Quick viewing(Text Mode)

RCT Final Report

RCT Final Report

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

REVIEW OF BOUNDARIES IN THE OF CYNON TAFF

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

REVIEW OF COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES IN THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF RHONDDA CYNON TAFF

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. PROPOSALS

8. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

10. THE NEXT STEPS

The Local Government Boundary Commission For Wales Caradog House 1-6 St Andrews Place CF10 3BE Tel Number: (029) 2039 5031 Fax Number: (029) 2039 5250 E-mail: [email protected] www.lgbc-wales.gov.uk

Brian Gibbons AM Minister for Social Justice and Local Government Welsh Assembly Government

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 We the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales (the Commission) have completed the review of community boundaries in the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taff as directed by the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Public Services in her Direction to us dated 20 September 2006 (Appendix A).

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 We propose that:

S the boundary between the Communities of Pont-y-clun and the Communities of and be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix D; S the boundary between the Communities of and the Community of Pont-y-clun be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendices E and G.

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 community boundaries. 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 4 January 2007 to The Community Councils of Llanharry, Llanharan, Pont-y-clun, Llantrisant, , and (the Pen-y-waun community does not have a community council), the Member of Parliament for the local constituency, the Assembly Members for the area and other interested parties to inform them of our intention to conduct the review and to request their preliminary views. Prior to the start of the review the Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council provided a number of suggestions for community boundary changes. A list of these was enclosed with this initial letter (Appendix B). We also publicised our intention to conduct the review in local newspapers circulating in the area and asked the Councils to display public notices. Notification of the start of the review and the closing date for representations to be made (8 March 2007) was given on the web sites of both the Commission and the Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council.

- 1 -

4. DRAFT PROPOSALS

4.1 In response to our initial invitation, we received representations from Llanharry Community Council, Llanharan Community Council, Pont-y-clun Community Council, Llantrisant Community Council, Hirwaun Community Council and Rhigos Community Council, and a number of residents. In our Draft Proposals published on 23 August 2008, we considered the issues raised in the representations.

4.2 Suggested changes to community boundaries were made in the following areas: Llanharan, Llanharry, Llantrisant, Pont-y-clun, Hirwaun and Pen-y-waun.

Pont-y-clun / Llanharan / Llantrisant

4.3 Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council suggested that Ynysddu (from the Llanharan ward of Llanharan Community) and Pant y Dderwen (from the ward of Llantrisant Community) be brought within the area of Community. In our Draft Proposals report we noted the survey carried out by Llanharan Community Council of all 270 houses in Ynysddu whereby 83 % of returned surveys supported a move into Pontyclun.

4.4 We considered that both the Ynysddu and Pant y Dderwen areas appear to have more of a community of interest with Pont-y-clun than with either Llanharan and Llantrisant respectively. We determined that the suggested boundary followed clearly defined geographical features. We were of the view that the suggested changes would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government and therefore proposed a change to the boundary between the Community of Pont-y- clun and the Community of Llanharan and a change to the boundary between the Community of Pont-y-clun and the Community of Llantrisant.

Llanharry / Pont-y-clun

4.5 In our Draft Proposals report we noted Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council’s suggestion that Clos Brenin be transferred from the Tyle-garw ward of the Community of Llanharry to the Community of Pont-y-clun. We also noted that we did not receive any representations in respect of this suggestion.

4.6 We noted that the only access to Clos Brenin was via Pont-y-clun Community and that Clos Brenin appeared to have more of a community of interest with the Community of Pont-y-clun than with the Community of Llanharry. We were of the view that the suggested changes would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government and therefore proposed a change to the boundary between the Community of Pont-y-clun and the Community of Llanharry.

4.7 In our report we also considered Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council’s suggestion that Elms Farm and a section of the adjacent housing estate be transferred from the ward of the Community of Pont-y-clun to the Community of Llanharry. Following a site visit to the area we considered that Elms Farm and the adjacent housing estate appeared to have more of an affinity with the Community of Pont-y-clun than with the Community of Llanharry. We noted that the housing estate was split between the two Communities and that some of the

- 2 -

houses appeared to be straddling the existing boundary. We also noted that the suggested boundary follows clearly defined geographical features. We were of the view that the suggested changes would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government and therefore proposed a change to the boundary between the Community of Pont-y-clun and the Community of Llanharry.

