Review of the Electoral Arrangements of the City and

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES

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

Final Recommendations Report

November 2020

© LDBCW copyright 2020

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

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

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

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

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence



mailto:[email protected]


http://www.ldbc.gov.wales/

FOREWORD

The Commission is pleased to present this Report to the Minister for Housing and Local Government, which contains its recommendations for revised electoral arrangements for the City and County of Cardiff.

This review is part of the programme of reviews being conducted under the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013, and follows the principles contained in the Commission’s Policy and Practice document.

The issue of fairness is at the heart of the Commission’s statutory responsibilities. The Commission’s objective has been to make recommendations that provide for effective and convenient local government, and which respect, as far as possible, local community ties. The recommendations are aimed at improving electoral parity, so that the vote of an individual elector has as equal a value to those of other electors throughout the City and County, so far as it is possible to achieve.

The Commission is grateful to the Members and Officers of the Principal Council for their assistance in its work, to the Community and Town Councils for their valuable contributions, and to all who have made representations throughout the process.

Dr Debra Williams Chair


REVIEW OF THE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF CARDIFF

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Contents Page

Chapter 1 Introduction 2

Chapter 2 The Draft Proposals 3

Chapter 3 Summary of Final Recommendations 4

Chapter 4 Assessment 8

Chapter 5 The Final Recommendations 10

Chapter 6 Summary of Recommended Arrangements 36

Chapter 7 Responses to this Report 37

Chapter 8 Acknowledgements 38

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

23 JUNE 2016 - WRITTEN STATEMENT

1st Edition printed November 2020

The Commission welcomes correspondence and telephone calls in Welsh or English. Mae’r ddogfen ar hon ar gael yn y Gymraeg.

This document has been translated into Welsh by Trosol.

The Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales Hastings House Fitzalan Court

CARDIFF CF24 0BL

Tel Number: (029) 2046 4819 Fax Number: (029) 2046 4823

E-mail: [email protected]


http://www.ldbc.gov.wales/

Page 1


Julie James, MS

Minister for Housing and Local Government

Welsh Government

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1. The Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales (the Commission) has conducted

a review of the electoral arrangements of the City and County of Cardiff. This review wasconducted in accordance with the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013 (the Act),specifically Sections 29, 30 and 34-36.

2. Pursuant to the Act, the Commission has completed the review of the electoral arrangementsfor the City and County of Cardiff and presents its final recommendations for future electoralarrangements.

3. This programme of reviews came as a result of the former Cabinet Secretary for Finance andLocal Government’s Written Statement of 23 June 2016, where the Commission was asked torestart its programme of reviews, with an expectation that all 22 electoral reviews becompleted in time for the new arrangements to be put in place for the 2022 local governmentelections. The Written Statement can be found at Appendix 6. The rules and procedures theCommission follows can be found in the Commission’s Electoral Reviews: Policy and Practice[2016] and outlined in Appendix 4. A Glossary of Terms can be found at Appendix 1, providinga short description of some of the common terminology used within this report.

4. Section 35 of the Act lays down the procedural guidelines which are to be followed in carryingout a review. In compliance with Section 35 the Commission wrote to the Cardiff City andCounty Council (referred to as Cardiff Council), all the community and town councils in thearea, the mandatory consultees and other interested parties on 26 March 2019 to informthem of the Commission’s intention to conduct the review and request their preliminaryviews. This consultation ran from 02 April 2019 to 24 June 2019. The Commission also madecopies of its Electoral Reviews: Policy and Practice [2016] document available.

5. The Commission published its Draft Proposals Report on 14 January 2020 and requested viewson the proposals. This consultation initially ran from 21 January 2020 and was due to end on13 April 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the consultation was paused on 27 March 2020. The Consultation then re-opened on 15 June 2020 and closed on the 03 July 2020 to allow forthe full 12-week consultation.

6. The Commission publicised the review on its website and social media channels and askedCardiff Council to publicise the review and provided the Council with a number of publicnotices to display. These were also provided to the community and town councils in the area.In addition, the Commission made a presentation to both county, and town and communitycouncillors to explain the review process and the Commission’s policies. The Council wasinvited to submit a suggested scheme for new electoral arrangements.

