sign in sign up
<<
Home , Catbrook, Cwmcarvan, Gwehelog, Gwernesney, Kilgwrrwg, Llanddewi Rhydderch

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS REPORT AND PROPOSALS

COUNTY OF

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE COUNTY OF MONMOUTHSHIRE

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW

4. DRAFT PROPOSALS

5. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

6. ASSESSMENT

7. PROPOSALS

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

9. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

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

The Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales Caradog House 1-6 St Andrews Place CF10 3BE Tel Number: (029) 2039 5031 Cert No: SGS-COC-005057 Fax Number: (029) 2039 5250 E-mail [email protected] www.lgbc-wales.gov.uk

FOREWORD

This is our report containing our Final Proposals for Monmouthshire County Council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- 1 -

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

The Minister for Social Justice and Local Government of the Welsh Assembly Government has issued a statement to the effect that he will not be making any changes to the present electoral arrangements for any local authorities in Wales until after the 2012 local government elections. Some have interpreted this to mean that we have stopped all the ongoing work in respect of electoral reviews. I can confirm that this is not the case and that we are continuing with the programme of electoral reviews as required by the legislation. We continue to welcome active participation in the reviews by those persons or organisations that have an interest.

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

Paul Wood Chairman

- 2 -

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

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE COUNTY OF MONMOUTHSHIRE

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In accordance with the directions issued by the Minister on 13 January 2009, we, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales (the Commission), have completed the review of electoral arrangements for the County of Monmouthshire and present our Final Proposals for the future electoral arrangements. A glossary of terms used in this report can be found at Appendix 1. In 2009 the County of Monmouthshire had an electorate of 68,637. At present it is divided into 42 divisions (41 single member and 1 multi member) returning 43 councillors. The average number of electors to each councillor for the County is currently 1,596. The existing electoral arrangements have a level of representation that ranges from 40% below to 55% above the current county average. The present electoral arrangements are set out in detail in Appendix 2.

2. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

2.1 We propose a reduction in the council size from 43 to 41 elected members and a change to the arrangement of electoral divisions that will achieve a significant improvement in the level of electoral parity across the County of Monmouthshire. The average number of electors to each councillor for the County is proposed to be 1,674. The proposed electoral arrangements have a level of representation that ranges from 17% below to 20% above the proposed county average. The proposed electoral arrangements are set out in detail in Appendix 3.

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW

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

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

- 3 -

Electoral Arrangements

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

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

ii) the number and boundaries of electoral divisions;

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

iv) the name of any electoral division.

Rules to Be Observed Considering Electoral Arrangements

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

3.5 The rules also require that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

- 4 -

Minister’s Directions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Government Changes

3.8 Since the last review of electoral arrangements there have been two changes to local government boundaries in Monmouthshire:

3.9 Monmouthshire County Council () (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2001 and Monmouthshire County Council (Llangattock Vibon Abel) (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2002. These made no changes to electoral divisions.

Procedure

3.10 Section 60 of the Act lays down procedural guidelines which are to be followed in carrying out a review. In compliance with Section 60 of the Act we wrote on 30 November 2009 to Monmouthshire County Council, all the community councils in the area, the Members of Parliament for the local constituencies and other interested parties to inform them of our intention to conduct the review, to request their preliminary views and to provide a copy of the Welsh Assembly Government’s

- 5 -

directions to the Commission. We invited the County Council to submit a suggested scheme or schemes for new electoral arrangements. We also publicised our intention to conduct the review in local newspapers circulating in the County and asked Monmouthshire County Council to display a number of public notices in their area. We also made available copies of our electoral reviews guidance booklet. In addition we made a presentation to both County and Community councillors explaining the review process.

4. DRAFT PROPOSALS

4.1 Prior to the formulation of our draft proposals we received representations from three town and community councils; four councillors; and four other interested bodies and residents. These representations were taken into consideration and summarised in our Draft Proposals published on 28 June 2010. The following is a summary of our Draft Proposals.

Caerwent and Mill

4.2 The existing electoral division consists of the Caerwent (613 electors, 613 projected), Crick (163 electors, 475 projected), Dinham (158 electors, 158 projected), (250 electors, 250 projected) and St. Brides Netherwent (211 electors, 211 projected) wards of the Community of Caerwent with a total of 1,395 electors (1,707 projected) represented by one councillor which is 13% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Mill electoral division consists of the Denny (150 electors, 290 projected), Mill (1,295 electors, 1,295 projected) and Salisbury (713 electors, 713 projected) wards of the Community of Magor with with a total of 2,158 electors (2,298 projected) represented by one councillor which is 35% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. We considered that it is not appropriate for there to be such a wide variation in electoral parity between adjoining electoral divisions. We therefore considered alternative electoral arrangements for the area.

4.3 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the wards of Caerwent, Dinham and St. Brides Netherwent of the Community of Caerwent be included with the ward of Salisbury of the Community of to form a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,695 electors (1,695 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 1% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. We considered that this proposed arrangement gave a greatly improved degree of electoral parity than the existing arrangements for the area and the population distribution and topography of the proposed division is broadly similar. Although this proposal separates community wards that were previously together within an electoral division, we considered that this proposal has merit due to the significant improvement in parity. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of Caerwent.

- 6 -

Caerwent, and

4.4 The existing Caerwent electoral division consists of the Caerwent (613 electors, 613 projected), Crick (163 electors, 475 projected), Dinham (158 electors, 158 projected), Llanvair Discoed (250 electors, 250 projected) and St. Brides Netherwent (211 electors, 211 projected) wards of the Community of Caerwent with a total of 1,395 electors (1,707 projected) represented by one councillor which is 13% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Portskewett electoral division consists of the wards of Leechpool (155 electors, 155 projected), Portskewett Village (1,218 electors, 1,274 projected) and Sudbrook (276 electors, 360 projected) of the Community of Portskewett with a total of 1,649 electors (1,789 projected) represented by one councillor which is 3% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Shirenewton electoral division consists of the wards of (481 electors, 481 projected), (76 electors, 76 projected) and (327 electors, 327 projected) of the Community of Mathern and the wards of Earlswood (139 electors,139 projected), Mynyddbach (216 electors, 216 projected), Newchurch (90 electors, 90 projected) and Shirenewton (448 electors, 448 projected) of the Community of Shirenewton with a total of 1,777 electors (1,777 projected) represented by one councillor which is 11% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor.

4.5 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the wards of Mynyddbach and Shirenewton of the Community of Shirenewton and the wards of Mounton and Pwllmeyric of the Community of Mathern be included with the wards of Crick and Llanvair Discoed of the Community of Caerwent and the ward of Leechpool of the Community of Portskewett to form a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,635 electors (1,947 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 2% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. The Commission acknowledged that this scheme had the effect of separating community wards which were previously united, but there are good access links between the two communities and we saw no reason why community ties of equal strength should not be forged and this amalgamation would improve the overall parity. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of Shirenewton.

Cantref, Grofield and Mardy

4.6 The existing Cantref electoral division consists of the Cantref ward of the Community of with 1,682 electors (1,682 projected) represented by one councillor which is 5% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Grofield electoral division consists of the ward of Grofield of the Community of Abergavenny with 1,301 electors (1,301 projected) represented by one councillor which is 18% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Mardy electoral division consists of the Mardy (840 electors, 840 projected), Pantygelli (105 electors, 105 projected), Sgyrrid East (169 electors, 169 projected) and Sgyrrid West (246 electors, 246 projected) wards of the Community of with 1,360 electors (1,360 projected) represented by one councillor which is 15% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor.

- 7 -

4.7 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the Cantref and Grofield electoral divisions be included with the ward of Mardy of the Community of Llantilio Pertholey in a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 3,823 electors (3,823 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, result in a level of representation of 1,912 electors per councillor which is 14% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. Although this was a departure from the existing arrangements the level of disparity in the communities, ranging from 5% above the county average to 18% below the county average, is such that a multi-member ward provided the best possible parity for electors. There is good access between the wards and the population distribution and topography of the wards is broadly similar. Although we may have been breaking community ties with Mardy and its community we are strengthening the existing relationship Mardy has with Abergavenny. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of Cantref, Grofield and Mardy.

Crucorney, Llanover and

4.8 The existing electoral division consists of the wards of Bwlch, Trewern and Oldcastle (45 electors, 45 projected), Forest and Ffwddog (106 electors, 106 projected), (697 electors, 697 projected), Lower (75 electors, 75 projected) and Upper Cwmyoy (60 electors, 60 projected) of the Community of Crucorney and the wards of Grosmont (374 electors, 374 projected), (85 electors, 85 projected), (34 electors, 34 projected) and (119 electors, projected) of the Community of Grosmont with a total of 1,595 electors (1,595 projected) represented by one councillor which is 1 elector below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Llanover electoral division consists of the wards of (208 electors, 208 projected), Clytha (212 electors, 212 projected), Llanarth (142 electors, 142 projected) and (119 electors, 119 projected) of the Community of Llanarth and the wards of Llandewi Rhydderch (215 electors, 215 projected), Llanfair Cilgydyn (183 electors, 183 projected), Llangattock-nigh- (385 electors, 385 projected) and Llanover (215 electors, 215 projected) of the Community of Llanover with a total of 1,802 electors (1,802 projected) represented by one councillor which is 13% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Llantilio Crossenny electoral division consists of the wards of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel (270 electors, 270 projected), Rockfield and St. Maughan’s (229 electors, 229 projected) and (311 electors, 311 projected) of the Community of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel and the wards of Llantilio Crossenny (338 electors, 338 projected), Llanvihangel-Ystern-Llewern (70 electors, 70 projected) and Penrhos (155 electors, 155 projected) of the Community of Llantilio Crossenny with a total of 1,373 electors (1,373 projected) represented by one councillor which is 14% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor.

4.9 In their initial representation it was the unanimous view of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel Community Council that the isolation of their community coupled with residences being sparsely scattered would make county council representation of 1:1,750 impossible. We acknowledged and have ensured as far as practicable that the electoral divisions proposed for their Community are at least of the same area if not smaller than at present.

- 8 -

4.10 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the whole of the Community of Grosmont be included with the Llanvapley ward of the Community of Llanarth, the Llantilio Crossenny ward of the Community of Llantilio Crossenny and the Skenfrith ward of the Community of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel in a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,380 electors (1,380 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 18% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. We considered that this proposed arrangement gives a better degree of electoral parity than the existing arrangements for the area whilst taking due consideration of the geographical nature of the area and sparse population. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of Grosmont and Llantilio Crossenny.

Crucorney and Mardy

4.11 The existing Crucorney electoral division consists of the wards of Bwlch, Trewern and Oldcastle (45 electors, 45 projected), Forest and Ffwddog (106 electors, 106 projected), Llanvihangel Crucorney (697 electors, 697 projected), Lower Cwmyoy (75 electors, 75 projected) and Upper Cwmyoy (60 electors, 60 projected) of the Community of Crucorney and the wards of Grosmont (374 electors, 374 projected), Llangattock Lingoed (85 electors, 85 projected), Llangua (34 electors, 34 projected) and Llanvetherine (119 electors, projected) of the Community of Grosmont with a total of 1,595 electors (1,595 projected) represented by one councillor which is 1 elector below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Mardy electoral division consists of the Mardy (840 electors, 840 projected), Pantygelli (105 electors, 105 projected), Sgyrrid East (169 electors, 169 projected) and Sgyrrid West (246 electors, 246 projected) wards of the Community of Llantilio Pertholey with 1,360 electors (1,360 projected) represented by one councillor which is 15% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor.

4.12 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the whole of the Community of Crucorney be included with the wards Pantygelli, Sgyrrid East and Sgyrrid West of the Community of Llantilio Pertholey in a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,503 electors (1,503 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 10% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. There are good access links between the two communities and this amalgamation would improve the overall parity. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of Crucorney and Llantilio Pertholey.

Drybridge and

4.13 The existing Drybridge electoral division consists of the wards of Drybridge (1,940 electors, 2,140 projected) and Town (538 electors, 538 projected) of the Community of with 2,478 electors (2,678 projected) represented by one councillor which is 55% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Wyesham electoral division consists of the ward of Wyesham of the Community of Monmouth with 1,584 electors (1,584 projected) represented by one councillor which is 1% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor.

4.14 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the Drybridge and Wyesham electoral divisions combine to form a single two member electoral division. This

- 9 -

electoral division would have 4,062 electors (4,262 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, result in a level of representation of 2,031 electors per councillor which is 21% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. Although this was a departure from the existing arrangements the level of disparity in the community is such that a multi-member ward provided the best possible parity for electors. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of Drybridge and Wyesham.

Llanbadoc, Llangybi Fawr and Usk

4.15 The existing electoral division consists of the wards of / (270 electors, 270 projected), (29 electors, 29 projected) and Trostre (77 electors, 77 projected) of the Community of Gwelhelog Fawr and the wards of (195 electors, 195 projected), Llanbadoc (207 electors, 207 projected) and Monkswood (246 electors, 246 projected) of the Community of Llanbadog with 1,024 electors (1,024 projected) represented by one councillor which is 36% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Llangybi Fawr electoral division consists of the wards of Coed-Y-Paen (99 electors, 99 projected), Llandeggfedd (158 electors, 158 projected) and Llangybi (441 electors, 441 projected) of the Community of Llangybi and the wards of Llangattock-nigh- (93 electors, 93 projected), (159 electors, 159 projected) and (133 electors, 133 projected) of the Community of Llanhennock and the wards of (107 electors, 107 projected) and Llantrisant (206 electors, 206 projected) of the Community of with a total of 1,396 electors (1,396 projected) represented by one councillor which is 13% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Usk electoral division consists of the Community of Usk with 1,810 electors (2,040 projected) represented by one councillor which is 13% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. We were of the view that the current level of representation, 36% (Llanbadoc) and 13% (Llangybi Fawr) below the county average and 13% above (and likely to rise) in Usk, is not in the interests of effective and convenient local government when compared to the county average. Consideration was therefore given to combining all or part of this electoral division with other areas in order to form an electoral division with levels of representation closer to the county average.

4.16 In Councillor Val Smith’s (Llanbadoc) initial representation she stated her opposition to multi-member wards and her belief that dividing community councils wards between different electoral divisions will cause confusion for the public. We noted Councillor Smith’s views and endeavoured to retain single-member electoral divisions where appropriate and not to divide community council areas between electoral divisions. In this area however, because of the wide variation in electoral parity, we were unable to identify arrangements that meet these aims whilst at the same time improving the electoral parity.

4.17 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the Usk electoral division be included with the whole of the Communities of Llangybi and Llanhennock and the wards of Glascoed and Llanbadoc of the Community of Llanbadog in a single two member electoral division. This electoral division would have 3,295 electors (3,525 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, would result in a level of

- 10 -

representation of 1,648 electors per councillor which is 2% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. Although this was a departure from the existing arrangements, the level of disparity in the divisions is such that a multi- member ward provided the best possible parity for electors. We noted that the topography for the area is broadly similar and access links between communities is good. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of Llanbadoc, Llangybi and Usk.

Llanbadoc and Llanover

4.18 The existing Llanbadoc electoral division consists of the wards of Gwehelog/Llancayo (270 electors, 270 projected), Kemeys Commander (29 electors, 29 projected) and Trostre (77 electors, 77 projected) of the Community of Gwelhelog Fawr and the wards of Glascoed (195 electors, 195 projected), Llanbadoc (207 electors, 207 projected) and Monkswood (246 electors, 246 projected) of the Community of Llanbadog with 1,024 electors (1,024 projected) represented by one councillor which is 36% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Llanover electoral division consists of the wards of Bryngwyn (208 electors, 208 projected), Clytha (212 electors, 212 projected), Llanarth (142 electors, 142 projected) and Llanvapley (119 electors, 119 projected) of the Community of Llanarth and the wards of Llandewi Rhydderch (215 electors, 215 projected), Llanfair Cilgydyn (183 electors, 183 projected), Llangattock-nigh-Usk (385 electors, 385 projected) and Llanover (215 electors, 215 projected) of the Community of Llanover with a total of 1,802 electors (1,802 projected) represented by one councillor which is 13% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor.

4.19 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the whole Community of Gwehelog Fawr be included with the Monkswood ward of the Community of Llanbadog and the Bryngwyn, Clytha, and Llanarth wards of the Community of Llanarth and the Llanfair Cilgydyn ward of the Community of Llanover in a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,367 electors (1,367 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 18% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. We considered that this proposed arrangement gave a greatly improved degree of electoral parity than the existing arrangements for the area and we put this scheme forward as a proposal. We noted there are good access links and the area is of a similar population distribution and topography. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of Gwehelog Fawr and Llanarth.

Llanfoist Fawr, Llanover and Ultra

4.20 The existing Fawr electoral division consists of the wards of (406 electors, 406 projected), Llanfoist (773 electors, 1,269 projected) and Llanwenarth Citra (139 electors, 139 projected) of the Community of with 1,318 electors (1,814 projected) represented by one councillor which is 17% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Llanover electoral division consists of the wards of Bryngwyn (208 electors, 208 projected), Clytha (212 electors, 212 projected), Llanarth (142 electors, 142 projected) and Llanvapley (119 electors, 119 projected) of the Community of Llanarth and the wards of

- 11 -

Llandewi Rhydderch (215 electors, 215 projected), Llanfair Cilgydyn (183 electors, 183 projected), Llangattock-nigh-Usk (385 electors, 385 projected) and Llanover (215 electors, 215 projected) of the Community of Llanover with a total of 1,802 electors (1,802 projected) represented by one councillor which is 13% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Llanwenarth Ultra electoral division consists of the wards of Llanwenarth Ultra of the Community of Llanfoist Fawr with 1,141 electors (1,141 projected) represented by one councillor which is 29% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor.

4.21 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the Llanwenarth Ultra electoral division be included with the Community of Llanfoist Fawr and the wards of Llandewi Rhydderch, Llangattock-nigh-Usk and Llanover of the Community of Llanover in a single two member electoral division. This electoral division would have 3,397 electors (3,893 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, would result in a level of representation of 1,699 electors per councillor which is 1% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. Although this was a departure from the existing arrangements the level of disparity in the community is such that a multi-member division provided the best possible parity for electors. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of Llanfoist Fawr and Llanover.

Llangybi Fawr, and Shirenewton

4.22 The existing Llangybi Fawr electoral division consists of the wards of Coed-Y-Paen (99 electors, 99 projected), Llandeggfedd (158 electors, 158 projected) and Llangybi (441 electors, 441 projected) of the Community of Llangybi and the wards of Llangattock-nigh-Caerleon (93 electors, 93 projected), Llanhennock (159 electors, 159 projected) and Tredunnock (133 electors, 133 projected) of the Community of Llanhennock and the wards of Gwernesney (107 electors, 107 projected) and Llantrisant (206 electors, 206 projected) of the Community of Llantrisant Fawr with a total of 1,396 electors (1,396 projected) represented by one councillor which is 13% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Devauden electoral division consists of the Devauden (198 electors, 198 projected), (191 electors, 191 projected), (97 electors, 97 projected) and Llanvihangel (134 electors, 134 projected) wards of the Community of Devauden and the Llangwm (210 electors, 210 projected) and (133 electors, 133 projected) wards of the Community of Llangwm with a total of 1,163 electors (1,163 projected) represented by one councillor which is 27% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Shirenewton electoral division consists of the wards of Mathern (481 electors, 481 projected), Mounton (76 electors, 76 projected) and Pwllmeyric (327 electors, 327 projected) of the Community of Mathern and the wards of Earlswood (139 electors,139 projected), Mynyddbach (216 electors, 216 projected), Newchurch (90 electors, 90 projected) and Shirenewton (448 electors, 448 projected) of the Community of Shirenewton with a total of 1,777 electors (1,777 projected) represented by one councillor which is 11% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor.

4.23 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the whole of the Community of Llantrisant Fawr and Devauden electoral division be included with the Earlswood

- 12 -

and Newchurch wards of the Community of Shirenewton to form a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,705 electors (1,705 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 2% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. In proposing this arrangement we considered the improvement in electoral parity along with their similarity in terms of their rural nature. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of Devauden, Llangwm and Llantrisant Fawr.

Llantilio Crossenny and

4.24 The existing Llantilio Crossenny electoral division consists of the wards of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel (270 electors, 270 projected), Rockfield and St. Maughan’s (229 electors, 229 projected) and Skenfrith (311 electors, 311 projected) of the Community of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel and the wards of Llantilio Crossenny (338 electors, 338 projected), Llanvihangel-Ystern-Llewern (70 electors, 70 projected) and Penrhos (155 electors, 155 projected) of the Community of Llantilio Crossenny with a total of 1,373 electors (1,373 projected) represented by one councillor which is 14% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Mitchel Troy electoral division consists of the wards of (164 electors, 164 projected), (221 electors, 221 projected), Mitchel Troy (345 electors, 345 projected), (166 electors, 166 projected) and Wonastow (65 electors, 65 projected) of the Community of Mitchel Troy with a total of 961 electors (961 projected) represented by one councillor which is 40% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. We consider that such a large variation in the levels of representation between electoral divisions is not conducive to effective and convenient local government. We were of the view that it would be desirable to consider changes to the electoral arrangements in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

4.25 In his initial representation, Geoff Burrows’ the Councillor for Mitchel Troy, wrote to emphasise the rural nature of his division. He considers that the aim of trying to achieve Wards of 1,750 electors whilst laudable is simplistic as it is only ‘one side of the coin’. He considers that we should also take account of the variation in service provision between urban and rural areas. He considers that nothing has changed in respect of the Mitchel Troy electoral division, since these matters were last considered with the implication that no changes are necessary as a result of this review. We noted Councillor Burrow’s views but remained however of the view that the current level of variance from the county average of the Mitchell Troy electoral division is not appropriate. We considered that it would be of benefit, in terms of effective and convenient local government for consideration to be given to combining all or part of the Mitchell Troy electoral division with other areas in order to form an electoral division with levels of representation closer to the county average.

