LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS DRAFT PROPOSALS

COUNTY OF FLINTSHIRE

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE COUNTY OF FLINTSHIRE

DRAFT PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION 2. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS 3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW 4. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO DRAFT

PROPOSALS 5. ASSESSMENT 6. PROPOSALS 7. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT APPENDIX 1 GLOSSARY OF TERMS APPENDIX 2 EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP APPENDIX 3 PROPOSED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP APPENDIX 4 MINISTER’S DIRECTIONS AND ADDITIONAL LETTER APPENDIX 5 SUMMARY OF INITIAL REPRESENTATIONS

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: lgbc.wales@wales.gsi.gov.uk www.lgbc-wales.gov.uk

- 1 -

FOREWORD Those who have received this report containing our Draft Proposals will already be aware of this Review of Electoral Arrangements for all local authority areas in Wales. An important principle for our work is to aim to achieve a better democratic balance within each council area so that each vote cast in an election is, so far as reasonably practicable, of the same weight as all others in the council area. The achievement of this aim, along with other measures, would be conducive to effective and convenient local government. At the beginning of this review process we have found some considerable differences between the numbers of voters to councillors not only between council areas in Wales, but also within council areas themselves. The Commission is constrained by a number of things in the way we undertake our work:

• The basic “building blocks” for electoral divisions are the community areas into which Wales is divided. These community areas were set up over 30 years ago and despite the work already done by some local authorities and also ourselves, there are still many places where the community areas do not reflect the present pattern of community life.

• The accuracy of the information on the numbers of residents in each council area in

5 years time challenges all – the future is difficult to predict. The Commission has therefore adopted a cautious approach in using these projections.

• The legal rules by which we operate are also quite strict and again place limitations

on what we can do for each electoral division. This report provides our initial recommendations on what has to be done within this council area. We wish to provide a better democratic balance together with electoral arrangements which contribute to there being effective and convenient local government wherever you live in Wales. Paul Wood Chairman

- 2 -

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 We, the members of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales, have

completed the first stage of the review of electoral arrangements for the County of Flintshire and present our Draft Proposals for the future electoral arrangements. A glossary of terms used in this report can be found at Appendix 1. The County of Flintshire currently has an electorate of 115,468. At present it is divided into 57 divisions (44 of which are single-member and 13 multi-member) returning 70 councillors. The overall ratio of members to electors for the County is currently 1:1,650. The present electoral arrangements are set out in detail in Appendix 2.

2. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS 2.1 We propose a change to the arrangement of electoral divisions that will achieve a

significant improvement in the level of electoral parity across the County of Flintshire and results in a reduction in the council size from 70 to 60 elected members.

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW 3.1 Section 57 of the Local Government Act 1972 (the 1972 Act) lays upon the

Commission the duty, at intervals of not less than 10 and not more than fifteen 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 Assembly Government for a change in those electoral arrangements.

3.2 The Minister for Social Justice and Local Government of the Welsh Assembly

Government has directed the Commission to submit a report in respect of the review of electoral arrangements for the County of Flintshire by 30 June 2011.

Electoral Arrangements 3.3 The “electoral arrangements” of a principal area are defined in section 78 of the

1972 Act as:

i) the total number of councillors to be elected to the council; ii) the number and boundaries of electoral divisions; iii) the number of councillors to be elected for each electoral division; and iv) the name of any electoral division.

Rules to Be Observed Considering Electoral Arrangements 3.4 We are required by section 78 to comply, so far as is reasonably practicable, with

the rules set out in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act (as amended by the 1994 Act). These require the Commission to provide for there to be a single member for each

- 3 -

electoral division. However, the Minister may direct the Commission to consider the desirability of providing for multi-member electoral divisions for the whole or part of a principal area.

3.5 The rules also require that:

Having regard to any change in the number or distribution of local government electors of the principal area likely to take place within the period of five years immediately following consideration of the electoral arrangements:

i) subject to paragraph (ii), the number of local government electors shall be,

as nearly as may be, the same in every electoral division in the principal area;

ii) where there are one or more multi-member divisions, the ratio of the number

of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every electoral division in the principal area (including any that are not multi-member divisions);

iii) every ward of a community having a community council (whether separate or

common) shall lie wholly within a single electoral division; and iv) every community which is not divided into community wards shall lie wholly

within a single electoral division. In considering the electoral arrangements, we must have regard to (a) the desirability of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable; and (b) any local ties which would be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary.

Minister’s Directions 3.6 The Minister has directed that the Commission shall consider the desirability of

multi member electoral divisions in each county and county borough council in Wales.

3.7 The Minister has also given the following directions to the Commission for their

guidance in conducting the review:

(a) it is considered that a minimum number of 30 councillors is required for the proper management of the affairs of a county or county borough council;

(b) it is considered that, in order to minimise the risk of a county council or a

county borough council becoming unwieldy and difficult to manage, a maximum number of 75 councillors is ordinarily required for the proper management of the affairs of a county or a county borough council;

(c) it is considered that the aim should be to achieve electoral divisions with a

councillor to electorate ratio no lower than 1:1,750;

- 4 -

(d) it is considered that decisions to alter the existing pattern of multi and single member electoral divisions should only be taken where such proposals for alteration are broadly supported by the electorate in so far as their views can be obtained in fulfilment of the consultation requirement contained in Section 60 of the Act; and

(e) It is considered that the Commission shall, when conducting reviews under

Part 4 of the Act, comply with paragraph 1A of Schedule 11 to the Act that is, the Rules.

The full text of the Directions is at Appendix 4. The Directions were further confirmed in a letter from the Minister on 12th May 2009. A copy of this letter follows the Directions at Appendix 4.

Local Government Changes 3.8 Since the last review of electoral arrangements there have been the following

changes to local government boundaries in Flintshire:

• The Communities of Holywell and Mold (Wards) Order 1999 • The Communities of Bagillt and Gwernaffield (Wards) Order 2001 • The Communities of Cilcain and Higher Kinnerton (Wards) Order 2008

Procedure 3.9 Section 60 of the 1972 Act lays down procedural guidelines which are to be

followed in carrying out a review. In compliance with Section 60 of the 1972 Act we wrote on 27 February 2009 to Flintshire County Council, all the community councils in the area, the Member(s) 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 invited the County Council to submit a suggested scheme or schemes for new electoral arrangements. We also publicised our intention to conduct the review in local newspapers circulating in the County and asked Flintshire County Council to display a number of public notices in their area. We also made available copies of our electoral reviews guidance booklet. In addition we made a presentation to both County and Community councillors explaining the review process.

4. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO DRAFT PROPOSALS 4.1 We received representations from the following town and community councils:

Bagillt Community Council; Broughton and Bretton Community Council; Buckley Town Council; Caerwys Quay Town Council; Connah’s Quay Town Council; Flint Town Council; Gwernymynydd Community Council; Halkyn Community Council; Holywell Town Council; Holywell Town Council; Hope Community Council; Leeswood Community Council; Llanasa Community Council; Llanfynydd Community Council; Mold Town Council; Nercwys Community Council; Northop Community Council; Pen-y-Ffordd Community Council; Saltney Town Council; Treuddyn Community Council.

- 5 -

4.2 We also received representations from the Flintshire County Council Conservatives

Group as well as the following Councillors:

County Councillor Eng Klaus Armstrong-Braun; County Councillor L.A. Aldridge; County Councillor Robin Baker; County Councillor David Barratt; County Councillor Clive Carver; County Councillor Carolyn Cattermoul; County Councillor Peter Curtis; County Councillor Adele Davies-Cooke; County Councillor Quentin Dodd; County Councillor Chris Dolphin; County Councillor Rosetta Dolphin; County Councillor Ted Evans; County Councillor Jim Falshaw; County Councillor Fred Gillmore; County Councillor Robin Guest; County Councillor Alison Halford; County Councillor Trefor Howorth; County Councillor Hilary Isherwood; County Councillor Rita Johnson; County Councillor Christine Jones; County Councillor Norma Jones; County Councillor Richard Jones; County Councillor Stella Jones; County Councillor Peter Macfarlane; County Councillor David McFarlane; County Councillor Nancy Matthews; County Councillor Ann Minshull; County Councillor B. Mullin; County Councillor Tim Newhouse; County Councillor Mike Peers; County Councillor Peter Pemberton; County Councillor Neville Phillips; County Councillor Mike Reece; County Councillor Ian Roberts; County Councillor Nigel Steele-Mortimer; County Councillor Carolyn Thomas; County Councillor David Williams; County Councillor Arnold Woolley; and Community Councillor Jennifer Smith.

4.3 We considered all of these representations carefully before we formulated our

proposals. A summary of these representations can be found at Appendix 5. 5. ASSESSMENT Request for a Community Boundary Change 5.1 Before considering the electoral arrangements for the County of Flintshire, we

would like to respond to the representations that asked us to make changes to electoral division boundaries that are community or community ward boundaries. For such changes to take place it would first be necessary to undertake a review of community or community ward boundaries. It is evident from these requests that some uncertainty exists about the appropriate machinery for effecting such reviews. We wish to set out the statutory position.

5.2 Section 55(2) of the 1972 Act (as amended by the 1994 Act) requires each principal

council in Wales to keep the whole of their area under review for the purpose of considering whether to make recommendations to the Commission for the constitution of new communities, the abolition of communities or the alteration of communities in their area. We consider the principal council’s proposals and report to the Welsh Assembly Government which may, if it thinks fit, by order give effect to any of the proposals.

5.3 Under Section 57(4) of the 1972 Act (as amended by the 1994 Act), the principal

councils also have a duty to keep under review the electoral arrangements (which include the community ward boundaries) for the communities within their areas, for the purpose of considering whether to make substantive changes. The principal councils must also consider requests for changes made by a community council or

- 6 -

by not less than thirty local government electors of a community and, if they think fit, make an order giving effect to those changes.

