LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

REVIEW OF BOUNDARIES IN THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

REVIEW OF COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES IN THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF WREXHAM

REPORT AND PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW

4. DRAFT PROPOSALS

5. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

6. ASSESSMENT

7. PROPOSALS

8. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

10. THE NEXT STEPS

The Local Government Boundary Commission For Wales Caradog House 1-6 St Andrews Place CARDIFF CF10 3BE Tel Number: (029) 2039 5031 Fax Number: (029) 2039 5250 E-mail: [email protected] www.lgbc-wales.gov.uk Brian Gibbons AM Minister for Social Justice and Local Government Welsh Assembly Government

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 We the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales (the Commission) have completed the review of community boundaries in the County Borough of Wrexham as directed by you in your Direction to us dated 15 March 2008 (Appendix A).

1.2 This direction follows consideration by the Minister of our recommendations from our previous review of community boundaries in the County Borough of Wrexham which were submitted on 28 September 2007. The Minister was, in the main, able to agree with our recommendations with the exception of those in respect of the Community of . The Minister considered that the proposals would reduce the Community to a size that he did not consider to be viable. The Minister has therefore asked us to look again at the area and to submit revised proposals.

1.3 The Minister has directed us to submit our final report and proposals no later than the 30 September 2008. As a result of this time constraint and as many of the issues to be considered were previously rehearsed during the previous review, we decided to reduce the periods given for the submission of representations to six weeks for the initial representations and five weeks for the draft proposals representations rather than our more usual nine weeks for both periods.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 We propose that:

· the boundary between the Communities of Abenbury and in the area of Llwyn Onn be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix C; and · the boundary between the Communities of Abenbury and Caia Park in the area of Thornleigh be realigned to follow the boundary shown in green on the map at Appendix D.

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW

3.1 The purpose of the review is to consider whether, in the interests of effective and convenient local government, the Commission should propose changes to the present community boundaries. The review is being conducted under the provisions of Section 56(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 (the Act).

Procedure

3.2 Section 60 of the Act lays down procedural guidelines, which are to be followed in carrying out a review. In line with that guidance we wrote on 27 March 2008 to the

-1- Community Councils of Abenbury, Caia Park, Holt, , and , the Member of Parliament for the local constituency, the Assembly Members for the area and other interested parties to inform them of our intention to conduct the review and to request their preliminary views. We also publicised our intention to conduct the review in local newspapers circulating in the area and asked the Councils to display public notices. Notification of the start of the review and the closing date for representations to be made (8 May 2008) was given on the web sites of both the Commission and Council.

4. DRAFT PROPOSALS

4.1 In response to our initial invitation, we received representations from Wrexham County Borough Council; Abenbury Community Council, Caia Park Community Council, Sesswick Community Council; Councillor Morris, Councillor Squire, Councillor Williams; and 41 other interested bodies and residents. In our Draft Proposals published on 4 July 2008, we considered the issues raised in the representations.

Llwyn Onn

4.2 During our previous review we noted that the existing community boundary between the Communities of Abenbury and Caia Park splits the Llwyn Onn estate. We were of the view, and remained so, that the existing situation is not in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We considered either combining the whole of Llwyn Onn within the Community of Caia Park or, as was suggested by Abenbury Community Council, changing the boundary so that the whole of the Llwyn Onn estate and other properties to the south of Abenbury Road are within the Community of Abenbury (map at Appendix C).

4.3 We noted that, with the exception of the letter from Caia Park Community Council, all of the initial representations we received were opposed to combining the whole of the Llwyn Onn estate within Caia Park and supported the boundary change suggested by Abenbury Community Council.

4.4 In our previous review we had noted that the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) includes the whole of the Llwyn Onn estate within the area designated as the Wrexham Town settlement area. We considered therefore that it would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government for the Llwyn Onn estate to be included within a Community that was within the Wrexham Town settlement area. We were of the view that the only convenient Community that fitted that criterion was Caia Park. This view was, at the time, supported by Wrexham County Borough Council. We noted that in their initial representation submitted in respect of this current review, Wrexham County Borough Council supported the change to the boundary suggested by Abenbury Community Council.