4.8 In our report we noted however that the proposed change to the boundary between Llanharry and Pont-y-clun in the area of Elms Farm would leave a small area of housing at Castell-y-mwnws at the edge of the Community of Pont-y-clun. We welcomed views on the appropriateness of extending the proposed boundary so as to also include this area within the Community of Llanharry.

Hirwaun / Pen-y-waun

4.9 In our Draft Proposals report we considered Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council’s suggestion that Trenant, part of Hirwaun Road, Montana Park and Trewaun be transferred from the Community of Pen-y-waun to the Community of Hirwaun. We also considered the suggestion made by Hirwaun Community Council to revert to the original boundary which was the natural watercourse dividing Pen-y- waun and Hirwaun communities. From the information we were given it was not clear where the boundary suggested by Hirwaun Community Council would lie. We noted that the existing boundary between Pen-y-waun and Hirwaun was defined by the Cynon (Communities) Order 1981. It was this order that created the communities of Pen-y-waun and Hirwaun. Previously there had been the communities of Penderyn and that were divided along the line of the Afon Cynon. We noted that there is a stream running alongside the Trenant estate which may be the watercourse indicated by the Council. We considered that this stream may provide an alternative course for part of the boundary suggested by Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council. We welcomed views on this matter.

4.10 In considering our Draft Proposals and following a site visit, we noted that the areas in question appeared to have an affinity with both Hirwaun and Pen-y-waun. We also noted that the boundary suggested by Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council followed clearly defined geographical features. We also noted Hirwaun Community Council’s concerns regarding the Communities First area status of Pen- y-waun and the effect that the transfer of approximately 200 dwellings would have on both communities. As we understood it the change to the boundary would not affect Pen-y-waun’s status as a Communities First area. The Community of Pen-y- waun does not have a community council so a concern about loss of precept did not apply. The change to the boundary would mean that Hirwaun Community Council would have to provide their services to a larger area but this would be offset by the increase in their precept. At Draft Proposals stage we were of the view that the suggested change to the boundary between the Communities of Pen-y- waun and Hirwaun was likely to be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government and we therefore proposed a change to the boundary.

- 3 -

5. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

5.1 In response to our Draft Proposals report we received representations from Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council, Hirwaun, Llanharan, Llanharry and Pont-y-clun Community Councils and two residents. A summary of these representations can be found at Appendix C.

6. ASSESSMENT

Pont-y-clun / Llanharan / Llantrisant

6.1 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed a change to the boundary between the Community of Pont-y-clun and the Community of Llanharan and a change to the boundary between the Community of Pont-y-clun and the Community of Llantrisant as initially suggested by Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council. In their response to our Draft Proposals, the Council suggested some changes to the proposals. They considered that a small additional area that lies to the north west of Pant y Dderwen and to the west of the railway line (as shown in Appendix D, shaded area B2) should be transferred from Llantrisant to Pont-y-clun. They also considered that the area to the east of Pant y Dderwen (the area that includes and a number of commercial properties) should remain within the Community of Llantrisant. They also suggested an additional boundary change to the boundary between the Communities of Llanharan and Llantrisant as shown in Appendix D, shaded area C.

6.2 We noted that the additional area suggested for transfer into Pont-y-clun and the area suggested to remain within Llantrisant are both uninhabited. In considering our Draft Proposals we were of the view that the residential area Pant y Dderwen appeared to have more of a community of interest with Pont-y-clun than with Llantrisant and were of the view that any proposed change should include this area within Pont-y-clun. We consider that the suggested amendment by Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council encompasses the essence of our proposal whilst requiring the transfer of a smaller area of land to realise the same benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government. We are of the view that the transfer of Pant y Dderwen and adjoining areas from the Community of Llantrisant to the Community of Pont-y-clun would be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government. We therefore propose the change to the area (areas B1 and B2) as illustrated on the map at Appendix D.

