LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES
REVIEW OF PART OF THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF CEREDIGION AND PEMBROKESHIRE IN THE AREA OF THE COMMUNITY OF ST. DOGMAELS
REPORT AND PROPOSALS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW
4. DRAFT PROPOSALS
5. SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS
6. THE AFFECT OF ANY PROPOSALS ON THE COUNTY OF CEREDIGION
7. ASSESSMENT
8. PROPOSALS
9. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS
10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
11. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT
The Local Government Boundary Commission For Wales Caradog House 1-6 St Andrews Place CARDIFF CF10 3BE Tel Number: (029) 20395031 Fax Number: (029) 20395250 E-mail: [email protected] www.lgbc-wales.gov.uk
Edwina Hart AM MBE Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities The National Assembly for Wales
REVIEW OF PART OF THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF CEREDIGION AND PEMBROKESHIRE IN THE AREA OF THE COMMUNITY OF ST. DOGMAELS
REPORT AND PROPOSALS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales (the Commission), have completed the review of part of the boundary between the Counties of Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire in the area of the Community of St. Dogmaels and present our proposals for a new boundary.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 It is our view that, in the interests of effective and convenient local government the village of St. Dogmaels should be combined within one principal council area. Having considered the evidence available to us we have concluded that the Community of St. Dogmaels should be in the principal council area of Pembrokeshire.
3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW
3.1 Section 54(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 (the Act) provides that the Commission may in consequence of a review conducted by them make proposals to the National Assembly for Wales for effecting changes appearing to the Commission desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.
Procedure
3.2 Section 60 of the Act lays down procedural guidelines, which are to be followed in carrying out a review. In line with that guidance, we wrote on 2 March 2000 to Ceredigion County Council, Pembrokeshire County Council, Cardigan Town Council, St. Dogmaels Community Council, the Members of Parliament for the local constituencies, the Assembly Members for the area, 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. We invited the Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire County Councils to submit suggestions for changes to the boundary. We also publicised our intention to conduct the review in local newspapers circulating in the area and asked the councils to display a number of public notices.
1
4. DRAFT PROPOSALS
4.1 We received representations from Ceredigion County Council, Pembrokeshire County Council, Cardigan Town Council, St. Dogmaels Community Council, Jackie Lawrence MP, Simon Thomas MP, Elin Jones AM, 2 councillors and 189 other interested bodies and residents. These representations were taken into consideration and summarised in our Draft Proposals published on 15 December 2000.
4.2 Our Draft Proposals recommended that the whole of the village of St. Dogmaels be combined within one unitary authority and that the authority should be Pembrokeshire. We proposed that the boundary between the Counties of Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire in the area of the Community of St. Dogmaels should be realigned as shown in green on the map at Appendix 9 to include the areas marked Area A and Area B within the County of Pembrokeshire.
4.3 Copies of the Draft Proposals were sent to all the councils, bodies and individuals referred to in paragraph 2.2 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 Ceredigion County Council, Pembrokeshire County Council and the Commission and were also deposited at the offices of the Dyfed- Powys Police Authority.
5. SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS
5.1 We received representations from Ceredigion County Council, Pembrokeshire County Council, Cardigan Town Council, St. Dogmaels Community Council, Cilgerran Community Council, Jackie Lawrence MP, Dr Richard Edwards AM, Delyth Evans AM, Glyn Davies AM, two County Councillors, 3 Community and Town Councillors, 11 other organisations and 572 residents. A letter was also received on behalf of residents of the additional areas to the south east of St. Dogmaels that Pembrokeshire County Council suggested be transferred from Ceredigion to the Communities of Cilgerran and St. Dogmaels in Pembrokeshire. All of these representations were considered carefully before formulating our proposals.
5.2 Ceredigion County Council submitted a report. The full text of this report may be found at Appendix 1. The main points of the report are as follows:
The Council believes that the Boundary Commission has not addressed the main issue, namely the provision of effective and convenient local government services in the combined St. Dogmaels village by one local authority. The Council agrees that the village should be “combined within one authority” and notes that both Councils have indicated that they “are confident that they would be able to provide an appropriate level of service to the combined village of St. Dogmaels”.
The Council however takes issue with the reasons given in the Commission’s Draft Proposals for stating that the combined village should be placed within Pembrokeshire as follows:
2
i. Paragraph 3.12 of the Draft Proposals Report lists improvements in areas of service delivery, which, it is claimed, would follow if the combined village was located in Pembrokeshire. However, the same principle is true if Ceredigion administered the area. ii. Paragraph 3.13 states that “It is clear that some degree of cross-boundary provision of services would still be required whichever county the new community was in”. The County Council is at a loss to understand, should the combined village be placed in Ceredigion, which services its population would need to receive from Pembrokeshire County Council.
It is the crux of the County Council’s case that the residents of the village currently turn to the town of Cardigan for services such as the library, leisure centre, swimming pool, secondary education etc and, with Ceredigion providing all the other services such as Social Services, Education, refuse collection, highways etc to a combined village, there would be no need for the population to be provided with any services at all by Pembrokeshire County Council, thus resulting in more effective and convenient local government. iii. In Paragraph 3.14 the Commission considered that the level of council charges was not “a primary reason for wanting the combined village of St. Dogmaels to be included within Pembrokeshire”. However, Ceredigion County Council pointed out that this is listed as the SECOND point made by St Dogmaels villagers. This hardly suggests that it isn’t one of the main reasons for them opting for the combined village to be placed in Pembrokeshire rather than Ceredigion. iv. The Council contend that the Commission’s statements that the River Teifi is a natural boundary (Paragraph 3.16) and that Bridgend is an integral part of Cardigan Town are contradictory. The suggested break-up of the area south of the river Teifi, in the view of the County Council, is therefore highly inconsistent and does not lead itself to effective and convenient local government. v. It is the Council’s view that the Commission has given more weight to emotion than to effective and convenient local government. It is the contention of the Council that the people currently living on the Pembrokeshire side of St. Dogmaels are regular users of the services provided by the Ceredigion County Council in Cardigan Town, and paid for by Ceredigion Council Tax payers, and that it is the intended purpose of the St. Dogmaels Community Council to wish to continue to see its people benefit from these services yet pay their Council Tax to another Authority. The people of St. Dogmaels would therefore benefit from paying lower Council Tax and still enjoy the services provided in Cardigan Town by the Ceredigion County Council and paid for by the people of Ceredigion. vi. The differing Council Tax levels in Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion are the product of a national formula, which is used to distribute resources between unitary councils. The formula is frequently reviewed and a recent review has seen the reduction in the differential between levels of Council Tax. As Ceredigion has consistently set its Council Tax levels below the National Assembly guidelines, in time, this is likely to result in an equalization of Council Taxes between the two authorities. vii. Ceredigion County Council contend that the people of St. Dogmaels make full use of the services provided by Ceredigion County Council and that it is only reasonable
3
for them to contribute to the costs of service provision. There is no evidence to suggest that this cost of service provision is higher in Ceredigion - on the contrary, it is the Revenue Support Grant distribution formula, which governs the level of Council Tax. It is undoubtedly more accountable if residents pay the Council, which provides the services. This is the essence of effective Local Government and public representation.
viii. The County Council States that if St Dogmaels is transferred to Pembrokeshire, there will be a significant, and disproportionate switch of resources in favour of Pembrokeshire at the expense of the Council Tax payers of Ceredigion and it cannot be equitable to expect the Council Taxpayers of Ceredigion to meet the additional tax burden.
ix. The Council noted that the Commission (in a letter of 17 January 2001 in response to the Council’ s initial response to the Draft Proposals) states that the County Council did not provide any evidence that losing part of its administrative area would be detrimental, in terms of effective and convenient local government, to the Authority as a whole. The Commission’s proposals, in the view of the Council, by making more users of the Cardigan–based services Council Taxpayers in Pembrokeshire, would exacerbate the situation and create more inequality and bad feeling in the area.
x. In conclusion, the Council considered that the proposed changes would therefore have a detrimental effect on the ability of Ceredigion County Council to provide the current level of services throughout the County. It would adversely affect effective and convenient Local Government not only in the environs of Cardigan but throughout the whole County.
5.3 Pembrokeshire County Council submitted a report that was considered and approved by the Policy & Resources Committee. The full text of this report may be found at Appendix 2. The report resolved that: -
Pembrokeshire County Council propose to the Local Government Boundary Commission:
i. that this Council expresses strong support for the proposals made by the Boundary Commission to unify the St Dogmaels community within Pembrokeshire by including Area A and B (on the map at Appendix 6 of the Draft Proposals report).
ii. that in the interests of effective and convenient local government and based on very strong local support, Areas C and D (on the map at Appendix 7 of the Draft Proposals report) become part of Pembrokeshire, contained within St Dogmaels and Cilgerran Community Councils respectively.
The Council also brought to our attention, the questionnaire that Cardigan Town Council had circulated to all residents in the area of Cardigan town. A number of concerns have been expressed by the local member and residents of St Dogmaels regarding the way this exercise has been carried out and this Council made the following comments:
• the covering letter for the questionnaire is emotive and makes a number of statements that could be interpreted as scare mongering.
• the questionnaire was distributed to all residents living in the area of Cardigan town. Residents were not asked to supply their name/address details. A space was provided for
4
a postcode to be entered but this is not mandatory. It is considered that this is unrepresentative to the boundary issue in question and is therefore invalid.
5.4 Cardigan Town Council submitted a report (Appendix 3) making the following points:
• The Commission has failed to give due attention to the evidence presented to it.
• The Commission has failed to give legal reasons to support their findings as effective and convenient.
• The Commission has failed to consider the impact on both sides of the proposed boundary, Cardigan, Ceredigion and St Dogmaels. Further, the precedent set will make the future Cilgerran-Pembrokeshire boundary review almost impossible to counter.
• The maps (see enclosure 1) show quite graphically that Cardigan Town will reduced in area by some 45%. The maps used by the Commission were misleading as they failed to show the whole town and the impact on it by their proposals. Map number 2 demonstrates what will happen if St Dogmaels and the ‘extra bit’ wanted by Cilgerran and Pembrokeshire is transferred to Pembrokeshire. If St Dogmaels is lost then Cilgerran will obviously have to go the same way for the same reasons. Future growth of the town will be limited due to the geographic constraints of the proposed remnant of Cardigan town.
• The map (number 1) shows that the outline of Cardigan forms almost a circle. St Dogmaels forms about l2° of that 360° and for the unification of St Dogmaels approximately a 120° slice is to be removed from the circle (180° when including the Cilgerran proposals). Surely it would be more convenient to include the small area into the much larger area, as shown in map number 3. This clearly shows a discrete administrative area that is indivisible and in the same valley.
• The town council take the view that this combined area should be in Ceredigion for the reasons stated within and before.
• Historically there has been a failure of cross boundary co-operation from Pembrokeshire County to support both service provision and development in Cardigan. Had this support been forthcoming then there would have been more and better services available for the mutual benefit of both communities.
5.5 St. Dogmaels Community Council submitted a report (Appendix 4) in which they consider that the case for re-unification under the authority of Pembrokeshire is overwhelming and feels that the following points illustrate this conclusion:
• Pembrokeshire Services are perceived to be more reliable, efficient and cost effective; they also have a service depot in Fishguard.
• The Pembrokeshire area of the village has the larger population.
• The Stabilisation Drainage Programme, following the St. Dogmaels landslip of 1994, is ongoing, expensive to maintain and requires continuity of expertise.
• St. Dogmaels is historically and intrinsically rooted in Pembrokeshire.
• St. Dogmaels is detached and has a separate identity from Cardigan Town.
5
• Village organisations receive continued support from the Community Council.
• Many current projects are reliant on Pembrokeshire funding.
• Pembrokeshire’s planning policy is considered to be more aesthetically sensitive.
• Objective 1 applications (two feasibility studies have recently been conducted).
• Over 90% of the population of St. Dogmaels wish to have the village re-unified under the authority of Pembrokeshire.
5.6 Cilgerran Community Council considered that in the interests of efficiency of effective local government that Areas C and D on the map at Appendix 7 of the Commission’s Draft Proposals report be considered for transfer to Pembrokeshire. They consider that Area D should become part of the Cilgerran Community as the vast majority of residents have for some time been eager to become part of Pembrokeshire. Pembrokeshire County Council already, on a weekly basis, collect the refuse of some of the residents even though they reside in Ceredigion.
5.7 Jackie Lawrence MP expressed her full support for the views of St Dogmaels Community Council and the residents of St. Dogmaels in their wish for the village to be reunified according to the Commission’s Draft Proposals report.
5.8 Dr Richard Edwards AM wrote in support of the proposal to reunify St Dogmaels within Pembrokeshire. He considered that a variety of factors militated in favour of St. Dogmaels being reunified under the county of Pembrokeshire, including historical circumstances, and the will of the people of the community itself.
5.9 Delyth Evans AM expressed her support of the proposal to reunify St Dogmaels within the county of Pembrokeshire.
5.10 Glyn Davies AM, after looking into the matter and discussing the issue with several people in the area, is of the opinion that St Dogmaels should remain in Pembrokeshire.
5.11 County Councillor Stephen Watkins (St. Dogmaels, Moylegrove and Nevern electoral division, Pembrokeshire County Council) supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals and also supported Pembrokeshire County Council’s suggestion that Area D should also be moved into its area.
5.12 County Councillor Mair Morris (Aberteifi/Cardigan electoral division, Ceredigion County Council) was disappointed at the conclusion reached by the commissioners in their draft report. She did not believe that it was going to provide efficient and convenient local government, for the following reasons:
a. as Cardigan Town is but a stone throw from St. Dogmaels, how can it be more convenient and efficient for the residents of St. Dogmaels to be administered by an Authority with which the nearest town is some 20 miles away?
b. Ceredigion is already a smaller authority than Pembrokeshire, this decision can only exacerbate the situation. Less funding for Ceredigion will inevitably lead to less finance for the provision of services in Cardigan. Services that will continue to be
6
needed by the residents of St. Dogmaels, whether they are in Pembrokeshire or Ceredigion.
c. Cheaper Council Tax and free bin liners should not be considered as a good enough reason to influence the decision of any of the residents affected.
d. In the Draft Report, the Commission seems to misunderstand the implications of the loss of precept for Cardigan Town Council. The money that is spent on services and projects in Cardigan benefit both Cardigan Town residents AND the residents of St. Dogmaels.
e. Councillor Morris does not understand how, in the report, the Commission can state that the river Teifi “represents a clearly defined natural boundary”, and then go on to say that the Bridgend area, on the other side of the river Teifi “is an integral part of Cardigan Town”. Councillor Morris is of the opinion that St. Dogmaels is also an integral part of Cardigan Town as there is a pavement linking the two areas and also over the past few years, new housing built along the Cardigan-St. Dogmaels road very nearly links the two communities.
Councillor Morris considers that the proposals as they stand would be to the detriment of Cardigan Town, and ultimately will have a negative knock-on effect on a very wide area including the residents of St Dogmaels.