4.26 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the whole of the Mitchel Troy electoral division be included with the Llanvihangel-Ystern-Llewern and Penrhos wards of the Community of Llantilio Crossenny and the Llangattock-Vibon-Avel and Rockfield and St. Maughan’s wards of the Community of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel in a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,685 electors (1,685 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 1% above the proposed

- 13 -

county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. In considering the arrangement we considered the improvement in electoral parity along with the reasonable access links between the areas and their similarity in terms of their rural nature and we put this scheme forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division the working name of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel and Mitchel Troy.

Mill, and The Elms

4.27 The existing Mill electoral division consists of the Denny (150 electors, 290 projected), Mill (1,295 electors, 1,295 projected) and Salisbury (713 electors, 713 projected) wards of the Community of Magor with Undy with a total of 2,158 electors (2,298 projected) represented by one councillor which is 35% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Rogiet electoral division consists of the Community of Rogiet with 1,294 electors (1,294 projected) represented by one councillor which is 19% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing The Elms electoral division consists of the ward of The Elms of the Community of Magor with Undy with 2,411 electors (2,411 projected) represented by one councillor which is 51% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. We consider that such a large variation in the levels of representation between electoral divisions, 35% and 51% above the county average and 19% below, is not conducive to effective and convenient local government. We were of the view that it would be desirable to make changes to the electoral arrangements in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

4.28 In their initial representation Rogiet Community Council, the County Councillor and a Community Councillor noted that the Rogiet electoral division is currently 19% below the county average and the Unitary Development Plan and Local Development Plans do not identify an increase in electorate. They however expressed their belief that they should continue to be represented by one councillor for the Community in the County Council. They state the Community of Rogiet is a discrete rural area with identifiable boundaries and that transferring the Community to another division would not see their needs fully represented and be a retrograde step. We noted the views expressed in these representations and we endeavoured, where possible, to create electoral divisions corresponding with discrete community areas. In this area however, because of the wide variation in electoral parity, we were unable to identify arrangements that meet these aims whilst achieving the improvement in electoral parity which we consider necessary in the interests of effective and convenient local government. Consideration was therefore given to combining all or part of this electoral division with other areas in order to form an electoral division with levels of representation closer to the county average.

4.29 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that The Elms and Rogiet electoral divisions be included with the Denny and Mill wards of the Community of Magor with Undy to form a three-member electoral division. This electoral division would have 5,150 electors (5,290 projected) which, if represented by three councillors, would result in a level of representation of 1,717 electors per councillor which is 3% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. Due to the size and geographical position of The Elms, we considered that the only practicable means to move closer to electoral parity was to increase the division size and

- 14 -

create a multi-member division. We note there are good access links between the communities. We put forward this scheme as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of Magor with Undy and Rogiet.

Portskewett and Severn

4.30 The existing Portskewett electoral division consists of the wards of Leechpool (155 electors, 155 projected), Portskewett Village (1,218 electors, 1,274 projected) and Sudbrook (276 electors, 360 projected) of the Community of Portskewett with a total of 1,649 electors (1,789 projected) represented by one councillor which is 3% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Severn electoral division consists of the ward of Severn of the Community of Caldicot with 1,254 electors (1,254 projected) represented by one councillor which is 21% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor.

4.31 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the Severn electoral division be combined with the ward of Sudbrook of the Community of Portskewett to form a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,530 electors (1,614 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 9% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. We considered that this proposed arrangement gives a better degree of electoral parity than the existing arrangements for the area and we put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of Severn with Sudbrook.

Portskewett, Shirenewton and Thornwell

4.32 The existing Portskewett electoral division consists of the wards of Leechpool (155 electors, 155 projected), Portskewett Village (1,218 electors, 1,274 projected) and Sudbrook (276 electors, 360 projected) of the Community of Portskewett with a total of 1,649 electors (1,789 projected) represented by one councillor which is 3% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Shirenewton electoral division consists of the wards of Mathern (481 electors, 481 projected), Mounton (76 electors, 76 projected) and Pwllmeyric (327 electors, 327 projected) of the Community of Mathern and the wards of Earlswood (139 electors,139 projected), Mynyddbach (216 electors, 216 projected), Newchurch (90 electors, 90 projected) and Shirenewton (448 electors, 448 projected) of the Community of Shirenewton with a total of 1,777 electors (1,777 projected) represented by one councillor which is 11% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Thornwell electoral division consists of the ward of Thornwell of the Community of with 1,988 electors (1,988 projected) represented by one councillor which is 25% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor.

4.33 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the Thornwell electoral division be included with the ward of Portskewett Village of the Community of Portskewett and the ward of Mathern of the Community of Mathern to form a single two member electoral division. This electoral division would have 3,687 electors (3,743 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, result in a level of representation of 1,844 electors per councillor which is 10% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. Due to the size and geographical

- 15 -

position of Thornwell, the only way to improve electoral parity was to increase the division size and thus create a multi-member division. We put forward this scheme as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of Mathern, Portskewett and Thornwell.

St. Arvans and United

4.34 The existing St. Arvans electoral division consists of the Community of St. Arvans and the Chapel Hill (185 electors, 185 projected), Penterry (53 electors, 53 projected), Parva (331 electors, 331 projected) and Trelech Grange (73 electors, 73 projected) wards of the Community of Tintern with a total of 1,227 electors (1,227 projected) represented by one councillor which is 23% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing electoral division consists of the (298 electors, 298 projected), (421 electors, 421 projected), Llanishen (258 electors, 288 projected), Narth (328 electors, 328 projected), (415 electors, 415 projected), Trellech Town (296 electors, 296 projected) and (82 electors, 82 projected) wards of the Community of Trellech United with a total of 2,098 electors (2,128 projected) represented by one councillor which is 31% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. We considered that such a large variation in the levels of representation between electoral divisions that are formed from wards in close proximity is not conducive to effective and convenient local government.

4.35 In their initial representation Tintern Community Council expressed concerns about confusion arising if community council wards are divided between different electoral divisions. We noted Tintern Community Council’s views and have endeavoured, where possible, not to divide community council areas between electoral divisions. In this area however, because of the wide variation in electoral parity, we were unable to identify arrangements that meet these aims whilst at the same time achieving the improvement in electoral parity which we considered necessary in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

4.36 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the Trellech Grange ward of the Community of Tintern be included with the Catbrook, Llanishen, Narth, Penalt, Trellech Town and Whitebrook wards of the Community of Trellech United in a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,750 electors (1,780 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 5% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. There are good access links between the two communities, both are similar in nature and this amalgamation would improve the electoral parity. We noted that the representation from Tintern Community Council expressing concerns about dividing community council wards between electoral divisions and, as we are required to have regard for any local ties that may be broken by our proposals, we gave this issue careful consideration. We were of the view however that, in terms of effective and convenient local government, any disadvantages in terms of breaking of community ties are outweighed by the improvement in parity in this proposed division, the proposed neighbouring St. Arvans division (4.37 below) and surrounding areas. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of Trellech United.

- 16 -

4.37 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the Llandogo ward of the Community of Trellech United be included with the remaining wards of the St. Arvans electoral division in a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,575 electors (1,575 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 6% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. As stated above (4.36), we noted the initial representation from Tintern Community Council and were of the view however that, in terms of effective and convenient local government, any disadvantages in terms of breaking of community ties were outweighed by the improvement in parity in this proposed division and surrounding areas. We put this scheme forward as a proposal. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of St. Arvans.

St. Kingsmark and St. Mary’s

4.38 The existing St. Kingsmark electoral division consists of the ward of St. Kingsmark of the Community of Chepstow with 2,214 electors (2,330 projected) represented by one councillor which is 39% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing St. Mary’s electoral division consists of the ward of St. Mary’s of the Community of Chepstow with 1,459 electors (1,507 projected) represented by one councillor which is 9% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor.

4.39 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the St. Mary’s electoral division be included with St. Kingsmark electoral division to form a single two member electoral division. This electoral division would have 3,673 electors (3,837 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, result in a level of representation of 1,837 electors per councillor which is 10% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. Although this was a departure from the existing arrangements the level of disparity in the community is such that a multi-member ward provided the best possible parity for electors. We gave the proposed electoral division the working name of St. Kingsmark and St. Mary’s.

4.40 Our Draft Proposals recommended a council of 41 members with 32 divisions. We considered that these arrangements provide for effective and convenient local government and met in principle the directions provided by the Welsh Assembly Government.

4.41 Copies of the Draft Proposals were sent to all the councils, bodies and individuals referred to in paragraph 3.10 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 Monmouthshire County Council and the Commission.

5. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

5.1 In response to our Draft Proposals report we received representations Monmouthshire County Council, Abergavenny Town Council, Caerwent Community

- 17 -

Council, Caldicot Town Council, Chepstow Town Council, Devauden Community Council, Grosmont Community Council, Llanarth Fawr Community Council, Llanfoist Fawr Community Council, Llangattock Vibon Avel Community Council, Llangybi Community Council, Llanhennock Community Council, Llanover Community Council, Llantilio Crosseny Community Council, Llantilio Pertholey Community Council, Magor with Undy Community Council, Mathern Community Council, Mitchel Troy Community Council, Portskewett Community Council, Raglan Community Council, Rogiet Community Council, Shirenewton Community Council, St. Arvans Community Council, Trellech United Community Council, Usk Town Council, Jessica Morden MP (Newport East), Veronica German AM (South Wales East), County Councillor G Burrows, County Councillor P Clark, County Councillor D Dovey, County Councillor G Down, County Councillor D Edwards, County Councillor P Fox, County Councillor R Greenland, County Councillor L Guppy, County Councillor R J Higginson, County Councillor B Hood, County Councillor P Jordan, County Councillor P Murphy, County Councillor L H Pain, County Councillor M Powell, County Councillor J L Prosser, County Councillor V Smith, County Councillor J Sullivan, County Councillor B Strong, County Councillor C Walby, County Councillor A Watts, County Councillor A Webb, Community Councillor G P Robbins, Community Councillor A Thomas, Caldicot Labour Party (Newport East), Monmouthshire County Labour Party, Monmouthshire Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru – Caldicot, a resident of Llanishen and a resident of Preston. A summary of these representations can be found at Appendix 5.

5.2 The Monmouthshire Liberal Democrats submitted a comprehensive scheme to the Commission, with the aim of achieving a fairer representation for electors in the County in terms of electoral parity. It was also their declared aim to adhere to the rules which the Commission are required to apply (see paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5 above). Their suggested changes to the Commission’s draft proposals (and to the existing arrangements) are extensive, and can be seen in the summary of their representation in Appendix 5.53.

5.3 We thank them for their submission which clearly took time and effort. They have achieved a good degree of parity both now and in the future. This parity has been achieved in a similar way to our draft proposals, through the creation of multi member divisions and the use of community wards as the building blocks for electoral divisions.

5.4 It was significant that the Liberal Democrats had arrived at some of the same conclusions – and proposed solutions – to the issue of electoral parity as those contained in our draft proposals. For example, their scheme for reducing the relatively high variances of Thornwell and Drybridge was essentially that proposed by the Commission. However, as can be seen in the discussion below and in the summary of representations in Appendix 5, the Commission’s draft proposals attracted much opposition from respondents, for their overall approach. In order to address problems of electoral parity, the Liberal Democrats frequently adopt the remedy of transferring community wards, thereby running the risk that community ties may be broken. This criticism – the breaking of community ties – was a frequent complaint aimed at the Commission’s proposals.

- 18 -

5.5 The Commission welcomes the interested parties’ constructive participation in this review, and has given consideration to any proposals, but at the same time has regard for the operation of the Rules and the representations of other respondents.

6. ASSESSMENT

Request for Boundary Change

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

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

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

Council Size

6.4 At present the size of the council at 43 members is within the numerical limits indicated in the Minister’s direction. The current member to electorate ratio for the council is 1:1,596 which is 9% below 1,750 electors per councillor (see Councillor to electorate ratio below). There is currently one multi-member division, Hill.

6.5 We reviewed the electoral arrangements for the County of Monmouthshire in the light of the Welsh Assembly Government’s directions for our guidance and took account of the representations which had been made to us. In our deliberations we considered the ratio of the number of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected, with a view to ensuring that the number of local government electors shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every electoral division in the principal area, as required by the legislation. We looked at the present multi-member division to consider if we should recommend the creation of single member divisions. We considered the size and character of the principal

- 19 -

council area and a wide range of other factors including population density, the local topography, road communications and local ties.

6.6 For the reasons given below we believe that in the interests of effective and convenient local government a council size of 41 would be appropriate to represent the County of Monmouthshire. The proposed council size results in an average of 1,674 electors being represented by each councillor.

Councillor to electorate ratio

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

Number of Electors

6.8 The numbers shown in Appendix 2 and 3 as the electorate for 2009 and the estimates for the electorate in the year 2014 are those provided by Monmouthshire County Council.

Electoral Divisions

6.9 We have considered the boundaries of the existing electoral divisions of Caerwent, Castle, Croesonen, Dewstow, , Lansdown, Llanelly Hill, Portskewett, Priory, Raglan, Shirenewton, St. Mary's, Usk, and Wyesham and the ratio and number of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected and we propose that the existing arrangements should continue. We considered changes to the remaining electoral divisions. Details of the current electoral arrangements for the area can be found at Appendix 2.

6.10 In the following section the proposals for each of the new electoral divisions are laid out in the same way. The first part of the initial paragraph for each new electoral

- 20 -

division to be considered gives a historical context by listing all the existing electoral divisions or their component parts used to construct each proposed electoral division. These components - the communities and community wards - are described as a complete community together with its current and projected electorates if it was used as such. If only part of a community is used – i.e. a community ward - then the name of that community ward, its electorate figures, and the name of its community is shown as such. Finally, in each new electoral division the component parts of that proposal are listed in the same way - either as whole communities with current and projected electorates, or as a named community ward, its electorate figures and the name of its community - as before. This method of describing the make-up of electoral divisions is also used in the tables at Appendix 2 and 3.

Cantref, Grofield and Mardy

6.11 The existing Cantref electoral division consists of the Cantref ward of the Community of Abergavenny with 1,682 electors (1,682 projected) represented by one councillor which is 5% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Grofield electoral division consists of the ward of Grofield of the Community of Abergavenny with 1,301 electors (1,301 projected) represented by one councillor which is 18% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Mardy electoral division consists of the Mardy (840 electors, 840 projected), Pantygelli (105 electors, 105 projected), Sgyrrid East (169 electors, 169 projected) and Sgyrrid West (246 electors, 246 projected) wards of the Community of Llantilio Pertholey with 1,360 electors (1,360 projected) represented by one councillor which is 15% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the Cantref and Grofield electoral divisions be included with the ward of Mardy of the Community of Llantilio Pertholey in a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 3,823 electors (3,823 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, result in a level of representation of 1,912 electors per councillor which is 14% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor.

6.12 We received objections from Abergavenny Town Council, Llantilio Pertholey Community Council, Veronica German AM (South Wales East), County Councillor D Edwards (Grofield), County Councillor P Jordan (Cantref), County Councillor J L Prosser (Mardy) and County Councillor C Walby (Llanwenarth Ultra). The objections were principally on the grounds that Mardy is not within the area of Abergavenny town and it is does not adjoin Cantref or Grofield. It was argued that the draft proposal would not provide continuity for the residents. It was argued that the proposal offered no advantage to residents and did not appear to take into account the different nature of the areas to be combined. In addition, the proposal would split Llantilio Pertholey Community Council across three County Council divisions, making liaison with councillors on community issues more difficult. There was also opposition to the creation of a multi member division. Abergavenny Town Council, County Councillor D Edwards and County Councillor C Walby suggest including the Llanwenarth Citra ward of Llanfoist Fawr with Grofield ward as it is on the Grofield side of the river.

- 21 -

6.13 The representations received stated that the Mardy ward is separated from the Cantref ward by Lansdown ward. The Commission has considered this assertion but found that it is factually incorrect. Dewi Road is a boundary for Lansdown, Cantref and Mardy wards and provides a road link between all three wards. It has been acknowledged by the representations that the three wards are geographically adjacent to each other. The proposal of County Councillors Edwards and Walby (to combine Llanwenarth Citra with Grofield) was carefully considered but to constitute such a new division would risk breaking community ties and would combine a rural ward with an urban one. Further, the proposal for the remaining wards of the existing Mardy division (the rural area of Llantilio Pertholey) should be amalgamated with the rural area of Crucorney (6.20 below) makes sense in its own right; the areas concerned are adjacent and have a similar rural nature.

6.14 Although, this is a departure from the existing arrangements the level of disparity in the communities, ranging from 5% above the county average to 18% below the county average, is such that a multi-member ward provided the best possible parity for electors. There is good access between the wards and the population distribution and topography of the wards is broadly similar. Although there is a risk that community ties with Mardy ward and its Community, Llantilio Pertholey, will be broken, this is offset by the strengthening or creation of ties between Mardy and Abergavenny, indeed some of the developments being considered for Abergavenny are within Mardy ward. We consider that this proposal would improve the electoral parity and would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government and we put this forward as a proposal. We propose the name of Cantref, Grofield and Mardy for the proposed electoral division.

Crucorney, Llanover and Llantilio Crossenny

6.15 The existing Crucorney electoral division consists of the wards of Bwlch, Trewern and Oldcastle (45 electors, 45 projected), Forest and Ffwddog (106 electors, 106 projected), Llanvihangel Crucorney (697 electors, 697 projected), Lower Cwmyoy (75 electors, 75 projected) and Upper Cwmyoy (60 electors, 60 projected) of the Community of Crucorney and the wards of Grosmont (374 electors, 374 projected), Llangattock Lingoed (85 electors, 85 projected), Llangua (34 electors, 34 projected) and Llanvetherine (119 electors, projected) of the Community of Grosmont with a total of 1,595 electors (1,595 projected) represented by one councillor which is 1 elector below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Llanover electoral division consists of the wards of Bryngwyn (208 electors, 208 projected), Clytha (212 electors, 212 projected), Llanarth (142 electors, 142 projected) and Llanvapley (119 electors, 119 projected) of the Community of Llanarth and the wards of Llandewi Rhydderch (215 electors, 215 projected), Llanfair Cilgydyn (183 electors, 183 projected), Llangattock-nigh-Usk (385 electors, 385 projected) and Llanover (215 electors, 215 projected) of the Community of Llanover with a total of 1,802 electors (1,802 projected) represented by one councillor which is 13% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Llantilio Crossenny electoral division consists of the wards of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel (270 electors, 270 projected), Rockfield and St. Maughan’s (229 electors, 229 projected) and Skenfrith (311 electors, 311 projected) of the Community of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel and the wards of Llantilio Crossenny (338 electors, 338 projected), Llanvihangel-Ystern-Llewern (70 electors, 70 projected)

- 22 -

and Penrhos (155 electors, 155 projected) of the Community of Llantilio Crossenny with a total of 1,373 electors (1,373 projected) represented by one councillor which is 14% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor.

6.16 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the whole of the Community of Grosmont be included with the Llanvapley ward of the Community of Llanarth, the Llantilio Crossenny ward of the Community of Llantilio Crossenny and the Skenfrith ward of the Community of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel in a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,380 electors (1,380 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is still 18% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor.

6.17 We received objections from Grosmont Community Council, Llangattock-Vibon- Avel Community Council, Llanover Community Council and Llantilio Crossenny Community Council. Objections were on the grounds that the proposals are more complex with the linking of non-adjacent areas and the breaking of community ties. Llangattock-Vibon-Avel Community stated that their community is the second most geographically deprived area of facilities and services in the whole of Wales.

6.18 We considered the representations received but concluded that we should retain, where possible, whole communities within electoral divisions. We then considered the options available and decided it would be possible to combine the four principal communities in this area (Grosmont, Llangattock-Vibon-Avel, Llantilio Crossenny and Mitchel Troy) to form two electoral divisions (each consisting of two of the communities). They would retain community ties, have reasonable access links between the areas, are similar in terms of their rural nature and improve electoral parity. We propose that the Communities of Grosmont and Llangattock-Vibon-Avel should amalgamate to form an electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,422 electors (1,422 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 15% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. This proposal improves electoral parity and we consider it would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We propose the name of Grosmont and Llangattock-Vibon-Avel for this electoral division. We discuss Llantilio Crossenny and Mitchel Troy at paragraph 6.39.

Crucorney and Mardy

6.19 The existing Crucorney electoral division consists of the wards of Bwlch, Trewern and Oldcastle (45 electors, 45 projected), Forest and Ffwddog (106 electors, 106 projected), Llanvihangel Crucorney (697 electors, 697 projected), Lower Cwmyoy (75 electors, 75 projected) and Upper Cwmyoy (60 electors, 60 projected) of the Community of Crucorney and the wards of Grosmont (374 electors, 374 projected), Llangattock Lingoed (85 electors, 85 projected), Llangua (34 electors, 34 projected) and Llanvetherine (119 electors, projected) of the Community of Grosmont with a total of 1,595 electors (1,595 projected) represented by one councillor which is 1 elector below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Mardy electoral division consists of the Mardy (840 electors, 840 projected), Pantygelli (105 electors, 105 projected), Sgyrrid East (169 electors, 169 projected) and Sgyrrid West (246 electors, 246 projected) wards of the Community of Llantilio Pertholey with 1,360 electors (1,360 projected) represented by one councillor which

- 23 -

is 15% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the whole of the Community of Crucorney be included with the wards Pantygelli, Sgyrrid East and Sgyrrid West of the Community of Llantilio Pertholey in a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,503 electors (1,503 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 10% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor.

