LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

REVIEW OF COMMUNITY ARRANGEMENTS IN THE COUNTY OF FLINTSHIRE

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

REVIEW OF COMMUNITY ARRANGEMENTS IN THE COUNTY OF FLINTSHIRE

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL’S PROPOSALS

3. THE COMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION

4. PROCEDURE

5. PROPOSALS

6. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS

7. COMMUNITY ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS PROPOSED BY THE LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION

8. COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

9. COMMUNITY WARD CHANGE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

10. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

APPENDIX 1 ANALYSIS OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED APPENDIX 2 FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL - FINAL PROPOSALS REPORT.

The Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales Hastings House Fitzalan Court CARDIFF CF24 0BL Tel Number: (029) 2046 4819 Fax Number: (029) 2046 4823 E-mail: [email protected] www.ldbc.gov.wales

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Leighton Andrews Esq AM Minister for Public Services Welsh Government

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Flintshire County Council have conducted a review of the community boundaries and community electoral arrangements under Sections 55(2) and 57(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 (the Act). In accordance with Section 55(2) of the Act Flintshire County Council submitted a report to us detailing their proposals for changes to a number of community boundaries in their area (Appendix 2).

1.2. We have considered Flintshire County Council’s report in accordance with Section 55(3) of the Act and submit the following report on the Council’s recommendations.

2. FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL’S PROPOSALS

2.1. Flintshire County Council’s proposals were submitted to us on 12 June 2014 (Appendix 2). We received two representations about the proposals.

2.2. As a result of their review the Council have recommended no changes to the following communities:

 Bagillt  Nercwys  Brynford  Northop  Caerwys  Northop Hall  Cilcain  Shotton  Gwernaffield  Trelawnyd & Gwaenysgor  Gwernmynydd  Treuddyn  Nannerch  Ysceifiog

2.3. Changes were made to internal warding arrangements for the communities of:

 Argoed  Llanasa  Broughton and Bretton  Llanfynydd  Buckley  Mold  Connah’s Quay  Mostyn  Flint  Pen-y-Ffordd  Halkyn  Queensferry  Hawarden  Saltney  Holywell  Sealand  Hope  Whitford

- 1 -

These changes to internal warding arrangements were implemented through Orders made by Flintshire County Council.

2.4. Changes to the community boundaries involving Broughton and Bretton; Halkyn; Higher Kinnerton; Holywell, Hope; Leeswood; Mold; and Pen-y-Ffordd were also proposed.

2.5. Flintshire County Council provided maps detailing the recommended community ward boundary changes. For the community boundary changes the Commission Secretariat produced more detailed maps interpreted from the maps and descriptions in the text of the report. These maps were sent to Flintshire County Council who then confirmed that the recommended changes had been correctly interpreted and these are discussed and mapped below.

3. THE COMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION

3.1. We first considered whether the County Council had conducted their review in accordance with the procedure set out in the Act. We then considered whether the proposals recommended were apt for securing effective and convenient local government.

4. PROCEDURE

4.1. Section 60 of the Act requires the Council to take such steps as they think fit to secure that persons who may be interested in the review are informed of the proposal to conduct the review and subsequently of the draft proposals which are to be placed on deposit at the Council’s offices. The final proposals report is also required to be placed on deposit at the Council’s offices for a period of six months.

4.2. We are satisfied that Flintshire County Council have conducted the review in accordance with the procedure set out in Section 60 of the Act.

5. PROPOSALS

Draft Proposals

Flint Mountain

5.1. A request was made to both the County Council and the Commission by a resident of Flint Mountain asking that consideration be given to moving Flint Mountain out of the Flint Trelawny community ward. This request was supported by Community Councillor Nigel Williams and focused on the difference in character between Flint Mountain’s rural needs and it’s seemingly disproportionate representation on Flint Town Council.

5.2. The area known as Flint Mountain is a settlement in the western part of the Trelawny ward of the Community of Flint Town. The area has 540 electors and lies north of the A55 Expressway, adjacent to the Community of Northop. - 2 -

5.3. Flint Mountain’s electorate of 540 is not of sufficient size to warrant the establishment of the area as a self-supporting community but is of an appropriate size to consider a change of arrangements for it to become a separate community ward. This seemed to us to be a reasonable course of action contributing to effective and convenient local government and it remained to be decided if a new community ward of Flint Mountain would be better fitted with Flint Town Council or Northop Community Council.

5.4. A request was made to the Commission asking that consideration be given to changing the community warding arrangements so that the settlement of Flint Mountain would be moved from the Trelawny Ward of Flint Town Council. It was decided that a consultation should be held to canvass public opinion for this proposed change and to identify a preferred option for future arrangements.

5.5. We identified three possible future options which seem appropriate and which would reflect our obligation to ensure effective and convenient local government for community and town council arrangements. To ascertain the local preference it was decided to conduct a 12-week limited consultation in the area concerned to measure the level of support for either:

Option A Flint Mountain is retained within the Trelawny ward of the Community of Flint (the existing arrangement);

Option B Flint Mountain is created as a separate community ward of the Community of Flint; or,

Option C Flint Mountain is transferred to the Community of Northop and created as a new community ward.

Conclusion

5.6. In total 32 representations were made with regard to preferences for a proposed change for Flint Mountain and these representations are summarised in Appendix 1.

Of those representations the following levels of preference were noted:

OPTION A - 21 representations OPTION B - One representation OPTION C - Nine representations No preference - One representation - from a resident of Flint Mountain

The overwhelming majority of these were clearly in favour of maintaining the current community electoral arrangements for the area of Flint Mountain.

5.7. It is concluded, therefore, that there is no change that needs to be made to current arrangements and so there will be no consequential changes to either the Flint Trelawny or Northop electoral wards.

- 3 -

Final Proposals

5.8. The final proposals for community boundary changes are described in detail in this section. For each new proposal the report sets out:

 The name(s) of the existing community areas which wholly or in part constitute the proposed amended or new community(ies);  A brief description of the existing community arrangements in terms of the number of electors and warding arrangements (if applicable);  Key arguments made during the Council’s deliberations and representations received by the Commission (if any). Although not all representations are mentioned in this section, all representations have been considered and a summary can be found at Appendix 1  The views of the Commission;  The composition of the proposed community arrangements; and,  A map of the area of change containing a red line to indicate the existing community boundaries, a blue line to indicate the proposed community boundaries and a hatched box indicating the area involved in the transfer between communities.

COMMUNITY BOUNDARY CHANGES

Halkyn and Mold

5.9. Flintshire County Council’s recommendation is for the boundary between the Communities of Halkyn and Mold to be realigned to transfer five properties from the east of Black Brook Lane in the Community Ward of Halkyn Mountain into the Community Ward of Mold East. It was believed that these properties had more affinity with Mold, and we have inspected the relevant maps and found that the proposed change affects five properties and nine electors. We are satisfied that the change will provide for effective and convenient local government. No other proposals were received from interested parties and no further objections to the proposed change were received by the Council.

5.10. The proposed change affects five properties and nine electors. The existing electorate within the Community of Mold is 7,662. The transfer of electors will increase Mold’s electorate to 7,671. The existing electorate within the Community of Halkyn is 2,335. The transfer of electors will decrease Halkyn’s electorate to 2,326.

5.11. This proposal would have minor consequential changes to the Mold East and Halkyn electoral wards.

Mapping key

Proposed Existing Community NAME Name Community Community ward Community Community ward Area to be transferred Boundary Boundary boundary Name Name from Halkyn to Mold

- 4 -

Halkyn and Mold

HALKYN

Halkyn Mountain

MOLD Mold

Mold East Mold West

0 0.2

kilometres Scale: 1:4,458 - 5 - (H) Hawlfraint y Goron a hawliau cronfa ddata [2015] Arolwg Ordnans [100047875] (C)Map Crown Key copyright and database rights [2015] Ordnance Survey [100047875]

Pen-y-Ffordd and Broughton and Bretton

5.12. Flintshire County Council’s recommendation is for the boundary between the Communities of Pen-y-Ffordd and Broughton and Bretton to be realigned to transfer 27 properties from the west of Cherry Orchard Lane in the Community Ward of Pen- y-Ffordd into the Community Ward of Broughton and Bretton South. It was believed that these properties had more affinity with Broughton and Bretton through their access from that community, and we have inspected the relevant maps and found that the proposed mutual exchange affects 27 properties and 66 electors. We are satisfied that the change will provide for effective and convenient local government. No other proposals were received from interested parties and no further objections to the proposed change were received by the Council.

5.13. The proposed change affects 27 properties and 66 electors. The existing electorate within the Community of Broughton and Bretton is 4,594. The transfer of electors will increase Broughton and Bretton’s electorate to 4,660. The existing electorate within the Community of Pen-y-Ffordd is 3,035. The net effect of the four changes to its boundaries is explained at paragraph 5.23.

5.14. This proposal would have minor consequential changes to the Broughton and Bretton, and Pen-y-Ffordd electoral wards.

Mapping key

Proposed Existing Community NAME Name Community Community ward Community Community ward Area to be transferred from Boundary Boundary boundary Name Name Pen-y-Ffordd to Broughton and Bretton

- 6 -

Pen-y-Ffordd and Broughton and Bretton

HAWARDEN

BROUGHTON AND BRETTON

Broughton and Bretton North East

PEN-Y-FFORDD

Bretton and Broughton South

0 0.25

kilometres Scale: 1:7,322 (H) Hawlfraint y Goron a hawliau cronfa ddata [2015] Arolwg Ordnans [100047875] - 7 - (C) Crown copyright and database rights [2015] Ordnance Survey [100047875]

Higher Kinnerton and Pen-y-Ffordd

5.15. Flintshire County Council’s recommendation is for the boundary between the Communities of Pen-y-Ffordd and Higher Kinnerton to be realigned to transfer eight properties from the Lower Mountain Road area in the Community of Higher Kinnerton into the Community of Pen-y-Ffordd. It was believed that these properties had more affinity with Pen-y-Ffordd through their access from that community, and we have inspected the relevant maps and found that the proposed mutual exchange affects eight properties and 12 electors. We are satisfied that the change will provide for effective and convenient local government. No other proposals were received from interested parties and no further objections to the proposed change were received by the Council.

5.16. The proposed change affects eight properties and 12 electors. The existing electorate within the Community of Higher Kinnerton is 1,283. The transfer of electors will decrease Higher Kinnerton’s electorate to 1,271. The existing electorate within the Community of Pen-y-Ffordd is 3,035. The net effect of the four changes to its boundaries is explained at paragraph 5.23.

5.17. This proposal would have minor consequential changes to the Higher Kinnerton, and Pen-y-Ffordd electoral wards.

Proposed Existing Community Community NAME Name Boundary Boundary Community Community ward Area to be transferred from Higher Kinnerton to Pen-y-Ffordd Name Name

- 8 -

Higher Kinnerton and Pen-y-Ffordd

PEN-Y-FFORDD

HIGHER KINNERTON

0 0.25

kilometres Scale: 1:8,114 - 9 - (H) Hawlfraint y Goron a hawliau cronfa ddata [2015] Arolwg Ordnans [100047875] (C) Crown copyright and database rights [2015] Ordnance Survey [100047875]

Hope and Pen-y-Ffordd

5.18. Flintshire County Council’s recommendation is for the boundary between the Communities of Pen-y-Ffordd and Hope to be realigned to transfer 10 properties from the southern end of Pen-y-Ffordd village in the Hope Community Ward of the Community of Hope into the Community of Pen-y-Ffordd. It was believed that these properties had more affinity with Pen-y-Ffordd through their access from that community, and we have inspected the relevant maps and found that the proposed mutual exchange affects 10 properties and 19 electors. We are satisfied that the change will provide for effective and convenient local government. No other proposals were received from interested parties and no further objections to the proposed change were received by the Council.

5.19. The proposed change affects ten properties and 19 electors. The existing electorate within the Community of Hope is 3,286. The transfer of electors will decrease Hope’s electorate to 3,267. The existing electorate within the Community of Pen-y-Ffordd is 3,035. The net effect of the four changes to its boundaries is explained at paragraph 5.23.

5.20. This proposal would have minor consequential changes to the Hope and Pen-y- Ffordd electoral wards.

Mapping key

Proposed Existing NAME Name Community Community Community Community ward Boundary Boundary Area to be transferred Name Name from Hope to Pen-y-Ffordd

- 10 -

Hope and Pen-y-Ffordd

PEN-Y-FFORDD Pen-y-ffordd

0

Hope HOPE

Hope

0 0.1

kilometres Scale: 1:3,270

- 11 - (H) Hawlfraint y Goron a hawliau cronfa ddata [2015] Arolwg Ordnans [100047875] (C) Crown copyright and database rights [2015] Ordnance Survey [100047875]

Leeswood and Pen-y-Ffordd

5.21. Flintshire County Council’s recommendation is for the boundary between the Communities of Pen-y-Ffordd and Leeswood to be realigned to transfer two properties from the area known as The Rhyd in the Pontblyddyn ward of the Community of Leeswood into the Community of Pen-y-Ffordd. It was believed that these properties had more affinity with Pen-y-Ffordd through their access from that community, and we have inspected the relevant maps and found that the proposed mutual exchange affects two properties and four electors. We are satisfied that the change will provide for effective and convenient local government. No other proposals were received from interested parties and no further objections to the proposed change were received by the Council.

5.22. The proposed change affects two properties and four electors. The existing electorate within the Community of Leeswood is 1,604. The transfer of electors will decrease Leeswood’s electorate to 1,600.

5.23. The existing electorate within the Community of Pen-y-Ffordd is 3,035 and the four changes to its boundaries are:

 Transfer out of 66 electors to the Community of Broughton and Bretton.  Transfer in of 12 electors from the Community of Higher Kinnerton.  Transfer in of 19 electors from the Community of Hope.  Transfer in of four electors from the Community of Leeswood.

