the proposed county average. We considered that this proposed arrangement gives a better degree of electoral parity than the existing arrangements for the area and we put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Graig and Marshfield.

Langstone and

4.14 The Langstone electoral division consists of the Communities of Langstone (2,470 electors, 2,608 projected), (335 electors, 345 projected) and (625 electors, 643 projected) with a total of 3,430 electors (3,596 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,715 electors per councillor which is 17% below the current county average. In order achieve a greater level of electoral parity across the City, we gave consideration to combining Langstone with the adjoining Llanwern electoral division. The Llanwern electoral division consists of the Communities of (1,578 electors, 3,340 projected), Goldcliff (258 electors, 254 projected), Llanwern (252 electors, 2,033 projected) and Redwick (174 electors, 171 projected) giving a total of 2,262 electors (5,798 projected) represented by 1 councillor.

4.15 In our Draft Proposals report we noted the representation from Nash Community Council, supported by Newport Labour Group and Newport West and Newport East Conservative Association, which suggested that the Community of Nash, which is currently included within the Liswerry electoral division, be included within the Llanwern electoral division. During the previous review the Commission moved the Community of Nash from the Llanwern to the Liswerry electoral division on the grounds that, at the time, it provided a substantial improvement in electoral parity and that this outweighed the concerns that were raised about the breaking of community ties. We have noted that the Community of Nash has only 216 electors (211 projected) and as such would not have a significant effect if removed from the Liswerry electoral division (7,232 electors, 8,199 projected) or added to an electoral division that included similar communities such as Goldcliff and Redwick. Having considered the evidence of community ties and the small number of electors in the

- 6 -

Community of Nash we came to the view that the Community of Nash should be included within a proposed Langstone and Llanwern electoral division.

4.16 In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the existing Langstone and Llanwern electoral divisions with the addition of the Community of Nash to form a division with a total of 5,908 electors represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,969 electors per councillor which was 14% below the proposed county average. We noted that although this gave a level of representation that is lower than that is proposed for any other area in Newport it did allow, to a degree, for an increase in the number of electors that may arise due to developments in the area. We considered that this proposed arrangement gave a better degree of electoral parity than the existing arrangements for the area and we put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Langstone and Llanwern.

Liswerry

4.17 The existing electoral division of Liswerry consists of the Community of Liswerry and the Community of Nash with 7,448 electors represented by 4 councillors with a level of representation of 1,862 electors per councillor which is 10% below the current county average.

4.18 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed removing the Community of Nash from the Liswerry electoral division. This will then leave a division with 7,232 electors represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,411 electors per councillor which is 5% above the proposed county average. We noted that this option reduces the number of councillors representing the Liswerry area by 1. We put this scheme forward as a proposal.

Pillgwenlly and Stow Hill

4.19 The electoral division which consists of the Community of Pillgwenlly has 4,227 electors (6,083 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,114 electors per councillor which is 3% below the current county average. The Stow Hill electoral division which consists of the Community of Stow Hill has 3,142 electors (3,276 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,571 electors per councillor that is 27% lower than the current county average and is 13% below the 1:1,750 ratio.

4.20 In our Draft Proposals report we noted the view expressed by Stow Hill Ward Labour Party and a resident that the Stow Hill electoral division should remain on its own. Newport West and Newport East Conservative Association also considered that no changes should be made to the Stow Hill electoral division. The point was made that the number of electors will increase over the next 5-10 years view due to proposed developments and that this would improve the electoral parity between this and other areas. We noted however that the immediate future of these developments is uncertain and that the five-year forecast figure for the number of electors provided by Newport City Council showed a reduction in the number of electors in this area.

- 7 -

4.21 We considered that it would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient government to combine the Community of Stow Hill a Community First area, with an adjoining area to form an electoral division that will provide a better degree of electoral parity than the present arrangements. To this end we proposed an electoral division that consists of the Community of Pillgwenlly and the Community of Stow Hill which are both Community First areas. The proposed Pillgwenlly and Stow Hill electoral division would have 7,369 electors represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,456 electors per councillor which is 7% higher than the proposed county average ratio. We noted that this option reduced the number of councillors representing the Pillgwenlly/Stow Hill area by 1 but it improved the electoral parity. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division a working name of Pillgwenlly and Stow Hill.

Rogerstone

4.22 The Rogerstone electoral division consists of the Community of Rogerstone with 7,789 electors (8,340 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,596 electors per councillor which is 26% above the current county average. We considered the representation from Rogerstone Community Council that suggested either splitting the area into three single-member electoral divisions based on the existing Community Wards or by changing boundaries forming two two-member electoral divisions.

4.23 We explained in our Draft Proposals report that, in this review of electoral arrangements, we will be using the existing communities and community wards as the building blocks for the proposed electoral divisions. We did not therefore adopt the proposals of Rogerstone Labour Party to form two two-member divisions by drawing new boundaries within Rogerstone. In considering the option suggested to form three single-member electoral divisions we noted that the East Ward currently has 2,318 electors (2,487 projected), the North Ward currently has 2,495 electors (2,669 projected) and the West Ward has 2,976 electors (3,184 projected). If these were to form single-member electoral divisions they would have levels of representation that were 12%, 21% and 44% above the current county average. We did not consider that this arrangement provided an appropriate level of electoral parity either between the three areas or with the county average and therefore did not propose splitting Rogerstone into three single-member electoral divisions.

4.24 In our Draft Proposals report we also considered the representations from Newport Labour Group and Newport West and Newport East Conservative Association who both consider that the number of members representing the Rogerstone electoral division should be increased from 3 to 4. We have noted that such an increase in the level of representation would produce a level of representation of 1,947 electors per councillor (based on the current electorate) which is 6% below the current county average ratio and is 15% below the proposed county average ratio. If the level of representation remained the same as it is at present (3 councillors) this would be 2,596 electors per councillor which is 14% above the proposed county average. We considered that under our proposed arrangements the 3-member model for Rogerstone provided a better degree of parity with the other electoral divisions in Newport than did the suggestion to increase the number of councillors

- 8 -

to 4. We therefore proposed that the existing arrangements for Rogerstone should continue.

4.25 Our Draft Proposals recommended a reduction in the council size from 50 to 45 elected members and a change to the arrangement of electoral divisions that will achieve a significant improvement in the level of electoral parity across the City of Newport. We considered that these arrangements provide for effective and convenient local government and met in principle the directions provided by the Welsh Assembly Government.

4.26 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 Newport City 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 Newport City Council, Langstone Community Council, Penhow Community Council, Rogerstone Community Council, Jessica Morton MP Newport East, Rosemary Butler AM Newport West, John Griffiths AM Newport East, Alway Ward Councillor’s K. Powell, R Truman & J. Guy, Caerleon Ward Councillor G. Giles, Ward Councillor’s K.J Critchley, R. Jeavons, A. Morris, J. Richards, Malpas Ward Councillor B. Langsford, Newport City Councillor’s M. Evan (Leader) & E. Townsend (Deputy Leader), Shaftsbury ward Councillor’s P. Cockeram, & B. Poole, Allt-yr-yn Branch Labour Party, Always Branch Labour Party, Caerleon Labour Party, Gaer Communities First, Gaer & Branch Labour Party, Maesglas Communities First, Malpas Branch Labour Party, Newport Labour Group, Rogerstone Branch Labour Party, Shaftesbury Branch Labour Party, Tredegar Park Labour Party and several local residents. A summary of these representations can be found at Appendix 5.

5.2 The Commissions attended a meeting with Leaders’ and the Managing Director of Newport City Council. The meeting was to allow further representations to be made to the Commission for consideration.

- 9 -

6. ASSESSMENT

Request for a Community Boundary Change

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

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

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

- 10 -

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 50 members is within the numerical limits advised in the Minister’s direction. The current average member to electorate ratio for the council is 2,062 which is 21% above 1,750 electors per councillor (see Councillor to electorate ratio above). There are currently 18 multi-member divisions out of 20 divisions.

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

6.7 For the reasons given below we believe that in the interests of effective and convenient local government a council size of 46 would be appropriate to represent the City of Newport. This determination of the council size results in an average of 2,241 electors being represented by each councillor.

Number of Electors

6.8 In our Draft Proposals report we considered the electoral figures for 2009 and the projected electorates for 2014 as supplied to us by Newport City Council. The Council have subsequently provided us with the electoral figures for 2010 and revised estimates that now cover the period to 2015 and these figures have been used throughout this report.