6.20 We received objections from County Councillor C Walby (Llanwenarth Ultra). The objections were on the grounds that there is little or no social interaction and little traffic flow between the Communities. We are of the opinion that there are good access links between the two communities which are rural in nature. We consider that this proposal although making little change to the level of electoral parity for Crucorney combined with other proposed changes does improve the electoral parity in the surrounding area (6.14 and 6.18 above) and is desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We put this forward as a proposal. We propose the name of Crucorney and Llantilio Pertholey for this electoral division.

Green Lane, Portskewett and Severn

6.21 The existing Green Lane electoral division consists of the ward of Green Lane of the Community of Caldicot with 1,619 electors (1,619 projected) represented by one councillor which is 1% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Portskewett electoral division consists of the wards of Leechpool (155 electors, 155 projected), Portskewett Village (1,218 electors, 1,274 projected) and Sudbrook (276 electors, 360 projected) of the Community of Portskewett with a total of 1,649 electors (1,789 projected) represented by one councillor which is 3% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Severn electoral division consists of the ward of Severn of the Community of Caldicot with 1,254 electors (1,254 projected) represented by one councillor which is 21% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the Severn electoral division be combined with the ward of Sudbrook of the Community of Portskewett to form a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,530 electors (1,614 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 9% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor.

6.22 We received objections from Monmouthshire County Council, Caldicot Town Council, Portskewett Community Council, Jessica Morden MP (Newport East), Veronica German AM (South Wales East), County Councillor G Down (Shirenewton), County Councillor P Fox (Portskewett), County Councillor R J Higginson (Severn), County Councillor M Powell (Castle – Abergavenny), Caldicot Labour Party (Newport East), Monmouthshire County Labour Party and Plaid Cymru - Caldicot. Mainly the objections were on the grounds that the proposals break community ties, that the electoral division crosses parliamentary boundaries and there is no direct transport links between the wards.

6.23 We considered these points and accepted that the scheme contained in our draft proposals report should be amended. However, still take the view that the high

- 24 -

level of representation in Severn ward of Caldicot (1,254 electors per councillor) is so far at variance from the county average that it is necessary to consider alternative arrangements within the town of Caldicot. We consider that the most appropriate ward to combine with Severn is Green Lane. They have good communication links and shared community facilities. Green Lane has the highest number of electors in Caldicot. Thus, we propose that the Green Lane and Severn electoral divisions should amalgamate to form an electoral division. This electoral division would have 2,873 electors (2,873 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, would result in a level of representation of 1,437 electors per councillor which is 14% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. Although, this creates an additional multi member division, it is in an urban area, does not break community ties and improves the overall parity for Caldicot as a whole, with only a 4% maximum differential between the electors in Caldicot. We consider that this proposal would improve the electoral parity and would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government and is put forward as a proposal. We propose the name of Green Lane and Severn for this electoral division. As stated in 6.9 above, Portskewett would retain its single member electoral division.

Larkfield, St. Kingsmark and St. Mary’s

6.24 The existing Larkfield electoral division consists of the ward of Larkfield of the Community of Chepstow with 1,543 electors (1,543 projected) represented by one councillor which is 3% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Portskewett electoral division consists of the wards of Leechpool (155 electors, 155 projected), Portskewett Village (1,218 electors, 1,274 projected) and Sudbrook (276 electors, 360 projected) of the Community of Portskewett with a total of 1,649 electors (1,789 projected) represented by one councillor which is 3% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Severn electoral division consists of the ward of Severn of the Community of Caldicot with 1,254 electors (1,254 projected) represented by one councillor which is 21% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the St. Mary’s electoral division be included with St. Kingsmark electoral division to form a single two member electoral division. This electoral division would have 3,673 electors (3,837 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, result in a level of representation of 1,837 electors per councillor which is 10% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor.

6.25 We received objections from Chepstow Community Council, Veronica German AM (South Wales East), County Councillor D Dovey (St. Kingsmark) and County Councillor J Sullivan (St. Mary’s). Objections were on the grounds that the proposed division is a multi member division and that St. Mary’s has had planning permission granted on 169 dwellings with further developments in the pipeline. It was also suggested that the wards differ as one is predominantly residential whilst the other covers the town centre. An alternative, which involved combining St. Kingsmark and Larkfield was suggested for consideration by County Councillor G Down (Shirenewton) and County Councillor J Sullivan. This was proposed on the grounds that the two wards have a similar residential population and the fact that the boundary between the two seems strange to some residents.

- 25 -

6.26 We considered the representations and agreed that the draft proposal could be improved by a more appropriate amalgamation of community wards. We maintain that the level of representation for the St. Kingsmark ward of Chepstow is inappropriate and have considered alternative arrangements within the town of Chepstow. The most appropriate ward to combine with St. Kingsmark is Larkfield, as suggested by two County Councillors. These community wards have good communication links and shared community facilities and as identified in the representations, are residential. Thus, we propose that the Larkfield and St. Kingsmark electoral divisions should amalgamate to form an electoral division. This electoral division would have 3,757 electors (3,873 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, would result in a level of representation of 1,879 electors per councillor which is 12% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. Although, this creates a multi-member division, it is in an urban area, does not break community ties and improves the overall parity. We consider that this would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government and is forward as a proposal. We propose the name of Mount Pleasant for this electoral division. As stated in 6.9 above, St. Mary’s would retain its single member electoral division.

Llanbadoc, Llangybi Fawr and Usk

6.27 The existing Llanbadoc electoral division consists of the wards of Gwehelog/Llancayo (270 electors, 270 projected), Kemeys Commander (29 electors, 29 projected) and Trostre (77 electors, 77 projected) of the Community of Gwelhelog Fawr and the wards of Glascoed (195 electors, 195 projected), Llanbadoc (207 electors, 207 projected) and Monkswood (246 electors, 246 projected) of the Community of Llanbadog with 1,024 electors (1,024 projected) represented by one councillor which is 36% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Llangybi Fawr electoral division consists of the wards of Coed-Y-Paen (99 electors, 99 projected), Llandeggfedd (158 electors, 158 projected) and Llangybi (441 electors, 441 projected) of the Community of Llangybi and the wards of Llangattock-nigh-Caerleon (93 electors, 93 projected), Llanhennock (159 electors, 159 projected) and Tredunnock (133 electors, 133 projected) of the Community of Llanhennock and the wards of Gwernesney (107 electors, 107 projected) and Llantrisant (206 electors, 206 projected) of the Community of Llantrisant Fawr with a total of 1,396 electors (1,396 projected) represented by one councillor which is 13% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Usk electoral division consists of the Community of Usk with 1,810 electors (2,040 projected) represented by one councillor which is 13% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the Usk electoral division be included with the whole of the Communities of Llangybi and Llanhennock and the wards of Glascoed and Llanbadoc of the Community of Llanbadog in a single two member electoral division. This electoral division would have 3,295 electors (3,525 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, would result in a level of representation of 1,648 electors per councillor which is 2% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor.

6.28 We received objections from Llangybi Community Council, Llanhennock Community Council, Usk Town Council, County Councillor P Clark (Llangybi Fawr)

- 26 -

and County Councillor B Strong (Usk). The objections were on the grounds that we are creating a multi-member division from town and rural communities and are breaking community ties. Councillor Clark made an alternative suggestion, that there be one Councillor for Usk and one division comprising of the Communities of Llangybi and Llanhennock and the Glascoed and Llanbadoc wards of the Community of Llanbadoc. He believes this would be clear, cleaner and represent one urban and one rural seat. Councillor Strong suggested that Usk is not going to grow to the extent that the Council has indicated and will probably only gain another 80 or so electors. He made an alternative suggestion of the existing Llangybi division including an unspecified part of Llanbadoc and the rest of the Llanbadoc division included within the Goetre Fawr division, leaving Usk as it is.

6.29 Having considered the representations we have concluded that we should retain, where possible, single member divisions and if a multi-member division was necessary, it should, where possible avoid combining rural and urban communities. With regard to Councillor Strong’s suggestion, as it was unspecific we should seek the most minimal impact on Goetre Fawr, which already has 1,827 electors (which is 9% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor). The smallest ward of Llanbadoc is 195 and including this with Goetre Fawr would result in an electoral division of 2,022 electors which would be 21% above the county average. We consider that this high level of under-representation in this area would not be appropriate and therefore have not put forward Councillor Strong’s proposal. We did, however, believe Councillor Clark’s suggestion above, did have merit. We noted that the topography for the area is broadly similar and access links between communities is good. It would also produce two electoral divisions which would improve the parity for the area but also maintain single member divisions.

6.30 We are required to have regard for any local ties that may be broken by our proposals. We are of the view however that any disadvantages in terms of breaking of community ties are outweighed by the improvement in parity in this proposed division and surrounding areas. We therefore propose an electoral division to be formed from the Communities of Llangybi, Llanhennock and the wards of Glascoed and Llanbadoc of the Community of Llanbadoc. This electoral division would have 1,485 electors (1,485 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 11% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. This proposal improves the electoral parity and is desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government and is put this forward as a proposal. We propose the name of Llanbadoc, Llangybi and Llanhennock for this electoral division. As stated in 6.9 above, Usk would retain its single member electoral division.

Llanbadoc and Llanover

6.31 The existing Llanbadoc electoral division consists of the wards of Gwehelog/Llancayo (270 electors, 270 projected), Kemeys Commander (29 electors, 29 projected) and Trostre (77 electors, 77 projected) of the Community of Gwelhelog Fawr and the wards of Glascoed (195 electors, 195 projected), Llanbadoc (207 electors, 207 projected) and Monkswood (246 electors, 246 projected) of the Community of Llanbadog with 1,024 electors (1,024 projected) represented by one councillor which is 36% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Llanover electoral division consists of the

- 27 -

wards of Bryngwyn (208 electors, 208 projected), Clytha (212 electors, 212 projected), Llanarth (142 electors, 142 projected) and Llanvapley (119 electors, 119 projected) of the Community of Llanarth and the wards of Llandewi Rhydderch (215 electors, 215 projected), Llanfair Cilgydyn (183 electors, 183 projected), Llangattock-nigh-Usk (385 electors, 385 projected) and Llanover (215 electors, 215 projected) of the Community of Llanover with a total of 1,802 electors (1,802 projected) represented by one councillor which is 13% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the whole Community of Gwehelog Fawr be included with the Monkswood ward of the Community of Llanbadog and the Bryngwyn, Clytha, and Llanarth wards of the Community of Llanarth and the Llanfair Cilgydyn ward of the Community of Llanover in a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,367 electors (1,367 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 18% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor.

6.32 We received objections from Llanarth Community Council on the grounds that they wish to remain in the existing Llanover division and the community would be “broken”. Llanover Community Council objected on the grounds that the proposal would break community ties. As stated in 6.18 above, we have considered representations and have attempted, where possible to retain whole communities within an electoral division. We have amended our draft proposal so that the whole of the Communities of Gwehelog Fawr and Llanarth, along with the Monkswood ward of the Community of Llanbadoc and the Llanfair Cilgydyn ward of the Community of Llanover form an electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,486 electors (1,486 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 11% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. We noted there are good access links and the area is of a similar population distribution and topography. We consider that this proposal would improve the electoral parity and would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government and is put this forward as a proposal. We propose the name of Gwehelog Fawr and Llanarth for this electoral division.

Llanfoist Fawr, Llanover and Llanwenarth Ultra

6.33 The existing Llanfoist Fawr electoral division consists of the wards of Llanellen (406 electors, 406 projected), Llanfoist (773 electors, 1,269 projected) and Llanwenarth Citra (139 electors, 139 projected) of the Community of Llanfoist Fawr with 1,318 electors (1,814 projected) represented by one councillor which is 17% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Llanover electoral division consists of the wards of Bryngwyn (208 electors, 208 projected), Clytha (212 electors, 212 projected), Llanarth (142 electors, 142 projected) and Llanvapley (119 electors, 119 projected) of the Community of Llanarth and the wards of Llandewi Rhydderch (215 electors, 215 projected), Llanfair Cilgydyn (183 electors, 183 projected), Llangattock-nigh-Usk (385 electors, 385 projected) and Llanover (215 electors, 215 projected) of the Community of Llanover with a total of 1,802 electors (1,802 projected) represented by one councillor which is 13% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Llanwenarth Ultra electoral division consists of the wards of Llanwenarth Ultra of the Community of Llanfoist Fawr with 1,141 electors (1,141 projected) represented by one councillor which is 29% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. In our Draft

- 28 -

Proposals report we proposed that the Llanwenarth Ultra electoral division be included with the Community of Llanfoist Fawr and the wards of Llandewi Rhydderch, Llangattock-nigh-Usk and Llanover of the Community of Llanover in a single two member electoral division. This electoral division would have 3,397 electors (3,893 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, would result in a level of representation of 1,699 electors per councillor which is 1% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor.

6.34 We received objections from Llanarth Community Council, Llanfoist Fawr Community Council, Llanover Community Council, County Councillor B Hood (Llanover), County Councillor C Walby (Llanwenarth Ultra) and Monmouthshire County Labour Party. The objections were opposition to the creation of a multi- member division and the geographical size of the division. It is also suggested that it connects diverse communities with no common interest or social links. In particular Llanellen and Llanfoist are on the opposite sides of a mountain. Llanarth and Llanover Community Councils also wished the existing arrangement of Llanover to remain. We considered the representations and other possible combinations of communities and wards but are of the view that although this is a departure from the existing arrangements the level of disparity in the area is such that a multi-member division provided the best possible parity for electors. We consider that this proposal would improve the electoral parity and be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government and is put forward as a proposal. We propose the name of Llanfoist Fawr and Llanover for this electoral division.

Llangybi Fawr, Devauden and Shirenewton

6.35 The existing Llangybi Fawr electoral division consists of the wards of Coed-Y-Paen (99 electors, 99 projected), Llandeggfedd (158 electors, 158 projected) and Llangybi (441 electors, 441 projected) of the Community of Llangybi and the wards of Llangattock-nigh-Caerleon (93 electors, 93 projected), Llanhennock (159 electors, 159 projected) and Tredunnock (133 electors, 133 projected) of the Community of Llanhennock and the wards of Gwernesney (107 electors, 107 projected) and Llantrisant (206 electors, 206 projected) of the Community of Llantrisant Fawr with a total of 1,396 electors (1,396 projected) represented by one councillor which is 13% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Devauden electoral division consists of the Devauden (198 electors, 198 projected), Itton (191 electors, 191 projected), Kilgwrrwg (97 electors, 97 projected) and Llanvihangel Wolvesnewton (134 electors, 134 projected) wards of the Community of Devauden and the Llangwm (210 electors, 210 projected) and Llansoy (133 electors, 133 projected) wards of the Community of Llangwm with a total of 1,163 electors (1,163 projected) represented by one councillor which is 27% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Shirenewton electoral division consists of the wards of Mathern (481 electors, 481 projected), Mounton (76 electors, 76 projected) and Pwllmeyric (327 electors, 327 projected) of the Community of Mathern and the wards of Earlswood (139 electors,139 projected), Mynyddbach (216 electors, 216 projected), Newchurch (90 electors, 90 projected) and Shirenewton (448 electors, 448 projected) of the Community of Shirenewton with a total of 1,777 electors (1,777 projected) represented by one councillor which is 11% above the county average of 1,596

- 29 -

electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the whole of the Community of Llantrisant Fawr and Devauden electoral division be included with the Earlswood and Newchurch wards of the Community of Shirenewton to form a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,705 electors (1,705 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 2% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor.

6.36 We received objections from Devauden Community Council, Shirenewton Community Council, County Councillor G Down (Shirenewton) and County Councillor R Greenland (Devauden). The objections were on the grounds that the proposal breaks community ties and does not take into account the rural nature of the proposed division, that they have more costs than benefits and the change from the existing Devauden division is too great. We have taken representations into account and have created a modified proposal which does not break community ties or create a division dramatically different to those at present. We propose that the whole of the Communities of Devauden, Llangwm and Llantrisant Fawr combine to form a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,476 electors (1,476 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 12% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. This would result in an improvement in electoral parity, from 27% below the existing county average to 12% below the proposed county average. We consider that this would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government and is put forward as a proposal. We propose the name of Devauden, Llangwm and Llantrisant Fawr for this electoral division.

Llantilio Crossenny and Mitchel Troy

6.37 The existing Llantilio Crossenny electoral division consists of the wards of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel (270 electors, 270 projected), Rockfield and St. Maughan’s (229 electors, 229 projected) and Skenfrith (311 electors, 311 projected) of the Community of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel and the wards of Llantilio Crossenny (338 electors, 338 projected), Llanvihangel-Ystern-Llewern (70 electors, 70 projected) and Penrhos (155 electors, 155 projected) of the Community of Llantilio Crossenny with a total of 1,373 electors (1,373 projected) represented by one councillor which is 14% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Mitchel Troy electoral division consists of the wards of Cwmcarvan (164 electors, 164 projected), Dingestow (221 electors, 221 projected), Mitchel Troy (345 electors, 345 projected), Tregare (166 electors, 166 projected) and Wonastow (65 electors, 65 projected) of the Community of Mitchel Troy with a total of 961 electors (961 projected) represented by one councillor which is 40% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the whole of the Mitchel Troy electoral division be included with the Llanvihangel- Ystern-Llewern and Penrhos wards of the Community of Llantilio Crossenny and the Llangattock-Vibon-Avel and Rockfield and St. Maughan’s wards of the Community of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel in a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,685 electors which, if represented by one councillor, is 1% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor.

6.38 We received objections from Llangattock-Vibon-Avel Community Council, Llantilio Crossenny Community Council, Mitchel Troy Community Council and County

- 30 -

Councillor G Burrows (Mitchel Troy). The objections were on the grounds that the proposals are more complex because they link non-adjacent areas; the Community of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel is the second most geographically deprived area of facilities and services in the whole of Wales; and, the proposal breaks community ties. Councillor Burrows was also concerned at the size of the proposed division.

6.39 As described in 6.18 above, we considered the representations received but concluded that we should retain, where possible, whole communities within electoral divisions. We then considered the options available and decided it would be possible to combine the four principal communities in this area (Grosmont, Llangattock-Vibon-Avel, Llantilio Crossenny and Mitchel Troy) to form two electoral divisions (each consisting of two of the communities). They would retain community ties, have reasonable access links between the areas, are similar in terms of their rural nature and improve electoral parity. We propose that the Communities of Llantilio Crossenny and Mitchel Troy should amalgamate to form an electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,525 electors which, if represented by one councillor, is 9% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. We consider that this proposal would improve the electoral parity and would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government and we put this forward as a proposal. This proposal improves electoral parity and we consider it would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We propose the name of Llantilio Crossenny and Mitchel Troy for this electoral division.

Mill, Rogiet and The Elms

6.40 The existing Mill electoral division consists of the Denny (150 electors, 290 projected), Mill (1,295 electors, 1,295 projected) and Salisbury (713 electors, 713 projected) wards of the Community of Magor with Undy with a total of 2,158 electors (2,298 projected) represented by one councillor which is 35% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Rogiet electoral division consists of the Community of Rogiet with 1,294 electors (1,294 projected) represented by one councillor which is 19% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing The Elms electoral division consists of the ward of The Elms of the Community of Magor with Undy with 2,411 electors (2,411 projected) represented by one councillor which is 51% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that The Elms and Rogiet electoral divisions be included with the Denny and Mill wards of the Community of Magor with Undy to form a three-member electoral division. This electoral division would have 5,150 electors (5,290 projected) which, if represented by three councillors, would result in a level of representation of 1,717 electors per councillor which is 3% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor.

6.41 We received objections from Magor with Undy Community Council, Rogiet Community Council, Veronica German AM (South Wales East), County Councillor D Dovey (St. Kingsmark), County Councillor G Down (Shirenewton), County Councillor L Guppy (Rogiet), Community Councillor G P Robbins (Rogiet) and Monmouthshire County Labour Party. Objections were primarily on the grounds that the proposals create an unwieldy multi-member division. Rogiet is a distinct

- 31 -

Community in its own right and is separated from Magor with Undy by the M4. The proposed electoral division for Caerwent, which includes the Salisbury ward of the Community of Magor with Undy, also crosses the parliamentary boundary. In addition it was contended that the Mill and The Elms electoral divisions have only 100 or so electors difference so the three divisions should remain as they are. It was noted that proposals for Grosmont and Llantilio Crossenny (1,346 electors) Gwelhelog Fawr and Llanarth (1,367 electors) were similar in size to the existing Rogiet division and it was argued that Rogiet, although slightly smaller, is not dissimilar to those and should be retained.

6.42 We considered the representations and other alternative combinations of communities and wards. We are of the view that although this proposal is a departure from the current arrangements the existing level of disparity, the warding of communities and geographical constraints in the area is such that the only practicable means to improve electoral parity was to increase the division size and create a multi-member division. The contention that the divisions in the draft proposals of ‘Grosmont and Llantilio Crossenny’ and ‘Gwelhelog Fawr and Llanarth’ are similar in size in terms of the numbers of electors is accurate. However, the divisions in question are large rural divisions, whereas Rogiet is a village and is relatively compact when compared to those larger, rural divisions. The proposals at 6.18 and 6.32 increase the number of electors in both areas and Rogiet would be smaller by 128 (10%) and 192 (15%) electors, respectively. We maintain therefore, that both in terms of parity and size Rogiet should not retain its single member division as it presently stands. It was also possible to take into account the existing parliamentary constituency boundaries and community ties in Magor and Caerwent.

