REVIEW OF PART OF THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTY BOROUGHS OF AND CYNON TAFF REPORT AND PROPOSALS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW 3. DRAFT PROPOSALS 4. SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS 5. BALLOT OF ELECTORS 6. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOLLOWING THE BALLOT OF ELECTORS 7. ASSESSMENT 8. PROPOSALS 9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 10.RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

H Rhodri Morgan Esq MP AM First Secretary The National Assembly for 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales (the Commission), have completed the review of part of the boundary between the County Boroughs of Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taff in the area of the Communities of and and present our proposals. 2. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW 2.1 The section of boundary under review separates the County Boroughs of Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taff in the area of the Communities of Ogmore Valley and Gilfach Goch, in particular where it divides the settlements of Evanstown and Gilfach Goch. We have undertaken the review following requests to us that suggested that the existing boundary is unsatisfactory. Historically the boundary separated the districts of and Taff Ely, both of which were within the former county of Mid . The purpose of the review was to consider whether, in the interests of effective and convenient local government, the Commission should propose changes to the present boundary. The review was conducted under the provisions of Section 55(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. 2.2 Section 54(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 (the Act) provides that the Commission may in consequence of a review conducted by them make proposals to the National Assembly for Wales for effecting changes appearing to the Commission desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. Procedure 2.3 Section 60 of the 1972 Act lays down procedural guidelines which are to be followed in carrying out a review. In line with that guidance we wrote, on 7th July 1998, to Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taff Councils, Ogmore Valley and Gilfach Goch Councils, the Members of Parliament for the local constituencies, the local authority associations, the police authority for the area and political parties to inform them of our intention to conduct the review and to request their preliminary views. We invited the County Borough Councils to submit suggestions for changes to the boundary. We also publicised our intention to conduct the review in local newspapers circulating in the area and asked the councils to display public notices. 3. DRAFT PROPOSALS 3.1 We received representations from Council; Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council; Ogmore Valley Community Council; Gilfach Goch Community Council; Authority; and the Headteacher of the Primary School in Evanstown. These representations were taken into consideration and summarised in our Draft Proposals published on 12 March 1999. 3.2 Our Draft Proposals recommended that the boundary between the County Boroughs of Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taff be realigned so as to include the community ward of Evanstown within the area of Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough. The proposed change to the boundary was shown on the map within the report. 3.3 Copies of the Draft Proposals were sent to all the councils, bodies and individuals referred to in paragraph 2.3 seeking their views. A copy was also sent to anyone who had submitted preliminary comments. By public notice we also invited any other organisation or person with an interest in the review to submit their views. Copies of the Draft Proposals were made available for inspection at the offices of Bridgend County Borough Council, Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council and the Commission and were also deposited at the offices of the South Wales Police Authority. 4. SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS 4.1 We received representations from Bridgend County Borough Council; Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council; Gilfach Goch Community Council; Ogmore Valley Community Council; Sir Raymond Powell MP; four councillors; and six other interested bodies and residents. All of these representations were considered carefully before formulating our proposals. 4.2 Bridgend County Borough Council was concerned that any proposals to define the boundary at this stage of the review were premature and that there had been no detailed investigation of public opinion within the areas affected. The Council urged the Commission to undertake such an exercise at the earliest opportunity and that this exercise should include both public meetings and a referendum. 4.3 Gilfach Goch Community Council reported that they had attended public meetings and met with delegates from the Ogmore Valley Community Council, and Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Councils. The Community Council understood that when this process started the wishes of the people in Gilfach Goch and Evanstown would be sought and given consideration. Indeed this was seen as a main priority. It would seem that the Commission in reaching its proposals had given its priorities to a local organisation e.g. South Wales Police, in what would be convenient for them for effective local government. The Community Council believed that there were no problems or obstacles that unity might bring, that could not be overcome by either Bridgend or Rhonnda Cynon Taff County Borough Councils in what could possibly be considered to be effective and convenient of this small community. In reaching an unanimous decision on the proposals as set by the Commission, the Community Council concluded that: ‘The democratic wishes of the people of Gilfach Goch and Evanstown, under which local authority they wish to be governed, must be sought by a ballot and given priority over other establishments. Failure to do this would mean that the status quo remains, and the Communities of Gilfach Goch and Evanstown should remain exactly as they are.’ In a later letter, the Council said that they had received reports from residents in Evanstown that the Commission intended to obtain informed questionnaires from them prior to preparation of their final proposals. The Council hoped that the Commission would consider giving the residents within Rhondda Cynon Taff the same consideration before reaching their final decision. 4.4 Ogmore Valley Community Council had considered the draft proposals report and had held two meetings of the residents of Evanstown to seek public opinion. The meetings were well attended and indicated that residents would wish to remain within Bridgend County Borough. The residents had an affinity with Bridgend as a town for shopping and many other essential services. The town is considered to be easily accessible by a linked bus service. The Community Council felt that Rhondda Cynon Taff was already an extremely large borough and that further extension may put greater strain on the resources available. The Community Council suggested that the wishes of the residents of Evanstown be taken into account by a referendum, or other consultation process deemed appropriate by the Commission. 4.5 Sir Raymond Powell MP for Ogmore wrote to advise the Commission that following consultation with the residents of the Evanstown area he had been informed that the majority were not happy with the change to the boundary and were even more unhappy that there will be no referendum to decide the matter. He said that a referendum had been talked about some time ago but appeared not to be forthcoming. He mentioned that the residents of Evanstown were organising a petition. Sir Raymond urged the Commission to review the proposals and offer the residents a referendum so that they will have a voice in the decision making. 4.6 County Borough Councillor H Clive Davies and three community councillors, the elected representatives of Evanstown, said that they had consulted with the community at two public meetings about the review of the boundary. The result being "that the status quo remains", because of the failure of public consultation by the Commission, until adequate public consultation takes place, this is the view of both public meetings. 4.7 South Wales Police Authority noted that the Commission had taken account of their initial comments and had no further observations. 4.8 Ordnance Survey had no comments to make about the Commission’s draft proposals. 4.9 A resident submitted a petition with 477 signatures, which demanded a referendum in Evanstown. 4.10 A resident supported the draft proposals. He said it was overdue that Evanstown and Gilfach Goch should be united under one local authority preferable Rhondda Cynon Taff. 4.11 A resident protested at the lack of consultation with residents about the review of the boundary and listed the following points of view:- agreed that one authority should cover the whole area and all residents of Gilfach Goch (Evanstown is a part of Gilfach Goch) should be consulted on which authority that should be. He wished to draw the Commission’s attention to the fact that not all residents are happy with levels of services provided by current authorities and perhaps his suggestions would reflect residents’ opinions. 4.12 A resident described the historical problems encountered by the people of Evanstown and also referred to the current financial problems of Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council. He said Gilfach Goch had always been on the shirt-tail of whatever authority served it, and no matter which authority it ends up in the situation will not change dramatically. Never the less the residents would like the opportunity to choose whose shirt-tail they are on. 4.13 A public meeting was held on 24 March 1999 at the Community Hall in Evanstown to discuss the Commission’s Draft Proposals. Approximately 55 residents attended the meeting. Mr John Stephens and Mrs Eirwen Hill, officers of the Commission, attended by invitation. Most of the points raised related to the following: i. Complaints about the lack of consultation about the review; ii. Objections to the Commission’s decision not to hold a referendum; iii. Objections to the Commission’s decision to prepare draft recommendations without being aware of the wishes of the residents; iv. Criticisms of the administrative and financial problems in Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council; v. Concerns about the 12% increase in the bands of council tax recently announced by Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council; vi. Complaints about the lack of support from the county borough councillor representing Ogmore Valley (Evanstown) and the MP representing the constituency; vii. Criticisms of the policing in the area; viii.Comments about the representation submitted by the head teacher of Abercerdin School, which was referred to in the Commission’s report. 5. BALLOT OF ELECTORS 5.1 We considered the representations received calling for a ballot of electors. We agreed that the electors within the Evanstown ward of the Community of Ogmore Valley should be given the opportunity to express their wishes. In order to gauge the view of the electorate it was decided to conduct a postal ballot to ask the electors if they would prefer Evanstown to remain in Bridgend or become part of Rhondda Cynon Taff. 5.2 Following the Commission’s announcement of their decision to ballot the electors in Evanstown, further representations were received from Gilfach Goch Community Council and a resident. Their views were that the Commission should have conducted a similar ballot of the electors in the Community of Gilfach Goch. 5.3 We considered the representations asking that the electors of the Community of Gilfach Goch be also given the opportunity to express their views. There is no evidence however, from the representations received, that the position of Gilfach Goch within Rhondda Cynon Taff is anomalous in terms of effective and convenient local government and in our view the position of Gilfach Goch is unambiguous. In our Draft Proposals we considered that Evanstown should be included within the area of Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough. We concluded therefore that any ballot held should be limited to a test of public opinion within Evanstown in respect of our proposal. 5.4 The ballot of electors was carried out during August 1999 by Electoral Reform (Ballot Services) Limited on our behalf. The question asked: In which local authority do you wish the community ward of Evanstown to be placed?