6.3 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed a change to the boundary between the Communities of Llanharan and Pont-y-clun to transfer the residential area of Ynysddu (area A, Appendix D) into Pont-y-clun. We have noted that Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council, Llanharan Community Council, Pont-y-clun Community Council and a resident of Llanharan all supported this proposal. We remain therefore of the view that the proposed change will be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government and propose the change to the area (area A) as illustrated on the map at Appendix D.

- 4 -

6.4 We have considered also the additional suggestion for an amendment to the boundary between the Communities of Llantrisant and Llanharan to transfer some properties on Llanelay Road into Llantrisant from Llanharan (area C on the map at Appendix D). We have made a site visit to the area and are of the view that the properties in question appear to have more of an affinity with the Community of Llantrisant than with their current Community of Llanharan. We consider therefore that the suggested change will be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government and propose the change to the area (area C) as illustrated on the map at Appendix D.

Llanharry / Pont-y-clun

6.5 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed two changes to the boundary between the Community of Pont-y-clun and the Community of Llanharry. The first of these changes (as illustrated on the map at Appendix E) proposed that the residential area of Clos Brenin be transferred from the Tyle-garw ward of the Community of Llanharry to the Community of Pont-y-clun. This proposal was supported in the representations received from Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council and Pont-y-clun Community Council and no objections were received. We remain therefore of the view that the proposed change will be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government and propose the change to the area as illustrated on the map at Appendix E.

6.6 The second change we proposed to the boundary between the Community of Pont- y-clun and the Community of Llanharry was in respect of the Elms Farm Estate that currently straddles the boundary between the two communities. We proposed a change to the boundary that would include the whole of the Estate within the Community of Llanharry. We noted however the proximity to the new boundary of the small area of housing at Castell-y-mwnws. We welcomed views on the appropriateness of extending the proposed boundary so as to also include this area within the Community of Llanharry. In response Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council suggested extending this boundary to include Castell-y-mwnws and Llwyna Farm as illustrated on the map at Appendix F. We have noted however that Pont-y-clun Community Council although welcoming our proposal in respect of the Elms Farm Estate objected to the further extension in respect of Castell-y-mwnws. Furthermore we noted that Pont-y-clun Community Council had surveyed the residents of Castell-y-mwnws and found those who responded were unanimous in their wish to remain within the Community of Pont-y-clun. Whilst we remain of the view that our proposal in respect the boundary in this area would be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government we do not consider that the extended boundary proposed by Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council would provide a similar benefit. We therefore propose the change to the boundary between the Community of Llanharry and the Community of Pont-y-clun as illustrated on the map at Appendix G.

Hirwaun / Pen-y-waun

6.7 In our Draft Proposals report we considered the change to the boundary between the Communities of Pen-y-waun and Hirwaun that was initially suggested by Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council. At that stage we noted that the

- 5 -

areas in question appeared to have a community of interest with both Hirwaun and Pen-y-waun and that the suggested change was likely to be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government and we therefore proposed a change to the boundary. We have noted that in their responses to our Draft Proposals both Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council and the Community Council for Hirwaun both strongly objected to the proposed change on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the community in terms of the benefits that are currently provided to the area under review through the Communities First Programme. We have also noted that we received no representations supporting the proposed change.

6.8 As stated at 4.10 above at our Draft Proposals stage we considered the change to the boundary would not affect Pen-y-waun’s status as a Communities First area. We have discussed this issue with the Communities First Division of the Welsh Assembly Government and we now understand that the status of the area suggested to be transferred from Pen-y-waun to Hirwaun is not so clear cut. The Pen-y-waun Communities First area is defined by the Pen-y-waun Electoral Division which consists of the Community of Pen-y-waun. A change to the boundary of the Community of Pen-y-waun would result in a consequential change to the boundary of the Pen-y-waun Electoral Division. As a result of this change the Welsh Assembly Government would consider whether or not the transferred area should be allowed to retain Communities First status. The suggested change would therefore not affect Pen-y-waun’s status as a Communities First area but as a result the area to be transferred out of Pen-y-waun may no longer fall within a Communities First area.