5.4 Changes to the boundaries of communities and community wards are therefore a

matter for the principal council to consider in the first instance and may not be considered by us as part of this review. We will use the community and community wards as they exist at the start of this review as the building blocks for the proposed electoral divisions.

Councillor to electorate ratio 5.5 The Minister's directions include the following at 3.7 (a): "It is considered that the

aim should be to achieve electoral divisions with a councillor to electorate ratio no lower than 1:1,750.” The Minister has indicated to the Commission that this means that the number of electors per councillor should not normally fall below 1,750, and this is how the Commission has interpreted and applied the Direction. We bear very much in mind that the directions are provided as guidance and should not be applied without regard to the special circumstances of the particular area: there may well be circumstances, having to do with topography or population etc of the area where it will be considered that an electoral division of fewer than 1,750 electors to be represented by each councillor is appropriate. This was explained in the letter from the Minister (Appendix 4) which stated: “This means that the ratio remains as the aim to be worked towards and not as a goal to be achieved in each case. In doing so attention should be paid to local communities having their own identifiable representation even where the indicative figure of 1,750 electors/ councillor is not always achievable”. In the absence of special circumstances we will aim to propose electoral arrangements in which the level of representation does not fall below 1,750 electors per councillor. We are not constrained in the same way by this direction from proposing electoral arrangement in which the number of electors to be represented by each councillor is, in appropriate cases, higher than 1,750. Throughout this review we will keep the ratio of 1:1,750 very much in mind, and will not normally think it necessary to refer to it expressly in every case.

Council size 5.6 At present the size of the council at 70 members is within the criteria set out in the

directions issued by the Minister (Appendix 4). The current county average level of representation is 1,650 electors per councillor. There are currently 44 single member and 13 multi-member divisions. We noted that there are currently 38 electoral divisions where the level of representation falls below 1,750 electors per councillor (see Councillor to electorate ratio above). We also noted that, in respect of the number of electors per councillor in each electoral division there is a wide variation from the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor ranging from 44% below (Saltney Mold Junction) to 32% above (Connah’s Quay South).

5.7 We reviewed the electoral arrangements for the County of Flintshire in the light of

the Minister’s directions for our guidance and took account of the representations which had been made to us. In our deliberations we 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 per

- 7 -

councillor shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every division in the principal area. We considered the size and character of the authority and a wide range of other factors including population density, the local topography, road communications, and local ties.

5.8 For the reasons given below we believe that in the interests of effective and

convenient local government a council size of 60 would be appropriate to represent the County of Flintshire. This determination of the council size results in an average of 1,924 electors being represented by each councillor.

Number of Electors 5.9 We obtained figures covering current and projected electorate numbers from

Flintshire County Council but those figures were subsequently recast following a number of representations from County and Community councillors. The numbers shown as the electorate for 2009 and the estimates for the electorate in the year 2014 are those submitted to us by Flintshire County Council in April 2009. The projected figures supplied by Flintshire County Council show a forecasted rise in the electorate of 12,179 - around 11% - from 115,468 to 127,647. The County currently has a large transient seasonal population, but the population is set to become more settled in the future due to a large planned increase in retirement properties. This planning may now be affected by the slowdown in the housing market generally following the scaling-back of the recession-hit property and construction sectors. We have noted the representations that ask us to consider seasonal increases in population, residents who are not on the Electoral register and daily visitors for work and for recreation. As stated in paragraph 3.5 above the rules refer throughout to the number of local government electors. Although we may consider other factors, we are therefore required to formulate our proposals based on the number of local government electors.

Electoral Divisions 5.10 We have considered changes to all of the County of Flintshire electoral divisions.

Details of current arrangements can be found at Appendix 2. Argoed and New Brighton 5.11 The Argoed electoral division consists of the East (1,668 electors, 1,701 projected)

and South (558 electors, 672 projected) wards of the Community of Argoed with a total of 2,226 electors (2,373 projected) represented by one councillor which is 35% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The New Brighton electoral division consists of the Argoed West (1,524 electors, 1,554 projected) and New Brighton (863 electors, 1,137 projected) wards of the Community of Argoed with a total of 2,387 electors (2,691 projected) represented by one councillor which is 45% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor.

5.12 Combining the West ward of the Community of Argoed with the existing Argoed

electoral division would form an electoral division with a total of 3,750 electors (3.927 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, would result a level of

- 8 -

representation of 1,875 electors per councillor which is 3% below the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that these divisions adjoin each other, and are connected by a series of roads including the A549 and A494. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Argoed. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Bagillt East, Bagillt West, and Flint Coleshill 5.13 The Bagillt East electoral division consists of the East ward of the Community of

Bagillt with 1,467 electors (1,607 projected) represented by one councillor which is 11% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 16% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The Bagillt West electoral division comprises the West ward of the Community of Bagillt with a total of 1,601 electors (1,643 projected) represented by one councillor which is 3% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 9% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The Flint Coleshill electoral division comprises the Flint Coleshill ward of the Community of Flint with a total of 3,046 electors (3,106 projected) represented by two councillors. This gives a level of representation of 1,523 electors per councillor that is 8% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 13% below 1,750 electors per councillor.

5.14 We noted that, in their representation, Bagillt Community Council expressed the

view that no changes need to be made to the two Bagillt electoral divisions even though they acknowledge that the ratios are below 1,750 electors per councillor. They note that the two divisions contain urban villages, rural settlements, and Communities First areas. We have also noted the representation from Councillor Aldridge who considers that in view of the likely growth in the number of electors a reduction in the number of councillors was not justified. We have taken these views into account, but we consider that it would be desirable to change the electoral arrangements in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

5.15 Combining the electoral divisions of Bagillt, Bagillt West and Flint Coleshill ward

would form an electoral division with 6,144 electors (6,356 projected) which, if represented by three councillors, will result in a level of representation of 2,038 electors per councillor which is 6% above the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that communications between these divisions is good as they lie along the A548 main road. This amalgamation would result in a reduction of one councillor representing the area but it will improve the electoral parity. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Bagillt. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Buckley Bistre East and Buckley Bistre West 5.16 The Buckley Bistre East electoral division consists of the Bistre East ward of the

Community of Buckley with a total of 2,759 electors (2,929 projected) represented by two councillors. This gives a level of representation of 1,380 electors per councillor which is 16% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 21% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The Buckley Bistre West

- 9 -

electoral division consists of the Bistre West ward of the Community of Buckley with a total of 3,306 electors (3,718 projected) represented by two councillors. This gives a level of representation of 1,653 electors per councillor which is almost equal to the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor but is 6% below 1,750 electors per councillor.

5.17 We have noted the representation from Buckley Town Council asking us to

consider the projected figures as well as the existing electorates and to take into account geographic considerations. This we have done. We noted a representation from Councillor Hampson (Buckley Bistre West) who was concerned about future developments creating an imbalance in councillor workload. We also noted a representation from Councillor Woolley (Buckley Bistre East) who was concerned about future developments raising the need for an additional councillor. We are of the view that, even after taking all of the factors raised in the representations into account; it would be desirable to change the electoral arrangements in the area so as to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

5.18 Combining the existing electoral divisions of Buckley Bistre East (2,759 electors,

2,929 projected) and Buckley Bistre West (3,306 electors, 3,718 projected) would form an electoral division with a total of 6,065 electors (6,647 projected) which, if represented by three councillors, would result in a level of representation of 2,022 electors per councillor which is 5% above the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that the two divisions adjoin each other, sharing links along the A548. This amalgamation would result in a reduction of one councillor representing the area but it will improve the electoral parity. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Bistre. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Buckley Pentrobin and Buckley Mountain 5.19 The existing Buckley Pentrobin electoral division consists of the Pentrobin ward of

the Community of Buckley with 3,514 electors (4,380 projected) represented by two councillors. This gives a level of representation of 1,757 electors per councillor which is 7% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The existing Buckley Mountain electoral division consists of the Mountain ward of the Community of Buckley with 2,160 electors (2,690 projected) represented by one councillor which is 31% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor.

5.20 As stated in paragraph 5.17 above we have noted the representation from Buckley Town Council and are of the view that in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity a rearrangement of the electoral divisions in this area would be desirable.

5.21 Combining the existing electoral divisions of Buckley Pentrobin and Buckley

Mountain would form an electoral division with 5,674 electors (7,070 projected) which, if represented by three councillors will result in a level of representation of 1,891 electors per councillor which is 2% below the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that the two divisions adjoin each other and have good road links between them in the one developed area. We put this

- 10 -

forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Buckley. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Broughton and Bretton North East, Broughton and Bretton South Saltney Mold Junction, and Saltney Stonebridge 5.22 The existing electoral division of Broughton and Bretton North East comprises the

North (582 electors, 869 projected) and East (812 electors, 832 projected) wards of the Community of Broughton and Bretton with a total of 1,664 electors (1,701 projected), represented by one councillor which is 1% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 5% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The Broughton and Bretton South electoral division consists of the South ward of the Community of Broughton and Bretton with 2,800 electors (3,362 projected), represented by two councillors. This gives a level of representation of 1,400 electors per councillor which is 15% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 12% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The electoral division of Saltney Mold Junction consists of the Mold Junction ward of the Community of Saltney with 931 electors (1,087 projected); represented by one councillor which is 44% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 47% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The electoral division of Saltney Stonebridge consists of the Stonebridge ward of the Community of Saltney with 2,562 electors (2,848 projected) represented by one councillor which is 55% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor.

5.23 We have noted the representation from Saltney Town Council that suggests the

combination of the two Saltney electoral Divisions. We also noted the representation from Broughton and Bretton Community Council asking that consideration is given to factors other than electoral numbers which may affect a councillor’s workload. We have considered all of the points raised in the representations and the current levels of electoral representation in the area and are of the view that it would be desirable to make changes to the electoral arrangements in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity. We have also noted the representation from County Councillor Armstrong-Braun that Saltney Ferry Mold ward is likely to increase in population in the future and that this ward could have a link with Bretton village or extend towards Sandycroft. Councillor Armstrong-Braun also stressed the fact that the area was in need of a review to the boundary between the two Saltney community wards of Mold Junction and Stonebridge. As we have explained in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4 we are unable to consider such changes as part of this review.