Evanstown Nos. % Community ward

Ballot papers issued 712 100

Ballot papers returned 453 63.6

Ballot papers invalid 0 0

Electors expressing a 83.4 preference for (53.1 Evanstown to remain in 378 % of Bridgend elector ate)

Electors expressing a preference for 75 16.6 Evanstown to transfer to Rhondda Cynon Taff

5.5 The results of the ballot were communicated to Bridgend County Borough Council, Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council, Gilfach Goch Community Council and Ogmore Valley Community Council by letter on 28 September 1999. We considerd that following the ballot, the local authorities involved should be given a further opportunity to provide assessments of the effects on area based service delivery issues and a view on the implications of the retention of the services by Bridgend as against their being taken over by Rhondda Cynon Taff. 6. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOLLOWING THE BALLOT OF ELECTORS 6.1 Bridgend County Borough Council wrote to say that only the housing directorate had anything further to add to that already provided to the Commission. There are currently 96 council-owned properties in Evanstown: 24 two-bedroom properties; 53 three- bedroom properties; 4 four-bedroom properties; and 15 ground floor properties. There is currently one void property; this is a management void and is currently undergoing essential repair work. The property has been pre-allocated. 95 of the 96 properties are, therefore, currently occupied. There are no plans to demolish any properties in Evanstown at this time. There are currently 51 applicants on the Housing Register, although this picture is, of course, fairly fluid and would have to be reviewed at the time of any boundary change. Arrangements would need to be made to ensure that any applicants at the time of the change were not disenfranchised. The breakdown of the waiting list is as follows: 12 for one-bed properties; 18 for two bed properties; 20 for three bed properties; 1 for a ground floor property. 6.2 Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council set out the views of the Council's departments in respect of the services provided by them in the area. The Housing Services department considered that there seems to be no problem at present with demand for housing. The day to day management of the properties could be covered by the District Housing Office without difficulty. It was understood however that little or no work had been undertaken upon the council housing in Evanstown in recent years. If these properties were to be included in the housing stock of Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council it would increase the existing repair and refurbishment backlog. This would have a financial impact on Housing Subsidy and Capital Resources and this would affect the housing service provided in the area. No major issues are foreseen in servicing the area with regards to private sector housing grants. These would however be subject to the availability of financial resources from the National Assembly for the provision of house renovation and other grants. There would also be no particular problems in providing other services such as housing scheme, community alarms etc. In terms of Council Tax and Financial Services, the Authority would gain £291,000 gross if Evanstown was transferred however it cannot be determined with any certainty as to whether or not the Council would lose more income than it spends on services. In terms of Education Services, approximately 50% of the pupils at Abercerdin Primary School live in Rhondda Cynon Taff as it is the natural feeder school from Gilfach Goch Infant School. All the pupils from Abercerdin proceed to Tonyrefail Comprehensive School, which is in Rhondda Cynon Taff. A Service Level agreement between the two authorities is in place whereby Rhondda Cynon Taff provides Education Welfare, Special Education Needs, School Meals, Clothing Grants and Caretaking Services to Abercerdin Primary School. The Environmental Services department considered that additional applications for housing renovation grants would put an increased burden on Environmental Health Officers who will have to determine whether or not the property is unfit for habitation. The work of the grant monitoring section would also be increased. There will also be a requirement for other environmental services such as consumer advice, animal warden and pest control. The Planning department considered that although Evanstown was not an intrinsic part of Gilfach Goch it does have significant practical links with Gilfach Goch from which it cannot be truly considered in isolation. Both settlements have strong links with Tonyrefail, / and in Rhondda Cynon Taff for much of their needs. They considered that there were no planning delivery issues and in terms of the development plan it makes sense for the two settlements to be treated together. There would be short term implications and problems in terms of development work but these would not be insurmountable or of major significance. The Registration Service considered that it would be easier from the public's point of view if Evanstown was incorporated into the Registration District as there is often confusion about which register office they should attend. The current 'Scheme' would need to be amended requiring public consultation and the approval of the amended Scheme by the National Assembly. In a further letter the views of the Council's Policy Committee were reported. The Policy Committee recognised that in terms of service delivery efficiency and effectiveness there are merits in transferring Evanstown to Rhondda Cynon Taff but this is outweighed by the overwhelming result of the referendum where local residents voted that Evanstown should stay with Bridgend. The Authority’s position is that the boundary should remain the same and Evanstown should remain in Bridgend. 