Page 2

CARDIFF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Chapter 2. THE DRAFT PROPOSALS 1. Prior to the formulation of the draft proposals, the Commission received representations from

Cardiff Council, Cardiff Council Conservative Group, three community councils and five citycouncillors.

2. These representations were taken into consideration and summarised in the Draft ProposalsReport published on 14 January 2020. The listed mandatory consultees and other interestedparties were informed of a period of consultation on the draft proposals which commencedon 21 January 2020 and was due to end on 13 April 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, theconsultation was paused on 27 March 2020. The Consultation then re-opened on 15 June 2020and closed on 3 July 2020. The Commission asked Cardiff Council to display copies of thereport alongside public notices in the area. The Commission’s draft proposals proposed achange to the arrangement of electoral wards that would have achieved a significantimprovement in the level of electoral parity across the City and County of Cardiff.

3. The Commission proposed a council of 77 members, an increase from 75. This resulted in aproposed county average of 3,158 electors per member.

4. The Commission proposed 28 electoral wards, a reduction from 29 existing electoral wards.

5. The largest under-representation (in terms of electoral variance) within the proposals was inCaerau (24% above the proposed county average). At present the greatest under- representation is in Butetown (139% above the proposed county average).

6. The largest over-representation (in terms of electoral variance) within the proposals was inPentyrch and St Fagans (26% below the proposed county average). At present the greatestover- representation is in Cathays (21% below the proposed county average).

7. The Commission proposed 28 multi-member wards in the City and County consisting of ninetwo-member electoral wards, 17 three-member electoral wards and two four-memberelectoral wards.

8. The Commission proposed no changes to 16 electoral wards.

Page 3


Chapter 3. SUMMARY OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS • The Commission received 52 representations from: one Community Council, three Members

of Parliament, one Member of the Senedd, 11 representations from 22 city councillors threePolitical Party Groups within the Council, three interested bodies and 30 members of thepublic.

• The Commission considered all these representations carefully before it formulated itsrecommendations. A summary of those representations can be found at Appendix 5.

• The Commission recommends a change to the arrangement of electoral wards that willachieve a marked improvement in the level of electoral parity across the City and County ofCardiff.

• The Commission recommends a council of 79 members, an increase from 75. This results in arecommended county average of 3,078 electors per member.

• The Commission recommends 28 electoral wards, a reduction from 29 existing wards.

• The largest under-representation (in terms of electoral variance) within the recommendationsis Caerau (27% above the recommended county average). At present the greatest under- representation is in Butetown (145% above the recommended county average).

• The largest over-representation (in terms of electoral variance) within the recommendationsis Pentyrch and St Fagans (24% below the recommended county average). At present thegreatest over-representation is in Cathays (19% below the recommended county average).

• The Commission is proposing 28 multi-member wards in the City and County consisting of nine two-member electoral wards, 15 three-member electoral wards and four four-memberelectoral wards.

• The Commission has proposed no changes to 19 electoral wards.

Page 4


Summary Maps

1. On the following pages are thematic maps illustrating the current and recommendedarrangements and their variances from the recommended county average. Those areas ingreen are within ±10% of the county average; yellow and hatched yellow between ±10% and± 25% of the county average; orange and hatched orange between ±25% and ±50% of thecounty average; and, finally, those in red are over ±50% of the county average.

2. As can be seen from these maps, the new arrangements provide for a marked improvementin electoral parity across the City and County.

Page 5


Page 6


Page 7


Chapter 4. ASSESSMENT Council size

1. The council size for the City and County of Cardiff has been determined by our council sizepolicy and methodology. This policy can be found in our Electoral Reviews: Policy and Practice[2016] document. The methodology sets out a council size of 75 for the City and County ofCardiff. At present the size of the council at 75 members is in line with the methodology aim.