6.9 Having considered all of the information provided to us we are now of the view that a change to the boundary between the Communities of Pen-y-waun and Hirwaun would not be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government. We therefore make no proposals for changing the community boundaries in this area.

7. PROPOSALS

7.1 Having considered all of the evidence available to us we propose that the boundaries of the Communities of Pont-y-clun, Llanharan, Llantrisant and Llanharry should be realigned in the area under review to follow the boundaries shown in green on the maps at Appendices D, E and G.

7.2 Detailed maps to a larger scale showing the proposed new boundaries can be inspected at the offices of the Rhondda, Cynon, Taff County Borough Council and at the office of the Commission in Cardiff.

8. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS

8.1 In considering the various changes to the community boundaries it was also necessary for us to take account of the effects on the electoral arrangements for community councils and the principal authority, which would result from these changes. This section of our report details our proposals for consequential

- 6 -

changes to the electoral arrangements. The electoral statistics used in this report were provided by Rhondda, Cynon, Taff County Borough Council. In accordance with Schedule 11 we are required to have regard to any change in the number or distribution of the local government electors likely to take place within the period of five years immediately following the consideration. We have sought information on this matter from the principal council, but no information has been received. We have however noted that some of the representations we have received (from the principal council and others) describe such changes attributable for example to new housing developments likely to take, and we have taken this into account.

Community Council Electoral Arrangements

8.2 The Community of Pont-y-clun is currently divided, for Community electoral purposes, into the community wards of Cefnyrhendy, Groes-faen, Maes-y-felin and . The following table shows the number of electors and councillors for each ward.

Community Ward Electors Councillors E/C* Pont-y-clun Cefnyrhendy 2,362 3 787 Groes-faen 490 1 490 Maes-y-felin 1,692 4 423 Miskin 547 2 274 5,091 10 509 * Electors per Councillor

8.3 Under our proposals the number of electors in the Cefnyrhendy ward will rise by 575 to 2,937 electors and the Maes-y-felin ward will rise by 161 to 1,853 electors. In our Draft Proposals report we noted that in order to maintain a similar level of representation to that which currently exists within the Community of Pont-y-clun it would be necessary to increase the number of councillors by 1 to 11. We also considered that the number of councillors should be allocated in proportion to the number of electors and proposed a redistribution of councillors between the Cefnyrhendy and Miskin wards. Both Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council and Pont-y-clun Community Council in their representations supported the increase in the number of councillors. We therefore proposed the electoral arrangements for the Community of Pont-y-clun to be as follows:

Community Ward Electors Councillors E/C Pont-y-clun Cefnyrhendy 2,937 5 587 Groes-faen 490 1 490 Maes-y-felin 1,853 4 463 Miskin 547 1 547 5,827 11 530

8.4 In their further representation Pont-y-clun Community Council suggested a change to the boundary between the Cefnyrhendy and Miskin wards to separate the ‘old’ and ‘new’ residential developments in the area. They suggested that with this change the additional councillor could then be allocated to the Miskin ward rather than the Cefnyrhendy ward. We consider however that it would not be appropriate

- 7 -

to introduce such a change at this late stage of the review process. In any event it is our view that this would not constitute a change to the Community electoral arrangements that is consequential to the change being proposed to the Community boundary. We consider that the change being proposed by Pont-y-clun Community Council is a substantive change in the electoral arrangements and as such would require a review either by the principal council (Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council) under section 57(4) of the Act or, at the request of the Community Council, by the Commission under section 57(5) of the Act. We consider moreover that under the existing warding configuration the electoral arrangements we proposed in our Draft Proposals report are appropriate for the Community of Pont-y-clun. We therefore propose the arrangements as detailed at 8.3 above as our Final Proposals.

8.5 The Community of Llanharan is currently divided, for Community electoral purposes, into the community wards of , Llanharan and . The following table shows the number of electors and councillors for each ward.

