LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Review of the Electoral Arrangements of the City and County of Cardiff

Final Recommendations Report

November 2020 © LDBCW copyright 2020

You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government- licence or email: [email protected]

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to the Commission at [email protected]

This document is also available from our website at www.ldbc.gov.wales FOREWORD

The Commission is pleased to present this Report to the Minister for Housing and Local Government, which contains its recommendations for revised electoral arrangements for the City and County of Cardiff. This review is part of the programme of reviews being conducted under the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013, and follows the principles contained in the Commission’s Policy and Practice document. The issue of fairness is at the heart of the Commission’s statutory responsibilities. The Commission’s objective has been to make recommendations that provide for effective and convenient local government, and which respect, as far as possible, local community ties. The recommendations are aimed at improving electoral parity, so that the vote of an individual elector has as equal a value to those of other electors throughout the City and County, so far as it is possible to achieve. The Commission is grateful to the Members and Officers of the Principal Council for their assistance in its work, to the Community and Town Councils for their valuable contributions, and to all who have made representations throughout the process.

Dr Debra Williams Chair

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES REVIEW OF THE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Contents Page Chapter 1 Introduction 2 Chapter 2 The Draft Proposals 3 Chapter 3 Summary of Final Recommendations 4 Chapter 4 Assessment 8 Chapter 5 The Final Recommendations 10 Chapter 6 Summary of Recommended Arrangements 36 Chapter 7 Responses to this Report 37 Chapter 8 Acknowledgements 38

APPENDIX 1 GLOSSARY OF TERMS APPENDIX 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP APPENDIX 3 RECOMMENDED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP APPENDIX 4 RULES AND PROCEDURES APPENDIX 5 SUMMARY OF DRAFT REPRESENTATIONS APPENDIX 6 CABINET SECRETARY FOR FINANCE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 23 JUNE 2016 - WRITTEN STATEMENT

1st Edition printed November 2020

The Commission welcomes correspondence and t elephone calls in Welsh or English. Mae’r ddogfen ar hon ar gael yn y Gymraeg. This document has been translated into Welsh by Trosol.

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 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Julie James, MS Minister for Housing and Local Government Welsh Government Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1. The Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales (the Commission) has conducted a review of the electoral arrangements of the City and County of Cardiff. This review was conducted in accordance with the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013 (the Act), specifically Sections 29, 30 and 34-36. 2. Pursuant to the Act, the Commission has completed the review of the electoral arrangements for the City and County of Cardiff and presents its final recommendations for future electoral arrangements. 3. This programme of reviews came as a result of the former Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government’s Written Statement of 23 June 2016, where the Commission was asked to restart its programme of reviews, with an expectation that all 22 electoral reviews be completed in time for the new arrangements to be put in place for the 2022 local government elections. The Written Statement can be found at Appendix 6. The rules and procedures the Commission follows can be found in the Commission’s Electoral Reviews: Policy and Practice [2016] and outlined in Appendix 4. A Glossary of Terms can be found at Appendix 1, providing a short description of some of the common terminology used within this report. 4. Section 35 of the Act lays down the procedural guidelines which are to be followed in carrying out a review. In compliance with Section 35 the Commission wrote to the Cardiff City and County Council (referred to as Cardiff Council), all the community and town councils in the area, the mandatory consultees and other interested parties on 26 March 2019 to inform them of the Commission’s intention to conduct the review and request their preliminary views. This consultation ran from 02 April 2019 to 24 June 2019. The Commission also made copies of its Electoral Reviews: Policy and Practice [2016] document available. 5. The Commission published its Draft Proposals Report on 14 January 2020 and requested views on the proposals. This consultation initially ran from 21 January 2020 and was due to end on 13 April 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the consultation was paused on 27 March 2020. The Consultation then re-opened on 15 June 2020 and closed on the 03 July 2020 to allow for the full 12-week consultation. 6. The Commission publicised the review on its website and social media channels and asked Cardiff Council to publicise the review and provided the Council with a number of public notices to display. These were also provided to the community and town councils in the area. In addition, the Commission made a presentation to both county, and town and community councillors to explain the review process and the Commission’s policies. The Council was invited to submit a suggested scheme for new electoral arrangements.

Page 1 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Chapter 2. THE DRAFT PROPOSALS 1. Prior to the formulation of the draft proposals, the Commission received representations from Cardiff Council, Cardiff Council Conservative Group, three community councils and five city councillors. 2. These representations were taken into consideration and summarised in the Draft Proposals Report published on 14 January 2020. The listed mandatory consultees and other interested parties were informed of a period of consultation on the draft proposals which commenced on 21 January 2020 and was due to end on 13 April 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the consultation was paused on 27 March 2020. The Consultation then re-opened on 15 June 2020 and closed on 3 July 2020. The Commission asked Cardiff Council to display copies of the report alongside public notices in the area. The Commission’s draft proposals proposed a change to the arrangement of electoral wards that would have achieved a significant improvement in the level of electoral parity across the City and County of Cardiff. 3. The Commission proposed a council of 77 members, an increase from 75. This resulted in a proposed county average of 3,158 electors per member. 4. The Commission proposed 28 electoral wards, a reduction from 29 existing electoral wards. 5. The largest under-representation (in terms of electoral variance) within the proposals was in Caerau (24% above the proposed county average). At present the greatest under- representation is in Butetown (139% above the proposed county average). 6. The largest over-representation (in terms of electoral variance) within the proposals was in Pentyrch and St Fagans (26% below the proposed county average). At present the greatest over- representation is in Cathays (21% below the proposed county average). 7. The Commission proposed 28 multi-member wards in the City and County consisting of nine two-member electoral wards, 17 three-member electoral wards and two four-member electoral wards. 8. The Commission proposed no changes to 16 electoral wards.

Page 2 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Chapter 3. SUMMARY OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS • The Commission received 52 representations from: one Community Council, three Members of Parliament, one Member of the Senedd, 11 representations from 22 city councillors three Political Party Groups within the Council, three interested bodies and 30 members of the public. • The Commission considered all these representations carefully before it formulated its recommendations. A summary of those representations can be found at Appendix 5. • The Commission recommends a change to the arrangement of electoral wards that will achieve a marked improvement in the level of electoral parity across the City and County of Cardiff. • The Commission recommends a council of 79 members, an increase from 75. This results in a recommended county average of 3,078 electors per member. • The Commission recommends 28 electoral wards, a reduction from 29 existing wards. • The largest under-representation (in terms of electoral variance) within the recommendations is Caerau (27% above the recommended county average). At present the greatest under- representation is in Butetown (145% above the recommended county average). • The largest over-representation (in terms of electoral variance) within the recommendations is Pentyrch and St Fagans (24% below the recommended county average). At present the greatest over-representation is in Cathays (19% below the recommended county average). • The Commission is proposing 28 multi-member wards in the City and County consisting of nine two-member electoral wards, 15 three-member electoral wards and four four-member electoral wards. • The Commission has proposed no changes to 19 electoral wards.

Page 3 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Summary Maps 1. On the following pages are thematic maps illustrating the current and recommended arrangements and their variances from the recommended county average. Those areas in green are within ±10% of the county average; yellow and hatched yellow between ±10% and ± 25% of the county average; orange and hatched orange between ±25% and ±50% of the county average; and, finally, those in red are over ±50% of the county average. 2. As can be seen from these maps, the new arrangements provide for a marked improvement in electoral parity across the City and County.

Page 4 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Page 5 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Page 6 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Chapter 4. ASSESSMENT Council size 1. The council size for the City and County of Cardiff has been determined by our council size policy and methodology. This policy can be found in our Electoral Reviews: Policy and Practice [2016] document. The methodology sets out a council size of 75 for the City and County of Cardiff. At present the size of the council at 75 members is in line with the methodology aim. 2. The Commission reviewed the electoral arrangements for the City and County of Cardiff in light of our methodology and took account of the representations which had been made. Having considered all the existing options, and Cardiff Council’s electorate projections, the Commission could not achieve the appropriate improvements within the maxima set out in its policy. The Commission considers that in the interests of effective and convenient local government, a council size of 79 would be appropriate to represent the City and County of Cardiff. Number of electors 3. The numbers shown as the electorate for 2019 and the estimates for the electorate in the year 2024 are those submitted to the Commission by Cardiff Council. The forecast figures supplied by Cardiff Council show a forecasted increase in the electorate from 243,196 to 263,904. 4. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has also provided its estimated number of persons eligible to vote but who are not on the electoral register. This showed an estimated 45,405 more people eligible to vote than the 2019 electorate. 5. The Commission is aware that the Welsh Government is legislating to extend the franchise to include 16 and 17 year olds and foreign nationals, not currently eligible to vote, at the 2022 local government elections. The Commission‘s Council Size Policy utilises the entire population to determine council size and these two groups were included in the Council Size deliberations. 6. While current 16 and 17 year olds are not in the existing electoral figures provided by Cardiff Council, those individuals will have been included in the forecasted figures provided by the Council. Consideration of these figures has been included in the Commission’s deliberations on its recommendations. 7. Foreign nationals are included in the census data provided by the ONS. Consideration of this data has been included as part of the Commission’s deliberations on its recommendations. Councillor to electorate ratio 8. In respect of the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward, there is a wide variation from the current county average of 3,243 electors per councillor ranging from 23% below (2,506 electors) to 133% above (7,550 electors). The determination of the council size above results in an average of 3,078 electors being represented by each councillor.