Electoral Divisions

6.9 We have considered the boundaries of the existing electoral divisions of Caerleon and Victoria, which will be retained from the existing arrangements 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 our consideration of changes to the existing electoral divisions we have noted the representations that have been received from several interested persons and groups that made general comments on our Draft Proposals. Objections were made that the overall effect of our Draft Proposals was to create over-large, multi- member divisions, and at the same time reduce significantly the number of councillors from 50 to 45. We have given careful consideration to these

- 11 -

representations when considering our proposals. We have noted that the great majority of divisions in Newport (18 out of 20) are already multi-member and this in our view reflects and is appropriate to the demographic make-up and population density of the principal area. When these factors are taken together with the need to address, in compliance with the rules, electoral inequalities, this argues in favour of amalgamation. We have however adhered to our Draft Proposals only where it has seemed to us that the improvement in electoral parity is so significant that the change is justified despite the representations received. Where it has seemed to us that the improvement is less significant or is outweighed by the counter- arguments, we have amended our proposals.

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

Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury

6.12 The Allt-yr-yn electoral division consists of the Community of Allt-yr-yn with 6,559 electors (6,774 projected) represented by three councillors with a level of representation of 2,186 electors per councillor which is 6% above the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. The Shaftesbury electoral division consists of the Community of Shaftesbury with 3,719 electors (3,888 projected) represented by two councillors with a level of representation of 1,860 electors per councillor which is 10% below the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the two existing electoral divisions to form an electoral division with a total of 10,278 electors (10,662 projected) represented by 5 councillors with a level of representation of 2,056 electors per councillor which was 9% below the proposed county average.

6.13 We received objections to this proposal from Newport City Council, Rosemary Butler AM, Shaftesbury Councillors, both the Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury Labour Party branches, Newport Labour Group and several local residents. Objections were on the grounds that the two areas are socio-economically and demographically different. Representations considered that the link road is not an effective link and is on the edge of the electoral divisions. There was also a concern that Shaftesbury would be dominated by Allt-yr-yn due to the size of the electorate compared to Shaftesbury.

- 12 -

6.14 We have noted the concerns regarding the difficulties in providing effective representation for, what has been evidenced in the representations, are two distinct areas. We are now of the view that these considerations outweigh the minor improvement in electoral parity provided by our draft proposals for this area. We are of the view therefore that it would be desirable, in terms of effective and convenient local government, to retain the existing Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury electoral divisions.

Alway and Ringland

6.15 The Alway electoral division consists of the Community of Alway with 5,601 electors (5,632 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,867 electors per councillor which is 9% below the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. The Ringland electoral division consists of the Community of Ringland with 6,174 electors (6,550 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,058 electors per councillor which less than 1% below the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the two existing electoral divisions to form an electoral division with a total of 11,775 electors (12,182 projected) represented by 5 councillors with a level of representation of 2,335 electors per councillor which was 3% above the proposed county average. This would mean a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area.

6.16 We received objections to this proposal from Newport City Council, MP, Alway Councillors, Alway and Ringland branches of the Labour Party, Newport Labour Group and a local resident. Objections were mainly concerns that the ward would become too large. The electoral division would be spread over a large area and this could increase the Councillors workload, therefore members may become remote from the electorate. Moreover, it could reduce the turnout at elections. There was also a view that the regeneration in Alway had not been taken into account and that this proposal paid little or no heed to local community ties.

6.17 We have noted the concerns about the creation of a larger geographical electoral division but have noted that there are current electoral divisions within Newport that are larger in area. We are also of the view that whilst there may be distinct community groups within each area there are also community ties between the two areas and that this aspect need not be a barrier to effective representation. We have noted the requests that we take into account developments that are due to take place in the area and have therefore considered the projected electoral figures supplied to us by Newport City Council. We were concerned that the current difference in the number of electors between the two areas is 573 and, as they have the same number of councillors, this gives a disparity in the level of representation between the two adjoining areas. We have noted that the projected electoral figures indicate that there is likely to be a significantly higher increase in the number of electors in the Community of Ringland in comparison with the more modest increase forecast for Alway and so the difference in the level of representation between the two areas is set to increase under the existing arrangements. We have also noted that if the existing arrangements for the Alway and Ringland areas were to be retained this would increase the overall number of councillors by 1 to 47 and change the county average to 2,193 electors per

- 13 -

councillor. Alway with 1,867 electors per councillor would be 15% below an average of 2,193 electors per councillor and Ringland with 2,058 electors per councillor would be 6% below an average of 2,193 electors per councillor. We therefore remain of the view that a combined Alway and Ringland electoral division represented by 5 councillors would be desirable in terms of effective and convenient local government and therefore make this proposal.

Beechwood and St. Julians

6.18 The Beechwood electoral division consists of the Community of Beechwood with 5,553 electors (5,309 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,851 electors represented by each councillor which is 10% below the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. The St. Julians electoral division consists of the Community of St. Julians with 6,214 electors (5,941 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,071 electors represented by each councillor which is less than 1% above the current county average of 2,062. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that we combine the two existing electoral divisions, to form an electoral division with a total of 11,767 electors (11,250 projected) represented by 5 councillors with a level of representation of 2,353 electors per councillor, which was 5% above the proposed county average. This would mean a reduction of 1 councillor representing the area.

6.19 We received no representations specifically addressing the Beechwood and St. Julians proposal save for one representation from a resident who accepted the proposed scheme and suggested name. We note that the existing Beechwood electoral division is 10% below the current county average and the existing St. Julians electoral division is 1% above the current county average whereas the proposed Beechwood and St. Julians electoral division would be 3% above the proposed county average. We remain of the view that the improvement in electoral parity achieved by the proposed Beechwood and St. Julians electoral division is desirable in the interest of effective and convenient local government. We therefore propose a Beechwood and St. Julians electoral division.

Bettws and Malpas

6.20 The Bettws electoral division consists of the Community of Bettws 5,499 electors (5,458 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,816 electors per councillor which is 12% below the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. The Malpas electoral division consists of the Community of Malpas with 6,003 electors (5,860 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,011 electors per councillor which is 2% below the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. In our draft proposals report we proposed combining the two existing electoral divisions to form an electoral division with a total of 11,532 electors (11,318 projected) represented by 5 councillors with level of representation of 2,306 electors per councillor which was 2% above the proposed county average.

6.21 We received specific objections to this proposal from Rosemary Butler AM, a Malpas Councillor, Newport Labour Group and Malpas Branch Labour Party and a resident in addition to those raised at the meeting with Council Leaders. The

- 14 -

objections focused on the socio-economic and geographic differences between the two communities and the reduction in the number of councillors representing the area. There was also a concern that a development in Bettws was not being taken into consideration.

6.22 We have noted the concerns regarding the difficulties in providing effective representation for, what has been evidenced in the representations, are two distinct areas. We are now of the view that these considerations outweigh the minor improvement in electoral parity provided by our draft proposals for this area. We are of the view moreover that it would be desirable, in terms of effective and convenient local government, to retain the existing Bettws and Malpas electoral divisions each being represented by 3 councillors.

Gaer and Tredegar Park

6.23 The Gaer electoral division consists of the Community of Gaer with 6,360 (6316 projected) electors represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,120 electors per councillor which is 3% above the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. The Tredegar Park electoral division consists of the Community of Tredegar Park with 2,976 elector (3,886 projected) represented by 1 councillor which is 44% above the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the two existing electoral divisions to form an electoral division with 9,336 electors (10,202 projected) represented by 4 councillors with level of representation of 2,334 electors per councillor which was 2% above the proposed county average.

6.24 We received specific objections to this proposal from Rosemary Butler AM, Gaer Communities First, Maesglas Communities First, Newport Labour Group, Gaer and Malpas Branch Labour Party and Tredegar Park Branch Labour Party. The objections focused on the individual communities’ needs and their separate identities. There was also a concern that, as the areas have 3 Community First sub groups, the Welsh Assembly Government may reduce the number of Community First areas. An observation was made that a river separates the two communities and is a natural barrier, and that this should be taken into account.