Community Ward Electors Councillors E/C Llanharan Brynna 1,998 6 333 Llanharan 2,773 6 462 Llanilid 698 2 349 5,469 14 391

8.6 Under our proposals the number of electors in the Llanharan ward will reduce by 497 to 2,276 electors. In our Draft Proposals report we noted that in order to maintain a similar level of representation to that which currently exists within the Community of Llanharan it would be necessary to reduce the number of councillors by 1 to 13. We also considered that the number of councillors should be allocated in proportion to the number of electors and proposed that the reduction in the number of councillors should take place in the Brynna ward. Both Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council and Llanharan Community Council in their representations opposed the proposed decrease in the number of councillors because of proposed residential developments in the Brynna ward. We have considered this forecasted increase in the number of electors and are of the view that a reduction in the number of councillors representing the Community of Llanharan would not be appropriate. We therefore propose no change to the electoral arrangements for the Community of Llanharan.

8.7 The Community of Llantrisant is currently divided, for Community electoral purposes, into the community wards of , Talbot Green, Town and Tyn-y- nant. The following table shows the number of electors and councillors for each ward.

Community Ward Electors Councillors E/C Llantrisant Beddau 3,114 4 779 Talbot Green 2,052 2 1,026 Town 3,483 4 871 Tyn-y-nant 2,460 3 820 11,109 13 855

- 8 -

8.8 Under our proposals the number of electors in the Talbot Green ward will reduce by 78 to 1,974 electors. We noted that no change is necessary in the number of councillors in order to maintain a similar level of representation to that which currently exists within the Community of Llantrisant. We are also of the view that the allocation of councillors that currently exists for each ward remains in proportion to the number of electors. We therefore propose the electoral arrangements for the Community of Llantrisant remain as follows:

Community Ward Electors Councillors E/C Llantrisant Beddau 3,114 4 779 Talbot Green 1,974 2 987 Town 3,483 4 871 Tyn-y-nant 2,460 3 820 11,031 13 849

8.9 The Community of Llanharry is currently divided, for Community electoral purposes, into the community wards of Llanharry and Tyle-garw. The following table shows the number of electors and councillors for each ward.

Community Ward Electors Councillors E/C Llanharry Llanharry 2,008 8 251 Tyle-garw 540 3 180 2,548 11 232

8.10 Under our proposals the number of electors in the Tyle-garw ward will reduce by 161 to 379 electors and the number of electors in the Llanharry ward will rise by 72 to 2,080 electors. We noted that no change is necessary in the number of councillors in order to maintain a similar level of representation to that which currently exists within the Community of Llanharry. If the number of councillors were allocated in proportion to the number of electors, the electoral arrangements for the Community of Llanharry would be as follows:

Community Ward Electors Councillors E/C Llanharry Llanharry 2,080 9 231 Tyle-garw 379 2 190 2,459 11 224

8.11 In our Draft Proposals report we noted the discrepancy in the number of electors between the Llanharry and Tyle-garw wards and the high level of representation in the Community and welcomed any comments about the desirability of warding the Llanharry Community and reducing the number of councillors. In their representation Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council were of the view that the number of councillors should be reduced and that consideration should be given to removing the wards within the Community Council. We noted that Llanharry Community Council and other representations made no comments with regards to this suggestion. We consider that there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the changes proposed by Rhondda Cynon Taff would be of benefit in terms of effective and convenient local government. We therefore propose no

- 9 -

changes to the electoral arrangements of the Community of Llanharry. It remains open for Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council to conduct their own review of the electoral arrangements of the Community of Llanharry.

County Borough Council Electoral Arrangements

8.12 The Llanharan Electoral Division consists of the Llanharan ward of the Community of Llanharan and currently has 2,773 electors represented by 1 councillor. The proposed change to the boundary between the Communities of Llanharan and Pont-y-clun would mean the number of electors in the Llanharan Electoral Division would decrease to 2,276.