2. The Commission reviewed the electoral arrangements for the City and County of Cardiff inlight of our methodology and took account of the representations which had been made.Having considered all the existing options, and Cardiff Council’s electorate projections, theCommission could not achieve the appropriate improvements within the maxima set out in itspolicy. The Commission considers that in the interests of effective and convenient localgovernment, a council size of 79 would be appropriate to represent the City and County ofCardiff.

Number of electors

3. The numbers shown as the electorate for 2019 and the estimates for the electorate in theyear 2024 are those submitted to the Commission by Cardiff Council. The forecast figuressupplied by Cardiff Council show a forecasted increase in the electorate from 243,196 to263,904.

4. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has also provided its estimated number of personseligible to vote but who are not on the electoral register. This showed an estimated 45,405more people eligible to vote than the 2019 electorate.

5. The Commission is aware that the Welsh Government is legislating to extend the franchise toinclude 16 and 17 year olds and foreign nationals, not currently eligible to vote, at the 2022local government elections. The Commission‘s Council Size Policy utilises the entire population to determine council size and these two groups were included in the Council Sizedeliberations.

6. While current 16 and 17 year olds are not in the existing electoral figures provided by CardiffCouncil, those individuals will have been included in the forecasted figures provided by theCouncil. Consideration of these figures has been included in the Commission’s deliberationson its recommendations.

7. Foreign nationals are included in the census data provided by the ONS. Consideration of thisdata has been included as part of the Commission’s deliberations on its recommendations.

Councillor to electorate ratio

8. In respect of the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward, there is a widevariation from the current county average of 3,243 electors per councillor ranging from 23%below (2,506 electors) to 133% above (7,550 electors). The determination of the council sizeabove results in an average of 3,078 electors being represented by each councillor.

Page 8


9. In its deliberations the Commission considered the ratio of local government electors to thenumber of councillors to be elected, with a view to proposing changes to ensure that thenumber of local government electors shall be, as near as may be, the same in every ward inthe principal area. The Commission considered the size and character of the council and awide range of other factors including local topography, road communications, and local ties.

Judgement and Balance

10. In producing a scheme of electoral arrangements, the Commission must have regard to anumber of issues contained in the legislation. The Commission’s recommended scheme hasplaced emphasis on achieving improvements in electoral parity whilst maintaining communityties wherever possible. The Commission has made every effort to ensure that the revisedelectoral wards, in the Commission’s view, are an appropriate combination of existingcommunities and community wards.

11. In some areas, because of the number of electors in a community or community ward, theCommission has considered the retention or creation of multi-member wards in order toachieve appropriate levels of electoral parity. This issue often arises in urban areas where thenumber of electors is too high to form a single-member ward. It also may arise in more ruralwards where the creation of single-member wards would result in substantial variances inelectoral parity. The Commission acknowledges the established practice of multi-memberwards within the City and County of Cardiff and this is reflected in the Commission’s proposals.

12. The Commission has looked at each area and is satisfied that it would be difficult to achieveelectoral arrangements that keep the existing combination of communities and communitywards, without having a detrimental effect on one or more of the other issues that theCommission must consider.

Electoral Ward Names

13. The Commission is naming electoral wards and not the places within the proposed electoralwards. In the creation of these final recommendations, the Commission has considered thenames of all the electoral wards proposed in Welsh and English, where appropriate. For thesefinal recommendations the Commission has considered names of either electoral wards orcommunities that appear in Orders, where they exist; those recommended by the WelshLanguage Commissioner; and, in the representations it has received.

14. The Commission consulted with the Welsh Language Commissioner on the suitability of thenames in their draft form prior to the publication of these final recommendations, with aparticular focus on the Welsh language names. This recognises the Welsh LanguageCommissioner’s responsibility to advise on the standard forms of Welsh place names andspecialist knowledge in the field. It must be clear that these recommendations are notproposals for changes to any place names. At each recommendation an indication is given ofthe Welsh Language Commissioner’s recommended alternative and, where they differ, thespecific recommendation and why the Welsh Language Commissioner has proposed analternative to the Commission’s recommended name.