The net effect of these four changes to the Community of Pen-y-Ffordd is to decrease the electorate to 3,004.

5.24. This proposal would have minor consequential changes to the Leeswood and Pen- y-Ffordd electoral wards.

Mapping key

Proposed Existing NAME Name Community Community Community Community ward Boundary Boundary Name Name Area to be transferred from Leeswood to Pen-y-Ffordd

- 12 -

Leeswood and Pen-y-Ffordd

)

m

u

(

h t

a LEESWOOD P PEN-Y-FFORDD

H

C

B la c k 1.22m RH The Rhyd Brook

Def

Foot Bridge Pontblyddyn

CH

Rhyd Cottage

Rhyd-y-Defaid

Mile Stone 0 0.05 Rhyd-y-Defaid Rhyd kilometres Scale: 1:963.6Bridge Farm - 13 - (H) Hawlfraint y Goron a hawliauMap cronfa Key ddata [2015] Arolwg Ordnans [100047875] (C) Crown copyright and database rights [2015] Ordnance Survey [100047875]

6. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS

6.1. In considering the various changes to the community boundaries it was also necessary for us to take account of the consequential effects on the electoral arrangements for community councils and the principal authority, which would result from these changes. This section of the report details our proposals for consequential changes to the electoral arrangements. The electoral statistics used in this report were provided by Flintshire County Council.

Community Ward Boundaries

6.2. There are a number of changes to community boundaries proposed by Flintshire County Council as described earlier. The net changes to electoral arrangements arising from their proposals are as follows:

6.3. Broughton and Bretton Community Council Current Proposed Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) East 858 2 429 31% North 1,749 5 350 5% North 891 4 223 -32% East South 2,845 8 356 9% South 2,911 9 323 -3% Total 4,594 14 328 Total 4,660 14 333

6.4. Halkyn Community Council Current Proposed Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) Halk yn 422 3 141 -22% Halk yn Pentre 1,395 8 174 -3% 931 4 233 29% Mountain Halk yn Rhesycae 297 2 149 -17% Pentre 931 5 186 4% Rhosesmor 685 4 171 -5% Halk yn Total 2,335 13 180 Total 2,326 13 179

6.5. Higher Kinnerton Community Council

6.6. Higher Kinnerton Community Council is an unwarded community area which currently has nine community councillors representing 1,283 electors. After a mutual boundary change with Pen-y-Ffordd this number will fall to 1,271 electors represented by nine community councillors – an average of 141 electors per councillor.

6.7. Hope Community Council Current Proposed Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) Caergwrle 1,289 6 215 -9% Caergwrle 1,447 6 241 3% Hope 1,997 8 250 6% Hope 1,820 8 228 -2% Total 3,286 14 235 Total 3,267 14 233

- 14 -

6.8. Leeswood Community Council Current Proposed Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) Leeswood 1,365 11 124 1% Leeswood 1,365 11 124 1% Pontblyddyn 239 2 120 -2% Pontblyddyn 235 2 118 -4% Total 1,604 13 123 Total 1,600 13 123

6.9. Mold Town Council Current Proposed Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) Broncoed 1,987 4 497 4% Broncoed 1,880 4 470 -2% East 1,520 4 380 -21% East 2,034 4 509 6% South 2,126 4 532 11% South 1,935 4 484 1% West 2,029 4 507 6% West 1,822 4 456 -5% Total 7,662 16 479 Total 7,671 16 479

6.10. Pen-y-Ffordd Community Council

6.11. Pen-y-Ffordd is an unwarded community area which currently has 10 community councillors representing 3,035 electors - an average of 304 electors per councillor. After an increase in community councillor numbers from 10 to 13, and mutual boundary changes with Broughton and Bretton, Higher Kinnerton, Hope, and Leeswood the Pen-y-Ffordd electorate number will fall to a net figure of 3,004 electors represented by 13 community councillors – an average of 231 electors per councillor.

6.12. We are satisfied that these proposed changes are appropriate and are in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

Community Council Electoral Arrangements

6.13. Flintshire currently has a local government electorate of 118,061 represented by 34 Community and Town Councils with a total of 441 members which results in a county average of 268 electors per councillor. Under the Flintshire County Council proposals these figures will see no net change.

6.14. We are required to consider the consequential changes to the community electoral arrangements that would occur following agreement of these proposals. The electoral arrangements for the Community Councils proposed by Flintshire County Council can be seen below:

6.15. Argoed Community Council Current Proposed Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) East 1,647 5 329 14% Argoed 2,199 7 314 -5% New Brighton 885 3 295 2% South 552 2 276 -4% New Brighton 2,410 7 344 5% West 1,525 6 254 -12% Total 4,609 16 288 Total 4,609 14 329 - 15 - 6.16. Buckley Town Council Current Proposed Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) Bistre East 2,729 5 546 -19% Bistre East 2,729 5 546 -10% Bistre West 3,370 6 562 -17% Bistre West 3,370 5 674 11% Mountain 2,342 2 1,171 73% Mountain 2,342 4 586 -4% Pentrobin 3,736 5 747 10% Pentrobin 3,736 6 623 2% Total 12,177 18 677 Total 12,177 20 609

6.17. Connah’s Quay Town Council Current Proposed Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) Central 2,523 5 505 -21% Central 2,523 4 631 -1% Golftyn 4,041 5 808 27% Golftyn 4,041 6 674 6% South 4,443 6 741 16% South 4,443 7 635 0% Wepre 1,760 4 440 -31% Wepre 1,760 3 587 -8% Total 12,767 20 638 Total 12,767 20 638

6.18. Flint Town Council Current Proposed Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) Castle 1,579 4 395 -26% Castle 1,579 3 526 -7% Coleshill 3,130 5 626 17% Coleshill 3,130 5 626 10% Oak enholt 2,165 4 541 1% Oakenholt 2,165 4 541 -5% Trelawny 2,767 5 553 3% Trelawny 2,767 5 553 -2% Total 9,641 18 536 Total 9,641 17 567

6.19. Hawarden Community Council Current Proposed Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) Aston 2,559 5 512 -21% Aston 2,559 5 512 -7% Ewloe 4,218 4 1,055 63% Ewloe 4,218 7 603 9% Hawarden 1,532 3 511 -21% Hawarden 1,532 3 511 -7% Mancot 2,718 5 544 -16% Mancot 2,718 5 544 -1% Total 11,027 17 649 Total 11,027 20 551

6.20. Holywell Town Council Current Proposed Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) Central 1,485 4 371 -8% Central 1,485 3 495 8% East 1,408 4 352 -13% East 1,408 3 469 2% Greenfield 2,114 5 423 5% Greenfield 2,114 5 423 -8% West 1,858 4 465 15% West 1,858 4 465 2% Total 6,865 17 404 Total 6,865 15 458

- 16 - 6.21. Llanasa Community Council Current Proposed Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) Axton 826 4 207 -14% Axton 826 3 275 7% Ffynnongroyw 1,542 6 257 7% Ffynnongroyw 1,542 6 257 0% Gronant 1,249 5 250 4% Gronant 1,249 5 250 -3% Total 3,617 15 241 Total 3,617 14 258

6.22. Mostyn Community Council Current Proposed Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) Mostyn 1,011 9 112 -8% Mostyn 1,011 8 126 -5% Rhewl 454 3 151 24% Rhewl 454 3 151 14% Total 1,465 12 122 Total 1,465 11 133

6.23. Queensferry Community Council Current Proposed Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) Pentre 132 2 66 -44% Queensferry 570 5 114 -10% Queensferry 438 4 110 -6% Sandycroft 953 7 136 16% Sandycroft 953 7 136 7% Total 1,523 13 117 Total 1,523 12 127

6.24. Saltney Town Council Current Proposed

Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) Mold 972 5 194 -27% Mold 972 4 243 -9% Junction Junction Stonebridge 2,759 9 307 15% Stonebridge 2,759 10 276 3% Total 3,731 14 267 Total 3,731 14 267

6.25. Sealand Community Council Current Proposed

Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded)

East 900 4 225 22% Sealand 2,203 13 169 0% West 1,303 8 163 -11% Total 2,203 12 184 Total 2,203 13 169

6.26. Whitford Community Council Current Proposed Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) Carmel 1,534 10 153 6% Whitford 1,890 12 158 0% Whitford 356 3 119 -18% Total 1,890 13 145 Total 1,890 12 158

- 17 - 7. COMMUNITY ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS PROPOSED BY THE LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION

Llanfynydd Community Council

7.1. We proposed an additional change to the distribution of Community councillors in the County Council’s proposals for the Community of Llanfynydd to further improve the variance in representation. The original proposal by Flintshire County Council was that the Cefn-y-Bedd ward had four councillors allocated to it and the Ffrith ward had three councillors, with variances in representation as shown below:

Current Originally proposed

Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded)

Cefn-y-Bedd 409 4 102 -17% Cefn-y-Bedd 409 4 102 -17% Cymau 392 2 196 59% Cymau 392 3 131 7% Ffrith 469 4 117 -5% Ffrith 469 3 156 27% Pontybodk in 204 2 102 -17% Pontybodkin 204 2 102 -17% Total 1,474 12 123 Total 1,474 12 123

7.2. This proposal gave an imbalance to the variances in representation within the community which we felt could be improved by a re-allocation of councillors between those two wards. Flintshire County Council agreed the change and this is reflected in the table shown below.

Current Proposed Difference from Difference from Electors per Electors per Community community Community community Ward Electors Councillor Ward Electors Councillor Councillors average Councillors average (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) (rounded) Cefn-y-Bedd 409 4 102 -17% Cefn-y-Bedd 409 3 136 11% Cymau 392 2 196 59% Cymau 392 3 131 7% Ffrith 469 4 117 -5% Ffrith 469 4 117 -5% Pontybodk in 204 2 102 -17% Pontybodk in 204 2 102 -17% Total 1,474 12 123 Total 1,474 12 123

8. COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

8.1. There will be minor consequential changes to the electoral arrangements of Flintshire County Council due to the community and community ward boundary changes of Broughton and Bretton, Halkyn, Higher Kinnerton, Hope, Leeswood, Mold, and Pen-y-Ffordd.

9. COMMUNITY WARD CHANGE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

9.1. During the review period Flintshire County Council received a proposal from residents to amend the Holywell East/ Holywell Greenfield community ward boundary along Rayon Road to more closely follow the Chipwood Cottage property

- 18 - line and the associated right of way providing access to the property. The Council did not make any proposals on this matter in its report.

9.2. The arrangement has been in place since the 1960s when Rayon Road was built and access from that road to Chipwood Cottage became recognised. The effect of the change in boundaries was not relevant at the time but has since caused an anomaly whereby the residents are included in a different community ward to the one to which they historically and properly belonged. We have inspected the relevant maps and clarified that, although Chipwood Cottage is in Holywell East ward, currently it can only be accessed from Rayon Road which is wholly in Holywell Greenfield ward. We propose a change to boundaries which, if adopted, would eliminate the anomaly.

9.3. The Council are currently of the opinion that, to further avoid possible confusion, a change to these arrangements need not occur before council elections in 2017 and could be addressed by us when electoral boundaries are next reviewed.

9.4. We accept that the Council’s point has some value but, as the proposed change only affects one property and two electors, is minded to suggest that the amendment is made earlier in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

- 19 - 10. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

10.1. Having completed our consideration of the review of the community boundaries in the County of Flintshire and submitted our recommendations to Welsh Government, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation under the 1972 Act.

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

10.3. Any further representations concerning the matters in the report should be addressed to Welsh 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 Welsh Government.

Representations should be addressed to: Democracy, Diversity and Remuneration Team Local Government Democracy Division Welsh Government Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ

Or by e-mail at: [email protected]

OWEN WATKIN OBE DL (Chair) CERI STRADLING (Deputy Chair)

DAVID POWELL (Member) JULIE MAY (Member)

THEODORE JOLOZA (Member) STEVE HALSALL (Chief Executive)

October 2015

- 20 - APPENDIX 1

REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE TO FLINTSHIRE COMUNITIES.

1. No representations were received by us concerning the proposals made by Flintshire County Council and referred to in Section 5 of this Report.

REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF THE OPTIONS FOR CHANGE IN FLINT MOUNTAIN.

1. Flintshire County Council wrote on 1st May to express its support for OPTION A.

2. Flint Town Council wrote on 14th April supporting the OPTION A proposal to maintain the status quo. At its meeting on the 23rd February the Town Council considered the documentation issued by the Commission, including the representations received by that body, leading to the decision to review the governance of the area of Flint Mountain. The following is a verbatim copy of their representation.

The Town Council noted that whilst it had a clear view there was time to revisit the matter at its meeting on the 30th March in case anything should need to be reconsidered as a result of any local publicity generated by the review process.

This is the response of the Town Council from that first meeting reinforced by matters arising up to the 30th March and referred to at that meeting.

The Town Council understands that the duty of the Boundary Commission is to secure "efficient and effective local governance". The Council was surprised that the Commission felt that their duty had been triggered by the two representations disclosed only one was of which was from a local government elector.

Those representations appear to amount only to a statistical analysis of hypothetical options and the bald, unsupported, assertion "That the needs of Flint Mountain are often overridden by those of the urban-centred bias towards Flint Town".

Statistical analysis may well be useful as a tool to support an assessment of efficiency and effectiveness but, of themselves, statistics are a woefully inadequate measure far removed from either efficiency or effectiveness.

The fact of the Review came as a total surprise to the Town Council. No representations had ever been made to the Town Council concerning the governance of the area.