5.24 Combining these four electoral divisions will bring the proposed electorate to 7,957

(8,998 projected) which, if represented by four councillors, will result in a level of representation of 1,989 electors per councillor which is 3% above the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that these existing divisions adjoin each other in the one developed area and good communication exists along the A5104 and B5129 roads. This amalgamation would result in a reduction of one councillor representing the area but it will improve the electoral parity. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Cae’r Adain. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

- 11 -

Connah’s Quay Central and Connah’s Quay Golftyn 5.25 The existing Connah’s Quay Central electoral division consists of the Central ward

of the Community of Connah’s Quay with 2,450 electors (2,499 projected), represented by two councillors. This gives a level of representation of 1,225 electors per councillor which is 26% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 30% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The existing Connah’s Quay Golftyn electoral division consists of the Golftyn ward of the Community of Connah’s Quay with 3,952 electors (4,540 projected), represented by two councillors. This gives a level of representation of 1,976 electors per councillor which is 20% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor.

5.26 We have noted the representation from Connah’s Quay Town Council suggesting

changes to their community ward boundaries. As we have explained in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4 we are unable to consider such changes as part of this review. We also noted the representation from Councillor Peter Macfarlane (Connah’s Quay Golftyn) who expressed the view that there may be a certain amount of movement between wards because of planned developments and this may warrant a change in councillor numbers. We considered this representation and were of the view that a change in electoral arrangements in this area would be desirable to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

5.27 Combining the two electoral divisions would form an electoral division of 6,402

electors (7,039 projected) which if represented by three councillors would result in a level of representation of 2,134 electors per councillor which is 11% above the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that the two divisions adjoin each other and share many road links within the Connah’s Quay developed area. This amalgamation would result in a reduction of one councillor representing the area but it will improve the electoral parity. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Connah’s Quay North. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Connah’s Quay South and Connah’s Quay Wepre

5.28 The existing Connah’s Quay South electoral division consists of the South ward of the Community of Connah’s Quay with 4,360 electors (4,634 projected), represented by two councillors. This gives a level of representation of 2,180 electors per councillor which is 32% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The existing Connah’s Quay Wepre electoral division consists of the Wepre ward of the Community of Connah’s Quay with 1,662 electors (1,682 projected), represented by one councillor which is 1% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. We have noted the difference in the levels of representation between these two areas and of the view that a change in electoral arrangements in this area would be desirable to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

5.29 Combining the two electoral divisions would form an electoral division with 6,022 electors (6,316 projected) which, if represented by three councillors, would result in

- 12 -

a level of representation of 2,007 electors per councillor which is 4% above the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that the two divisions adjoin each other and share many road links. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Connah’s Quay South. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Flint Castle, Flint Oakenholt and Flint Trelawny 5.30 The existing Flint Castle electoral division consists of the Castle ward of the

Community of Flint with 1,581 electors (1,647 projected); represented by one councillor which is 4% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 10% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The existing Flint Oakenholt electoral division comprises the Oakenholt ward of the Community of Flint with 2,176 electors (3,390 projected) represented by one councillor which is 32% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The existing Flint Trelawny electoral division consists of the Trelawny ward of the Community of Flint with 2,819 electors (3,027 projected), represented by two councillors. This gives a level of representation of 1,410 electors per councillor which is 15% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 19% below 1,750 electors per councillor.

5.31 We have noted the representation from Flint Town Council suggesting changes to

their community ward boundaries. We also noted a representation from Councillor Evans that a proposed development would straddle an existing ward boundary and provided suggested changes to the boundary involved. As we have explained in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4 we are unable to consider such changes as part of this review. We have also noted the representation from Councillor Alldridge (Flint Coleshill) who considers that all the Flint community wards will grow by 2014 and so a reduction in councillors would not be warranted, a view shared by Councillor Howorth (Flint Trelawny); Councillor Johnson (Flint Oakenholt); and Councillor Roberts (Flint Castle). We have taken the views expressed in these representations into account and were of the opinion that a change in electoral arrangements in this area would be desirable to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

5.32 Combining the three electoral divisions would form an electoral division with 6,576

electors (8,064 projected) which if represented by three councillors would result in a level of representation of 2,192 electors per councillor which is 14% above the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that the three divisions adjoin each other and share many road links - principally the A5119 - within the Flint developed area. This amalgamation would result in a reduction of one councillor representing the area but it will improve the overall electoral parity. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Flint Town. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

- 13 -

Halkyn, New Brighton and Northop 5.33 The existing Halkyn electoral division consists of the Halkyn (416 electors, 420

projected), Rhesycae (276 electors, 278 projected) and Rhosesmor (925 electors, 934 projected) wards of the Community of Halkyn with a total of 1,617 electors (1,632 projected) represented by one councillor which is 2% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 8% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The existing New Brighton electoral division consists of the New Brighton (863 electors, 1,137 projected) and the Argoed West 1,524 electors, 1,554 projected) wards of the Community of Argoed with a total of 2,385 electors (2,691 projected) represented by one councillor which is 45% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The existing Northop electoral division consists of the Northop (985 electors, 1,101 projected) and the Sychdyn (1,450 electors, 1,530 projected) wards of the Community of Northop with a total of 2,435 electors (2,631 projected) represented by one councillor which is 48% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor.

5.34 We have noted the representation from Halkyn Community Council expressing

concerns over the potential geographical effects of any proposed changes. We have also noted the representation from Northop Community Council expressing the view that a level of representation of 1,750 electors per councillor would be detrimental to the rural areas and that they were opposed to any amalgamation that would see Northop in the same electoral division as Northop Hall. We have taken the views expressed in these representations into account and, after consideration of the current levels of electoral parity we are of the view that it would be desirable to make changes to the electoral arrangements in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity. We also noted a representation from Councillor Dodd (New Brighton) who expressed the view that boundary changes should have been a part of the review (this is not possible as we have explained earlier at 5.1 to 5.4).

5.35 Combining the New Brighton ward of the Community of Argoed, the Community of

Halkyn, and the Community of Northop would form an electoral division with a total of 5,630 electors (6,122 projected) which, if represented by three councillors, would give a level of representation of 1,877 electors per councillor which is 2% below the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that the areas involved adjoin each other and share many road links within a 2-3 mile radius. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Fownog. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Queensferry and Sealand 5.36 The existing electoral division of Queensferry consists of the Queensferry (415

electors, 423 projected), Pentre (138 electors, 140 projected) and Sandycroft (899 electors, 917 projected) wards of the Community of Queensferry with a total of 1,452 electors (1,480 projected) represented by one councillor which is 12% below the current county average ratio and is 17% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The existing Sealand electoral division consists of the East (829 electors, 885 projected) and West (1,283 electors, 2,583 projected) wards of the Community of

- 14 -

Sealand with a total of 2,112 electors (3,468 projected) represented by one councillor which is 28% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor.

5.37 Councillor Christine Jones (Sealand electoral division) considered that the boundaries and councillor allocation should stay the same as commitments are heavy in the area and population increase will justify the number of councillors allocated. We considered this suggestion in the light of the projections for the 2014 electorate that take account of proposed development in the area. We are, however, of the view that in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity in this area it would be desirable to make changes to those electoral divisions.

5.38 Combining the two existing electoral divisions of Queensferry and Sealand would

form an electoral division with 3,564 electors (4,948 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, would result in a level of representation of 1,782 electors per councillor which is 7% below the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that the divisions adjoin each other and share many road links along the B5129. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Glan Dyfrydwy. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Ffynnongroyw, Gronant and Mostyn 5.39 The existing Ffynnongroyw electoral division consists of the Ffynnongroyw Ward of

the Community of Llanasa with 1,509 electors (1,535 projected) represented by one councillor which is 14% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 9% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The existing Gronant electoral division consists of the Gronant Ward of the Community of Llanasa with 1,256 electors (1,296 projected) represented by one councillor which is 24% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 27% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The existing electoral division of Mostyn consists of the Mostyn (996 electors, 1,086 projected) and Rhewl Mostyn (429 electors, 433 projected) wards of the Community of Mostyn with a total of 1,425 electors (1,519 projected) represented by one councillor which is 14% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and 19% below 1,750 electors per councillor

5.40 We noted the representation from Councillor Gillmore (Gronant) who expressed the

view that Gronant has a high seasonal population who are not on the electoral register but who, nonetheless, place large demands on a councillor’s time. The Conservative Group also considered that, given the nature of the community and surrounding area, major changes to the boundaries (of Gronant) would not be in the best interests of all communities involved. We have taken these views into account but consider however that the present wide variation in electoral parity from the county average should not be sustained. We have, therefore, considered alternative electoral arrangements for the area.

5.41 Combining the existing Mostyn, Gronant and Ffynnongroyw electoral divisions

would form an electoral division with 4,190 electors (4,350 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, would have a level of representation of 2,095

- 15 -

electors per councillor which is 9% above the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. This amalgamation would result in a reduction of one councillor representing the area but it will improve the electoral parity. It was noted that the divisions share many road links along the A548. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Glan-y-Mor. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Greenfield, Holywell Central, Holywell East, and Holywell, West 5.42 The existing Greenfield electoral division consists of the Greenfield ward of the

Community of Holywell with 2,087 electors (2,003 projected) represented by one councillor which is 7% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The existing Holywell Central electoral division consists of the Central ward of the Community of Holywell with1,424 electors (1,812 projected) represented by one councillor which is 14% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 19% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The existing Holywell East electoral division consists of the East ward of the Community of Holywell with 1,396 electors (1,476 projected) represented by one councillor which is 15% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 20% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The Holywell West electoral division consists of the West ward of the Community of Holywell with 1,759 electors (2,003 projected) represented by one councillor which is 7% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor.