Page 7 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

9. In its deliberations the Commission considered the ratio of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected, with a view to proposing changes to ensure that the number of local government electors shall be, as near as may be, the same in every ward in the principal area. The Commission considered the size and character of the council and a wide range of other factors including local topography, road communications, and local ties. Judgement and Balance 10. In producing a scheme of electoral arrangements, the Commission must have regard to a number of issues contained in the legislation. The Commission’s recommended scheme has placed emphasis on achieving improvements in electoral parity whilst maintaining community ties wherever possible. The Commission has made every effort to ensure that the revised electoral wards, in the Commission’s view, are an appropriate combination of existing communities and community wards. 11. In some areas, because of the number of electors in a community or community ward, the Commission has considered the retention or creation of multi-member wards in order to achieve appropriate levels of electoral parity. This issue often arises in urban areas where the number of electors is too high to form a single-member ward. It also may arise in more rural wards where the creation of single-member wards would result in substantial variances in electoral parity. The Commission acknowledges the established practice of multi-member wards within the City and County of Cardiff and this is reflected in the Commission’s proposals. 12. The Commission has looked at each area and is satisfied that it would be difficult to achieve electoral arrangements that keep the existing combination of communities and community wards, without having a detrimental effect on one or more of the other issues that the Commission must consider. Electoral Ward Names 13. The Commission is naming electoral wards and not the places within the proposed electoral wards. In the creation of these final recommendations, the Commission has considered the names of all the electoral wards proposed in Welsh and English, where appropriate. For these final recommendations the Commission has considered names of either electoral wards or communities that appear in Orders, where they exist; those recommended by the Welsh Language Commissioner; and, in the representations it has received. 14. The Commission consulted with the Welsh Language Commissioner on the suitability of the names in their draft form prior to the publication of these final recommendations, with a particular focus on the Welsh language names. This recognises the Welsh Language Commissioner’s responsibility to advise on the standard forms of Welsh place names and specialist knowledge in the field. It must be clear that these recommendations are not proposals for changes to any place names. At each recommendation an indication is given of the Welsh Language Commissioner’s recommended alternative and, where they differ, the specific recommendation and why the Welsh Language Commissioner has proposed an alternative to the Commission’s recommended name.

Page 8 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Chapter 5. THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Commission’s recommendations are described in detail in this chapter. For each new proposal the report sets out: • The name(s) of the existing electoral wards which wholly or in part constitute the recommended ward; • A brief description of the existing electoral wards in terms of the number of electors now and projected, and their percentage variance from the recommended county average; • Key arguments made during the draft consultation (if any). Although not all representations are mentioned in this section, all representations have been considered and a summary can be found at Appendix 5; • The views of the Commission; • The composition of the recommended electoral ward and the recommended name; • A map of the recommended electoral ward (please see key at page 11).

Retained Electoral Wards 2. The Commission has considered the electoral arrangements of the existing electoral wards and the ratio of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected. It is recommended that the existing arrangements should be retained within the following electoral wards. Names displayed in bold within the list below denote the electoral wards where the existing geography and electoral ward names have been prescribed within Orders, and which the Commission is recommending to retain.

• Adamsdown • Llandaff North • Caerau • Penylan • Canton • Plasnewydd • Cathays • Rhiwbina • Cyncoed • Riverside • Ely • Rumney • Fairwater • Splott • Gabalfa • Trowbridge • Heath • Whitchurch and Tongwynlais • Llandaff

3. Whilst the Commission is recommending to preserve the geographical arrangements within the electoral wards listed above, it is recommending to introduce new electoral ward names for the following (names displayed in bold throughout the remainder of this report denote the Commission’s recommended electoral ward names): • The electoral ward of Canton to be given the Welsh Language name of Treganna and the English Language name of Canton. The Welsh Language Commissioner is in agreement with the recommended name. Page 9 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

• The electoral ward of Ely to be given the Welsh Language name of Trelái and the English Language name of Ely. The Welsh Language Commissioner is in agreement with the recommended name. • The electoral ward of Fairwater to be given the Welsh Language name of Y Tyllgoed and the English Language name of Fairwater. The Welsh Language Commissioner is in agreement with the recommended name. • The electoral ward of Heath to be given the Welsh Language name of Y Mynydd Bychan and the English Language name of Heath. The Welsh Language Commissioner is in agreement with the recommended name. • The electoral ward of Llandaff to be given the Welsh Language name of Llandaf and the English Language name of Llandaff. The Welsh Language Commissioner states that Llandaf is the form recommended in the national standard reference work, Rhestr o Enwau Lleoedd / A Gazetteer of Welsh Place-Names (University of Wales Press, 1967) and that preference should be given to the Welsh language name when the Welsh and English names differ by one or two letters. • The electoral ward of Llandaff North to be given the Welsh Language name of Ystum Taf and the English Language name of Llandaff North. The Welsh Language Commissioner states that Ystum Taf is the form recommended in the national standard reference work, Rhestr o Enwau Lleoedd / A Gazetteer of Welsh Place- Names (University of Wales Press, 1967). The Welsh Language Commissioner also proposed the English language form of Llandaf North. The Welsh Language Commissioner states that if the difference between the Welsh form and the English form consists of only one or two letters, the use of a single form is recommended, with preference being given to the Welsh form. Llandaf is a Welsh name (Llan (Church/Parish) + name of the river Taf) therefore, there is no need to double the letter ‘f’. • The electoral ward of Penylan to be given the Welsh Language name of Pen-y-lan and the English Language name of Penylan. The Welsh Language Commissioner stated Pen- y-lan is the form recommended in the national standard reference work, A Gazetteer of Welsh Place-Names. • The electoral ward of Rhiwbina to be given the Welsh Language name of Rhiwbeina and the English Language name of Rhiwbina. The Welsh Language Commissioner is in agreement with the recommended name. • The electoral ward of Riverside to be given the Welsh Language name of Glanyrafon and the English Language name of Riverside. The Welsh Language Commissioner is in agreement with the recommended name. • The electoral ward of Rumney to be given the Welsh Language name of Tredelerch and the English Language name of Rumney. The Welsh Language Commissioner is in agreement with the recommended name. • The electoral ward of Splott to be given the Welsh Language name of Y Sblot and the English Language name of Splott. The Welsh Language Commissioner is in agreement with the proposed name.

Page 10 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

• The electoral ward of Whitchurch and Tongwynlais to be given the Welsh Language name of Yr Eglwys Newydd a Thongwynlais and the English Language name of Whitchurch and Tongwynlais. The Welsh Language Commissioner is in agreement with the recommeded name. 4. In its Draft Proposals report the Commission proposed that the Communities of Cathays and Castle form a three-member electoral ward. In light of the representations received, in which respondents raised concerns about the contrast between registered electors (10,024) and population eligible to vote within the ward (21,309), the Commission has recommended that the existing arrangements are retained for the Cathays electoral ward. 5. In its Draft Proposals report the Commission proposed that the Community of Roath form a three-member electoral ward. In light of the representations received, in which respondents raised concerns about the contrast between registered electors (11,270) and population eligible to vote within the ward (15,461), the Commission has recommended that the existing arrangements are retained for the Plasnewydd electoral ward. Recommended Electoral Wards 6. The Commission considered changes to the remaining electoral wards. Details of the current electoral arrangements can be found at Appendix 2. The Commission’s recommended arrangements can be found in Appendix 3.

Page 11 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Creigiau/St. Fagans and Pentyrch 7. The existing Pentyrch electoral ward is composed of the Gwaelod-y-garth and Pentyrch wards of the Community of Pentyrch. It has 2,801 electors (2,869 projected) represented by one councillor which is 9% below the recommended county average. The electoral ward has an estimated population of 2,795 eligible voters. 8. The existing Creigiau/St. Fagans electoral ward is composed of the Creigiau ward of the Community of Pentyrch and the Community of St. Fagans. It has 4,181 electors (8,366 projected) represented by one councillor which is 36% above the recommended county average. The electoral ward has an estimated population of 3,960 eligible voters. 9. In its draft proposals the Commission proposed to combine the Communities of Pentyrch and St. Fagans to form an electoral ward. 10. The Commission received ten representations in response to the draft proposals regarding this area from Cardiff Council Labour Group, Cardiff Council Conservative Group, Cardiff Council Liberal Democrats Group, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Councillor Norma Mackie, Councillor Stephen Cunnah and Councillor Owen Llewellyn Jones. 11. Cardiff Council Labour Group, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Councillor Norma Mackie, Councillor Stephen Cunnah and Councillor Owen Llewellyn Jones all opposed the proposal to create a Pentyrch and St Fagans electoral ward due to the large geographical area and the distance between population centres. 12. Cardiff Council Conservative Group supported the new electoral ward of Pentyrch and St Fagans. 13. The Cardiff Council Liberal Democrats Group agreed that the new Pentyrch and St Fagans ward was logical but were concerned about the large geographic area the ward would cover. 14. The Commission recommends that the Communities of Pentyrch and St. Fagans are combined to form an electoral ward of 6,982 electors (11,235 projected) which, if represented by three councillors would result in a level of representation that is 24% below the recommended county average. 15. The Commission proposed the Welsh language name of Pentyrch a Sain Ffagan; and the English language name of Pentyrch and St Fagans. The Welsh Language Commissioner agreed with the proposed name. The Commission received no representations regarding the name. 16. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the Welsh language name of Pentyrch a Sain Ffagan and the English language name of Pentyrch and St Fagans. The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. Any comments on the recommended names can be sent to the Minister for Housing and Local Government. 17. The Commission acknowledges opposition to this recommendation. However, no other suggestions for improving electoral parity in the area were received. The Commission is satisfied that the increase in electoral parity enacted by this recommendation provides for an effective electoral ward.

Page 12 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

18. The Commission considers that this arrangement best addresses the existing inappropriate levels of electoral variance whilst creating easily identifiable boundaries and would provide for effective and convenient local government.