5.13 Councillor Bob Doyle (Cardigan Town Council), in a letter sent to the local press, considered that at a time when the base industry of the area is going through a crisis and money is scarce; resources need to be pulled together rather than splitting the main area of population and therefore the source of potential revenue, into two separate local authorities. Councillor Doyle stated that the best result for all would be to leave it as it is.
5.14 Councillor Graham Thomas (Cardigan Town Council) considered that allowing the boundary change in favour of Pembrokeshire would do more harm to Ceredigion than good to Pembrokeshire. He was of the opinion that the status quo should prevail. Councillor Thomas expressed the view that it is Pembrokeshire’s intention to eventually take over the area of land on the bank of the River Teifi which would cause Cardigan and Ceredigion to lose the abattoir, Pentood industrial estate, the cattle market and the historic buildings, one of which houses the Heritage Centre. Councillor Thomas also stated that houses are continually being built along the main road between Cardigan Town and St Dogmaels and the two will become indistinguishable within twenty years.
5.15 Councillor Valerie Fletcher (Vice Chairman, St Dogmaels Community Council) stated that she and many Pembrokeshire residents of St Dogmaels serve on committees and make financial contributions to Cardigan Town’s many organisations. The Councillor also reported that feedback from the village-based organisations is that the support from Cardigan has not been of equal measure. Whilst organisations do receive donations from the Town Council, likewise Cardigan receives donations from St Dogmaels Community Council, whose precept is around 90% less. Councillor Fletcher also noted that whilst the Community Council has reduced its precept for two years in succession, Cardigan increased its precept last year. Councillor Fletcher acknowledged the efforts that Cardigan Town has made to improve the Town and access vital funding, but she emphasised that very large majority of the entire population of St Dogmaels wish to be re-unified within
7
Pembrokeshire. She considered that that both Cardigan Town and Ceredigion County Council should respect these wishes.
5.16 Plaid Cymru Ceredigion Regional Committee stated that there as there was no unanimous view over this boundary, and that a reduction in Ceredigion’s rateable value would mean a reduction in the services provided by the town of Cardigan for the public either side of the river in Cardigan; they felt strongly that the present boundary should not be changed and that St Dogmaels should remain within Ceredigion.
5.17 Rhys Sinnett, (Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, Plaid Cymru Preseli- Pembrokeshire) having spoken to the St Dogmaels Community Council and taken soundings from local persons, found that there was a clear and overwhelming feeling in favour of the unification of the whole of the village of St. Dogmaels. He considers that the present arrangements cause considerable confusion and not inconsiderable disquiet amongst a significant proportion of village residents. He found that the feeling was overwhelmingly in favour of the village being unified within Pembrokeshire for historical, administrative and social reasons. Mr Sinnett asked that full weight be given to these views and he stated that it is his belief that residents clearly appear to identify with the county of Pembrokeshire.
5.18 Ordnance Survey reported that a small team of Boundary Specialists visited the area of St Dogmaels to consider the boundaries proposed in the Commission’s Draft Proposals report. They suggested several minor amendments to the proposed boundaries in order to avoid the boundary following poor ground features.
5.19 The following comments have been received from local associations in the St Dogmaels/ Cardigan Town area:
• The Parochial Church Council of St Thomas stated that the village church and the vicarage are in Pembrokeshire and the church hall is in Ceredigion, and it considered that being administered by two local authorities was a waste of money. They considered that the village should be united in Pembrokeshire. The views of the Parochial Church Council was supported in a separate representation by the Vicar of St. Thomas who whilst noting the views of the church, also reports of the inequality of local authority services within his parish, which covers the whole of St Dogmaels. He considered that the village should be in Pembrokeshire because historically the village has always been in Pembrokeshire and the majority of the village are currently in Pembrokeshire. The village was only originally split so that Cardigan could gain politically. In the vicar’s opinion the village would receive better services from Pembrokeshire, and Pembrokeshire offer a better advantage with tourism.
• Cymdeithas Cadw’r Sân is an autonomous local heritage fishing organisation, who although autonomous maintain strong links with St. Dogmaels Community and Pembrokeshire County Councils. The committee wished to register support for the draft recommendation that St. Dogmaels be re-unified under the authority of Pembrokeshire County Council.
• Poppit Sands Surf Life Saving Club, are funded by Pembrokeshire County Council who also own the clubhouse. They stated that it was important that the beach at Poppit should remain within the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. The Club receives financial support from both Cardigan Town and St Dogmaels Community Council and has members from both Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire and has experience difficulty with
8
this cross-border co-operation. They stated that the present county boundary is untidy and that the unification of St. Dogmaels as one community would be a sensible decision. They considered that a consensus of the residents of St Dogmaels would be a fair way of deciding which county they wish to be administered by.
• The Station Branch Management Committee of the Cardigan Lifeboat Station Branch of the RNLI have written to lodge their unanimous support of the draft proposal for the reunification of St. Dogmaels within Pembrokeshire.
• The proposal to unite St. Dogmaels within Pembrokeshire has also been received from the Glanteifion Gardening Society, the St Dogmaels Short Mat Bowling Club, the Abbey Shakespeare Players, Clwb Pel Droed Ieuenctid Llandudoch, the St Dogmaels Luncheon Club and the St Dogmaels Eisteddfod Committee.
• Llwybrau Llandudoch (St Dogmaels Footpaths), a local voluntary group that maintains footpaths in both Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire, wrote in support of St. Dogmaels Community Council in their efforts to unite the village under Pembrokeshire. The group report that they receive support and materials from Menter Preseli, a sub committee of Pembrokeshire County Council, which enable them to maintain paths in both counties. From their experience, gained in the five years of their existence, they believe that Pembrokeshire are more enthusiastic about the footpath network, which is why they support the proposals.
• Mr Beynon-Lewis wrote as a member of the executive committee of Menter Aberteifi; Chairman of the Cardigan Chamber of Trade, Commerce and Tourism; Vice Chairman of the Ceredigion Chamber of Commerce; and a member of the Ceredigion Objective One Partnership Management Board. Mr Beynon-Lewis considered that the proposed changes were being made for emotional and political reasons rather than the economy of the area and the level of services that can be provided by Cardigan to residents in both counties for 15 miles around. He stated that there would be a very real threat to the services and economic viability of Cardigan Town. The considerable effort and public resources invested in Cardigan to try to reverse the catastrophic economic decline of the last decade would be undermined. He stated that the views of the St Dogmaels residents are misguided in their belief that they would fare better under Pembrokeshire. As an owner of properties on both sides of the border, he considered this to be a fantasy. He stated that it is the Commission’s duty to take into account the opinion of all those who could be affected by the change, not just those of who believe they might benefit from such changes. He therefore expects that an official referendum be undertaken of the residents of both St Dogmaels and Cardigan communities. He urged the Commission to reconsider the proposals and maintain the status quo in the best interests of all concerned.
5.20 We received 572 representations from residents of the village of St. Dogmaels, 476 from the Pembrokeshire part and 96 from the Ceredigion part. All of the residents supported the Commission’s proposal to unify the village and all of them supported the proposal that the unified village should be in Pembrokeshire. Most of the 572 representations from the residents of St Dogmaels, both in Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion, were made by pro forma slip stating support for the draft proposals. Of those some 50 letters, which were not, pro forma letters raised the following points in support of the Draft Proposals:
9
• A number of Ceredigion residents of St Dogmaels expressed the opinion that road maintenance, hedge cutting and rubbish collection should be conducted by Pembrokeshire as currently they often are “left out”. Some of the representations considered that there would be more efficient and cost effective services in the area if Pembrokeshire County Council provided them.
• Concern was also raised over the ability of Ceredigion County Council accurately to identify which St Dogmaels residents were located in their county in respect of provision of services.
• A resident stated that they find ridiculous the fact that one part of their property is in Ceredigion and another part in Pembrokeshire.
• A resident stated that he sympathised with the Cardigan view that St Dogmaels’ residents should contribute to the services provided to them by Cardigan Town (and Ceredigion). He pointed out, however, that they must provide services to a large area including not only Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire, but Carmarthenshire as well, and as such did not see the transfer of such a small area to Pembrokeshire having that much effect on Ceredigion.
• Another resident stated that they believed Ceredigion County Council to be inefficient, citing the expenditure in narrowing the streets of Cardigan Town where the money, in her opinion, would have been better spent on a multi-storey car park to alleviate traffic in the town.
• Many residents commented on the fact that the Pembrokeshire Coastal National Park footpath starts/ends in St Dogmaels, and should retain its identity. Other concerns were raised regarding Poppit and Poppit Sands and the effect of their loss to Ceredigion would have on the local economy.
• Others acknowledged fully that the Bridgend ward is an integral part of Cardigan Town and should remain so.
• A number of residents pointed out that St Dogmaels was a village in its own right and not a satellite of Cardigan.
• A resident noted that Cardigan Meals on Wheels were under such financial pressure in recent years that they could not take on any more clients. Following this, St Dogmaels had set up their own Meals on Wheels service, funded by Pembrokeshire, and supply not only Pembrokeshire residents, but 6 Ceredigion residents as well.
• Some residents raised the difference in Council Tax levels, and the differences in levels and quality of services received.
• Other residents pointed out that, although are in Pembrokeshire, they do pay for the services they use in Cardigan, for example, £15 per month to be a member of the Cardigan Leisure Centre. A number of St. Dogmaels residents raise funds for local causes, one cited a neighbour who held a coffee morning in her garden and raised a £1,000 towards the Lifeboat Station.
• One resident raised the point that there was a rivalry between Cardigan Town and St Dogmaels in sports and social events.
10
• A local businessman commented that because he is in Ceredigion and not Pembrokeshire he is paying, in his opinion, the highest business taxes in Wales, and whilst supporting the Commission’s Draft Proposals, called for larger County Councils to be formed to cut overheads and costs.
• Some residents complained about the Cardigan Town questionnaire, which they believe was unrepresentative and misleading, and without the requirement for a signature or address they believe the questionnaire to have lost credibility and integrity.
• Other residents took exception to news articles appearing in the Cardigan press attacking St Dogmaels and the Draft Proposals and they resent the terminology used to describe residents of the Community.
• Some residents believed Pembrokeshire to be more sympathetic to natural surroundings and Welsh tradition in their planning policies than Ceredigion. One resident feared that if the development and preservation of Poppit Sands at St Dogmaels were left to Ceredigion County Council that it would be turned into a mini-Blackpool.
• A large number of residents of both sides of the village questioned Ceredigion’s willingness and ability to monitor the landslip, or that they would have had the monies to rectify the problem when it originally occurred. Those who raised the issue of the landslip all stated that because of the support and confidence given to them by Pembrokeshire County Council, given all other considerations, they believe that the community should be unified under Pembrokeshire. Some feel that if not for Pembrokeshire County Council, then they would have had to evacuate their homes.
• A local farmer made representations against the proposals of Cardigan Town, which would “move” 2.17 hectares (1.3%) of his land into Ceredigion so that he would no longer be qualified to claim grants for that portion of land, as it would no longer be in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. The farmer also wanted to state that the 2.17 hectares is in a field of only 4.5 hectares. The farm concerned is also registered in Pembrokeshire to provide foodstuffs, so to continue using the 2.17 hectares for that purpose under Cardigans proposals would involve a considerable duplication of cost to the authorities and the farm.
• Residents also reported that the reason behind the area of St Dogmaels being transferred to Cardigan (shire) in the first place was so that the area had a large enough population to warrant a Member of Parliament in the 19th Century. They considered that this argument is no longer valid.
• Another resident commented that if Ceredigion County Council spent more money on services and less money on the Welsh Language then the confidence of residents would improve.
• Other residents reported that since the publication of the Commission’s Draft Report, for the first time that they can recall Cardigan Town Councillors have been visiting the village and calling at people’s front doors.
5.21 A letter was received on behalf of residents representing 14 of the 17 dwellings in Area D on the map at Appendix 7 of the Draft Proposals report. This area has been proposed for transfer to Pembrokeshire by Pembrokeshire County Council. Of the three remaining
11
dwellings, the resident of one had no specific views on the matter and the remaining 2 are unoccupied. The residents wrote in support of the proposal, arguing that:
• Area D is a rural sparsely populated area, which would incorporate naturally into Cilgerran Community, which is also predominantly rural.
• If Area A becomes part if Pembrokeshire, then the residents believe that this strengthens their case, as unless they were also transferred, then they would be in the only area of south of Cardigan still in Ceredigion.
• Many of the residents feel an affinity with Cilgerran Village and especially Penybryn, which is less than half a mile away from most of their properties.
• All residents are adamant that the level of service enjoyed by their Pembrokeshire neighbours is of better quality and more efficient. Pembrokeshire seem to achieve better value for taxpayers’ money.
• Most of the children residing in Area D attend Cilgerran Primary School.
• Many of the Ceredigion services, such as Social Services are based in Aberystwyth 40 miles to the north, where as Pembrokeshire Headquarters 25 miles away in Haverfordwest.
• All public transport currently enjoyed is provided by Pembrokeshire Council. Any senior citizen residing within Area D is unable to use a Ceredigion Pass on the buses that service our dwellings at least 5 times a day (one direction).
• The A478 (Ceredigion part) that services Area D is in winter salted by Pembrokeshire gritters based at Crymych 4 miles to the south. The nearest highways depot for Ceredigion is in Llandysul, which is 14 miles to the northeast.
• One resident in Area D at Nantperchellan, reported that their farm was 10 metres on the Ceredigion side of the Afon Piliau. The farm lane that services the farm is 95% in Pembrokeshire, and they have their rubbish collected by Pembrokeshire. A Pembrokeshire school bus passes the end of the access lane and generations of children from Nantperchellan had attended school in Cilgerran, Pembrokeshire. They also noted that though their immediate neighbours only have travel 2 miles to vote, they must travel 4 miles to Cardigan Town, despite never receiving any Cardigan or Ceredigion electoral material.
• Residents of Glanpwllafon, a similarly placed property to Nantperchellan, highlight the problems regarding a disused road bridge, which, due to a right of way, is maintained by both Highways Authorities. They believe it more sensible for Pembrokeshire authority with its Highway Service based at nearby Crymych to maintain the bridge. They also note that on the disused bridge is a Parish Boundary Stone, which states Parish of Bridell Pembrokeshire/Parish of St Dogmaels Pembrokeshire. They consider that history should be allowed to repeat itself for the benefit of local residents.
• Another Area D resident expresses her concern that Ceredigion Social Services are too removed from the residents of Ceredigion South, and Area D would, in her opinion, be far better served by Pembrokeshire Social Services.
12
6. THE EFFECT OF ANY PROPOSALS ON THE COUNTY OF CEREDIGION
6.1 In their representation Ceredigion County Council made the statement:
“If St Dogmaels is transferred to Pembrokeshire, there will be a significant, and disproportionate switch of resources in favour of Pembrokeshire at the expense of the Council Tax payers of Ceredigion. The main services in Cardigan will continue to be provided and funded by Ceredigion and it cannot be equitable to expect the Council Taxpayers of Ceredigion to meet the additional tax burden.”.
In their representation, Cardigan Town Council also made reference to this issue :
“The rates in the rump of Cardigan and across Ceredigion would have to rise by some £10 compensate for this loss”. [of St. Dogmaels].