6.25 In respect of Communities First areas the criteria for defining these areas are for the Welsh Assembly Government to decide and is not a matter for the Commission. We note that the Gaer and Maesglas Communities First areas are currently within the same electoral division (Gaer) and this would suggest that the Welsh Assembly Government does contemplate that an electoral division may contain more than one Communities First area. We have also considered that whilst the River Ebbw forms part of the boundary between the Communities of Gaer and Tredegar Park it need not be a barrier in terms of community ties as it is crossed by the bridge carrying the main into and by a bridge carrying the A4042 Docks Way. When considering single-member electoral divisions such as Tredegar Park, in the first instance we consider whether it is possible to retain such arrangements in these areas. In this case however we have also considered the very high level of representation in the Tredegar Park electoral division compared with Gaer which is 3% above the current county average of 2,062 and therefore are of the view that it would be of benefit, in terms of effective and convenient local

- 15 -

government, to amalgamate the Tredegar Park electoral division with the Gaer electoral division. We therefore make this proposal. This proposal will improve the electoral parity in the area from the existing Gaer and Tredegar Park electoral divisions being 3% and 44% above the current county average respectively to the combined Gaer and Tredegar Park electoral division being 4% above the proposed county average of 2,241 electors per councillor.

Graig and Marshfield

6.26 The existing Graig electoral division has 4,676 electors (4,931 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,338 electors per councillor which is 13% above the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. The existing Marshfield electoral division has 4,552 electors (4,552 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,276 electors per councillor which is 10% above the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we considered combining the two electoral divisions to form a division with 9,228 electors (9,483 projected) represented by 4 councillors with a level of representation of 2,307 electors per councillor which was 1% below the proposed county average. We considered that this proposed arrangement gives a better degree of electoral parity than the existing arrangements for the area. We received no alternative or objections to this proposed electoral division name and no specific objections to this proposed arrangement.

6.27 Although no specific representations were received in respect of this proposal we have noted the representations expressing concerns about creating larger multi- member electoral divisions. In the light of these representations we reconsidered our proposals and noted that if kept separate, Graig would be 4% above the proposed county average and Marshfield would be 2% above the proposed county average. We are of the view that the minor improvement in parity, as a result of the amalgamation of the Graig and Marshfield electoral divisions, would not merit such a change. We therefore propose no change the existing Graig and Marshfield electoral divisions.

Langstone and Llanwern

6.28 The existing Langstone electoral division consists of the Communities of Langstone, Llanvaches and Penhow with a total of 3,430 electors (3,596 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,715 electors per councillor which is 17% below the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. The existing Llanwern electoral division consists of the Communities of Bishton, Goldcliff, Llanwern and Redwick with a total of 2,262 electors (5,798 projected) represented by 1 councillor with a level of representation of 2,262 electors represented by each councillor which is 10% above the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the two existing electoral divisions with the Community of Nash from the existing Liswerry electoral division. This gave an electoral division with a total of 5,908 electors (9,605 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 1,969 electors per councillor which was 12% below the proposed county average. Although this gave a lower number of electors per councillor than

- 16 -

that was proposed for any other area in Newport, we considered that it did allow, to a degree, for an increase in the number of electors that may arise due to developments in the area1.

6.29 In opposition to this proposal Newport City Council pointed out that the proposed amalgamation would cover over a third of the Council’s seventy square miles and this could mean constituents having extremely long journeys to meet with their councillors and vice versa. Penhow Community Council considered that the proposed electoral division should be represented by 4 councillors not 3 to take account of the projected population. Langstone Community Council had no objection to the draft proposals. A resident considered the proposal would result in a loss of local ties and accountability and proposed two alternative arrangements for this area. We have applied to the two schemes the latest electoral figures supplied by Newport City Council as follows:

Scheme: 1

Division Components Cllrs 2010 2015 Caldicot Bishton, Goldcliff and Redwick 1 2,010 3,765 Level Llanwern Langstone, Llanwern, Llanvaches, and 2 3,898 5,840 Nash and Penhow Langstone

Under this Scheme the Caldicot Level electoral division would have a level of representation that is 12% below the proposed county average and the Llanwern and Langstone electoral division would have a level of representation that is 15% below the proposed county average. When the projected electoral figures are considered the Caldicot Level electoral division would have a level of representation that is 54% above the proposed forecast county average and the Llanwern and Langstone electoral division would have a level of representation that is 19% above the proposed forecast county average.

1 In our Draft Proposals report we noted that the developments in this area were not due to start until 2010 at the earliest and are to be phased over a number of years. Given the present economic situation we considered that there is reason to expect that there may be only a modest increase in the number of electors over the next few years and that it would be reasonable for the electoral arrangements for the area to be considered rather on the basis of the current electoral figures albeit with some flexibility to allow for a more modest increase to take place in the take place in the shorter term. We were of the view that the electoral arrangements for these areas may, following a request made by the Council, be reconsidered at a later time, should significant changes in the number of electors merit a further review.

- 17 -

Scheme: 2

Division Components Cllrs 2010 2015 Caldicot Bishton, Goldcliff, Nash and Redwick 1 2,226 3,976 Level Langstone, Llanwern, Llanvaches and Langstone 2 3,682 5,629 Penhow

Under this Scheme the Caldicot Level electoral division would have a level of representation that is 2% below the proposed county average and the Langstone electoral division would have a level of representation that is 19% below the proposed county average. When the projected electoral figures are considered the Caldicot Level electoral division would have a level of representation that is 62% above the proposed forecast county average and the Langstone electoral division would have a level of representation that is 15% above the proposed forecast county average.

6.30 In order to attempt to meet the objections to our proposal we gave careful consideration to these alternative schemes. Although we consider that Scheme 2 provides a more appropriate grouping of communities than Scheme 1, we note that both schemes have a wider variance from the county average than does our proposed arrangement for the area. We have given careful consideration to the important point made by Newport City Council regarding the size of the proposed division and the distances that residents - and councillors - may have to travel in order to meet. We note however that although this electoral division would be the largest in area within Newport it is by no means large in area when compared to many electoral divisions in other principal authority areas. We are of the view that any difficulties that arise as a result of the increase in size of the electoral division should be capable of being addressed by modern communications. We have considered the objections to our proposal and the alternative suggestions and remain of the view that our proposal provides better electoral parity than the two suggested arrangements and the existing arrangements. We therefore confirm our proposal for a Langstone and Llanwern electoral division.

Liswerry

6.31 The existing Liswerry electoral division consists of the Communities of Liswerry and Nash with a total of 7,448 electors represented by 4 councillors with a level of representation of 1,862 electors per councillor which is 10% below the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed removing the Community of Nash into the proposed electoral division of Langstone and Llanwern, and reducing the number of councillors by 1. This gives an electoral division with a total of 7,232 electors (8,199 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,411 electors per councillor, which is 8% above the proposed county average of 2,241 electors per councillor.

6.32 We received objections to this proposal from Ms Jessica Morden MP, Liswerry Councillors and several residents. Objections were made chiefly in the grounds that the proposals did not take into account proposed housing developments planned for Liswerry. In order to ensure that we take account of any recent and future

- 18 -

developments in the area we have used the latest (2010) figures available from Newport City Council who have confirmed both the current and 5 year projected figures. These figures show that having 4 councillors representing this area would, under the existing figures, give a level of representation of 1,862 electors per councillor which is 21% below the proposed county average of 2,241 electors per councillor. Under the forecast figures having 4 councillors representing this area would give a level of representation of 2,050 electors per councillor which is 18% below the proposed forecast county average of 2,441 electors per councillor. Having considered the number of electors, both existing and forecast, and the effects of having 3 or 4 councillors representing the area, we remain of the view that our proposal of a reduction in the number of councillors from 4 to 3 promises a significant improvement in electoral parity compared with the proposal suggesting 4 councillors (5% above the proposed county average with 3 councillors compared to 21% below the proposed county average with 4 councillors). We therefore propose a Liswerry electoral division consisting of the Community of Liswerry to be represented by 3 councillors.

6.33 Although we did not receive any objections to the name Liswerry for this electoral division we noted that in a number of the representations the form ‘Lliswerry’ was used. As the proposed electoral division consists of the Community of Liswerry we have used the name of that community as the name of the electoral division. A change to the name of the community, in this instance, would require a request being made by a community meeting to Newport City Council under Section 76 of the 1972 Act.