There is also the stark prospect of several further reviews planned to be undertaken between 2016 and 2022 by both the Boundary Commission and the New Unitary Authorities under the Local Government Wales Bill and the Devolution, Democracy and Delivery programme.

- 1 - APPENDIX 1

Put very simply the local government map in Wales is on the cusp of dramatic and fundamental change. Against that background the Town Council's starting point, in their considerations, is to observe that there is no evidence of any need for change apart from the statistical analysis, referred to above.

Furthermore, in considering the matter as a whole, Members reflected upon the historic links between Flint Mountain and Flint Town, noting that the two had been part of the same governance area for centuries, indeed since the establishment of local government.

That is perhaps reflected in the fact that the area is called Flint Mountain, and no other name.

The Flint Mountain area is part of the Trelawny Ward of the Town Council, and is served, as is correctly recorded, by five elected Members. Two of those Members were elected this year and two others were also elected as County Councillors for the same area during this municipal year.

Of those four Members who have therefore canvassed and stood for election in the area this municipal year, three of the Councillors: Mrs V. Perfect, P. Cunningham, and S. Jones, expressed themselves wholly surprised by the Review as they did not, and have not, encountered any support for removing Flint Mountain from the Flint Town Council area in all of their election canvassing and subsequent community dealings since the elections.

Those community arrangements have involved leafleting, surgeries and, between them, an almost constant presence in the area.

As the Boundary Commission acknowledges in its documentation there had been some concerns about County Council representation in the area and these issues had been taken up with the County Council.

No such concerns were raised with the Town Council about Town Council representation, or the identification of the area as part of Flint Town Council. The Village of Flint Mountain has many links with the Town of Flint and indeed provides, through St Thomas' church, an important venue for an integral part of the annual Flint festival.

The Town Council has worked with the Flint Mountain Community Association and was pleased to provide it with match funding for the provision of a children's play area.

Each year the Town Council funds a dedicated play scheme for the village. The Village was represented in the successful campaign to call a community meeting about Flint Hospital.

- 2 -

APPENDIX 1

The Town Council has not detected any public appetite for any change to the present arrangements and this was confirmed by a public meeting at St Thomas' church on 11th March called by Councillor the Reverend Brian Harvey and attended by over 50 persons. Those present overwhelmingly supported the continuation of the present arrangements.

It is therefore clear to the Town Council that there are many and various links between the Village and the Town past, present, and continuing.

It is also abundantly clear that there is no credible basis upon which to interfere with the present governance arrangements in any way.

There is no advantage to be gained by creating a new and separate ward when in the opinion of four of the five councillors for the present ward they are able to cover the whole ward and represent the electors efficiently and effectively.

There is no evidence to the contrary. Equally there is no evidence that any hypothetical disadvantage would be cured by combining with the Community of Northop. Historical, practical and geographic considerations rather point the other way towards Flint Town.

This is particularly so when the formidable obstacle of the A55 expressway represents a physical barrier between the village and the community of Northop.

For all of the reasons set out above it remains the view of the Town Council that Option A is the correct option for the area and that the status quo is working efficiently and effectively and should be preserved.

3. Northop Community Council wrote on 14 April reporting that the Draft Proposals were considered at Northop Community Council's meeting on 13 April and members resolved to support Option A – that Flint Mountain is retained within the Trelawny ward of the Community of Flint; a continuation of the existing arrangements. The matter was given due consideration and was influenced by the following factors:

 In the Welsh Government's draft White Paper: Power to Local People, the stated intention is to review the number, scope and size of local authorities (including Community Councils) along with a review of the number of elected members. Any change to the existing arrangements will create additional uncertainty as to the final configuration of community councils in the area.  Option C would see the loss of representation for the residents of the Northop ward.  Flint Mountain residents enjoy the benefits of stronger representation and service delivery characteristic of a large Town Council, compared with that which can be offered by a small Community Council.  The villages of Flint Mountain and the Northop community are clearly separated by the A55 North Wales Expressway and bands of Green Barrier land. The villages are quite separate. - 3 -

APPENDIX 1

Having made their decision, members of Northop Community Council were conscious that residents of Flint Mountain should be given the opportunity to express their views.

4. County Councillor Vicky Perfect (Flint Trelawny) - Flintshire County Council - wrote on 15 March in support of OPTION A. Councillor Perfect believed that a majority of those residents who attended a public meeting in Flint were also in favour of that option and cited connections between churches in Flint and Flint Mountain, Ysgol Maes Edwin and the other Flint schools, as well as the similarity in postcodes between Flint and Flint Mountain.

5. Councillor, and Mayor of Flint, Paul Cunningham – Flint Town Council - wrote on 20 April in support of OPTION A. In this representation the level of local support for this option was again demonstrated and reference was given to grants made from charitable Trusts that may be affected by a change in council arrangements.

6. A Resident of Flint Mountain e-mailed on 7 February supporting the OPTION C proposal to include Flint Mountain in the Northop Community, as it appeared that there were many more links to that local community.

7. A Resident of Flint Mountain e-mailed on 9 February also supporting the OPTION C proposal to include Flint Mountain in the Northop Community, as it has more in common with that local community and also that Northop was nearer than Trelawny.

8. A Resident of Flint Mountain e-mailed on 10 February agreeing to OPTION C - that Flint Mountain be made a part of Northop Community.

9. A Resident of Flint Mountain wrote on 15 February expressing the opinion that OPTION C is to be adopted. Several factors were cited in support; namely a. Flint Mountain is much closer to Northop than it is to Flint. b. Most Flint Mountain residents are from local families or have chosen to live in a rural area rather than the more industrial Flint. c. The voters in Flint Mountain appear overwhelmed by the rest of Trelawny d. The Flint Mountain Community Association already has strong social and other links with the Northop Community Association.

10. A Resident of Flint Mountain wrote on 16 February opting for OPTION C. This was supported by the reasoning that Flint Mountain is closer to Northop; shares more of a rural environment and heritage with Northop; would have a stronger voice in a rural community; and sees more general and social interaction with the Community of Northop rather than with Flint Town. Flint Mountain finds itself more aligned with Northop against proposals for a new crematorium in the area. It was noted that this particular proposal is supported by Flint Town Council which does not appear to have canvassed the views of Flint Mountain residents.

11. A family, resident in the Flint Mountain area, wrote on 18 February opting for OPTION C. This was felt to be appropriate as there were already many connections between Flint Mountain and Northop.

- 4 - APPENDIX 1

12. A family, resident in the Flint Mountain area, e-mailed on 25 February in support of OPTION C.

13. A family, resident in the Flint Mountain area, e-mailed on 1 March in support of OPTION C and the opinion that Flint Mountain is not viable as a stand-alone so a closer link with Northop may be fruitful.

14. A Resident of Flint Mountain wrote on 20 March and wished Flint Mountain to remain in Trelawny - OPTION A - because Flint Mountain already has community links with Trelawny. 15. A Resident of Flint Mountain who wrote on 23 March wished to retain the status quo. OPTION A would seem to be more appropriate when it was considered that the schools, churches and community facilities are supported by Flint and the area attracts charitable grant income which might then be put at risk.

16. A Resident of Flint Mountain wrote on 24 March and wished Flint Mountain to remain in Trelawny - OPTION A. This was felt to be appropriate given the existing church, school, and community links with Trelawny, as well as retaining access to Flint-based charitable Trust income.

17. A Resident of Flint Mountain wrote on 25 March outlining the strength of existing links between Flint Mountain and Flint through community activities, church and social interaction, education provision, and local representation. In this residents’ experience, and with regard to the above, it is OPTION A that should be supported to ensure that the identity of Flint Mountain is maintained.

18. A Resident of Flint Mountain wrote on 27 March offering observations on the representation of Flint Mountain at County level. This resident also outlined the strength of existing links between Flint Mountain and Flint Town through community activities, education provision and local identity, as well as church and other local social interaction. In this resident’s experience with regard to the above, it is OPTION A that should be supported.

19. A Resident of Flint Mountain wrote on 9 April supporting Flint Mountain remaining as part of the Trelawny ward - OPTION A. This was felt to be appropriate due to the existing affinity with Flint.

20. A Resident of Flint Mountain wrote on 9 April opposing any suggestion that Flint Mountain be moved from Flint Town Council - OPTION A.

21. A Resident of Northop e-mailed on 12 April objecting to Flint Mountain becoming part of Northop as it was felt to be inappropriate when the councillor allocation could become unfairly balanced through future growth. This resident’s opinion was that Flint Mountain would be better served if it were its own ward of Flint - OPTION B.

22. A Resident of Flint Mountain wrote on 14 April proposing that Flint Mountain be kept as part of Flint Town Council because of its lack of viability if it were to stand alone - OPTION A.

- 5 -

APPENDIX 1

23. A Resident of Flint Mountain wrote on 15 April expressing the opinion that Flint Mountain may not be able to run separately and the present boundary ought to remain - OPTION A.

24. A Resident of Flint Mountain wrote on 16 April objecting to proposals for change and supporting OPTION A.

25. A Resident of Flint Mountain wrote on 16 April objecting to proposals for change and supporting OPTION A.

26. A Resident of Flint Mountain wrote on 17 April offering an example of local support for OPTION A. 27. A Second Resident of Flint Mountain also wrote on 17 April offering an example of local support for OPTION A.

28. A Resident of Flint Mountain e-mailed on 18 April expressing support for OPTION C but asking that further consideration be given to councillor allocation under each of the options.

29. A Resident of Flint Mountain e-mailed on 18 April expressing no preference but asking for more information on each of the options.

30. A Resident of Flint Mountain wrote on 20 April expressing support for OPTION A and also made observations about the effect that the changes might have on the local church.

31. A Resident of Flint Mountain wrote on 21 April expressing support for OPTION A.

32. A Resident of Flint Mountain wrote on 21 April expressing support for OPTION A and also making observations on the effect that the changes might have on the local church as well as reporting on the long-standing sense of affinity between Flint Mountain and Flint.

- 6 -

$SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FINAL PROPOSALS

Contents

Page No.

Introduction 1

Background 1 – 2

REVIEW OF COMMUNITY AREAS AND THE Guiding Principles 2

COMMUNITY ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE Timetable for the Review 3

COMMUNITIES IN THE COUNTY OF FLINTSHIRE Current Stage of Review 3

Future Stages of Review 3

Draft Final Proposals 4 – 41

Argoed Community Council 5 Bagillt Community Council 6 FINAL Broughton & Bretton Community Council 7 Brynford Community Council 8 PROPOSALS Buckley Town Council 9 Caerwys Town Council 10 Cilcain Community Council 11 Connah’s Quay Town Council 12 Flint Town Council 13 Gwernaffield Community Council 14 Gwernymynydd Community Council 15 Halkyn Community Council 16 Hawarden Community Council 17 Higher Kinnerton Community Council 18 Holywell Town Council 19 - 20 Hope Community Council 21 - 22 Leeswood Community Council 23 Llanasa Community Council 24 Llanfynydd Community Council 25 Mold Town Council 26 – 27 Mostyn Community Council 28 Nannerch Community Council 29 Nercwys Community Council 30 Northop Community Council 31 Northop Hall Community Council 32 Penyffordd Community Council 33 Queensferry Community Council 34 $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

Page No. 1. INTRODUCTION

Saltney Community Council 35 1.01 Flintshire County Council has a statutory duty to keep all the communities in Sealand Community Council 36 its area under review. Shotton Town Council 37 Trelawnyd and Gwaenysgor Community Council 38 1.02 The review is to ensure the electoral arrangements for each town or Treuddyn Community Council 39 community council provide effective and convenient local government. Whitford Community Council 40 Ysgeifiog Community Council 41 1.03 A review of town or community council areas can include proposals for alterations of boundaries between town or community council areas, amalgamating two or more town or community council areas into one, or AQQH[ 1 – Guiding Principles 42 – 44 separating an existing town or community council area into two or more.

AQQH[ 2 – List of those making proposals 45 1.04 A review of town or community electoral arrangements also include proposals to review ward boundaries within a town or community council area, the AQQH[ 3 – Table of current arrangements 46 – 47 warding of a previously unwarded town or community council area, the de- warding of a town or community council area currently separated into wards AQQH[ 4 – Table of Draft Proposals 48 – 49 and changes to councillor numbers. AQQHx 5 – Table of Draft Final Proposals 50 – 51

AQQH[ 6 – List of those making representations on Draft 52 2. BACKGROUND Proposals 2.01 At its meeting on the 28 February 2013 the County Forum received a report Maps showing changes to ward and community boundaries on the proposed Community Review including a draft timetable showing the (available at County Hall, Mold) various stages of a Community Review and an indicative timescale for each stage. On the 12 March 2013 all Town and Community Councils were written to seeking their views on the draft guiding principles for the review.

2.02 Following reports to County Council on 16 April 2013 and to the Cabinet on 23 April the Guiding Principles of the Review were agreed (see Appendix 1), together with the consultation process for the first formal stage of the review and for the review to commence. The review commenced on 1 May 2013.

2.03 The first formal stage of the Community Review was to seek and obtain proposals from Town and Community Councils and other interested parties. A letter, questionnaire and the Guiding Principles were sent to Town and Community Councils, County Councillors and other interested parties on the 3 May 2013. Public notice was also given in local newspapers and information was also published on the Council’s website. In addition a series of meetings were co-hosted with Town Councils across the County on the first stage of the review. The consultation period ended on 2 July 2013. The proposals received under the first stage were carefully considered in preparing Flintshire’s Draft Proposals. A list of those who submitted a proposal is attached at Appendix 2.