Page 13 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMENDATIONS REPORT

Page 14 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Radyr 19. The existing Radyr electoral ward is comprised of the Community of Radyr. It has 5,259 electors (5,562 projected) represented by one councillor which is 71% above the recommended county average. The electoral ward has an estimated population of 5,160 eligible voters. 20. In its draft proposals the Commission proposed that the Community of Radyr form an electoral ward represented by two councillors (an increase of one). 21. The Commission received ten representations in response to the draft proposals regarding this area from Radyr and Morganstown Community Council, Cardiff Council Labour Group, Cardiff Council Conservative Group, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Councillor Norma Mackie, Councillor Stephen Cunnah and Councillor Owen Llewellyn Jones. 22. All representations received supported the Commission’s Draft Proposal to increase the number of councillors representing the Radyr ward from one to two. 23. The Commission recommends that the Community of Radyr forms an electoral ward of 5,259 electors (5,562 projected) which, if represented by two councillors (an increase of one) would result in a level of representation that is 15% below the recommended county average. 24. The Commission proposed the Welsh language name of Radur and the English language name of Radyr. The Welsh Language Commissioner agreed with the proposed name. The Commission received no representations regarding the name. 25. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the Welsh language name of Radur and the English language name of Radyr. The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. Any comments on the recommended names can be sent to the Minister for Housing and Local Government. 26. The Commission agrees with the representations received for the area during the initial consultation period. It is the view of the Commission that this arrangement best addresses the existing level of electoral variance. The Commission considers that the recommended electoral ward shares a common identity and provides for an effective electoral ward, which would build on the established community, communication and social links within the area. 27. The Commission considers that this recommendation would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

Page 15 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Page 16 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Lisvane and Llanishen 28. The existing Lisvane electoral ward is comprised of the Community of Lisvane. It has 2,894 electors (6,256 projected) represented by one councillor which is 6% below the recommended county average. The electoral ward has an estimated population of 2,887 eligible voters. 29. The existing Llanishen electoral ward is composed of the Communities of Llanishen and Thornhill. It has 13,167 electors (12,971 projected) represented by four councillors which is 7% above the recommended county average. The electoral ward has an estimated population of 13,953 eligible voters. 30. In its draft proposals the Commission proposed to combine that the Communities of Lisvane and Thornhill to form an electoral ward. As a consequence, the Commission proposed that the Community of Llanishen form an electoral ward. 31. The Commission received 11 representations in response to the Draft Proposals regarding this area from Anna McMorrin MP, the Cardiff Council Labour Group, the Cardiff Council Conservative Group, the Cardiff Council Liberal Democrats Group, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Councillor Normal Mackie, Councillor Stephen Cunnah and Councillor Owen Llewellyn Jones. 32. Anna McMorrin MP, the Cardiff Council Labour Group, the Cardiff Council Conservative Group, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Councillor Norma Mackie, Councillor Stephen Cunnah and Councillor Owen Llewellyn Jones supported the proposed changes. 33. The Cardiff Council Liberal Democrats Group agree that the numbers make sense and agree with the removal of single-member wards, although the Group questions the merging of Lisvane and Thornhill without time to gauge the feelings of the communities involved. 34. The Commission recommends that the Communities of Lisvane and Thornhill be combined to form an electoral ward with 8,347 electors (11,628 projected), which if represented by three councillors, would result in a level of representation that is 10% below the recommended county average. 35. The Commission proposed the Welsh language name of Llys-faen a’r Ddraenen and the English language name of Lisvane and Thornhill. The Welsh Language Commissioner’s Place- name Standardisation Panel recommends the Welsh form Y Ddraenen, with the contracted form of the definite article. The Welsh names Draenen Pen-y-graig and Y Ddraenen both have some circulation as the Welsh forms for Thornhill. The name Draenen Pen-y-graig (abbreviated to Y Ddraenen by Welsh speakers) is older than the Thornhill housing development. Both forms seem to be equally used today in Welsh writing and the Place-name Standardisation Panel recommends adopting the form Y Ddraenen for Thornhill as it believed that Draenen Pen-y- graig may have actually originally referred to another smaller settlement at the top of the hill. The Commission received no representations regarding the name. 36. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the Welsh language name of Llys- faen a’r Ddraenen and the English language name of Lisvane and Thornhill. The Welsh Language Commissioner agreed with the recommended name. Any comments on the recommended names can be sent to the Minister for Housing and Local Government. 37. As a consequence, the Commission recommends that the Community of Llanishen form an

Page 17 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

electoral ward with 7,714 electors (7,599 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, would result in a level of variance that is 25% above the recommended county average. 38. The Commission proposed the Welsh language name of Llanisien and the English language name of Llanishen. The Welsh Language Commissioner agreed with the proposed name. The Commission received no representations regarding the name. 39. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the Welsh language name of Llanisien and the English language name of Llanishen. The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. Any comments on the recommended names can be sent to the Minister for Housing and Local Government. 40. The Commission acknowledges the representation made by the Liberal Democrats Group and their concerns that the residents of the affected communities have not had enough time to make their feelings known on the proposed changes. The Commission is satisfied that it has provided the requisite period for public consultation, both at the initial stage, and following publication of the Draft Proposals. 41. The Commission is of the view that the recommended changes to the Lisvane electoral ward, and the consequential change to the Llanishen electoral ward improve the levels of electoral parity and creates compact electoral wards with good communication links. The Commission acknowledges the high level of variance in the Llanishen ward; however, the Commission considers that the recommended Llanishen ward would achieve an appropriate level of variance in 2024, based on the estimated electorate provided by Cardiff Council. 42. The Commission considers that this recommendation would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

Page 18 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Page 19 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Page 20 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Butetown 43. The existing Butetown electoral ward is comprised of the Community of Butetown. It has 7,550 electors (10,046 projected) represented by one councillor which is 145% above the recommended county average. The electoral ward has an estimated population of 11,449 eligible voters. The Community of Butetown includes the Island of Flat Holm, which contains no electors. 44. In its draft proposals the Commission proposed that the Community of Butetown form an electoral ward represented by three councillors (an increase of two). 45. The Commission received 16 representations in response to the draft proposals regarding this area from Stephen Doughty MP, Jenny Rathbone MS, Cllr Norma Mackie, Cllr Stephen Cunnah, Cllr Owen Llewellyn, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, the Butetown Labour Group, Cardiff Council Labour Group, Cardiff Council Conservative Group, Cardiff Council Liberal Democrats Group, the Atlantic Wharf Residents Association and two local residents. 46. Stephen Doughty MP, Jenny Rathbone MS, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Cllr Norma Mackie, Cllr Stephen Cunnah, Cllr Owen Llewellyn, Cardiff Council Labour Group, the Butetown Labour Party Group and two local residents all supported the Commission’s draft proposals for Butetown. 47. Cardiff Council Liberal Democrats Group agrees with increasing the representation in the Butetown electoral ward; however, they question the need for three councillors and suggested a two-member arrangement. 48. Cardiff Council Conservative Group supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals to increase the number of councillors for Butetown from one to three. 49. The Atlantic Wharf Residents Association supported the Commission’s Draft Proposal to increase the number of councillors representing the Butetown ward from one to three. They also proposed creating two new wards which would see one member representing the newly developed area of Cardiff Bay and two members representing the rest of Butetown.

50. The Commission recommends that the Community of Butetown forms an electoral ward of 7,550 electors (10,046 projected), which if represented by three councillors (an increase of two) would result in a level of representation that is 18% below the recommended county average. 51. The Commission proposed the single name of Butetown. The Welsh Language Commissioner considered the name and proposed the Welsh Language name of Tre-biwt. The Welsh Language Commissioner’s Place-names Standardisation Panel recognises that the coined Welsh form, Tre-biwt, has become well-established and is in common use. The Commission received two representations regarding the name. 52. Two local residents proposed that the Welsh form of Tre-biwt be adopted for the ward, as the Welsh form was being increasingly recognised by locals within the City and is already in use by many institutions when referring to the area. 53. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the single name of Butetown. The Welsh Language Commissioner recognises that the coined Welsh form, Tre-biwt, has Page 21 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

become well established and is in common use. Entities within the local area are known to use Tre-biwt and Butetown on their websites. However, Cardiff Council has not yet officially adopted the Welsh form. The Welsh Language Commissioner recognises both forms of the name, and the Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the single name of Butetown due to a lack of strong local support for the change. Any comments on the recommended name can be sent to the Minister for Housing and Local Government. 54. The Commission agrees with the recommendations to increase the number of councillors for Butetown made within the representations and the need for improvement in electoral parity. The inclusion of a third councillor for this ward ensures this arrangement addresses both the existing and projected levels of electoral variance for Butetown. 55. The Commission considered the representation from the Atlantic Wharf Residents Association of creating two new wards. However, this proposal would maintain an inappropriate level of electoral variance. It is the view of the Commission that a three-member electoral ward provides the best arrangement for the ward. 56. The Commission considers that this recommendation would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

Page 22 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Page 23 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Grangetown 57. The existing Grangetown electoral ward is comprised of the Community of Grangetown. It has 13,088 electors (15,439 projected) represented by three councillors which is 42% above the recommended county average. The electoral ward has an estimated population of 16,581 eligible voters. 58. In its draft proposals the Commission proposed that the Community of Grangetown form an electoral ward represented by four councillors (an increase of one). 59. The Commission received ten representations in response to the draft proposals regarding this area from: Stephen Doughty MP, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Cllr Norma Mackie, Cllr Stephen Cunnah, Cllr Owen Llewellyn Jones, Cardiff Council Labour Group, the Cardiff Council Conservative Group and a resident of Cardiff. 60. Stephen Doughty MP, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Cllr Norma Mackie, Cllr Stephen Cunnah, Cllr Owen Llewellyn, Cardiff Council Labour Group, Cardiff Council Conservative Group and a resident of Cardiff all supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Grangetown. 61. The Commission recommends that the Community of Grangetown forms an electoral ward of 13,088 electors (15,439 projected) which if represented by four councillors (an increase of one) would result in a level of representation that is 6% above the recommended county average. 62. The Commission proposed the single name of Grangetown. The Welsh Language Commissioner agreed with the proposed name. The Commission received one representation regarding the name. 63. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the single name of Grangetown. The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. Any comments on the recommended name can be sent to the Minister for Housing and Local Government. 64. The Commission agrees with the representations made to increase the number of councillors representing the Grangetown electoral ward. 65. The Commission acknowledges that this recommendation diverges from its policy of not recommending any new four-member wards. However, the Commission received no proposals to split the Grangetown electoral ward and any other alternative arrangement would result in a recommended electoral ward in excess of four members. 66. The Commission considers that the recommended electoral ward shares a common identity and would provide for an effective electoral ward which would build on the established community, communication and social links within the area. 67. The Commission considers that this recommendation would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

Page 24 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Page 25 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Llanrumney and Old St Mellons and Pontprennau 68. The existing Llanrumney electoral ward is comprised of the Community of Llanrumney. It has 7,694 electors (7,575 projected) represented by three councillors which is 17% below the recommended county average. The electoral ward has an estimated population of 8,485 eligible voters. 69. The existing Pontprennau/Old St. Mellons electoral ward is composed of the Communities of Old St Mellons and Pontprennau. It has 7,537 electors (10,410 projected) represented by two councillors which is 22% above the recommended county average. The electoral ward has an estimated population of 7,498 eligible voters. 70. In its draft proposals the Commission proposed that the Community of Llanrumney form an electoral ward represented by two councillors (a reduction of one), and that the Communities of Pontprennau and Old St Mellons form an electoral ward represented by three councillors (an increase of one). 71. The Commission received 15 representations in response to the draft proposals regarding this area from: Stephen Doughty MP, Anna McMorrin MP, the City Councillors of Llanrumney, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Councillor Norma Mackie, Councillor Stephen Cunnah, Councillor Owen Llewellyn Jones, Councillor Ed Stubbs, the Cardiff Council Labour Group, the Cardiff Council Conservative Group, the Llanrumney Labour Party and a local resident. 72. Stephen Doughty MP, Anna McMorrinn MP, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Councillor Norma Mackie, Councillor Stephen Cunnah, Councillor Owen Llewellyn Jones and the Cardiff Council Labour Group all opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Llanrumney. The respondents cited the proposed changes to the Butetown ward (reducing the number of Councillors in Llanrumney based on a population of 7,694, whilst simultaneously proposing an increase in the number of Councillors in Butetown based on an electorate of 7,550). They also proposed an alternative arrangement for the area to combine the electoral ward of Llanrumney with the Community of Old St Mellons. They also proposed to combine the Pentwyn electoral ward with the Community of Pontprennau. 73. The City Councillors of Llanrumney and the Llanrumney Labour Party opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Llanrumney. They cited the increase in councillors proposed in Butetown and the similar electorate figures as reason to retain the existing three-member arrangement. 74. The City Councillors also proposed that with some changes, Llanrumney could be represented by four members. They proposed to transfer ten streets from Old St Mellons into the Llanrumney ward which would increase the number of electors to justify the increase in representation for the ward. 75. They also proposed as an alternative to combine the electoral ward of Llanrumney with the Community of Old St Mellons stating that those communities are closely connected both historically and geographically. Consequently, they proposed that the Pentwyn electoral ward be combined with the Community of Pontprennau.