4.5 It appeared to us that Wrexham County Borough Council now considers that less weight be given to the issue of UDP settlement areas and more weight to other issues such as community of interest (as represented by the views of residents) and the viability of the Community of Abenbury. Having considered this change of

-2- view we reconsidered our own position on the weight we give to the issue of UDP settlement areas. We remained of the view that it is desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government that UDP designated settlement areas should be contained within the boundaries of a community (or communities) that itself lies within the relevant settlement areas. We considered however that this issue need not be a determining factor in our considerations when recommending changes to community boundaries.

4.6 It appeared to us from the initial representations we received that the residents of whole of the Llwyn Onn estate identify strongly with the Community of Abenbury and they appear to have few, if any, links with the Community of Caia Park. We noted that the boundary change suggested by Abenbury Community Council would see the transfer of 509 electors from the Whitegate Ward of the Community of Caia Park to the Community of Abenbury.

4.7 At Draft Proposals stage, having considered the two options in respect of Llwyn Onn and all of the representations we have received, we were of the view that the change to the boundary as suggested by Abenbury Community Council would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We therefore proposed a change to the boundary between the Community of Abenbury and the Community of Caia Park as illustrated on the map at Appendix C.

Thornleigh

4.8 As a result of our previous review we recommended that the area of houses on Thornleigh (Dôl y Ddraenen) and Oakhurst roads be transferred from the Community of Abenbury to the Cartrefle Ward of the Community of Caia Park. We considered that this area, which lies adjacent to the community boundary in the north west of the Community of Abenbury, has a community of interest with the area of housing at Willow Court which lies within the Community of Caia Park.

4.9 In our Draft Proposals report we noted that in respect of this current review, the only initial representation we received that refers to Thornleigh was that from Councillor Morris, who having canvassed the residents of Thornleigh and Oakhurst and having concluded that they had no preference either way, considered that the change to the boundary to include the area within Caia Park had some merit.

4.10 We remained of the view that our original proposal to include the area of Thornleigh within the Community of Caia Park was desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We therefore proposed a change to the boundary between the Community of Abenbury and the Community of Caia Park as illustrated on the map at Appendix D.

Abenbury and Isycoed

4.11 Under the Draft proposals detailed above the Community of Abenbury would see an increase in the number of electors by 472 to 970. We noted the Minister’s concern that the proposal we made as a result of our previous review in respect of Llwyn Onn would, by reducing the number of electors to 311, have implications for the viability of Abenbury Community Council. We noted that the adjoining

-3- community of Isycoed currently has 296 electors and we considered that there may be similar concerns in respect of the viability of the Isycoed Community Council. We noted that the topography of the Community of Isycoed appeared to be of a similar nature to that of Abenbury and that it appeared to us to be appropriate to merge the two areas to form a single community area. We considered that such a merger would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government and therefore proposed a new Abenbury and Isycoed Community which will have 1,266 electors. We further proposed that in recognition of the separate areas within the new Community it is divided for electoral purposes into the wards of Abenbury and Isycoed (the boundary between the two wards being the boundary between the two existing communities).

5. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

5.1 In response to our Draft Proposals report we received representations from Wrexham County Borough Council, Abenbury, Caia Park, Isycoed and Sesswick Community Councils, Councillor Michael Morris, 2 residents of Llwyn Onn 1 resident of Abenbury Fields, and 15 residents of Isycoed (plus a 169-name petition). A summary of these representations can be found at Appendix B.

6. ASSESSMENT

Llwyn Onn

6.1 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed a change to the boundary between the Community of Abenbury and the Community of Caia Park as suggested by Abenbury Community Council and as shown on the map at Appendix C. In response to our Draft Proposals we have received representations from Wrexham County Borough Council, Abenbury Community Council and 3 residents in support of this change to the community boundary.

6.2 Caia Park Community Council remain opposed to the proposed change. They point out that the transfer to Abenbury of Llwyn Onn and Abenbury Fields using Abenbury Road as a community boundary would also mean the transfer of Pentre Gwyn Community Centre and playing field. They state that Caia Park Community Council pays a sum annually to the County Borough Council as a contribution to the maintenance of the Community Centre.