2.04 Flintshire’s Draft Proposals were considered and agreed by the County Council and Cabinet prior to consultation on them commencing in November 2013. There was a nine week consultation period until the end of January 2014. The Draft Proposals were advertised in the press by giving public

1 $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

notice and on the Council’s web site. The Draft Proposals were also sent 5. CURRENT STAGE OF THE REVIEW individually to each Town and Community Council, County Councillors and other interested parties. 5.01 This document comprises the proposed Final Proposals for consideration initially by the County Council and then by the Council’s Cabinet.

3. GUIDING PRINCIPLES 6. FUTURE STAGES OF THE REVIEW

3.01 The Guiding Principles are shown in Appendix 1. The seventh and eighth 6.01 Once Final Proposals have been agreed by the Council’s Cabinet they will be principles were subsequently clarified to explain that the objective was to have published in the press and on the Council’s website. approximately the same ratio of electors to councillors across the wards that a town or community council may be divided into. As long as this is achieved 6.02 Where the Final Proposals involve changes to external community there does not need to be the same number of councillors in each ward. boundaries, Flintshire County Council will submit a report recommending them to the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales. For such communities all representations concerning the final proposals should be 4. TIMETABLE FOR THE REVIEW submitted to the Commission. In such situations the Commission considers all the changes to that community including the warding and number of 4.01 The timetable for the review set out below allows sufficient time for thorough Community Councillors in each ward. The Commission also considers any public consultation at each stage of the process. consequential changes that the changes to the ward boundaries would have on the County electoral divisions and makes proposals for such changes. 12/3/13 All Town and Community Councils sent a copy of Draft Guiding These are then submitted to Welsh Government who, if approved by the Principles for comments. Minister, prepare an Order for the community including consequential changes to the County electoral divisions. 6/4/13 Report to County Council when Guiding Principles and consultation process for first stage agreed. 6.03 Where no change to an external community boundary is made, the Town/Community wards arising from this review should fit wholly within the existing electoral divisions for County Councillors. If as a result of any 23/4/13 Report to Cabinet when Guiding Principles, first stage proposed changes to Town/Community council wards, this would not be the consultation process and commencement of Community case, it would cause practical difficulties for the local government elections Review agreed. scheduled for May 2017. There would have to be different electoral lists for the County Council and Town/Community Council elections being held on the 1/5/13 Formal start of Community Review. same day. Electors affected would have to attend different polling stations to Consultation seeking proposals from Town and Community when they vote for County Councillors than when voting for Town/Community 2/7/13 Councils and other interested parties. Councillors. There would be unnecessary duplication of paperwork and potential for confusion amongst the electorate. The Council is keen to avoid Summer Proposals received carefully considered and Officers prepare such practical difficulties and for this reason has not agreed with some 2013 Draft Proposals. proposals received that would cause such problems. 23/10/13 County Council considers and agrees Draft Proposals for 6.04 The Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales will make consultation. proposals to amend the County electoral divisions in their future electoral review which will not be until after the 2017 local government elections. That 19/11/13 Cabinet considers and agrees Draft Proposals for consultation. review could include recommendations to change both the County electoral divisions and the community ward boundaries to give effect to proposals 29/11/13 Consultation on Draft Proposals. rejected as part of this review. to 31/1/14 6.05 Where the Final Proposals do not change external boundaries the changes to community electoral arrangements will be given effect by a legally binding Spring Consideration of representations received on Draft Proposals. Order made by the County Council. 2014 Reports to County Council and Cabinet to agree Final Proposals. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

7. FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL’S DRAFT FINAL PROPOSALS ARGOED COMMUNITY COUNCIL

7.01 The County Council’s Final Proposals include a number of changes to 7.03 The community of Argoed is currently divided into four wards. The East Ward external boundaries, changes to internal boundaries, changes to the number elects 5 councillors, the New Brighton Ward elects 3 councillors, the South of town and community councillors representing wards and giving names to Ward elects 2 councillors and the West Ward elects 6 councillors. The overall new wards created. The Final Proposals aim to redress current anomalies membership of the Council is 16. wherever desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. All representations received on the Draft Proposals have 7.04 As part of the review process Flintshire identified as an anomaly that the West received detailed consideration in formulating the Final Proposals. Ward elected more councillors than the East Ward even though it had a smaller electorate. 7.02 The following parts of this document consider each town or community council area in turn alphabetically. In each case the current arrangements are 7.05 At the start of the review Argoed Community Council made the following summarised, any current anomalies, any proposals received, the County proposal: Council’s Draft Proposal and any response to that Draft Proposal before indicating the County Council’s Final Proposal. To amend the external boundary so that the properties in the village of Llong that are part of Leeswood Community Council should be part of Argoed Community Council. The village is currently split between the two Community Councils and Argoed felt it would be better represented by just one community council. It also identified one property that was split from the rest of the village which would be better served by Argoed Community Council. The Community Council also proposed that it should be de-warded and still have an overall membership of 16 councillors. No other proposals were received from interested parties.

7.06 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was that the East and South Wards should be amalgamated (this would then be coterminous with the County electoral division of Argoed). The New Brighton and West Wards should be amalgamated (this would then be coterminous with the County electoral division of New Brighton). As explained in paragraph 6.03 town/community wards arising from this review should fit wholly within a single County Council electoral division. Flintshire’s proposal is therefore the nearest the review can implement the Community Council’s proposal without creating the practical difficulties referred to in that paragraph. The membership should be reduced from 16 to 14 as no valid reason has been given for departure from the first guiding principle. The external boundary not to be altered as Leeswood Community Council objected to Argoed’s proposal and it does not form an easily identifiable boundary as required by guiding principle 5.

7.07 Argoed Community Council responded to consultation on Flintshire’s Draft Proposal to indicate that it supports the reduction to 14 in the total membership of the Council. No other representations were received from interested parties.

7.08 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is therefore the same as its draft proposal as indicated in paragraph 7.06 above. A Map showing proposed new ward boundaries is in Appendix 7. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

BAGILLT COMMUNITY COUNCIL BROUGHTON AND BRETTON COMMUNITY COUNCIL

7.09 The community of Bagillt is presently divided into two wards. The East Ward 7.15 The community of Broughton and Bretton is presently divided into three elects 7 councillors and the West Ward elects 7 councillors. The overall wards. The East Ward elects 2 councillors, the North Ward elects 4 membership of the Council is 14. councillors and the South Ward elects 8 councillors. The overall membership of the Council is 14. 7.10 As part of the review process Flintshire identified no anomalies. In 2000 a review of warding arrangements was undertaken. The number of wards was 7.16 As part of the review process Flintshire identified an inconsistent ratio of reduced from 4 to 2 making the wards coterminous with the two County electorate to councillors across the wards under the present arrangements. Council electoral divisions of Bagillt East and Bagillt West. The councillors for the Central and Merllyn Wards were redistributed between the two wards, so 7.17 At the start of the Community Review, Broughton and Bretton Community that there was an equal number of councillors. Council proposed changes to the external boundary. Firstly that properties west of Cherry Orchard Lane known as ‘Old Warren’ currently in Penyffordd 7.11 Under the first stage of the Community Review, Bagillt Community Council Community Council area would be better served by Broughton and Bretton proposed that the current arrangements were satisfactory and there should be Community Council. Because of the stopping up of the ‘Old Warren’ this area no changes. No other proposals were received from interested parties. cannot be accessed without going through Broughton and Bretton Community Council’s area. It also suggested that the A55 be used as a southern 7.12 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to agree with the Community Council as it boundary and Stoney Hill as the western boundary. The Community Council considered the current arrangements provided effective and convenient local also proposed that the number of councillors for the North Ward should be government. reduced from 4 to 3 and the number of councillors for the South Ward should be increased from 8 to 9. No other proposals were received from interested 7.13 In response to consultation on the Draft Proposal Bagillt Community Council parties. responded to indicate that it supports the Draft Proposal. No other representations were received from interested parties. 7.18 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to agree with the proposal regarding the external boundary and properties in the ‘Old Warren’ being transferred from 7.14 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as its Draft Proposal to make no Penyffordd Community Council to Broughton and Bretton Community Council. alteration to the current arrangements. Whilst Penyffordd objected to the proposal, the ‘Old Warren’ can now only be accessed from Broughton. As explained in paragraph 6.02 where the Final Proposals involve changes to the external boundary, this will be referred to the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales. If the Commission considers the changes to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government, they will make recommendations to Welsh Government to make the boundary changes, including consequential amendments to any County electoral divisions affected. Flintshire’s Draft Proposal to address the inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors was that the Wards of North and East should be amalgamated and named North East Ward and elect 5 councillors and the South Ward elects 9 councillors. The overall membership of the Council would remain at 14.

7.19 In response to consultation on the Draft Proposals Broughton and Bretton Community Council supported the Draft Proposal. Penyffordd Community Council responded to consultation indicating that it did not agree with the ‘Old Warren’ being included within Broughton.

7.20 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as its draft proposal indicated in paragraph 7.18 above. A Map showing the new external boundary is in Appendix 7. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

BRYNFORD COMMUNITY COUNCIL BUCKLEY TOWN COUNCIL

7.21 The community of Brynford has a membership of 10 councillors and is not 7.27 The Town of Buckley is presently divided into four wards. The Bistre East divided into wards. Ward elects 5 councillors, the Bistre West Ward elects 6 councillors, the Mountain Ward elects 2 councillors and the Pentrobin Ward elects 5 7.22 As part of the review process Flintshire identified no anomalies with the councillors. The overall membership of the Council is 18. current arrangements. 7.28 As part of the review process Flintshire identified an inconsistent ratio of 7.23 At the start of the Community Review, Brynford Community Council proposed electorate to councillors for the Mountain and Pentrobin Wards with the that the current arrangements were satisfactory and that there should be no current arrangements. changes. No other proposals were received from interested parties. 7.29 At the start of the Community Review, Buckley Town Council made the 7.24 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to agree with the Community Council as it is following proposal to address the inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors. considered the current arrangements provide effective and convenient local Taking into account the projected electorate and the number of major government. developments over the next five years, the overall membership of the Council should be increased to 20 and the number of councillors to be elected for the 7.25 No representations were received in relation to consultation on the draft wards should be as follows: proposals. Bistre East Ward - elect 5 councillors 7.26 Flintshire’s final proposal is as with the draft proposal to make no changes to Bistre West Ward - elect 5 councillors the current arrangements. Mountain Ward - elect 4 councillors Pentrobin - elect 6 councillors

No other proposals were received from interested parties.

7.30 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to agree with the proposal made by the Town Council as it addresses the inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors across the Mountain and Pentrobin Wards. The overall membership of the Council would increase from 18 to 20.

7.31 Buckley Town Council responded to consultation on the Draft Proposal to indicate it was pleased that Flintshire supported its proposal.

7.32 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is as the Draft Proposal to increase the size of the Council from 18 to 20. The Bistre East Ward would elect 5 councillors, the Bistre West Ward elect 5 councillors, the Mountain Ward elect 4 councillors and the Pentrobin Ward elect 6 councillors. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

CAERWYS TOWN COUNCIL CILCAIN COMMUNITY COUNCIL

7.33 The town of Caerwys has a membership of 11 councillors. There are no 7.39 The community of Cilcain is presently divided into two wards. The Cilcain wards. Ward elects 6 councillors and the Rhydymwyn Ward elects 6 councillors. The overall membership of the Council is 12. 7.34 Flintshire identified no anomalies with the current arrangements. 7.40 As part of the review process Flintshire identified no anomalies with the 7.35 At the start of the Community Review, Caerwys Town Council proposed that current arrangements. In 2008 Flintshire had made an order to increase the the current arrangements were satisfactory and there should be no changes. number of councillors for the Rhydymwyn Ward from 5 to 6. No other proposals were received from interested parties. 7.41 At the start of the Community Review no proposals were received from the 7.36 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to agree with the Town Council as it is Community Council or from other interested parties. considered the current arrangement provide effective and convenient local government. 7.42 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to make no change to the current arrangements as they provided effective and convenient local government. 7.37 In response to consultation on the Draft Proposal Caerwys Town Council indicated it had no observations. 7.43 No representations were received from the Community Council or other interested parties in relation to Flintshire’s Draft Proposal. 7.38 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as its Draft Proposal to make no change to the existing arrangements. 7.44 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is to make no change to the current arrangements. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

CONNAH’S QUAY TOWN COUNCIL FLINT TOWN COUNCIL

7.45 The Town of Connah’s Quay is presently divided into four wards. The Central 7.51 The town of Flint is presently divided into four wards. The Castle Ward elects Ward elects 5 councillors, the Golftyn Ward elects 5 councillors, the South 4 councillors, the Coleshill Ward elects 5 councillors, the Oakenholt Ward Ward elects 6 councillors and the Wepre Ward elects 4 councillors. The elects 4 councillors and the Trelawny Ward elects 5 councillors. The overall overall membership of the Council is 20. membership of the Council is 18.

7.46 As part of the review process Flintshire identified an inconsistent ratio of 7.52 As part of the review process Flintshire identified an inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors across the wards with the present arrangements. electorate to councillors across the wards with the present arrangements.

7.47 At the start of the Community Review Connah’s Quay Town Council made the 7.53 At the start of the Community Review, Flint Town Council made three following proposal to address the inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors. proposals. The first was that it was the view of the Town Council that it was To redraw the internal boundary between the Central, Golftyn and South not appropriate to embark on any review at this particular time. The second Wards. It would involve transferring approximately 900 electors from the was there should be no change to the current arrangements. The third, and South Ward and 200 from the Golftyn Ward to the Central Ward. The Council notwithstanding the representations made in the first two proposals, was to also proposed that the overall membership of the Council should be increased redraw the boundaries to transfer an area from Coleshill Ward to Castle Ward to 22 and the number of councillors to be elected to the wards should be as and reduce the number of councillors to 16. No other proposals were follows:- received from interested parties.