8.13 The Llanharry Electoral Division consists of the Community of Llanharry and currently has 2,548 electors represented by 1 councillor. The proposed change to the boundary between the Communities of Llanharry and Pont-y-clun would mean the number of electors in the Llanharry Electoral Division would decrease to 2,459.

8.14 The Pont-y-clun Electoral Division consists of the Community of Pont-y-clun and currently has 5,091 electors represented by 2 councillors. The proposed changes to the boundaries between the Community of Pont-y-clun and the Communities of Llanharry, Llanharan and Llantrisant would mean the number of electors in the Pont-y-clun Electoral Division would increase to 5,827.

8.15 The Talbot Green Electoral Division consists of the Talbot Green ward of the Community of Llantrisant and currently has 2,052 electors represented by 1 councillor. The proposed change to the boundary between the Communities of Llantrisant and Pont-y-clun would mean the number of electors in the Talbot Green Electoral Division would decrease to 1,974.

8.16 We are of the view that for all of the above electoral divisions the changes to the number of electors as a consequence of the proposed boundary changes are not so significant as, at this time, to require either an increase or a decrease in the number of councillors representing each electoral division. Within the next few years we are due to conduct a review of the electoral arrangements for all of the principal councils in Wales and we anticipate that we will receive directions from the Welsh Assembly Government to guide us in the conduct of the review. At that time we will look in detail at the electoral arrangements for Rhondda, Cynon, Taff County Borough Council and will take into account any changes that arise from these proposed changes to community boundaries.

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

9.1 We wish to express our gratitude to Rhondda, Cynon, Taff County Borough Council and the Community Councils for their assistance and to all persons and bodies who made representations to us.

10. THE NEXT STEPS

- 10 -

10.1 Having completed our consideration of the review of Community Boundaries in the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taff and submitted our recommendations to the Welsh Assembly Government, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation under the Act.

10.2 It now falls to the Welsh Assembly Government, 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 Welsh Assembly Government. They should be made as soon as possible, and in any event not later than six weeks from the date that the Commission’s recommendations are submitted to the Welsh Assembly Government. Representations should be addressed to:

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

MRS S G SMITH LLB (Chair)

D H ROBERTS BSc DMS MBCS MCMI (Deputy Chair)

REV. HYWEL MEREDYDD DAVIES BD (Member)

E H LEWIS BSc. DPM FRSA FCIPD (Secretary)

February 2008

- 11 - Appendix C

Summary of Representations Received in Response to the Draft Proposals

PONT-Y-CLUN / LLANHARAN / LLANTRISANT

Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council supported the proposal that Ynysddu and Pant y Dderwen be transferred into Pont-y-clun from the Communities of Llanharan and Llantrisant. However, they proposed an alternative boundary which would transfer a small additional area to the north west of Pant y Dderwen from Llantrisant into Pont-y-clun but leave much of the area to the east of Pant y Dderwen, including Y Pant School, still within the boundary of Llantrisant. They also proposed an additional change to the boundary between Llanharan and Llantrisant to transfer some properties on Lanelay Road from Llanharan into Llantrisant. In respect of proposals for changes to the electoral arrangements the Council agreed that the number of Councillors for Pont-y-clun Community Council should be increased by 1 to 11. They disagreed with the proposal that the number of Councillors for Llanharan Community Council should be reduced by 1 to 13 because of proposed residential development in the community ward of Brynna. The Council agreed that the electoral arrangements for the Community of Llantrisant should remain unchanged.

Pont-y-clun Community Council supported the draft proposals made by the Commission in respect to its neighbouring community councils. The Council agreed with the proposal that the change to the boundary should result in an increase in councillor representation. They considered however that as the only means of access to the new residential development (in the Cefnyrhendy Ward) is through the Miskin Ward it is this Ward that should see an increase in the number of councillors rather than the Cefnyrhendy Ward. In a further representation the Council suggested that the boundary between the Cefn yr Hendy and Miskin Wards of the Community needs to reflect the boundary of the new and old residential developments. To the east of the boundary would lie the enlarged Miskin Ward to include the new residential development. To the west of the boundary would lie the existing Cefn yr Hendy Ward.