Page 26 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

76. Cardiff Council Conservative Group supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the area and opposed any arrangements that would split the existing Pontprennau and Old St Mellons electoral ward. 77. Councillor Ed Stubbs proposed to retain the existing arrangements in Llanrumney. 78. A local resident opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals to reduce the number of councillors representing the Llanrumney ward from three to two. 79. The Commission recommends that the Communities of Llanrumney and Old St Mellons form an electoral ward of 10,024 electors (10,793 projected) which, if represented by three councillors would result in a level of representation that is 9% above the recommended county average. 80. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the Welsh language name of Llanrhymni a Phentref Llaneirwg; and the English language name of Llanrumney and Old St Mellons. The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. Any comments on the recommended names can be sent to the Minister for Housing and Local Government. 81. The Commission, as a consequence, recommends that the Community of Pontprennau form an electoral ward of 5,207 electors (7,192 projected) which, if represented by two councillors would result in a level of representation that is 15% below the recommended county average. 82. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the single name of Pontprennau. The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. Any comments on the recommended name can be sent to the Minister for Housing and Local Government. 83. The Commission considered the representations received and agrees with elements of the proposals from Stephen Doughty MP, Anna McMorrinn MP, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, the City Councillors of Llanrumney, Councillor Norma Mackie, Councillor Stephen Cunnah, Councillor Owen Llewellyn Jones, Cardiff Council Labour Group and the Llanrumney Labour Party, who proposed to combine the Communities of Llanrumney and Old St Mellons to form an electoral ward represented by three members. 84. The Commission has not recommended the proposal to combine the electoral ward of Pentwyn with the Community of Pontprennau as this would have created a large electoral ward with an inappropriate level of variance at 30% above the recommended county average. 85. The Commission considers that this recommendation provides for improvements in electoral parity and would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

Page 27 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Page 28 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Page 29 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Pentwyn 86. The existing Pentwyn electoral ward is composed of the Communities of Llanedeyrn and Pentwyn. It has 10,741 electors (10,206 projected) represented by four councillors which is 13% below the recommended county average. The electoral ward has an estimated population of 11,872 eligible voters. 87. In its draft proposals the Commission proposed that Communities of Llanedeyrn and Pentwyn are combined to form an electoral ward represented by three councillors (a reduction of one). 88. The Commission received 33 representations in response to the draft proposals regarding this area from Stephen Doughty MP, Anna McMorrin MP, Jo Stevens MP, Jenny Rathbone MS, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Llanrumney, the City Councillors of Ely, Cllr Ed Stubbs, Cllr Norma Mackie, Cllr Stephen Cunnah, Cllr Owen Llewellyn Jones, Cardiff Council Labour Group, Cardiff Council Conservative Group, the Welsh Liberal Democrats Group, Llanrumney Branch Labour Party and 15 local residents. 89. Stephen Doughty MP, Anna McMorrin MP, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, the City Councillors of Llanrumney, Cllr Norma Mackie, Cllr Stephen Cunnah, Cllr Owen Llewellyn, Cardiff Council Labour Group and the Llanrumney Branch Labour Party all opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Pentwyn. The respondents proposed to combine the electoral ward of Pentwyn with the Community of Pontprennau to form a three-member electoral ward. 90. Jenny Rathbone MS opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Pentwyn electoral ward and proposed to retain the existing four-member electoral arrangements. Jenny Rathbone MS also proposed that the Pentwyn electoral ward be combined with the Community of Pontprennau if need be. 91. The Cardiff Council Conservative Group supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Pentwyn. 92. The Cardiff Council Liberal Democrats Group suggested that the Pentwyn electoral ward be re-named Pentwyn and Llanedeyrn in the English language and Pentwyn a Llanedern in the Welsh language. 93. One local resident opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals to reduce the number of councillors representing the Pentwyn electoral ward from four to three. 94. One local resident opposed the changes in Llanedeyrn and requests that the existing arrangements are retained. 95. Thirteen local residents supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals to reduce the number of councillors representing the Pentwyn electoral ward from four to three. 96. The Commission recommends that the Communities of Llanedeyrn and Pentwyn form an electoral ward of 10,741 electors (10,206 projected) which, if represented by three councillors (a reduction of one) would result in a level of representation that is 16% above the recommended county average.

Page 30 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

97. The Commission proposed the single name of Pentwyn. The Welsh Language Commissioner agreed with the proposed name. The Commission received one representation regarding the name from the Cardiff Council Liberal Democrats Group. 98. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the single name of Pentwyn. The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. The Commission considered the representation from the Liberal Democrats Group to re-name the ward Pentwyn and Llanedeyrn. However, the Commission recommends retaining the existing ward name due to a lack of local support for the change within the representations received. Any comments on the recommended name can be sent to the Minister for Housing and Local Government. 99. The Commission agrees with the recommendations made by the Cardiff Council Conservative Group and the 13 local residents. It is the view of the Commission that the Pentwyn electoral ward returns an appropriate level of electoral variance and creates a compact electoral ward with good community and communication links. 100. The Commission considers that this recommendation would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

Page 31 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Page 32 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Chapter 6. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ARRANGEMENTS 1. The existing electoral arrangements (as shown at Appendix 2) provide for the following levels of electoral representation within the City and County of Cardiff: • Electoral variance ranges from 23% below the current county average (Cathays) to 133% above the current county average (Butetown) of 3,243 electors per councillor. • Two electoral wards had levels of representation more than 50% above or below the current county average of 3,243 electors per councillor. • Two electoral wards have levels of representation between 25% and 50% above or below the current county average of 3,243 electors per councillor. • 14 electoral wards have levels of representation between 10% and 25% above or below the current county average of 3,243 electors per councillor. • 11 electoral wards have levels of representation less than 10% above or below the current county average of 3,243 electors per councillor. 2. In comparison with the existing electoral arrangements shown above, the recommended electoral arrangements (as shown in Appendix 3) illustrate the following improvements to the electoral representation across the County: • Electoral variance ranges from 24% below the recommended county average (Pentyrch and St Fagans) to 27% above the recommended county average (Caerau) of 3,078 electors per councillor. • Two of the electoral wards have a level of representation more than 25% above or below the recommended county average of 3,078 electors per councillor. • 12 electoral wards have levels of representation between 10% and 25% above or below the recommended county average of 3,078 electors per councillor. • 14 electoral wards have levels of representation less than 10% above or below the recommended county average of 3,078 electors per councillor. 3. As described in Chapter 4 and Appendix 4, in producing a scheme of electoral arrangements the Commission must have regard to a number of issues contained in the legislation. It is not always possible to resolve all of these, sometimes conflicting, issues. In the Commission’s recommended scheme the Commission has placed emphasis on achieving improvements in electoral parity whilst maintaining community ties wherever possible. 4. The Commission recognises that the creation of electoral wards which depart from the pattern which now exists would inevitably bring some disruption to existing ties between communities and may straddle community council areas. The Commission has made every effort to ensure that the revised electoral wards do reflect logical combinations of existing communities and community wards. 5. The Commission has looked at each area and is satisfied that it would be difficult to achieve electoral arrangements that keep the existing combination of communities and community wards without having a detrimental effect on one or more of the other issues that it must consider.

Page 33 CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Chapter 7. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT 1. Having completed the review of the City and County of Cardiff and submitted the Commission’s recommendations to the Welsh Government on the future electoral arrangements for the principal authority, the Commission has fulfilled its statutory obligations under the Act. 2. It now falls to the Welsh Government, if it thinks fit, to give effect to these recommendations either as submitted, or with modifications. The Welsh Government may also direct us to conduct a further review. 3. Any further representations concerning the matters in this report should be addressed to the Welsh Government. They should be made as soon as possible and, in any event, not later than six weeks from the date the Commission’s recommendations are submitted to the Welsh Government. Representations should be addressed to:

Local Government Democracy Team Democracy, Diversity and Remuneration Division Welsh Government Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ

Or by email to:

[email protected]

Page 34 LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

Chapter 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1. The Commission wishes to express its gratitude to the principal council, all the town and community councils and other interested bodies and persons who made representations to us during the course of developing these final recommendations. We, the undersigned, commend this recommendations report.

Dr. DEBRA WILLIAMS (Chair)

CERI STRADLING (Deputy Chair)

DAVID POWELL (Member)

JULIE MAY (Member)

THEODORE JOLOZA (Member)

SHEREEN WILLIAMS MBE OStJ (Chief Executive)

[November 2020]

Page 35 APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 1 – GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Commission The Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales.

Community (area) The unit of local government that lies below the level of the Principal Council.

Community Council An elected council that provides services to their particular community area. A Community Council may be divided for community electoral purposes into community wards.

Community / Town An area within a Community Council created for community electoral ward purposes.

County Average Elector to Councillor average for the principal authority area.

Directions Directions issued by Welsh Ministers under Section 48 of the Act.