5.43 We have noted the representation from Holywell Town Council expressing concerns about taking a formula-based approach to the review. They also expressed concerns about increases in the electorate due to developments as well as the number of residents who do not appear on the electoral register. Councillor Baker (Holywell East), and Councillor Curtis (Holywell East); both expressed concerns that Holywell’s problems may be ignored if reorganisation takes place purely by number. Councillor Rosetta Dolphin (Holywell Central): was also concerned that being in a Communities First area places increased demand on a councillor. We have taken all of these views into account and have considered the wide variation in the councillor to electorate ratios in the area. We are of the view that it would be desirable to make changes to the electoral arrangements in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

5.44 Combining the existing Holywell Central, Holywell East, Holywell West, and

Greenfield electoral divisions would form an electoral division with a total of 6,666 electors (7,402 projected) which, if represented by three councillors, would have a level of representation of 2,222 electors per councillor which is 15% above the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that these areas share many road and cultural links. This amalgamation would result in a reduction of one councillor representing the area but it will improve the overall electoral parity. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Holywell. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

- 16 -

Caergwrle, Hope and Leeswood 5.45 The existing Caergwrle electoral division consists of the Caergwrle ward of the

Community of Hope with a total of 1,300 electors (1,480 projected) represented by one councillor which is 21% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 26% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The existing Hope electoral division consists of the Hope ward of the Community of Hope with a total of 1,953 electors (2,049 projected) represented by one councillor which is 18% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The existing Leeswood electoral division consists of the Leeswood (1,403 electors, 1,525 projected) and Pontblyddyn (256 electors, 259 projected) wards of the Community of Leeswood with a total of 1,659 electors (1,784 projected) represented by one councillor which is 1% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor.

5.46 We have noted the representation from Leeswood Community Council expressing

the view that the existing level of representation precludes the need for any changes to the electoral arrangements. We have taken the views expressed by Leeswood Community Council into account and have considered the current level of electoral parity in the area and are of the view that it would be desirable to make changes to the electoral arrangements in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

5.47 Combining these three electoral divisions will bring the proposed electorate to

4,912 (5,313 projected) which, if represented by three councillors, would have a level of representation of 1,637 electors per councillor which is 15% below the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that these existing divisions adjoin each other and have good communication links along the A541 road. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Leeswood. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Hawarden, Higher Kinnerton and Pen-y-ffordd 5.48 The existing Hawarden electoral division consists of the Hawarden ward of the

Community of Hawarden with 1,512 electors (1,598 projected) represented by one councillor which is 8% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The Higher Kinnerton electoral division consists of the Community of Higher Kinnerton with 1,286 electors (1,334 projected) represented by one councillor which is 22% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The existing Pen-y-ffordd electoral division consists of the Community of Pen-y-ffordd with 2,949 electors (3,587 projected) represented by two councillors. This gives a level of representation of 1,475 electors per councillor which is 11% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 16% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The existing Mancot electoral division consists of the Mancot ward of the Community of Hawarden with 2,645 electors (2,861 projected) represented by two councillors. This gives a level of representation of 1,323 electors per councillor which is 20% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 24% below 1,750 electors per councillor.

- 17 -

5.49 We noted the representation from Councillor Carver (Hawarden) who considers that Hawarden’s boundary does not encompass the entire Hawarden village. A re-alignment of this boundary together with reference to future developments indicates that there need be no further changes to electoral arrangements in the area. Councillor Williams (Pen-y-Ffordd) made a similar suggestion and provided mapping in support. We have also noted the representation from Pen-y-Ffordd Community Council suggesting changes to the community ward boundaries and suggesting that the projected increase in the number of electors would imply that no changes are necessary. As we have explained in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4 we are unable to consider such changes as part of this review. We have, however, noted the existing levels of electoral parity in the area and are of the view that it would be desirable to make changes to the electoral arrangements in this area in order to achieve improvements in that electoral parity.

5.50 Combining the Hawarden and Mancot wards of the Community of Hawarden with

the Community of Higher Kinnerton, and the Community of Pen-y-ffordd would form an electoral division with 8,392 electors (9,380 projected) which, if represented by four councillors, would have a level of representation of 2,098 electors per councillor which is 9% above the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that the divisions adjoin each other and are connected by the A55 offering good links between them. This amalgamation would result in a reduction of two councillors representing the area but it will improve the electoral parity. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Llys Edwin. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Cilcain, Gwernaffield and Gwernymynydd 5.51 The existing Cilcain electoral division consists of the Community of Nannerch (419

electors, 423 projected) and the Cilcain (589 electors, 595 projected) and Rhydymwyn 9570 electors, 576 projected) wards of the Community of Cilcain with a total of 1,578 electors (1,594 projected) represented by one councillor which is 4% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 10% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The existing Gwernaffield electoral division consists of the Community of Gwernaffield with 1,566 electors (1,582 projected) represented by one councillor which is 5% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 11% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The existing Gwernymynydd electoral division consists of the Community of Gwernymynydd (945 electors, 1,005 projected) and the Community of Nercwys (446 electors, 450 projected) with a total of 1,391 electors (1,455 projected) represented by one councillor which is 16% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 21% below 1,750 electors per councillor.

5.52 We have considered the representation from Gwernymynydd Community Council

that expresses the view that the existing arrangement serves the community extremely well and asks that no change is made to the existing electoral division. We have also considered the views expressed by Councillor Matthews (Gwernymynydd electoral division) who asked that regard be given to keeping communities together as well as looking at the ratio of councillors to electors. This we have done. We are of the view however that it would be desirable to make

- 18 -

changes to the electoral arrangements in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

5.53 Combining the Communities of Cilcain, Nannerch, Gwernaffield, and

Gwernymynydd would form an electoral division with 4,089 electors (4,181 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, would have a level of representation of 2,045 electors per councillor which is 6% above the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that these divisions adjoin each other and are within a two mile radius with good communications available through various road links. This amalgamation would result in a reduction of two councillors representing the area but it will improve the electoral parity. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Moel Arthur. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Mold (Mold Broncoed, Mold East, Mold South and Mold West) 5.54 The existing Mold Broncoed electoral division consists of the Broncoed ward of the

Community of Mold with 1,954 electors (2,268 projected) represented by one councillor which is 18% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The existing Mold East electoral division of consists of the East ward of the Community of Mold with 1,551 electors (1,631 projected) represented by one councillor which is 6% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 11% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The existing Mold South electoral division consists of the South ward of the Community of Mold with 2,137 electors (2,355 projected) represented by one councillor which is 11% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The existing Mold West electoral division consists of the West ward of the Community of Mold with 1,895 electors (2,289 projected) represented by one councillor which is 15% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor.

5.55 We have noted the representation from Mold Town Council requesting that no

boundary changes are considered. They expressed the view that because of the urban pressures on its councillors and the projected electorate numbers an additional councillor is needed in the area. We also noted a representation from Councillor Guest (Mold South) who was concerned that some planned building projects for Mold may not take place and the projected figures may be affected. We have taken all of these views into account and have considered the wide variation in the councillor to electorate ratios in the area. We are of the view that it would be desirable to make changes to the electoral arrangements in this area in order to achieve improvements in its electoral parity.

5.56 Combining the four Mold electoral divisions would form an electoral division with

7,537 electors (8,543 projected) which, if represented by four councillors, would have a level of representation of 1,884 electors per councillor which is 2% below the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that the divisions adjoin each other in one developed area. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Mold. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

- 19 -

Brynford, Caerwys, Trelawnyd and Gwaenysgor, and Whitford 5.57 The Brynford electoral division consists of the Community of Brynford (831 electors,

891 projected) and the Pentre Halkyn ward of the Community of Halkyn (715 electors, 722 projected) with a total of 1,546 electors (1,613 projected) represented by one councillor which is 6% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The Caerwys electoral division consists of the Community of Caerwys (1,073 electors, 1,165 projected) and the Community of Ysceifiog (989 electors, 999 projected) with a total of 2,062 electors (2,164 projected) represented by one councillor which is 25% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The Trelawnyd and Gwaenysgor electoral division consists of the Community of Trelawnyd and Gwaenysgor (706 electors, 713 projected) and the Axton ward of the Community of Llanasa (793 electors, 801 projected) with a total of 1,499 electors represented by one councillor which is 9% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The Whitford electoral division consists of the Community of Whitford with a total of 1,900 electors (2,026 projected) represented by one councillor which is 15% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor.

5.58 We have noted the representation from Councillor Steele-Mortimer (Trelawnyd and

Gwaenysgor electoral division), supported by the Conservative Group, that suggests adding the Whitford ward of the Community of Whitford to the existing Trelawnyd and Gwaenysgor electoral division in order to improve electoral parity. We have noted the representation from Councillor Dolphin (Whitford electoral division) that stressed the advantage of retaining communities in Whitford as they currently stand and have also noted the views of Councillor Falshaw (Caerwys electoral division) who considered that no changes were required. We have taken all of these views into account and we have considered the wide variation in the councillor to electorate ratios in the area ranging from 1,546 electors per councillor in Brynford to 2,062 electors per councillor in Caerwys. We are of the view that it would be desirable to make changes to the electoral arrangements in this area in order to achieve improvements in that electoral parity.