6.43 We propose that the whole of the Communities of Magor with Undy and Rogiet should be combined to form an electoral division. This electoral division would have 5,863 electors (6,003 projected) which, if represented by three councillors, would result in a level of representation of 1,954 electors per councillor which is 17% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. We note there are good access links between the communities. This proposal would greatly improve the electoral parity in the area. At present, the three divisions of Mill, Rogiet and The Elms are 35% above, 19% below and 51% above the existing county average. We acknowledge that 17% above the proposed county average is relatively high, it provides much better parity than the existing arrangements and consider that this proposal would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We put this forward as a proposal. We propose the name of Magor with Undy and Rogiet for this electoral division.

Monmouth Electoral Divisions

6.44 Monmouth consists of four electoral divisions: with Osbaston, Drybridge, and Wyesham. The existing Dixton with Osbaston electoral division consists of the ward of Dixton with Osbaston of the Community of Monmouth with 1,820 electors (1,820 projected) represented by one councillor which is 14% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Drybridge electoral division consists of the wards of Drybridge (1,940 electors, 2,140 projected) and Town (538 electors, 538 projected) of the Community of Monmouth with 2,478 electors (2,678 projected) represented by one councillor which is 55% above the

- 32 -

county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Overmonnow electoral division consists of the ward of Overmonnow of the Community of Monmouth with 1,712 electors (1,712 projected) represented by one councillor which is 7% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Wyesham electoral division consists of the ward of Wyesham of the Community of Monmouth with 1,584 electors (1,584 projected) represented by one councillor which is 1% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the Drybridge and Wyesham electoral divisions combine to form a single two member electoral division. This electoral division would have 4,062 electors (4,262 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, result in a level of representation of 2,031 electors per councillor which is 21% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor.

6.45 We received objections from Monmouthshire County Council, County Councillor G Down (Shirenewton), County Councillor P Fox (Portskewett), County Councillor L Pain (Wyesham – Monmouth), Monmouthshire County Labour Party and a resident of Preston. The objections indicated that the proposed electoral division is divided by a dual carriageway and a river. An alternative of combining Drybridge with Overmonnow, which has more natural community links, was suggested with the name of Monmouth.

6.46 We considered that these objections to the proposal were cogent and have considered alternative arrangements for Monmouth. We have come to the view that Monmouth should be represented by a three member division to the west of the River and a single member to the east. Therefore, we propose that the Dixton with Osbaston, Drybridge and Overmonnow electoral divisions be combined to form a three member electoral division. This electoral division would have 6,010 electors (6,210 projected) which, if represented by three councillors, would result in a level of representation of 2,003 electors per councillor which is 20% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. Although this was a departure from the existing arrangements the current level of disparity is such that a multi-member division provides significant improvement. The proposal that we put forward would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We propose the name of Monmouth West for this electoral division. As stated in 6.9 above, Wyesham would retain its single member electoral division.

Portskewett, Shirenewton, St. Christopher’s and Thornwell

6.47 The existing Portskewett electoral division consists of the wards of Leechpool (155 electors, 155 projected), Portskewett Village (1,218 electors, 1,274 projected) and Sudbrook (276 electors, 360 projected) of the Community of Portskewett with a total of 1,649 electors (1,789 projected) represented by one councillor which is 3% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Shirenewton electoral division consists of the wards of Mathern (481 electors, 481 projected), Mounton (76 electors, 76 projected) and Pwllmeyric (327 electors, 327 projected) of the Community of Mathern and the wards of Earlswood (139 electors,139 projected), Mynyddbach (216 electors, 216 projected), Newchurch (90 electors, 90 projected) and Shirenewton (448 electors, 448 projected) of the Community of Shirenewton with a total of 1,777 electors (1,777 projected) represented by one councillor which is 11% above the county average of 1,596

- 33 -

electors per councillor. The existing St. Christopher’s electoral division consists of the ward of St. Christopher’s of the Community of Chepstow with 1,799 electors (1,799 projected) represented by one councillor which is 13% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Thornwell electoral division consists of the ward of Thornwell of the Community of Chepstow with 1,988 electors (1,988 projected) represented by one councillor which is 25% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the Thornwell electoral division be included with the ward of Portskewett Village of the Community of Portskewett and the ward of Mathern of the Community of Mathern to form a single two member electoral division. This electoral division would have 3,687 electors (3,743 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, result in a level of representation of 1,844 electors per councillor which is 10% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor.

6.48 We received objections from Chepstow Town Council, Mathern Community Council, Portskewett Community Council, Veronica German AM (South Wales East), County Councillor G Down (Shirenewton), County Councillor Fox (Portskewett), County Councillor A Watts (Thornwell) and Monmouthshire County Labour Party. Mainly the objections were on the grounds that there is no social or economic cohesion between the wards, that the proposals break community ties and they create a multi member division merging town and rural areas. County Councillor G Down, County Councillor A Watts and Monmouthshire County Labour Party suggested that the wards of St. Christopher’s and Thornwell of Chepstow should form a division called Bulwark or Greater Bulwark.

6.49 As stated in 6.29 above, we considered the representations and concluded that we should retain, where possible, single member divisions and if a multi member division were necessary not to mix rural and urban communities, where possible. Due to the size and geographical position of Thornwell, the only way to improve electoral parity was to increase the division size and thus create a multi-member division, as suggested by the two Councillors above. We propose that the St. Christopher’s and Thornwell electoral divisions be combined to form a two member electoral division. This electoral division would have 3,787 electors (3,787 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, would result in a level of representation of 1,894 electors per councillor which is 13% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. We consider that this proposal would improve the electoral parity and would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government and is put forward as a proposal. We propose the name of Greater Bulwark for this electoral division. As stated in 6.9 above, Portskewett and Shirenewton would retain their single member electoral divisions.

St. Arvans and Trellech United

6.50 The existing St. Arvans electoral division consists of the Community of St. Arvans and the Chapel Hill (185 electors, 185 projected), Penterry (53 electors, 53 projected), Tintern Parva (331 electors, 331 projected) and Trelech Grange (73 electors, 73 projected) wards of the Community of Tintern with a total of 1,227 electors (1,227 projected) represented by one councillor which is 23% below the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. The existing Trellech United

- 34 -

electoral division consists of the Catbrook (298 electors, 298 projected), Llandogo (421 electors, 421 projected), Llanishen (258 electors, 288 projected), Narth (328 electors, 328 projected), Penallt (415 electors, 415 projected), Trellech Town (296 electors, 296 projected) and Whitebrook (82 electors, 82 projected) wards of the Community of Trellech United with a total of 2,098 electors (2,128 projected) represented by one councillor which is 31% above the county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. In our Draft Proposals report we proposed that the Trellech Grange ward of the Community of Tintern be included with the Catbrook, Llanishen, Narth, Penalt, Trellech Town and Whitebrook wards of the Community of Trellech United in a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,750 electors (1,780 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 5% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. This division was given the working name of Trellech United. In our Draft Proposals report we also proposed that the Llandogo ward of the Community of Trellech United be included with the remaining wards of the St. Arvans electoral division in a single electoral division. This electoral division would have 1,575 electors (1,575 projected) which, if represented by one councillor, is 6% below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. This division was given the working name of St. Arvans.

6.51 We received objections from St. Arvans Community Council, Trellech United Community Council, County Councillor A Webb (St. Arvans), Community Councillor A Thomas (Llandogo – Trellech United) and a resident of Llanishen. The objections were that the Llandogo ward does not sit naturally with St. Arvans Community and the two communities have little in common. Liaison with the County Council would be more difficult and complicated and the Councillors would be faced with an unnecessarily difficult task of dealing with three Community Councils that might each have different interests and priorities. It was also noted that many children in the two divisions go to different schools which are in different Area Committees on Monmouthshire Council. We received support from County Councillor G Down (Shirenewton) for the proposal of St. Arvans and he made a alternative suggestion for Trellech United of combining the wards of Catbrook, Narth, Penalt, Trellech Town and Whitebrook of the Community of Trellech United with the Community of Mitchel Troy. A resident of Preston supported both proposals. An alternative name was suggested by Community Councillor A Thomas and the resident of Llanishen of and Wye River, respectively.

6.52 We note the representations expressing concerns about dividing community council wards between electoral divisions and as we are required to have regard for any local ties that may be broken by our proposals, we looked at this in detail. However, in relation to terms of effective and convenient local government, any possible disadvantages in terms of breaking of community ties are outweighed by the improvement in parity in the proposed division, named Trellech United in the draft proposals, the proposed neighbouring Wye River Valley division (6.53 below) and adjacent areas. There are good access links between the two communities, both are similar in nature and this amalgamation would improve the electoral parity. We consider that this proposal would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government and we put this forward as a proposal. We propose the name of Trellech United for this electoral division.

- 35 -

6.53 As indicated in paragraph 6.52, we have noted that the representations but are of the view however that the possible disadvantages regarding the breaking of community ties are outweighed by the improvement in parity in this proposed division and therefore this is in the interests of effective and convenient local government. This improves the electoral parity and is put forward as a proposal. We propose the name of Wye River Valley for this electoral division.

Summary of Proposed Arrangements

6.54 The proposed electoral arrangements (as shown at Appendix 3) provide a level of representation that ranges from 17% below to 20% above the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor (based on the existing electoral figures). 15 (48%) of the electoral divisions have levels of representation more than 10% above or below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor and the remaining 16 (52%) all less than 10% above or below the proposed county average of 1,674 electors per councillor. This compares with the existing electoral arrangements (as shown at Appendix 2) where the level of representation ranges from 40% below to 55% above the current county average of 1,596 electors per councillor. 9 (22%) electoral divisions having levels of representation more than 25% above or below the current county average of 1,596 electors per councillor, 16 (38%) electoral divisions having levels of representation between 10% and 25% above or below than the current county average of 1,596 electors per councillor and the remaining 17 (40%) electoral divisions having levels of representation less than 10% above or below the current county average of 1,596 electors per councillor.

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

7. PROPOSALS

7.1 We propose a council of 41 members and 31 electoral divisions as set out in Appendix 3. For purposes of comparison the present electoral arrangements for the County are given at Appendix 2. The boundaries of the proposed electoral

- 36 -

divisions are shown by continuous yellow lines on the map placed on deposit with this Report at the Offices of Monmouthshire County Council and the Office of the Commission in Cardiff.

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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

9. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

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

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

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

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

- 37 -

MR P J WOOD (Chairman)

REV. HYWEL MEREDYDD DAVIES BD (Deputy Chairman)

Mr D J BADER (Member)

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

February 2011

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

Because communities and, where they exist, community Building Blocks wards, are required to lie in one electoral division, they are used as building blocks for electoral divisions

Commission The Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales

Council size The number of councillors elected to the council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-1- Appendix 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 1994 Act The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994

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

-2- MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Appendix 2 Page 1 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP

% variance % variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2009 ELECTORATE 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from County from County COUNCILLORS 2009 RATIO 2014 RATIO average average 1 Caerwent The Community of Caerwent 1 1,395 1,395 -13% 1,707 1,707 3% 2 The Caldicot Castle ward of the Community of Caldicot 1 1,472 1,472 -8% 1,772 1,772 7% 3 Cantref The Cantref ward of the Community of Abergavenny 1 1,682 1,682 5% 1,682 1,682 2% 4 Castle The Castle ward of the Community of Abergavenny 1 1,614 1,614 1% 1,728 1,728 5% The Croesonen East and West wards of the Community of Llantilio 5 Croesonen 1 1,538 1,538 -4% 1,598 1,598 -3% Pertholey 6 Crucorney The Communities of Crucorney and Grosmont 1 1,595 1,595 0% 1,595 1,595 -3% 7 Devauden The Communities of Devauden and Llangwm 1 1,163 1,163 -27% 1,163 1,163 -30% 8 Dewstow The Dewstow ward of the Community of Caldicot 1 1,454 1,454 -9% 1,454 1,454 -12% 9 Dixton with Osbaston The Dixton with Osbaston ward of the Community of Monmouth 1 1,820 1,820 14% 1,820 1,820 10% 10 Drybridge The Drybridge and Town wards of the Community of Monmouth 1 2,478 2,478 55% 2,678 2,678 62% 11 Goetre Fawr The Community of Goetre Fawr 1 1,827 1,827 14% 1,897 1,897 15% 12 Green Lane The Green Lane ward of the Community of Caldicot 1 1,619 1,619 1% 1,619 1,619 -2% 13 Grofield The Grofield ward of the Community of Abergavenny 1 1,301 1,301 -18% 1,301 1,301 -21% 14 Lansdown The Lansdown ward of the Community of Abergavenny 1 1,614 1,614 1% 1,614 1,614 -2% 15 Larkfield The Larkfield ward of the Community of Chepstow 1 1,543 1,543 -3% 1,543 1,543 -7% 16 Llanbadoc The Communities of Gwehelog Fawr and Llanbadog 1 1,024 1,024 -36% 1,024 1,024 -38% 17 Llanelly Hill The Community of Llanelly 2 3,139 1,570 -2% 3,139 1,570 -5% The Llanellen, Llanfoist and Llanwenarth Citra wards of the 18 Llanfoist Fawr 1 1,318 1,318 -17% 1,814 1,814 10% Community of Llanfoist Fawr 19 Llangybi Fawr The Communities of Llangybi, Llanhennock and Llantrisant Fawr 1 1,396 1,396 -13% 1,396 1,396 -15% 20 Llanover The Communities of Llanarth and Llanover 1 1,802 1,802 13% 1,802 1,802 9% 21 Llantilio Crossenny The Communities of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel and Llantilio Crossenny 1 1,373 1,373 -14% 1,373 1,373 -17% 22 Llanwenarth Ultra The Llanwenarth Ultra ward of the Community of Llanfoist Fawr 1 1,141 1,141 -29% 1,141 1,141 -31% The Mardy, Pantygelli, Sgyrrid East and Sgyrrid West wards of the 23 Mardy 1 1,360 1,360 -15% 1,360 1,360 -18% Community of Llantilio Pertholey The Denny, Mill and Salisbury wards of the Community of Magor 24 Mill 1 2,158 2,158 35% 2,298 2,298 39% with Undy Appendix 2 25 Mitchel Troy The Community of Mitchel Troy 1 961 961 -40% 961 961 -42% 26 Overmonnow The Overmonnow ward of the Community of Monmouth 1 1,712 1,712 7% 1,712 1,712 4% 27 Portskewett The Community of Portskewett 1 1,649 1,649 3% 1,789 1,789 8% 28 Priory The Priory ward of the Community of Abergavenny 1 1,539 1,539 -4% 1,539 1,539 -7% 29 Raglan The Community of Raglan 1 1,521 1,521 -5% 1,521 1,521 -8% MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Appendix 2 Page 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP

% variance % variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2009 ELECTORATE 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from County from County COUNCILLORS 2009 RATIO 2014 RATIO average average 30 Rogiet The Community of Rogiet 1 1,294 1,294 -19% 1,294 1,294 -22% 31 Severn The Severn ward of the Community of Caldicot 1 1,254 1,254 -21% 1,254 1,254 -24% 32 Shirenewton The Communities of Mathern and Shirenewton 1 1,777 1,777 11% 1,777 1,777 8% 33 St. Arvans The Communities of St. Arvans and Tintern 1 1,227 1,227 -23% 1,227 1,227 -26% 34 St. Chrisopher's The St. Christopher's ward of the Community of Chepstow 1 1,799 1,799 13% 1,799 1,799 9% 35 St. Kingsmark The St. Kingsmark ward of the Community of Chepstow 1 2,214 2,214 39% 2,330 2,330 41% 36 St. Mary's The St. Mary's ward of the Community of Chepstow 1 1,459 1,459 -9% 1,507 1,507 -9% 37 The Elms The The Elms ward of the Community of Magor with Undy 1 2,411 2,411 51% 2,411 2,411 46% 38 Thornwell The Thornwell ward of the Community of Chepstow 1 1,988 1,988 25% 1,988 1,988 20% 39 Trellech United The Community of Trellech United 1 2,098 2,098 31% 2,128 2,128 29% 40 Usk The Community of Usk 1 1,810 1,810 13% 2,040 2,040 24% 41 West End The West End ward of the Community of Caldicot 1 1,514 1,514 -5% 1,586 1,586 -4% 42 Wyesham The Wyesham ward of the Community of Monmouth 1 1,584 1,584 -1% 1,584 1,584 -4% TOTAL: 43 68,637 1,596 70,965 1,650 Ratio is the number of electors per councillor Electoral figures supplied by Monmouthshire County Council

2009 2014 Greater than + or - 50% of County average 25% 1 2% Between + or - 25% and + or - 50% of County average 7 17% 9 22% Between + or - 10% and + or - 25% of County average 16 38% 11 26% Between 0% and + or - 10% of County average 17 40% 21 50% Appendix 2 MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Appendix 3 Page 1 PROPOSED ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

% variance % variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2009 ELECTORAT 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from County from County COUNCILLORS 2009 RATIO E 2014 RATIO average average 1 Caerwent The Community of Caerwent 1 1,395 1,395 -17% 1,707 1,707 -1% 2 Caldicot Castle The Caldicot Castle ward of the Community of Caldicot 1 1,472 1,472 -12% 1,772 1,772 2% The Cantref 1,682 (1,682) and Grofield 1,301 (1,301) wards of Cantref, Grofield and 3 the Community of Abergavenny and the Mardy 840 (840) ward 2 3,823 1,912 14% 3,823 1,912 10% Mardy of the Community of Llantilio Pertholey 4 Castle The Castle ward of the Community of Abergavenny 1 1,614 1,614 -4% 1,728 1,728 0% The Croesonen East 477 (537) and Croesonen West 1,061 5 Croesonen 1 1,538 1,538 -8% 1,598 1,598 -8% (1,061) wards of the Community of Llantilio Pertholey The Community of Crucorney 983 (983) and the Pantygelli 105 Crucorney and Llantilio 6 (105), Sgyrrid East 169 (169) and Sgyrrid West 246 (246) wards 1 1,503 1,503 -10% 1,503 1,503 -13% Pertholey of Llantilio Pertholey Devauden, Llangwm and The Communities of Devauden 820 (820), Llangwm 343 (343) 7 1 1,476 1,476 -12% 1,476 1,476 -15% Llantrisant Fawr and Llantrisant Fawr 313 (313) 8 Dewstow The Dewstow ward of the Community of Caldicot 1 1,454 1,454 -13% 1,454 1,454 -16% 9 Goetre Fawr The Community of Goetre Fawr 1 1,827 1,827 9% 1,897 1,897 10% The St. Christopher's 1,799 (1,799) and Thornwell 1,988 (1,988) 10 Greater Bulwark 2 3,787 1,894 13% 3,787 1,894 9% wards of the Community of Chepstow The Green Lane 1,619 (1,619) and Severn 1,254 (1,254) wards 11 Green Lane & Severn 2 2,873 1,437 -14% 2,873 1,437 -17% of the Community of Caldicot Grosmont and The Communities of Grosmont 612 (612) and Llangattock Vibon 12 1 1,422 1,422 -15% 1,422 1,422 -18% Llangattock Vibon Avel Avel 810 (810) The Communities of Gwehelog Fawr 376 (376) and Llanarth 681 Gwehelog Fawr and (681), the Monkswood 246 (246) ward of the Community of 13 1 1,486 1,486 -11% 1,486 1,486 -14% Llanarth Llanbadoc and the Llanfair Cilgydyn 183 (183) ward of the Community of Llanover 14 Lansdown The Lansdown ward of the Community of Abergavenny 1 1,614 1,614 -4% 1,614 1,614 -7% The Communities of Llangybi 698 (698) and Llanhennock 385 Llanbadoc, Llangybi and 15 (385) and the Glascoed 195 (195) and Llanbadoc 207 (207) 1 1,485 1,485 -11% 1,485 1,485 -14% Llanhennock wards of the Community of Llanbadoc Appendix 3 16 Llanelly Hill The Community of Llanelly 2 3,139 1,570 -6% 3,139 1,570 -9% The Community of Llanfoist Fawr 2,459 (2,955) and the Llanfoist Fawr and 17 Llandewi Rhydderch 338 (338), Llangattock-nigh-Usk 385 (385) 2 3,397 1,699 1% 3,893 1,947 12% Llanover and Llanover 215 (215) wards of the Community of Llanover Llantilio Crossenny and The Communities of Llantilio Crossenny 563 (563) and Mitchel 18 1 1,524 1,524 -9% 1,524 1,524 -12% Mitchel Troy Troy 961 (961) MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Appendix 3 Page 2 PROPOSED ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

% variance % variance No. OF ELECTORATE 2009 ELECTORAT 2014 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from County from County COUNCILLORS 2009 RATIO E 2014 RATIO average average Magor with Undy and The Communities of Magor with Undy 4,569 (4,709) and Rogiet 19 3 5,863 1,954 17% 6,003 2,001 16% Rogiet 1,294 (1,294) The Dixton with Osbaston 1,820 (1,820), Drybridge 1,940 20 Monmouth West (2,140), Overmonnow 1,712 (1,712) and Town 538 (538) wards 3 6,010 2,003 20% 6,210 2,070 20% of the Community of Monmouth The Larkfield 1,543 (1,543) and St. Kingsmark 2,214 (2,330) 21 Mount Pleasant 2 3,757 1,879 12% 3,873 1,937 12% wards of the Community of Chepstow 22 Portskewett The Community of Portskewett 1 1,649 1,649 -1% 1,789 1,789 3% 23 Priory The Priory ward of the Community of Abergavenny 1 1,539 1,539 -8% 1,539 1,539 -11% 24 Raglan The Community of Raglan 1 1,521 1,521 -9% 1,521 1,521 -12% The Communities of Mathern 884 (884) and Shirenewton 893 25 Shirenewton 1 1,777 1,777 6% 1,777 1,777 3% (893) 26 St. Mary's The St. Mary's ward of the Community of Chepstow 1 1,459 1,459 -13% 1,507 1,507 -13% The Trellech Grange 73 (73) ward of the Community of Tintern and the Catbrook 298 (298), Llanishen 258 (288), Narth 328 27 Trellech United 1 1,750 1,750 5% 1,780 1,780 3% (328), Penalt 415 (415), Trellech Town 296 (296) and Whitebrook 82 (82) wards of the Community of Trellech United 28 Usk The Community of Usk 1 1,810 1,810 8% 2,040 2,040 18% 29 West End The West End ward of the Community of Caldicot 1 1,514 1,514 -10% 1,586 1,586 -8% The Community of St. Arvans 585 (585) and the Chapel Hill 185 (185), Penterry 53 (53) and Tintern Parva 331 (331) wards of the 30 Wye River Valley 1 1,575 1,575 -6% 1,575 1,575 -9% Community of Tintern and the Llandogo 421 (421) ward of the Community of Trellech United 31 Wyesham The Wyesham ward of the Community of Monmouth 1 1,584 1,584 -5% 1,584 1,584 -8% TOTAL: 41 68,637 1,674 70,965 1,731 Ratio is the number of electors per councillor The number of electors for 2009 and 2014 (in brackets) are included in the description of those electoral divisions which comprise of more than one Community / Community ward

Electoral figures supplied by Monmouthshire County Council Appendix 3 MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Appendix 3 Page 3 PROPOSED ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

2009 2014 Greater than + or - 50% of County average 00% 00% Between + or - 25% and + or - 50% of County average 00% 00% Between + or - 10% and + or - 25% of County average 15 48% 17 55% Between 0% and + or - 10% of County average 16 52% 14 45% Appendix 3 Appendix 4

-1- Appendix 4

-2- Appendix 4

-3- Appendix 4

-4- Appendix 5 SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO DRAFT PROPOSALS

1. Monmouthshire County Council wrote to submit the following comments.

They express their disappointment in what appears to be a lack of regard for the initial representations to the Commission. They believe that for the review to be successful and making changes desirable and in the interests of effective and convenient local government, it is the input of local residents, Councillors and Community Councils that will ultimately determine how successful the proposals are. The Council hopes representations will be more thoroughly considered before producing the final proposals.