Pillgwenlly and Stow Hill

6.34 The existing Pillgwenlly electoral division consists of the Community of Pillgwenlly with 4,227 electors (6,083 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 2,114 electors per councillor which is 3% above the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. The Stow Hill electoral division consists of the Community of Stow Hill with 3,142 electors (3,276 projected) represented by 2 councillors with a level of representation of 1,571 electors per councillor which is 24% below the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed combining the two existing electoral divisions to form an electoral division with a total of 7,369 electors (9,359 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,456 electors per councillor which is 8% above the proposed county average of 2,283 electors per councillor. This proposal would see a reduction of 1 councillor representing the combined area.

6.35 Rosemary Butler AM and a resident made specific reference to this proposal and expressed concern over the creation of large wards and pushing together distinct areas of Newport that are distinct geographical and socio-economic communities in their own right. We have noted these concerns but are of the view that two communities are similar in terms of their economic and social needs and facilities and the area is not so large that it could not be effectively represented when combined as one electoral division. We consider the proposed electoral division provides a significant improvement in electoral parity when compared to the existing arrangements (Pillgwenlly 3% above the current county average and Stow

- 19 -

Hill 24% below the current county average compared to 7% above the proposed county average for the combined electoral division). We therefore propose a Pillgwenlly and Stow Hill electoral division represented by 3 councillors.

Rogerstone

6.36 The existing Rogerstone electoral division consists of the Community of Rogerstone with 7,789 electors (8,340 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,596 electors per councillor which is 26% above the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor and 13% above the proposed county average of 2,291. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed retaining the existing 3 member division.

6.37 Rogerstone Labour branch objected to this proposal as they maintained the view expressed in their initial letter that there should be three separate City Council electoral divisions within Rogerstone based on the three Community Council wards. They noted that we had rejected their initial suggestion because the variance in the number of electors in each of the suggested electoral divisions would mean that there would not be an appropriate level of electoral parity either between the three areas or with the county average. They expressed the view however that too much weight had been given to the issue of parity between electoral divisions. They considered that the issue of parity could be resolved by increasing the number of councillors representing the Rogerstone West electoral division to two. They suggested that the electorate projections used in our Draft Proposals report predated the clearance of the Novellis site and anticipated that housing development on the site would increase the number of electors in Rogerstone West to give a level of representation that was closer to the other two Rogerstone wards.

6.38 We have noted that in their representation Rogerstone Community Council supported our draft proposal for their area. We have also given careful consideration to the suggestion by Rogerstone Labour Party to create three electoral divisions based on the Rogerstone Community wards and in particular we have considered the updated forecast figures supplied by Newport City Council for the number of electors in each ward. The Community of Rogerstone is divided into the North ward with 2,495 electors (2,663 projected), East ward with 2,318 electors (2,487 projected) and West ward with 2,976 electors (3,184 projected). If these were to form single-member electoral divisions they would have levels of representation that were 9%, 1.5% and 30% above the proposed county average of 2,283 electors per councillor. If the Rogerstone West electoral division were to be represented by 2 councillors it would have a level of representation of 1,488 electors per councillor that is 35% below the proposed county average of 2,283 electors per councillor. We have noted the projected increase in the number of electors for this ward but consider that the increase is not so large that the level of representation of the suggested electoral division would move significantly towards the levels of the other two suggested electoral divisions or the county average. We note that the current arrangement for Rogerstone of 7,789 electors (8,340 projected) represented by 3 councillors with a level of representation of 2,577 electors per councillor is 16% above the proposed county average of 2,283 electors per councillor. When considering electoral arrangements, in the first instance we consider whether it is possible to create single-member electoral divisions. In this

- 20 -

case however we have also considered the varying level of representation that would result from such an arrangement for Rogerstone. We are of the view that the degree of disparity would be unacceptable, and that it would be of benefit, in terms of effective and convenient local government, to retain the existing arrangement of a 3-member Rogerstone electoral division. We therefore make this proposal.

6.39 Rogerstone Community Council in their representation also made a request for consideration to be given by the Commission to equalising the number of community councillors within the three Rogerstone community council wards. The request from Rogerstone Community Council would require a review of the electoral arrangements of the community to be carried out by Newport City Council, with the result that this issue can not be considered under the current electoral review process. Please see 6.3 for a full explanation on this matter.

Summary of Proposed Arrangements

6.40 The proposed electoral arrangements (as shown at Appendix 3) provide a level of parity that ranges from 18% below to 16% above the proposed county average of 2,291 electors per councillor (based on the existing electoral figures). 6 of the electoral divisions have levels of representation more than 10% above or below the proposed county average of 2,241 electors per councillor and the remaining 9 (69%) all less than 10% above or below the proposed county average of 2,241 electors per councillor. This compares with the existing electoral arrangements (as shown at Appendix 2) where the level of parity ranges from 24% below to 44% above the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. 2 electoral divisions (10%) having levels of representation more than 25% above or below the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor, 10 (50%) electoral divisions having levels of representation between 10% and 25% above or below than the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor and the remaining 8 (40%) electoral divisions having levels of representation less than 10% above or below the current county average of 2,062 electors per councillor. The proposed size of the council is 46 members representing 15 multi-member electoral divisions. This compares to the existing electoral arrangements of 50 members representing 20 electoral divisions, 18 out of the 20 being multi-member.

6.41 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 appropriate emphasis on achieving improvements in electoral parity, while retaining where possible single member electoral divisions or avoiding increasing the size of multi- member divisions). As will appear from our final proposals we have paid close attention to the representations received, and have modified our draft proposals in the light of those representations in several instances. We recognise that the creation of electoral divisions which depart from the pattern which now exists would inevitably bring some disruption to established ‘ties’ between communities and may straddle community council areas in a way which is different. We have made every

- 21 -

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.

- 22 -

7. PROPOSALS

7.1 We propose a council of 46 members and 15 electoral divisions as set out in Appendix 3. For purposes of comparison, the present electoral arrangements for the City of Newport are given at Appendix 5. 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 Newport City 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 City of Newport and submitted our recommendations to the Welsh Assembly Government on the future electoral arrangements for the principal authority, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation under the directions issued by the Welsh Assembly Government.

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

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

- 23 -

MR P J WOOD (Chairman)

REV. HYWEL MEREDYDD DAVIES BD (Deputy Chairman)

Mr D J BADER (Member)

E H LEWIS BSc. DPM FRSA Chartered FCIPD (Secretary)

August 2010

- 24 - Appendix 1 GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT

Commission The Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales

Council size The number of councillors elected to the council

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

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

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

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

The number of persons entitled to vote in a local Electorate government area The principle that votes within a principal area should carry equal weight, measured by a comparison between Electoral parity an electoral division and the county average of the number of electors represented by a single councillor. Government The Welsh Assembly Government

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

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

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

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

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

-1- Appendix 1

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

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

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

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

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

The 1994 Act The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994

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

-2- CITY OF NEWPORT Appendix 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP

% variance % variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2010 from ELECTORATE 2015 from No. NAME DESCRIPTION COUNCILLORS 2010 RATIO County 2015 RATIO County average average 1 Allt-yr-yn The Community of Allt-yr-yn 3 6,559 2,186 6% 6,774 2,258 1% 2 Alway The Community of Alway 3 5,601 1,867 -9% 5,632 1,877 -16% 3 Beechwood The Community of Beechwood 3 5,553 1,851 -10% 5,309 1,770 -21% 4 Bettws The Community of Bettws 3 5,449 1,816 -12% 5,458 1,819 -19% 5 Caerleon The Community of Caerleon 3 6,370 2,123 3% 6,695 2,232 -1% 6 Gaer The Community of Gaer 3 6,360 2,120 3% 6,316 2,105 -6% 7 Graig The Community of Graig 2 4,676 2,338 13% 4,931 2,466 10% The Communities of Langstone, 8 Langstone Llanvaches and Penhow 2 3,430 1,715 -17% 3,596 1,798 -20%