5.59 Combining the existing Caerwys and Trelawnyd and Gwaenysgor electoral divisions,

the Community of Brynford and the Community of Whitford would form an electoral division with 6,292 electors (6,595 projected) which, if represented by four councillors, would have a level of representation of 1,573 electors per councillor which is 18% below the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that the divisions adjoin each other in the north-western corner of the county connected by a series of roads offering flexible communication. This amalgamation would result in a reduction of one councillor representing the area but it will improve the electoral parity. We put this forward as a proposal. We have noted the suggestion for the name Offa but consider that this name may be more appropriate for the electoral division proposed at 5.62 below. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Mynydd-y-Mor. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

- 20 -

Gwernymynydd, Llanfynydd, and Treuddyn 5.60 The Gwernymynydd electoral division consists of the Community of Nercwys (446

electors, 450 projected) and the Community of Gwernymynydd (945 electors, 1,005 projected) represented by one councillor which is 16% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 21% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The Llanfynydd electoral division consists of the Cefn-y-Bedd (407 electors, 473 projected), Cymau (415 electors, 419 projected), Ffrith (480 electors, 485 projected) and Pontybodkin (191 electors, 193 projected) wards of the Community of Llanfynydd with a total of 1,493 electors (1,570 projected) represented by one councillor which is 9% below the county average ratio and is 15% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The Treuddyn electoral division consists of the Community of Treuddyn with 1,321 electors (1,463 projected) represented by one councillor which is 20% below the county average ratio and is 25% below 1,750 electors per councillor.

5.61 We have noted the representation from Llanfynydd Community Council who

considered that all of the constituent parts of the community have strong ties with each other. They also suggested some changes to their community boundaries. A representation from Councillor Isherwood (Llanfynydd) also made a similar point with more detailed descriptions of proposed boundary changes. As we have explained in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4 we are unable to consider such a change as part of this review.

5.62 Combining the existing Llanfynydd and Treuddyn electoral divisions with the

Community of Nercwys would form an electoral division with 3,230 electors (3,483 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, would have a level of representation of 1:1,615 which is 16% below the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that the divisions adjoin each other in the south-western corner of the county connected by the A541; B5101; and the A5104 across a 3-4 mile radius offering flexible communication. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Offa. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Ewloe and Northop Hall 5.63 The Ewloe electoral division consists of the Ewloe ward of the Community of

Hawarden with 4,033 electors (4,275 projected) represented by two councillors. This gives a level of representation of 2,017 electors per councillor which is 22% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The existing Northop Hall electoral division consists of the Community of Northop Hall with 1,237 electors (1,367 projected) represented by one councillor which is 25% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 29% below 1,750 electors per councillor.

5.64 We have taken note of the comments made by Councillor Halford (Ewloe) in her

representation regarding the large area covered by the Ewloe and Aston councillors. We have taken these comments into account when considering the area concerned and, as an estimate, found that the proposed electoral division covers roughly 5-6 square miles and there appear to be no difficulties about accessibility. There are

- 21 -

very clear road links between these adjoining areas - notably the A494 along Aston Hill. We examined the current level of electoral parity in the area and are of the view that it would be desirable to make changes to the electoral arrangements in this area in order to achieve improvements in electoral parity.

5.65 Combining the two existing electoral divisions of Ewloe and Northop Hall would form

an electoral division with 5,270 electors (5,642 projected) which, if represented by three councillors, would result in a level of representation of 1:1,757 which is 9% below the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that the divisions adjoin each other and are directly connected by the B5125 road offering flexible communication. We put this forward as a proposal. We have given the proposed electoral division a working name of Ridgeway. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Aston, Shotton East, Shotton Higher, and Shotton West 5.66 The Aston electoral division consists of the Aston ward of the Community of

Hawarden with 2,490 electors (2,564 projected) represented by two councillors. This gives a level of representation of 1,245 electors per councillor which is 25% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and is 29% below 1,750 electors per councillor. The Shotton East electoral division consists of the East ward of the Community of Shotton with 1,374 electors (1,401 projected) represented by one councillor which is 17% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The Shotton Higher electoral division consists of the Higher ward of the Community of Shotton with 1,704 electors (1,738 projected) represented by one councillor which is 3% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor. The Shotton West electoral division consists of the West ward of the Community of Shotton with 1,538 electors (1,568 projected) represented by one councillor which is 17% below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor.

5.67 Combining these electoral divisions would form an electoral division with 7,106

electors (7,271 projected) which, if represented by four councillors, would result in a level of representation of 1,777 electors per councillor which is 8% below the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. It was noted that the divisions adjoin each other in a single developed area. This amalgamation would result in a reduction of one councillor representing the area but it will improve the electoral parity. We put this forward as a proposal. We put this forward as a proposal and suggest a working name of Shotton. We would welcome any suggestions for alternative names.

Names 5.68 For the proposed new electoral divisions we have, for convenience, given them

working names (e.g. Cae’r Adain). It may however be appropriate for other names to be given and we would welcome suggestions for alternative names. Where English language names are suggested we would also wish to consider if there is a Welsh language alternative.

- 22 -

Summary of Proposed Arrangements 5.69 The proposed electoral arrangements (as shown at Appendix 3) provide a level of

parity that ranges from 18% below to 15% above the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor (based on the existing electoral figures) with 6 of the electoral divisions with levels of representation more than 10% above or below the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor and the remaining 14 (70%) all less than 10% above or below the proposed county average of 1,924 electors per councillor. This compares with the existing electoral arrangements where the level of parity ranges from 44% below to 55% above the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor with 12 electoral divisions (21%) having levels of representation more than 25% above or below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor, 25 (44%) electoral divisions having levels of representation more than 10% and less than 25% above or below than the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor and the remaining 20 (35%) electoral divisions having levels of representation less than 10% above or below the current county average of 1,650 electors per councillor.

6. PROPOSALS 6.1 We propose a council of 60 members and 20 electoral divisions as set out in

Appendix 3. For purposes of comparison the present electoral arrangements for the County are given at Appendix 2. The boundaries of the proposed electoral divisions are shown by continuous yellow lines on the map placed on deposit with this Report at the Offices of Flintshire County Council and the Office of the Commission in Cardiff.

6.2 This draft scheme represents our preliminary views on the electoral arrangements

for the County of Flintshire. We shall welcome any representations in respect of these proposals. We will consider carefully all representations made to us in respect of them before formulating our final proposals and submitting them to the Welsh Assembly Government.

- 23 -

7. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT 7.1 All observations on this draft scheme should be sent to:

The Secretary Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales Caradog House 1-6 St Andrews Place Cardiff CF10 3BE

not later than 30 March 2010 MR P J WOOD (Chairman) REV. HYWEL MEREDYDD DAVIES BD (Deputy Chairman) Mr D J BADER (Member) E H LEWIS BSc. DPM FRSA FCIPD (Secretary) January 2010

Appendix 1

- 1 -

Glossary of terms

Commission The Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales

Council size The number of councillors elected to the council

Directions Directions issued to the Commission by the Government under Section 59 of the 1972 Act

Electoral arrangements

How many Councillors there should be on the council of local government area, the parts into which the area should be divided for the purpose of electing councillors, the number of councillors for each electoral division, and the name of any electoral area

Electoral divisions

The divisions into which principal areas are divided for the purpose of electing councillors, sometimes referred to colloquially as wards

Electoral review

A review in which the Commission considers electoral arrangements for a local government area

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

Electoral parity The comparison between an electoral division and the county average of the number of electors represented by a single councillor.

Government The Welsh Assembly Government

Interested person

Person or body who has an interest in the outcome of an electoral review such as the principal council concerned, local MPs, AMs and political parties, community and town councils

Multi member division

Electoral division within a principal area represented by more than one councillor

Order Order made by the Government, giving effect to the proposals of the Commission, either as submitted or with modifications

Principal area The area governed by a principal council: in Wales, a County or County Borough

Principal council In Wales, one of the unitary authorities: a County or County Borough council

Projected electorate The five-year forecast of the number of electors provided by the Council for the area under review

Appendix 1

- 2 -

Respondent Body or individual person who responds to the Commission’s consultation by making representations or suggesting alternative proposals

Rules Rules to be observed by the Commission in considering electoral arrangements

Single member division

Electoral division of a principal authority represented by one councillor

The 1972 Act The Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the 1994 Act

The 1994 Act The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994

Unitary authority

A principal council - the single tier organ of local government, responsible for all or almost all local government functions within its area, which in Wales replaced the two tier system of county councils and district councils: a County Council, or a County Borough Council

Wards The electoral areas of Community Councils (not all Community Council areas are warded). The term is also used to describe the principal council electoral divisions

CO

UN

TY O

F FL

INTS

HIR

EEX

ISTI

NG

ELE

CTO

RA

L A

RR

AN

GEM

ENTS

App

endi

x 2

No.

NA

ME

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

NO

OF

CO

UN

CIL

LOR

SEL

ECTO

RA

TE

2009

RA

TIO

200

9%

var

ianc

e fr

om

Cou

nty

aver

age

ELEC

TOR

ATE

20

14R

ATI

O 2

014

% v

aria

nce

from

C

ount

y av

erag

e

1A

rgoe

dTh

e E

ast (

1,66

8) a

nd S

outh

(558

) war

ds o

f the

Com

mun

ity o

f Arg

oed

12,

226

2,22

635

%2,

373

2,37

333

%2

Ast

onTh

e A

ston

war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Haw

arde

n2

2,49

01,

245

-25%

2,56

41,

282

-33%

3B

agill

t Eas

tTh

e E

ast w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of B

agill

t1

1,46

71,

467

-11%

1,60

71,

607

-13%

4B

agill

t Wes

t Th

e W

est w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of B

agill

t1

1,60

11,

601

-3%

1,64

31,

643

-11%

5B

roug

hton

Nor

th E

ast

The

Eas

t (81

2) a

nd N

orth

(852

) war

ds o

f the

Com

mun

ity o

f Bro

ught

on a

nd B

retto

n1

1,66

41,

664

1%1,

701

1,70

1-7

%

6B

roug

hton

Sou

thTh

e S

outh

war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Bro

ught

on a

nd B

retto

n2

2,80

01,

400

-15%

3,36

21,

681

-9%

7B

rynf

ord

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Bry

nfor

d (8

31) a

nd th

e P

entre

Hal

kyn

war

d (9

25) o

f the

Com

mun

ity o

f H

alky

n1

1,75

61,

756

6%1,

825

1,82

50%

8B

uckl

ey B

istr

e Ea

stTh

e B

istre

Eas

t war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Buc

kley

22,

759

1,38

0-1

6%2,

929

1,46

5-2

2%9

Buc

kley

Bis

tre

Wes

tTh

e B

istre

Wes

t war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Buc

kley

23,

306

1,65

30%

3,71

81,

859

2%10

Buc

kley

Mou

ntai

nTh

e B

uckl

ey M

ount

ain

war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Buc

kley

12,

160

2,16

031

%2,

690

2,69

053

%11

Buc

kley

Pen

trob

inTh

e P

entro

bin

war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Buc

kley

23,

514

1,75

77%

4,38

02,

190

22%

12C

aerg

wrle

The

Cae

r gw

rle w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of H

ope

11,

300

1,30

0-2

1%1,

480

1,48

0-2

1%13

Cae

rwys

The

Com

mun

ities

of C

aerw

ys (1

,073

) and

Ysc

eifio

g (9

89)