6.2 We considered that this was an important issue and accordingly we asked Ceredigion County Council to provide their calculation of the effect of the Commission’s Draft Proposals on Ceredigion’s Council Tax and budget and to include details of how the figures are calculated. We also asked for similar information in respect of Cardigan Town’s precept and budget.
6.3 In response to our request Ceredigion County Council provided a report detailing the effect of our Draft Proposals on Ceredigion County’s council tax and budget and estimate of the effect on Cardigan Town’s precept and council tax. A copy of the report can be found at Appendix 5. Copies of the report were sent to Pembrokeshire County Council, Cardigan Town Council and St. Dogmaels Community Council. On 11 June 2001, officers of the Commission met with representatives of Ceredigion County Council where the Council expanded and clarified the comments made in their report.
6.4 Pembrokeshire County Council wrote making observations in response to Ceredigion County Council’s report. A copy of this response can be found at Appendix 6. The following is a summary of the response:
1. Pembrokeshire County Council consider that the council tax base issue taken on its own would not have any significant impact on either Council, and certainly not to the effect of £6.32 (Band D) suggested in Ceredigion’s report.
2. The Council also consider that it is misleading to suggest that any boundary change would, by virtue of changes in the Local Government Revenue Settlement, cause any increase whatsoever in council tax levels.
3. The Council question the assumptions made by Ceredigion County Council in respect of the estimated reductions in expenditure.
6.5 St. Dogmaels Community Council also wrote in response to Ceredigion County Council’s report. The Community Council wished to take issue with the number of council tax paying households (261) stated in the report. The Community Council believe there are 199 council tax paying households. The Community Council also noted that Ceredigion mention that the population involved is 400 whereas they had previously agreed with the Community Council’s figure of 307. The Community Council stated that the council tax finance issue is
13
irrelevant and should not have any bearing on the proposed boundary changes in St. Dogmaels. They maintained that “efficient and convenient local government” is not dependent on how one county balances its books.
6.6 A resident of St. Dogmaels having read Ceredigion’s report and Pembrokeshire’s response noted the difference in their Council Tax estimates. He stated that this aspect should not influence the decision. He considered that the total wealth of the area would remain unchanged. He added that if, in the course of time, one county can demonstrate that it has been financially disadvantaged by the minor population shift, surely some means of redress can be negotiated? He stated that, given the number of respondents in favour of unification under Pembrokeshire, the prime factor should be the will of the people.
6.7 We considered that in order to form an informed and independent view of this important issue, the services of an expert in local government finances should be employed by the Commission to conduct an investigation. A report was commissioned from Rita Hale & Associates Ltd. A summary of the report can be found at Appendix 7. We provided a copy of the report to Ceredigion County Council, Pembrokeshire County Council, Cardigan Town Council and St. Dogmaels Community Council.
6.8 Following the receipt of comments on the report prepared for the Commission by Rita Hale & Associates Ltd. it was discovered that the figures contained in the report were distorted by the double-counting of the reduction in the local taxbase. This resulted in:
• an overestimate of the Ceredigion County Council’s likely income from Revenue Support Grant; and
• an underestimate of the amount Ceredigion County Council would need to raise from Council Taxpayers – and thus the level of the Council Tax.
6.9 The figures were reworked using;
• the actual data for 2000-01;
• the adjusted expenditure and SSA figures coupled with Ceredigion County Council’s original estimate of the likely effect of the proposed boundary change on the Council Taxbase – ie a reduction of 251 Band D equivalent properties – Calculation 1; and
• the adjusted expenditure and SSA figures coupled with Ceredigion County Council’s revised estimate of the likely effect of the proposed boundary change on the Council Taxbase – ie a reduction in the Council Taxbase for grant distribution purposes of 169 Band D equivalents; and a reduction in the Council Taxbase for tax setting purposes of 162 Band D equivalents – Calculation 2.
6.10 The revised figures, set out in the tables at Appendix 8, show:
• increases in Council Tax for Ceredigion of £6.82 Band D (Calculation 1) and 6.36 Band D (Calculation 2);
• cuts in Council Tax for Pembrokeshire of £3.17 Band D (Calculation 1) and 3.23 Band D (Calculation 2).
14
6.11 Ceredigion County Council were themselves unable to confirm the potential savings if the proposed boundary change were to proceed. They estimated these savings to be between £25,000 and £40,000 and have used £30,000 for calculation purposes (Paragraph 1.4 Appendix 5). For the reasons given in the Rita Hale Report (summarised in Appendix 7 at paragraph 10) we consider that it is likely that a detailed examination of the potential reduction in expenditure by Ceredigion County Council may lead to the identification of further savings in expenditure so that the actual increase in Council Tax would be less than the figure estimated. As we do not expect the savings in expenditure to match the estimated reduction in the County Council’s SSA however, we conclude that the likely effect of the boundary change would be a small increase (about £6) in Ceredigion’s Council Tax. This represents an increase of approximately 1% to the existing Council Tax.
7. ASSESSMENT
7.1 It is evident from the representations we have received from all parties that there is an overwhelming majority in favour of uniting the village of St. Dogmaels under one unitary authority. It is also evident both from the representations we have received and the information that has been provided that it is perceived that unification would also be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government, if such a change were to be proposed, in terms of the level of services provided to St. Dogmaels. This perception is particularly strong in the population of St. Dogmaels itself.
7.2 The representations in favour of the Community St. Dogmaels being administered by Ceredigion County Council suggest a change to the boundary that would split the main part of the village from the more rural areas of the existing Community of St. Dogmaels that lie to the West and North West of the village. From the representations received, it would appear that the residents of these rural areas consider themselves an integral part of the St. Dogmaels Community. It would appear therefore that although this proposal would meet the aim to unify the village of St Dogmaels, it would also break local ties with the outlying areas.
7.3 From the representations received from residents of the existing Community of St Dogmaels and of the areas of Ceredigion marked Area A and Area B on the map at Appendix 9, it is clear there is widespread support for the proposal for the new community to be in Pembrokeshire. The reasons given for this are manifold and not just because of Council Tax differences as has been suggested (see the representations of Ceredigion County Council at paragraph 5.2 (iii) above). It is significant that a number of representations consider the services provided by Pembrokeshire to be superior to those provided by Ceredigion.
7.4 Cardigan Town Council consider that the views of all Cardigan residents should be sought and attempted to seek these views by means of a questionnaire. Having received only 121 responses from 2,300 questionnaires, they conclude that from such a small number it is not possible to draw firm conclusions. The poor level of response would at least suggest that the majority of the residents of Cardigan do not feel strongly on the matter either way.
7.5 A number of the representations that support the combined village of St. Dogmaels becoming part of Ceredigion refer to the use of the facilities and services in Cardigan by residents of St. Dogmaels. The argument is that as the residents use the facilities provided
15
by Ceredigion and Cardigan Town they should contribute financially to the cost of these services. This argument is countered by representations that point out that Cardigan Town exercises its influence over a large area, including other Pembrokeshire villages. It does not follow, it is said, that because residents of an area use the facilities and services of a local town they should necessarily become part of the town or have to contribute in some way to the town’s precept. The representations also point out that the residents of St. Dogmaels pay the standard charges for using many of the Cardigan facilities such as car parking, leisure centre etc. and that both Pembrokeshire County Council and St. Dogmaels Community Council have assisted with the funding of services either as part of a formal agreement or when requested.
7.6 Ceredigion and Cardigan both question the legal basis of the Commission’s Draft Proposals in that they maintain the Commission has attached greater weight to public opinion than to the consideration of effective and convenient local government. The Commission however have always considered that there is a strong relationship between local identity and effective local government, to which effect should if possible be given. If people feel remote from, or in other ways do not identify with, their local authority then effectiveness could be adversely affected. However, although the Commission have always considered this to be a relevant factor, it is by no means the only, or necessarily decisive, factor, which the Commission has taken into account.
7.7 We have already stated that there are sound reasons to suppose that the interests of effective and convenient local government would be served by unifying the village of St. Dogmaels under one unitary authority. In our Draft Proposals Report we concluded that that authority should be Pembrokeshire: there was strong local support for that course, based upon historical and social factors as well as the perceived quality of the services provided by the respective authorities and the level of local tax. On the other hand despite careful examination of the evidence we were aware of no sufficient countervailing considerations based upon the interests of the adjacent areas – in particular Cardigan Town and Ceredigion County Council. The publication of our draft proposals has again produced representations very similar to those which informed our Draft Proposals Report, including those from Cardigan and Ceredigion expressing strong opposition to the proposed change. That opposition is based upon two principal considerations: first, that the residents of St Dogmaels should not be entitled to use the facilities of Cardigan without contributing to its precept. “Take-up” of an authority’s facilities is obviously a relevant factor, but if applied rigidly we do not find that proposition persuasive either in principle or in practice. Some arguments are to be found in paragraphs 7.5, where we cite the representations which we have received. The fact is that the town of Cardigan is a relatively well developed urban centre which is bound to exert an attraction to those people living in reasonable proximity to it. This must apply to any such centre, but in our view this cannot lead to the conclusion that all persons living in proximity to Cardigan, or visiting Cardigan (and, incidentally, contributing to its economy), should also contribute to its precept.
7.8 Secondly, it is argued that the loss of St. Dogmaels would have serious financial consequences for Ceredigion. We have already noted that the great majority of the residents of St. Dogmaels are already within Pembrokeshire and the areas to be transferred are predominantly rural. As reported at 6.11 the consequences of the loss of a relatively small number of Council taxpayers would appear to have an effect on the finances of Ceredigion County Council which is to an extent out of proportion to the number of people to be transferred. The figures indicate that, without a reduction in the estimated expenditure, an
16
increase in the Council Tax will be required. In considering the interests of effective and convenient local government in relation to the question in which authority the reunited St. Dogmaels should be located, logically the first consideration should be the interests of St. Dogmaels itself. In our view the interest of St. Dogmaels point very firmly in the direction of Pembrokeshire. We readily accept however that the interests of other, adjacent, areas – the rest of Pembrokeshire, Cardigan Town and Ceredigion – are also relevant. (To that extent we do not agree with the representations contained in paragraph 6.5 above). We take into account that in terms of local government finances, a change to the principal authority boundary will inevitably result in degrees of gains and losses in income and expenditure affecting the two areas. We consider that in order to outweigh the positive benefit on the residents of St. Dogmaels, the negative impact on Ceredigion in terms of pure finance would have to be very significant, although not critical. Despite the efforts of all parties to ascertain it, what the effect would be must unfortunately remain imprecise, but it is clear that what is proposed is the transfer from Ceredigion to Pembrokeshire of between 300 and 400 people, representing about 0.5% of Ceredigion’s population. Such a transfer is likely to lead to an increase in the Council Tax of about £6, representing an increase of approximately 1% to the existing level of tax. Proceeding as we do on the premise that the unification of St. Dogmaels within one authority is generally in the interests of effective and convenient local government, and taking account of the effects of those interests within St. Dogmaels, we do not think that the likely financial impact on Ceredigion, either on its own or with the other negative factors, is anything like sufficient to outweigh those interests. In all the circumstances, the Commission confirms the conclusion contained in the Draft Proposals Report, that the village of St. Dogmaels should be united by transferring the two areas of land, shown at Appendix 9, from Ceredigion to Pembrokeshire.
7.9 In considering the consequential changes to the electoral arrangements, Cardigan Town Council do not consider the arrangement whereby the Teifi electoral division would see a decrease to 890 electors to be appropriate. In the Draft Proposals report, The Commission considered that the Teifi division would have one of the highest levels of representation in the county and would have a councillor to number of electors ratio well below the ratio of 1:1,750 specified in the Secretary of State’s directions to the Commission. The ratio would however still be within 50% of the county average of 1 councillor to 1,327 electors (1998 electoral register) and there is an electoral division within Ceredigion (New Quay) with fewer electors. [As the Assembly has not yet implemented the Commission’s December 1999 electoral proposals, Cardigan Town is currently represented by a multi-member division of 3,452 electors represented by 3 councillors.]
7.10 Cardigan Town Council also pointed out the discrepancy between the ratio of electors to community councillors in Cardigan Town and St. Dogmaels under the Commission’s proposals (243 to 1 in Cardigan Town and 90 to 1 in St. Dogmaels). It should be noted that there is wide variation in the ratio of community councillors to electors throughout Wales. This was recognised by the Commission when undertaking the Special Community Reviews in the 1970s. In 1976, the Commission issued guidelines for the representation on community councils and it should be noted that the level of representation proposed for St. Dogmaels is consistent with these guidelines. It should also be noted that the increase proposed in the level of representation for St. Dogmaels Community Council and the decrease in the level of representation for the Teifi ward are proportionate with the existing ratios for each community.
17
7.11 In our Draft Proposals report we noted that the suggestion by Pembrokeshire County Council to include additional areas within Pembrokeshire widened the scope of the review. We considered that it was inappropriate for the Commission to make proposals for those areas at that stage as we felt we had insufficient evidence on which to make a decision. We invited interested parties to comment on Pembrokeshire’s suggestion that additional areas to the south east of St. Dogmaels be transferred from Ceredigion to the Communities of Cilgerran and St. Dogmaels in Pembrokeshire. We have considered the representations we have received concerning this suggestion and it is evident that there may be grounds for the Commission to carry out a full review of these areas. We are of the view however that this suggestion relates to areas that are outside the scope of this review. This matter would therefore need to be addressed as a separate review. Should interested parties wish to pursue this matter we would ask that they make a formal request to the Commission to undertake a review of this specific area.
8. PROPOSALS
8.1 We have undertaken the review in accordance with the directions issued by the National Assembly for Wales and propose that boundary between the Counties of Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire in the area of the Community of St. Dogmaels should be realigned as shown in green on the map at Appendix 9 to include the areas marked Area A and Area B within the County of Pembrokeshire.
8.2 A detailed map to a larger scale showing the proposed new boundary can be inspected at the offices of the County Councils of Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire and at the office of the Commission in Cardiff.
9. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS
9.1 Under Section 54 (1) (e) of the Act, the Commission may make proposals for change of electoral arrangements for any local government area, which is consequential on any proposed change in local government areas. A detailed analysis of the proposed changes to the electoral arrangements for the principal areas of Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire and the communities of Cardigan and St. Dogmaels is given below.
9.2 The existing Community of St. Dogmaels has 774 electors (1997 electoral register) and is included with the Community of Nevern in the St. Dogmaels electoral division, which has 1,464 electors, represented by 1 councillor (1997 electoral register). The Ceredigion part of the village of St. Dogmaels is in the Teifi ward of the Community of Cardigan which has 1,198 electors (1998 electoral register) and is part of the Cardigan electoral division which has 3,452 electors represented by 3 councillors (1998 electoral register). In our December 1999 proposals to the National Assembly for Wales for the electoral arrangements for the County of Ceredigion we proposed that the Teifi ward of the Community of Ceredigion forms the Teifi electoral division with 1,198 electors (1998 electoral register) represented by 1 councillor. We are still awaiting a decision from the National Assembly for Wales on these proposals.