9 Liswerry The Communities of Liswerry and Nash 4 7,448 1,862 -10% 8,410 2,103 -6% The Communities of Bishton, Goldcliff, 10 Llanwern Llanwern and Redwick 1 2,262 2,262 10% 5,798 5,798 158% 11 Malpas The Community of Malpas 3 6,033 2,011 -2% 5,860 1,953 -13% The Communities of Coedkernew, 12 Marshfield Marshfield, Michaelstone-y-Fedw and 2 4,552 2,276 10% 4,552 2,276 1% Wentlooge 13 Pillgwenlly The Community of Pillgwenlly 2 4,227 2,114 3% 6,083 3,042 35% 14 Ringland The Community of Ringland 3 6,174 2,058 0% 6,550 2,183 -3% 15 Rogerstone The Community of Rogerstone 3 7,789 2,596 26% 8,340 2,780 24% 16 Shaftesbury The Community of Shaftesbury 2 3,719 1,860 -10% 3,888 1,944 -13% 17 St. Julians The Community of St. Julians 3 6,214 2,071 0% 5,941 1,980 -12% 18 Stow Hill The Community of Stow Hill 2 3,142 1,571 -24% 3,276 1,638 -27% 19 Tredegar Park The Community of Tredegar Park 1 2,976 2,976 44% 3,886 3,886 73% 20 Victoria The Community of Victoria 2 4,559 2,280 11% 4,976 2,488 11% TOTAL: 50 103,093 2,062 112,271 2,245

Ratio is the number of electors per councillor Appendix 2 Electoral figures supplied by Newport City Council

2010 2015 Greater than + or - 50% of County average 0 0% 3 15% Between + or - 25% and + or - 50% of County av. 2 10% 3 15% Between + or - 10% and + or - 25% of County av. 10 50% 10 50% Between 0% and + or - 10% of County average 8 40% 4 20% CITY OF NEWPORT PROPOSED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Appendix 3 No. OF ELECTORATE % variance from ELECTORATE % variance from No. NAME DESCRIPTION 2010 RATIO 2015 RATIO COUNCILLORS 2010 County average 2015 County average

1 Allt-yr-yn The Communities of Allt-yr-yn 3 6,559 2,186 -2% 6,774 2,258 -7%

Alway a The Communities of Alway 5,601 (5,632) and 2 5 11,775 2,355 5% 12,182 2,436 0% Ringland Ringland 6,174 (6,550)

Beechwood a The Communities of Beechwood 5,553 (5,309) and 3 5 11,767 2,353 5% 11,250 2,250 -8% St Julians St. Julians 6,214 (5,941)

4 Bettws The Community of Bettws 3 5,499 1,833 -18% 5,458 1,819 -25%

5 Caerleon The Community of Caerleon 2,123 -5% 6,695 2,232 -9% 3 6,370 Gaer a The Communities of Gaer 6,360 (6,316) and 6 4 9,336 2,334 4% 10,202 2,551 4% Tredegar Park Tredegar Park 2,976 (3886)

7 Graig The Community Graig 2 4,676 2,338 4% 4,931 2,466 1%

The Communities of Langstone 2,470 (2,608), Langstone a Llanvaches 335 (345), Penhow 625 (643), Bishton 8 3 5,908 1,969 -12% 9,605 3,202 31% Llanwern 1,578 (3,340), Goldcliff 258 (254), Llanwern 252 (2,033), Redwick 174 (171) and Nash 216 (211)

9 Liswerry The Community of Liswerry 2,411 8% 8,199 2,733 12% 3 7,232

10 Malpas The Community of Malpas 3 6,033 2,011 -10% 5,860 1,953 -20%

The Communities of Coedkernew 1,441 11 Marshfield (1,441),Marshfield 2,218 (2,218), Michaelstone-y- 2 4,552 2,276 2% 4,552 2,276 -7% Fedw 245 (245) and Wentlooge 648 (648). Pillgwenlly a The Communities of Pillgwenlly 4,227 (6083) and 12 3 7,369 2,456 10% 9,359 3,120 28% Stow Hill Stow Hill 3,142 (3,276)

13 Rogerstone The Community of Rogestone 3 7,789 2,596 16% 8,340 2,780 14%

14 Shaftesbury The Community of Shaftesbury 2 3,719 1,860 -17% 3,888 1,944 -20%

15 Victoria The Community of Victoria 2 4,559 2,280 2% 4,976 2,488 2%

TOTAL: 46 103,093 2,241 112,271 2,441

Ratio is the number of electors per councillor The number of electors for 2010 and 2015 (in brackets) are included in the description of those electoral divisions which comprise more than one community / community ward. Appendix 3 Electoral figures supplied by Newport City Council

2010 2015 Greater than + or - 50% of County average 00% 0 0% Between + or - 25% and + or - 50% of County average 0 0% 2 15% Between + or - 10% and + or - 25% of County average 6 46% 7 54% Between 0% and + or - 10% of County average 9 69% 6 46% Appendix 4

-1- Appendix 4

-1- Appendix 4

-2- Appendix 4

-3- Appendix 5 SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO DRAFT PROPOSALS

Newport City Council Tracey Lee, Managing Director & Returning Officer wrote to object to the proposal as the amalgamation of 20 electoral divisions would lead to less easily identifiable electoral divisions not reflecting local ties. The proposed Allt-yr-yn / Shaftesbury Division is clearly split by a dual carriageway (A4042) and Gaer and Tredegar Park by the A48. The proposal creates electoral divisions which are far too large, the electorate will have difficulty in engaging in the political process. The proposed Langstone / Llanwern Division covers over a third of the Council’s seventy square miles. Centralised representatives could mean constituents having extremely long journeys to meet with their Councillor and vice versa. There is statistically more likelihood of a By-election in a five member Division than a single. Due to the number of polling stations involved, the estimated cost could exceed £15,000 for each vacancy, compared to £5,000 in a two member Division. This would represent a considerable burden to the Council in times of ever increasing financial restraint.

Langstone Community Council wrote that they had no objections to the proposed changes affecting the Langstone Electoral Division. The Council also agree with the suggested name of Langstone and Llanwern being adopted for the combined electoral division.

Penhow Community Council wrote to say that having 3 Councillors gave a ratio of 1:3,386 taking into account projected population to 2014. This figure being considerably higher than elsewhere in the City it is felt that the number of Councillors should be increased to 4, giving a ratio of 1:2,539, practically the same as other wards. Although the population increase could be slower than the projection, the rebuilding of the Llanwern area would likely absorb a considerable amount of councillor time during the reconstruction process. All the nearby communities would want to be kept abreast of progress and Councillors have to have sufficient time to help manage the change process.

Rogerstone Community Council wrote to support the proposal to retain the existing Newport City Council ward of Rogerstone. They requested however that consideration be given to equalising the number of community councillors within the three Rogerstone community council wards, in order to take into account recent housing developments. It is also suggested to create an additional Community Council seat in the West ward and the removal of a Community Council seat in the East ward, leaving each community council ward with 5 seats.

Jessica Morden MP Newport East wrote to object to the proposal raising the following points. 1. Wards with 5 members over such large areas are a retrograde step for democracy. This will increase the remoteness of councillors from the electorate. 2. A merger between Alway and Ringland will result in a ward of massive proportions stretching several miles towards the outskirts of Newport. Members would be too remote from the electorate which could reduce the turnout at elections. 3. The new wards would all be overly large and it would be extremely difficult for local members to forge a relationship with voters. It is also felt that the ratio of councillors to electorate in the proposal is fundamentally at odds with the directions of the Minister.

-1- Appendix 5 4. The reduction in Councillors in the Lliswerry Ward ignores the clear growth of housing developments within the ward, expectation is for the building of a four- figure number of homes in the ward within the foreseeable future.

Rosemary Butler AM Newport West wrote regarding her concern over the proposed reduction in the number of councillors from 50 to 45 due to the increased demands and complexities of local government. To dismiss the possible increases in population was unfounded, Newport being the gateway to Wales and a desirable target for prospective newcomers. Taking this into account it was foreseen that the proposed reduction could result in the need to conduct another review in a short space of time. The publics feeling of disengagement would only be increased with a reduction in the number of councillors. There is concern over the creation of larger wards and pushing together distinct parts of Newport. In particular Bettws and Malpas, Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury, Pillgwenlly and Stow Hill, all of them distinct geographic and socioeconomic communities in their own right. Conversely, in Rogerstone where there is a large and relatively recent population, there could be positive advantages if there was a division into two wards. A rearrangement of the boundaries between Gaer and Tredegar Park would even out the population differences without destroying the original wards. It was noted that the Minister’s guidance stated the importance of local communities having their own identifiable representation even when the indicative figure of 1,750 electors/councillors was not always achievable. In light of the points raised the AM wished to register her strong opposition to the draft proposal.