They express their confusion as to the way the Commission has applied the legislation and the Minster’s directions in preparing the draft proposals. Whilst the same statutory rules have been applied as the previous review of 1998, the outcome of the two reviews could not be more different. The 1998 review proposed 42 divisions with 43 members and the new proposals seek 32 divisions with 41 members. This small reduction in the number of Councillors indicates that on the whole the current arrangements comply with the statutory rules and that only minor changes are needed to improve electoral parity. They believe that at no point in the draft proposals do the Commission highlight the reasoning behind the large reduction in electoral divisions compared to the small reduction in elected members.

The Council also express concern that the same rules that provide one multi member division at present now provides eight. A study for the Electoral Commission in 2006 highlights that while multi member division have their benefits, a number of key factors define whether or not multi-member divisions would be successful. They include: geographical size, population density and socio-economic nature. The Council wish to highlight that throughout the proposals there appears to be no consistency, except for the number of electors per division as to what constitutes a multi-member or single- member division or the reasoning behind the creation. The Council request a response clarifying the criteria used to distinguish between single and multi-member divisions and the rationale behind the merging of divisions with no obvious local connection.

Rule (d) of the Minister’s directions state that in order to create multi-member divisions they must be broadly supported by the electorate. They point out that lack of representation does not constitute support.

The Council then state Schedule 11(3) of the Local Government Act and assert that they do not believe that the Commission has given enough consideration to the legislation in preparing the draft proposals.

They believe that the proposals are a simple re-arranging exercise of Community wards that has been carried out to achieve the desired electoral figure per division with little regard to natural Communities, the local ties between Communities and easily identifiable boundaries. For example, the merging of Drybridge and Wyesham in Monmouth. Both division are divided by a dual carriageway and a river. There are a number of other instances where either natural boundaries or a lack of connection between Communities have not been considered by the Commission.

-1- Appendix 5 They also believe that no regard has been taken of the existing parliamentary boundaries. Proposals for Caerwent and Severn cross the parliamentary boundaries. They consider a parliamentary constituency boundary is one that should not be crossed when considering arrangements in any area.

The Council stress that they are not resistant to change and would welcome a meeting with the Commission prior to the final proposals’ publication to assist in any way they can. When reviewing the arrangements, however, simply merging Community wards to fit a desired total electorate and not having regard to the diversity of local Communities, the connections between these Communities and the geographical make-up of Monmouthshire is not appropriate.

2. Abergavenny Town Council wrote to express their concerns for the proposed changes to Abergavenny electoral divisions.

They note that Grofield is somewhat smaller than the Monmouthshire County average and they propose a simple solution to that problem without creating ‘turbulence’. They suggest that Llanfoist Fawr Community is going to increase by 350 – 400 electors with new developments. Llanwenarth Citra could be taken from Llanfoist, as it is already on the opposite bank of the river to the rest of the Community, and added to Grofield to increase the division to a total of1,521 electors.

At present the divisions for Abergavenny are all single member and they strongly feel this complies with government policy and it is more logical that each member has a specific division to which they are responsible. If there are two members in a division they could be from different parties and one could be more energetic than the other causing an unfair distribution of work. It is also totally illogical to attach Mardy to Cantref and Grofield as it is neither within the Town area nor adjoining them.

They accept that one or two divisions are a bit under the average elector to councillor ratio if left alone but they believe that new developments over time will correct this and avoid the unreasonable linkages the proposals create. They endorse the comments made by Monmouthshire County Council and Councillor D Edwards. They ask that the Commission makes one adjustment involving Llanwenarth Citra and leave the rest alone.

3. Caerwent Community Council wrote to oppose the proposals for Caerwent. They believe the current single member for Caerwent works extremely well and the whole Community is aware of their Councillor.

They believe the natural geographical and cultural boundaries should be maintained and point out that Salisbury ward is neither geographically nor culturally linked to Caerwent whereas Llanfair Discoed and Crick wards most definitely are. They also point out the proposed division crosses existing parliamentary boundaries.

They provide information that 132 houses are being built in Merton Green in the village of Caerwent which would cause the proposed division to have upward of 1,900 electors. They urge us to reconsider the proposals and leave a single member for their Community as it works well and is more desirable than the proposed arrangements which destroy contact with the local member who will be lost to some electors.

-2- Appendix 5 4. Caldicot Town Council objected to any changes other than adjustments within the existing divisions of Caldicot.

5. Chepstow Town Council wrote with the following comments on the proposals in Chepstow.

Proposed Merger of St. Kingsmark and St. Mary’s wards The Council understands the need to reduce the size of St Kingsmark but would prefer for this to be done via boundary changes between the wards. They also note that St. Mary’s ward has a development of 169 residential dwellings that has recently been given planning permission.

Proposed merger of Thornwell ward with Mathern and Portskewett The Council oppose this merger for the following reasons: i. Divides the Community – the proposal divides an established Community and there could be issues in future where there are considerable problems with illogical solutions and difficulties in representation. ii. Undermines community coherence and identity – Thornwell and Bulwark are part of a clear and recognised Community and there is no distinction between the three wards to be merged. To associate a densely populated ward with a rural area makes little sense. iii. Takes away an integral part of Chepstow – Thornwell is a clear part of the urban area of Chepstow and there are no physical links to any other settlements other than the Town of Chepstow. iv. Links Thornwell with two places with nothing in common – the proposed link of a large urban area with two settlements closer to Caldicot, across some miles of rural land. v. Undermines representation – Chepstow is one of the largest towns in the County and should be represented by five Councillors and not four and two for Chepstow and a rural area. The electorate of Chepstow justifies 5 Councillors under the Commission’s rules and all should be indentified with the Town of Chepstow. vi. Causes administrative difficulties – Difficulties arise in the services the Town Council provides as they use the County divisions as the Town Council wards. The merger could cause considerable problems for the Community. vii. Unnecessary – The proposals do not advance the overall objective of the Commission. A suggestion of merging Portskewett and Mathern to create a division with 1,755 electors would be better as it is close to the Minister’s target figure and the County average of 1,731. Thornwell would therefore not be required to be part of the division and would remain in Chepstow. This proposal would have both divisions within 10-25% of the county average as under the Commission’s proposals.

They conclude by asking the Commission to reconsider their proposals in the absence of any benefit to the Community or the Commission; leave Thornwell alone and not merge St. Mary’s and St. Kingsmark but change the boundaries between them.

6. Devauden Community Council wrote to seek the status quo for Monmouthshire as the costs of implementation outweigh the benefit of the changes. In these difficult financial times the Commission should be mindful of the cost of any changes and should not proceed further with these proposals at the current time.

-3- Appendix 5 7. Grosmont Community Council wrote to make the following observations on the draft proposals: 1. They note the present Crucorney division is one elector below the present county average. 2. The proposal to include Grosmont with the ward of Llanvapley of the Community of Llanarth, the ward of Llantilio Crosseny of the Community of Llantilio Crosseny and the ward of Skenfrith of the Community of Llangattock-Vibon- Avel, they cannot go along with.

Grosmont is the largest village in north east Monmouthshire and has no connection with Llanarth. They wish to remain within the present division with Crucorney.

8. Llanarth Fawr Community Council wrote to strongly object to the proposals for the existing Llanover division.

They state the existing Llanover division has 1,802 electors and this is not deemed to be changed in 2014. The review proposes an average ratio of 1:1,750 electors per Councillor, this means that Llanover ward is very close to the proposal. They ask why change what works and is so close to the ideal?

Llanarth Fawr Community Council particularly objects on the following grounds:- i. The new proposed area around the Llanover division is a huge geographical area. ii. The County and Community Councillors would have a very increased workload - i.e. planning applications. iii. The current boundaries keep a sense of community that would be totally lost under the proposals. iv. The local Councillors (Community and County) are able to get to know electors and the area - this again would be hugely difficult under the new proposals. v. The Councillors will not be able to serve the electorate to the best of their ability over such a large area. vi. All Councillors are "in touch" with the electorate throughout the area - this would not be possible or, at best, would be exceedingly difficult. vii. The Councillors would not know the details of the new area - the current local knowledge would be lost and this knowledge is invaluable in making decisions / recommendations. viii. Lastly, under the proposals, if implemented, Monmouthshire County Council would be forced to review Community Council boundaries. These are historic geographical boundaries that work exceedingly well, with the Community Council able to make all the electorate feel included in the decisions of local government. Under any review (taking into consideration the recommendations of your report) Llanarth Fawr Community Council would cease to exist and the wards would be divided into different areas with which there is no geographical or historic link. This may not be part of the considerations of the Commission but the effect of not considering this forced review would be to the great detriment of the local electorate.

9. Llanfoist Fawr Community Council wrote to object to the proposals for Llanfoist Fawr.

-4- Appendix 5 They believe the proposals do not reflect the enormous changes, i.e. development currently underway in the Llanfoist division and those proposed for the Llanwenarth Ultra () division. They believe that by 2013 the Llanfoist division will be as big as the Llanwenarth Ultra division - dwellings have already been approved / built and there are proposals with outline planning permission for more dwellings.

The Councillors do not feel that they would, under the proposals, be able to properly represent the electors - the Llanfoist Fawr area will have sufficient electors to not need or warrant the exclusion of other areas that are very different, i.e. very rural as opposed to largely semi-rural. If the division stays as it is under the current arrangement the Llanfoist Fawr Community Council will be able to be maintained - although they believe changes are required near Abergavenny. The Llanwenarth Citra ward may be more suited to another division or Community.

They believe the County Councillors for the new division will be expected to work in pairs - this is confusing for the electorate and would / could cause problems with efficiently representing the area due to political differences, differences of opinion, or working practices. They believe the proposals would mean a backward step for communication and representation at County Council level.

10. Llangattock Vibon Avel Community Council wrote to oppose any boundary changes that would add any further area to that already covered by the present Councillor (Ruth Edwards).

They note that their Community is the second most geographically deprived area of facilities and services in the whole of Wales. They assert that this results in more calls on the County Councillor and their members.

They believe that the present Councillor takes a keen interest in their monthly meetings and they are anxious to maintain this liaison as it is vital for the advancement of citizen liaison. They state that the Councillor already covers the adjoining Community Council [under the existing arrangements] and to be responsible for a fragment of another Community Council area would result in confusion for her and others. They believe the Councillor is there to serve local communities and not satisfy numerical allocations.

11. Llangybi Community Council wrote to oppose the draft proposals. They feel that the current system is working well and see no benefit to the proposed change. The assert the communities included in the proposal are diverse, with differing facilities and expectations of the electorate. They believe that the creation of artificial electoral divisions will result in the loss of a community’s sense of identity, likely loss of services and increased taxes.

They strongly believe the current representation below the county average with one councillor should be retained. They assert that the proposed two member alternative would create confusion and the new electoral division split by the two councillors, with their community losing their sense of identity and place.

12. Llanhennock Community Council wrote to oppose the Llanbadoc, Llangybi and Usk proposal which also features the Llanhennock Community. They believe that the present system is working well and see no benefit to change aside from the statistical manoeuvring of quite diverse Communities with different facilities and expectations of the electorate.

-5- Appendix 5

Their Community Councillors have intimate knowledge of their parts of the Community and that is why it functions well. The reform of the system as suggested will lead to a loss of this personal aspect of their service. They believe that the creation of artificial divisions will lose a communities sense of identity and a likely loss of services to rural areas and this will be aligned with an increase in taxes to pay for facilities in more densely populated areas for which rural dwellers will receive no benefit.

They strongly believe the status quo suits them best and the two member alternative can only create confusion. They would lose their identity and sense of place.

13. Llanover Community Council wrote to oppose the draft proposals. They are unhappy that the Community Council should be split even though the present electoral division is only 13% above the county average and is very close to the 1:1,750 proposed ratio. They see no good reason for the proposed changes and any boundary change would be arbitrary, have no good reason and be a waste of time and money.

14. Llantilio Crosseny Community Council wrote to oppose the draft proposals. They consider there is nothing wrong with the current arrangements and feel the proposals are more complex with the linking of non-adjacent areas and more complicated arrangements proposed with County Councillors. The Council do not see any benefit and consider the proposals impractical.

15. Llantilio Pertholey Community Council wrote to oppose the proposals concerning their Community. They believe they would not benefit the residents of the affected areas and do not appear to take into account the different natures of the areas and the issues affecting residents within those areas. They assert that the current arrangement has worked well for many years as the areas have similar issues affecting them.

They feel the proposal to link Mardy ward with the Cantref and Grofield wards of Abergavenny, with the remaining wards of the Mardy electoral division with Crucorney Community, will not provide continuity for the residents as issues affecting the current areas are significantly different. In addition, they believe the proposal would split the Community Council across three County Council divisions, making liaison with Councillors on community issues more difficult.

Members urge the Commission to revisit its proposals for the wards in question and consider alternative arrangements to ensure residents’ interests are effectively addressed.

16. Magor with Undy Community Council wrote to oppose the proposed changes to its Community.

They note that the Community is tight knit and should continue to be represented by two County Councillors. They believe transferring parts of the Community to other divisions to be a retrograde step; such action would split and divide the Community.

They feel that both Caerwent and Rogiet would also lose their identity by the proposals and do not wish to see this happen.

-6- Appendix 5 They feel the relationship with the two Councillors at present is good and they are concerned at the financial implications to split the Community. Any reduction would mean that it would be unable to continue to provide the services it does at the moment.

17. Mathern Community Council wrote to object to the proposals for the area. They state it was regrettable that the consultation period spanned the traditional summer holiday period.

They note Mathern is a semi-rural community and the particularly close connection between the wards of Mathern and Pwllmeyric.

They state the proposal for Mathern to join with Portskewett and Thornwell amalgamates three quite separate, distinct areas with no affinity, nor semblance to affinity, with each other. One area is a town, another a main village and a smaller rural village. They have fundamentally different needs and there is no direct link between any of the Communities. They strongly urge the Commission to reconsider this proposal.

18. Mitchel Troy Community Council wrote to say they are extremely unhappy with the proposals to split up the Council which has existed as a defined Community for 80 years.

They feel the proposal is simplistic and target driven to simply increase the division to a national target of 1,750 electors. The proposed revision will produce a very large land area, some 14km by 10km, with only poor rural interconnections and a widely dispersed population with no community focus. They consider the target figure unrealistic for rural areas which already get poorer service because any representative finds it difficult serving widely dispersed communities with a low population density and long communication distances.

They feel the long decline in rural populations is caused by a lack of Community focal points and many properties have become second homes which still expect to draw on services when they are occupied. They believe the proposed changes will further distance people in small rural communities from their elected representative and make the electoral process less relevant to people’s lives.

19. Portskewett Community Council wrote to oppose the Commission’s proposals to place each ward of the Community into different electoral divisions. They believe that this will confuse the accountability of their Council on the County Council and bring it into question. They believe confusion may arise from two wards being in different parliamentary and Assembly constituencies.

The distances between the communities to be amalgamated are quite large when related to village life and will have different problems and requirements to Portskewett. At present Sudbrook and Leechpool are virtually joined to Portskewett Village and all share the same or similar requirements.

The Community has existed for several thousand years and at a time of decline of community spirit, communities need to reinforce their old ties. They believe the Commission’s proposals will have the opposite affect. They implore the Commission to revisit the proposals and can see no social or economic reason for its division.

-7- Appendix 5 20. Raglan Community Council wrote with its concern at the proposal to introduce multi- member divisions in some parts of the County. They strongly believe this is a retrograde step and will not assist good democracy in the area. It would prefer to see under average elector numbers than see irrational combinations. They have no comments for their own division as there has been no change.

21. Rogiet Community Council wrote to oppose the proposals for Rogiet. They are disappointed with the suggestion they should be merged with Magor with Undy, losing both their individual identity and their name.

They believe the name suggests that they are just an ‘add on’ to Magor and this is how it will be viewed. They believe the Community of Rogiet will be totally enveloped. In a three member division they will lose their own representative and preferred candidate. They feel the electorate of Magor with Undy have widely differing views to that of Rogiet. They then enclose a copy of their initial representation:

They claim the Community of Rogiet is a discrete rural area with clear identifiable boundaries. They believe transferring the community to another ward would not see their needs fully represented and be a retrograde step. They note that they are below the county average and the Unitary Development Plan and Local Development Plans do not identify an increase in electorate. They also note the difference of the town of Caldicot and the community of Magor with Undy. They offer the following points to highlight the need for the community to remain unchanged:

1. In the Special Community Review for the District of Monmouth (1983), 290 electors were lost to the West End ward of Caldicot. This was unopposed by Rogiet Community Council. 2. They consider that the above gesture of goodwill should be repaid in the new boundary proposals. They believe an area should be added to their community to make up for past reductions. 3. They believe that St. Brides Netherwent could be incorporated into their community as is fits geographically, in terms of numbers and it falls within the Rogiet Primary School catchment area. 4. They wished to meet face to face to explain the Commission’s views on future representation of the Community ward.

22. Shirenewton Community Council wrote to oppose the proposals for Shirenewton Community wards. The four wards of the Community are closely connected and the present division, which includes the Community of Mathern works well for all residents.

They noted that the proposal with the working name of Shirenewton stated that the Commission acknowledged separating Community wards but there are good access links between the Communities and the Commission could see no reason why community ties could not be forged. They point out that they believe that this has been written by someone with no real knowledge of the local communities but has been worked out on numbers alone.

The other proposal for Shirenewton with the working name of Devauden, Llangwm and Llantrisant Fawr will result in the Community Council being served by two County Councillors which will lead to confusion for residents and difficult situations for Community Councils. Added to this confusion is that some wards of Shirenewton are

-8- Appendix 5 not clearly defined on the electoral roll, e.g. a number of people living in Earlswood ward are listed in Shirenewton ward.

23. St. Arvans Community Council wrote with the following comments. Whilst the Council appreciates the desire to bring parity to electors it does not consider that St. Arvans electoral division sits naturally with Llandogo. They believe the two communities have little in common. They consider geographical and cultural links should be taken into account alongside mathematics of representative numbers when reviewing electoral arrangements to optimise convenient and effective local government.

24. Trellech United Community Council wrote that they believe the proposal would be detrimental to both the Community Council and to the County Council.

The Community Council would have to deal with two Councillors rather than one. This in their view would make liaison with the Council considerably more difficult, at a time when partnership is being advocated. They feel it would provide an unnecessary distraction and complication for the work of the Community Council.

They believe the Councillors would be faced with an unnecessarily difficult task if linked to two, or even three, Community Councils that might each have different interests and priorities. They would prefer to continue with the current electoral divisions.