9.3 According to the information that has been submitted, there are approximately 300 electors within the area that we propose to transfer from Ceredigion to Pembrokeshire. This would
18
increase the number of electors in the St. Dogmaels electoral division to approximately 1,770 electors. This would result in a level of representation of 1 councillor to 1,770 electors. This level of representation is close to the ratio of 1 councillor to 1,750 electors specified in the Secretary of State’s directions to the Commission for the recent programme of electoral reviews. It is also within the range of plus or minus 50% of the Pembrokeshire county average. We therefore consider this to be an appropriate level of representation.
9.4 Under the existing arrangements for the County of Ceredigion, the proposed boundary change would result in a decrease in the number of electors in the Cardigan electoral division from 3,452 (1998 electoral register) to approximately 3,150. Under the proposals that have been submitted to the National Assembly for Wales, the Teifi electoral division would see a decrease in the number of electors from 1,198 (1998 electoral register) to approximately 890. The Teifi division would have one of the highest levels of representation in the county and would have a councillor to number of electors ratio well below the ratio of 1:1,750 specified in the Secretary of State’s directions to the Commission. The ratio would however still be within 50% of the county average of 1 councillor to 1,327 electors (1998 electoral register). We therefore consider that the arrangement whereby 1 councillor represents the Teifi electoral division should continue.
9.5 St. Dogmaels Community Council has 10 community councillors representing 774 electors. The new Community of St. Dogmaels will have approximately 1,080 electors. We propose that the number of councillors on the St. Dogmaels Community Council be increased from 10 to 12 as we consider this to be an appropriate level of representation.
9.6 The Teifi Ward of Cardigan Town Council is represented by 5 councillors representing 1,198 electors. Under our proposals the number of electors in the Teifi Ward will reduce to approximately 890. We propose therefore that the number of councillors representing the Teifi Ward be decreased from 5 to 4, as this would maintain the level of representation in proportion with the Mwldan and Rhyd y Fuwch Wards of Cardigan Town Council.
9.7 We acknowledge that the existing boundary between the Counties of Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire is also the boundary between the Parliamentary Constituencies of Ceredigion and Preseli Pembrokeshire. It is however outside our remit to recommend changes to Parliamentary Constituency boundaries. These boundaries are changed by Statutory Instrument following a review by the (Parliamentary) Boundary Commission for Wales.
10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
10.1 We wish to express our gratitude to the principal councils, to the community councils and to individuals for their assistance during the course of the review and to all bodies and persons who made representations to us.
11. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT
11.1 Having completed our review of part of the boundary between the Counties of Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire in the area of the Community of St. Dogmaels and submitted our
19
recommendations to the National Assembly for Wales, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation under the directions issued by the National Assembly for Wales.
11.2 It now falls to the National Assembly for Wales, if it thinks fit, to implement them with or without modifications by means of an Order or to direct the Commission to conduct a further review. Such an Order will not be made earlier than a period of six weeks from the date that the Commission’s recommendations are submitted to the National Assembly for Wales.
11.3 Any further representations concerning the matters in the report should be addressed to the National Assembly for Wales. 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 National Assembly for Wales. Representations should be addressed to:
Local Government Modernisation 2 Division National Assembly for Wales Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ
PROFESSOR E SUNDERLAND OBE LL MA PhD LLD FIBiol (Chairman)
E F L FITZHUGH OBE DL (Deputy Chairman)
MRS S G SMITH LLB (Member)
E H LEWIS BSc. DPM FRSA FCIPD (Secretary)
December 2001
20 APPENDIX 1
Response of Ceredigion County Council to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales Draft Proposals in respect of the Review of Part of the Boundary between the Counties of Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire in the Area of the Community of St. Dogmaels
1. Introduction
The Boundary Commission published its Draft Proposals in December 2000 and observations have been invited by 16 February 2001. The County Council acknowledged receipt of the Draft Proposals on 22 December 2000 and included in this letter its initial concerns that the Commission had not applied itself to the requirement to base its conclusions on effective and convenient local government. A reply to this letter, dated 17 January 2001 was received by the County Council, and copies of both letters have been sent by the Boundary Commission to Pembrokeshire County Council. The County Council, at its meeting held on 21st December 2000, authorised the Cabinet to prepare a response and this response has been prepared in accordance with that decision.
2. Observations on the Draft Proposals
The County Council believes that the Boundary Commission has not addressed the main issue, namely the provision of effective and convenient local government services in the combined St. Dogmaels village by one local authority.
As stated in the Draft Proposals, the County Council agrees that the village should be “combined within one authority” (Para. 3.3) and also notes that, in their original submissions, both this Authority and Pembrokeshire County Council have indicated that they “are confident that they would be able to provide an appropriate level of service to the combined village of St. Dogmaels” (Para. 3.13).
However, it takes issue with the reasons given in the following paragraphs of the Draft Proposals by the Boundary Commission for stating that the combined village should be placed within Pembrokeshire:
Para. 3.12
There are improvements in areas of service delivery listed in this paragraph, which, it is claimed, would follow if the combined village was located in Pembrokeshire. However, the same principle is true if Ceredigion administered the area.
Para. 3.13
Here it states that the Boundary Commission considers that “It is clear that some degree of cross-boundary provision of services would still be required whichever county the new community was in”. The County Council is at a loss to understand, should the combined village be placed in Ceredigion, which services its population would need to receive from Pembrokeshire County Council. It is the crux of the County Council’s case that the residents of the village currently turn to the town of Cardigan for services such as the library, leisure centre, swimming pool, secondary education etc and, with Ceredigion providing all the other services such as Social Services, Education, refuse collection, highways etc to a combined village, there would be no need for the population to be provided with any services at all by Pembrokeshire County Council, thus resulting in more effective and convenient local government. The Boundary Commission is therefore invited to clarify which services it
1 APPENDIX 1 believes Pembrokeshire would need to provide on a cross-boundary basis should the combined village be located in Ceredigion.
Para. 3.14
Here it states that the Boundary Commission considers that the level of council charges was not “a primary reason for wanting the combined village of St. Dogmaels to be included within Pembrokeshire”. However in Para. 2.15 there is a list of representations made by local residents, and the “perceived inequality within the village where Ceredigion residents pay a higher council tax than their Pembrokeshire neighbours” is listed as the SECOND point made by them. This hardly suggests that it isn’t one of the main reasons for them opting for the combined village to be placed in Pembrokeshire rather than Ceredigion.
Para. 3.16
Here it states that the Boundary Commission considers “that the river Teifi represents a clearly defined natural boundary between the counties of Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire”. However in the very next line this is contradicted as an immediate differentiation is made between areas lying south of the river:
• St. Dogmaels, it is stated, is located within “the area that is identified with Pembrokeshire”; • Bridgend and its environs “however….is an integral part of Cardigan Town”; whilst a sliver of land on the eastern boundary with Pembrokeshire may be moved to the Cilgerran Community; and finally, • Area C as shown in Appendix 7 doesn’t fit neatly into any convenient and effective package and, in the view of the Boundary Commission, may as well remain in Ceredigion.
The suggested break-up of the area south of the river Teifi, in the view of the County Council, is therefore highly inconsistent and does not lead itself to effective and convenient local government.
Also, in a previous paragraph - Para.3.6 - the Boundary Commission states the new boundary suggested by the St. Dogmaels Community Council, despite being south of the river Teifi, “would appear to form a convenient boundary between St. Dogmaels and Cardigan”. Does the Boundary Commission suggest that it is a convenient COUNTY boundary as well. It appears so. This again contradicts the case for the river Teifi being the natural boundary.
It appears to the County Council that the Boundary Commission has come to the conclusion, based on its assessment of the evidence, that the “sense of community” which it states exists between the residents of the village and the rural part of the St. Dogmaels Community carries more weight than the contention that the residents of the village and the wider community look to town of Cardigan for local government, social, recreational and cultural services as well as employment and shopping facilities. However, despite acknowledging that Ceredigion County Council is confident that it can provide the whole range of local government services to a combined village, it has not considered in a suitably rigorous manner that this would result in more effective and convenient local government and do away with the need for any cross boundary provision of services. In short, it is the County Council’s view that the Boundary Commission has given more weight to emotion than to effective and convenient local government. In addition, despite the assertion of the Boundary Commission, the level of Council Tax does appear to be a major factor in the case
2 APPENDIX 1
being made by the St. Dogmaels Community Council. The reference made in Para 2.15 to the difference between the Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire Council Tax levels has already been referred to above whilst the St. Dogmaels Community Council, in the conclusion to its submission, states that it “has a good record for managing both services and finances efficiently and as a result this year they have decided to reduce their precept by £2,000”. It is the contention of the County Council that the people currently living on the Pembrokeshire side of St. Dogmaels are regular users of the services provided by the Ceredigion County Council in Cardigan Town, and paid for by Ceredigion Council Tax payers, and that it is the intended purpose of the St. Dogmaels Community Council to wish to continue to see its people benefit from these services yet pay their Council Tax to another Authority. The people of St. Dogmaels would therefore benefit from paying lower Council Tax and still enjoy the services provided in Cardigan Town by the Ceredigion County Council and paid for by the people of Ceredigion.
Council Tax Levels
In any event, the differing Council Tax levels in Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion are the product of a National formula, which is used to distribute resources between unitary Councils. The formula is designed to objectively reflect spending needs and relies on financial and non-financial data and the application of sophisticated statistical techniques. The formula is frequently reviewed (a major review has recently been completed) and future changes in this formula would result in a shift in Council Tax levels. It is unreasonable to assume that the current differential in Council Tax levels will continue indefinitely. Indeed, Ceredigion County Council has consistently set its Council Tax below the National Assembly guidelines in a clear financial strategy to reduce Council Taxes. In time, this is likely to result in an equalization of Council Taxes between the two authorities.
Currently, the people of St. Dogmaels make full use of the services provided by Ceredigion County Council. It is only reasonable for them to contribute to the costs of service provision. There is no evidence to suggest that this cost of service provision is higher in Ceredigion - on the contrary, it is the Revenue Support Grant distribution formula, which governs the level of Council Tax. It is undoubtedly more accountable if residents pay the Council, which provides the services. This is the essence of effective Local Government and public representation.
If St Dogmaels is transferred to Pembrokeshire, there will be a significant, and disproportionate switch of resources in favour of Pembrokeshire at the expense of the Council Tax payers of Ceredigion. The main services in Cardigan will continue to be provided and funded by Ceredigion and it cannot be equitable to expect the Council Taxpayers of Ceredigion to meet the additional tax burden.
3. Observations on the Boundary Commission Letter of 17 January 2001
Turning to the Boundary Commission letter of 17 January 2001, it is clear to the County Council that the Commission has again failed to give sufficient weight to the County Council’s case, as outlined above.
It notes that the Boundary Commission states that the County Council did not provide any evidence that losing part of its administrative area would be detrimental, in terms of effective and convenient local government, to the Authority as a whole. However, as stated above, it contends that the basis of its original argument is that it currently provides, under the existing arrangements, and would continue to provide, should the combined village be
3 APPENDIX 1
located in Pembrokeshire, a level of services to residents which is not matched by the payment of Council Tax by those same residents. The Boundary Commission proposals, by making more users of the Cardigan–based services Council Taxpayers in Pembrokeshire, would exacerbate the situation and create more inequality and bad feeling in the area.
In conclusion, the proposed changes will therefore have a detrimental effect on the ability of Ceredigion County Council to provide the current level of services throughout the County. It adversely affects effective and convenient Local Government not only in the environs of Cardigan but throughout the whole County.
Miss E. M. Bronwen Morgan Director of Corporate and Legal Services Ceredigion County Council
15th February 2001
4 APPENDIX 2
PEMBROKESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE Report by: Chief Executive
Date: 15th February 2001
BOUNDARY REVIEW BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF CEREDIGION AND PEMBROKESHIRE IN THE AREA OF ST. DOGMAELS
1 A report was presented to this committee on the 13th April 2000 informing members that the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales was conducting a review of the above area. At this meeting it was agreed that our response to the consultation should be that:
• the part of St. Dogmaels already within Pembrokeshire should remain within this county • in light of the views of St. Dogmaels Community Council, That areas to the North and South East of St. Dogmaels (as marked ‘Area A” on the attached map) should become part of Pembrokeshire • further consultation be undertaken with Cilgerran Community Council and the local County Council Member with regard to the existing county boundary to the north-west of Cilgerran
2 Following consultation with Councillor J T Davies and Cilgerran Community Council, it was agreed to propose that an area of land to the north-west of Cilgerran (marked “Area D”) should also become part of Pembrokeshire based on the support of local residents. A letter was sent to the Boundary Commission to that effect on 27th July 2000. It was recognised by all parties that “Area B” should remain in Ceredigion, however, “Area C” was also proposed to become part of Pembrokeshire by this Council based on effective and convenient local government.
3 The Commission’s report containing its draft proposals was issued on 15th December on which it has requested observations by 16th February 2001. The Commission proposed that “Area A” should be within the County of Pembrokeshire. It also invited comments on this Council’s suggestion to include Areas C and D within Pembrokeshire as they felt they had insufficient evidence on which to make a decision.
4 Whilst Area C & D is a sizeable geographical area, in the context of this review, in terms of population it is very small and, therefore, there should be no major financial implications associated with change for any County, Town or Community Councils. There are, however, significant implications in terms of effective and convenient local government for the area. This is particularly relevant to the Briscwm area and also Pant-y-grwndy fach and Troedyrhiw. The same principles that applied to the splitting of St. Dogmaels village also apply here, for the services of refuse collection, minor road maintenance etc.
5 On Area C, St. Dogmaels Community Council, in its letter to us dated 26th January 2001, expressed the view that it wishes to adhere to its original submission (i.e. Area “A”). Members could see the reasoning behind the bid to include areas C & D but were not prepared to jeopardise their bid. However, they concluded by stating that if the Boundary Commission sees fit to include areas C & D then the St Dogmaels Community Council would be happy to include Area C into the community. The local County Council member, Councillor S Watkins has also confirmed his support for this suggestion (letter dated 31 January to the Commission).
1 APPENDIX 2
6 On Area D, Cilgerran Community Council, in its letter to the Commission dated 27 January 2001, expressed the view that areas C & D should become part of Pembrokeshire and that Area “D” should be included in the Cilgerran community. This was based on local opinion. The local County Council member, Councillor J T Davies has consulted occupants from all 17 residences in this area of which 15 wish to be included in Pembrokeshire, one held no preference and one was “happy as it is”. Councillor Davies is supportive of this proposal.
7 The next stage, when the Commission has considered the comments to their proposals is to submit its recommendations to the National Assembly.
Recommendations
(a) that this Council expresses strong support for the proposals made by the Boundary Commission to unify the St Dogmaels community within Pembrokeshire, as defined as Area A, on the attached map.
(b) that in the interests of effective and convenient local government and based on very strong local support; that Areas C and D become part of Pembrokeshire, contained within St Dogmaels and Cilgerran Community Councils respectively.