6.3 In respect of the Pentre Gwyn Community Centre we have been informed by Wrexham County Borough Council that the site is leased from the trustees of the Coed Y Bryn Community Association and that their predecessor Council, Wrexham , built the community centre under the terms of the lease. Under the terms of the lease the centre was to be built "for general use of the population of the said Borough". It is clear from this information that the community centre was not intended for the use of residents of one specific community area. The proposed ‘transfer’ of the community centre from Caia Park to Abenbury will not therefore change the operation of the centre in terms of those residents who are eligible (and

-4- likely) to use it. It is for Abenbury and Caia Park Community Councils (and any other Community Council in the Wrexham County Borough Council) to consider the use their residents make of the centre and the contribution they may wish to make to Wrexham County Borough Council to maintain it.

6.4 Having considered the representations we have received in respect of our Draft proposals we remain of the view that the inclusion of the Llwyn Onn estate and adjoining areas within the Community of Abenbury is desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We therefore propose a change to the boundary between the Community of Abenbury and the Community of Caia Park as illustrated on the map at Appendix C.

Thornleigh

6.5 In our Draft Proposals report we proposed a change to the boundary between the Community of Abenbury and the Community of Caia Park as shown on the map at Appendix D. This change is the same as that proposed for this area in our previous review. At the initial stage of the review we received a representation from Councillor Morris who having canvassed the residents of Thornleigh and Oakhurst having concluded that they had no preference either way, considered that the change to the boundary to include the area within Caia Park had some merit. Following the publication of our Draft Proposals we have received a representation from Caia Park Community Council in support of the proposal in respect of the proposal for the Thornleigh Estate. Wrexham County Borough Council and Abenbury Community Council also support this proposal.

6.6 Having considered the representations we have received in respect of Thornleigh we remained of the view that to include the area of Thornleigh within the Community of Caia Park is desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We therefore propose a change to the boundary between the Community of Abenbury and the Community of Caia Park as illustrated on the map at Appendix D.

Abenbury and Isycoed

6.7 In our Draft Proposals report, because of concerns about community council viability (4.11), we proposed the merger of the existing Abenbury and Isycoed Communities to form a new community. In response to our Draft Proposals we received a representation from Abenbury Community Council who did not oppose the proposal. We did however receive representations from Wrexham County Borough Council, Isycoed Community Council and 15 residents. We also received a petition with 169 names (9 of the signatories also wrote individual letters). The total of 175 residents opposed to the change represents approximately 60% of the electorate.

6.8 In respect of the Community of Isycoed we have noted the views expressed with regards to the viability of the Community. It is clear that the residents of Isycoed strongly support their Community Council and wish to retain their individual identity. We had considered that as the topography of the Community of Isycoed appeared to be of a similar nature to that of Abenbury there may be a community

-5- of interest between the two areas. It would appear however from the comments we have received that there is little community of interest between the residents of Isycoed and Abenbury. We are therefore of the view that the merger between Abenbury and Isycoed, as considered in our Draft Proposals report, would not be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

6.9 In respect of the viability of Abenbury Community Council we noted the Minister’s concern that our previous proposals would, by reducing the number of electors to 311, have implications for the viability of Abenbury Community Council. We consider that under these present proposals whereby the number of electors will increase to 970, there will be no such concerns in respect of the revised Abenbury Community.

7. PROPOSALS

7.1 Having considered the evidence available to us at this stage of our review we propose that the boundaries of the Communities of Abenbury and Caia Park should be realigned in the area under review to follow the boundaries shown in green on the maps at Appendices C and D.

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

8. CONSEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

Community Council Electoral Arrangements

8.2 The existing Community of Abenbury is not warded and currently has 498 electors represented by 8 councillors. Under our proposals the number of electors in Abenbury will increase by 472 to 970. Given the increase in the number of electors, we consider an appropriate level of representation for the Community to be 10 councillors. We therefore propose that the revised Abenbury Community’s 970 electors are represented by 10 councillors.

8.3 The Community of Caia Park is currently divided, for Community electoral purposes, into the Community Wards of Cartrefle, Queensway, Smithfield, Whitegate and Wynnstay. The following table shows the number of electors and councillors for each ward.