Electoral wards The areas into which Principal Councils are divided for the purpose of electing county councillors, previously referred to as electoral divisions. Electoral review A review in which the Commission considers the electoral arrangements for a Principal Council.

Electoral variance How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward varies from the county average; expressed as a percentage.

Electorate The number of persons registered to vote in a local government area.

Estimated The estimated number of eligible persons (18+) within a local Population of government area who are eligible to vote. These figures have been Eligible Voters sourced from the Office of National Statistics’ 2015 Ward population estimated for Wales, mid-2015 (experimental statistics). Interested party Person or body who has an interest in the outcome of an electoral review such as a community or town council, local MP or AM or political party. Order Order made by an implementing body, giving effect to proposals made by the Principal Council or the Commission.

Over- Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward compared to representation the county average. APPENDIX 1

Principal area The area governed by a Principal Council: in Wales a county or county borough.

Principal council The single tier organ of local government, responsible for all or almost all local government functions within its area. A county or county borough council. Projected The five-year forecast of the electorate. electorate

Split Community A Community which is divided between two, or more, Electoral Wards.

The Act The Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013.

Town Council A Community Council with the status of a town are known as Town Councils. A Town Council may be divided for community electoral purposes into wards. Under- Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward compared to representation the county average. The City and County of Cardiff Appendix 2 Existing Electoral Arrangements

% variance Population No. OF ELECTORATE 2019 % variance from ELECTORATE 2024 No. NAME DESCRIPTION from Eligible to COUNCILLORS 2019 RATIO County average 2024 RATIO County Vote average 1 Adamsdown Community of Adamsdown (5,585), [7,374] 2 5,585 2,793 -14% 7,374 3,687 5% 9,249 2 Butetown Community of Butetown (7,550), [10,046] *includes Flat Holm 1 7,550 7,550 133% 10,046 10,046 186% 11,449 3 Caerau Community of Caerau (7,813), [7,772] 2 7,813 3,907 20% 7,772 3,886 10% 8,763 4 Canton Community of Canton (10,913), [12,239] 3 10,913 3,638 12% 12,239 4,080 16% 11,758 5 Cathays Communities of Cathays (9,084), [11,027] and Castle (940), [1,141] 4 10,024 2,506 -23% 12,168 3,042 -14% 21,309 The Creigiau ward of the Community of Pentyrch (2,135), [4,273] and the 6 Creigiau/St. Fagans 1 4,181 4,181 29% 8,367 8,367 138% 3,960 Community of St Fagans (2,046), [4,094] 7 Cyncoed Community of Cyncoed (8,343), [7,973] 3 8,343 2,781 -14% 7,973 2,658 -24% 9,715 8 Ely Community of Ely (9,521), [9,358] 3 9,521 3,174 -2% 9,358 3,119 -11% 10,729 9 Fairwater Community of Fairwater (9,562), [9,411] 3 9,562 3,187 -2% 9,411 3,137 -11% 10,099 10 Gabalfa Community of Gabalfa (5,205), [6,097] 2 5,205 2,603 -20% 6,097 3,049 -13% 8,544 11 Grangetown Community of Grangetown (13,088), [15,439] 3 13,088 4,363 35% 15,439 5,146 46% 16,581 12 Heath Community of Heath (9,473), [9,168] 3 9,473 3,158 -3% 9,168 3,056 -13% 10,120 13 Lisvane Community of Lisvane (2,894), [6,256] 1 2,894 2,894 -11% 6,256 6,256 78% 2,887 14 Llandaff Community of Llandaff (6,855), [6,968] 2 6,855 3,428 6% 6,968 3,484 -1% 7,295 15 Llandaff North Community of Llandaff North (5,817), [5,574] 2 5,817 2,909 -10% 5,574 2,787 -21% 6,544 16 Llanishen Communities of Llanishen (7,714), [7,599] and Thornhill (5,453), [5,372] 4 13,167 3,292 2% 12,971 3,243 -8% 13,953 17 Llanrumney Community of Llanrumney (7,694), [7,575] 3 7,694 2,565 -21% 7,575 2,525 -28% 8,485 18 Pentwyn Communities of Pentwyn (5,295), [5,031] and Llanedeyrn (5,446) [5,175] 4 10,741 2,685 -17% 10,206 2,552 -27% 11,872 19 Pentyrch Communities of Gwaelod-y-garth (894), [916] and Pentyrch (1,907), [1,953] 1 2,801 2,801 -14% 2,869 2,869 -18% 2,795 20 Penylan Community of Penylan (9,696), [9,929] 3 9,696 3,232 0% 9,929 3,310 -6% 10,703 21 Plasnewydd Community of Roath (11,270), [12,317] 4 11,270 2,818 -13% 12,317 3,079 -12% 15,461 Communities of Pontprennau (5,207), [7,192] and Old St. Mellons (2,330), 22 Pontprennau/Old St. Mellons 2 7,537 3,769 16% 10,410 5,205 48% 7,498 [3,218] 23 Radyr Community of Radyr (5,259), [5,562] 1 5,259 5,259 62% 5,562 5,562 58% 5,160 24 Rhiwbina Community of Rhiwbina (9,273), [8,771] 3 9,273 3,091 -5% 8,771 2,924 -17% 9,387 25 Riverside Communities of Pontcanna (5,137), [5,119] and Riverside (4,513), [4,497] 3 9,650 3,217 -1% 9,617 3,206 -9% 11,192 26 Rumney Community of Rumney (6,514), [6,658] 2 6,514 3,257 0% 6,658 3,329 -5% 7,029 27 Splott The Communities of Splott (4,975), [4,927] and Tremorfa (4,039), [4,000] 3 9,014 3,005 -7% 8,927 2,976 -15% 10,436 28 Trowbridge Community of Trowbridge (10,926), [11,289] 3 10,926 3,642 12% 11,289 3,763 7% 12,235 The Communities of Whitchurch (11,435) [11,255] and Tongwynlais 29 Whitchurch and Tongwynlais 4 12,830 3,208 -1% 12,594 3,149 -11% 13,393 (1,395) [1,369] TOTAL: 75 243,196 3,243 263,905 3,519 288,601 Ratio is the number of electors per councillor Electoral figures supplied by Cardiff City Council Population figures supplied by the Office for National Statistics

2019 2024 Greater than + or - 50% of County average 2 7% 4 14% Between + or - 25% and + or - 50% of County average 2 7% 4 14% Between + or - 10% and + or - 25% of County average 14 48% 14 48% Between 0% and + or - 10% of County average 11 38% 7 24% CITY AND COUNTY OF CARDIFF Appendix 3 Proposed Electoral Arrangements and Council Membership Variance from the Recommended County Average % Variance % Variance from from recommende recommende Electorate d County Electorate d County No Name Description No. of Cllrs 2019 2019 Ratio Average 2024 2024 Ratio Average

1 Adamsdown The Community of Adamsdown (5,585) [7,374] 2 5,585 2,793 -9% 7,374 3,687 10% 2 Butetown The Community of Butetown (7,550) [10,046] 3 7,550 2,517 -18% 10,046 3,349 0% 3 Caerau The Community of Caerau (7,813) [7,772] 2 7,813 3,907 27% 7,772 3,886 16% 4 Canton The Community of Canton (10,913) [12,239] 3 10,913 3,638 18% 12,239 4,080 22% 5 Cathays The Communities of Cathays (9,084) [11,027] and Castle (940) [1,141] 4 10,024 2,506 -19% 12,168 3,042 -9% 6 Cyncoed The Community of Cyncoed (8,343) [7,973] 3 8,343 2,781 -10% 7,973 2,658 -20% 7 Ely The Community of Ely (9,521) [9,358] 3 9,521 3,174 3% 9,358 3,119 -7% 8 Fairwater The Community of Fairwater (9,562) [9,411] 3 9,562 3,187 4% 9,411 3,137 -6% 9 Gabalfa The Community of Gabalfa (5,205) [6,097] 2 5,205 2,603 -15% 6,097 3,049 -9% 10 Grangetown The Community of Grangetown (13,088) [15,439] 4 13,088 3,272 6% 15,439 3,860 16% 11 Heath The Community of Heath (9,473) [9,168] 3 9,473 3,158 3% 9,168 3,056 -9% 12 Lisvane and Thornhill The Communities of Lisvane (2,894) [6,256] & Thornhill (5,453) [5,372] 3 8,347 2,782 -10% 11,628 3,876 16% 13 Llandaff The Community of Llandaff (6,855) [6,968] 2 6,855 3,428 11% 6,968 3,484 4% 14 Llandaff North The Community of Llandaff North (5,817) [5,574] 2 5,817 2,909 -6% 5,574 2,787 -17% 15 Llanishen The Community of Llanishen (7,714) [7,599] 2 7,714 3,857 25% 7,599 3,800 14% Llanrumney and Old St 16 Mellons The Community of Llanrumney (7,694) [7,575] and Old St Mellons (2,330) [3,218] 3 10,024 3,341 9% 10,793 3,598 8% 17 Pentwyn The Communities of Llanedeyrn (5,446) [5,175] Pentwyn (5,295) [5,031] 3 10,741 3,580 16% 10,206 3,402 2% 18 Pentyrch and St Fagans The Communities of Pentyrch (4,936) [7,142] and St. Fagans (2,046) [4,094] 3 6,982 2,327 -24% 11,236 3,745 12% 19 Penylan The Community of Penylan (9,696) [9.929] 3 9,696 3,232 5% 9,929 3,310 -1% 20 Plasnewydd The Community of Roath (11,270) [12.317] 4 11,270 2,818 -8% 12,317 3,079 -8% 21 Pontprennau The Community of Pontprennau (5,207) [7,192] 2 5,207 2,604 -15% 7,192 3,596 8% 22 Radyr The Community of Radyr and Morganstown (5,259) [5,562] 2 5,259 2,630 -15% 5,562 2,781 -17% 23 Rhiwbina The Community of Rhiwbina (9,273) [8,771] 3 9,273 3,091 0% 8,771 2,924 -12% 24 Riverside The Communities of Pontcanna (5,137) [5,119] and Riverside (4,513) [4,497] 3 9,650 3,217 4% 9,617 3,206 -4% 25 Rumney The Community of Rumney (6,514) [6,658] 2 6,514 3,257 6% 6,658 3,329 0% 26 Splott The Communities of Splott (4,975) [4,927] and Tremorfa (4,039) [4,000] 3 9,014 3,005 -2% 8,927 2,976 -11% 27 Trowbridge The Community of Trowbridge (10,926) [11,289] 3 10,926 3,642 18% 11,289 3,763 13% Whitchurch and 28 Tongwynlais The Communities of Whitchurch (11,435) [11,255] and Tongwynlais (1,395) [1,369] 4 12,830 3,208 4% 12,594 3,149 -6% 79 243,196 3,078 263,905 3,341 Ratio is the number of electors per councillor Electorate figures supplied by Cardiff Council Population figures supplied by Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2019 2024 Between + or - 10% of the proposed county average 14 50% 15 54% Between + or - 10% and + or - 25% of the proposed county average 10 36% 13 46% Between + or - 25% and + or - 50% of the proposed county average 2 7% 0 0% Greater than + or - 50% of the proposed county average 0 0% 0 0% APPENDIX 4 RULES AND PROCEDURES

Scope and Object of the Review

1. Section 29 (1) of the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013 (the Act) lays upon the Commission the duty, at least once in every review period of ten years, to review the electoral arrangements for every principal area in Wales, for the purpose of considering whether or not to make proposals to the Welsh Government for a change in those electoral arrangements. In conducting a review the Commission must seek to ensure effective and convenient local government (Section 21 (3) of the Act).