Llanharan Community Council re-affirmed its original view that the Ynysddu estate should transfer from Llanharan into Pont-y-clun. The council however opposed the proposal to reduce the number of members for the Brynna Ward from 6 to 5 (with the Council reducing from 14 to 13 members) and requested that the number of councillors remain unchanged. The Council considered that the population of the Brynna Ward would increase substantially over the next two years with planning consents for 136 new houses having been approved in the area. They also pointed to ten sites in the area having been identified by Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council for possible future residential development.

A resident of Llanharan supported the transfer of Ynysddu from Llanharan to Pont-y-clun because the residents had voted in favour of the suggestion.

- 1 - Appendix C

LLANHARRY / PONT-Y-CLUN

Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council supported the proposed change to the boundary between the Community of Pont-y-clun and the Community of Llanharry to transfer Clos Brenin from the Tyle-garw Ward of Llanharry into the Maes-y-felin Ward of Pont-y-clun. In respect of the proposal to transfer the Elms Farm and adjacent housing estate from Pont-y-clun into Llanharry the Council agreed the proposal but would prefer that the proposed boundary be extended to include the small area of housing at Castell-y- Mwnws and Llwyna Farm as illustrated on the map at Appendix F.

Llanharry Community Council supported the draft proposal for the inclusion of a small area of housing at Castell-y-Mwnws to be transferred from the Community of Pont-y-clun into the Community of Llanharry.

Pont-y-clun Community Council supported the proposal to adjust the boundary between the Communities of Pont-y-clun and Llanharry so that the new residential development at Elms Farm is totally within the Community of Llanharry. However, they objected to the suggestion that the settlement at Castell-y-Mwnws be also transferred from their community into Llanharry. They had conducted a survey of the 13 dwelling in Castell-y- Mwnws and received 9 replies all stating that they wished to stay in the Community of Pont-y-clun.

A resident of Llanharan considered that the transfer of Tyle-garw from Llanharry to Pont-y-clun was reasonable and that it made common sense to transfer Clos Brenin from Llanharry to Pont-y-clun as the residents made use of the facilities in the Pont-y-clun Community. He also noted the proposal regarding Castell-y-Mwnws and suggested the occupants should be given the opportunity to vote on the suggestion.

HIRWAUN /PEN-Y-WAUN

Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council disagreed with the Commission’s proposed boundary change between Hirwaun and Pen-y-waun and the subsequent change to the current electoral arrangements. The Council supported Hirwaun Community Council’s concerns that “the proposals are detrimental to the Community and contain no merit in that the residents of Trenant and Trewaun would lose some of the benefits that they enjoy at present if the proposed changes go ahead. Also, that it would be impossible to fund the level and type of benefits that are presently provided under the Communities First Programme and the Council’s precept, even allowing for the increase in the amount of precept that the additional dwellings would provide”. Further the Council supported the concern of Local members that the reduction in the number of Penderyn members could undermine the representation of Penderyn within the Community Council and therefore its role and influence. They considered that the proposal to de-ward the Community Council would remove the guarantee of representation of Penderyn within the Community Council as members could come from anywhere in Hirwaun and Penderyn. As Hirwaun is much the larger element there would be a possible scenario of 14 members from Hirwaun thus championing its interests rather than Penderyn.

- 2 - Appendix C

Hirwaun and Penderyn Community Council considered the Commission’s suggested changes in the light of information they received from the Communities First Organiser for the and Trenant areas. They considered that the proposed change would see the residents of Trenant and Trewaun lose some of the benefits that they enjoy at present. They considered that it would be impossible to fund the level and type of benefits that are presently provided under the Communities First Programme from the Council’s precept, even allowing for the increase in the amount of precept that the additional dwellings would provide. They considered that they would either have to decrease the benefits that the areas receive at present or to increase the precept for the whole area accordingly, or a combination of both. They considered that the proposals were detrimental to the Community and they found it impossible see any merit in them.

- 3 -

Top View