-6- Community Ward Electors Councillors E/C* Caia Park Cartrefle 1,685 3 562 Queensway 1,585 3 528 Smithfield 1,799 3 600 Whitegate 2,447 3 816 Wynnstay 1,392 3 464 8,908 15 594 * Electors per Councillor

8.4 Under our proposals under this review and our previous proposals in respect of Caia Park and Acton, the number of electors in the Community of Caia Park as a whole will decrease by 519 to 8,389. The number of electors in the Cartrefle Ward will decrease by 10 (+37 electors from Abenbury, -47 electors to Acton) and the number of electors in the Whitegate ward will decrease by 509. In order to achieve some consistency in the level of representation across the wards we propose the electoral arrangements for the Community of Caia Park should be as follows:

Community Ward Electors Councillors E/C* Caia Park Cartrefle 1,675 3 558 Queensway 1,585 3 528 Smithfield 1,799 3 600 Whitegate 1,938 3 646 Wynnstay 1,392 2 696 8,389 14 599

County Borough Council Electoral Arrangements

8.5 The Cartrefle electoral division, which is coterminous with the Cartrefle ward of the Community of Caia Park, currently has 1,685 electors represented by one councillor. The proposed amendment to the boundaries between the Community of Caia Park and the Community of Abenbury (and also our previous proposal in respect of the boundary between the Community of Caia Park and the Community of Holt) would see a decrease in the number of electors in the Cartrefle electoral division to 1,675.

8.6 The Holt electoral division consisting of the Communities of Abenbury, Holt and Isycoed currently has 2,670 electors represented by one councillor. The proposed amendments to the boundaries between the Communities of Caia Park and Abenbury, (and the previous proposals for amendments to the boundaries between Acton and Holt and Isycoed and Holt) would see a fall in the number of electors to 2,488.

8.7 The Whitegate electoral division, which is coterminous with the Whitegate ward of the Community of Caia Park, currently has 2,447 electors represented by one councillor. The proposed amendments to the boundaries between the Communities of Caia Park and Abenbury would see a fall in the number of electors in the Whitegate electoral division to 1,938.

8.8 We are of the view that for all of the above electoral divisions the changes to the number of electors as a consequence of the proposed boundary changes are not

-7- so significant as, at this time, to require either an increase or a decrease in the number of councillors representing each electoral division. Within the next few years we are due to conduct a review of the electoral arrangements for all of the principal councils in Wales and we anticipate that we will receive directions from the National Assembly for Wales to guide us in the conduct of the review. At that time we will look in detail at the electoral arrangements for Wrexham County Borough Council and will take into account any changes that arise from these proposed changes to community boundaries.

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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

10. THE NEXT STEPS

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

10.2 It now falls to the Welsh Assembly Government, if it thinks fit, to accept them or to direct the Commission to conduct a further review.

10.3 Any further representations concerning the matters in the report should be addressed to the Welsh Assembly Government. They should be made as soon as possible, and in any event not later than six weeks from the date that the Commission’s recommendations are submitted to the Welsh Assembly Government. Representations should be addressed to:

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

-8- MRS S G SMITH LLB (Chair)

MR P J WOOD (Deputy Chair)

REV. HYWEL MEREDYDD DAVIES BD (Member)

E H LEWIS BSc. DPM FRSA FCIPD (Secretary)

September 2008

-9- Appendix A

-1- Appendix B

Summary of Representations Received in Response to the Draft Proposals

Wrexham County Borough Council confirmed that the matter was referred to the Council’s Executive Board at its meeting on 29 July, 2008. The Board considered carefully the Commission’s latest draft proposals in its report dated July 2008. The Board decided as follows:

· that the Boundary Commission’s proposals to realign the boundaries of the communities of Abenbury and Caia Park in the areas of Llwyn Onn and Thornleigh be supported in line with the decision taken by the Executive Board on 15 April 2008 and communicated to the Commission in a letter dated 28 April, 2008; and

· that the final proposal to merge the remainder of the existing community of Abenbury with the adjoining communities of Isycoed to form a new Community be not supported.

In relation to the merger proposal Wrexham County Borough Council is of the strong view that the proposal is unsustainable for a number of reasons as follows:

· There is little or no community of interest between Isycoed and Abenbury. Only a limited length of Isycoed’s boundary is shared with Abenbury and that is in the vicinity of Wrexham Industrial Estate with very few residential properties.

· Isycoed is very much a self-contained rural community abutting the Dee Valley and shares few if any common facilities with Abenbury.