John Griffiths AM Newport East wrote to strongly object to the draft proposal for Newport. People in the constituency relate to the current wards and would feel far less connection with the proposed larger areas. The current ward structure is the correct approach to maximise public interest and involvement as the compact areas foster closer relationships between electors and elected. There is concern that in areas of greater deprivation people are sometimes less likely to formally raise problems relying on informal contact with councillors in their community. In general it is not believed that the number of councillors should be reduced as it will weaken engagement and representation. It was also noted that the Directions from Dr Brian Gibbons stated the need for local support, although there was no evidence in the draft report that the proposals were broadly supported by the electorate and which appear to be at variance with Welsh Assembly Government policy.

Newport City Council Cllr M Evans, Leader & Cllr E Townsend, Deputy Leader, wrote to reject the proposal in its entirety due to; • The lack of meaningful interaction between the LGBCW and the stakeholders of the review subject. • The decision of the Commission to ignore the Directive of the WAG in producing its Draft Proposals • Electoral Divisions would be too large, containing disparate communities. • Encouraging Registration of Electors and Political Engagement would be impaired due to the lack of meaningful and identifiable boundaries. • Effective governance of the Council could be impaired by the reduction in Membership. • The relationship between the Elected Member and the Electorate would be damaged. • The Council could face a financial burden as a result of the draft proposals.

-2- Appendix 5

Councillors John Guy, Ken Powell and Ray Truman (Alway) wrote to object to the proposal and noted that; 1. The Local Government Act of 1972 introduced the power for directions to the LGBCW 2009. The essence of this act is to ensure that all communities in the widest sense have representation which is both particular, specific and is available within the normality of their community. 2. The creation of larger wards which are artificial undermines the specifics of local representation and in respect of the recommendation creates a ward which extends over two miles in length and a variable distance of ¾ mile in width. This is a factor which on logic will reduce the specific of representation just to draw two wards together without any judgement on true representation. 3. Alway is a ward which is well served by three Councillors who are able by specific representation to cover a whole and wide spread of the triangle of life. The Merging of Alway with Ringland would reduce true local representation and produce representation of a coarser and less specific microscopic kind. It is also felt that the proposals do not take into account the increase in population due to the Alway regeneration project.

Councillor Gail Giles (Caerleon) wrote to object to the proposed reduction in the number of councillors and the amalgamation of wards as they fail to take into account the history, culture and socio-economic mix of the City which would not only undermine the cultural cohesion of the wards, but would also reduce the level of political representation for residents.

Councillor Kenneth J Critchley (Liswerry) wrote to highlight the proposed major residential development of 1782 units within the Lliswerry Ward, 590 completed with a further 558 proposed for completion by 2011. An additional 229 are to be proposed in the near future. There was concern that the draft proposal did not fully take into account the increase in the number of electors and the level of local opposition to the number of councillors being reduced. It is also felt that the Lliswerry ward was being treated differently from other areas of the City leaving the people democratically disadvantaged.

Councillor Roger Jeavons (Liswerry) wrote to object to the proposal for the Lliswerry Ward for the reduction in the number of councillors. It was noted that the transfer Nash to the Llanwern Ward would only account for 231 electorate. It is felt that the anticipated growth in the electorate of 300+ shown in the draft report underestimated the growth in the electorate (details of proposed residential development in the Lliswerry Ward were attached). It was also felt that Lliswerry was being treated differently to other areas of the City.

Councillor Allan Morris (Liswerry) wrote to object to the draft proposal as the reduction in the number of councillors would leave the people in Lliswerry ward disadvantaged. It was stated that the ratio discussed at the Newport meeting on 15th April 2009 was quite different to the ratio recommended of 1:2,247. The residential development currently underway and others in development will likely take the ratio beyond 1:2247 (A copy of a report from Newport City Council Planning Department was attached). The transfer of the electorate of Nash into the Llanwern ward at the request of Nash Community Council and the implication of the loss of a council member, as far as the Councillor was aware had not followed any consultation with the electorate. The Councillor believed that with Councillors being reduced in Lliswerry it appeared to be treated

-3- Appendix 5 differently when compared to combined wards such as Alltyryn and Shaftsbury, Malpas and Bettws

Councillor John Richards (Liswerry) wrote to object to the draft proposal to reduce the number of councillors from four to three. The removal of the community of Nash only reduced the ward size by approximately 231 voters, while Lliswerry is the fastest growing ward in the City due to the number of new houses being built and that the figures used for the draft proposal were inaccurate.

Councillor Bill Langsford (Malpas) wrote to object to the amalgamation of the Bettws and Malpas Wards. Proposed development within Bettws would increase the electorate above that stated, creating a ward too large for 5 Councillors, with the wards considering themselves as two separate communities with a physical boundary dividing them.

Councillor Paul Cockeram (Shaftesbury) wrote to object to the draft proposal to combine Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury and that the WAG direction may have been misinterpreted. There is concern that the Shaftesbury ward would lose its identity as the two wards are very distinct with the larger electorate of Allt-yr-yn determining representation in Shaftesbury. There is a proposed residential development of 1246 units within the Shaftesbury ward which should be taken into consideration.

Councillor Bob Poole (Shaftesbury) wrote to object to the joining of the Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury as; 1. The two communities have little in common. The residents of Allt-yr-yn would have a greater influence within the ward and that residents of both wards are against the proposal. 2. The road links mentioned in the draft proposal are on the edge of both wards and not considered a link between them. 3. The size of the ward is too big to have an identity with local residents and members. 4. No mention is made of the extra 1,246 houses expected to be built in the area of Shaftesbury, with 146 having already been through the reporting process. (Details of these developments were attached). 5. The Minister made no mention of super wards, with the direction to work towards one councillor per 1750 electors. The proposal would cause confusion amongst the electorate and not help in increasing turnout at elections. It is felt that the need for boundaries which are easily identifiable and have strong community ties as outlined in the Local Government Act 1972 were not given enough importance.

Newport Labour Group wrote to object to the proposal for the following reasons;

• Unnatural coalescence between separate communities Shaftesbury and Allt-yr-yn The referred good road links between the Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury wards used as justification for the proposal to combine these electoral divisions are not considered as a sufficient condition for the proposal.

According to the 2001 Census, there were substantially different socio-economic and demographic profiles for the two wards. The Allt-yr-yn ward has a much more affluent profile than Shaftesbury. A substantially higher proportion of the population in Allt-yr-yn falls into the higher professional and lower managerial or professional

-4- Appendix 5 classifications (7.4% and 23.4% respectively) than Shaftesbury (3.1% and 15.6% respectively). Whilst 60.6% of the housing in Allt-yr-yn is detached or semi- detached, 52% of housing in Shaftesbury is terraced. The proposal takes no account of these differences and of the community identity which exists particularly within the Shaftesbury ward. Statistics from Newport City Council regarding residential development, indicate that in the medium term another 1246 homes are projected to be built within the ward, of which at least 146 are due to be completed by 2011. This would add still further to the electorate for the ward and make council representation still more remote from voters. In our submission, the proposed boundary change, has taken no account of this.

Bettws and Malpas Bettws and Malpas are in an analogous situation in that Bettws is overwhelmingly an area of social housing compared with a more mixed residential profile in the case of Malpas which has a significantly more affluent owner-occupied base. There is a high level of community identification within each ward which would not lend itself to a forced amalgamation in the manner described. The combination of the forced merger combined with a reduction of council representation from 6 to 5 members would result in an over-sized ward lacking in both cohesion and identity which is inadequately represented on the council.

Alway and Ringland There is considerable separate local community identification within each ward so that a merger would be inimical to electors within both divisions. It would also result in a ‘super-ward’ of massive proportions stretching several miles towards the outskirts of Newport. This would pose considerable challenges to elected members, particularly combined with the proposal to reduce representation.

Gaer and Tredegar Park The Gaer is already an amalgamation of two areas (the Gaer and Maesglas) with inner community loyalties. This nevertheless has been a traditional established amalgamation and there is considerable cross-linkage and co-operation between the Gaer and Maesglas communities. The proposal to merge with Tredegar Park ward, would in our submission create an imbalance which would be to the detriment of all three communities. There would also be a danger that Maesglas, an area of considerable social deprivation would lose out to the more populous Tredegar Park. It would again result in another disparate ‘super-ward’ lacking any real identity spanning three Communities First localities. This would pose considerable challenges to the elected members seeking to represent it stretching a number of miles from the boundary of Stow Hill to .