Central Ward - elect 6 councillors 7.54 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to partly agree with the third proposal made by Golftyn Ward - elect 6 councillors the Town Council as it addresses the inconsistent ratio of electorate to South Ward - elect 6 councillors councillors. Redrawing the ward boundaries would however result in the Wepre Ward - elect 4 councillors practical problems explained in paragraph 6.03 for the local government elections scheduled for 2017. Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was that the number No other proposals were received from interested parties. of councillors elected from the Castle Ward would be reduced from 4 to 3 and the overall membership for the Council reduced from 18 to 17. 7.48 As explained in paragraph 6.03 above, implementing the proposal of Connah’s Quay Town Council would result in practical difficulties for the 2017 7.55 In response to consultation on the Draft Proposal Flint Town Council resolved local government elections. Until the County electoral divisions are reviewed to support the Draft Proposal. No representations were received from other by the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales, Flintshire’s interested parties. Draft Proposal was to address the inconsistent ratio of electorate to town councillors by altering the number of councillors to be elected across the 7.56 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as its Draft Proposal as set out in wards as follows:- paragraph 7.54 above.

Central Ward - elect 4 councillors Golftyn Ward - elect 6 councillors South Ward - elect 7 councillors Wepre Ward - elect 3 councillors

The overall membership of the Town Council would remain at 20.

7.49 Connah’s Quay Town Council responded to consultation on the Draft Proposals indicating it had no observations.

7.50 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is as its Draft Proposal set out in paragraph 7.48 above. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

GWERNAFFIELD COMMUNITY COUNCIL GWERNYMYNYDD COMMUNITY COUNCIL

7.57 The community of Gwernaffield is presently divided into two wards. The 7.63 The community of Gwernymynydd has a membership of 11 councillors. Gwernaffield Ward elects 6 councillors and the Pantymwyn Ward elects 6 There are no wards. councillors. The overall membership of the Council is 12. 7.64 As part of the review process Flintshire identified no anomalies with the 7.58 As part of the review process Flintshire identified no anomalies with the current arrangements. current arrangements. 7.65 At the start of the Community Review, Gwernymynydd Community Council 7.59 At the start of the Community Review, Gwernaffield Community Council proposed that the current arrangements were satisfactory and that there proposed that the current arrangements were satisfactory and that there should be no changes. The local County Councillor, Councillor Nancy should be no changes. No other proposals were received from interested Matthews made the same proposal. No other proposals were received from parties. interested parties.

7.60 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to agree with the Community Council as it is 7.66 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to agree with the Community Council and the considered that the current arrangements are effective and convenient local local County Councillor as it considered that current arrangements provided government. effective and convenient local government.

7.61 No representations were received in relation to the Draft Proposal during the 7.67 During consultation on the Draft Proposals the Community Councillor and consultation period. local County Councillor supported the Draft Proposal.

7.62 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as its Draft Proposal to make no 7.68 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as its Draft Proposal to make no changes to the current arrangements. change to the current arrangements which provide effective and convenient local government. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

HALKYN COMMUNITY COUNCIL HAWARDEN COMMUNITY COUNCIL

7.75 The community of Hawarden is presently divided into four wards. The Aston 7.69 The community of Halkyn is presently divided into four wards. The Halkyn Ward elects 5 councillors, the Ewloe Ward elects 4 councillors, the Hawarden Ward elects 3 councillors, the Pentre Halkyn Ward elects 4 councillors, the elects 3 councillors and the Mancot Ward elects 5 councillors. The overall Rhes y Cae Ward elects 2 councillors and the Rhosesmor Ward elects 4 membership of the Council is 17. councillors. The overall membership of the Council is 13. 7.76 As part of the review process Flintshire identified an anomaly with the current 7.70 As part of the review process Flintshire identified an inconsistent ratio of arrangements with an inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors making the electorate to councillors across the wards with the current arrangements. Ewloe Ward under represented.

7.71 At the start of the Community Review, Halkyn Community Council were 7.77 At the commencement of the review Hawarden Community Council proposed unable to agree any recommendations to Flintshire. It was agreed by that the number of councillors for the Ewloe Ward should be increased from 4 members to wait for the County Council’s Draft Proposals to be published on to 6. The Community Council did not believe the inconsistent ratio of how to address the inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors across the electorate to councillors could be solved by redistributing the current wards. No other proposals were received from interested parties. allocation from the other wards without adversely affecting their representational role. The overall membership of the Council would then be 7.72 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal to address the inconsistent ratio of electorate to increased from 17 to 19. A proposal was also received from Councillor C councillors was that the Wards of Halkyn, Rhes y Cae and Rhosesmor be Carver as local County Councillor that the internal boundary between the merged to create a new ward and elect 8 councillors (this would then be Hawarden and Mancot Wards should be redrawn. As explained in paragraph coterminous with the County electoral division of Halkyn). The Ward of 6.03 above, amending the ward boundaries in the way proposed by the local Pentre Halkyn (which is part of the County electoral division of Brynford) County Councillor would lead to anomalies at the 2017 elections and would would elect 5 councillors. The overall membership of the Council would therefore be inappropriate at this time. remain at 13. As explained in paragraph 7.121, it is also proposed to alter the external boundary with Mold. 7.78 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal to address the inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors was for the Aston Ward to elect 4 councillors, the Ewloe Ward to 7.73 In response to consultation on the Draft Proposals, Halkyn Community elect 6 councillors, the Hawarden Ward to elect 2 councillors and the Mancot Council made the following observations:- Ward to elect 4 councillors. The overall membership of the Council would be reduced from 17 to 16. a) The members appreciate that the review is necessary. b) The members’ concerns are that by amalgamating the three wards of 7.79 In response to consultation on the Draft Proposal, Hawarden Community Halkyn, Rhosesmor and Rhes y Cae, that during an election there will Council made detailed representations explaining how reducing the size of the be more electorate voting, say in the Rhosesmor area which could Council would lead to inconsistencies with other towns and communities. It leave both Halkyn and Rhes y Cae without a councillor who resides in went on to propose that the size of the Community Council should be each of the villages. The Council area is one of scattered increased to 20 councillors made up as follows:- communities. One longstanding member of the Council recalls that this situation used to occur before the Council was placed in four wards. Aston Ward - 5 councillors c) The Council suggests that the new ward name is Halkyn Mountain. Ewloe Ward - 7 councillors Hawarden Ward - 3 councillors 7.74 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is as its Draft Proposal with the new Ward being Mancot Ward - 5 councillors named Halkyn Mountain as suggested by Halkyn Community Council. As the Final Proposal involves changing the electoral boundary it will be considered There were representations against the Draft Proposal from all the County by the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales. If the Councillors on the Community Council. Commission considers the changes to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government it will make recommendations to Welsh 7.80 The response to consultation from Hawarden Community Council addresses Government to make the boundary changes including consequential the current inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors across the wards. It amendments to any County electoral divisions affected. A Map of the new also makes the size of the Community Council more consistent with other boundaries is in Appendix 7 large towns and communities within Flintshire. Flintshire’s Final Proposal is to agree with the proposal from Hawarden Community Council set out in paragraph 7.79. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

HIGHER KINNERTON COMMUNITY COUNCIL

7.81 Higher Kinnerton Community Council has a membership of 9 councillors. HOLYWELL TOWN COUNCIL There are no wards. 7.87 The town of Holywell is presently divided into four wards. The Central Ward 7.82. As part of the review process Flintshire identified no anomalies. In 2008 elects 4 councillors, the East Ward elects 4 councillors, the Greenfield Ward Flintshire made an order to reduce the overall membership of the Council elects 5 councillors and the West Ward elects 4 councillors. The overall from 11 to 9. membership of the Council is 17.

7.83 At the start of the Community Review Higher Kinnerton Community Council 7.88 As part of the Review process Flintshire identified an insistent ratio of proposed that the current arrangements were satisfactory and that there electorate to Councillors across the wards with the current arrangements. should be no changes. No other proposals were received from interested parties. The Community Council raised no objection to Penyffordd’s external 7.89 At the start of the Community Review Holywell Town Council proposed that boundary altering to include properties in Lower Mountain Road. the current arrangements were satisfactory and there should be no changes. The Council felt that they would not be able to provide the same level of 7.84 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to agree with the Community Council except representation on community groups etc if the number of councillors was to change the external boundary with Penyffordd (see paragraph 7.159). reduced. A local resident proposed that their property “Chipwood Cottage” should be moved from the East to Greenfield Ward because she and her husband felt they had no association with the East Ward. No other 7.85 Higher Kinnerton Community Council responded to consultation on the Draft proposals were received from interested parties. Proposal to indicate they had no additional comments to make. Councillor David Williams from Penyffordd made representations that part of Higher 7.90 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was that to address the inconsistent ratio of Kinnerton should be included in Penyffordd Community Council. electorate to Councillors across the Wards the Central Ward should elect 3 councillors, the East Ward 3 councillors, the Greenfield Ward 5 councillors 7.86 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is as the Draft Proposal with the only change being and the West Ward 4 councillors. The overall membership of the Council to the external boundary with Penyffordd. As the Final Proposal involves would reduce from 17 to 15 in line with the first guiding principle. changing the external boundary it will be considered by the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales. If the Commission considers the 7.91 In response to consultation on the Draft Proposal the Town Council indicated changes to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government it that it wished its initial proposal to stand and for there to be no changes. It will make recommendations to Welsh Government to make the boundary went on to submit an alternative proposal based on projected electorate, changes including consequential amendments to any County electoral whereby the size of the Town Council would increase to 18 with 4 Members divisions affected. A Map of the proposed new external boundary is in for the Central Ward, 4 for the East Ward, 5 for the Greenfield Ward and 5 Appendix 7 for the West Ward.

7.92 Representations were also received from the resident of Chipwood Cottage reiterating her wish to be moved from the East Ward to the Greenfield Ward and this was supported by Holywell Town Council.

7.93 There is a need to address the current anomaly but the Town Council’s stance of there being no changes would continue the existing anomaly. Its alternative proposal is based on estimated increased electorate rather than on the current known electorate. Whilst the third principle does indicate that likely changes in electorate should be taken into account, the consistent approach taken to the Community Review is to give more weight to the known current electorate than estimated future electorate. The estimated future electorate sometimes being used to choose between two options arrived at on the basis of the known electorate. The first guiding principle indicates that the appropriate number of councillors for Holywell is 15 and an increase to 18 would be inconsistent with the size of other larger towns or $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

communities such as Flint and Mold. It has been the consistent approach of HOPE COMMUNITY COUNCIL the Community Review to avoid having town or community wards that do not fit wholly within county electoral divisions where no change is being made to the external community boundary. To do otherwise will lead to the practical 7.95 The community of Hope is presently divided into two wards. The Caergwrle difficulties with the County and Town and Community elections scheduled for Ward elects 6 councillors and the Hope Ward elects 8 councillors. The 2017 indicated in paragraph 6.03. For this reason Chipwood Cottage should overall membership of the Council is 14. at present remain in the East Ward but may change when the Local Democracy & Boundary Commission review County electoral divisions after 7.96 As part of the review process Flintshire identified an inconsistent ratio of the 2017 elections. electorate to councillors across the wards with the current arrangements.

7.94 For the reasons indicated in the preceding paragraph, Flintshire’s Final 7.97 At the start of the Community Review, Hope Community Council made the Proposal is the same as its Draft Proposal in paragraph 7.90 following proposal regarding internal ward boundaries. In an effort to notwithstanding the representations it has received. equalise the electorate across the two wards, the boundary should be the river Alyn as a natural boundary. The community area west of the river would form the Caergwrle Ward and the community area east of the river would form the Hope Ward. The Caergwrle Ward would elect 7 councillors and the Hope Ward would elect 7 councillors. The local County Councillor for Hope also made a proposal that the internal boundary should be redrawn by either the railway line or the river Alyn.

7.98 As explained in paragraph 6.03 above to alter the ward boundaries in the way that the Community Council and the local County Councillor proposed would lead to anomalies at the local government elections scheduled for 2017. Flintshire’s Draft Proposal therefore to address the inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors across the wards pending the outcome of the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission Review of County Electoral Divisions was that the Councillors from the Caergwrle Ward be reduced from 6 to 5 and that the overall membership of the Council would therefore reduce from 14 to 13 in line with the first Guiding Principle.

7.99 During the consultation period on the Draft Proposals Penyffordd Community Council reiterated its previous representations that certain properties at the Penyffordd end of Wrexham Road should be included in Penyffordd. Hope Community Council were consulted on this and agreed to the external boundary being altered in this way. It went on to indicate that this would lead to the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales reviewing the ward boundaries and when doing so, it could align them with County electoral divisions. It therefore reiterated its previous proposal that the river Alyn should be used as the boundary between the two wards with 7 councillors in each ward. During the consultation period representations were also received from residents affected by the proposed change of external boundary, both supporting their properties being within the Penyffordd rather than Hope community.

7.100 As it is now agreed between Hope and Penyffordd Community Councils that the external boundaries can be altered, there is the opportunity to alter the Hope internal ward boundaries without causing problems at the local government elections scheduled for 2017. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

7.101 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is therefore to agree with Hope Community Council LEESWOOD COMMUNITY COUNCIL that the external boundary with Penyffordd is altered and that the ward boundaries are redrawn along the river Alyn. The Caergwrle ward electing 6 councillors and the Hope ward 8 as at present. As the Final Proposal involves 7.102 The community of Leeswood is divided into 2 wards. The Leeswood Ward changing the external boundary it will be considered by the Local Democracy elects 11 councillors and the Pontblyddyn Ward elects 2 councillors. The and Boundary Commission for Wales. If the Commission considers the overall membership of the Council is 13. changes to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government it will make recommendations to Welsh Government to make the boundary 7.103 As part of the review process Flintshire identified no anomalies. changes including consequential amendments to any County electoral divisions affected. A map of the proposed new boundaries is in Appendix 7 7.104 At the start of the Community Review, Leeswood Community Council proposed that the current arrangements were satisfactory and that there should be no changes. No other proposals were received from interested parties.