Page 9


Chapter 5. THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Commission’s recommendations are described in detail in this chapter. For each new

proposal the report sets out:

• The name(s) of the existing electoral wards which wholly or in part constitute therecommended ward;

• A brief description of the existing electoral wards in terms of the number of electorsnow and projected, and their percentage variance from the recommended countyaverage;

• Key arguments made during the draft consultation (if any). Although not allrepresentations are mentioned in this section, all representations have been consideredand a summary can be found at Appendix 5;

• The views of the Commission;

• The composition of the recommended electoral ward and the recommended name;

• A map of the recommended electoral ward (please see key at page 11).

Retained Electoral Wards

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

• Adamsdown• Caerau• Canton• Cathays• Cyncoed• Ely• Fairwater• Gabalfa• Heath• Llandaff

• Llandaff North• Penylan• Plasnewydd• Rhiwbina• Riverside• Rumney• Splott• Trowbridge• Whitchurch and Tongwynlais

3. Whilst the Commission is recommending to preserve the geographical arrangements withinthe electoral wards listed above, it is recommending to introduce new electoral ward namesfor the following (names displayed in bold throughout the remainder of this report denotethe Commission’s recommended electoral ward names):

• The electoral ward of Canton to be given the Welsh Language name of Treganna andthe English Language name of Canton. The Welsh Language Commissioner is inagreement with the recommended name.

Page 10


• The electoral ward of Ely to be given the Welsh Language name of Trelái and the EnglishLanguage name of Ely. The Welsh Language Commissioner is in agreement with therecommended name.

• The electoral ward of Fairwater to be given the Welsh Language name of Y Tyllgoed andthe English Language name of Fairwater. The Welsh Language Commissioner is inagreement with the recommended name.

• The electoral ward of Heath to be given the Welsh Language name of Y Mynydd Bychanand the English Language name of Heath. The Welsh Language Commissioner is inagreement with the recommended name.

• The electoral ward of Llandaff to be given the Welsh Language name of Llandaf and theEnglish Language name of Llandaff. The Welsh Language Commissioner states thatLlandaf is the form recommended in the national standard reference work, Rhestr oEnwau Lleoedd / A Gazetteer of Welsh Place-Names (University of Wales Press, 1967)and that preference should be given to the Welsh language name when the Welsh andEnglish names differ by one or two letters.

• The electoral ward of Llandaff North to be given the Welsh Language name of Ystum Tafand the English Language name of Llandaff North. The Welsh Language Commissionerstates that Ystum Taf is the form recommended in the national standard reference work,Rhestr o Enwau Lleoedd / A Gazetteer of Welsh Place- Names (University of Wales Press,1967). The Welsh Language Commissioner also proposed the English language form ofLlandaf North. The Welsh Language Commissioner states that if the difference betweenthe Welsh form and the English form consists of only one or two letters, the use of asingle form is recommended, with preference being given to the Welsh form. Llandaf isa Welsh name (Llan (Church/Parish) + name of the river Taf) therefore, there is no needto double the letter ‘f’.

• The electoral ward of Penylan to be given the Welsh Language name of Pen-y-lan andthe English Language name of Penylan. The Welsh Language Commissioner stated Pen- y-lan is the form recommended in the national standard reference work, A Gazetteer ofWelsh Place-Names.

• The electoral ward of Rhiwbina to be given the Welsh Language name of Rhiwbeina andthe English Language name of Rhiwbina. The Welsh Language Commissioner is inagreement with the recommended name.

• The electoral ward of Riverside to be given the Welsh Language name of Glanyrafonand the English Language name of Riverside. The Welsh Language Commissioner is inagreement with the recommended name.

• The electoral ward of Rumney to be given the Welsh Language name of Tredelerch andthe English Language name of Rumney. The Welsh Language Commissioner is inagreement with the recommended name.

• The electoral ward of Splott to be given the Welsh Language name of Y Sblot and theEnglish Language name of Splott. The Welsh Language Commissioner is in agreementwith the proposed name.