12,

062

2,06

225

%2,

164

2,16

421

%14

Cilc

ain

The

Com

mun

ities

of C

ilcai

n (1

,159

) and

Nan

nerc

h (4

19)

11,

578

1,57

8-4

%1,

594

1,59

4-1

4%15

Con

nah'

s Q

uay

Cen

tral

The

Cen

tral w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of C

onna

h's

Qua

y2

2,45

01,

225

-26%

2,49

91,

250

-35%

16C

onna

h's

Qua

y G

olfty

nTh

e G

olfty

n w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of C

onna

h's

Qua

y2

3,95

21,

976

20%

4,54

02,

270

27%

17C

onna

h's

Qua

y So

uth

The

Sou

th w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of C

onna

h's

Qua

y2

4,36

02,

180

32%

4,63

42,

317

30%

18C

onna

h's

Qua

y W

epre

The

Wep

re w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of C

onna

h's

Qua

y1

1,66

21,

662

1%1,

682

1,68

2-9

%19

Ewlo

eTh

e E

wlo

e w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of H

awar

den

24,

033

2,01

722

%4,

275

2,13

819

%20

Ffyn

nong

roy w

The

Ffyn

nong

royw

war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Lla

nasa

11,

509

1,50

9-9

%1,

535

1,53

5-1

7%21

Flin

t Cas

tleTh

e C

astle

war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Flin

t1

1,58

11,

581

-4%

1,64

71,

647

-11%

22Fl

int C

oles

hill

The

Col

eshi

ll w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of F

lint

23,

046

1,52

3-8

%3,

106

1,55

3-1

6%23

Flin

t Oak

enho

ltTh

e O

aken

holt

war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Flin

t1

2,17

62,

176

32%

3,39

03,

390

95%

24Fl

int T

rela

wny

The

Trel

awny

war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Flin

t2

2,81

91,

410

-15%

3,02

71,

514

-19%

25G

reen

field

The

Gre

enfie

ld w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of H

olyw

ell

12,

087

2,08

727

%2,

111

2,11

117

%26

Gro

nant

The

Gro

nant

war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Lla

nasa

11,

256

1,25

6-2

4%1,

296

1,29

6-3

2%27

Gw

erna

ffiel

dTh

e C

omm

unity

of G

wer

naffi

eld

11,

566

1,56

6-5

%1,

582

1,58

2-1

5%28

Gw

erny

myn

ydd

The

Com

mun

ities

of G

wer

nym

ynyd

d (9

45) a

nd N

ercw

ys (4

46)

11,

391

1,39

1-1

6%1,

455

1,45

5-2

2%

29H

alky

nTh

e H

alky

n (4

16) R

hesy

cae

(276

) and

Rho

sesm

or (7

15) w

ards

of t

he C

omm

unity

of

Hal

kyn

11,

407

1,40

7-1

5%1,

420

1,42

0-2

4%

Appendix 2Page 1

CO

UN

TY O

F FL

INTS

HIR

EEX

ISTI

NG

ELE

CTO

RA

L A

RR

AN

GEM

ENTS

App

endi

x 2

No.

NA

ME

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

NO

OF

CO

UN

CIL

LOR

SEL

ECTO

RA

TE

2009

RA

TIO

200

9%

var

ianc

e fr

om

Cou

nty

aver

age

ELEC

TOR

ATE

20

14R

ATI

O 2

014

% v

aria

nce

from

C

ount

y av

erag

e

30H

awar

den

The

Haw

arde

n w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of H

awar

den

11,

512

1,51

2-8

%1,

598

1,59

8-1

4%31

Hig

her K

inne

rton

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Hig

her K

inne

rton

11,

286

1,28

6-2

2%1,

334

1,33

4-3

0%32

Hol

ywel

l Cen

tral

The

Cen

tral w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of H

olyw

ell

11,

424

1,42

4-1

4%1,

812

1,81

2-1

%33

Hol

ywel

l Eas

tTh

e E

ast w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of H

olyw

ell

11,

396

1,39

6-1

5%1,

476

1,47

6-2

1%34

Hol

ywel

l Wes

tTh

e W

est w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of H

olyw

ell

11,

759

1,75

97%

2,00

32,

003

11%

35H

ope

The

Hop

e w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of H

ope

11,

953

1,95

318

%2,

049

2,04

914

%36

Lees

woo

dTh

e C

omm

unity

of L

eesw

ood

11,

659

1,65

91%

1,78

41,

784

-2%

37Ll

anfy

nydd

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Lla

nfyn

ydd

11,

493

1,49

3-9

%1,

570

1,57

0-1

5%38

Man

cot

The

Man

cot w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of H

awar

den

22,

645

1,32

3-2

0%2,

861

1,43

1-2

4%39

Mol

d B

ronc

oed

The

Bro

ncoe

d w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of M

old

11,

954

1,95

418

%2,

268

2,26

827

%40

Mol

d Ea

stTh

e E

ast w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of M

old

11,

551

1,55

1-6

%1,

631

1,63

1-1

2%41

Mol

d So

uth

The

Sou

th w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of M

old

12,

137

2,13

730

%2,

355

2,35

532

%42

Mol

d W

est

The

Wes

t war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Mol

d1

1,89

51,

895

15%

2,28

92,

289

28%

43M

osty

nTh

e C

omm

unity

of M

osty

n1

1,42

51,

425

-14%

1,51

91,

519

-18%

44N

ew B

right

onTh

e N

ew B

right

on (8

63) a

nd W

est (

1,52

4) w

ards

of C

omm

unity

of A

rgoe

d1

2,38

72,

387

45%

2,69

12,

691

53%

45N

orth

opTh

e C

omm

unity

of N

orth

op1

2,43

52,

435

48%

2,63

12,

631

49%

46N

orth

op H

all

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Nor

thop

Hal

l1

1,23

71,

237

-25%

1,36

71,

367

-28%

47Pe

n-y-

fford

dTh

e C

omm

unity

of P

enyf

ford

d2

2,94

91,

475

-11%

3,58

71,

794

-2%

48Q

ueen

sfer

ryTh

e C

omm

unity

of Q

ueen

sfer

ry1

1,45

21,

452

-12%

1,48

01,

480

-21%

49Sa

ltney

Mol

d Ju

nctio

nTh

e M

old

Junc

tion

war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Sal

tney

193

193

1-4

4%1,

087

1,08

7-4

5%50

Saltn

ey S

tone

brid

g eTh

e S

tone

brid

ge w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of S

altn

ey1

2,56

22,

562

55%

2,84

82,

848

62%

51Se

alan

dTh

e C

omm

unity

of S

eala

nd1

2,11

22,

112

28%

3,46

83,

468

100%

52Sh

otto

n Ea

stTh

e E

ast w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of S

hotto

n1

1,37

41,

374

-17%

1,40

11,

401

-26%

53Sh

otto

n H

ighe

rTh

e H

ighe

r war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Sho

tton

11,

704

1,70

43%

1,73

81,

738

-5%

54Sh

otto

n W

est

The

Wes

t war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Sho

tton

11,

538

1,53

8-7

%1,

568

1,56

8-1

5%

55Tr

elaw

nyd

and

Gw

aeny

sgor

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Tre

law

nyd

and

Gw

aeny

sgor

(706

) and

the

Axt

on (7

93) w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unit y

of L

lana

sa1

1,49

91,

499

-9%

1,51

41,

514

-19%

56Tr

eudd

ynTh

e C

omm

unity

of T

reud

dyn

11,

321

1,32

1-2

0%1,

463

1,46

3-2

2%57

Whi

tford

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Whi

tford

11,

900

1,90

015

%2,

026

2,02

612

%TO

TALS

7011

5,46

81,

650

127,

647

1,82

4

Gre

ater

than

± 5

0% o

f Cou

nty

aver

age

12%

35%

Bet

wee

n ±

25%

and

± 5

0% o

f Cou

nty

aver

age

1119

%13

23%

Bet

wee

n ±

10%

and

± 2

5% o

f Cou

nty

aver

age

2544

%32

56%

Bet

wee

n 0%

and

± 1

0% o

f Cou

nty

aver

age

2035

%9

16%

57

2009

2014

Ele

ctor

al fi

gure

s su

pplie

d by

Flin

tshi

re C

ount

y C

ounc

ilR

atio

is th

e nu

mbe

r of e

lect

ors

per c

ounc

illor

Appendix 2Page 2

CO

UN

TY O

F FL

INTS

HIR

EPR

OPO

SED

ELE

CTO

RA

L A

RR

AN

GEM

ENTS

App

endi

x 3

No.