Background Documents
1 Report of Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales — 15 December 2000
2 Correspondence dated 26th, 27th and 31st January 2001.
2 APPENDIX 3
CARDIGAN TOWN COUNCIL’S OBSERVATIONS ON THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION DRAFT PROPOSALS FOR ST. DOGMAELS
12th February 2001
Dear Mr Knight,
Re. Boundary Commission Draft Proposals on the boundary between St. Dogmaels and Cardigan Town
I would draw your attention to your presentation to the Town Council at the beginning of this process. You said that the only reason for change the Boundary Commission would consider was effective and efficient local government administration. You misled the town council, as we now know that the test was, or is, effective and convenient, quite different. The draft proposal by your commission would appear to have ignored this and made its decision based on how the residents feel their association should be. This is in our opinion a legal error. The Commission also do not appear to have given any legal reasons in their draft proposals. We would like a synopsis of the legal reasons you have used on which to base your draft proposals!
The Boundary Commission does not seem to have taken into account the opinion of the rest of the Town of Cardigan about the prospect of losing part of the Town and consequent detriment for services provided both by Ceredigion and the Town Council. This latter element will cause a reduction in effectiveness and convenience of the administration of the residual area. The Commission in paragraph 3.9 page 9 has NOT taken argument showing the loss of NET not GROSS revenue into account. Ceredigion is unlikely to decommission a rubbish-collecting lorry or make staff redundant so any savings are likely to be minimal and at the margins.
In response to the Boundary Commission’s proposed recommendation that St. Dogmaels be united and placed into Pembrokeshire the town council delivered a simple letter and questionnaire to all the residents of Cardigan (encl. 1). In all 2,300 questionnaires were delivered and only 121 were returned. From such a small number it is not possible to draw firm conclusions. The comments made were interesting and the analysis of the results is appended (encl. 2).
The Boundary Commission is well aware of the lack of appeal against the failure of cross border co- operation of County Councils and should take into account historically the almost total failure of Pembrokeshire to support both service provision and service development in Cardigan that have benefits for their residents.
It must be firmly stated that Cardigan town council did not request this Boundary review. On the whole the residents from Cardigan wards were very sympathetic to and supportive of the residents of St. Dogmaels, having lived together for generations this was refreshing to see. Cardigan Town council has no animosity towards St. Dogmaels, indeed it has always supported the village to the best of its ability. The Town Council is saddened to see the amount of animosity being orchestrated by St Dogmaels Community Council. It must be noted that it was they who initiated this boundary review and it is only natural that Cardigan must defend its interests; Cardigan residents would expect nothing less. The town council hopes that what ever the outcome of this boundary review we can all return to the normality of being friendly and supportive neighbours.
At paragraph 3.13 we would wish the Commission to provide the evidence of effective cross border co-operation. It is an almost total lack of this from Pembrokeshire in the past that has led to alarm if the proposed area is taken over by Pembrokeshire. Pembrokeshire will not contribute fairly, based on
1 APPENDIX 3 past experience. to the usage and that their residents place on Cardigan’s facilities or provide any capital for their development.
The Commission’s response to numbers of residents per community and county councillor is to say the least bizarre. The equivalent of 5 Cardigan community councillors would have the same workload as 12 St Dogmaels councillors, now that is really effective. The County councillor representation is only 0.086% from being within Government guidelines.
We would make detailed comment on the Commissions assessment and proposals as follows.
3.1 Accepted.
3.2 How can they have taken them fully into account when the evidence is finely balanced? They have conceded to emotion and perception of the population. However laudable is this anything to do with effective and convenient government.
3.3 One authority agreed.
3.4 Accepted.
3.5 How does ‘strong sense’ equate with effective and convenient. The Cardigan Town area of St Dogmaels is just as well served by Cardigan as the St Dogmaels Community Council serves its own area.
3.6 This is a convenient geographical argument not about effectiveness & convenience - which is the remit of the Boundaries Commission.
3.7 Accepted.
3.8 It is acceptable that Poppit remains in National Park--- Representations are not effective & convenient — Liberal - not to Pembrokeshire but just unification.
3.9 What savings? (evidence given indicates a great net loss to both the Ceredigion and Cardigan Councils — there is no mention of the potential loss of revenue to Charities and voluntary groups plus project money. See also 5.4 5.5 5.6. The residents of a combined St. Dogmaels would still use the facilities in Cardigan, and are welcome to do so, but there should be a fair contribution towards them. The rates in the rump of Cardigan and across Ceredigion would have to rise by some £10 compensate for this loss. Historically Pembrokeshire has not been willing to cross border fund anything. What will be the effect of Care Trusts for the residents of St Dogmaels if they have to look to Haverfordwest (30 miles away) for the management of these services. What services do St Dogmaels give at present? — will they now fund a CAB, a swimming pool, Area 43, a youth club and provide a library? It is improbable and more effective and convenient for them to continue to use the facilities in Cardigan. Routine policing of this area of Pembrokeshire is going to be from Fishguard 17 miles away, not Cardigan 2 miles away.
There is the point of the Electoral Review of this area, last carried out by your committee in 1998. Then there was no mention of the present arrangements being untenable. Your committee will have to look at this boundary again after only two years, not very effective is it?
3.10 Where is the argument based on effective and convenient in this paragraph? 184 residents out of over 300 of St Dogmaels have agreed but what about the rest of the residents of Cardigan Town for it has been a single entity for well over 150 years. The rest of Cardigan Town’s residents (3,500) will wish to have a say in the matter- if that is what counts — especially if re-organisation means a loss for them. 2 APPENDIX 3
3.11 Agreed the effectiveness and convenience of the St Dogmaels Area would be the same under either County; BUT the effect on the effectiveness and convenience of the administration of Cardigan would be disproportionate. The relative effect on the population and critical inertia of such a small County (in population terms) as Ceredigion would be significant by reducing the already small tax base. The united area of St Dogmaels should stay with Cardigan. The effective and convenient administration of the estuarial regions would be better served.
3.12 There would be the same improvement no matter under which Unitary authority — there is no mention of improvement schemes from Ceredigion i.e. the improved road and footpath to St Dogmaels for the whole of St. Dogmaels, the removal of the Cilmaenllwyd tip and the flood alleviation scheme for Cardigan. (NAW funding)
3.13 No evidence of cross border co-operation has been given. Indeed the lack of it and appropriate capital and revenue co-operation is one of the main reasons for Cardigan having a lack of appropriate infrastructure for the catchment area served by Cardigan town. If this had been forthcoming then the residents of both communities would be enjoying better and more facilities and infrastructure. What would happen if Ceredigion charged extra for Community services to residents of North Pemb? That would not be effective, convenient or acceptable.
3.14 They would not having been canvassed very heavily on the point by St Dogmaels Councillors.
3.15 Identity is not effective & convenient; strength of feeling has nothing to do with effective & convenient administration. Although the Town is very aware and sympathetic to the very close nature of the community of St. Dogmaels.
3.16 The commission has ignored the river Teifi estuary. This has huge problems associated with lack of co-operation with both County Councils, evidence given to and in the TEEMI (Teifi Estuary Environmental Management Initiative) report. Indeed Pembrokeshire have refused to co-operate with TEEMI until it becomes an independent and freestanding body.
3.17 We should be looking to the inclusion of the whole of the Lower Teifi Valley into Ceredigion for effective & convenient administration. The small area now under consideration, St. Dogmaels, would just be part of the larger picture and should not be considered until the wider issues discussed. Look at Newcastle Emlyn and the recent press coverage of lack of infrastructure support from Carmarthen — look at the ASDL line to Haverfordwest, Carmarthen and Aberystwyth. No one advocated the needs of the 45,000 people living in the lower Teifi valley because they are divided and their needs diluted between different Counties.
5.4 890 voters per county councillor is only 50.086% of the national target and 67% of Ceredigion average. Can this be acceptable to the NAW? Is this effective and convenient? — definitely not.
5.5 1 councillor for 90 electors in St Dogmaels Community Council is only 40% of that proposed in Cardigan Community Council — is that justifiable on effective and convenient administration? Most definitely not.
5.6 Currently Teifi Ward has 1,198 electors, 223 per councillor. If it is effective and convenient to reduce the number of councillors to 4, still giving more than twice the number of voters per councillor as proposed in St. Dogmaels. The revised St. Dogmaels figures gives one councillor for 90 electors. To maintain faith with the Cardigan proposals that should give
3 APPENDIX 3
St. Dogmaels Community Council 5 (4.5) councillors in total. The size of Cardigan Community Council based on the figures acceptable to the Boundary Commission for St Dogmaels would be (3463— 306= 3157/ 90 =) 35 councillors, patently absurd. If it is absurd for Cardigan then so it should be for St. Dogmaels.
Yours faithfully,
Trevor T Griffiths. 15.1.2001 Mayor of Cardigan
4 APPENDIX 3
ENCLOSURE 1 1 Current situation Cardigan
Afon Mwldan
By Pass
2 Cardigan with both a united St. Dogmaels and Cilgerran — Pembrokeshire claim sited in Pembrokeshire
Cilgerran-Pembrokeshire claim
3 Convenient single administrative area (St. Dogmaels united as separate community within it)
5 APPENDIX 3
ENCLOSURE 2
REPORT OF TOWN COUNCIL QUESTIONNAIRE TO RESIDENTS OF CARDIGAN TOWN ABOUT ST. DOGMAELS UNIFICATION
In response to the Boundary Commission’s proposed recommendation that St. Dogmaels be united and placed into Pembrokeshire the town council delivered a simple letter and questionnaire to all the residents of Cardigan (end. 1). In all 2.300 questionnaires were delivered and only 121 were returned. From such a small number it is not possible to draw firm conclusions. The comments made were interesting and the analysis of the results is appended (end. 2). For analysis the returns were divided into St. Dogmaels wards and the rest of Cardigan (i.e. post codes SA43 3- and the rest of Cardigan).
On the whole the residents from Cardigan wards were very sympathetic to and supportive of the residents of St. Dogmaels, having lived together for generations this was refreshing to see. Cardigan Town council has no animosity towards St. Dogmaels; indeed it has always supported the village to the best of its ability. The Town Council is saddened to see the amount of animosity being generated by St Dogmaels Community Council. It must be noted that it was they who initiated this boundary review and it is only natural that Cardigan must defend its interests; Cardigan residents would expect nothing less. The town council hopes that what ever the outcome of this boundary review we can all return to the normality of being friendly and supportive neighbours. It would appear that, from this small sample the residents take the same position as Cardigan town council that St. Dogmaels should be united.
However the message was loud and clear - that residents in Pembrokeshire who use services in Cardigan/Ceredigion should contribute. This is also the stand of Cardigan Town council — because there is no mechanism to compel Pembrokeshire to contribute to services provided in Cardigan (and one should remember that refers to capital development funds as well as revenue costs) Cardigan Town council takes the view that the only way this capital and revenue support will be forthcoming is by bringing a united St. Dogmaels into Ceredigion.
The Boundary Commission is well aware of the lack of appeal against the failure of cross border co- operation of County Councils and should take into account the fact that historically the almost total failure of Pembrokeshire to support both service provision and service development in Cardigan that have mutual benefits.
Summary of analysis
Overall 74% of the returns wished to see St. Dogmaels united and 15% were against, with 59% wishing the united village to be in Pembrokeshire. Returns post code Cardigan 70% wished to see a united St. Dogmaels and 14% did not with 32% wishing to see the united village in Pembrokeshire and 53% in Ceredigion. Returns with no postcode 77% wished to see a united village and 15% did not with 62% wishing to see the united village in Pembrokeshire and 15% in Ceredigion. Returns post codes ‘St Dogmaels’ 78% wished to see a united village and 18% did not with 65% wishing to see a united village in Pembrokeshire and 29% in Ceredigion; 22% cited lower rates in Pembrokeshire.
Only 3% of the total returns, all from the ‘Cardigan’ wards wished the residents to decide for themselves, 6% wished status quo (2% from ‘St Dogmaels’ wards) and 2% were undecided.
6 APPENDIX 3
It would appear that, from this small sample the residents take the same position as Cardigan town council that St. Dogmaels should be united. However the message was loud and clear - that there should be a fair contribution from Pembrokeshire towards mutually used and convenient services, both capital development and revenue costs. This is also the stand of Cardigan Town council — because there is no mechanism to compel Pembrokeshire to contribute to services provided in Cardigan Town council takes the view that the only way this capital and revenue support will be forthcoming is by bringing a united St. Dogmaels into Ceredigion.
The Boundary Commission is well aware of the lack of appeal against the failure of cross border co- operation of County Councils and should take this into account. That and historically the failure of Pembrokeshire to co-operate in mutually advantageous cross border issues.
Trevor T Griffiths Mayor of Cardigan 12th February 2001
RESULTS OF A QUESTIONNAIRE DELIVERED TO THE RESIDENTS OF CARDIGAN TOWN JANUARY 2001 BY CARDIGAN TOWN COUNCIL
Question - should St Dogmaels be united and, if so, in which county?
Zone of Cardigan Town Total UNITE VILLAGE IN PEMBS STATUS DON’T Res. To responses YES NO YES NO QUO KNOW Decide Cardigan Yes to unite 40 40 17 20 1 2 No to unite 11 8 7 3 Don’t know 6 1 3 2 Total 57 70% 14% 32% 53% 5% 2% 7%
No post code 13 10 2 8 2 2 13 77% 15% 62% 15% 15%
St Dog. Yes to unite 40 40 32 8 No to unite 9 9 7 2 Don’t know 2 1 2 51 78% 18% 65% 29% 4% 4%
Grand Total 121 90 19 59 47 7 3 4 % of total returns 74% 15% 49% 39% 6% 2% 3%
2,300 questionnaires were delivered - 121 returned = just over 5%
No firm conclusions can be drawn from such a small number of returns that would need at least an 80% response rate.
7 APPENDIX 3
ENCLOSURE 3
SWYDDFA’R CYNGOR, STRYD MORGAN, ABERTEIFI SA43 1DG 01239 612641
COUNCIL OFFICES, MORGAN STREET, CARDIGAN 5A43 1DG 01239 612641
C/erc y Cyngor / Clerk to the Council: J. Keith Bowen, Porthgerran, Brynhafod, Aberteifi 01239 612902
Dear householder, Contrary to what has been claimed Ceredigion has supported Cardigan, including the area south of the river, to the tune of millions of pounds. This includes Re. Boundary Review St. Dogmaels, Cilgerran the clearing of the Council rubbish tip, the flood and Cardigan Town alleviation tunnel, the Town Heritage Scheme, the recent road improvements at Rhyd y Gwin, and others. Cardigan Town Council would like to draw your The recent provision of the footpath and attention to the attached map that shows the lands improvement to the road to St. Dogmaels are Pembrokeshire are claiming from Cardigan. other notable examples. Cilgerran and St. Dogmaels wish to take aver almost Cardigan Town Council provided a bus shelter and everything south of the Teifi, leaving only Bridgend. road lights along St. Dogmaels’ road as well as Cardigan has been the commercial, maintaining others. The Town Council regularly social and cultural centre of south contributes towards St. Dogmaels’ voluntary Ceredigion and much of north organisations, such as the Football team, the School, Pembrokeshire for generations. the Rowing Club, the Surf Lifesaving Club and the Many of the services provided in Lifeboat. Cardigan are used by the people of north Our wards in St. Dogmaels and south of the river Pembrokeshire as well as the people of have always been equal to any other ward in our Ceredigion, such as: care. The Library, Citizens’ Advice Bureau Area 43, It is important for us all that these issues are Swimming pool, Leisure Centre, Kinora resolved to get the best out of our County Councils so and Jigso Family Support Group. that Cardigan and St. Dogmaels can grow together in The level of services depends directly on the the future. population. If there are fewer people paying for them WE WELCOME YOUR VIEWS AND as ratepayers then these services are threatened. INVITE YOU TO FORWARD THEM TO Although Pembrokeshire does provide some funding THE TOWN COUNCIL. this does not cover the use made by its citizens. PLEASE FILL IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE There could be a cut of a third in the services that FORM AND RETURN IT. are provided today. On past history it is unlikely that MAKE YOUR OPINION COUNT. the differences will be made up by Pembrokeshire. If Ceredigion is to make up the differences it may mean a Council Tax increase of about £10 per Yours sincerely household. Trevor T. Griffiths, Mayor
8 APPENDIX 3
QUESTIONNAIRE HOLIADUR ◊◊◊◊
Cardigan Town Council would be pleased to have your comments on the proposals to change the boundary. Gwerthfawrogir eich sylwadau gan Gyngor Tref Aberteifi ar yr awgrymiadau i newid y ffin.