7.105 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to agree with the Community Council and to make no changes to the current arrangements except to change the external boundary with Penyffordd (see paragraph 7.159).

7.106 No representations were received during consultation on the Draft Proposals.

7.107 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as the Draft Proposal to make no change to the current arrangements which provide effective and convenient local government. As the external boundary with Penyffordd is proposed to change it will be considered by the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales. If the Commission considers the changes to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government it will make recommendations to Welsh Government to make the boundary changes including consequential amendments to any County electoral divisions affected. A Map of the proposed external boundary is in Appendix 7. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

LLANASA COMMUNITY COUNCIL LLANFYNYDD COMMUNITY COUNCIL

7.108 The community of Llanasa is presently divided into 3 wards. The Axton Ward 7.114 The community of Llanfynydd is presently divided into 4 wards. The Cefn y elects 4 councillors, the Ffynnongroyw Ward elects 6 councillors and the Bedd Ward elects 4 councillors, the Cymau Ward elects 2 councillors, the Gronant Ward elects 5 councillors. The overall membership of the Council is Ffrith Ward elects 4 councillors and the Pontybodkin Ward elects 2 15. councillors. The overall membership of the Council is 12.

7.109 As part of the review process Flintshire identified an inconsistent ratio of 7.115 As part of the review process Flintshire identified an inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors across the wards with the present arrangements. electorate to councillors across the wards. In particular the Cefn y Bedd and Cymau Wards have a similar electorate but Cymau only elects 2 councillors, 7.110 At the start of the Community Review, Llanasa Community Council proposed half the number of councillors elected in Cefn y Bedd. that the current arrangements were satisfactory and there should be no changes because of the rural nature of the area. No other proposals were 7.116 At the start of the Community Review, Llanfynydd Community Council received from interested parties. proposed that to address the inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors, the Cefn y Bedd Ward elect 3 councillors, that Cymau Ward elect 3 councillors, 7.111 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was that to address the inconsistent ratio of the Ffrith Ward elect 3 councillor and the Pontybodkin Ward elect 3 electorate to councillors across the wards, the Axton Ward elect 3 councillors, councillors. Also the external boundary between Llanfynydd and Treuddyn the Ffynnongroyw Ward elects 6 councillors and the Gronant Ward elects 5 Councils be redrawn so that four properties currently along Ffordd-y-Blaenau councillors. The overall membership of the Council would reduce from 15 to be transferred to the settlement of Treuddyn. No other proposals were 14. received from interested parties.

7.112 In response to consultation on the Draft Proposals Llanasa Community 7.117 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was that to address the inconsistent ratio of Council indicated that it had no observations to make. The local County electorate to councillors across the wards the Cefn y Bedd Ward elect 4 Councillor, Councillor Steele-Mortimer, made representations against losing a councillors, the Cymau Ward elect 3 councillors, the Ffrith Ward elect 3 Councillor from the Axton ward. councillors and the Pontybodkin Ward elect 2 councillors. The overall membership remaining at 12. The external boundary should not be altered. 7.113 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as its draft proposal as indicated in paragraph 7.111 above. 7.118 Llanfynydd Community Council did not make any representations during the consultation period on the Draft Proposals.

7.119 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as its Draft Proposed in paragraph 7.117 above. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

MOLD TOWN COUNCIL MOSTYN COMMUNITY COUNCIL

7.120 The town of Mold is presently divided into 4 wards. The Broncoed Ward elects 4 councillors, the East Ward elects 4 councillors, the South Ward 7.126 The community of Mostyn is presently divided into 2 wards. The Mostyn elects 4 councillors and the West Ward elects 4 councillors. The overall Ward elects 9 councillors and the Rhewl Ward elects 3 councillors. The membership of the Council is 16. overall membership of the Council is 12.

7.127 As part of the review process Flintshire identified an inconsistent ratio of 7.121 As part of the review process Flintshire identified an inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors across the wards with the current arrangements. electorate to councillors across the wards with the present arrangements. In particular the East Ward is over represented when considering the ratio of 7.128 At the start of the Community Review Mostyn Community Council proposed electorate to councillors. At the start of the Community Review Mold Town that the current arrangements were satisfactory and that there should be no Council proposed that the internal boundaries should be redrawn and gave changes because of the Council members’ involvement in community two options. It also proposed that the overall membership remain at 16. It groups. The Community Council has strong views that the two wards have also made a proposal regarding the external boundary with Halkyn that separate identities. No other proposals were received from interested properties on the east side of Black Brook Lane currently in Halkyn have a parties. close identity with the Town Council and this would form a more natural boundary. 7.129 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to agree with the Community Council not to remove the warding arrangements. To address the inconsistent ratio of 7.122 Representations were also received from Councillor H Bateman and from electorate to councillors across the wards the Draft Proposal was for the two local residents who believed that the current arrangements were Mostyn Ward to elect 8 councillors and Rhewl Ward 3 councillors. The satisfactory and there should be no changes. overall membership of the Council would therefore reduce from 12 to 11.

7.123 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to agree to the external boundary being 7.130 In response to consultation the Community Council stood by its original view redrawn to include the 13 properties from Halkyn Community Council as no that the existing arrangements should remain with the same boundaries and objections were received from Halkyn Council and it formed an easily level of representation. identifiable boundary in accordance with the guiding principle. Flintshire proposed that the internal ward boundaries be changed based on the second 7.131 The wishes of Mostyn Community Council would continue the existing of the two options produced by the Town Council but retaining the Bromfield anomaly of the inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors across the Park Estate within Broncoed Ward. The Mold East Ward would then have wards. Flintshire’s Final Proposal is therefore the same as its draft proposal the highest electorate per councillor. The future growth proposals for Mold as indicated in paragraph 7.129 above. are in the other three wards. It agreed with Mold Council that the overall membership of the Council should remain at 16.

7.124 During consultation on the draft proposal, Mold Town Council agreed in principle to the draft proposal subject to two minor amendments involving nine properties on Ruthin Road remaining within the Broncoed Ward and the Bowling Green, Clayton Road forming part of the Broncoed Ward. Councillor H Bateman made representations to retain the same properties in the Broncoed Ward.

7.125 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is to agree with amending its Draft Proposal in 7.123 to reflect the representations received from Mold Town Council and Councillor H Bateman in 7.124. Plans of the new ward boundaries are shown in Appendix 7 to this report. As the Final Proposal involves altering the external boundary it will be considered by the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales. If the Commission considers the changes to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government it will make recommendations to Welsh Government to make the boundary changes including consequential amendments to any County electoral divisions affected. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

NANNERCH COMMUNITY COUNCIL NERCWYS COMMUNITY COUNCIL

7.132 The community of Nannerch has a membership of 8 councillors. There are 7.138 The community of Nercwys has a membership of 9 councillors. There are no no wards. wards.

7.133 As part of the review process Flintshire identified no anomalies. 7.139 As part of the review process Flintshire identified no anomalies.

7.134 At the start of the Community Review no proposals were received from 7.140 At the start of the Community Review no proposals were received from the Nannerch Community Council or any other interested parties. Community Council. The local County Councillor, Councillor Nancy Matthews proposed that the current arrangements should continue. 7.135 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was that the current arrangements provide effective and convenient local government and should not be changed. 7.141 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was that the current arrangements provide effective and convenient local government and should not change. 7.136 In response to consultation Nannerch Community Council supported the Draft Proposals. 7.142 No representations were received during consultation on the Draft Proposal.

7.137 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as the Draft Proposal that there 7.143 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as the Draft Proposal that there should be no change to the current arrangements. should be no change to the current arrangements which provide effective and convenient local government. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

NORTHOP COMMUNITY COUNCIL NORTHOP HALL COMMUNITY COUNCIL

7.144 The community of Northop is presently divided into 2 wards. The Northop 7.150 The community of Northop Hall has a membership of 11 councillors. There Ward elects 6 councillors and the Sychdyn Ward elects 7 councillors. The are no wards. overall membership of the Council is 13. 7.151 As part of the review process Flintshire identified no anomalies. 7.145 As part of the review process Flintshire identified no anomalies. 7.152 At the start of the Community Review no proposals were received from the 7.146 At the start of the Community Review Northop Community Council proposed Community Council or from other interested parties. that the current arrangements were satisfactory and there should be no changes. No other proposals were received from interested parties. 7.153 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was that the current arrangements provide effective and convenient local government and should not be changed. 7.147 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to agree with the Community Council as it is considered that the current arrangements provide effective and convenient 7.154 In response to consultation on the Draft Proposal the Northop Hall local government. Community Council indicated it had no comment to make.

7.148 In response to consultation on the Draft Proposals, Northop Community 7.155 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as the Draft Proposal to make no Council made representations to make no changes and indicated it was changes to the current arrangements which provide effective and convenient content with the Draft Proposal. local government.

7.149 The Final Proposal is the same as the draft proposal to make no changes to the current arrangements. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

PENYFFORDD COMMUNITY COUNCIL QUEENSFERRY COMMUNITY COUNCIL

7.156 Penyffordd Community Council has 10 councillors and is not divided into 7.162 The community of Queensferry is presently divided into 3 wards. The Pentre wards. Ward elects 2 councillors, the Queensferry Ward elects 4 councillors and Sandycroft Ward elects 7 councillors. The overall membership of the 7.157 As part of the review process Flintshire identified no anomalies with the Council is 13. current arrangements. 7.163 As part of the review process Flintshire identified an inconsistent ratio of 7.158 At the start of the Community Review Penyffordd Community Council made electorate to councillors across the wards with the current arrangements. five proposals regarding changes to the external boundary. The local County Councillors have also made similar proposals. They also proposed 7.164 At the start of the Community Review, Queensferry Community Council that the overall membership of the Council should increase from 10 to 13. proposed to amend the external boundary with Hawarden Community Council. Councillor David Wisinger, the local County Councillor, proposed 7.159 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to agree with that from the local County that the current arrangements were satisfactory and there should be no Councillors that the overall membership should be increased from 10 to 13 in changes. No other proposals were received from interested parties. line with the first guiding principle. The County Council also agreed with two of the proposals to change the external boundary as the Leeswood and 7.165 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was that the external boundary should not be Higher Kinnerton Councils affected had no objections. As explained in altered as Hawarden Community Council objected to Queensferry’s proposal paragraph 7.18 above the Draft Proposal also included changing the external and it did not satisfy principle five of being easily identifiable. To address the boundary so that all of the ‘Old Warren’ should be in the Broughton and inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors across the wards, the Wards of Bretton community. Pentre and Queensferry should be merged to form a new Ward to be named Queensferry. The new Ward would elect 5 councillors and the Sandycroft 7.160 During the consultation period on the Draft Proposal County Councillor David Ward would elect 7 councillors. The overall membership of the Council Williams made representations reiterating the changes to external would reduce from 13 to 12. boundaries previously proposed by the Penyffordd Community Council. 7.166 In response to consultation on the Draft Proposal, Queensferry Community 7.161 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is to add to the Draft Proposal a further change to Council reiterated its previous proposal to amend the external boundary with the external boundary as Hope Community Council have now indicated they Hawarden Community Council. have no objections to it. There would therefore be a total of four changes to the external boundary of the Community Council as shown in the plan in 7.167 The Final Proposal is as the Draft Proposal set out in paragraph 7.165 Appendix 7. As the Final Proposal involves changes to the external above. boundary, these will be considered by the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales. If the Commission considers the changes to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government it will make recommendations to Welsh Government to make the boundary changes including consequential amendments to any county electoral divisions affected. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

SALTNEY TOWN COUNCIL SEALAND COMMUNITY COUNCIL

7.168 The town of Saltney is presently divided into 2 wards. The Mold Junction 7.174 The community of Sealand is presently divided into 2 wards. The East Ward Ward elects 5 councillors and the Stonebridge Ward elects 9 councillors. elects 4 councillors and the West Ward elects 8 councillors. The overall The overall membership of the Council is 14. membership of the Council is 12.

7.169 As part of the review process Flintshire identified an inconsistent ratio of 7.175 As part of the review process Flintshire identified an inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors across the wards with the present arrangements. electorate to councillors across the wards with the present arrangements.

7.170 At the start of the Community Review, Saltney Town Council proposed 7.176 At the start of the Community Review, Sealand Community Council altering the internal ward boundaries. At present the boundary divides the proposed that it should be de-warded and the overall membership of the town along the High Street in a north/south divide. The Town Council Council increased from 12 to 13 councillors. The local County Councillor, proposed following the line of the Balderton Brook in an east/west direction. Councillor Christine Jones also made the same proposal. No other As explained in paragraph 6.03 above it is the view of the County Council proposals were received from interested parties. that to amend ward boundaries in the way proposed as part of the Community Review would lead to practical difficulties with the local 7.177 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to agree with the Community Council and government elections scheduled for 2017. local County Councillor that it should be de-warded and the membership increased from 12 to 13 councillors as indicated by the first guiding principle. 7.171 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was that pending the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales reviewing the County electoral divisions, 7.178 In response to consultation on the Draft Proposal, Sealand indicated it had the inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors should be addressed by no further comments to make. amending the number of councillors elected from each ward. The Draft Proposal was that the number of councillors for Mold Junction should be 7.179 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as its Draft Proposal in paragraph reduced from 5 to 4 and the number from Stonebridge Ward increase by 1 7.177 above. from 9 to 10. The overall membership of the Council would remain at 14.