All of the above proposals would create ‘forced marriages’ between vastly different communities, each with its own identity and problems. The proposals to merge each of these wards amounts to an attempt to create totally artificial entities which in reality do not exist. The recommendation, if followed would create unnatural coalescences between these extremely diverse communities.

• Over-large ‘super-wards’ forming excessively large electoral areas Each of the above amalgamations would pose considerable challenges to elected members in terms of representation. The wards would be overly large and be extremely difficult for local members to forge a relationship with voters.

-5- Appendix 5 The current councillor to electorate ratio in Newport is 1:2,055, yet the reduction of the council to 45 seats will increase to 1:2,283 electors. This is fundamentally at odds with the Direction from the Minister.

• Increased remoteness of councillors from the electorate at a time when politicians are already seen as too remote. The amalgamations would lead to members being too remote from the electorate and that such ‘super-wards’ would be incompatible with the concept of democratic accountability in local government, which could reduce the turnout at elections.

• Proposed changes to the Lliswerry Ward The reduction in representation of the Lliswerry ward by one councillor flies in the face of the growth of housing developments within the ward. It is felt that this is the only area where an example of a 4 member ward serves the interests of local electors well and therefore oppose the reduction suggested.

Following the Direction from the Minister, it is felt that the proposed changes will not be “broadly supported” by the electorate. Referring to the letter dated 12th May 2009 from the Minister it is felt that the proposals pay little or no heed to local community ties.

For all the above reasons the Newport Labour Group reject the proposal and request that the status quo be maintained.

Allt-yr-yn Branch Labour Party wrote to object to the proposal to merge the Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury wards as they were quite distinct in terms of their social structure and their residents’ identification of locality as supported by the following Experian MOSAIC data:

Groups % Groups % Groups % ABC DE F-K Allt-yr-yn 2176 58 643 17 921 25 Shaftesbury 598 25 802 34 977 41

The data clearly indicate that households in Allt-yr-yn are predominantly in Groups ABC while those in Shaftesbury are predominantly in Groups F-K. In relation to the road links between the two Wards, It is noted that the upper part of Barrack Hill is perceived as a transition to a different area, as is the end of Queens Hill where it meets a complex major road junction.

While the proposal contributes to the reduction in the spread of the ‘variance from the County average’ for the whole of Newport, this technical improvement is marginal and would be at too great a cost in electors’ identity with the area in which they live.

With many recent and proposed housing developments in Newport it is believed a Community Review should take place before an Electoral Review as the Commission’s requirement to work with the current community boundaries presents it with an impossible task to make satisfactory electoral arrangements.

Alway Branch Labour Party wrote to object to the proposal and noted that the councillors in Alway had developed close working links with many community groups and that an increase in ward size would make it impossible for them to maintain their current standard of representation.

-6- Appendix 5

Caerleon Labour Party wrote that the draft proposal has two fundamental flaws i.e. the proposed reduction of the number of councillors from 50 to 45 and the amalgamation of various wards. On the former there is a strong willingness across the political spectrum to put Newport ‘on the map’ in terms of attractive destinations to work, play and educate oneself. Given the potential for growth in a relatively short space of time, it makes no practical, political or economic sense to reduce the number of councillors. On examination it is believed that the Commission has made an error in its figures. The proposal would leave an ever growing City with a fundamental weakness at the heart of local democracy. The City will grow over the next few years and there is concern that there will not be a strong and robust political infrastructure to cope and deal with these new developments. The proposal would be a retrospective step and be more of a hindrance than a help to the development of the City and the furtherance of local democracy. The proposed amalgamations of wards appear to have been taken by someone who knows nothing of the history, culture and socio-economic mix of the City. The glaring omission from the proposal is an understanding of the ‘mix’ of people, businesses and organisations which constitute and make-up the City. Each ward/district has its own needs, culture and history. It has evolved over the centuries and individual wards and districts treasure their unique place in and contribution towards the building of Newport. A number of the proposed amalgamations, especially those for super-large wards are wrong and will not work. The contention made in the Labour Groups letter is also supported.

Gaer and Maesglas Branch Labour Party wrote to object to the proposal and that it did not respect the fundamental building blocks of community and electoral areas in Newport. Specifically, the Gaer and Tredegar Park Wards proposal was objected to on the following grounds; Gaer is an amalgamation with Maesglas with deep community loyalties and a tradition of cooperation. The proposal to merge with Tredegar Park would create an imbalance to the detriment of all three communities and lacking any real identity. Maesglas, an area of considerable social deprivation would lose out to the more populous Tredegar Park and lacking any identity spanning three Communities First localities. The amalgamation would pose considerable challenges to elected members, being overly large and be extremely difficult for local members to forge relationships with voters. The current councillor to electorate ratio in Newport is 1:2055, the proposed reduction of the Council to 45 seats it will increase to 1:2283, this is believed to be fundamentally at odds with the directions of the Minister. The merger of Gaer and Tredegar Park would lead to elected members being too remote from the electorate and result in reduced turnout at elections. Regarding the Minister’s Directions, as it relates to the Gaer and Tredegar Park proposal, it is not believed that it will be broadly supported by the electorate of either of the existing wards. The present proposals also do not satisfy the requirement contained in Schedule 11 of the Local Government Act 1972, in that the proposals pay insufficient heed to local community ties. The proposed merger would mean ignoring the distinctiveness of separate communities each with a character of its own.

Malpas Branch Labour Party wrote to object to the proposed amalgamation of the Malpas and Bettws Wards. The wards consider themselves as two separate communities with a physical boundary dividing them.

-7- Appendix 5 Ringland Branch Labour Party wrote that the proposals for the Alway and Ringland did not respect the building blocks of community and electoral areas. It was also felt that indications at the Newport seminar, that there would be no fundamental redesign of council boundaries were somewhat misleading.

The proposal was strongly objected to on the following grounds;

1. The proposed ward would be overly large with over 13,000 electors making it difficult to forge relationships with members, very remote to the electorate and inimical to the concept of democratic accountability. 2. The proposed change in relation to the Directions from the Minister (Appendix 3) Paragraph 4(1)(d) fall outside the requirement as it will not be “broadly supported” by the electorate. 3. Related to Dr Brian Gibbons AM, Minister for Social Justice and Local Government letter of 12th May 2009 in that the proposal did not satisfy the requirement contained in Schedule 11 of the 1972 Act and paid little or no heed to local community ties.

Rogerstone Branch Labour Party wrote to object to the draft Newport proposal. The rejection by the Commission of a proposal for three single member electoral divisions within Rogerstone was based solely on the number of electors in the three wards. An electoral division based on the West ward having a projected elector to councillor ratio of 3,155 was felt by the Commission to be too high. It is suggested that a preferred solution would be to make the West a two councillor electoral division, giving a ratio of 1,578. Should the figure be considered too low it is suggested that the electorate projections originally used would predate the clearance of the Novellis site and would anticipate some housing development over the relevant timescale. It is also believed that the Commission have given too much weight in the Review to issues of electoral parity and taken too rigid an attitude to the 1,750 figure. No other arguments are put forward for the proposals and no consideration is given to the need to achieve electoral divisions that are meaningful to voters and reflect genuine local communities.

Shaftesbury Branch Labour Party wrote to object to the proposed joining of Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury. The two areas have substantially different socio-economic and demographic profiles. The resulting ward is too large and remote from the electorate, especially when taking into account new housing developments. The Minister’s Directions and letter dated 12th May 2009 which stated that that the change should be “broadly supported” by the electorate and “boundaries which are easily identifiable and which recognise local community ties” have not been taken into account. It is requested that the status quo be maintained.

Tredegar Park Ward Labour Party wrote to object to the proposal for the Tredegar Park Ward as it would make the electorate more distant from their councillors. There is also a river which separates the Tredegar Park and Gaer Wards acting as a natural boundary which should be taken into account. New developments would increase the electorate requiring more councillors and that the proposed ward should have five councillors rather than four. It is suggested that the whole population of the ward should be taken into account not just the electorate and that changes to the boundaries of the ward could be made.