· The proposal to incorporate the Llwyn Onn Estate into Abenbury has had the effect of securing the viability of that community without attaching any other community.

In light of the above Wrexham County Borough Council would ask that this late proposal for a merger of Abenbury and Isycoed be abandoned. This proposal has not previously been a suggestion and therefore has not received the detailed consideration and consultation it requires.

Abenbury Community Council considered the draft proposals and whole-heartedly welcomed the report and its recommendations. The Council noted the proposals to merge Abenbury and Isycoed Communities and although surprised by the proposal, the Council has no strong views on the matter.

Caia Park Community Council considered the draft proposals and stated that Members were dismayed by the fact the recommendations completely overturn the original proposals that were based on sound rationale. The change appears to be based on the representations made by the County Borough Council (who now support Abenbury Community Council’s submission) and the issue of viability if Abenbury Community Council area were to be reduced.

· The question of viability and variations in Council Tax was considered in detail in the original report. Llwyn Onn is a fairly recently developed estate completed within

-1- Appendix B

the last decade. Abenbury Community Council existed without the revenue from these properties prior to this date without an issue of viability being raised. The loss of business rate from Community Council funding preceded this by some years.

· The transfer to Abenbury of Llwyn Onn and Abenbury Fields using Abenbury Road as a community boundary would also mean the transfer of Pentre Gwyn Community Centre and playing field. The playing field is held in trust with trustees being identified from the Pentre Gwyn, Tan y Coed and Coed y Bryn (areas within Caia Park) Residents Association. Caia Park Community Council pays a sum annually to the County Borough Council as a contribution to the maintenance of the Community Centre and to safeguard its future.

· Llwyn Onn and Abenbury Fields estates are separated from the built environment of Caia Park by a single carriageway – Abenbury Road. They are included within the settlement limit for Wrexham Town, as Abenbury itself does not have a defined settlement limit other than that delineating the Wrexham Industrial Estate. Both are recent estates built to adoptable standards and therefore there is no necessity on the Community Council to provide lighting or other services.

· The Community Council supported the proposals for the Thornleigh Estate.

Isycoed Community Council stated that its Members opposed unanimously the Commission’s proposal that ‘the remainder of the existing Community of Abenbury be merged with the adjoining Community of Isycoed to form a new Community to be called ‘Abenbury and Isycoed’

· Isycoed has its own identity and individuality. It has its own school, church and community owned village hall. These facilities would be under threat if influenced by a Community Council who are not locally elected, accountable or have an affinity with a rural community.

· The question of viability has been raised by the Commission although this was not raised in the original proposals. Indeed there are smaller Community Councils (Cerriog Ucha and ) where these same criteria of viability have not been applied. Isycoed has always managed within its precept and acts in a financially responsible manner. If this amalgamation were to occur, it is unlikely that the same level of finance would be available to the village.

· The proposal indicates a new Community Council comprising 10 Members in total – 8 from Abenbury and only 2 from Isycoed. As Abenbury is to include the residential properties at Llwyn Onn and Abenbury Fields it is unlikely that they will have any affinity with the village of Isycoed.

· Members also expressed concern over the timescale given to this part of the consultation. The letter attaching the report was dated 4 July with the consultation period running to 11 August – a period of approximately 5 weeks (most of which falls in the school holidays). The Commission’s proposal for Isycoed is a ‘new’ proposal and has not therefore been covered in previous documents.

-2- Appendix B

· Previous consultations have never raised the specific possibility of such a merger and Abenbury Community Council have never expressed an interest in any form of amalgamation. The Council is currently canvassing the views of the Community and further correspondence will follow.

Following on from its first correspondence Isycoed Community Council provided an 8 page petition signed by residents of Isycoed opposing the proposal to merge the community of Isycoed with the community of Abenbury.

The petition contains 169 signatures and covers 104 of the 145 households within Isycoed. This represents 72% of the total households. None of those contacted supported the Commission’s proposal or refused to sign. Of the remaining households a large proportion are away on holiday at this time of year.

Isycoed Community Council also believes that Wrexham County Borough Council ‘strongly’ opposes the recommendation.

Sesswick Community Council wrote to advise that they have nothing further to add to the comments they have made previously.