Should St. Dogmaels, as a village, be unified? Yes / No A ddylai Llandudoch, fel pentref, fod yn unedig? Dylai / Na ddylai
Pam/Why …………………………………………………….………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………….…………………………………..
In which County? Pembrokeshire / Ceredigion Ym mha Sir? Sir Benfro / Ceredigion
Pam/Why …………………………………………………….………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………….……………………………………..
Do you wish to remain, as at present, in Ceredigion? Yes/No A hoffech aros, fel yr ydym ar hyn o bryd, yng Ngheredigion? Hoffwn / Nac hoffwn
Pam/Why …………………………………………………….………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………….…………………………………..
Other comments, please.
Unrhyw sylwadau eraill, os gwelwch yn dda.
…..…….. …………………………………………………….………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………….…………………………………..
Although the content of this questionnaire is confidential, we would appreciate noting your post code.
Er fod cynnwys yr holiadur yn gyfrinachol, gwerthfawrogwn nodi eich côd post.
Post Code / Côd Post ……………………
Please return this questionnaire with your comments by 9th February, 2001 to the Council Offices, Morgan Street, Cardigan SA43 1DG
Dychwelwch yr holiadur ynghyd â‘ch sylwadau i Swyddfa’r Cyngor, Stryd Morgan, Aberteifi SA43 1DG, erbyn 9fed Chwefror, 2001.
9 APPENDIX 4
ST. DOGMAELS COMMUNITY COUNCIL’S Response to the Draft Proposals recommended in the report of THE LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES 21st January 2001
Introduction
The members of St. Dogmaels Community Council wish to state their unanimous support for the proposed recommendation of The Boundary Commission reference number: 4.1 ‘ That the boundary between the Counties of Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire in the area of the Community of St. Dogmaels should be realigned as shown in green on the map at Appendix 6 to include the areas marked Area A and Area B within the County of Pembrokeshire’ They would like to express their thanks to the Commission for their deliberations, resulting in the production of a fully detailed and comprehensive report.
The members feel that their Council has acted solely in the interests of the population of St. Dogmaels and that the informal report they presented was fair and reflected the wishes of a majority and as such they feel obliged to register concerns over certain points which they feel are either unfair, inaccurate or misleading made by interested parties and contained in the Draft Proposal Report. The Council has therefore decided to give a more detailed response than was previously anticipated.
Public opinion
Subsequent to the Boundary Commission’s suggestions to gauge and provide evidence of the opinions of both the Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire areas of the village, St. Dogmaels Community Council deliberated on ways to gather a consensus. As it had previously received a petition from the Ceredigion Ward, it was felt that any representations from different groups of villagers would not be seen to reflect majority opinion. Therefore the public were asked to write to the Boundary Commission stating their wishes. In order to help the frailer members of the community, a standard response was circulated by councillors (at no cost whatsoever to the ratepayer). This would also give people who did not agree with unification the chance to amend the form, by deleting support and substituting I do not support. It appears from the representations received that a large number of people wrote to the Commission stating widely varying reasons in favour of unification under Pembrokeshire and not primarily because of the differential in rates referred to in section 11 of Cardigan Town Council’s report.
It has been noted by our Council that several articles have appeared in the local press featuring inaccuracies such as Cllr. Llwyd Edwards’ assertion that St. Dogmaels had included the population of Bridgend in its report recommendations. We have enclosed press coverage concerning the boundary division taken from 1998 onwards to illustrate just who is maximising propaganda.
Ceredigion County Council
Ceredigion Council, in reference numbers 2 and 3 of their report, make the point that all main services are situated within Cardigan and are used by St. Dogmaels residents. It should be noted that Cardigan has a catchment area of approx 30,000 people (information supplied by Menter Aberteifi) who use the town’s facilities, including other Pembrokeshire villages such as Cilgerran. The Community Council question why St. Dogmaels is singled out and its usage of public services used
1 APPENDIX 4 as an argument for retaining part of the village in Ceredigion or transferring the Pembrokeshire side into Ceredigion. The Council wishes to add further information with regard to four of the services that Ceredigion have listed:
1. Cardigan Police Station Unfortunately this is closed on Sundays and after 6pm on weekdays when calls are referred to Carmarthen. St. Dogmaels has been informed that a police station is due to be sited in Crymych to serve North Pembrokeshire.
2. Meals on Wheels Different arrangements are now in place due to the efforts of St. Dogmaels Community Council. A Meals on Wheels scheme was recently set up when St. Dogmaels Community Council was made aware that the Pembrokeshire side of the village was not being served and that there was a waiting list for the Ceredigion side. The scheme is now funded by Pembrokeshire County Council and was brought into operation in October 2000. Meals are cooked in St. Dogmaels and delivered to residents of both the Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire parts of the village. Discussions with Ceredigion’s Social Services and the WRVS resulted in an agreement to alleviate the overstretched resources of The Hafod, Cardigan (the previous supplier) by arranging for St. Dogmaels luncheon club to have meals supplied by St. Dogmaels School. Payment is commensurate.
3. Town car parks Cardigan car park charges are high (contributing greatly to Ceredigion’s revenue) and have been cited many times by both Cardigan Town Council and The Chamber of Trade as one of the principal reasons for the Town’s decline. St. Dogmaels’ car park is free for all to use. It has recently been upgraded substantially and new public toilet facilities are due to be erected this year.
4. Ceredigion Country Cars The Community Council was unaware that Pembrokeshire residents could use this service and consequently will be glad to bring it to the attention of our residents, many of whom had previously relied on the Pembrokeshire Country Car service.
Ceredigion also recommend that the wishes of all the inhabitants affected by the review be ascertained (including the Town of Cardigan) reference number 3.1. Since then the Town Mayor, Cllr.Trevor Griffiths, has outlined plans to circulate a boundary review questionnaire to the local electorate as reported in the Tivy-Side Advertiser of 1st November 2000. As Cardigan’s population is 3,463 St. Dogmaels’ Community Council would question the validity of any exercise which involved consulting the whole Town over decisions concerning any future arrangements for 307 of St. Dogmaels’ residents.
Cardigan Town Council
Cardigan Council’s report, reference number 5, contained an extensive list of community services and an inference that any loss of derived from St. Dogmaels ratepayers would bring most of these to a standstill. It also implied that funding from Pembrokeshire is either non-existent, or not commensurate. However figures supplied by Pembrokeshire County Council reveal that most of this information is incorrect. The corrected data is listed in italics below:
2 APPENDIX 4
• Hospital - not funded by local authorities. • Ambulance-funded internally. • Doctors Surgeries - not funded by local authorities. • Secondary School - cross border co-operation with Pembrokeshire County Council funding transport to St. Dogmaels. • Citizen’s Advice Bureau - £7, 060 for year 2000/200 1. Funded by Pembrokeshire County Council based on usage by St. Dogmael’s residents. The Community Council have made donations when requested. • WRVS Meals on Wheels - Pembrokeshire funding. • Library - although there is no contribution from Pembrokeshire it is worth noting that they fund the mobile library which serves residents from both the Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire areas of St. Dogmaels village. • Older person nursing care- reciprocal arrangements. • Area 43 - to date Pembrokeshire has not been asked to contribute any funding. (borne out by enquiries made to both a trustee and a staff member) However the Community Council have made donations when requested • Fire station-Mid and West Wales, regional funding, both counties. • Jigsaw - unaware of any funding requests have been made to Pembrokeshire County Council. • Sewage Treatment Works - properties connected to public sewer pay a sewerage rate to Hyder for collection and treatment. • Community service - Home help carers appointed by Pembrokeshire County Council.
Contained in The Boundary Commission’s report assessment, reference number 3.9, is the statement made by the Commission, “that the loss of precept to Cardigan Town Council would be offset, at least in part, by savings made in that there would no longer be a requirement to provide services to an area that is detached from the main part of the town.” This is true especially as there are many improvements needed within the St. Dogmaels Ceredigion area, including the updating of street lighting along Cwm Degwel. Several complaints about this have been received and referred to Cardigan Council. Within the last eighteen months our councillors have received representations from Ceredigion residents with concerns such as, social services availability (letter forwarded to the Town Council), absence of road signs, council rubbish bins, double yellow lines and the introduction of Ceredigion’s new taxi tariffs. The clerk has sent copies of letters etc to the relevant authorities when possible, in other instances residents have been advised to contact either Cardigan or Ceredigion Council.
Cross Border Activity
It is inferred by Cardigan, in reference number 10, that the Pembrokeshire Beach, Poppit Sands, gained Blue Flag Status largely through the efforts of TEEMI a council sub committee (chaired incidentally for 5 years by a Pembrokeshire Community Councillor). This is not correct, St. Dogmaels Community Council and Pembrokeshire Access Group worked tirelessly over a long period to meet the criteria involved ie dog banning and disabled access in accordance with their remit. Further assistance was given by Pembrokeshire National Park and TEEMI It should also be noted that the TEEMI members, who include representatives from various organisations such as the Countryside Commission for Wales and the Environment Agency, have recently voted to become autonomous, which should enable easier accessing of various future funding sources.
3 APPENDIX 4
St. Dogmaels Landslip
Section 12 of Cardigan’s report touches on a major disaster that occurred in St. Dogmaels in 1994. For 5 years a huge amount of financial and practical aid was supplied by Pembrokeshire County Council as part of a vast stabilisation and drainage scheme that they undertook. This scheme requires ongoing monitoring and maintenance for an indefinite period. Continuity of both expertise and knowledge is essential. The consultants, Sir William Halcrow Ltd (based in Cardiff), and the contractors, Pembrokeshire Contract Services (Fishguard), continue to liase with Pembrokeshire County Council engineers. Numerous St. Dogmaels residents have registered concerns as to whether Ceredigion would be willing or could afford to finance this essential work. Reassurance as to the safety and stability of the village is vital to maintain confidence and to protect the local economy e.g. property values, tourism and trade.
Councillor Representation
St. Dogmaels Community Council are pleased that Cardigan Council’s fear of losing a Ceredigion County Councillor is unfounded, reference number 5.4 of the Commissions Consequential Arrangements. The Community Councillors also wish to emphasise that they support maximum representation for Cardigan at County level.
Ceredigion County and Cardigan Town Councillor Trevor T Griffiths, on page 4 of the report, reference 2.10 number 8, stated that ‘a combination of two communities would save the resources of 7 community councillors and one community clerk and this would be more effective and efficient.’ Contrary to this St. Dogmaels Community Council feel that, in view of councillors’ ever-increasing workload, due to lottery fund and Objective I applications etc, the cutting down of any voluntary resources (including councillors) would decrease rather than enhance efficiency. St. Dogmaels Community Council therefore support The Boundary Commission’s proposal that ‘the number of councillors on the St. Dogmaels Community Council be increased from 10 to 12,’ reference number 5.5.
St. Dogmaels Community Council
The members of St. Dogmaels Community Council have emphasised, within their section of the report, the leading role that both its Council and Pembrokeshire County Council have played in regenerating the whole of the village. There are several other points that need fuller illustration:
Llwybrau Llandudoch
Llwybrau Llandudoch was originally set up as a subcommittee of the Community Council in 1996. Although now autonomous, it has been chaired since its inception by Community Councillor Mr Iwan Dafis. The organisation has received funding from Menter Preseli (Pembrokeshire County Council) and donations from St. Dogmaels Community Council. In 1998 the group gained a prestigious award from the Prince’s Trust, in recognition of their work in opening up and maintaining footpaths throughout St. Dogmaels. Ceredigion MP Cynog Dafis was invited to open the flagship Mwtshwr footpath, which lies in Ceredigion.
To date seven footpaths (including three within the Ceredigion side of the village) have been upgraded and this environmentally desirable work carried out by the villagers is also making a substantial contribution to tourism within the locality.
4 APPENDIX 4
Cymdeithas Cadw’r San
Cymdeithas Cadw’r San is a St. Dogmaels based organisation with a committee comprising of St. Dogmaels Community Councillors, a Pembrokeshire County Councillor, Heritage fishermen and local people. This group is trying to ensure the perpetuation of both Seine and Coracle fishing on the Teifi Estuary.
Participation in Town Projects
Cardigan’s inference made in the boundary report and in recent press statements, issued of late, that St. Dogmaels people use the Town is totally unfounded. This is quite the reverse as the support given to Cardigan both in the financial and voluntary sectors is very substantial. Over the years donations made by the Community Council to Cardigan associations have been commensurate with those of Cardigan’s to St. Dogmaels, bearing in mind that the Community Council’s precept amount is approximately 10 % of Cardigan’s. Members of St. Dogmaels Community Council and village residents play a very active part in helping Town Projects and many have served or currently serve on Cardigan based organisations including:
Menter Aberteifi TEEMI The Rugby Club AREA 43 Hanes Aberteifi Cardigan Sports Association. Teifi Boating Club Citizens Advice Bureau Afon Teifi Fairways Committee
CONCLUSION
The case for the village of St. Dogmaels to be re-unified under one authority is in the interests of effective and convenient local government (The Local Government Act 1972). The present arrangements of a village split unevenly between two Counties are complicated and confusing. This important factor has been identified and considered by The Boundary Commission in their Draft Proposals. The Community Council consider that the case for re-unification under the authority of Pembrokeshire is overwhelming and feel that the following points illustrate this conclusion:
• Pembrokeshire Services are perceived to be more reliable, efficient and cost effective; they also have a service depot in Fishguard. • The Pembrokeshire area of the village has the larger population. • The Stabilisation Drainage Programme, following the St. Dogmaels landslip of 1994, is ongoing, expensive to maintain and requires continuity of expertise. • St. Dogmaels is historically and intrinsically rooted in Pembrokeshire. • St. Dogmaels is detached and has a separate identity from Cardigan Town. • Village organisations receive continued support from the Community Council. • Many current projects are reliant on Pembrokeshire funding. • Pembrokeshire’s planning policy is considered to be more aesthetically sensitive. • Objective 1 applications (two feasibility studies have recently been conducted).