2. The former Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government of the Welsh Government asked the Commission to submit a report in respect of the review of electoral arrangements for the City and County of Cardiff before the 2022 local government elections.

Electoral Arrangements

3. The changes that the Commission may recommend in relation to an electoral review are:

(a) such changes to the arrangements for the principal area under review as appear to it appropriate; and

(b) in consequence of such changes:

(i) Such community boundary changes as it considers appropriate in relation to any community in the principal area;

(ii) Such community council changes and changes to the electoral arrangements for such a community as it considers appropriate; and

(iii) Such preserved county changes as it considers appropriate.

4. The “electoral arrangements” of a principal area are defined in section 29 (9) of the 2013 Act as:

i) the number of members for the council for the principal area;

ii) the number, type and boundaries of the electoral wards;

iii) the number of members to be elected for any electoral ward in the principal area; and

iv) the name of any electoral ward. APPENDIX 4 Considerations for a review of principal area electoral arrangements

5. Section 30 of the Act requires the Commission, in considering whether to make recommendations for changes to the electoral arrangements for a principal area, to:

(a) seek to ensure that the ratio of local government electors to the number of members of the council to be elected is, as near as may be, the same in every electoral ward of the principal area;

(b) have regard to:

(i) the desirability of fixing boundaries for electoral wards which are and will remain easily identifiable;

(ii) the desirability of not breaking local ties when fixing boundaries for electoral wards.

6. In considering the ratio of local government electors to the number of members, account is to be taken of:

(a) any discrepancy between the number of local government electors and the number of persons that are eligible to be local government electors (as indicated by relevant official statistics); and

(b) any change to the number or distribution of local government electors in the principal area which is likely to take place in the period of five years immediately following the making of any recommendation.

Local government changes

7. Since the last review of electoral arrangements the following changes to local government boundaries in Cardiff have taken place:

• The City and County of Cardiff (Old St. Mellons, Rumney and Trowbridge Communities) Order 2010. • The City and County of Cardiff (Communities) Order 2016.

Procedure

8. Chapter 4 of the Act lays down procedural guidelines which are to be followed in carrying out a review. In compliance with this part of the Act, the Commission wrote on 26 March 2019 to Cardiff City and County Council, all the Town and Community Councils in the area, the Members of Parliament for the local constituencies, Members of the Senedd for the area, and other interested parties to inform them of our intention to conduct the review and to request their preliminary views. The Commission invited the City and County Council to submit a suggested scheme or schemes for new electoral arrangements. The Commission also requested Cardiff City and County Council display a number of public notices in their APPENDIX 4

area. The Commission also made available copies of the Electoral Reviews: Policy and Practice document. In addition, the Commission made a presentation to both City and County and Community councillors explaining the review process.

9. In line with Section 35 of Chapter 4 of the Act, the Commission published its Draft Proposals Report on 14 January 2020, notifying the listed mandatory consultees and other interested parties of a period of consultation on the draft proposals would commence on 21 January 2020 and end on 13 April 2020. However, due to the Coronavirus pandemic, the Commission paused the Consultation on its Draft Proposals on the 27 March 2020. The Consultation was then reopened on the 15 June 2020 and ended on the 3 July 2020. The Commission met with Cardiff City and County Council Group Leaders and Chief Executive to discuss the Draft Proposals and the process of developing the Final Recommendations. The Commission invited the City and County Council and other interested parties to submit comments on the Draft Proposals and how they could be improved. The Commission also asked Cardiff City and County Council to display copies of the report alongside public notices in the area.

10. The boundaries of the recommended electoral wards are shown by continuous blue lines on the map placed on deposit with this Report at the Offices of Cardiff City and County Council and the Office of the Commission in Cardiff, as well as on the Commission’s website (http://ldbc.gov.wales).

Policy and Practice

11. The Commission published the Electoral Reviews: Policy and Practice document in October 2016. This document details the Commission’s approach to resolving the challenge of balancing electoral parity and community ties; it sets out the issues to be considered and gives some understanding of the broad approach which the Commission takes towards each of the statutory considerations to be made when addressing a review’s particular circumstances. However, because those circumstances are unlikely to provide for the ideal electoral pattern, in most reviews compromises are made in applying the policies in order to strike the right balance between each of the matters the Commission must consider.

12. The document also provides the overall programme timetable, and how this was identified, and the Commission’s Council Size Policy. The document can be viewed on the Commission’s website or is available on request.

Crown Copyright

13. The maps included in this report, and published on the Commission’s website, were produced by the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales under licence from Ordnance Survey. These maps are subject to © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction will infringe Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Any newspaper editor wishing to use the maps as part of an article about the draft proposals should first contact the copyright office at Ordnance Survey. Appendix 5

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOR THE COMMISSION’S DRAFT CONSULTATION ON THE REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARANAGEMENTS IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF CARDIFF

1. Radyr and Morganstown Community Council wrote on the 30 January 2020 to support the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Radyr electoral ward. The Community Council supported the increase in the number of councillors representing the ward from one to two.

2. Jo Stephens MP for Cardiff Central wrote on the 30 June 2020. Ms Stephens MP welcomes the proposal to reduce the number of councillors representing the Pentwyn electoral ward from four to three. She opposed the proposals to reduce the number of councillors representing the Cathays and Plasnewydd electoral wards from four to three. She recommends that Cathays retains its existing four-member representation, however she states that there could be an argument to increase the number of councillors to five, based on population growth in the ward. She proposed that the Plasnewydd electoral ward retains its existing four-member representation based on population growth.

3. Anna McMorrin MP for Cardiff North wrote on the 3 July 2020 to support the proposals for the proposed Lisvane and Thornhill electoral ward. She opposed the proposal to increase the number of councillors in the Pontprennau/Old St Mellons electoral ward from two to three. She does not believe there is sufficient justification for increasing the number of councillors for this ward as the latest population projections do not support the addition of another councillor.

4. Stephen Doughty MP for Cardiff South and Penarth wrote on the 3 July 2020 to raise his concerns about the Draft Proposals. He was concerned about the scale of the changes proposed and that the proposals could be seen as highly partisan, given the recommendations of one party were accepted in full. He also believed that greater consideration should be given to the population eligible to vote. He supported the proposals to increase the representation for the Butetown electoral ward from one to three, he also supported the proposed increase of one councillor in the Grangetown electoral ward. However, he is concerned about the proposal to reduce the number of councillors representing the Llanrumney electoral ward by one from 3 to 2 stating that the existing arrangements for Llanrumney should remain and that changes be deferred to a future Review when population changes are better understood.

5. Jenny Rathbone MS for Cardiff Central wrote on the 3 July 2020. She is concerned that the Review takes no account of the under-representation of residents from lower socio economic groups in Pentwyn and Plasnewydd, nor the changes to the electorate as a result of the Senedd Elections Act 2020 which extends the voting franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. She stated that the Pentwyn electoral ward generates more casework than any other ward in her constituency and that existing councillors struggle to deal with all the issues presented to them. She believed that Pentwyn should retain its existing four councillors, and if necessary,

Page 1 Appendix 5

the population could be increased by including the Community of Pontprennau in the electoral ward. She also requests that the Plasnewydd electoral ward retain its existing four-member representation. She also stated that the Cathays electoral ward has far more residents than are represented on the electoral register. Ms Rathbone however, supported the Commission’s proposal to increase the number of councillors representing the Butetown ward from one to two.

6. Councillors Norma Mackie, Christopher Weaver, Sarah Merry and Ali Ahmed (All Cathays) wrote on the 1 July 2020 in response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals Report. The Group took issue with how the Draft Proposals are predicated on high levels of population growth. The Group accepted the Commission’s Proposal to increase the number of councillors representing the Butetown ward from one to three, however, they believe an increase of one may be more appropriate. The Group also opposed the reduction of one councillor from the Cathays ward due to the actual population growth on the electoral register being higher than the predicted figures shown in the report. The group proposed that the Cathays ward retain its existing four- member representation, however, the group believed that this could be increased to five members to further improve the variation from the County Average. The Group also accepted the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Grangetown, Lisvane and Thornhill, Pentwyn and Radyr. However, the group opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Llanrumney, Plasnewydd, Pentyrch and St Fagans and Pontrennau and Old St Mellons. The Group proposed an alternative option for Llanrumney and Pontprennau and Old St Mellons wards by combining the Communities of Pentwyn and Pontprennau, and then the Communities of Old St Mellons and Llanrumney. The Group proposed that the Pentwyn and Pontprennau proposed ward would be represented by four councillors, and the proposed Llanrumney and Old St Mellons ward would be represented by three councillors.

7. Councillor Norma Mackie (Cathays) wrote on the 1 July 2020 to provide additional information regarding the high level of Licensing and Planning applications for the wards of Cathays and Plasnewydd which show these wards receive higher numbers of applications than other wards. She requested that the existing four-member arrangement be maintained. Councillor Mackie also suggested that the evidence could justify increasing the number of councillors to five.