County Borough Councillor Michael Morris wrote as Councillor for the Holt Ward [Electoral Division] (representing Holt, Abenbury and Isycoed). He supported the revised proposals as they apply to Llwyn Onn and Thornleigh.

He does not support the recommendation to merge the Community of Isycoed with the revised Community of Abenbury for the following reasons:

· Isycoed has a strong sense of community with a fairly static population base given the development opportunities are limited. Unlike Abenbury, which has a rural element and a number of higher populated housing estates areas (Pentre Maelor and Llwyn Onn bordering Wrexham Town), Isycoed consists of a ribbon development of a completely rural nature.

· Isycoed has its own focussed identity. It has a primary school, church, public house and community owned village hall. The proposed merger is seen as a threat to both its individuality and identity.

· Isycoed has never questioned the viability of its village. Abenbury raised the issue with the Commission in terms of Abenbury’s viability because their precept and levels of expenditure were tailored to reflect the current tax base – i.e. including Llwyn Onn and any reduction in population would have created difficulties for them.

· Isycoed have maintained their expenditure with the confines of their static tax base for many years and are quite happy to continue to do so. In any event there are other small Community Councils within Wrexham where this principle of viability has not been applied (Erbistock and Cerriog Ucha).

· As this is a new proposal, clearly it has not previously been considered by Isycoed. They were happy with the original proposal to marginally adjust the community boundary between Holt and Isycoed in relation to one property.

-3- Appendix B

· The proposed Community Council warding arrangements with 8 representatives from Abenbury and 2 from Isycoed does nothing to allay fears. We currently have Holt Community Council warded in a similar way (provision for 2 members from Bieston). Councillor Morris attends Holt Community Council monthly and finds that all discussion focuses on Holt village with little or no consideration given to Bieston matters. Abenbury and Isycoed are culturally very different and it is envisaged that discussions would centre on Pentre Maelor and Llwyn Onn issues, as is current practice by Abenbury Community Council.

· Geographically the proposed merged area is very considerable stretching some 8 miles. In the Welsh Assembly recently circulated letter (Review of Electoral Arrangements – June 2008) they are consulting on whether the Commission should take account of population sparsity in rural areas. There is some recognition therefore, that individual communities need to be considered and recognised.

· Abenbury Community Council, in their previous submissions, have never considered a possible merger with Isycoed as they have always been seen as distinct separate communities. He would like the draft proposal to be reconsidered to allow Isycoed to remain a separate village as it has been throughout its history.

St Paul’s Parochial Church Council (P.C.C) wrote to express alarm and concern over the proposed extended Community of Abenbury. It stated that the village of Isycoed has its own school, village hall and church. The church is a very central part of the community. A large number of social events are held at the village hall, many of them raise money for the church, which are always extremely well attended. The village school (which is a voluntary aided school) is flourishing with children not only from the village but other areas too. The P.C.C is also very concerned that a change would jeopardize the children from St Paul’s school going on to attend Senior School, in Penley which they feel must continue to be the secondary feeder school to maintain the rural affinity.

The P.C.C feels that Isycoed village facilities mentioned above would be under threat and basically affect the whole life of the village. Isycoed is a rural community, which should be preserved at all costs for the future. The P.C.C is totally opposed to the change and would appreciate very careful consideration of their views.

Two residents wrote to inform the Commission that they were in agreement with the proposal to re-align the Community Boundary between Caia Park and Abenbury as described in the draft report so that the Abenbury Fields and Llwyn Onn Park estates are within the Community of Abenbury with Abenbury Road forming the natural community boundary.

Two residents of Llwyn Onn Park supported Llwyn Onn remaining within Abenbury Community Council as they have strong objections to any alignment within the suggested initial integration with Caia Park Community Council. Neither has used any of the CPCC service or amenities in the time they have resided in Llwyn Onn. They state that when their properties were purchased it was deemed an area under Abenbury Community Council and they strongly wish it to remain so.

-4- Appendix B

A resident of Isycoed strongly objected to the suggestion of the amalgamation of the Community Councils of Abenbury and Isycoed. Reasons for this objection are as follows:

· Isycoed is a pleasant rural village with most families having been born and bred in the village. As a result they feel passionately about their village and its school, village hall and church.

· Abenbury is a scattered community with a settlement of houses at Pentre Maelor and the remainder are situated on the outskirts of Wrexham town. In addition there are a few farms and cottages. The residents of the two major housing areas have never integrated with the community of Isycoed or showed any interest in it.