5 APPENDIX 4
• The over-riding factor is that over 90% of the population of St. Dogmaels wish to have the village re-unified under the authority of Pembrokeshire. They have rallied to show support for the proposal by displaying and distributing car stickers. Many residents have sent letters to the Boundary Commission as suggested by the Community Council.
Cardigan Town Council has conducted its campaign mainly through exaggerated and emotive press reports and the distribution of questionnaires to town residents (reliant on postcodes in place of names and addresses). The Town Council attaches considerable importance to the loss of revenue (to both Cardigan and Ceredigion). There is however no reason to suppose that Cardigan need be any poorer for the loss of 307 residents as there would be no loss of revenue to the area since the population is not being diminished: It is merely a matter of apportioning revenue which can be re- negotiated between the two counties.
Since St. Dogmaels village was divided in 1832 for Cardigan to secure a political advantage, its residents have twice submitted representations, once in 1885 and again in 1976, to have the village re-unified within Pembrokeshire. Both attempts were thwarted by Cardigan who supplied arguments over their speculated economic loss.
We are now in the twenty first century and appealing for the third time. We hope that that the wishes of the people will be respected and that St. Dogmaels will be re-unified under the authority of Pembrokeshire County Council.
Cllr. Ian Gollop Chairman of St. Dogmaels Community Council’s Boundary subcommittee.
6 APPENDIX 5
CEREDIGION COUNTY COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION’S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
1. Effect of the Commission’s Draft Proposals on Ceredigion County’s Council Tax and budget.
1.1. Introduction. The impact of the proposals is difficult to calculate precisely. In addition to the complexities of the National Assembly Revenue Support Grant (RSG) distribution formula, the information on financial and non-financial data, relating to the area affected is not available in any degree of detail. An attempt has been made, in consultation with Assembly officials, to arrive at an estimation of the effect of the proposals and this forms the basis for the response below.
1.2. Council Tax Base. The proposals would result in a reduction of the Council Tax base of some 261 (Gross Band D equivalents) in Ceredigion and a corresponding increase in Pembrokeshire. The effect of this Tax Base reduction on Ceredigion County Council, however, is partly compensated in the RSG calculation. It is estimated that the effect on Ceredigion’s Council Tax is an increase of £6.32 as a result of the reduction in Council Tax Base.
1.3. RSG and the Standard Spending Assessment. The method of distributing RSG to Councils is a function of the formula based Standard Spending Assessment (SSA). The formula is an objective means of reflecting the relative spending needs of Councils to provide a standard level of revenue services. It takes into account a wide range of demographic, physical, and social characteristics of each area. These are captured through a variety of indicators, amounting to some 50 indicators in total. An extract from the RSG Settlement Report for 2000/2001 is attached to highlight the range of indicators. The SSA for Ceredigion for 2001/2002 is £84,279,644 which is the equivalent of £1,175 per head of population.
Unfortunately, at this stage, it is not possible to identify all the financial and non-financial data necessary to re-work the formula completely. However, it is possible to arrive at an estimate of the SSA change as a result of the proposals. Ceredigion would experience a reduction in those many factors that influence the formula. The main determinant of SSA is population and some 400 would transfer to Pembrokeshire. In addition, it has been possible to establish that some 11.7 kilometres of highways would be transferred to Pembrokeshire. In the absence of any other definite data, the Assembly statisticians have re-calculated the formula to take account of the transfer of population and highways only and this produces a switch of SSA amounting to £132,737 which is the equivalent of £332 per head of population transferred. The full impact will of course be much greater and will be somewhere between £332 and £1175 per head of population.
Education features as a significant element of the formula, but the proposals do not involve the transfer of any school and pupil numbers are recorded at the place of education. In addition, the proposals will not impact on the capital financing costs of both Councils. It is therefore possible to eliminate these two components of the SSA to produce a figure of £37,365,644 which is the equivalent of £521.13 per head of population. The estimated effect on the SSA is therefore based on a rounded figure of £500 per head of population for illustrative purposes. This assumption is also the view of the Assembly statisticians. The SSA reduction in Ceredigion is estimated at £200,000 (£500 X 400 population) with a corresponding increase in Pembrokeshire’s SSA of £200,000. The overall effect on the RSG as a result of the transfer of SSA is an increase in Council Tax in Ceredigion of £1.99.
1 APPENDIX 5
1.4. Impact on Revenue Expenditure. Once again it is extremely difficult to be precise about the reduction in spending by Ceredigion in the area affected. Details and costs of all services to clients (e.g. Social service clients, Benefit applicants, planning applicants, trading standards, environmental health clients, etc etc) together with the marginal costs of service delivery (e.g. road maintenance, refuse collection and disposal, school transport, libraries, etc etc) would be required to analyse the full effect on revenue spending. Responses from most of the Council’s Departments indicate that savings or reductions would be relatively small. Ceasing to deliver the services in the area affected is unlikely to result in a reduction in staffing, or the disposal of vehicles etc as most services are provided at the margin within the area proposed to be transferred. Conversely, the main services provided to the residents of St Dogmaels would continue to be delivered in the remaining parts of Ceredigion and in particular the Cardigan town area. An estimate of the current marginal costs of service provision in the area to be transferred is £25,000 to £40,000 and for the purposes of illustrating the effect on the Council Tax levels a figure of £30,000 is used. The reduction in Council Tax in Ceredigion owing to the estimated savings will be £1.13.
1.5 Summary of estimated effect on Council Tax in Ceredigion. It is estimated that the Proposals will increase the Council Tax level in Ceredigion by some £7.18 per Band D household throughout the remaining parts of Ceredigion as follows:
Element Change in Council tax
Reduction in Council Tax Base £6.32 Increase Reduction in RSG £1.99 Increase Sub Total £8.31 Less saving in expenditure £1.13 Decrease Net effect on Council Tax in Ceredigion £7.18 Increase
Details of the calculations are set out in the attached Spreadsheet.
1.6 Summary of estimated effect on Council Tax in Pembrokeshire. A similar exercise has been undertaken for Pembrokeshire using the same figures. However, the impact on Council Tax levels in Pembrokeshire is not as great because of the much higher overall Council Tax Base. The estimated net reduction in Council Tax in Pembrokeshire is £3.39 and it can be seen there is a disproportionate impact on the Council Taxpayers of the two Councils. This must be set against the fact that Ceredigion County will continue to provide most of the services to the population of the area transferred.
1.7 Comparison of Council Taxes in Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire The differential between Council Tax levels in the two Councils is marked. This is mainly due to the relationship of the Council’s budget to the SSA. In Ceredigion’s case the budget exceeds the formula based SSA, whereas Pembrokeshire’s budget is below the SSA. The gearing effect of spending above SSA creates the differential. The proposals to transfer parts of Ceredigion aggravate the relative positions and adds to the problems of funding services in Ceredigion. A summary is set out below to illustrate the point:
Ceredigion County Pembrokeshire County Differential
Current Council Tax £648 98 £499.00 £149.98 Proposed Council tax £656.16 £495.61 £160.55 Change £ 7.18 Increase £ 3.39 Decrease £ 10.57 Increase
2 APPENDIX 5
2. Estimated Impact on the Precept and Council Tax of Cardigan Town Council.
2.1. Introduction. The impact on Cardigan Town Council is relatively straightforward to calculate. The issues of RSG and SSA are not relevant.
2.2. Effect on Council Tax Base. The effect is similar to the reduction in the Tax Base of Ceredigion, but the impact is much more dramatic. The estimated net reduction in Council Tax base is £251 representing a reduction of 15%. Assuming the Town Council retains their level of spending and Precept at £62,805, their Council Tax will increase by £6 again resulting in an increase of some £15%
Expressed alternatively, if the Town Council maintained the current level of Council Tax, their Precept income will reduce by £9,229. This would seriously adversely affect their ability to provide the same level of services which they argue are supplied to the people of St Dogmaels.
Details of the calculations are set out in the attached Spreadsheet.
Director of Finance 25th April 2001
Proposed St Dogmaels Boundary Review
Calculation of estimated effect on Council Tax (based on 2001/02)
CEREDIGION Current Proposed Expenditure Expenditure reduced by reduced by £30k Change £30k and SSA and SSA reduced between Expenditure reduced by by £200k and Existing and Existing reduced by £30k £200k reduced tax base Proposed
Expenditure at SSA 84,279,644 84,249,644 84,079,644 84,079,644 - 200,000
Funded Revenue Support Grant 52,967,802 52,967,802 52,915,802 52,915,802 - 51,662
Share of Non Domestic Rate 15,362,425 15,362,425 15,362,425 15,362,425 -
Council Taxpayers at SSA 15,362,425 15,362,425 15,362,425 15,362,425 - 148,338
Council Tax at SSA 590.99 590.99 590.99 590.99 -
Expenditure in Excess of SSA (2001/02 Net Budget = £85,787,120) 1,507,476 1,507,476 1,677,476 1,677,476 170,000
Council Tax for SSA Excess £ 57.99 £ 56.84 £ 64.53 £ 65.16 7.17 Tax Base 25,994 25,994 25,994 25,743 251
TOTAL COUNCIL TAX £ 648.98 £ 647.83 £ 655.52 £ 656.16 7.17
3 APPENDIX 5
PEMBROKESHIRE Current Proposed Expenditure increased by Expenditure £30k and SSA increased by increased by Change Expenditure £30k and SSA £200k and between increased by increased by increased tax Existing and Existing £30k £200k base Proposed
Expenditure at SSA 136,909,241 136,909,241 137,109,241 137,109,241 200,000
Funded Revenue Support Grant 87,140,956 87,140,956 87,140,956 87,192,617 51,662
Share of Non Domestic Rate 24,251,110 24,251,110 24,251,110 24,251,110 -
Council Taxpayers at SSA 25,517,175 25,517,175 25,517,175 25,665,514 148,338
Council Tax at SSA 590.99 590.99 590.99 590.99 0
Expenditure below SSA - 3,971,794 - 3,941,794 - 4,141,794 - 4,141,794 170,000
Council Tax less than SSA -£ 91.99 -£ 91.29 -£ 95.93 -£ 95.37 3.38
Tax Base 43,177 43,177 43,177 43,428 251
TOTAL COUNCIL TAX £ 499.00 £ 499.70 £ 495.06 £ 495.62 - 3.38
Difference in Council Tax 150 161 11
Assumptions Standard Spending Assessment Change £200k Expenditure Change £30k Tax Base Change Gross 261 Net 251
Non Domestic Rate Change ignored for the purpose of calculation
CARDIGAN TOWN COUNCIL
Estimated effect on Council Tax level. Existing Precept £ 62,805 Tax Base 1,699 Council Tax £ 37 Proposed Precept £ 62,805 Tax Base 1,448 Council Tax £ 43 Difference £ 6
4 Appendix 6
PEMBROKESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL COMMENTS ON THE NOTES MADE BY CEREDIGION COUNTY COUNCIL RELATING TO THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGE
The commentary within the technical note on such matters as Council Tax Base, Revenue Support Grant, Standard Spending Assessment and Council expenditure is noted. However, you will note from the following analysis that it is evident that a number of points of principle have been confused which, when taken individually, question the conclusions reached in the paper and their overall impact on council tax levels.
The following observations are made:-
1. Council Tax Base (see para 1.2 of Ceredigion County Council’s note)
If Ceredigion County Council were spending at S.S.A., then the transfer of Council Tax Base between the two authorities would be neutral. That is, the loss in tax base by Ceredigion County Council would be compensated by a corresponding increase in revenue support grant. As that Council is spending some £1.5m above S.S.A., then the impact on council tax levels would be very small indeed, some £0.60 for a Band ‘D’ property. The council tax base issue taken on its own would not have any significant impact on either Council, and certainly not to the effect of £6.32 (Band D) suggested in the technical note.
2. Revenue Support Grant (R.S.G.) and Standard Spending Assessment (S.S.A.) (See para 1.3 of Ceredigion County Council’s note)
The complexities of the local government revenue settlement clearly surface in the various comments and technical notes provided by Ceredigion County Council. However, the process of moving S.S.A., R.S.G., Non-domestic Rates and Council Tax base between the two authorities would be neutral within the Local Government Revenue Settlement. Based on the data used by Ceredigion i.e. S.S.A. (£200,000), Non-domestic rates (£52,000) and Council Tax Base (261) transferring between Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire, then this would result in revenue support grant changes taking place between the two Councils which would ensure that council tax for spending at S.S.A. remain exactly the same. It is, therefore, misleading to suggest that any boundary change would, by virtue of changes in the Local Government Revenue Settlement, cause any increase whatsoever in council tax levels.
3. Impact on Revenue Expenditure
The real issue highlighted in Ceredigion’s technical note is the impact that the proposed boundary would have on expenditure. The proposition put forward appears to suggest that S.S.A. (need to spend) would change by £200,000, but would only be offset by reductions in expenditure of £30,000. I foind this conclusion, (albeit qualified by Ceredigion), unrealistic. We estimate that the impact upon levies alone to be in the order of £20,000 per annum (i.e. fire authority/land drainage). As for other front line services, the real cost of delivering children and adult services, highway and municipal services, education transport etc., would be significantly towards the £200,000 figure highlighted within the S.S.A. calculation.
1 Appendix 6
The assumptions used in the technical note are flawed and do not represent any realistic assessment of Ceredigion’s existing expenditure requirements for the area identified by the proposed boundary changed and Pembrokeshire’s need to replace such services at a realistic financial cost.
We do not accept the conclusions reached by Ceredigion County Council in this issue, particularly when under-scored by a number of serious shortcomings in basic data assumptions. If that Council reduced its expenditure by the same amount on the estimated S.S.A. reduction (£200,000), then Council Tax levels would change by some £0.60, (i.e. the impact of the change in tax base on excess expenditure over S.S.A.).
MARK LEWIS Director of Finance
2 APPENDIX 7
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY RITA HALE COMMISSIONED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES
Background
1. We understand that the Boundary Commission is undertaking a review of part of the boundary between the counties of Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire, in the area of the community of St Dogmaels.
2. We have seen:-
• the Commission’s draft proposals; and • the responses to those proposals submitted by St Dogmaels Community Council; Ceredigion County Council and Pembrokeshire County Council.
3. We were asked to review the facts and assumptions in the paper produced by Ceredigion County Council on the likely financial effects of the proposed boundary change.
4. The approach we adopted is described in detail in the main report.
Issues Raised by the Study
5. We raised questions about the number of people who live in the review area. The County Council’s assessment of the likely effect of the Boundary Commission’s proposals is based on the assumption that 400 people live in the area, but we were told in August 2001 that the number of people living in the area could be as few as 304. We have no way of knowing which of these estimates is the more accurate, but the assumption about the number of people likely to be affected by the proposed boundary change is likely to have a material effect on the results of the financial appraisal of the Commission’s proposals. Accordingly, we tested the sensitivity of the analyses to the assumption made about the number of people living in the area. We considered the likely effect on the Council Tax levels in Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire if:-
• 300 people, or about 0.42% of Ceredigion’s population, would be affected by the proposed boundary change; or • 400 people, or about 0.56% of Ceredigion’s population, would be affected by the proposed boundary change.