25. Usk Town Council wrote to reiterate the views of their County Councillor, Councillor Brian Strong.

26. Jessica Morden MP (Newport East) wrote to raise her concerns on the proposals, which should be totally reviewed.

Sudbrook with Severn She believes that there are no particular Community ties and the proposal crosses constituency boundaries. This means the Councillor would have to deal with two MPs and AMs and it could result in confusion or duplication of communication.

Magor with Undy and Rogiet The proposal keeps the number of Councillors but merges two Community Councils. Rogiet is a Community in its own right and she believes it should retain its Councillor.

27. Veronica German AM (South Wales East) wrote to raise concerns on the Draft Proposals.

She notes that at present there is just one multi-member division out of the 43 divisions in Monmouthshire. She states that the draft proposals suggest that seven new multi- member divisions should be created, yet she finds it interesting to read in his letter that the Minister himself lacks enthusiasm for multi-member divisions and he suggests that attention should be paid to local communities having their own identifiable representative even when the indicative ratio 1:1,750 is not always achievable.

She believes single member divisions have a distinct advantage in that they allow for simplicity and clarity, and facilitate accountability. Electors and community councils know exactly who to approach for assistance when they require it. In fact, she feels

-9- Appendix 5 single member divisions avoid the confusion which may be created by multi-member representation.

It is proposed that Rogiet and Magor and Undy be amalgamated with an anticipated electorate by 2014 of 5,290. She states that whilst it is suggested that there be three elected representatives for this new division with a ratio of 1:1,763, in practice each councillor will be responsible for all 5,290 electors adding considerably to the amount of casework that each councillor will have to undertake.

She believes that the proposal to merge Grofield, Cantref and Mardy to create a single division represented by two councillors does not make sense geographically as Mardy is not immediately adjacent to either Cantref or Grofield as the Lansdown ward creates a barrier, therefore giving no clear boundary for the electorate to understand.

With regard to the proposed amalgamation of St. Mary’s with St. Kingsmark, she feels that it appears that no account has been taken of the planning permission passed earlier this year for an additional 169 properties to be built at the Osborne site located on Lower Church Street, Chepstow. She asserts that building is due to commence shortly and once completed will bring an estimated 250+ residents to St. Mary’s, taking the electorate over the indicative ratio of 1:1750. Furthermore, she notes that as part of the LDP a significant candidate site has been identified at the Fairfield Mabey Site in Station Road, Chepstow, again located in St. Mary’s ward and should this site be progressed it is estimated that an additional 200-300 houses will be built which will again increase the size of this ward significantly.

She was also particularly concerned that it has been suggested that to increase the size of Severn ward in Caldicot with Sudbrook ward of the Portskewett Community. Caldicot is currently in the Newport East parliamentary constituency whilst Sudbrook is in the Monmouth parliamentary constituency which would cause great confusion to the residents of both areas.

Finally, whilst she can appreciate adjusting ward boundaries to increase / decrease the size to take account of the change in population since the last review, she can see no justification at all in amalgamating Thornwell, Mathern and Portskewett. Thornwell and Portskewett are roughly six miles apart and have no common links as Thornwell is part of Chepstow town and Mathern and Portskewett rural village communities.

28. Councillor Geoff Burrows (Mitchel Troy) wrote with his comments on the proposals for Mitchel Troy.

As the Councillor with the smallest division in terms of electorate, he knew that his division would be changed. A substantial increase in electorate does not concern him but to merge Mitchel Troy with Llangattock-Vibon-Avel, with the same sparseness as his division, is of concern. He looks on with envy to those with more urban and compact divisions.

He notes that the pre-set criteria of the elector to Councillor ratio is an end in itself and the subsequent management and democratic value members provide is totally overlooked. This in his view is not progress but it satisfies the Ministerial dictate.

29. Councillor Peter Clark (Llangybi Fawr) wrote to oppose the proposals. He is perplexed that under the very similar rules and directions from the previous review a

-10- Appendix 5 significant change of direction has occurred. This he believes can only be down to the Commission’s desire to deliver a balanced ratio of electors to Councillor in every division where previously the average ratio was used. It also produces 8 undesired multi-member divisions, one with three members. From a lay perspective he feels this has been done purely on an overview and mapping exercise with no consideration of practicalities and social implications. This is extremely concerning to him as it results in confusion, severed political accountability and weakens current Communities.

The proposal for Llangybi Fawr clearly demonstrates his concerns. Usk has its own Town Council, raises a much larger precept than the communities which form his present seat and is a whole Community in its own right with a Mayor.

He suggests that there is one Councillor for Usk and one division made of Llangybi, Llanhennock and the Glascoed and Llanbadoc wards of the Community of Llanbadoc. This would be clear, cleaner and represent one urban and one rural seat.

He believes the present proposals are ill thought out, do not recognise the implications for local communities and fall far short of delivering arrangements that enrich local democracy.

30. Councillor David Dovey (St. Kingsmark) wrote to oppose the proposals for St. Kingsmark and the Draft proposals in general.

He is not against change but he believes reducing the number of divisions cannot be a worthwhile exercise and the proposed small reduction in Councillors indicates that on the whole the existing system is working well. He notes that even though the Commission is working by broadly the same rules and guidance that there is a significant change in positioning in this Review. He believes the proposals are a retrograde step, moving away from single member divisions and creating an impossible position of a three member division. He believes this is done purely to meet a mathematical ratio.

He believes single member divisions are simple and transparent and result in accountability; Town and Community Councils know who to approach. There is also no issue of mixed messages put before the electorate or the electorate playing one Councillor off against another. There is also the issue of knowing what is going on in the whole division.

He then makes reference to the Act and the Commission guidance booklet where it states that single member divisions should be the presumption. He then notes that multi member divisions should be broadly supported by the electorate, which he believes is not the case, and that the Councillor to elector ratio of 1:1,750 is guidance and not a goal.

He points out some key differences between St. Kingsmark and St. Mary’s including: • St. Kingsmark is wholly residential where residents commute. The St. Lawrence road unites the ward as a means of gaining access to their employment. • St. Mary’s is an integral part of the town centre comprising virtually all of the businesses and many offices. The electorate here are mainly based in the town and their road issues are very different. • Housing development within St. Kingsmark is likely to be minimal whereas there will be significant development in St. Mary’s.

-11- Appendix 5 • St. Mary’s consists mainly of Chepstow people, whereas St. Kingsmark residents are commuters and business nomads.

He believes these are people with different backgrounds, needs, aspirations, lifestyles and problems. There are many distinctions between the two wards. He feels the proposals are a simplistic desire to create divisions with equal numbers of electors without logical boundaries and no consideration for history or tradition. He feels the creation of a significant number of multi-member divisions and scant regard for constituency boundaries is totally wrong.

31. Councillor Graham Down (Shirenewton) wrote with the following comments, specific comments on the proposals and alternative suggestions.

He believes the proposals are ill-conceived and has received no suggestion that the present arrangements do not work well. Whilst there is a disparity in the number of electors per councillor, the divisions are based on established Community areas and are readily understood. He believes they conform to the rules and urges the Commission not to make change for changes sake.

He believes the proposals have sacrificed identity and local ties for numerical equality and in doings so, the Commission has ignored the Act and the Minsters directions. He feels the outcome is a hotchpotch of Community wards creating confusion for both the electorate and Community Councils. He asserts that community ties cannot be created on the whim of a Commissioner or stroke of a pen. He suggests that parity is only one of a number of factors to consider and should not be pursued to the exclusion of everything else.

He states that the Commission also creates divisions which cross parliamentary boundaries which may cause further confusion. Whilst he acknowledges that that there may be significant changes to the parliamentary constituencies in the near future, the review should be based on existing arrangements and he believes divisions should not cross parliamentary boundaries.

He also states that the Commission has also proposed a relatively large number of multi-member divisions. He believes that single member divisions have the advantage in simplicity and clarity and facilitate accountability. He feels single member divisions should be presumed in the first instance and the Commission should be mindful that a Councillor in a multi-member division is accountable to all the electors in their division; it is not possible to ‘carve up’ a division which considerably adds to the workload of Councillors. He notes that research by the British Market Research Bureau also indentified a number of dis-benefits to multi-member divisions including: fragmentation of knowledge, duplication of effort, hindering of officers, dishonourable practices and sidelining of minority party Councillors. He asserts that the draft proposals also offer no evidence of public support from the electorate for multi-member divisions and believes such support is unlikely.

Community of Shirenewton He asserts that this fairly large rural Community, despite its size, has a demonstrable sense of Community uniting the areas but this small Community, in population terms will have two County Councillors. He states the proposal with the name Shirenewton comprises of parts of four Communities but the whole of none. He feels that whilst there may be a case for adding Crick to Shirenewton, and a weak case for Llanvair

-12- Appendix 5 Discoed, there is no evidence of any affinity between Leechpool and Shirenewton. He believes the proposal to split Newchurch and Earlswood from Shirenewton does not show regard for local ties. He states that there is also a deficiency in the register in Shirenewton which may cause further confusion and inaccuracies in electoral figures.

Community of Mathern He asserts that there is a particularly close connection between Mathern and Pwllmeyric wards; they form a single Community although separated by a field or two but all the Community facilities are in Mathern village. He believes the hamlet of Mounton is possibly less integrated although peculiarities of the ward boundary line mean parts of the ward are in reality in Pwllmeyric.

He believes the proposal to merge Mathern ward with Portskewett Village and the Thornwell ward of Chepstow is absurd. He states that the division is composed of parts of three Communities but the whole of none and would leave the Community of Mathern with three County Councillors. He asserts that the three quite separate and distinct areas have no affinity and there is no direct road link between them, they are different in almost every conceivable respect.

Alternative proposals He has used the Minister’s guidance and has focused on those divisions that are outside of +/- 10% of the elector to councillor ratio of 1:1,750. He is minded that this ratio is not always achievable in sparsely populated rural divisions or in urban areas. He has also taken the 2014 projected figures into account and assumed parliamentary boundaries are inviolable. He believes that in attempting this exercise it has shown beyond question that there is a need for Monmouthshire County Council to conduct a Community Review.

He states that for administrative purposes Monmouthshire County Council has created three areas: Mor Hafren in the south, Bryn y Cwm in the north and Central Monmouthshire. He has detailed knowledge of Mor Hafren and the proposals are largely limited to this area. He states that within Mor Hafren the Commission has made no proposals to change Dewstow or Larkfield and there is one change to St. Arvans. He concurs with these proposals. He has no view on the proposal for St. Kingsmark and St. Mary’s other than his aversion to multi-member divisions. He believes the Commission may wish to give consideration to amalgamating St. Kingsmark and Larkfield as an alternative.

Devauden He proposes that the Llanishen ward of the Community of Trellech United and the Trellech Grange ward of the Community of Tintern be added to the present Devauden division.

Thornwell He believes the proposals for Thornwell are too large, unmanageable and make no sense. He suggests the current divisions remain. If a change is necessary then Thornwell and St. Christopher’s amalgamate to be called Bulwark and Thornwell.

Mill, The Elms and Rogiet The proposals create an unwieldy multi-member division. Rogiet is a distinct Community in its own right and is separated from Magor with Undy by the M4. There is a better case for Rogiet’s inclusion with Caldicot but this would require rationalisation

-13- Appendix 5 of the wards. The proposal to put Salisbury with Caerwent has no merit and there is little evidence of community ties. It also crosses the parliamentary boundary. Mill and The Elms divisions have only 100 or so electors difference so he believes the three divisions should remain as they are.

Severn Although Severn is smaller than ideal, the proposal crosses a parliamentary boundary and there is no obvious affinity between the Communities so he proposes the status quo remains.

Trellech United and Mitchell Troy He proposes to create a new division of Trellech United (other than Llanishen and Llandogo wards) and the Community of Mitchel Troy. He recognises that this arrangement would be less than satisfactory from the perspective of Trellech United but would go some way in meeting numerical equality.

No Change Caldicot Castle, Green Lane, West End, Portskewett, Caerwent and Shirenewton.

Conclusion His response has endeavoured to demonstrate the draft proposals are ill-founded and inappropriate based on the desire for numerical equality without regard to fixing easily identifiable boundaries or respect local ties. They create undesirable multi-member divisions and disregard for parliamentary boundaries. He has attempted to provide alternative proposals which address these issues.

A further point he makes is that the timetabling where an Order amending the arrangements is made in the summer of 2011, less than 12 months prior to the May 2012 elections. This gives only a short time for prospective candidates to familiarise themselves with the new divisions and this is too short a period giving an unfair advantage to standing Councillors. He also asks that before finalising the recommendations the Commission holds a local inquiry for further representations to be made and to engage in a dialogue with Commissioners.

32. Councillor Douglas Edwards (Grofield) wrote to oppose the proposed amalgamation of Cantref, Grofield and Mardy and support the letter sent by the leader of Monmouthshire County Council.

He notes in the Ministers directions that the ratio of councillors to electors of 1:1,750 is an aim and not a goal. He also lacks enthusiasm for multi-member divisions. He accepts the other proposals for Abergavenny but not that of Cantref, Grofield and Mardy. He believes it does not make sense geographically as Mardy is not immediately adjacent to Cantref or Mardy as the Lansdown division is a barrier.

He asserts that Mardy is part of a very strong Community of Llantilio Pertholey which has a very strong identity. He believes the splitting of the existing Mardy division is being used to achieve a goal rather than accept an impossible aim.

He believes that Cantref, as the largest division of Abergavenny, should remain unchanged. He states that the Grofield electorate could be increased by including the Llanwenarth Citra ward of Llanfoist Fawr as it is on the Grofield side of the river.

-14- Appendix 5 33. Councillor Peter Fox (Portskewett) wrote to make the following observations of the review in general and on the proposals for Portskewett.

He states that in the last review in 1998 the number of electoral divisions was increased and number of multi member divisions decreased. He is perplexed that under the same rules there has been a significant change of direction. He can put it down only to the Commission’s desire to deliver a balanced ratio of electors to councillor in every division where prior reviews used the average ratio. This has produced the undesired position of eight multi-member divisions.

He believed that from a lay perspective the approach seems to have been taken by the Commission as purely an overview and mapping exercise with no on the ground practicalities and social implications being considered. He is concerned as the expectation of this and future reviews should be to look to improve arrangements rather than weaken them as the current proposals clearly would, as a result of confusion, severed political accountability and weakened communities.

He believes that the proposals for Portskewett clearly demonstrate his concerns. He states that Portskewett is a close Community with all wards interacting and sharing common aspirations and facing the same concerns and issues. Sudbrook is physically joined to Portskewett through the only vehicular connection to the ward, and is connected through families who have established themselves in the two villages over many generations. Leechpool also has those strong longstanding links and is also very important to the Community and indeed the Community Council which represents all three wards. He asserts that the cohesion between the Community, its local Council and the County is extremely strong.

He believes the proposals for this area do nothing to preserve cohesion and local accountability. Sudbrook has no links with Severn, one being a rural village, the other a town ward. This proposal also crosses present parliamentary and Assembly constituency boundaries. He states that the elected member for Severn has no physical access to Sudbrook except via Portskewett. The issues that arise day-to-day in Sudbrook are pertinent to Portskewett requiring the Severn Councillor to be closely linked with Portskewett itself. These issues are mirrored in the proposals for the other two wards.

He states that currently a County Councillor for the three wards needs to understand the synergy between them, know the links and interact with the Community Council in an inclusive way. He believes the Commission’s proposals destroy that approach with each ward represented by different County Councillors, with Portskewett Village having two County Councillors as part of a multi-member division.

He believes the proposals are ill thought out and do not recognise the implications for local communities and do not enrich local democracy.

34. Councillor R J W Greenland (Devauden) wrote with his dismay at the recommendations as they appertain to his division and surrounding areas.

Whilst he can understand and concur with the desire to move towards equalising the ratio of councillors to electors, he does not believe that this should be implemented to the detriment of other issues of importance to the efficient service of councillors to their constituents. In particular he believes the Commission has paid no regard to the

-15- Appendix 5 rurality of the area and the difficulties that brings in serving several separate communities. He believes that to fully understand the issues of concern to their electorate, a councillor needs to attend local gatherings of the community, social functions and community councils meetings. These duties bring an added time commitment not faced by his urban colleagues. Distributing newsletters to rural wards can take weeks rather than hours in an urban area.

He acknowledged that with 1,163 electors the current division should have some increase, but a rise of almost 50% to 1,705, seems to completely ignore the rurality issues. He believes this recommendation is not consistent with at least one other area. Grosmont village, currently a part of the Crucorney ward (1,595 electors) is to become part of the new ward of Grosmont and Llantillio Crosseny ward with 1,346 electors. He states the rationale for the decision in the Report and believes that in this case the Commission acknowledges the rurality issue but completely disregards it when considering Devauden.

He believes the recommendations do not seem to take any account of natural or man made boundaries such as arterial roads. He states that the Commission is linking communities that do not see themselves as having any connection.

He also has concern in many areas of the county over proposals to form multi-member divisions, contrary to the wishes of many electors and as required in section 78 of the Local Government Act of 1972.

35. Councillor Linda Guppy (Rogiet) wrote to strongly oppose the proposal to amalgamate Rogiet with Magor with Undy. She believes that the proposal is unacceptable and it is imperative that the Community of Rogiet remains a single member division and is not a lost Community in any future multi-member division proposals from the Commission either with Magor with Undy or Caldicot.

She believes the multi-member division proposal is a backward step for the Community which has benefitted from being a single member division since 1986 when it moved away from Magor with Undy. She asserts that the electorate has vastly increased since then and so has community cohesion. She believes the draft proposals retain the number of Councillors which is welcomed but the creation of a multi-member division of very distinct Communities is not functional, over sized and would have a detrimental affect on the Communities as a whole.

She notes that the proposals are a number arranging exercise with no consideration as to how the Community will functional, despite representation prior to the draft proposals.

She believes that Rogiet should be treated with special circumstances as achieving an electorate with the county average is not achievable due to the physical boundaries and the lack of future developments for Rogiet. She noted that proposals for Grosmont and Llantilio (1,346 electors) Gwelhelog Fawr and Llanarth (1,367 electors) which is near or just under the 1,300 electors for Rogiet and proves that the ideal electoral parity figure cannot always be achieved, which is accepted by the Commission.

She asserts that Monmouthshire has supported the existence of Rogiet through its UPD and proposed UDP through the continuation of the village boundaries and no further development between Rogiet and Undy and Caldicot. She believes these

-16- Appendix 5 factors should be taken into account within any electoral review and used as evidence to remain a single member division.

She states that Rogiet has a very distinct community, with distinct boundaries separating it from Caldicot and the very large villages of Magor with Undy. It has its own Community Council and Community facilities. She believes Magor with Undy works as a Community as it also has its own Community Council. Caldicot is one of four towns in Monmouthshire and has differing issues to villages. She believes the review should respect local ties and should not have a detrimental affect on a Community’s existence.

She states that the Commission was responsible for reducing the Community’s boundaries in 1983 which has now left the division under threat from losing its individual identity. This was bought to the Commission’s attention in representations in January 2010 by both the Councillor and the Community Council but such important factors have not been taken into account.

She states that having a three member division would leave each Councillor to represent 5,290 electors. She believes that ratios are only paper figures as they will need to represent all electors. She questions how this can be achieved and could create a duplication of work and confusion for electors.

She notes that previously an alternative as to how Rogiet could be increased in electorate was made and the Commission did not offer any comment which would have been welcomed. She believes as the draft proposals have identified two divisions of similar size then the current proposals should be re-addressed and Rogiet should remain a single member division.

36. Councillor R J Higginson (Severn) wrote to oppose the amalgamation of Severn and Sudbrook ward of the Community of Portskewett.

He notes that the proposal would cross the present parliamentary constituency boundary.

He states the rules to be observed when considering electoral arrangements. He goes on to say that as Sudbrook does not lie within the Caldicot Community area, parliamentary or Welsh Assembly constituencies the decision to amalgamate it with Severn is confusing and outside the Commission’s remit. He believes it makes no sense whatsoever. He states that Sudbrook lies two miles from Severn and there are no community ties as they have their own identities. He believes the Commission has not followed its own rules and the validity of the proposal is open to question.

He then states one of the Ministers directions and paragraph 5.2 and 5.4 of the draft proposals stating that the Commission cannot change Community or Community ward boundaries. He then goes on to say that the figures for Severn electoral division are under-estimated by approximately 180 electors. This when considered with other divisions in Caldicot would put Severn on a par and should allow further consideration from the Commission.

He restates that the proposals are entirely inconsistent with the rules and remit of the Commission or statements attributed to it. This alleged behaviour causes confusion

-17- Appendix 5 and, by acting without consistency to the Commission’s own statements, are irrational and unacceptable.

37. Councillor Brain Hood (Llanover) wrote with the following comments on the draft proposals:

He has sympathy for the desire to make each of the divisions have very similar numbers of electors but cannot understand why the Commission even consider changes to long established ones where the number of electors is close to the 1,750 ratio such as his, which has 1,802.

He disagrees strongly with the proposals for the creation of multi-member divisions, especially as the last review of 10 years ago had the aim to create as many as possible single member divisions. His experience is that single member divisions are much better for the electorate as they are quite clear who is their representative. He believes a second possible problem can occur where the multi-member divisions do not always agree about issues and so clash, causing confusion all round for the electorate. He states that the proposals for multi-member divisions create some very large geographical areas in rural parts.

As far as he can make out the Commission have not taken into account new housing even where it is being built or been built since the latest electoral role. In addition, he believes there are some places where planning permission has been granted but work not yet started.