NA

ME

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

NO

OF

CO

UN

CIL

LOR

SEL

ECTO

RA

TE 2

009

RA

TIO

200

9%

var

ianc

e fr

om

Cou

nty

aver

age

ELEC

TOR

ATE

20

14R

ATI

O 2

014

% v

aria

nce

from

C

ount

y av

erag

e

1A

rgoe

dTh

e E

ast 1

,668

(1,7

01),

Sou

th 5

58 (6

72) a

nd W

est 1

,524

(1,5

54) w

ards

of t

he C

omm

unity

of A

rgoe

d2

3,75

01,

875

-3%

3,92

71,

964

-8%

2B

agill

tTh

e C

omm

unity

of B

agill

t 3,0

68 (3

,250

) and

the

Col

eshi

ll 3,

046

(3,1

06) w

ard

of th

e C

omm

unity

of F

lint

36,

144

2,04

86%

6,35

62,

119

0%

3B

istr

eTh

e B

istre

Eas

t 2,7

59 (2

,929

) and

Bis

tre W

est 3

,306

(3,7

18) w

ards

of t

he C

omm

unity

of B

uckl

ey3

6,06

52,

022

5%6,

647

2,21

64%

4B

uckl

eyTh

e B

uckl

ey M

ount

ain

2,16

0 (2

,690

) and

Pen

trobi

n 3,

514

(4,3

80) w

ards

of t

he C

omm

unity

of B

uckl

ey3

5,67

41,

891

-2%

7,07

02,

357

11%

5C

ae'r

Ada

inTh

e C

omm

unity

of B

roug

hton

and

Bre

tton

4,46

4 (5

,063

) and

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Sal

tney

3,4

93 (3

,935

)4

7,95

71,

989

3%8,

998

2,25

06%

6C

onna

h's

Qua

y N

orth

The

Cen

tral 2

,450

(2,4

99) a

nd G

olfty

n 3,

952

(4,5

40) w

ards

of t

he C

omm

unity

of C

onna

h's

Qua

y3

6,40

22,

134

11%

7,03

92,

346

10%

7C

onna

h's

Qua

y So

uth

The

Sou

th 4

,360

(4,6

34) a

nd W

epre

1,6

62 (1

,682

) war

ds o

f the

Com

mun

ity o

f Con

nah'

s Q

uay

36,

022

2,00

74%

6,31

62,

105

-1%

8Fl

int T

own

The

Cas

tle 1

,581

(1,6

47),

Oak

enho

lt 2,

176

(3,3

90) a

nd T

rela

wny

2,8

19 (3

,027

) war

ds o

f the

Com

mun

ity o

f Flin

t3

6,57

62,

192

14%

8,06

42,

688

26%

9Fo

wno

gTh

e N

ew B

right

on 8

63 (1

,137

) war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Arg

oed,

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Nor

thop

2,4

35 (2

,631

) and

the

com

mun

ity o

f Hal

kyn

2,33

2 (2

,354

)3

5,63

01,

877

-2%

6,12

22,

041

-4%

10G

lan

Dyf

rydw

yTh

e C

omm

unity

of Q

ueen

sfer

ry 1

,452

(1,4

80) a

nd th

e C

omm

unity

of S

eala

nd 2

,112

(3,4

68)

23,

564

1,78

2-7

%4,

948

2,47

416

%

11G

lan-

y-M

orTh

e Ff

ynno

ngro

yw 1

,509

(1,5

35) a

nd G

rona

nt 1

,256

(1,2

96) w

ards

of t

he C

omm

unity

of L

lana

sa a

nd th

e C

omm

unity

of M

osty

n 1,

425

(1,5

19)

24,

190

2,09

59%

4,35

02,

175

2%

12H

olyw

ell

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Hol

ywel

l 6,6

66 (7

,402

)3

6,66

62,

222

15%

7,40

22,

467

16%

13Le

esw

ood

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Hop

e 3,

253

(3,5

29) a

nd th

e C

omm

unity

of L

eesw

ood

1,65

9 (1

,784

)3

4,91

21,

637

-15%

5,31

31,

771

-17%

14Ll

ys E

dwin

The

Haw

arde

n 1,

512

(1,5

98) a

nd M

anco

t 2,6

45 (2

,861

) war

ds o

f the

Com

mun

ity o

f Haw

arde

n, th

e C

omm

unity

of

Hig

her K

inne

rton

1,28

6 (1

,334

) and

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Pen

yffo

rdd

2,94

9 (3

,587

)4

8,39

22,

098

9%9,

380

2,34

510

%

15M

oel A

rthu

rTh

e C

omm

unity

of C

ilcai

n 1,

159

(1,1

71),

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Gw

erna

ffiel

d 1,

566

(1,5

82),

the

Com

mun

ity o

f G

wer

nym

ynyd

d 94

5 (1

,005

) and

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Nan

nerc

h 41

9 (4

23)

24,

089

2,04

56%

4,18

12,

091

-2%

16M

old

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Mol

d 7,

537

(8,5

43)

47,

537

1,88

4-2

%8,

543

2,13

60%

17M

ynyd

d-y-

Mor

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Bry

nfor

d 83

1 (8

91),

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Cae

rwys

1,0

73 (1

,165

), th

e A

xton

793

(801

) war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Lla

nasa

, the

Com

mun

ity o

f Tre

law

nyd

& G

wae

nysg

or 7

06 (7

13),

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Whi

tford

1,9

00

(2,0

26) a

nd th

e C

omm

unity

of Y

scei

fiog

989

(999

)4

6,29

21,

573

-18%

6,59

51,

649

-23%

18O

ffaTh

e C

omm

unity

of L

lanf

ynyd

d 1,

493

(1,5

70),

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Ner

cwys

446

(450

) , a

nd th

e C

omm

unity

of

Treu

ddyn

1,3

21 (1

,463

)2

3,23

01,

615

-16%

3,48

31,

913

-10%

19R

idge

way

The

Ew

loe

4,03

3 (4

,275

) war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Haw

arde

n an

d th

e C

omm

unity

of N

orth

op H

all 1

,237

(1,3

67)

35,

270

1,75

7-9

%5,

642

1,88

1-1

2%

20Sh

otto

nTh

e A

ston

2,4

90 (2

,564

) war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Haw

arde

n an

d th

e C

omm

unity

of S

hotto

n 4,

616

(4,7

07)

47,

106

1,77

7-8

%7,

271

1,81

8-1

5%

TOTA

LS60

115,

468

1,92

412

7,64

72,

127

Gre

ater

than

± 5

0% o

f Cou

nty

aver

age

00%

00%

Bet

wee

n ±

25%

and

± 5

0% o

f Cou

nty

aver

age

00%

15%

Bet

wee

n ±

10%

and

± 2

5% o

f Cou

nty

aver

age

630

%7

35%

Bet

wee

n 0%

and

± 1

0% o

f Cou

nty

aver

age

1470

%12

60%

Appendix 3

Rat

io is

the

num

ber o

f ele

ctor

s pe

r cou

ncill

orTh

e nu

mbe

r of e

lect

ors

for 2

009

and

2014

(in

brac

kets

) are

incl

uded

in th

e de

scrip

tion

of th

ose

elec

tora

l div

isio

ns w

hich

com

pris

e m

ore

than

one

com

mun

ity/c

omm

unity

war

d E

lect

oral

figu

res

prov

ided

by

Flin

tshi

re C

ount

y C

ounc

il

2009

2014

Appendix 4

- 1 -

Appendix 4

- 2 -

Appendix 4

- 3 -

Appendix 4

- 4 -

Appendix 5

- 1 -

SUMMARY OF INITIAL REPRESENTATIONS

Bagillt Community Council wrote and pointed out that the two Bagillt Community Wards exactly match the single-Member Electoral Divisions and the Council feels that no changes need to be made even though the ratios are below 1:1750. In a further letter, Bagillt Community Council further stated that although the two community wards of Bagillt East and West will not reach the 1:1,750 in Flintshire’s projections they will still be larger than at present. The wards combine urban villages and rural sparsity as well as an element of Communities First.

Broughton and Bretton Community Council asked that consideration of councillor numbers takes into account other factors than electorate. The letter gives examples of the number of employees at Airbus which affect a councillor’s work load as well as the large numbers using the Broughton Shopping Park.

Buckley Town Council wrote stating that they understood that 15% of Flintshire’s allocation of new residential developments will be in the Buckley area. As the work of the Commission will be based on prior information, there is a possibility for a decision to be made which will be completely out of kilter with the situation in reality. There is also the matter of the geographic considerations of the wards used to achieve the desired ratio of 1:1750. Caerwys Quay Town Council asked that the Caerwys ward be kept as it is due to its rural position.

Connah’s Quay Town Council suggested changes to the ward boundaries and Councillor numbers. Connah’s Quay Town Council wrote further with a more detailed set of proposed ward boundary change maps and residential statistics.

Flint Town Council pointed out the potential development of housing in Flint Trelawny and enclosed extracted town council minutes and a map with a proposed boundary change between Flint Oakenholt and Flint Trelawny.

Gwernymynydd Community Council: pointed out the potential population increases in Flint as a whole by 2014. In figures alone this would indicate the need for an extra councillor and further changes to the boundary of the Oakenholt and Castle wards would further help meet the 1:1750 ratio.

Halkyn Community Council wrote with concerns over the potential geographical effects of any proposed change to Electoral divisions.

Holywell Town Council wrote concerned that a pure formula-based approach would mean a reduction of one County member in the next election and that this might have an adverse effect on Town Councillor numbers. Holywell Town Council further wrote with concerns over potential changes to the number of housing developments in the Holywell/ Greenfield electoral divisions which would affect the projected 2014 electorate. Concern was also raised over the number of residents who did not appear on the Electoral Register and the lateness of the Ministerial Direction which, if issued earlier, would have influenced the council’s decision on boundary reviews.

Hope Community Council pointed out that, although the Community Ward electorates do not meet the 1:1750 ratio individually, when considered together they do

Appendix 5

- 2 -

meet it. The Flintshire UDP projects an increased electorate for the area and the Community Council would like to re-align the boundaries of Hope and Caergwrle to take away this imbalance in electorates.

Leeswood Community Council pointed out that as Leeswood is projected to have 1,836 electors by 2014, it should remain as a single-member sustainable ward.