8. Councillors Daniel De-Ath, Sue Lent, Mary McGarry and Pete Wong (All Plasnewydd) wrote on the 1 July 2020 in response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals Report. The Group takes issue with how the Draft Proposals are predicated on high levels of population growth. The Group accepted the Commission’s Proposal to increase the number of councillors representing the Butetown ward from one to three, however, they believe an increase of one may be more appropriate. The Group also opposed the reduction of one councillor from the Cathays ward due to the actual population growth on the electoral register being higher than the predicted figures shown in the report. The group proposed that the Cathays ward retain its existing four- member representation, however, the group believed that this could be increased to five members to further improve the variation from the County Average. The Group also accepted the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Grangetown, Lisvane and Thornhill, Pentwyn and Radyr. However, the group opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Llanrumney, Plasnewydd, Pentyrch and St Fagans and Pontrennau and Old St Mellons. The Group proposed an alternative option for Llanrumney and Pontprennau and Old St Mellons wards by combining the Communities of Pentwyn and Pontprennau, and then the Communities of Old St Mellons and Llanrumney. The Group proposed that the Pentwyn and Page 2 Appendix 5

Pontprennau proposed ward would be represented by four councillors, and the proposed Llanrumney and Old St Mellons ward would be represented by three councillors.

9. Councillor Stephen Cunnah (Canton) wrote on the 2 July 2020 in response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals Report. Councillor Cunnah takes issue with how the Draft Proposals are predicated on high levels of population growth. He accepted the Commission’s Proposal to increase the number of councillors representing the Butetown ward from one to three, however, he believed an increase of one may be more appropriate. He also opposed the reduction of one councillor from the Cathays ward due to the actual population growth on the electoral register being higher than the predicted figures shown in the report. Councillor Cunnah proposed that the Cathays ward retain its existing four-member representation, however, he believed that this could be increased to five members to further improve the variation from the County Average. He also accepted the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Grangetown, Lisvane and Thornhill, Pentwyn and Radyr. However, he opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Llanrumney, Plasnewydd, Pentyrch and St Fagans and Pontrennau and Old St Mellons. The Councillor proposed an alternative option for Llanrumney and Pontprennau and Old St Mellons wards by combining the Communities of Pentwyn and Pontprennau, and then the Communities of Old St Mellons and Llanrumney. Councillor Cunnah proposed that the Pentwyn and Pontprennau proposed ward would be represented by four councillors, and the proposed Llanrumney and Old St Mellons ward would be represented by three councillors.

10. Councillor Jennifer Burke-Davies (Llandaff North) wrote on the 2 July 2020 to raise concerns about the Commission’s Draft Proposals. Councillor Burke-Davies is concerned that the Commission’s Review has been based upon population growth, but as yet those populations do not exist. Councillor Burke-Davies believed it would be fair to base the current Review only on the existing population, rather than hypothetical projections. Mr Burke-Davies also believed greater consideration should be given to the population that is eligible to vote.

11. Councillor Owen Llewellyn Jones (Adamsdown) wrote on the 2 July 2020 in response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals Report. Councillor Jones takes issue with how the Draft Proposals are predicated on high levels of population growth. The Councillor accepted the Commission’s Proposal to increase the number of councillors representing the Butetown ward from one to three, however, he believed an increase of one may be more appropriate. Councillor Jones also opposed the reduction of one councillor from the Cathays ward due to the actual population growth on the electoral register being higher than the predicted figures shown in the report. Councillor Jones proposed that the Cathays ward retain its existing four- member representation, however, he believed that this could be increased to five members to further improve the variation from the County Average. The Councillor also accepted the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Grangetown, Lisvane and Thornhill, Pentwyn and Radyr. However, he opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Llanrumney, Plasnewydd, Pentyrch and St Fagans and Pontrennau and Old St Mellons. The Councillor proposed an alternative option for Llanrumney and Pontprennau and Old St Mellons wards by combining the Communities of Pentwyn and Pontprennau, and then the Communities of Old St Mellons and Llanrumney. Councillor Jones proposed that the Pentwyn and Pontprennau proposed ward would be represented by four councillors, and the proposed Llanrumney and Old St Mellons ward would be represented by three councillors.

Page 3 Appendix 5

12. Councillor Ash Lister, Lynda Thorne and Abdul Sattar (All Grangetown) wrote on the 2 July 2020 in response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals Report. The Group takes issue with how the Draft Proposals are predicated on high levels of population growth. The Group accepted the Commission’s Proposal to increase the number of councillors representing the Butetown ward from one to three, however, they believe an increase of one may be more appropriate. The Group also opposed the reduction of one councillor from the Cathays ward due to the actual population growth on the electoral register being higher than the predicted figures shown in the report. The group proposed that the Cathays ward retain its existing four-member representation, however, the group believed that this could be increased to five members to further improve the variation from the County Average. The Group also accepted the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Grangetown, Lisvane and Thornhill, Pentwyn and Radyr. However, the group opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Llanrumney, Plasnewydd, Pentyrch and St Fagans and Pontrennau and Old St Mellons. The Group proposed an alternative option for Llanrumney and Pontprennau and Old St Mellons wards by combining the Communities of Pentwyn and Pontprennau, and then the Communities of Old St Mellons and Llanrumney. The Group proposed that the Pentwyn and Pontprennau proposed ward would be represented by four councillors, and the proposed Llanrumney and Old St Mellons ward would be represented by three councillors.

13. Councillors Lee Bridgeman, Keith Jones and Heather Joyce (All Llanrumney) wrote on the 3 July 2020 in response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals Report. The Group opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Llanrumney electoral ward and propose that it retains its existing three-member representation. The Group argues that this could be increased to four members with some changes to the ward. The Group states that ten residential streets that are currently a part of the Old St Mellons and Pontprennau that should be part of the Llanrumney ward; Bluebell Drive, Mill Lane, The Dell, Blackbirds Way, Eastern Close, Lyncroft Close, Heathcliffe Close, Silverstone Close, Runcorn Close and Drawlings Close. The Group also proposed an alternative option by combining the electoral wards of Old St Mellons and Llanrumney to form a three-member electoral ward, and to combine the electoral wards of Pontprennau and Pentwyn to form a four-member electoral ward. The group however, proposed that this be proposed at a future Review, when population growth changes can be better understood.

14. Councillors Russell Goodway and Susan Goddard (Ely) wrote on the 3 July 2020 in response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals Report. The Councillors takes issue with how the Draft Proposals are predicated on high levels of population growth. The Councillors accepted the Commission’s Proposal to increase the number of councillors representing the Butetown ward from one to three, however, they believe an increase of one may be more appropriate. The Councillors also oppose the reduction of one councillor from the Cathays ward due to the actual population growth on the electoral register being higher than the predicted figures shown in the report. The Councillors propose that the Cathays ward retain its existing four- member representation, however, they believe that this could be increased to five members to further improve the variation from the County Average. The Councillors also accept the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Grangetown, Lisvane and Thornhill, Pentwyn and Radyr. However, they oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Llanrumney, Plasnewydd, Pentyrch and St Fagans and Pontrennau and Old St Mellons. The Councillors propose an alternative option for Llanrumney and Pontprennau and Old St Mellons wards by combining

Page 4 Appendix 5

the Communities of Pentwyn and Pontprennau, and then the Communities of Old St Mellons and Llanrumney. They propose that the Pentwyn and Pontprennau proposed ward would be represented by four councillors, and the proposed Llanrumney and Old St Mellons ward would be represented by three councillors.

15. Councillor Sue Lent (Plasnewydd) wrote on the 3 July 2020 in response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Plasnewydd. Councillor Lent states that Plasnewydd is the most densely populated ward in Wales, with a large transitory population. The ward also has a high number of planning applications and licensing applications. Councillor Lent requests that the existing four-member arrangements for Plasnewydd be retained.

16. Councillor Ed Stubbs (Splott) wrote on 3 July 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Llanrumney. Councillors Stubbs proposed that Llanrumney retain its existing three-member representation.

17. Cardiff Council Conservative Group wrote on the 14 March 2020 to support the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the City and County of Cardiff. The Conservative Group supported all ward specific proposals put forward in the Draft Proposals Report.

18. Cardiff Council Liberal Democrats Group wrote on the 27 March 2020 in response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals Report. The Liberal Democrats Group opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposal to increase the number of councillors representing the Butetown electoral ward to three. The Group accepted the need to increase the number of councillors in Butetown to two. The Group also agreed with the proposed Pentyrch and St Fagans electoral, but were concerned about the large geographic area the ward would cover, and the proposed Lisvane and Thornhill electoral ward. The Liberal Democrat Group also proposed that the Plasnewydd ward be re-named as ‘Roath / y Rhath’ as this is how the area is referred to by most residents in the City. They also propose that the Gabalfa ward be renamed ‘Gabalfa and Mynachdy’ and that the Pentwyn ward is renamed as ‘Pentwyn and Llanedeyrn’.

19. Cardiff Council Labour Group wrote on the 3 July 2020 in response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals Report. The Group takes issue with how the Draft Proposals are predicated on high levels of population growth. The Group accepted the Commission’s Proposal to increase the number of councillors representing the Butetown ward from one to three, however, they believe an increase of one may be more appropriate. The Group also opposed the reduction of one councillor from the Cathays ward due to the actual population growth on the electoral register being higher than the predicted figures shown in the report. The group proposed that the Cathays ward retain its existing four-member representation, however, the group believed that this could be increased to five members to further improve the variation from the County Average. The Group also accepted the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Grangetown, Lisvane and Thornhill, Pentwyn and Radyr. However, the group opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Llanrumney, Plasnewydd, Pentyrch and St Fagans and Pontrennau and Old St Mellons. The Group proposed an alternative option for Llanrumney and Pontprennau and Old St Mellons wards by combining the electoral ward of Pentwyn with the Community of Pontprennau, and then the Communities of Old St Mellons and Llanrumney. The Group proposed that the Pentwyn and Pontprennau proposed ward would be represented by four councillors, and the proposed Llanrumney and Old St Mellons ward would be represented by three councillors.

Page 5 Appendix 5

20. The Atlantic Wharf Residents Association wrote on the 21 January 2020 to support the Commission’s Draft Proposals to increase the number of councillors representing the Butetown ward from one to three.

21. The Butetown Labour Party Group wrote on the 29 February 2020 to support the Commission’s Draft Proposals to increase the number of councillors representing the Butetown ward from one to three.