7.172 In response to consultation on the Draft Proposal, Saltney Town Council reiterated its previous proposal.

7.173 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as its Draft Proposal in paragraph 7.171 above. In addition it will ask the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales to consider the ward boundaries when it is reviewing the County electoral divisions. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

SHOTTON TOWN COUNCIL TRELAWNYD AND GWAENYSGOR COMMUNITY COUNCIL

7.180 The town of Shotton is divided into 3 wards. The East Ward elects 4 7.186 The community of Trelawnyd and Gwaenysgor is currently divided into 2 councillors, the Higher Ward elects 6 councillors and the West Ward elects 4 wards. The Gwaenysgor Ward elects 3 councillors and the Trelawnyd Ward councillors. The overall membership of the Council is 14. elects 6 councillors. The overall membership of the Council is 9.

7.181 As part of the review process Flintshire identified no anomalies. 7.187 As part of the review process Flintshire identified no anomalies.

7.182 At the start of the Community Review no proposals were received from the 7.188 At the start of the Community Review no proposals were received from the Town Council or from other interested parties. Community Council or other interested parties.

7.183 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was that the current arrangements provide 7.189 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was that the current arrangements provide effective and convenient local government and should not be changed. effective and convenient local government and should not be changed. Trelawnyd and Gwaenysgor responded to consultation indicating that they 7.184 In response to consultation Shotton Town Council indicated it had no were in favour of the Draft Proposal comments to make on the Draft Proposal. 7.190 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as the Draft Proposal that there 7.185 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as its Draft Proposal that there should should be no change to the current arrangements. be no changes as the current arrangements provide effective and convenient local government. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

TREUDDYN COMMUNITY COUNCIL WHITFORD COMMUNITY COUNCIL

7.191 The community of Treuddyn has a membership of 11 councillors and is not 7.197 The community of Whitford is divided into 2 wards. The Carmel Ward elects divided into wards. 10 councillors and Whitford Ward elects 3 councillors. The overall membership of the Council is 13. 7.192 As part of the review process Flintshire identified no anomalies with the current arrangements. 7.198 As part of the review process Flintshire identified an inconsistent ratio of electorate to councillors across the wards with the present arrangements. 7.193 At the start of the Community Review, Treuddyn Community Council proposed to alter the external boundary with Llanfynydd. No other proposals 7.199 At the start of the Community Review no proposals were received from the were received from interested parties. Community Council or from other interested parties.

7.194 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was that the external boundary should not be 7.200 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal addresses the inconsistent ratio of electorate to altered as it does not satisfy guiding principle 5. The Draft Proposal was to councillors by having 10 councillors from Carmel Ward and 2 from Whitford make no change to the existing arrangements. Ward. The overall membership of the Council would reduce from 13 to 12.

7.195 No representations were received during the consultation period on the Draft 7.201 During the consultation on the Draft Proposal Whitford Community Council Proposals. made representations that it should be de-warded. This was supported by Councillor Chris Dolphin as the local County Councillor. 7.196 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is to make no change to the current arrangements which provide effective and convenient local government. 7.202 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is to agree with Whitford Community Council that it be de-warded and that the overall membership be 12 in accordance with the first Guiding Principle. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

YSGEIFIOG COMMUNITY COUNCIL GUIDING PRINCIPLES

First Principle 7.203 Ysgeifiog Community Council has a membership of 10 councillors with no wards. To provide effective and convenient local government [Sec 54(1) of the Local Government Act 1972]. 7.204 As part of the review process Flintshire identified no anomalies. In considering this principle it is believed that local Town & Community 7.205 At the start of the Community Review, Ysgeifiog Community Council Councils need to have a membership between seven as a minimum and proposed that the current arrangements were satisfactory and there should twenty as a maximum and the following table to be used as a flexible guide. be no changes. No other proposals were received from interested parties. Electorate Suggested 7.206 Flintshire’s Draft Proposal was to agree with the Community Council. Councillor Allocation

7.207 No representations were received during consultation on the Draft Proposal. 0 -299 7 7.208 Flintshire’s Final Proposal is the same as the Draft Proposals that there 300 – 499 8 should be no change as the current arrangements provide effective and convenient local government. 500 – 749 9 750 – 999 10 1000 – 1499 11 1500 – 1999 12 2000 – 3999 13 4000 – 5999 14 6000 – 8999 15 9000 – 11,999 16 12,000 + 17 - 20

Second Principle

To recognise that the different demands and issues between urban and rural communities will mean different levels of representation being appropriate.

This is reflected in the above table having an increased Councillor allocation for smaller electorates.

Third Principle

To consider the number and distribution of the local government electors in each community including any change in either, which is likely to take place within 5 years [Sch 11, para 4(3)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972]

41 $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

For example, if a large residential development is likely to be implemented within 5 years it is likely to lead to an increase in the number of electors in that Eighth Principle community. Where a town or community is divided into wards for each ward to elect the Fourth Principle same number of Councillors as far as practical.

In considering whether any town or community is to be divided into wards This is to ensure fair representation on the Council. regard should be had to the questions whether [Sch 11, para 4(2) of the Local Government Act 1972] – "Please note that the objective of the 7th & 8th principles is to have approximately the same ratio of electors to Councillors across the different wards that a Town or a) The number or distribution of the local government electors for the Community may be divided into. As long as this is achieved there does not need to town or community is such as to make a single election of town or be the same number of electors and Councillors in each ward". community councillors impractical or inconvenient/

If it is impractical or inconvenient to have a single election of the town or community council that would support having separate wards within that town or community council. b) It is desirable that any area or areas of the town or community should be separately represented on the town or community council.

It may, for example, be desirable because a particular part of the town or community has a separate identity which should be reflected by it being a separate ward.

Fifth Principle

Where a town or community is being divided into wards regard will be had to the desirability of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable [Sch 11, para 4(3)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972].

Examples of such boundaries are the course of a river or the route of a road.

Sixth Principle

Where a town or community is divided into wards regard should be had to any local ties which will be broken by the fixing of any particular boundaries [Sch 11, para 4(3)(c) of the Local Government Act 1972.

In fixing ward boundaries identifiable local ties should not be broken wherever this is practical.

Seventh Principle

Where a town or community is divided into wards to equalise as far as practical the number of electors in each ward.

This is to ensure fair representation on the Council. $SSHQGL[ $SSHQGL[

AQQH[ 2 AQQH[ 3 TABLE OF CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS List of who made a proposal during the first stage of the review Electorate Current No. Current No. of Town / Community Ward (as at 1 May of Seats Seats Town / Community Councils County Councillors 2013) (ward) (Council)

Argoed Community Council Councillor N. Matthews, Gwernymynydd Bagillt Community Council Councillor C. Carver, Hawarden Argoed East 1,647 5 Broughton & Bretton Community Council Councillor T. Newhouse, Hope New Brighton 885 3 Brynford Community Council Councillor H. Bateman, Mold Broncoed South 552 2 Buckley Town Council Councillor C. Hinds, Penyffordd West 1,525 616 Caerwys Town Council Councillor D. Williams, Penyffordd Bagillt East 1,501 7 Cilcain Community Council Councillor D. Wisinger, Penyffordd West 1,643 714 Connah’s Quay Town Council Councillor C. Jones, Sealand Broughton and Bretton East 858 2 Flint Town Council 891 Gwernaffield Community Council Local Residents North 4 Gwernymynydd Community Council South 2,845 814 Halkyn Community Council Mr & Mrs. Harrison, Holywell Brynford 853 10 10 Hawarden Community Council Mr. K. Corbett, Mold Buckley Bistre East 2,729 5 Higher Kinnerton Community Council Mr. J. Ellis, Mold Bistre West 3,370 6 Holywell Town Council Mountain 2,342 2 Hope Community Council Pentrobin 3,736 518 Leeswood Community Council 1,025 Llanasa Community Council Caerwys 11 11 Llanfynydd Community Council Cilcain Cilcain 580 6 Mold Town Council Rhydymwyn 565 612 Mostyn Community Council Connah's Quay Central 2,523 5 Nannerch Community Council Golftyn 4,041 5 Nercwys Community Council South 4,443 6 Northop Community Council Wepre 1,760 420 Northop Hall Community Council 1,579 Penyffordd Community Council Flint Castle 4 Queensferry Community Council Coleshill 3,130 5 Saltney Town Council Oakenholt 2,165 4 Sealand Community Council Trelawny 2,767 518 Shotton Town Council Gwernaffield Gwernaffield 784 6 Trelawnyd & Gwaenysgor Community Council Pantymwyn 832 612 Treuddyn Community Council Gwernymynydd 925 11 11 Whitford Community Council Halkyn Halkyn 422 3 Ysceifiog Community Council Pentre Halkyn 931 4 Rhesycae 297 2 Rhosesmor 685 413 Hawarden Aston 2,559 5 Ewloe 4,218 4 Hawarden 1,532 3 Mancot 2,718 517 Higher Kinnerton 1,283 99 $SSHQGL[