Llanasa Community Council wrote stating that as all three wards in the Electoral division were under 1:1750, the topography was such that no other changes were feasible. Additionally, the area receives large numbers of visitors for the major part of the year which more than quadruples the number on the electoral register.

Llanfynydd Community Council raised the point that that all the villages within Llanfynydd Community Council have strong historical, language and cultural ties with one another. The letter went on to say that there were certain boundary changes that were felt necessary to tidy up community anomalies and a map was provided in support.

Mold Town Council expressed concern that no boundary changes were to be considered during the review. The Council also pointed out that the Town of Mold had many urban pressures on its councillors and projected electorate numbers clearly show the need for an additional Councillor.

Nercwys Community Council expressed concern that rural issues would become lost if an enlarged electoral division were created.

Northop Community Council expressed concern that the ratio of 1:1750 would be detrimental to the rural areas of the County. The Community Council also stated that they would not support any proposed amalgamation of the current two wards of Northop and Sychdyn with the neighbouring electoral division of Northop Hall.

Pen-y-Ffordd Community Council offered an observation on boundary realignment of community wards only. Pen-y-Ffordd Community Council wrote further pointed out that the projected figures for Flintshire in 2014 show that the Community will satisfy the 1:1750 requirement and will need some further adjustments to the community boundaries.

Saltney Town Council pointed out that the two electoral divisions of Saltney Mold Junction and Saltney Stonebridge would more closely fit the 1:1750 ratio if they were combined, renamed Saltney, and kept their two councillors.

Treuddyn Community Council referred to Treuddyn’s strong cultural and historical background. The Conservative Group Flintshire County Council offered a series of observations on the review. Among their points raised were:

• It was felt that some existing rural divisions were very large at present and currently involved a lot of travelling and that the review should not create proportionally bigger rural divisions.

Appendix 5

- 3 -

• It was also felt that there was under representation of these divisions in relation to those in urban areas.

• It was accepted that some urban areas were currently under represented and

required review. However, it was thought the council size would need to be reduced in order to achieve the commission’s desired ratio.

• There was a general consensus within the group that single member

representation in rural divisions worked well and that multi member rural divisions would not be welcomed by the public.

Trelawnyd & Gwaenysgor

Trelawnyd & Gwaenysgor is currently served by one member representing an electorate of 1,497. In order to meet the commissions stated ratio of 1:1,750 the Whitford Community Council ward of Whitford should be added to the ward to give a ratio of 1:1,796.

The ward should be renamed to reflect the nature of the ward. A suggestion has been made of OFFA, reflecting the fact the historic dyke runs though the ward.

Gronant Ward

It was noted that the current Gronant Ward was slightly below the suggested ratio, however, given the nature of the community and surrounding area it was felt that major changes to the boundaries would not be in the best interest of all communities involved.

Flint Oakenholt.

The current single member ward was an anomaly and should be granted a second councillor in order to meet the required ratio.

Hawarden Community Council Wards

The Community Council of Hawarden is currently represented by seven members of the council spread over four Council Wards with the following ratios - Aston a current ratio of 1:1,304, Ewloe, 1:1,877 Hawarden, 1.1,536 and Mancot, 1:1,266. The group would support any recommendations that would produce a distribution of electors in line with the Commission ratio.

County Councillor L.A. Aldridge (Flint Coleshill, Flintshire County Council) pointed out how much the Flint community wards are likely to grow by 2014 and so will not warrant a reduction in the number of councillors. County Councillor Eng Klaus Armstrong-Braun (Saltney Mold Junction, Flintshire County Council) pointed out that although the community of Saltney Mold Junction was a deprived area it had the potential to increase in size and has links to Bretton Community that may welcome a link being made.

County Councillor Robin Baker (Holywell East, Flintshire County Council) queried whether the projected 2014 figures for Holywell/ Greenfield would actually be fulfilled. He further went on to say that Holywell/ Greenfield are deprived areas with many residents not being on the Electoral Register yet still requiring the time of a councillor.

Appendix 5

- 4 -

County Councillor David Barratt (Connah’s Quay South, Flintshire County Council) asked whether there could be any flexibility over 1,750 electors per councillor as applied to the whole of the Flintshire County Council. County Councillor Clive Carver (Hawarden, Flintshire County Council) wondered if the projected figures could be relied on.

County Councillor Carolyn Cattermoul (Mold West, Flintshire County Council) pointed out that a large area is difficult for a single councillor to manage.

County Councillor Peter Curtis (Holywell Central, Flintshire County Council) pointed out that Holywell’s four wards are all classed as areas of deprivation and are covered by Communities First. He further pointed out the low numbers of people on the Electoral Register which would not improve in the current political climate, increase councillor workload in the future, and prove the case to retain councillor numbers as they currently stand.

County Councillor Adele Davies-Cooke (Gwernaffield, Flintshire County Council) asked if the projected figures took into account the fact that building will happen and there will be more residents in the future?

County Councillor Quentin Dodd (New Brighton, Flintshire County Council) asked if there is any point in performing the Review without moving boundaries.

County Councillor Chris Dolphin (Whitford, Flintshire County Council) stressed the advantages of retaining communities in Whitford as they currently stand.

County Councillor Rosetta Dolphin (Greenfield, Flintshire County Council) stressed the advantages of Community ties in the Community of Greenfield and the needs of Communities First areas. The size of the predicted electorate was such that four councillors would be needed.

County Councillor Ted Evans (Flint Trelawny, Flintshire County Council) pointed out anomalies in ward boundaries which affect electoral numbers in Flint wards.

County Councillor Jim Falshaw (Caerwys, Flintshire County Council) declared that no changes were required. County Councillor Fred Gillmore (Gronant, Flintshire County Council) declared that, although a deprived area, Gronant more than quadruples its population through holiday parks for 10½ months of the year. Those residents are not on the electoral register but use services.

County Councillor Robin Guest (Mold South, Flintshire County Council) stated that the projected increase is dependent on a healthy economic climate and even if some developments went ahead, the figures may not reflect an accurate councillor representation. County Councillor Alison Halford (Ewloe, Flintshire County Council) was concerned over the large area that a councillor has responsibility for.

Appendix 5

- 5 -

County Councillor R.G. Hampson (Buckley Bistre West, Flintshire County Council) said that Buckley’s population is set to increase by 2014 and bring the ratio up to the 1:1,750 figures.

County Councillor Trefor Howorth (Flint Trelawny, Flintshire County Council) queried if the new development of Croes Atti would need a boundary move.

County Councillor Hilary Isherwood (Llanfynydd, Flintshire County Council) pointed out that the County Council projected figure for 2012 in Llanfynydd was wrong and suggesting we work to an electorate of 1,632. Coun Isherwood provided a journal reflecting life in the community as well as pointing out some anomalies to community boundaries and a change to a polling station.

County Councillor Rita Johnson (Flint Oakenholt, Flintshire County Council) pointed out that the projected figures may not be achievable and that electoral numbers may well decrease by 2014.

County Councillor Christine Jones (Sealand, Flintshire County Council) asked that boundaries and councillor allocation should stay the same as commitments are heavy in the area and population increase will justify the number of councillors allocated.

County Councillor Norma Jones (Bagillt East, Flintshire County Council) stated that if building goes ahead as planned the ratio in this ward will be right.

County Councillor Richard Jones (Buckley Bistre East, Flintshire County Council) asked if the work of two councillors can realistically be done by one.

County Councillor Stella Jones (Caergwrle, Flintshire County Council) pointed out that there are internal problems with the projected figures and asking that they be reviewed.

County Councillor David McFarlane (Broughton South, Flintshire County Council) agreed to the projected electorate figures. County Councillor Peter Macfarlane (Connah’s Quay Golftyn, Flintshire County Council) pointed out that it may require an additional member in his ward to cope with internal movements between wards. County Councillor Nancy Matthews (Gwernymynydd, Flintshire County Council) asked the Commission to take account of community ties and geographical concerns when addressing ratios. Councillor Matthews also asked that regard be given to keeping communities together as well as looking at the ratio of councillors to electors.

County Councillor Ann Minshull (Shotton West, Flintshire County Council) stated that the figures projected were not a true reflection of the population in general. County Councillor B. Mullin (Broughton North East, Flintshire County Council) appeared to broadly support the projected figure. County Councillor Tim Newhouse (Hope, Flintshire County Council) appeared to support the 1:1750 ratios.

Appendix 5

- 6 -

County Councillor Mike Peers (Buckley Pentrobin, Flintshire County Council) queried the projected figures for Buckley Pentrobin. County Councillor Peter Pemberton (Broughton South, Flintshire County Council) appeared to support the projected figure but asking that projections are revised more often. County Councillor Neville Phillips (Buckley Bistre East, Flintshire County Council) suggested that councillor numbers in Buckley remain the same due to projected figures equalling the ratio. County Councillor Mike Reece (Bagillt West, Flintshire County Council) disagreed with the projections. County Councillor Ian Roberts (Flint Castle, Flintshire County Council) disagreed with the projections and offering a boundary revision. County Councillor Nigel Steele-Mortimer (Trelawnyd and Gwaenysgor, Flintshire County Council) pointed out that if the Trelawnyd/ Gwaenysgor ward were amalgamated with Whitford then the new Electoral Division would match the ratio. County Councillor Carolyn Thomas (Treuddyn, Flintshire County Council) pointed out that too many residents were not on the Electoral register but all paid council tax and expected service. County Councillor David Williams (Pen-y-Ffordd, Flintshire County Council) pointed out that, although County Councillor numbers appeared right, the community may need to review Community Council numbers. Coun Williams also offered a map to illustrate some suggested boundary changes. County Councillor Arnold Woolley (Buckley Bistre East, Flintshire County Council) pointed out that the projected figures may not take into account some developments not in the UDP. Community Councillor Jennifer Smith (Treuddyn Community Council) asked if there were plans by the Commission to make changes to Community Council boundaries.