· She believes that Isycoed is best served by its current Community Council arrangements and should not need to rely on the support of the majority of members from Abenbury to look after its village.

Two residents of Isycoed objected to the merger of Abenbury and Isycoed Communities. The reasons they stated are as follows:

· The village would loose its identity and individuality. It has its own school, church and community owned village hall.

· These facilities would be under threat if influenced by a Community Council who are not locally elected, accountable or have an affinity with a rural community.

· Previous consultations have never raised the specific possibility of such a merger and the Abenbury Community Council have never expressed an interest in any form of amalgamation.

· The question of viability has been raised by the Commission although this was not raised by them in the original proposals and indeed there are smaller Community Councils (Cerriog Ucha and Erbistock) where these same criteria of viability have not been applied.

· Isycoed has always managed within its precept and acts in a financially responsible manner. If this amalgamation were to occur, it is unlikely that the same level of finance would be available to the village. · The proposal indicates a new Community Council comprising 10 Members in total – 8 from Abenbury and only 2 from Isycoed. As Abenbury is to include the residential properties at Llwyn Onn and Abenbury Fields it is unlikely that they will have any affinity with the village of Isycoed.

A resident of Isycoed wrote with concern regarding the recommendation that the extended community of Abenbury should include the village of Isycoed. She stated that it would appear to be yet another government attempt to destroy a rural community without there being and obvious reason or justifiable cause for change.

-5- Appendix B

· Isycoed has its own school, church and community owned village hall, the local Councillors have always managed its affairs and finances in a very responsible manner and as a local resident she would not like to see this situation changed with the village then losing its proud identity.

· The viability of the community has not been questioned and there are even smaller Community Councils in the local area that have not been threatened with the same extinction. To be amalgamated with a similar community might be more acceptable but in so far as she is aware, there does not seem to be any valid reason at all why the present satisfactory situation should not be allowed to be maintained.

· Change, just for the sake of change, has been seen to be one of the more obvious failings of the present government, contributing to the chaos of the health service and education etc. In the case of Isycoed Community, it is not broken so it does not need to be fixed.

· She trusted that when considering the possibility of boundary changes, the Commission would appreciate the strength of feeling in the Isycoed community and respect their wishes to remain as an independent entity.

Two residents of Isycoed wrote to oppose the village losing its identity by being incorporated within Abenbury. They stated that Isycoed has its own church, school and community owned village hall, and that there are smaller Community Councils such as Cerriog Ucha and Erbistock that could be thought about. They considered that it was unlikely that the village of Isycoed would have the same level of finance if the amalgamation should occur.

Two residents of Isycoed stated that they wanted to place on record their strongest possible opposition to the proposed merger of Isycoed with Abenbury and part of Caia Park to form a new area with a Community Council of 8 representatives from Abenbury and only 2 from Isycoed. They both gave the following reasons for their objection:

· The village of Isycoed functions exceedingly well both financially and culturally under the guiding hands of its Community Councillors, all of whom reside in the village and are personally known to every one of the village’s residents – and are therefore accountable to their neighbours should any issues arise.

· It is a close-knit community and is geographically separated from the other two areas in this unwelcome scheme. A quick canvass among immediate neighbours reveals than none of them want to lose their identity and become a part of a bigger and less personal area.

· All local social activities centre on the church, the village school and the village hall and are supported solely by the Isycoed residents without any input whatsoever from Abenbury or Caia Park with whom Isycoed has no links.

· Furthermore, if this merger were to go ahead, there is every likelihood that Isycoed could lose its village hall. If that happens they would no longer have a venue for social activities. St Paul’s church, Isycoed would become an immediate victim because the church relies on hiring the hall for its varied fund raising activities,

-6- Appendix B

without which the church would no longer be financially viable. Does the Commission want to be responsible for the closure of the church?

One of the residents in addition stated that her family has lived in Isycoed for 25 years. The village has its own unique identity and sense of community and she would be horrified to see anything happen to change that. She hoped that the Commission heeds the pleas to leave well alone. After all, Isycoed was mentioned in the Doomsday Book.

