LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES
REVIEW OF PART OF THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COMMUNITIES OF BRACKLA AND COITY HIGHER IN THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF BRIDGEND
REPORT AND PROPOSALS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES
REVIEW OF PART OF THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COMMUNITIES OF BRACKLA AND COITY HIGHER IN THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF BRIDGEND
REPORT AND PROPOSALS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW
4. DRAFT PROPOSALS
5. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS
6. ASSESSMENT
7. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS
8. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT
The Local Government Boundary Commission For Wales Caradog House 1-6 St Andrews Place CARDIFF CF10 3BE Tel Number: (029) 20395031 Fax Number: (029) 20395250 E-mail: [email protected] www.lgbc-wales.gov.uk
Sue Essex AM Minister for Finance, Local Government and Public Services The National Assembly for Wales
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 Communities of Brackla and Coity Higher in the County Borough of Bridgend in accordance with your directions to us dated 31/7/04 (Appendix A).
1.2 The section of the boundary under review separates the Communities of Brackla and Coity Higher in the County Borough of Bridgend and is shown on the maps at Appendix B and C.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 We propose that:
S the boundary between the Communities of Coity Higher and Brackla in the County Borough of Bridgend be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the maps at Appendix B and C.
S the boundary between the Coity and Pendre Wards of the Community of Coity Higher be realigned to follow the boundary shown in purple on the maps at Appendix B and C.
3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW
3.1 The purpose of the review is to consider whether, in the interests of effective and convenient local government, the Commission should propose changes to the present boundary. The review is being conducted under the provisions of Section 56(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 (the Act).
Procedure
3.2 Section 60 of the Act lays down procedural guidelines which are to be followed in carrying out a review. In line with that guidance we wrote on 23 September 2004 to Bridgend County Borough Council, Brackla Community Council, Coity Higher Community Council, the Member of Parliament for the local constituency, the Assembly Members for the area and the police authority for the area to inform them of our intention to conduct the review and to request their preliminary views. We enclosed a map showing a suggested change to the boundary and invited the Councils to submit any revisions they wished to make to the suggested 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.
- 1 -
4. DRAFT PROPOSALS
4.1 In response to our initial invitation, we received representations from Bridgend County Borough Council, Coity Higher Community Council, Brackla Community Council, Win Griffiths MP, and Carwyn Jones AM. In our Draft Proposals published on 8 April 2005, we considered the issues raised in the representations.
4.2 We noted that the suggested change to the boundary was fully supported by Bridgend County Borough Council, Brackla Community Council, Coity Higher Community Council, and Win Griffiths MP and that no objections to the change had been received.
4.3 We also noted that the suggested change to the boundary would bring into Brackla Community those parts of recent housing developments that are currently in the Coity Higher Community area but which are clearly part of the wider developments that have taken place within Brackla. It appeared to us that these areas have a community of interest that is with Brackla rather than Coity Higher.
4.4 We concluded therefore that the suggested change would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.
4.5 We noted the points raised by both Bridgend County Borough Council and Coity Higher Community Council in respect of a change to the boundary between the Coity Higher Community Wards of Coity and Litchard because of the new development at Parc Derwen. We were of the view however that such a change was beyond the remit of this review, as the directions specifically required us to review the boundary between the Communities of Coity Higher and Brackla. Nor did we consider that such a change could be proposed by us as a consequential change as the proposed change to the boundary only affects the Coity and Pendre Wards of the Community of Coity Higher. Moreover we considered that it would not be prudent to conduct a review of the electoral arrangements of the community until the development was substantially complete at which time it would be possible to consider the proportion of councillors to electors with a better degree of accuracy.
4.6 We considered therefore that a change to the boundary between the Coity and Litchard Community Wards would require a review to be undertaken at a later date by Bridgend County Borough Council under section 57(4) of the Act and should not be considered as part of this review.
5. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS
5.1 In response to our Draft Proposals report, we received representations from Brackla Community Council, Coity Higher Community Council and Bridgend Conservative Association.
5.1 Brackla Community Council fully supported the proposals. The Council wished to reserve their views concerning representation levels until the time of the next review of electoral arrangements.
- 2 -
5.2 Coity Higher Community Council reiterated its support for the draft proposals and noted the comments regarding the consequential arrangements particularly in respect of the Parc development which was not yet underway.
5.3 Bridgend Conservative Association confirmed that they were fully supportive of the Commission’s proposals.
6. ASSESSMENT
6.1 We have noted that all of representations received in respect of our Draft Proposals support the proposed change to the boundary between the Communities of Brackla and Coity Higher.
6.2 We consider that the representations have confirmed that the suggested change to the boundary would be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government.
7. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS
7.1 Under Section 54(1) (e) of the Act, the Commission may make proposals for changes in electoral arrangements for any local government area, which are consequential on any proposed change in local government areas. In our Draft Proposals report we considered the effects on the electoral arrangements for the community councils and the principal authority which would result from the proposed change.
Community Council Electoral Arrangements
7.2 The Community of Coity Higher is divided, for Community electoral purposes, into the Community Wards of Pendre, Coity and Litchard. We noted that the boundary between the Community Wards of Pendre and Coity (marked in black on the map) goes through the Badgers Brook / Badgers Mead estate. We proposed that this boundary be amended to terminate at the suggested new Community boundary (at the centre of the roundabout). The proposed amendment to the Pendre and Coity Community Ward boundary is marked in purple on the maps at Appendix B and C.
7.3 The following table shows the existing number of electors and the number of Community Councillors in each Ward of the Community of Coity Higher.
Community Ward No. of Electors Community Councillors
Coity 863 2 Litchard 1,835 5 Pendre 1,639 4 Figures supplied by Bridgend County Borough Council
7.4 We noted that the proposed amendment to the boundary would see the transfer of 218 electors from the Community of Coity Higher to the Community of Brackla. The 218 electors are split, 86 coming from the Pendre Ward and 132 from the Coity Ward. We were of the view that, despite these changes, the existing number of Community Councillors
- 3 -
allocated to each Ward would still provide an effective level of representation. We therefore proposed that no change be made to the number of councillors representing each of the three Wards. The following table shows the proposed number of electors and Community Councillors in each ward of the Community of Coity Higher.
Community Ward No. of Electors Community Councillors
Coity 731 2 Litchard 1,835 5 Pendre 1,553 4
7.5 The Community of Brackla currently has 7,564 electors represented by 11 Community Councillors. We noted that the proposed change to the boundary would increase the number of electors to 7,782. We considered in the Draft Proposals report that this increase in itself would not merit an increase in the number of Community Councillors representing the Community of Brackla. We noted however that, in proportion to the number of Community Councillors representing the Community of Coity Higher, the number of Community Councillors representing the Community of Brackla was low. We requested representations on this issue before considering our Final Proposals.
7.6 In response to our Draft Proposals report we received no objections to our proposals for the electoral arrangements for the Communities of Brackla and Coity Higher. We therefore confirm our Draft Proposals as our Final Proposals.
County Borough Council Electoral Arrangements
7.7 The boundaries of the Community Wards of Pendre and Coity are coterminous with the Electoral Divisions of Pendre and Coity and the boundary of the Community of Brackla is coterminous with the Electoral Division of Brackla. The following table shows the existing number of electors and the number of County Borough Councillors representing each Electoral Division.
Electoral Division No. of Electors Councillors
Brackla 7,564 4 Coity 863 1 Pendre 1,639 1
7.8 In our Draft Proposals report we noted that the proposed amendment to the boundary would see the transfer of 132 electors from the Coity Electoral Division and 86 electors from the Pendre Electoral Division to the Brackla Electoral Division. We considered that the change in the number of electors in the Brackla and Pendre Electoral Divisions was not sufficient to merit a change to the electoral arrangements. We noted that during our last review of electoral arrangements for the County Borough of Bridgend in May 1997 the Coity Electoral Division as proposed had the smallest councillor:electorate ratio of all of the Electoral Divisions within the County Borough of Bridgend. We had been informed that substantial
- 4 -
development would be taking place within the Coity Electoral Division and that the increase in the number of electors by 2001 would provide a more appropriate councillor:electorate ratio. We noted from the representations from Bridgend County Borough Council and Coity Higher Community Council that this development is only now taking place. We considered therefore that, as the development is now underway and the number of electors in the area is likely to increase, it would be appropriate to retain the existing electoral arrangements for this area. We noted that we will have an opportunity to look at this area again during our next review of the electoral arrangements for the County Borough of Bridgend which is due to take place at some time between May 2007 and May 2013. The following table shows the proposed number of electors and councillors for the Electoral Divisions affected by the change to the boundary.
Electoral Division No. of Electors Councillors
Brackla 7,782 4 Coity 731 1 Pendre 1,553 1
7.9 In response to our Draft Proposals report we received no objections to our proposal to retain the existing number of councillors for the amended Brackla, Coity and Pendre Electoral Divisions. We therefore confirm our Draft Proposals as our Final Proposals.
8. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT
8.1 Having completed our consideration of the review of the boundary between the Communities of Brackla and Coity Higher and submitted our recommendations to the National Assembly for Wales, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation under the Act.
8.2 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.
8.3 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 Department National Assembly for Wales Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ
- 5 -
MRS S G SMITH LLB (Chair)
J DAVIES ICSA IPFA (Deputy Chair)
D H ROBERTS BSc DMS MBCS MCMI (Member)
E H LEWIS BSc. DPM FRSA FCIPD (Secretary)
August 2005
- 6 -