6.3 Mrs Millicent Phillips, head teacher of Abercerdin School stressed again the importance of uniting the valley of Gilfach Goch into one community. Apart from the immense problems affecting the education of the children of not only Evanstown but also children from the Rhondda Cynon Taff side of the valley (which is within the catchment area), she felt that the opportunity to unite the area once and for all should not be missed. Mrs Phillips also raised again the issues, which she submitted at the initial stage of the review. Since the new unitary authorities were formed, the school has encountered many administrative difficulties because two local authorities provided services. Mrs Phillips explained in detail the difficulties of administering the school, highlighting problems in providing special needs education, nursery facilities, health and welfare, school meals, sport and other services. She submitted an extract from a recent report by the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales (OHMCI), which recognised the problems that arose at the school because of the need to report to two local authorities. Mrs Phillips summed up by saying that Abercerdin School and Evanstown were located in the wrong authority. In addition to her initial comments, Mrs Phillips reported on a meeting, which was held with the Directors of Education for Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taff. It was decided that as a result of the extremely difficult position the school was in, which was making the management of the school virtually impossible, the services of providing education (i.e. finance, IT, maintenance, welfare, health. special educational needs, school meals, policies and head teachers’ meetings) would be divided between the both local authorities. Mrs Phillips provided detailed accounts of the problems encountered with special needs, health, community education/sport, policing and the affects of the inclement weather in the valley. Mrs Phillips pointed out that her main concern is the education of the children and asked for this golden opportunity to be taken to unite the area to create one community. 7. ASSESSMENT 7.1 In our Draft Proposals report we noted that the geography of the area is a major contributory factor to the anomalous character of the existing boundary. The community ward of Evanstown is on the north-eastern periphery of the County Borough of Bridgend. The settlement is relatively remote from others within its own Community of Ogmore Valley and from other communities within Bridgend, with the direct road link being via Gilfach Goch in Rhondda Cynon Taff. We noted that there appears to be an affinity between the settlements of Evanstown and Gilfach Goch and a belief that both should be served by the same local authority. Prior to the reorganisation of local government in 1996 the boundary separated the districts of Ogwr and Taff Ely both of which were within the County of . Under that arrangement former county council services were provided to Evanstown and Gilfach Goch by Mid Glamorgan County Council. Since the reorganisation of local government those services have become the responsibility of two different unitary authorities. 7.2 We considered the initial representations made to us by Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Councils both of which consider the existing boundary to be anomalous. We noted that the present arrangement causes difficulties for both the authorities and that they work in partnership to provide service delivery to Evanstown. It appeared to us that despite the service level agreements between the two authorities some problems remain and we were not convinced that the arrangement allows for the most effective and convenient provision of local government services. We therefore proposed that the boundary be realigned so as to include the community ward of Evanstown within the area of Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council. 7.3 In terms of the provision of local government services to Evanstown, we noted the representation from Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council indicated that the proposed change may have initial financial and resource implications. In general, however, the representations received following the publication of our Draft Proposals appear to confirm the view that in the long term it would be more effective and convenient if all such services were to be provided to Evanstown by Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council. We have also considered the result of the ballot of electors in Evanstown who have clearly indicated that they wish to remain within the County Borough of Bridgend. Whilst such a ballot in itself is not a measure of the effectiveness or convenience of local government, in this case it is clear that the result of the ballot indicates the electorate’s satisfaction with the present arrangements. Given the remarks made in the representations we received and at the public meeting, we believe that the electorate has taken an informed view of the relative merits of service provision between the two authorities. 7.4 The result of the ballot indicates that the majority of the electorate in Evanstown are satisfied with the current arrangement whereby local government services are provided by Bridgend County Borough Council, either directly or by Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council through service level agreements. We recognise however that there are particular areas of service provision where the recipients of the services are of the view that problems exist. We consider that many, if not all, of these problems can be overcome by the two principal authorities working together with the service recipients to keep the service level agreements under review so that they continue to meet the needs of the inhabitants of Evanstown. 8. PROPOSALS 8.1 We have undertaken the review in accordance with the Act and give notification that we have no proposals for changing the boundary between the County Boroughs of Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taff. 9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 9.1 We wish to express our gratitude to the Bridgend County Borough Council, Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council and the Community Councils of Gilfach Goch and Ogmore Valley for their assistance during the course of the review and to all persons and bodies who made representations to us. We also thank Electoral Reform (Ballot) Services Limited for their work in conducting the postal ballot on our behalf. 10. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT 10.1 Having completed our review of part of the boundary between the County Boroughs of Bridgend and Rhondda, Cynon, Taff and submitted our recommendations to the National Assembly for Wales, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation under the Act. 10.2 It now falls to the National Assembly for Wales, if it thinks fit, to accept them or to direct the Commission to conduct a further review. 10.3 Any further representations concerning the matters in the report should be addressed to the National Assembly for Wales. They should be made as soon as possible, and in any event not later than six weeks from the date that the Commission's recommendations are submitted to the National Assembly for Wales. Representations should be addressed to: Local Government Modernisation 2 Division National Assembly for Wales CF10 3NQ PROFESSOR E SUNDERLAND OBE LL MA PhD LLD FIBiol (Chairman) E F L FITZHUGH OBE DL (Deputy Chairman) MRS S G SMITH LLB (Member) R L KNIGHT BA MSc MRTPI (Secretary) April 2000