Holywell Central 1,485 4 East 1,408 4 Greenfield 2,114 5 West 1,858 417 Hope Caergwrle 1,289 6 Hope 1,997 814 Leeswood Leeswood 1,365 11 Pontblyddyn 239 213 Llanasa Axton 826 4 Ffynnongroyw 1,542 6 1,249 Gronant 515 AQQH[ 4 $SSHQGL[ 409 Llanfynydd Cefn y Bedd 4 Table of Draft Proposals 392 Cymau 2 Electorate Electorate Av. No of Current No. Av. No of Proposed Current No (1 May Proposed (1 May Electors per of Seats per Summary of Draft Proposals Electors per No. of Seats 469 Town / of Seats 2013) No of Seats Ffrith 4 2013) Cllr Council Cllr per Council Community Ward Ward amended Pontybodkin 204 212 Argoed East 1,647 5 329.4 Removal of the warding arrangement New Brighton 885 3 295.0 Reduction in Councillor numbers Mold Broncoed 1,987 4 South 552 2 276.0 West 1,525 6 254.2 16 4,609 14 329.2 14 East 1,520 4 Bagillt East 1,501 7 214.4 No changes East 1,501 7 214.4 West 1,643 7 234.7 14 West 1,643 7 234.7 14 2,126 Broughton East 858 2 429.0 Transfer properties in the Old Warren that is South 4 and Bretton North 891 4 222.8 currently part of Penyffordd Community Council North East 1,749 5 349.8 2,029 South 2,845 8 355.6 14 Alteration to the warding arrangements South 2,914 9 323.8 14 West 416 Brynford 853 10 85.3 10 No changes 853 10 85.3 10 1,011 Buckley Bistre East 2,729 5 545.8 C Bistre East 2,729 5 545.8 Mostyn Mostyn 9 Bistre West 3,370 6 561.7 Bistre West 3,370 5 674.0 Mountain 2,342 2 1171.0 Mountain 2,342 4 585.5 Rhewl 454 312 Pentrobin 3,736 5 747.2 18 Pentrobin 3,736 6 622.7 20 Caerwys 1,025 11 93.2 11 No changes 1,025 11 93.2 11 Nannerch 409 88 Cilcain Cilcain 580 6 96.7 No changes Cilcain 580 6 96.7 Rhydymwyn 565 6 94.2 12 Rhydymwyn 565 6 94.2 12 Nercwys 461 99 Connah's Quay Central 2,523 5 504.6 Alteration to the warding arrangements Central 3,678 6 613.0 Golftyn 4,041 5 808.2 Transfer properties from Golftyn and South wards Golftyn 3,815 6 635.8 Northop Northop 1,027 6 South 4,443 6 740.5 to Central ward South 3,514 5 702.8 Wepre 1,760 4 440.0 20 Redistribution of councillors across the wards Wepre 1,760 3 586.7 20 Sychdyn 1,468 713 Flint Castle 1,579 4 394.8 Reduction in Councillor numbers Castle 1,579 3 526.3 Coleshill 3,130 5 626.0 Coleshill 3,130 5 626.0 Northop Hall 1,274 11 11 Oakenholt 2,165 4 541.3 Oakenholt 2,165 4 541.3 Trelawny 2,767 5 553.4 18 Trelawny 2,767 5 553.4 17 Penyffordd 3,035 10 10 Gwernaffield Gwernaffield 784 6 130.7 No changes Gwernaffield 784 6 130.7 Pantymwyn 832 6 138.7 12 Pantymwyn 832 6 138.7 12 Queensferry Pentre 132 2 Gwenymynydd 925 11 84.1 11 No changes 925 11 84.1 11 Halkyn Halkyn 422 3 140.7 Alteration to the warding arrangements Halkyn Queensferry 438 4 Pentre Halkyn 931 4 232.8 The new ward will need to be renamed Rhesycae Rhesycae 297 2 148.5 Rhosesmor 1404 8 175.5 Sandycroft 953 713 Rhosesmor 685 4 171.3 13 Pentre Halkyn 931 5 186.2 13 Hawarden Aston 2,559 5 511.8 Alteration to the warding arrangements Aston 2,559 4 639.8 Saltney Mold Junction 972 5 Ewloe 4,218 4 1054.5 Transfer properties along Cross Tree Lane, Ewloe 4,218 6 703.0 Hawarden 1,532 3 510.7 Glynne Way and two properties on Moor Lane Hawarden 1,560 2 780.0 2,718 currently in Mancot ward. Reduction in Councillor 2,690 543.6 672.5 Stonebridge 2,759 914 Mancot 5 17 numbers Mancot 4 16 Higher Kinnerton 1,283 9 142.6 9 No changes 1,271 9 141.2 9 Sealand East 900 4 Holywell Central 1,485 4 371.3 Reduction in Councillor numbers Central 1,485 3 495.0 East 1,408 4 352.0 East 1,408 3 469.3 West 1,303 812 Greenfield 2,114 5 422.8 Greenfield 2,114 5 422.8 West 1,858 4 464.5 17 West 1,858 4 464.5 15 Shotton East 1,436 4 Higher 1,836 6 West 1,599 414 Trelawnyd & Gwaenysgor 219 3 Gwaenysgor Trelawnyd 498 69 Treuddyn 1,306 11 11 Whitford Carmel 1,534 10 Whitford 356 313 Ysceifiog 1,032 10 10 Totals 118,061 441 441 Hope Caergwrle 1,289 6 214.8 Alteration to the warding arrangements Caergwrle 1,447 6 241.2 $SSHQGL[ AQQH[ 5 $SSHQGL[ Hope 1,997 8 249.6 14 Reduction in Councillor numbers Hope 1,865 7 266.4 13 Leeswood Leeswood 1,365 11 124.1 No changes Leeswood 1,365 11 124.1 Table of Draft Final Proposals Pontblyddyn 239 2 119.5 13 Pontblyddyn 239 2 119.5 13 Llanasa Axton 826 4 206.5 Reduction in Councillor numbers Axton 826 3 275.3 Electorate Electorate Av. No of Current No. Av. No of Proposed 1,542 1,542 Current No (1 May Proposed Ffynnongroyw 6 257.0 Ffynnongroyw 6 257.0 (1 May Electors per of Seats per Summary of Draft Final Proposals Electors per No. of Seats Town / of Seats 2013) No of Seats Gronant 1,249 5 249.8 15 Gronant 1,249 5 249.8 14 2013) Cllr Council Cllr per Council Community Ward Ward amended Llanfynydd Cefn y Bedd 409 4 102.3 Redistribution of Councillors across the wards Cefn y Bedd 409 4 102.3 Argoed East 1,647 5 329.4 Alteration to the warding arrangements. Cymau 392 2 196.0 Cymau 392 3 130.7 New Brighton 885 3 295.0 The new wards to be renamed Argoed and Argoed 2,199 7 314.1 Ffrith 469 4 117.3 Ffrith 469 3 156.3 South 552 2 276.0 New Brighton. Pontybodkin 204 2 102.0 12 Pontybodkin 204 2 102.0 12 West 1,525 6 254.2 16 Reduction in Councillor numbers by 2. New Brighton 2,410 7 344.3 14 Mold Broncoed 1,987 4 496.8 Alteration to the warding arrangements Broncoed 1,880 4 470.0 Bagillt East 1,501 7 214.4 No changes. East 1,501 7 214.4 East 1,520 4 380.0 Transfer properties from West to East ward, East 2,047 4 511.8 West 1,643 7 234.7 14 West 1,643 7 234.7 14 South 2,126 4 531.5 South to West ward and Broncoed to South ward South 1,935 4 483.8 Broughton East 858 2 429.0 Transfer properties in the Old Warren that is 2,029 Amendment to external boundary transfer 13 West 4 507.3 16 properties from Halkyn Community Council West 1,822 4 455.5 16 and Bretton North 891 4 222.8 currently part of Penyffordd Community Council. North East 1,749 5 349.8 Mostyn Mostyn 1,011 9 112.3 Reduction in Councillor numbers Mostyn 1,011 8 126.4 South 2,845 8 355.6 14 Alteration to the warding arrangements. South 2,914 9 323.8 14 Rhewl 454 3 151.3 12 Rhewl 454 3 151.3 11 Brynford 853 10 85.3 10 No changes. 853 10 85.3 10 Nannerch 409 8 51.1 8 No changes 409 8 51.1 8 Buckley Bistre East 2,729 5 545.8 Increase the Councillor numbers by 2. Bistre East 2,729 5 545.8 Nercwys 461 9 51.2 9 No changes 461 9 51.2 9 Bistre West 3,370 6 561.7 Bistre West 3,370 5 674.0 Northop Northop 1,027 6 171.2 No changes Northop 1,027 6 171.2 Mountain 2,342 2 1171.0 Mountain 2,342 4 585.5 Sychdyn 1,468 7 209.7 13 Sychdyn 1,468 7 209.7 13 Pentrobin 3,736 5 747.2 18 Pentrobin 3,736 6 622.7 20 Northop Hall 1,274 11 115.8 11 No changes 1,274 11 115.8 11 Caerwys 1,025 11 93.2 11 No changes. 1,025 11 93.2 11 3,035 Amendment to external boundary transfer 26 Cilcain Cilcain 580 6 96.7 No changes. Cilcain 580 6 96.7 27 properties from Penyffordd Community Council to Rhydymwyn 565 6 94.2 12 Rhydymwyn 565 6 94.2 12 Broughton and Bretton Community Council. 2,523 2,523 Transfer 6 properties from Higher Kinnerton Connah's Quay Central 5 504.6 Redistribution of councillors across the wards Central 4 630.8 Community Council to Penyffordd Community Golftyn 4,041 5 808.2 Golftyn 4,041 6 673.5 Council and transfer 1 property from Leeswood South 4,443 6 740.5 South 4,443 7 634.7 Community Council to Penyffordd Community Wepre 1,760 4 440.0 20 Wepre 1,760 3 586.7 20 Penyffordd 10 303.5 10 Council. Increase the Councillor numbers. 2,980 13 229.2 13 Flint Castle 1,579 4 394.8 Reduction from 4 to 3 Councillors for the Castle 1,579 3 526.3 Queensferry Pentre 132 2 66.0 Alteration to the warding arrangements Pentre Coleshill 3,130 5 626.0 Castle ward. Coleshill 3,130 5 626.0 Queensferry 438 4 109.5 The new ward will need to be renamed Queensferry 570 5 114.0 Oakenholt 2,165 4 541.3 Oakenholt 2,165 4 541.3 Sandycroft 953 7 136.1 13 Reduction in Councillor numbers Sandycroft 953 7 136.1 12 Trelawny 2,767 5 553.4 18 Trelawny 2,767 5 553.4 17 Saltney Mold Junction 972 5 194.4 Alteration to the warding arrangements East 1,786 6 297.7 Gwernaffield Gwernaffield 784 6 130.7 No changes. Gwernaffield 784 6 130.7 Stonebridge 2,759 9 306.6 14 Reduction in Councillor numbers West 2,095 7 299.3 13 Pantymwyn 832 6 138.7 12 Pantymwyn 832 6 138.7 12 Sealand East 900 4 225.0 Removal of the warding arrangement Gwenymynydd 925 11 84.1 11 No changes. 925 11 84.1 11 West 1,303 8 162.9 12 Increase the Councillor numbers 2,203 13 169.5 13 Halkyn Halkyn 422 3 140.7 Alteration to the warding arrangements. Halkyn Shotton East 1,436 4 359.0 No changes East 1,436 4 359.0 Pentre Halkyn 931 4 232.8 The new ward being named Halkyn Mountain. Mountain Higher 1,836 6 306.0 Higher 1,836 6 306.0 Rhesycae 297 2 148.5 Alteration to external boundary with Mold. 1378 8 172.3 West 1,599 4 399.8 14 West 1,599 4 399.8 14 Rhosesmor 685 4 171.3 13 Pentre Halkyn 931 5 186.2 13 Trelawnyd & Gwaenysgor 219 3 73.0 No changes Gwaenysgor 219 3 73.0 Hawarden Aston 2,559 5 511.8 Increase the Councillor numbers in the Ewloe Aston 2,559 5 511.8 Gwaenysgor Trelawnyd 498 6 83.0 9 Trelawnyd 498 6 83.0 9 Ewloe 4,218 4 1054.5 Ward by 3. Ewloe 4,218 7 602.6 Treuddyn 1,306 11 118.7 11 No changes 1,306 11 118.7 11 Hawarden 1,532 3 510.7 Hawarden 1,532 3 510.7 Whitford Carmel 1,534 10 153.4 Reduction in Councillor numbers Carmel 1,534 10 153.4 Mancot 2,718 5 543.6 17 Mancot 2,718 5 543.6 20 Whitford 356 3 118.7 13 Whitford 356 2 178.0 12 Higher Kinnerton 1,283 9 142.6 9 Alteration to the external boundary. 2,718 9 302.0 9 Ysceifiog 1,032 10 103.2 10 No changes 1,032 10 103.2 10 Holywell Central 1,485 4 371.3 Reduction in Councillor numbers by 2. Central 1,485 3 495.0 118,061 441 441 118,261 435 435 East 1,408 4 352.0 East 1,408 3 469.3 Greenfield 2,114 5 422.8 Greenfield 2,114 5 422.8 West 1,858 4 464.5 17 West 1,858 4 464.5 15 Hope Caergwrle 1,289 6 214.8 Alteration to the external boundary. Caergwrle 1,447 6 241.2 $SSHQGL[

AQQH[ 6

Town / Community Councils

Bagillt Community Council Broughton and Bretton Community Council Buckley Town Council Connah’s Quay Town Council Flint Town Council Halkyn Community Council Hope 1,997 8 249.6 14 Redrawing the internal boundary. Hope 1,865 8 233.1 14 $SSHQGL[ Leeswood Leeswood 1,365 11 124.1 Alteration to the external boundary. Leeswood 1,365 11 124.1 Hawarden Community Council Pontblyddyn 239 2 119.5 13 Pontblyddyn 239 2 119.5 13 Llanasa Axton 826 4 206.5 Reduction in Councillor numbers by 1. Axton 826 3 275.3 Holywell Town Council Ffynnongroyw 1,542 6 257.0 Ffynnongroyw 1,542 6 257.0 Gronant 1,249 5 249.8 15 Gronant 1,249 5 249.8 14 Llanfynydd Cefn y Bedd 409 4 102.3 Redistribution of Councillors across the wards. Cefn y Bedd 409 4 102.3 Llanasa Community Council Cymau 392 2 196.0 Cymau 392 3 130.7 Ffrith 469 4 117.3 Ffrith 469 3 156.3 Mold Town Council Pontybodkin 204 2 102.0 12 Pontybodkin 204 2 102.0 12 Mold Broncoed 1,987 4 496.8 Alteration to the warding arrangements. Broncoed 1,880 4 470.0 East 1,520 4 380.0 Transfer properties from West to East ward, East 2,047 4 511.8 Mostyn Community Council South 2,126 4 531.5 South to West ward and Broncoed to South ward South 1,935 4 483.8 2,029 Amendment to external boundary transfer 13 Nannerch Community Council West 4 507.3 16 properties from Halkyn Community Council. West 1,822 4 455.5 16 Mostyn Mostyn 1,011 9 112.3 Reduction in Councillor numbers by 1. Mostyn 1,011 8 126.4 Rhewl 454 3 151.3 12 Rhewl 454 3 151.3 11 Northop Community Council Nannerch 409 8 51.1 8 No changes. 409 8 51.1 8 Nercwys 461 9 51.2 9 No changes. 461 9 51.2 9 Northop Hall Community Council Northop Northop 1,027 6 171.2 No changes. Northop 1,027 6 171.2 Sychdyn 1,468 7 209.7 13 Sychdyn 1,468 7 209.7 13 Penyffordd Community Council Northop Hall 1,274 11 115.8 11 No changes. 1,274 11 115.8 11 3,035 Amendment to external boundary transfer 26 properties from Penyffordd Community Council to Sealand Community Council Broughton and Bretton Community Council. Transfer 6 properties from Higher Kinnerton Community Council to Penyffordd Community Trelawnyd & Gwaenysgor Community Council Council and transfer 1 property from Leeswood Community Council to Penyffordd Community Council and several properties from Hope Whitford Community Council Community Council. Increase the Councillor Penyffordd 10 303.5 10 numbers by 3. 2,980 13 229.2 13 Queensferry Pentre 132 2 66.0 Alteration to the warding arrangements. Queensferry 438 4 109.5 The new ward will be renamed Queensferry. Queensferry 570 5 114.0 Sandycroft 953 7 136.1 13 Reduction in Councillor numbers by 1. Sandycroft 953 7 136.1 12 County Councillors Saltney Mold Junction 972 5 194.4 Redistribution of councillors across the wards. Mold Junction 972 4 243.0 Councillor D. Mackie – Ewloe Stonebridge 2,759 9 306.6 14 Stonebridge 2,759 10 275.9 14 Sealand East 900 4 225.0 Removal of the warding arrangements. West 1,303 8 162.9 12 Increase the Councillor numbers by 1. 2,203 13 169.5 13 Councillor C. Carver – Hawarden Shotton East 1,436 4 359.0 No changes. East 1,436 4 359.0 Higher 1,836 6 306.0 Higher 1,836 6 306.0 Councillor H. Bateman – Mold Broncoed West 1,599 4 399.8 14 West 1,599 4 399.8 14 Trelawnyd & Gwaenysgor 219 3 73.0 No changes. Gwaenysgor 219 3 73.0 Councillor D. Williams – Penyffordd Gwaenysgor Trelawnyd 498 6 83.0 9 Trelawnyd 498 6 83.0 9 Treuddyn 1,306 11 118.7 11 No changes. 1,306 11 118.7 11 Whitford Carmel 1,534 10 153.4 Removal of the warding arrangements. Councillor N. Steele – Mortimer - Trelawnyd & Gwaenysgor Whitford 356 3 118.7 13 Reduction in Councillor numbers by 1. 1890 12 157.5 12 Ysceifiog 1,032 10 103.2 10 No changes. 1,032 10 103.2 10 118,061 441 441 117,333 441 441 Residents K. Young – Flint Mountain Mrs. G. Harrsion - Greenfield Mr & Mrs. Thomas – Penyffordd Mrs. V. Socha – Penyffordd Mrs. Auty – Greenfield