22. Llanrumney Branch Labour Party wrote on the 3 July 2020 in response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals Report. The Group opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Llanrumney electoral ward and propose that it retains its existing three-member representation. The Group argues that this could be increased to four members with some changes to the ward. The Group states that ten residential streets that are currently a part of the Old St Mellons and Pontprennau that should be part of the Llanrumney ward; Bluebell Drive, Mill Lane, The Dell, Blackbirds Way, Eastern Close, Lyncroft Close, Heathcliffe Close, Silverstone Close, Runcorn Close and Drawlings Close. The Group also proposed an alternative option by combining the electoral wards of Old St Mellons and Llanrumney to form a three- member electoral ward, and to combine the electoral wards of Pontprennau and Pentwyn to form a four-member electoral ward. The group however, proposed that this be proposed at a future Review, when population growth changes can be better understood.

23. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 20 June 2020 in response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals Report. They stated that the Council may need more than 75 members, and that it should be flexible to ensure the best outcome for everyone represented in Cardiff.

24. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 22 January 2020 in response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals Report. They wished to propose Welsh Language ward names. They proposed that the Splott electoral ward be called Y Sblot in Welsh as recommended by the Welsh Language Commissioner and failing to correct this would result in an incorrectly spelt ward name. They also proposed that the Butetown ward be named ‘Tre-biwt’ in the Welsh Language. They believed this name is well established and should be used as the formal name for the electoral ward in Welsh. They also proposed that the Adamsdown ward be named ‘Waunadda’ in the Welsh Language. They advised that though this name is not as well established as Tre-biwt, it has been used by the BBC and Golwg360 and would be recognised by Welsh speakers in the area.

25. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 23 June 2020 in response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals Report. They supported the Commission’s proposals for the Butetown and Grangetown electoral wards and the increase in representation. They also proposed that the Llandaff electoral ward be given the name of ‘Llandaf’ (Similar to Rhondda Cynon Taf now being the accepted English format for the name of that Council). They also proposed that the Butetown electoral ward be given the Welsh Language name of Tre-biwt, although They do not believe this is essential or critical.

26. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 28 June 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays electoral ward. They stated that they accepted the existing over- representation in the ward, however, due to the large number of potential voters in the ward, this situation could soon become a state of under-representation should they become Page 6 Appendix 5

motivated to register to vote. They proposed that the existing four-member arrangement be maintained. They stated that the Cathays ward needs strong and consistent representation to protect the owner-occupiers, the student population and the sometimes delicate, conflicting needs of the ward.

27. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 29 June 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Pentwyn electoral ward. They proposed that Pentwyn retain the existing four- member arrangement.

28. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 30 June 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Pentwyn electoral ward. They feel that the loss of representation in Pentwyn will impact the inclusiveness of the people living there. They stated that they need a voice and a visible representation that connects with the area and people of Pentwyn.

29. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 30 June 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays and Plasnewydd electoral wards. They proposed that the existing four- member arrangements be retained. They also proposed that the Cathays ward would benefit from a fifth member. They also supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Pentwyn electoral ward.

30. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 30 June 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays and Plasnewydd electoral wards. They proposed that the existing four- member arrangements be retained. They also proposed that the Cathays ward would benefit from a fifth member. They also supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Pentwyn electoral ward.

31. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 30 June 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays and Plasnewydd electoral wards. They proposed that the existing four- member arrangements be retained. They also proposed that the Cathays ward would benefit from a fifth member. They also supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Pentwyn electoral ward.

32. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 30 June 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays and Plasnewydd electoral wards. They proposed that the existing four- member arrangements be retained. They also proposed that the Cathays ward would benefit from a fifth member. They also supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Pentwyn electoral ward.

33. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 30 June 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays and Plasnewydd electoral wards. They proposed that the existing four- member arrangements be retained. They also proposed that the Cathays ward would benefit from a fifth member. They also supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Pentwyn electoral ward.

34. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 30 June 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays and Plasnewydd electoral wards. They proposed that the existing four- member arrangements be retained. They also proposed that the Cathays ward would benefit from a fifth member. They also supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Pentwyn electoral ward.

Page 7 Appendix 5

35. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 30 June 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Plasnewydd electoral ward. They feel the electorate and population figures used in the Draft Proposals Report do not reflect the reality and requests that the Commission reconsider their Draft Proposal to retain the existing four-member arrangement for Plasnewydd.

36. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 30 June 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays and Plasnewydd wards. They stated that the proposals should be formulated using the current population figures, not those from an out-of-date electorate. They stated that the Cathays and Plasnewydd wards are transitory in nature and the electorate figure can grow substantially in weeks leading up to an election.

37. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 30 June 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays and Plasnewydd electoral wards. They proposed that the existing four- member arrangements be retained. They also proposed that the Cathays ward would benefit from a fifth member. They also supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Pentwyn electoral ward.

38. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 30 June 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Plasnewydd electoral ward. They strongly object to the proposal to reduce the number of councillors representing the ward from four to three. They proposed that the existing four- member arrangement be retained.

39. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 30 June 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays and Plasnewydd electoral wards. They proposed that the existing four- member arrangements be retained. They also proposed that the Cathays ward would benefit from a fifth member. They also supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Pentwyn electoral ward.

40. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 30 June 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays and Plasnewydd electoral wards. They proposed that the existing four- member arrangements be retained. They also proposed that the Cathays ward would benefit from a fifth member. They also supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Pentwyn electoral ward.

41. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 1 July 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays electoral ward. They opposed the Commission’s proposal to reduce the number of councillors representing the ward from four to three. They cite the high density population in the ward and the volume of residents as reasons to retain the existing four- member arrangement.

42. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 2 July 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays and Plasnewydd wards. They stated that there is a significant argument to increase the number of councillors in Cathays to five, however, they feel that at least

Page 8 Appendix 5

the existing number of four councillors be retained. They also stated that the existing four- member arrangement in Plasnewydd should be retained.

43. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 2 July 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays electoral ward. They are concerned that the electoral figures used in the Report do not reflect the current reality. They also requested that the existing four- member arrangement in Cathays be maintained.

44. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 2 July 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays and Plasnewydd electoral wards. They proposed that the existing four- member arrangements be retained. They also proposed that the Cathays ward would benefit from a fifth member. They also supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Pentwyn electoral ward.

45. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 2 July 2020 in response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals Report. They questioned why the Commission is considering changes in the current social climate. They questioned whether the proposals would benefit the NHS and GP surgeries where changes are constant. They feel that the Commission may be trying to push through changes while everyone’s attention is focused elsewhere.

46. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 2 July 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays and Plasnewydd electoral wards. They proposed that the existing four- member arrangements be retained. They also proposed that the Cathays ward would benefit from a fifth member. They also supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Pentwyn electoral ward.

47. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 3 July 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays electoral ward. They did not feel that Cathays would be properly represented with a reduction in the number of councillors. They asked that the Commission reconsider its proposal.

48. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 3 July 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays electoral ward. They consider the reduction in representation to be detrimental to the ward. They asked that the Commission reconsider its proposal.

49. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 3 July 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Llanrumney electoral ward. They stated that the area by nature, consists of mainly social housing and requires a lot of input and attention from the Council. They feel that a minimum of three councillors is a necessity.

50. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 3 July 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays electoral ward. They were concerned that the electoral figures shown in the report do not truly reflect the actual people in the ward. They stated that proposals should reflect the current population and not those of an out-of-date electorate.

51. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 3 July 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Cathays electoral ward. They cited the high student population and annual churn of residents as reasons to maintain the existing four-member arrangements.

Page 9 Appendix 5

52. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 3 July 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals. They is concerned that whilst the consultation on the Draft Proposals was ongoing, figures were released by the ONS which show a substantial growth in population which should be taken into account, particularly in wards where the Commission is proposing to reduce representation.

Page

APPENDIX 6

WRITTEN STATEMENT BY THE WELSH GOVERNMENT

TITLE LOCAL ELECTIONS AND ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

DATE Thursday 23rd JUNE 2016

MARK DRAKEFORD, CABINET SECRETARY FOR FINANCE AND BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Local Authority Elections (Wales) Order 2014 provided for local elections in Wales to be delayed for a year, from May 2016 to May 2017. This allowed the elections to be separated from the Assembly elections.

At the present time, the Local Government Act 1972 provides that ordinary elections to local government in Wales take place on the first Thursday of May every four years. Therefore, the next local government elections would normally take place in May 2021. Since the implementation of the provisions of the Wales Act 2014, elections to the National Assembly take place on a five-yearly cycle. The policy of the Welsh Government is that elections at local level should also be placed on a five year cycle. It is intended that councillors elected next May will therefore hold office until May 2022.

The Wales Bill, currently before Parliament, includes provisions which would enable the Assembly to legislate to determine the term of office for local government. As the Bill is currently in draft form and should these provisions, for any reason, not come into force, the Welsh Government could use the same powers under the Local Government Act 2000 as we did in 2014 to delay the elections by a year. This statement therefore provides clarity to local government as to the length of office of those to be elected next year.

1 APPENDIX 6

In the light of this, I have considered the decision made last year in relation to the electoral arrangements of some principal councils. It was determined that reviews conducted by the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales in relation to nine principal areas would not be implemented, given the intention that councils elected in 2017 would only serve a short term prior to mergers.

However, even though the elections in May next year will now result in a full term, due to their proximity, the arrangements which would be required and the disruption for potential candidates, I do not intend to implement any changes to current electoral arrangements in advance of the 2017 elections resultant from those reviews. The councils concerned are Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion, Conwy, Denbighshire, Gwynedd, Monmouthshire, Pembrokeshire, Powys and Torfaen.

The decision that councils will be elected for a full term also means that the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission (the Commission) will return to its normal ten-year cycle of reviews of electoral arrangements. I expect the Commission to publish a new, prioritised programme as soon as possible which takes into account the age of the current arrangements in some areas and the amount of change since the last review was undertaken. I will ask the Commission, in planning their work, to start by revisiting the nine outstanding reviews, with a view to presenting fresh reports on these at the very start of their programme.

It is my intention that reviews of electoral arrangements in principal councils will be conducted against a set of common criteria to be agreed through the Commission. I also expect electoral reviews to have been completed for all 22 authorities within the next local government term.

These arrangements provide clarity for those considering standing for election in 2017 and also set out a long term planning horizon for local authorities and their public service partners. However, I want to be clear that discussions on the reform agenda are on-going with local authorities and other stakeholders. I will be proposing a way forward on local government reform in the Autumn.

2