6. We raised questions also about the number of domestic properties in the review area – and the valuation of those properties for Council Tax purposes. The County Council’s papers appear to suggest that there are 129 domestic properties in the review area with a gross value for Council Tax purposes of 261 Band D equivalents. This implies that each of the properties in the review area has a value of slightly more than 2 Band D equivalents. The highest Council Tax Band is Band H – and properties in Band H have a value of 2 Band D equivalents. So the County Council’s figures appear to imply that the domestic properties in the review area have values beyond the upper end of the value range.
7. We have no way of establishing how many domestic properties are in the review area – and how these have been valued for Council Tax purposes. However, we believe that it should
1 APPENDIX 7
be possible for the County Council to establish precisely which properties would be affected by the proposed boundary change and how they have been valued for Council Tax purposes.
Key Issues
8. We took the view that the key issues for the study are:
• the differential, if any, between the changes in the county councils’ SSAs and the changes in their expenditure which would flow from the proposed boundary change; and • the effect of any differential on the level of the two county councils’ Council Taxes following the boundary change.
Changes in Spending Levels
9. We understand that the County Council estimated that its own spending would fall by about £30,000 if the proposed boundary change were to proceed – ie:-
• road maintenance – down by £10,000; • refuse collection – down by £10,000; and • social and environmental services – down by £10,000.
10. We are unable to confirm the reasonableness of the County Council’s figures, but we accept that they are the County Council’s best estimates of the effects of the proposed boundary change on its spending on its own services. However, we believe that in addition to the savings on its own services the County Council would also pay a reduced levy to the Mid and West Wales Fire Authority if the proposed boundary change were to go ahead. We estimate that, based on the figures for 2001-02, the County Council’s levy payments would fall by:
• about £11,500 if the boundary review affected about 300 people - and Pembrokeshire’s levy payment would rise by the same amount; • about £15,300 if the boundary review affected about 400 people - and Pembrokeshire’s levy payment would rise by the same amount.
Accordingly, we believe that Ceredigion might save slightly more than £30,000 if the boundary change were to go ahead – and Pembrokeshire might inherit slightly more than £30,000 of expenditure following the proposed boundary change.
Changes in SSAs
11. We concluded that the scale of the change in the County Council’s SSA would be sensitive to the number of people living in the review area – and that Ceredigion’s SSA might fall by about £150,000 if about 300 people live in the review area, or by about £200,000 if about 400 people live in the review area, the figure estimated by Ceredigion County Council.
The Differential between the Change in Spending and the Change in SSA
12. We concluded that the differential between the change in the Council’s budgets and the changes in their SSAs as a result of the boundary change could be quite wide – eg:-
2 APPENDIX 7
• if about 300 people live in the area, the difference could be of the order of £109,000 – ie the difference between an SSA change of about £150,000 and a budget change of £41,000; or • if about 400 people live in the area, the difference could be of the order of £155,000 – ie the difference between an SSA change of about £200,000 and a budget change of £45,000.
The Likely Effect of the Boundary Change on Council Tax Levels
13. We tested two different approaches to the calculation of the likely effects of the proposed boundary change on Council Tax levels in Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire – ie the approach adopted by Ceredigion County Council and an alternative approach to the calculations, which follows the usual procedure for calculating local authorities’ Revenue Support Grant; and uses the data used by the National Assembly for Wales in the grant distribution calculations.
14. We believe that the alternative approach which we tested is likely to produce a more realistic assessment of the likely effects of the proposed boundary change on the distribution of the Revenue Support Grant and the income from the National Non- Domestic Rate Pool – and thus of the likely effect of the proposed boundary change for Council Taxpayers in Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire.
15. We need to stress that because we were unable to obtain:-
• detailed data on the composition of the SSAs for 2001-02; and • any data on the characteristics of the people living in the review area;
the figures we have produced can only be indicative. However, we believe that they are the best estimates which could be produced given how few data are available.
16. The results of the tests we carried out lead us to conclude in relation to Ceredigion that:-
• the County Council’s Council Tax would be likely to rise if the proposed boundary review were to proceed; • the scale of the increase would probably be smaller if about 400 people live in the review area than if fewer – ie about 300 people – live in the area; and • the Council Tax increase could be of the order of £5 per Band D property if about 300 people live in the area, but only slightly more than £1 per Band D property if about 400 people live in the area.
17. We concluded, in relation to Pembrokeshire, that:-
• the County Council’s Council Tax would probably fall if the boundary review were to proceed; • the cut in the Council Tax would probably be bigger if 400 people live in the review area than if 300 people live in the area; and • the cut could be about £2 per Band D property if about 300 people live in the area, or about £3 per Band D property if about 400 people live in the area.
3 APPENDIX 7
18. Our overall assessment is that if the boundary review were to go ahead, the difference between the increase in the Council Tax for Ceredigion and the cut in the Council Tax for Pembrokeshire would probably be less marked than the figures set out in Ceredigion’s response to the Commission’s proposals suggest.
19. We are unable to comment on the likely implications of the proposed boundary change for Cardigan Town Council because we have no way of assessing whether or not the proposed boundary change would have any effect on the Town Council’s spending.
4 APPENDIX 8
Table 1 RSG & Council Tax Calculations – Ceredigion
RSG / Notional RSG / Notional RSG / Council Tax Council Tax Council Tax Calculation for 2001-02 Calculation 1 Calculation 2 £m £m £m Ceredigion : SSA for 2001-02 84.280 fall of £0.2m 84.080 fall of £0.2m 84.080
Deduct:
Income from NNDR Pool :
Ceredigion Population 18 & Over 57606 57285 57285 ÷ ÷ ÷ Wales Population 18 & Over 2265678 2265678 2265678 x x x Total NNDR Pool 627.3 -15.949 627.3 -15.860 627.3 -15.860
Income from Council Tax (CT) for Spending at SSA :
Council Tax for Spending at SSA - £s / Band D 567.348 567.348 567.348
Council Taxbase for Grant Distribution Purposes / Income from CT for Spending at SSA 27077 -15.362 26826 -15.220 26908 -15.266
Equals
RSG for 2001-02 52.969 53.000 52.953
Budget Requirement : 85.787 85.787 85.787
Deduct :
Notional Savings -0.030 -0.030
Reduction in Fire Service Levy -0.015 -0.015
Adjusted Budget Requirement (BR) 85.787 85.742 85.742
Amount to be Raised from Council Tax - BR Minus RSG Minus NNDR 16.869 16.882 16.928
Council Taxbase for Council Tax Purposes 25994 25743 25832
Council Tax - £s Band D 648.96 655.78 655.32
1 APPENDIX 8
Table 1 RSG & Council Tax Calculations – Pembrokeshire
RSG / Notional RSG / Notional RSG / Council Tax Council Tax Council Tax Calculation for 2001-02 Calculation 1 Calculation 2 £m £m £m Pembrokeshire: SSA for 2001-02 136.909 rise of £0.2m 137.109 rise of £0.2m 137.109
Deduct:
Income from NNDR Pool :
Pembrokeshire Population 18 & Over 87590 87911 87911 ÷ ÷ ÷ Wales Population 18 & Over 2265678 2265678 2265678 x x x Total NNDR Pool 627.3 -24.251 627.3 -24.340 627.3 -24.340
Income from Council Tax for Spending at SSA :
Council Tax for Spending at SSA - £s / Band D 567.348 567.348 567.348
Council Taxbase for Grant Distribution Purposes / Income from CT for Spending at SSA 44976 -25.517 45227 -25.659 45145 -25.613
Equals
RSG for 2001-02 87.141 87.110 87.156
Budget Requirement : 132.950 132.950 132.950
Add:
Notional Increase in Spending 0.030 0.030
Increase in Fire Service Levy 0.015 0.015
Adjusted Budget Requirement (BR) 132.950 132.995 132.995
Amount to be Raised from Council Tax - BR Minus RSG Minus NNDR 21.558 21.545 21.499
Council Taxbase for Council Tax Purposes 43177 43428 43339
Council Tax - £s Band D 499.29 496.12 496.06
The Council Tax figures are very sensitive to the assumption made about changes in spending as a result of the proposed boundary change. The smaller the difference between the estimated change in SSA and the estimated change in spending, the smaller the potential increase in Ceredigion’s Council Tax and the smaller the potential reduction in Pembrokeshire’s Council Tax.
2 APPENDIX 8
Table 2 sets out the effects of assuming a total change in spending of £0.1 million as a result of the proposed boundary change – ie spending changes equivalent to 50% of the estimated change in SSA – and , based on the latest Council Tax values, shows:-
• an increase of £4.23 per Band D property for Ceredigion; and • a reduction of £1.96 per Band D property for Pembrokeshire.
Table 2 RSG & Council Tax Calculations – Change in Spending of ± £0.1 million – Ceredigion
RSG / Notional RSG / Notional RSG / Council Tax Calculation Council Tax Council Tax for 2001-02 Calculation 1 Calculation 2 £m £m £m Ceredigion : SSA for 2001-02 84.280 fall of £0.2m 84.080 fall of £0.2m 84.080
Deduct:
Income from NNDR Pool :
Ceredigion Population 18 & Over 57606 57285 57285 ÷ ÷ ÷ Wales Population 18 & Over 2265678 2265678 2265678 x x x Total NNDR Pool 627.3 -15.949 627.3 -15.860 627.3 -15.860
Income from Council Tax (CT) for Spending at SSA :
Council Tax for Spending at SSA - £s / Band D 567.348 567.348 567.348
Council Taxbase for Grant Distribution Purposes / Income from CT for Spending at SSA 27077 -15.362 26826 -15.220 26908 -15.266
Equals
RSG for 2001-02 52.969 53.000 52.953
Budget Requirement : 85.787 85.787 85.787
Deduct :
Notional Savings -0.085 -0.085
Reduction in Fire Service Levy -0.015 -0.015
Adjusted Budget Requirement (BR) 85.787 85.687 85.687
Amount to be Raised from Council Tax - BR Minus RSG Minus NNDR 16.869 16.827 16.873
Council Taxbase for Council Tax Purposes 25994 25743 25832
Council Tax - £s Band D 648.96 653.64 653.19
3 APPENDIX 8
Table 2 RSG & Council Tax Calculations – Change in Spending of ± £0.1 million – Pembrokeshire
RSG / Notional RSG / Notional RSG / Council Tax Calculation Council Tax Council Tax for 2001-02 Calculation 1 Calculation 2 £m £m £m Pembrokeshire: SSA for 2001-02 136.909 rise of £0.2m 137.109 rise of £0.2m 137.109
Deduct:
Income from NNDR Pool :
Pembrokeshire Population 18 & Over 87590 87911 87911 ÷ ÷ ÷ Wales Population 18 & Over 2265678 2265678 2265678 x x x Total NNDR Pool 627.3 -24.251 627.3 -24.340 627.3 -24.340
Income from Council Tax for Spending at SSA :
Council Tax for Spending at SSA - £s / Band D 567.348 567.348 567.348
Council Taxbase for Grant Distribution Purposes / Income from CT for Spending at SSA 44976 -25.517 45227 -25.659 45145 -25.613
Equals
RSG for 2001-02 87.141 87.110 87.156
Budget Requirement : 132.950 132.950 132.950
Add:
Notional Increase in Spending 0.085 0.085
Increase in Fire Service Levy 0.015 0.015
Adjusted Budget Requirement (BR) 132.950 133.050 133.050
Amount to be Raised from Council Tax - BR Minus RSG Minus NNDR 21.558 21.600 21.554
Council Taxbase for Council Tax Purposes 43177 43428 43339
Council Tax - £s Band D 499.29 497.39 497.33
4 APPENDIX 8
Table 3 sets out the effect of assuming a total change in spending of £0.150 million – ie spending changes equivalent to 75% of the estimated change in SSA – and, based on the latest Council Tax values, shows:-
• an increase of £2.29 per Band D property for Ceredigion; and • a reduction of £0.80 per Band D property for Pembrokeshire.
Table 3 RSG & Council Tax Calculations – Change in Spending of ± £0.150 million – Ceredigion
RSG / Notional RSG / Notional RSG / Council Tax Council Tax Council Tax Calculation for 2001-02 Calculation 1 Calculation 2 £m £m £m Ceredigion : SSA for 2001-02 84.280 fall of £0.2m 84.080 fall of £0.2m 84.080
Deduct:
Income from NNDR Pool :
Ceredigion Population 18 & Over 57606 57285 57285 ÷ ÷ ÷ Wales Population 18 & Over 2265678 2265678 2265678 x x x Total NNDR Pool 627.3 -15.949 627.3 -15.860 627.3 -15.860
Income from Council Tax (CT) for Spending at SSA :
Council Tax for Spending at SSA - £s / Band D 567.348 567.348 567.348
Council Taxbase for Grant Distribution Purposes / Income from CT for Spending at SSA 27077 -15.362 26826 -15.220 26908 -15.266
Equals
RSG for 2001-02 52.969 53.000 52.953
Budget Requirement : 85.787 85.787 85.787
Deduct :
Notional Savings -0.135 -0.135
Reduction in Fire Service Levy -0.015 -0.015
Adjusted Budget Requirement (BR) 85.787 85.637 85.637
Amount to be Raised from Council Tax - BR Minus RSG Minus NNDR 16.869 16.777 16.823
Council Taxbase for Council Tax Purposes 25994 25743 25832
Council Tax - £s Band D 648.96 651.70 651.25
5 APPENDIX 8
Table 3 RSG & Council Tax Calculations – Change in Spending of ± £0.150 million – Pembrokeshire
RSG / Notional RSG / Notional RSG / Council Tax Council Tax Council Tax Calculation for 2001-02 Calculation 1 Calculation 2 £m £m £m Pembrokeshire: SSA for 2001-02 136.909 rise of £0.2m 137.109 rise of £0.2m 137.109
Deduct:
Income from NNDR Pool :
Pembrokeshire Population 18 & Over 87590 87911 87911 ÷ ÷ ÷ Wales Population 18 & Over 2265678 2265678 2265678 x x x Total NNDR Pool 627.3 -24.251 627.3 -24.340 627.3 -24.340
Income from Council Tax for Spending at SSA :
Council Tax for Spending at SSA - £s / Band D 567.348 567.348 567.348
Council Taxbase for Grant Distribution Purposes / Income from CT for Spending at SSA 44976 -25.517 45227 -25.659 45145 -25.613
Equals
RSG for 2001-02 87.141 87.110 87.156
Budget Requirement : 132.950 132.950 132.950
Add:
Notional Increase in Spending 0.135 0.135
Increase in Fire Service Levy 0.015 0.015
Adjusted Budget Requirement (BR) 132.950 133.100 133.100
Amount to be Raised from Council Tax - BR Minus RSG Minus NNDR 21.558 21.650 21.604
Council Taxbase for Council Tax Purposes 43177 43428 43339
Council Tax - £s Band D 499.29 498.54 498.49
6