He suggests that Community Councils will change as a result of the proposals.

38. Councillor Paul Jordan (Cantref) wrote to oppose the proposals for Cantref, Grofield and Mardy.

He notes that multi-member divisions should only be enacted when proposals are broadly supported by the electorate is so far as their views can be obtained in fulfilment of the consultation requirement of the Act. He does not believe such consultation has taken place to give such an indication. He notes the Minister also indicates a lack of enthusiasm for multi member divisions.

He believes the proposals are perverse as there is no contiguous boundary between Cantref, Grofield and Mardy.

He notes that the Cantref division at present has 1,705 electors which is close to the Ministers direction and is closer than the projected electorate of 1,912 for 2014. The present ratio is 4% from the county variance and this is almost perfect.

He adds his support to the Monmouthshire County Council representation.

39. Councillor Phil Murphy (Caerwent) wrote to offer his observations on the proposed alterations. He believes that the Caerwent under the proposals would not meet the Commission’s fundamental requirement for the maintenance of Community life. He states that the electoral division is currently set in a natural geographical bowl; its villages have a natural interaction, both social and physical; and, are served by one Community Council. He asserts that the Llanfair Discoed and Crick wards sit naturally within the boundary of the electoral division; Salisbury ward is neither geographically,

-18- Appendix 5 culturally nor socially linked. Salisbury ward is also in the Newport East parliamentary Constituency.

He states that the UDP and emerging LDP show that there are 132 houses currently being built in the Community of Caerwent which would add 260 or so electors. He asserts that this would give the present division approximately 1,660 electors, nearer the desired number. He states that under the new proposals the total would be approximately 1,995, i.e. higher than the desired number.

He believes that the Commission should re-consider the new electoral division created with Shirenewton, Mynydbach, Llanfair Discoed, Crick and Leechpool wards as these are diverse Communities by any of the Commission’s criteria.

40. Councillor Liz Hacket Pain (Wyesham – Monmouth) wrote to log an objection to the proposals to change the boundaries within the County of Monmouthshire. In particular the idea that Wyesham and Drybridge areas would become one area with two ward members.

She pointed out that the two areas have never had anything in common such as community events, leisure activities or a natural tendency to merge together; in fact the opposite is the case. She states that this is not a sensible boundary because the two areas are cut off by the and the A40 dual carriageway. She believes the river and dual carriageway act as a natural boundary; this is how the area operates at present.

She suggested that the area of Wyesham remain as it does at present. She believes it is not suitable for merger with another area because of the manmade and natural boundaries that exist.

41. Councillor Maureen Powell (Castle – Abergavenny) wrote with her opposition to the Draft Proposals.

She strongly believes that multi-member divisions should be avoided. She believes that where two or more councillors cover a large area there are many problems. Such as: i. Do both Councillors attend every problem or is the division split into sections? The electorate would not like this as they have voted for both Councillors. ii. Where there is a one hard working Councillor and the other(s) are lazy the work would not be done fairly iii. It may work where all Councillors are from the same party but if they are from different parties then you could have a conflict of interest and ideas.

She believes the grouping of divisions is completely stupid: divisions are comprised of wards some distance from each other and completely different in composition; the carbon footprint and time taken to travel round the division would be high; and, some issues can be solved by phone or computer but some have to be dealt with in person. She believes that divisions which cross constituency boundaries are beyond belief.

She believes the majority of divisions in Monmouthshire are very nearly up to the required number of 1,750 and with new houses being built in many areas, they will be before too long. She asserts that as many people do not register to vote, the actual

-19- Appendix 5 number being served will be higher in any case. She believes the Commissioner who made the presentation to the Council was happy with single member divisions so why alter something that is working well.

42. Councillor John L Prosser (Mardy) wrote with his objections for the proposals for the wards in the present Mardy division. He objects to the creation of a multi-member division as he believes accountability can become confused and workloads from the electorate will be directed towards the most accommodating, efficient and effective Councillor, possibly doubling the workload.

He believes community ties would be weakened rather than strengthened with Llantilio Pertholey Community Council split over three electoral divisions. With regard to the Mardy - Abergavenny relationship, he advises that Mardy is considered a separate community to the Town, each having its own Community Council. In his opinion it would be folly to force Mardy to link in with Abergavenny. Whilst he accepts there is a common boundary between the Mardy ward and Cantref ward in the rural areas, the communication links are separated by Lansdown ward.

He notes that Abergavenny has been identified as one of four development hubs for housing by Monmouthshire County Council in the draft Local Development Plan, the preferred site being Deri Farm in Mardy ward where potentially 300 houses will be built. In addition 27 houses have already received planning permission in Mardy.

43. Councillor Val Smith (Llanbadoc) wrote to oppose the proposals for Llanbadoc. She noted that the Commission has been presented with an impossible task, without the authority to work from the base upwards i.e. review Community and Town Council representation and geographical areas.

She states that the proposals for Llanbadoc fragment the existing rural community and propose amalgamation with an independent urban area, Usk, which is rightly proud of its ancient charter and heritage but having different issues to the surrounding rural area. He believes it is obvious there is interaction and involvement throughout the area as Usk is a hub, but different issues dominate in the rural areas.

She believes the proposed two member division could result in unbalanced representation. She suggests a boundary change, but as noted she understands this is not possible. She states that Monkswood ward extends over the A472 and feels as if the core is being taken from the Community.

She is not opposed to change when she can see benefit, there is disparity in the numbers of electors in divisions but there is no way of balancing time and effort in a rural area as opposed to an urban one.

44. Councillor Jacqui Sullivan (St. Mary’s) wrote to oppose the proposals for St. Mary’s. She states that the Report lists St. Mary’s as having 1,459 electors in 2009 projected to increase to 1,596 in 2014. However she would like to make the following comments: • By December 2010 St. Mary’s ward had increased to 1,505 and currently stands at 1,512 electors. • There are still a large number of tenants living in the flats above the shops in the town centre who are not listed on the electoral role. Efforts by Monmouthshire County Council increased the registration of electors during 2009/10 and it is hoped that their continued effort will see this increase further in coming years.

-20- Appendix 5 • Planning for the redevelopment of the Osborne Site in Lower Church Street was approved early in 2010 for a new development of 169 properties, potentially another 250-300 residents. This does not appear to have been taken into account, yet work on the new development is due to start in a few weeks time. • Fairfield Mabey on Station Road is a Candidate Site in the LDP strongly favoured by the Planning Department of Monmouthshire County Council and many Councillors who would prefer to see a brownfield site redeveloped for housing rather than eating further into the greenbelt in St. Kingsmark ward. This is a major site, with figures of 200-300 houses being suggested, which will again increase the number of residents on the electoral roll by at least another 200- 300 if not more. • No consideration has been given to the fact that St. Mary’s division, being the town centre has the biggest casework load of any ward in Chepstow with issues not only arising from the registered electorate but also from businesses trading within the division. Many Councillors representing more rural wards say that they rarely get contacted by their residents but rarely a day goes past without a new issue being presented to her. • Even if only the development of the Osborne Site (which has been approved for redevelopment) is taken into account, the number of electors for St. Mary’s ward will increase to above the suggested ratio of 1:1,750 per councillor.

She believes that amalgamation of St. Mary’s with St. Kingsmark would make an unwieldy division with a mix of electorate with different needs. She suggests a far better option would be to transfer part of St. Kingsmark division into Larkfield division, in particular the houses on the right-hand side of Mounton Road/Ruffetts Close who are nearest to the Larkfield boundary. She believes that many residents living on Mounton Road are confused by the boundaries which currently divide the road into three separate wards.

45. Councillor Brian Strong (Usk) wrote to oppose proposals for Usk. He believes that the Local Development Plan envisages a maximum of 40 new dwellings which would increase electors by 80. Therefore the estimated electorate for 2014 of 2,040 would appear to be excessive. He also expresses his surprise at the proposals in comparison to the last review which have almost identical rules and guidance.

He believes that Usk has a proud tradition as a closely knit and caring Community winning the Wales in Bloom award for the last 29 years, an offshoot of which has been the Usk Open Gardens which has raised almost £150,000 for charity. He states that the Open Gardens Committee receives very little funding relying on local fund raisers and volunteers to raise money and maintain the Town.

He believes a major concern for the Westminster and Welsh Assembly Governments is the increasing apathy and poor voter turnout. He asserts that this has not been a problem in Usk as they have had the highest turnout in Monmouthshire at the last Council elections of 62%. He claims that the neighbouring divisions were unopposed and the larger towns had much lower turnouts.

He states that the proposed division stretches for 10 miles making it virtually impossible for two members to adequately represent it. He believes a possible alternative is for the existing Llangybi division taking up part of Llanbadoc and the rest of the Llanbadoc division taking up part of the Goetre Fawr division, leaving Usk as is,

-21- Appendix 5 was suggested. He notes, however, that local members for these divisions would have their own views on this suggestion.

He says that Usk has an easily identified boundary and the proposal would destroy this. He also points out that the present electorate of 1,810 and his believed future electorate of just over 1,900 is fairly close to the Minister’s direction of no less than 1,750 electors per Councillor.

He is totally opposed to the proposals because: i. They penalise the town of Usk, which has a long history as a cohesive Community with high turnout and a member resident in the town. ii. The likely electorate will be no more than 5% in excess of 1,750. iii. Usk has an easily identifiable boundary and should be maintained.

46. Councillor Christine Walby (Llanwenarth Ultra) wrote to oppose the proposals and complained about the timing of the consultation period which has made the organisation of meaningful discussion with all interested parties virtually impossible.

She is concerned that little or no account appears to have been taken of the several sensible and practical initial representations made by a number of experienced County Councillors and Community Councils quoted in Appendix 5 of the [Draft] Report; particularly those regarding the rurality of Monmouthshire, the very real difficulties of multi-member divisions and the problems created when boundaries of County divisions cross Community Council boundaries.

Her comments focus first upon the general implications of the recommendations for the north of Monmouthshire and secondly she has made more detailed comment on the proposals for a new division of Llanfoist Fawr and Llanover, of which her current division of Llanwenarth Ultra would form part. She states that all her comments are supported by the Labour Group on the County Council.

Her general comments: i. She believes the proposals as they affect the north of the County seem to be based upon perceptions which she suggests are inaccurate and lacking in understanding of the following: • the local terrain and ease of transport and communication. • the actual communities of interest and actual focal points for communities • the implementation of Local Development Plans which are already affecting local populations and which will impact further in the relatively near future • the current anomalies which have not been addressed; ii. She feels the recommendations appear to be predicated upon a view that the terrain is relatively flat and that road and public transport links are good; neither of which is the case. iii. Proposals also seem to her to make assumptions about local focal points and natural ‘flows’ within the area, which are not sustained by the facts. iv. In her view, the practical implications of the fact that much of the north of the County is within the Brecon Beacons National Park (BBNP) do not appear to have been recognised or taken into account. v. Some examples of the issues/problems arising from the points she has listed above are as follows:

-22- Appendix 5 • Road systems; divisions in y Cwm area have a proliferation of narrow often mountainous roads, some of which can be dangerous/very slow at all times because of steepness, narrowness, canal bridges, walkers and cyclists, and in the winter with the addition of flooding and/or ice and snow. • Abergavenny town itself is a bottleneck for traffic, and subject to long delays at certain times; • The , where it is crossed by local traffic (i.e. in Llanfoist and Llanellen) can be a significant barrier to easy contact both because the river is a barrier to direct road communication and because of the narrow historic nature of the bridges and, in the case of Llanellen, to frequent winter flooding and, in the case of Llanfoist, to significant existing and developing new housing in close proximity to the bridge. • Some proposals for new divisions appear to assume degrees of community interest or natural focus which do not exist. For example, whilst in fact Pantygelli and Llantilio Pertholey traditionally/naturally interact with Mardy as a focal point for shops, church and other social interaction the division proposals place these areas with Crucorney with which there is little/no social interaction or traffic flow and a Community Council which has no jurisdiction in their area. • Cantref, Grofield and Mardy have no obvious natural linkage. Most importantly, the former two relate to Abergavenny Town Council and the latter to Llantilio Pertholey Community Council. • The proposals generally appear to increase the complexity and difficulty of democratic representation without producing any obvious benefit. • The introduction of large two member divisions does nothing to improve the democratic representation of electors but increases the complexity and practical difficulties of proper representation, particularly where the members may be of different political parties. • The implications of Local Development Plans for MCC and the BBNP do not appear to have been considered.

Her specific comments regarding the proposed Llanfoist Fawr and Llanover division: i. She states that the proposed new division would not only be above the proposed County average number of electors but will comprise Communities which are very significantly different; ii. She states that the proposed new division would embrace two Community Councils; iii. She states that the proposed new division will cover a large mountainous terrain. As such, she belieives it will present major challenges to elected members for the following reasons: • It will climb opposite sides of the Blorenge Mountain which is regularly rendered difficult to traverse in winter. Road links between different parts are either via narrow (sometimes impassable) mountain roads or by accessing the Heads of the Valleys Road for part of the way, or via Llanfoist Bridge. • It will artificially link diverse communities which currently have no common interest or social links. • Llanfoist is essentially becoming a suburb of Abergavenny and currently still in a process of significant housing development.

-23- Appendix 5 • Govilon (Llanwenarth Ultra) borders Torfaen at the top of the Blorenge mountain; is a separate village with a mixture of old industrial area, new development and a few hill farms; it is within the BBNP (as are some other parts of the proposed ward) and partly within the Blaenavon Heritage site; the orientation of many of the residents for shopping, etc. is towards Blaenavon Brynmawr and the Heads of the Valleys; and, significant housing development is also planned for this Community. • Llanwenarth Citra is on the opposite side of the River Usk; the link between Llanwenarth Ultra and Citra (non existent) is based upon a Parish which was served by a long defunct row-boat ferry crossing, near the old Parish Church. It is surprising that the Commission did not address this issue in its analysis as many feel that Llanwenarth Citra could more effectively be linked with an Abergavenny division on the same side of the river. • Llanover is at the foot of another face of the Blorenge mountain and is fundamentally different from much of the rest of the proposed division and comprises a main village, a collection of smaller hamlets and farms in a lush valley setting. • Llanellen is a small village, also at the foot of another face of the Blorenge directly linked with Llanfoist and with a close affinity with Abergavenny; iv. She believes that for a variety of reasons the proposals affecting these communities and creating a new two member division of Llanfoist Fawr and Llanover do not appear to be sustained by the facts; not least the fact of current and future significant development in parts of the proposed division. She suggests the proposal would lead to very significant practical difficulties in proper representation. These include: • Travel for purposes of division surgeries, PACT meetings and one to one contacts would present difficulties for both members and constituents and add to the already congested and slow road system around Abergavenny. Therefore division meetings, Surgeries and PACT meetings with Police would probably need to increase significantly because of both distance and diversity of the area. • Division newsletters would have to increase in size and cost to adequately cover issues across such a diverse division. The logistics of delivery would present significant problems. • It should also be borne in mind that in a two member division the constituents will be entitled to representation from the member of their choice. • The prospect of increased time and travel for individual members is potentially unsustainable, even for those elected members able to devote all or most of their time to Council business, given the desire to increase the number of younger and employed (as opposed to retired) people.

47. Councillor Armand Watts (Thornwell) wrote to oppose the proposals for Thornwell. He states that Thornwell is the southernmost part of Chepstow and is the lower part of what is commonly known as Bulwark, with St. Christopher’s ward being the northern part of Bulwark.

He asserts that Thornwell is a traditional working class ward and the houses were built to accommodate the incoming Llanwern Steel workers from across Wales. He notes that Thornwell is physically on the very edge of Wales and sits next to the Old Severn

-24- Appendix 5 Bridge, however, with the growing demand for housing it has slowly expanded over the last ten years, though the demographic has stayed the same.

He has built up a strong link with the community and has always been there for them in good times and bad. He believes it is regrettable that the Commission has looked at the ward and decided to merge it with two Conservative Party strong holds, Mathern and Portskewett, which have little or no relationship with Chepstow. He states that the Commission claim a need for local citizens to have joined up, fair and just local Government, however, Portskewett is a full 7 miles away and straddles the rural division of Shirenewton, creating an electoral island with no demographic consistency.

He believes that the needs of these Communities are much different to Thornwell, e.g. Portskewett and Mathern are very affluent rural communities and Thornwell is a semi- urban ward with pockets of real social deprivation.

He states the Commission plans to merge these three wards and introduce a shared member system of two elected members to the new division. Their estimated ratio of elector to councillor for this merged division will be 1,844 which is not a huge change. However, the electorate are likely to increase significantly in this new division because both Portskewett and Mathern are key entries in the Local Development Plan.

He asserts that, according to Monmouthshire County Council's planning department, the LDP will generate an additional 265 homes across both Portskewett and Mathern Communities. He believes these new housing developments will generate approximately 600 new voters, increasing the ratio of member to electorate to 2,444. He states that there will be no additional building in Thornwell because it has reached its physical capacity and the electorate cannot increase.

He believes that, although the Commission have tinkered around with the figures, there is nothing within the proposed changes that will improve the electoral arrangements for any of the citizens because their planned boundaries are so physically remote. He fears this exercise will undermine the current electoral arrangements and obscure Monmouthshire's Local Government boundaries. He believes the citizens will certainly lose the local contact with their Councillor if the Commission imposes joint representation in the new ‘super ward’.

However, he believes that if the Commission had given closer consideration to the needs of the community in Bulwark they might have considered the option of combining the two Bulwark wards of St. Christopher's and Thornwell with joint representation from two elected councillors. He thinks that this would have met the electoral needs of the community and the Commission’s aim of reducing the amount of elector to councillor ratio to approximately 1:1,850. Additionally this will not compromise electoral boundaries at any local government level, however, he strongly believes the citizens are best represented by single member divisions.

He believes the Commission’s plans will disenfranchise thousands of people across Monmouthshire if the current proposals are pushed through. He respectfully requests the Commission keep to the existing electoral boundaries.

48. Councillor Ann Webb (St. Arvans) wrote to make the following observations on the proposed St. Arvans division.

-25- Appendix 5 She notes her experience within the Community from Community Councillor to County Councillor and the make-up of the present division and her belief it is rural. She believes that Trellech Grange does not have a relationship with Trellech and although the name suggests it, it is merely the ‘grange’ as an outpost of . She believes it should remain in Tintern and the St. Arvans division. She also suggests renaming the division to ‘St. Arvans with’ or, ‘and Tintern’.

At present she attends two Community Council meetings but under the new proposals would have to attend three.

She concurs with the representations made by Councillor Peter Fox, St. Arvans Community Council and Councillor Bolton. She feels their points are well made and would ask the Commission to take them into account before making any recommendations. She believes the proposals do not recognise the implications and fall short of delivering arrangements which will enrich and sustain democracy.

49. Community Councillor G P Robbins (Rogiet) wrote to oppose the proposals for Rogiet. He believes the Commission has ignored the people’s democratic humanity and produced draft proposals that are “bureaucratic Sudoku”.

Multi-Councillor Divisions. He has observed the ineffectiveness of multi-councillor divisions; two councillor divisions never seem to progress with any urgency. He gives the example of Magor with Undy. He believes that since the two separate divisions have been created there seems to be much more activity within the divisions and the proposal of the three councillor division for Rogiet/Undy/Magor seems beyond belief. He asserts that the electorate would be confused about which Councillor to contact, or which problem the Councillor would choose for action dealing with an electorate of 5,000.

He identifies a problem with the proposed Magor/Undy/Rogiet division for the isolated Community of Rogiet to exercise their fair and democratic right of choosing the candidate from their own area, with the electorate in Magor with Undy having a ratio of 3:1 with Rogiet.

Dismantling the three single division structure of Magor with Undy and Rogiet. He believes the three member single divisions can be rationalised without interfering with any other part of the draft proposals. He examined the proposals that allow the divisions of Grosmont & Llantilio Crosseny and Gwehelog Fawr & Llanarth to have a one Councillor representation even though they have low electorates. It seems to him that it is grossly unfair to discriminate against the Community of Rogiet when the thinking of the Commission supports one area with low electorates and not another. As the Rogiet electorate only varies from Grosmont and Llantilio Crosseny by 3% then he believes it would appear that Rogiet should be treated like for like and assigned their own Councillor. He also notes that the geographical area of the Community of Rogiet is as large as Magor with Undy.

Magor with Undy. He believes this area could be resolved without any significant problems at this time. Magor with Undy could revert to: i. having a two member division or: ii. Denny and Mill wards to have a single councillor. The Elms would form the other single division.

-26- Appendix 5

He recognises the imbalance between electorate The Elms with Denny and the Mill division. This he does not see as a problem as it was amicably sorted some years ago when Magor with Undy was a single division with two councillors.

He noted in his previous representation that nothing of note was done in the Community of Rogiet when they shared a councillor with Undy from 1974 to 1987. Since then with a resident Rogiet councillor, they have. • A new water main in the old residential area with stop tap provision for each house – the sewerage system has been adopted – the roads re-laid to prevent dangerous flooding. • Two pedestrian crossings (B4245 more traffic at times than the M48) • A new sports pavilion. • A new countryside park constructed on the old Network Rail marshalling yards. • A large grant was accessed from the Welsh Assembly Government which has enabled the Community Council to purchase land and own it in trust as a resource for the Community of Rogiet.

He asserts that all of the above projects have been led by the local County Councillor either as a personal initiative or in co-operation with County Council Officers.