Page 11


• The electoral ward of Whitchurch and Tongwynlais to be given the Welsh Languagename of Yr Eglwys Newydd a Thongwynlais and the English Language name ofWhitchurch and Tongwynlais. The Welsh Language Commissioner is in agreement withthe recommeded name.

4. In its Draft Proposals report the Commission proposed that the Communities of Cathays andCastle form a three-member electoral ward. In light of the representations received, in whichrespondents raised concerns about the contrast between registered electors (10,024) andpopulation eligible to vote within the ward (21,309), the Commission has recommended thatthe existing arrangements are retained for the Cathays electoral ward.

5. In its Draft Proposals report the Commission proposed that the Community of Roath form athree-member electoral ward. In light of the representations received, in which respondentsraised concerns about the contrast between registered electors (11,270) and populationeligible to vote within the ward (15,461), the Commission has recommended that the existingarrangements are retained for the Plasnewydd electoral ward.

Recommended Electoral Wards

6. The Commission considered changes to the remaining electoral wards. Details of the currentelectoral arrangements can be found at Appendix 2. The Commission’s recommendedarrangements can be found in Appendix 3.

Page 12


Creigiau/St. Fagans and Pentyrch

7. The existing Pentyrch electoral ward is composed of the Gwaelod-y-garth and Pentyrch wardsof the Community of Pentyrch. It has 2,801 electors (2,869 projected) represented by onecouncillor which is 9% below the recommended county average. The electoral ward has anestimated population of 2,795 eligible voters.

8. The existing Creigiau/St. Fagans electoral ward is composed of the Creigiau ward of theCommunity of Pentyrch and the Community of St. Fagans. It has 4,181 electors (8,366projected) represented by one councillor which is 36% above the recommended countyaverage. The electoral ward has an estimated population of 3,960 eligible voters.

9. In its draft proposals the Commission proposed to combine the Communities of Pentyrch andSt. Fagans to form an electoral ward.

10. The Commission received ten representations in response to the draft proposals regardingthis area from Cardiff Council Labour Group, Cardiff Council Conservative Group, CardiffCouncil Liberal Democrats Group, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors ofPlasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Councillor NormaMackie, Councillor Stephen Cunnah and Councillor Owen Llewellyn Jones.

11. Cardiff Council Labour Group, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors ofPlasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Councillor NormaMackie, Councillor Stephen Cunnah and Councillor Owen Llewellyn Jones all opposed theproposal to create a Pentyrch and St Fagans electoral ward due to the large geographical areaand the distance between population centres.

12. Cardiff Council Conservative Group supported the new electoral ward of Pentyrch and StFagans.

13. The Cardiff Council Liberal Democrats Group agreed that the new Pentyrch and St Fagans wardwas logical but were concerned about the large geographic area the ward would cover.

14. The Commission recommends that the Communities of Pentyrch and St. Fagans are combinedto form an electoral ward of 6,982 electors (11,235 projected) which, if represented by threecouncillors would result in a level of representation that is 24% below the recommendedcounty average.

15. The Commission proposed the Welsh language name of Pentyrch a Sain Ffagan; and theEnglish language name of Pentyrch and St Fagans. The Welsh Language Commissioner agreedwith the proposed name. The Commission received no representations regarding the name.

16. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the Welsh language name ofPentyrch a Sain Ffagan and the English language name of Pentyrch and St Fagans. The WelshLanguage Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. Any comments on therecommended names can be sent to the Minister for Housing and Local Government.

17. The Commission acknowledges opposition to this recommendation. However, no othersuggestions for improving electoral parity in the area were received. The Commission issatisfied that the increase in electoral parity enacted by this recommendation provides for aneffective electoral ward.

Page 13


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

CARDIFF FINAL RECOMENDATIONS REPORT

Page 14

Page 15


Radyr

19. The existing Radyr electoral ward is comprised of the Community of Radyr. It has 5,259electors (5,562 projected) represented by one councillor which is 71% above therecommended county average. The electoral ward has an estimated population of 5,160eligible voters.

20. In its draft proposals the Commission proposed that the Community of Radyr form an electoralward represented by two councillors (an increase of one).