The other resident stated that being linked with Abenbury and Caia Park (formerly Queens Park) and its doubtful reputation would inevitably have a detrimental effect on property values and the image of Isycoed. The village is very much self-supporting so why rush to change the boundaries. If anything Isycoed has a closer affinity to the village of Holt.

A resident of Isycoed wrote to express her concern regarding the proposed change to the Local Boundaries. She stated that Isycoed is a thriving rural community with its own school, church and village hall, which are all an integral part of life in the village. She understands that the proposed new Community Council would have 10 members, 8 from Abenbury and only 2 from Isycoed. She stated that it is not a fair representation particularly as Abenbury does not have an affinity with rural life. She was of the view that the village would lose its identity and individuality and she objected totally to the proposals.

Two residents of Isycoed, wrote to oppose the Community Council of Isycoed being incorporated into Abenbury for the following reasons:

· The Community of Isycoed has its own church, school and village hall. Why destroy something that is good?

· This is a rural farming community. Why should urban Members of Abenbury have a say in the affairs of Isycoed?

· Isycoed has always acted in a financially responsible manner; there is no reason to submerge this active community into another for the sake of forming a larger Council.

· With only 2 proposed Members for Isycoed out of 10, what chance has Isycoed over matters affecting its welfare?

A resident of Isycoed wrote to convey his horror at the proposed boundary change at Isycoed, as there is absolutely no need to alter anything within the Parish boundary or the boundary itself.

Two residents of Isycoed wished to register their great concern that the Commission has proposed that the village of Isycoed be amalgamated with Abenbury and Abenbury Fields Estate. They stated that the requirements of the two communities are completely different with one a rural area and the other residential.

The village has a strong community spirit built around the church and the church school of St Paul’s. The village hall is well maintained and well used for fund raising activities, which

-7- Appendix B would be of no interest to a residential area. The fact that Isycoed would have 2 representatives as against 8 for Abenbury, which would leave the village in a very weak and vulnerable position.

They suggested that the matter is given a great deal of thought and consideration as it would seem that there is a risk of yet another rural area being cast aside and loosing its identity.

A resident of Isycoed objected to the village being incorporated within Abenbury as it is a small close-knit community and as such crime is almost non-existent due to everyone caring about the village and its people.

Of the proposed 10 Council members only 2 would represent Isycoed, leaving 8 from Abenbury. Abenbury would include Llwyn Onn and Abenbury Fields, which are adjacent to Queen’s (Caia) Park in Wrexham and have no contact with Isycoed village. With them residing on the outskirts of Wrexham they have no idea of village life and as such could not possibly decide on anything except their own town situation.

As a village, Isycoed is managed very competently by its elected Councillors with a village hall, church and school. She stated that this is change for the benefit of Abenbury and certainly not for Isycoed.

A resident of Isycoed strongly objected to the Commission’s recommendation that Isycoed is to be part of Abenbury. She stated that Isycoed does not want to loose its individual identity. The local school, church and village hall could be under threat by a new Community Council, who are not locally elected. The proposal of 2 Isycoed members and 8 from Abenbury does not seem to be fair.

She believes that Abenbury Council have never expressed an interest in any form of amalgamation with Isycoed. Abenbury is now an overflow of Wrexham town. Isycoed is a village and wants to stay that way, with its own Community Council and does not want to be part of the extended community of Abenbury.

A resident of Isycoed wrote regarding the loss of the village's identity if it were to be incorporated into Abenbury community.

He stated that insofar as he is aware no one had been advised of the reasons or justification supporting the proposed amalgamation, and he believes that he has a right to be kept properly informed about such matters that have a direct effect upon residents’ way of life.

The information should be available to all of the community concerned prior to any decision being made and an opportunity for all opinions to be considered. It is not enough to be advised that a group of totally un-interested and unaffected people, however well intentioned, should be able to influence the future of a village without challenge.

If the Isycoed Councillors had failed in their duty of looking after the affairs of the community then some change might be necessary, but he was not aware that this is the case. The village, school, church etc seem to function very well and there is a good

-8- Appendix B community spirit. He is quite certain that this would not be the case is engulfed by Abenbury, a community with its own values but of an entirely different nature.

A resident of Isycoed strongly opposed the suggested amalgamation of Isycoed with Abenbury as he suggests Isycoed would lose its village status.

-9-