In conclusion it is his firm belief that the Community of Rogiet should have its own councillor in order to carry on the traditions that have been developed over the last 23 years and it can be achieved within the thinking of the Commission.

50. Community Councillor A Thomas (Llandogo, Trellech United) wrote with the following observations on the proposed change of Llandogo being moved to the St Arvans division.

She began by providing some background information concerning Trellech United and her experience as County Councillor. Llandogo is closer to Monmouth than to Chepstow and historically has been a satellite village of Monmouth – Monmouth Rural District Council, secondary school catchment area, emergency services etc. She states that Llandogo is well patronised by the local villages especially those on the plateau as it has the only general stores in the area and is the largest settlement in the Trellech United Community.

Observations She is not sure why the Commission has focussed on the greater than average size of the division as a serious problem to solve in the first place. She believes the proposed rearrangement would cause more problems for both the Community Council and the County Councillor subsequently elected and would be to the considerable disadvantage of local electors.

During her time as County Councillor she never considered the higher electorate a problem or a disadvantage to her; all the divisions are different and Trellech United happens to have more electors. Her Community have the advantage of an electorate which is well educated, highly articulate, vigorously self-supportive with all sorts of local projects on the go, every village hall either replaced or completely refurbished and new lottery-supported rural sports facilities established during her time as County

-27- Appendix 5 Councillor, an uncomplicated electoral boundary and just one Community Council and one set of Councillors.

She is astounded that the solution to this population 'problem' is to hive off Llandogo into another County divisions which would mean that the elected member would be dealing with three Community Councils instead of one and Trellech United Community Council would be dealing with two County Councillors.

She suggested the change would place Llandogo in the remit of the Chepstow/Caldicot Area Committee with a predominantly urban population when its present Area Committee is the rural Central Area and most services – including secondary education – are based on Monmouth. She states that the County Councillor would have to deal with both Areas so he/she would have to attend both Area Committee meetings, Secondary Governing Bodies and so on. She believes that in practice the imagined population problem would be replaced by a real administrative, logistical and communication nightmare for the new member.

She believes Community Councils and the electorate, particularly in rural areas, have come to expect their County Councillors to maintain close liaison with them. This means attending their meetings on a regular basis and affords the County Councillor an invaluable opportunity to develop and maintain a dialogue with local community leaders, be well informed about local issues and to have an opportunity to explain aspects of County Council policies, services and decisions. In her experience, presence at the Community Council meetings was vital, not least for recurring or contentious issues such as planning applications, service delivery, conservation and, of course, for reporting back. She asserts the Community Council is of the same opinion.

She believes this proposal would burden the County Councillor with even more evening meetings, correspondence, telephone calls, etc. and it would mean a huge increase in the number of Community Councillors he/she would have to deal with and on three Community Councils rather than just one. She states that it would also introduce repetitive reporting back and Trellech Community Council in turn would have to correspond and liaise with two County Councillors; one on issues about Llandogo and the other on those covering its other six villages.

She believes another inevitable and undesirable consequence would be that the County Councillor would become more detached from the Community Councils because of the increased demand on time and juggling 3 separate sources of diary complications. She asserts the Commission justifies complicating or breaking long established community links between the seven villages and generating a bundle of real problems and time-wasting complications just to tidy up a benign administrative anomaly.

She provided an addendum to her representation including the following:

1. Should the Commission decide to disregard the objections made to transfer Llandogo to a ward that includes Tintern and St. Arvans then the name of the division should better reflect the character of the new division, most of which is in the Wye Valley. It should not insult Llandogo, the largest of the settlements and the one that is the furthest from St. Arvans. It should not favour one village over the others. The name should be left to the communities themselves to

-28- Appendix 5 decide. The Commission should therefore consult them on division names at a later date. 2. The Commission has used the following terms to justify its recommendations: “...in terms of effective and convenient local government any disadvantages in terms of breaking of community ties are outweighed by the improvement in parity in this proposed division and surrounding areas”. This implies that parity equates to effective and convenient local government, proof of which is markedly absent in the Report. 3. The fundamental driver for the recommendations that affect Llandogo is therefore solely to do with parity of electors. The term ‘effective and convenient local government’ should not be used as a cover-up to justify overriding objections from the Communities.

51. Caldicot Labour Party (Newport East) wrote to oppose the proposal for Severn with Sudbrook for the following reasons: i. The change would cross the Caldicot Community Council boundary. ii. The change would cross the Newport East/Monmouth parliamentary boundary. iii. The change would cross the Newport East/Monmouth Welsh Assembly boundary. iv. Sudbrook is part of Portskewett Community Council, not Caldicot. This does not fit with the aim to preserve community cohesion. v. To get to Sudbrook from Severn you would have to cross the railway by foot or drive through Portskewett village. They suggest the Commission visit the boundary to see this first hand.

They believe that if the changes were to go ahead the residents in the new division would also be in differing wards for Community Council elections, leading to confusion. They assert that with new housing in Caldicot the number of voters in the town should reach the target of 1,750 electors per councillor soon with only the need to change internal ward boundaries.

They also note that some proposals for Monmouthshire are multi-member divisions. They are of the opinion that this would result in Councillors being responsible for a larger area which they may not know so well. They note that single member divisions work well in Caldicot and they do not have the confusion for electors of which Councillor to approach. They also believe by-election costs would also increase. They also state that given the review is to improve representation this is an opportunity to reorganise the wards of Caldicot.

52. Monmouthshire County Labour Party wrote with their disappointment with the Draft Proposals. In terms of representing the interests of their residents, these proposals would be far less effective than under the present arrangements.

They state that the reduction in Councillors would be a very minor economy. They believe the advantage gained by residents in divisions substantially over 1,750 target, as apparently they stand to benefit by Councillors being accountable to a smaller electorate, is done at the cost of losing a clear identity, as wards are hived off from Towns and Communities and multi-member divisions are introduced. They believe the present arrangements work well, aside from one dual-member division; Councillors are identifiable with residents generally having interests and problems in common and aware of whom to go to.

Multi-member divisions

-29- Appendix 5 They state that these have been the cause of dissatisfaction in the past, noting that it is only recently Magor with Undy has been separated much to the relief of the Councillors concerned. They believe the proposed three member division for Magor with Undy and Rogiet will be worse as residents will not only wonder which Councillor to contact but all three councillors could come from the same village or party which has not happened before. They believe that fluctuating party fortunes could result in a ‘landslide’ effect and such a large division would only be fair if the area could be proportionately applied.

They suggest that in general multi-member divisions are bad but in the case of Bulwark, where St. Christopher’s and Thornwell is a homogenous chunk of Chepstow and the numbers add up well.

Lack of Social and Geographical Cohesion They assert that there are many cases where existing Town and Community areas are fragmented. They believe that at a time when building community spirit has become urgent, these proposals undermine community identities and many proposals include wards which have little communication or awareness of each other or geographical difficulties in some cases: • Severn with Sudbrook – no direct connection. They believe the electors of Sudbrook will be so outnumbered by Severn that it will hardly be worth registering to vote. • Wyesham with Drybridge – are separated by two rivers with no interest in common and little personal contact. • Llanwenarth Ultra (Govilon) and Llanover – separated by the Blorenge and a river. • Caerwent – outlying parts are hived off to ‘Shirenewton’ whilst a ward of Magor which has no links has been added. • Thornwell and Mathern – have little in common and are a mile apart.

They believe that the proposals to cross parliamentary constituency boundaries are an unexpected precedent which is confusing for electors and weakens representation. The also believe that the proposals are sceptical of predictions of population change. They believe some are quite certain, e.g. Chepstow, but are not allowed for and there is also the difficulty of unregistered voters.

They also believe the cost of organising elections, especially by-elections in multi- member divisions and fragmented community areas, is likely to far outweigh any savings in the reduced number of Councillors.

53. Monmouthshire Liberal Democrats wrote with a submission of an extensive scheme which included town and community ward boundary changes. Subsequently they were given a further two weeks to submit a scheme under the rules. The following is a summary of their submission:

To create their scheme the party consulted with its members extensively, as well as sitting and previous County, Town and Community Councillors and members who sit on local school governing bodies as well as voluntary groups throughout Monmouthshire. The aim of their submission was to answer the key demand of the Minster for Local Government, that is; achieve a fairer representation for electors in the County.

-30- Appendix 5 They looked at several models to redraw boundaries and the creation of multi-member divisions. They have sought to achieve the aim and in looking at all the options available to the Commission, they concluded that a target average ratio of County Councillor to elector of 1:1,600 as being the most appropriate to the County, allowing for effective representation for all the areas of the County: urban, suburban and rural. They also concluded that the continued existence of single member divisions be maintained as at present, where possible.

In constructing their submission the party used actual electorates from the electoral register for the 2010 general election, where a significant increase in voter enrolment was witnessed. They contend that these figures (generally more per division than the figures available to the Commission) are likely to be at this level in future with the arrival of individual registration, a change from customary whole household registration.

Their submission is based upon the demands of the Commission: namely the use of electorates as supplied by Monmouthshire County Council as of December 1st 2010; the demand that whole Community ward boundaries are used for the construction of electoral divisions. They reluctantly have agreed to these two demands; however they wished to place a caveat for this approach and their resultant submission. • The use of whole community ward boundaries: whilst this can be accepted for rural areas, in urban areas this presents considerable difficulty in being able to create coherent electoral divisions that create community identification as well as providing for fair representation. They are extremely concerned that a Community ward review has not been commissioned at the same time and if such a review was commissioned by the local authority concerned could well necessitate a further boundary review in the short-term. In the previous boundary review for the 2004 local government elections, significant changes in electoral boundaries were witnessed in the towns of Monmouthshire, and Community ward boundaries were corrected to be coterminous, thus avoiding this central issue. • Electorates: the use of the 2010 electoral roll figures hides the fact that there was an upsurge of registration prior to and during the run-up to the general election. In some cases increases in the order of 10 per cent were witnessed, particularly in areas where registration rates tend to be lower (new housing estates, recent arrivals and town centres). They believe that these increased numbers bring into question the draft proposals for some divisions (St. Mary's, Grofield, Drybridge and Wyesham), where merger may not be a solution; indeed these hidden numbers would actually, in their opinion, create a different set of outcomes for these current electoral divisions which face abolition or merger.

They believe that they have provided a comprehensive answer to the direction of the Welsh Minister for Local Government in his correspondence with the Commission and if accepted by the Commission, their current submission (with caveats) would result in an appropriately sized Council and a greater fairness in representation than at present.

• Proposed electoral division of Agincourt consisting of the Drybridge, Town and Wyesham wards of the Community of Monmouth. The division would have 4,062 electors and 3 Councillors. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,354, 13% below their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Caerwent consisting of the Caerwent, Crick, Dinham, Llanvair Discoed wards of the Community of Caerwent and the Leechpool ward of the Community of Portskewett. The division would have 1,339 electors and 1

-31- Appendix 5 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,339, 14% below their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Caldicot Castle consisting of the Caldicot Castle ward of the Community of Caldicot. The division would have 1,472 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,472, 6% below their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Cantref consisting of the Cantref ward of the Community of Abergavenny. The division would have 1,682 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,682, 8% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Castle consisting of the Castle ward of the Community of Abergavenny. The division would have 1,614 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,614, 3% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Chepstow North consisting of the St. Kingsmark ward of the Community of Chepstow, the Chapel Hill and Tintern Parva wards of the Community of Tintern and the Community of St. Arvans. The division would have 3,315 electors and 2 Councillors. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,658, 6% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Chepstow South and Portskewett consisting of the Thornwell ward of the Community of Chepstow, the Mathern ward of the Community of Mathern and the Portskewett Village ward of the Community of Portskewett. The division would have 3,687 electors and 2 Councillors. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,844, 18% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Croesonen consisting of the Croesonen East and Croesonen West wards of the Community of Llantilio Pertholey. The division would have 1,538 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,538, 1% below their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Crucorney consisting of the Communities of Crucorney and Grosmont. The division would have 1,595 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,595, 2% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Dewstow consisting of the Dewstow ward of the Community of Caldicot. The division would have 1,454 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,454, 7% below their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Dixton with Osbaston consisting of the Dixton with Osbaston ward of the Community of Monmouth. The division would have 1,820 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,820, 17% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Goetre Fawr consisting of the Community of Goetre Fawr. The division would have 1,827 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,827, 17% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Green Lane consisting of the Green Lane ward of the Community of Caldicot. The division would have 1,619 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,619, 4% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Grofield consisting of the Grofield ward of the Community of Abergavenny and the Llanwenarth Citra ward of the Community of Llanfoist Fawr. The division would have 1,440 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,440, 8% below their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Lansdown consisting of the Lansdown ward of the Community of Abergavenny. The division would have 1,614 electors and 1

-32- Appendix 5 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,614, 3% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Larkfield consisting of the Larkfield ward of the Community of Chepstow. The division would have 1,543 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,543, 1% below their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Llanelly Hill consisting of the Community of Llanelly. The division would have 3,139 electors and 2 Councillors. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,570, 1% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Llanfoist and Llanover consisting of the Llanellen, Llanfoist and Llanwenarth Ultra wards of the Community of Llanfoist Fawr and the Llanover ward of the Community of Llanover. The division would have 2,535 electors and 2 Councillors. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,268, 19% below their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Magor with Undy consisting of the Community of Magor with Undy. The division would have 4,569 electors and 3 Councillors. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,523, 2% below their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Monnow Valley consisting of the Llanarth and Llanvapley wards of the Community of Llanarth and the Communities of Llangattock-Vibon-Avel and Llantilio Crosseny. The division would have 1,634 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,634, 5% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Overmonnow consisting of the Overmonnow ward of the Community of Monmouth. The division would have 1,712 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,712, 10% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Priory consisting of the Priory ward of the Community of Abergavenny. The division would have 1,539 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,539, 1% below their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Raglan consisting of the Community of Raglan. The division would have 1,521 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,521, 2% below their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Rogiet consisting of the St. Bride's Netherwent ward of the Community of Caerwent and the Community of Rogiet. The division would have 1,505 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,505, 4% below their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Severn with Sudbrook consisting of the Severn ward of the Community of Caldicot and the Sudbrook ward of the Community of Portskewett. The division would have 1,530 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,530, 2% below their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Shirenewton consisting of the Itton and Kilgwrrwg wards of the Community of Devauden, the Mounton and Pwllmeyric wards of the Community of Mathern and the Community of Shirenewton. The division would have 1,584 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,584, 2% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Skirrid consisting of the ward of the Community of Llanover and the Mardy, Pantygelli, Sgyrrid East and Sgyrrid West wards of the Community of Llantilio Pertholey. The division would have 1,698 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,698, 9% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of St. Christopher’s consisting of the St. Christopher's ward of the Community of Chepstow. The division would have 1,799 electors and 1

-33- Appendix 5 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,799, 15% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of St. Mary’s consisting of the St. Mary's ward of the Community of Chepstow. The division would have 1,459 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,459, 6% below their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of The Bryn consisting of the Bryngwyn and Clytha wards of the Community of Llanarth, the Llanfair Cilgydyn and Llangattock-nigh-Usk wards of the Community of Llanover and the Community of Gwehelog Fawr. The division would have 1,364 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,364, 13% below their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Trellech consisting of the Penterry and Trellech Grange wards of the Community of Tintern and the Catbrook, Llandogo, Llanishen, Trellech Town and Whitebrook wards of the Community of Trellech United. The division would have 1,481 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,481, 5% below their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Vale of Trothy consisting of and Penallt wards of the Community of Trellech United and the Community of Mitchel Troy. The division would have 1,704 electors and 1 Councillor. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,704, 9% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of Vale of Usk consisting of the Communities of Llanbadoc, Llangybi and Usk. The division would have 3,156 electors and 2 Councillors. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,578, 1% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of consisting of the Communities of Llangwm, Llanhennock and Llantrisant Fawr and the Devauden and Llanfihangel Wolvesnewton wards of the Community of Devauden. The division would have 1,573 electors and 1 Councillors. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,573, 1% above their proposed average of 1,560. • Proposed electoral division of West End consisting of the West End ward of the Community of Caldicot. The division would have 1,514 electors and 1 Councillors. A councillor to elector ratio of 1,514, 3% below their proposed average of 1,560.

54. Plaid Cymru – Caldicot wrote to oppose the proposal to merge Severn with Sudbrook.

They suggest their initial representation, to reduce the travelling necessary to cast one’s vote, was not taken into account. They then note areas of Caldicot where polling stations are some distance from residents.

They believe the Commission must reconsider the inclusion of Sudbrook into Severn’s division because:

1. The polling station for Severn is some distance from Sudbrook. 2. The local bus service is not overly provisioned for the 276 residents of the village. Disabled and elderly voters would find it hard to get to the station, yet the elderly are the most prolific voters that they see at the polling stations. 3. 3% below the county average is not a great amount; not enough to justify the disruption to the residents of Sudbrook. 4. Sudbrook is in the Monmouth parliamentary constituency while Severn is in Newport East constituency; although the Welsh Assembly Government constituency ‘South East Wales’ covers both communities. 5. They suggest boundary changes to Caldicot’s wards and divisions.

-34- Appendix 5

Subsequently, they believe it would be more prudent to make changes to Caldicot’s boundaries than commit Sudbrook residents to vote in Caldicot.

55. A resident of Llanishen wrote to offer the following comments in relation to the Trellech United and St Arvans proposals.

On the issue of names for St Arvans he points out the central town in Tintern which is also in the middle of the proposed new division. He suggests an alternative name could be Wye River division. He states that Trellech is not the biggest village but as it has a central location there is sense in the name, also the fact that the central church is Trellech which is the most significant landmark.

His concern, however, is not so much in a name but in how communities work, e.g. the children in Llandogo go to school Monmouth whilst in Trellech Grange they will go to Chepstow. He believes that schools orientate rural communities and therefore there is an argument for Trellech Grange to stay where it is. He also points out that travel-wise, Penalt is the odd village and this should be put into a different division thus making Trellech United more of a reasonable entity. He states that in Llandogo there are very clear overlaps with Trellech, not least the primary school where much of its intake comes from Trellech United not St. Arvans, whose parents opt for Chepstow schools. He says that the secondary school children of Trellech United go to Monmouth but not in Tintern and St. Arvans.

He understands any changes cause distress but boundary reviews have to constantly take place to show the changing populations of areas.

56. A resident of Preston wrote with the following views of the proposals.

ƒ Caerwent and Mill He can see no workable alternative and the proposed name is acceptable. ƒ Caerwent, Portskewett and Shirenewton He notes that two sets of wards, Llanvair Discoed and Shirenewton, and Leechpool and Pwllmeyric are either detached or connected by one direct road. If the Commission has no alternative to this scheme the name should be Shirenewton, Llanvair Discoed and Pwllmeyric. ƒ Cantref, Grofield and Mardy He believes that given the geography of the area there is no alternative to the proposal. It makes sense and democratic logic to bring Mardy [ward] within a less rural electoral division. ƒ Crucorney, Llanover and Llantilio Crosseny He recognises that this creation is one of only a few credible options open to the Commission. With the geography and electoral numbers as they are, no alternative name for this division can be considered without entering into a long spiel of place- names. ƒ Crucorney and Mardy He notes that the Communities and wards are linked by the A465 which proves there is justification in bringing these close neighbours together. The proposed name respects the largest population areas and no alternative is suggested. ƒ Drybridge and Wyesham Given the view that combining divisions is the only option, he thought it strange the Commission has created a butterfly shaped division separated by an A-road and the

-35- Appendix 5 River Wye. He suggests an alternative of combining Drybridge with Overmonnow which has more natural community links. He suggests a name of Monmouth. ƒ Llanbadoc, Llangybi Fawr and Usk He suggests, as Usk is the largest in electoral numbers it should be named first and Llanhennock should be name checked to avoid confusion. A name of Usk, Llangybi and Llanhennock is suggested. The electors in Llanbadoc, knowing they are between the Communities and will recognise they are in this division. ƒ Llanbadoc and Llanover He notes that the division is created from near neighbours with good existing links between them. He can find no credible alternative to its size, shape or name. ƒ Llanfoist Fawr, Llanover and Llanwenarth Ultra He can find no credible alternative combination of wards, communities or names for this proposal. ƒ Llangybi Fawr, Devauden and Shirenewton He states that there appears to be no credible alternative to this proposal given the electoral arithmetic and geography makes other suggestions difficult to justify. ƒ Llantilio Crosseny and Mitchel Troy He notes that the electoral arithmetic justifies the creation of this division. However, the name appears somewhat a mouthful. Thus, he suggest Troddi or Cwm Troddi would be more suitable and concise as the runs through the wards, is in the Welsh name of Mitchel Troy and would be recognisable to electors. ƒ Mill, Rogiet and The Elms He notes there is no credible alternative without causing knock-on effects further in the review area. ƒ Portskewett and Severn He suggests an alternative name of Caldicot South and Sudbrook. ƒ Portskewett, Shirenewton and Thornwell He notes that the only certain transport link is the motorway but it appears no other credible alternative combination of wards exists. He suggests an alternative name of Portskewett, Mathern and Thornwell. ƒ St. Arvans and Trellech United He finds no alternative name to Trellech United. He believes that this is a good opportunity to rename the St. Arvans division to include Tintern and Llandogo. He suggests a name of Tintern, St. Arvans and Llandogo. ƒ St. Kingsmark and St. Mary’s He believes that given the nature of the proposal, the new division covering such a large area of Chepstow, keeping the two Saints names seems illogical. Therefore, he has suggested a name of Chepstow Central.

-36-

Blank Page / Tudalen Wag