-8- Appendix 5 Gaer Communities First wrote to object to the proposed merger of the Gaer and Tredegar Electoral Wards as the individuality of the community may be lost. The proposal includes three Communities First Sub Wards, which may result in the WAG reducing the number of Communities First Areas.

Maesglas Communities First wrote to object to the proposed merger of the Gaer and Tredegar Electoral Wards as the community needs and priorities may be lost with the proposed change.

A resident expressed the view that Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury areas are communities with distinct geography, transport and demographics and should remain as separate wards. Allt-yr-yn is an upland area while Shaftesbury is largely low-lying, Allt-yr-yn is on the other side of the ‘valley’ and historically, physically cut off from the Shaftesbury Ward. The suggestion that there are good road links between the wards is incorrect. The wards are only linked by Queens Hill Road and Barrack Hill. At rush hour these roads are frequently congested. There is also no bus route that runs through both wards and no bus links the major roads of Fields and Risca Road in Allt-yr-yn and Malpas Road in Shaftesbury. Neither ward share local shopping facilities nor frequent the same pubs. There is also a socioeconomic divide between the two wards with Allt-yr-yn being more affluent than those of Shaftesbury. For the sake of a slight improvement in elector to councillor ratios, the proposed merger would marry together two very different parts of Newport whose communities are unlikely to share the same economic and social life, needs and facilities and thus have differing local political interests which need to be catered for separately. Should a change need to be made involving the Shaftesbury Ward, a merger with Malpas Ward is a more natural arrangement following a major transport link. The combined ward could be called Malpas.

A resident wrote to object to the proposed reduction in the number of councillors in Liswerry as there are over 1000 new houses being built and the large size of the Ward would be too much for 3 councillors.

A resident wrote to express her objection to the proposed reduction in the number of councillors in the Lliswerry Ward. The social and planning issues combined with the councillors strong links with the community and police would be harmed by any reduction in their number.

A resident wrote to object to the proposed joining of Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury as the local identity would be lost.

A resident wrote agreeing to the draft proposal overall and specifically the proposed Beechwood and St Julians electoral division. The proposed name of Beechwood and St Julians is also acceptable with there being no need for a Welsh language alternative as the names have been in use for some considerable time.

A resident wrote to say with the introduction of cabinet member’s decision-making in local authorities several years ago and the implementation of a call centre for enquires regarding Council services fewer elected members are need in Newport Council. If an elector is dissatisfied with the outcome of an enquiry at the call centre or with Officers of the Council, a customer can contact the cabinet member of the service in question directly via various communication methods.

-9- Appendix 5 Elected members who are not cabinet members add little or no benefit to the democratic process. Scrutiny of cabinet members would be better served by the electorate. The direction stated that there should be a minimum of 30 councillors and a maximum of 75 councillors. In the letter dated 12th May 2009 from the Minister he stated that “the ratio is to be worked towards and not a goal to achieve”. Therefore, I hope the Commission will recommend one member per ward irrespective of the size of the ward. This would achieve the retention of existing ward boundaries and a cost and efficiency saving in employing less Councillors.

A resident wrote to object to the proposed reduction in the number of councillors in Lliswerry to 3.

Two residents wrote as residents of the Shaftesbury Ward to object to the proposed joining of Allt-yr-yn and Shaftesbury, as the identity of the Shaftesbury Ward would be lost.

A resident wrote to say that he would feel let down and under represented if the number of councillors are reduced to three within the Lliswerry Ward, as there are many new homes being built.

A resident wrote to say that she objected to the combining of the Shaftesbury and Allt-yr- yn communities as they had nothing in common and felt that Allt-yr-yn would swamp the wishes of the Shaftesbury community.

Two residents wrote to object to the proposed reduction to three councillors within the Lliswerry Ward when new houses were being built and that as local residents and business people, it would mean that they would not be given the attention they deserved.

A resident wrote to object to the proposed reduction in the number of councillors in Lliswerry for the following reasons; Under representation (over 1100 new homes); Only 231 loss from Nash; Antisocial behaviour (interaction councillors with police etc); Councillors unable to fulfil work load effectively.

A resident wrote to say that she objected to the combining of the Shaftesbury and Allt-yr- yn communities as they were very different socially and geographically some distance from each other.

A resident wrote as a Lliswerry resident to object to the proposed reduction in the number of councillors in Lliswerry to 3.

A resident wrote to object to the proposed reduction to three councillors in the Liswerry Ward as the ward could be under represented due to an increased workload as the number of electorate continues to increase.

A resident wrote to say that the old council estates had endemic problems requiring a great deal of time and effort and the proposed Alway and Ringland ward would lead to an increased workload for the councillors leading to a grave disservice to the local communities and the councillors who serve them.

A resident wrote to say the Commission’s proposals are too radical and will result in the loss of local ties and local accountability.

-10- Appendix 5 The current average ratio of councillors to electors is 1:2,055 with an electorate of 102,726. There are only two electoral divisions that the ratio is below the recommended 1:1,750 minimum. These anomalies can be mitigated without the wholesale merging of electoral divisions and the loss of local accountability that would result. Especially important in the cases where former council estates would be merged with more affluent areas. Tredegar Park currently benefits from a dedicated councillor who can speak for the needs of the estate. If Tredegar Park were merged with Gaer this local, accountability would be lost. The same is true of Bettws and Malpas, Pillgwenlly and Stow Hill and other proposed mergers. Most existing electoral divisions can be left as they are. The Stow Hill ED will remain below parity, but its position as the city centre ED places extra demands on its councillors. There is potential for city-centre housing developments in conjunction with the proposed retail developments to increase the ratio over time. Cause for concern is electoral parity in the east of the city. This can be improved by removing Nash from the Liswerry ED (which retains 4 councillors) and forming two new electoral divisions out of the existing Llanwern and Langstone EDs:

Scheme 1:

ED1: Bishton, Goldcliff and Redwick (Current electorate 2,011 - 1 councillor, suggested name Caldicot Level) ED2: Langstone, Llanwern, Llanvaches, Nash and Penhow (Current electorate 3,925 - 2 councillors, suggested name Llanwern and Langstone)

If the projected electorate figures are reached, then the ED2 would have an electorate of 8,172 and be represented by 4 councillors. This scheme has a better parity than scheme 2, but the EDs are not particularly identifiable areas.

Scheme 2:

ED1: Bishton, Goldcliff, Nash and Redwick (Current electorate 2,242 -1 councillor, suggested name Caldicot Level) ED2: Llanwern, Langstone, Penhow, Llanvaches (Current electorate 3,694- 2 councillors, suggested name Langstone)

If the projected electorate figures are reached, then the ED2 would have an electorate of 7,974 and be represented by 4 councillors. This scheme has slightly worse parity than scheme 1 but has the advantage of uniting the historic three parishes of Nash, Goldcliff and in a single easily identifiable ED.

Meeting held on 20th April 2010 - Commission Chair, member, Secretary and Review Officer attended a meeting with the Leaders and Managing Director of Newport City Council.

The following issues were raised in the meeting:

• The reduction of Councillor number to 45 raised and concerns about increasing workloads and demands on Councillors, particularly non- executive members within the developing scrutiny function and their roles on outside bodies and the impact of fewer councillors being available to carry out these roles.

-11- Appendix 5 • Councillors considered the proposals would lead to more remoteness within wards and would lead to less communities being able to identify their councillor, particularly in the 5 member wards. The proposals would provide fewer opportunities for residents to get to know their individual representatives.

• They also considered that there was likely to more by elections and that bye elections would be more expensive if the proposals were adopted. He could not support the proposals for a significant number of 5- member wards and asked for evidence of where this had proved to more successful than wards with fewer representatives.

• There could be possible confusion in the wards as to which Councillor to contact with local issues. She considered that some individual may feel obliged to contact all 5 and that would lead to a duplication of workloads.

• The wards needed to be based on communities, rather than mathematical formulae.

• A community review was necessary before any proposals for electoral divisions be considered.

• The Electoral wards of Shaftesbury, Alter-yr-yn, Bettws and Malpas as they were distinct Communities.

• The size of wards within the urban communities and difficulties which would be encountered by ward councillors physically covering such significant areas. Geographically and topographically some of the large wards would be difficult to cover, such as Always / Ringland which was very hilly and challenging to get around. It would be difficult for Councillors to be recognised across the breadth of the larger wards and the huge emphasis on case work would be difficult to maintain under the proposals.

-12-