21. The Commission received ten representations in response to the draft proposals regarding thisarea from Radyr and Morganstown Community Council, Cardiff Council Labour Group, CardiffCouncil Conservative Group, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors ofPlasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Councillor NormaMackie, Councillor Stephen Cunnah and Councillor Owen Llewellyn Jones.

22. All representations received supported the Commission’s Draft Proposal to increase thenumber of councillors representing the Radyr ward from one to two.

23. The Commission recommends that the Community of Radyr forms an electoral ward of 5,259electors (5,562 projected) which, if represented by two councillors (an increase of one) wouldresult in a level of representation that is 15% below the recommended county average.

24. The Commission proposed the Welsh language name of Radur and the English language nameof Radyr. The Welsh Language Commissioner agreed with the proposed name. TheCommission received no representations regarding the name.

25. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the Welsh language name ofRadur and the English language name of Radyr. The Welsh Language Commissioner agreeswith the recommended name. Any comments on the recommended names can be sent to theMinister for Housing and Local Government.

26. The Commission agrees with the representations received for the area during the initialconsultation period. It is the view of the Commission that this arrangement best addressesthe existing level of electoral variance. The Commission considers that the recommendedelectoral ward shares a common identity and provides for an effective electoral ward, whichwould build on the established community, communication and social links within the area.

27. The Commission considers that this recommendation would be desirable in the interests ofeffective and convenient local government.


Page 16

Page 17


Lisvane and Llanishen

28. The existing Lisvane electoral ward is comprised of the Community of Lisvane. It has 2,894electors (6,256 projected) represented by one councillor which is 6% below the recommendedcounty average. The electoral ward has an estimated population of 2,887 eligible voters.

29. The existing Llanishen electoral ward is composed of the Communities of Llanishen andThornhill. It has 13,167 electors (12,971 projected) represented by four councillors which is7% above the recommended county average. The electoral ward has an estimated populationof 13,953 eligible voters.

30. In its draft proposals the Commission proposed to combine that the Communities of Lisvaneand Thornhill to form an electoral ward. As a consequence, the Commission proposed thatthe Community of Llanishen form an electoral ward.

31. The Commission received 11 representations in response to the Draft Proposals regarding thisarea from Anna McMorrin MP, the Cardiff Council Labour Group, the Cardiff CouncilConservative Group, the Cardiff Council Liberal Democrats Group, the City Councillors ofCathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the CityCouncillors of Ely, Councillor Normal Mackie, Councillor Stephen Cunnah and Councillor OwenLlewellyn Jones.

32. Anna McMorrin MP, the Cardiff Council Labour Group, the Cardiff Council Conservative Group,the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors ofGrangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Councillor Norma Mackie, Councillor Stephen Cunnahand Councillor Owen Llewellyn Jones supported the proposed changes.

33. The Cardiff Council Liberal Democrats Group agree that the numbers make sense and agreewith the removal of single-member wards, although the Group questions the merging ofLisvane and Thornhill without time to gauge the feelings of the communities involved.

34. The Commission recommends that the Communities of Lisvane and Thornhill be combined toform an electoral ward with 8,347 electors (11,628 projected), which if represented by threecouncillors, would result in a level of representation that is 10% below the recommendedcounty average.

35. The Commission proposed the Welsh language name of Llys-faen a’r Ddraenen and the Englishlanguage name of Lisvane and Thornhill. The Welsh Language Commissioner’s Place- nameStandardisation Panel recommends the Welsh form Y Ddraenen, with the contracted form ofthe definite article. The Welsh names Draenen Pen-y-graig and Y Ddraenen both have somecirculation as the Welsh forms for Thornhill. The name Draenen Pen-y-graig (abbreviated to YDdraenen by Welsh speakers) is older than the Thornhill housing development. Both formsseem to be equally used today in Welsh writing and the Place-name Standardisation Panelrecommends adopting the form Y Ddraenen for Thornhill as it believed that Draenen Pen-y- graig may have actually originally referred to another smaller settlement at the top of the hill.The Commission received no representations regarding the name.

36. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the Welsh language name of Llys-faen a’r Ddraenen and the English language name of Lisvane and Thornhill. The WelshLanguage Commissioner agreed with the recommended name. Any comments on therecommended names can be sent to the Minister for Housing and Local Government.

37. As a consequence, the Commission recommends that the Community of Llanishen form an

Page 18


electoral ward with 7,714 electors (7,599 projected) which, if represented by two councillors, would result in a level of variance that is 25% above the recommended county average.

38. The Commission proposed the Welsh language name of Llanisien and the English languagename of Llanishen. The Welsh Language Commissioner agreed with the proposed name. TheCommission received no representations regarding the name.

39. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the Welsh language name ofLlanisien and the English language name of Llanishen. The Welsh Language Commissioneragrees with the recommended name. Any comments on the recommended names can be sent to the Minister for Housing and Local Government.

40. The Commission acknowledges the representation made by the Liberal Democrats Group andtheir concerns that the residents of the affected communities have not had enough time tomake their feelings known on the proposed changes. The Commission is satisfied that it hasprovided the requisite period for public consultation, both at the initial stage, and followingpublication of the Draft Proposals.

41. The Commission is of the view that the recommended changes to the Lisvane electoral ward,and the consequential change to the Llanishen electoral ward improve the levels of electoralparity and creates compact electoral wards with good communication links. The Commissionacknowledges the high level of variance in the Llanishen ward; however, the Commissionconsiders that the recommended Llanishen ward would achieve an appropriate level ofvariance in 2024, based on the estimated electorate provided by Cardiff Council.



Page 19


Page 20

Page 21


Butetown

43. The existing Butetown electoral ward is comprised of the Community of Butetown. It has7,550 electors (10,046 projected) represented by one councillor which is 145% above therecommended county average. The electoral ward has an estimated population of 11,449eligible voters. The Community of Butetown includes the Island of Flat Holm, which containsno electors.

44. In its draft proposals the Commission proposed that the Community of Butetown form anelectoral ward represented by three councillors (an increase of two).

45. The Commission received 16 representations in response to the draft proposals regardingthis area from Stephen Doughty MP, Jenny Rathbone MS, Cllr Norma Mackie, Cllr StephenCunnah, Cllr Owen Llewellyn, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors ofPlasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, the ButetownLabour Group, Cardiff Council Labour Group, Cardiff Council Conservative Group, CardiffCouncil Liberal Democrats Group, the Atlantic Wharf Residents Association and two localresidents.

46. Stephen Doughty MP, Jenny Rathbone MS, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillorsof Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Cllr NormaMackie, Cllr Stephen Cunnah, Cllr Owen Llewellyn, Cardiff Council Labour Group, theButetown Labour Party Group and two local residents all supported the Commission’s draftproposals for Butetown.

47. Cardiff Council Liberal Democrats Group agrees with increasing the representation in theButetown electoral ward; however, they question the need for three councillors andsuggested a two-member arrangement.

48. Cardiff Council Conservative Group supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals to increasethe number of councillors for Butetown from one to three.

49. The Atlantic Wharf Residents Association supported the Commission’s Draft Proposal toincrease the number of councillors representing the Butetown ward from one to three. Theyalso proposed creating two new wards which would see one member representing the newlydeveloped area of Cardiff Bay and two members representing the rest of Butetown.

50. The Commission recommends that the Community of Butetown forms an electoral ward of7,550 electors (10,046 projected), which if represented by three councillors (an increase oftwo) would result in a level of representation that is 18% below the recommended countyaverage.

51. The Commission proposed the single name of Butetown. The Welsh Language Commissionerconsidered the name and proposed the Welsh Language name of Tre-biwt. The WelshLanguage Commissioner’s Place-names Standardisation Panel recognises that the coinedWelsh form, Tre-biwt, has become well-established and is in common use. The Commissionreceived two representations regarding the name.

52. Two local residents proposed that the Welsh form of Tre-biwt be adopted for the ward, as theWelsh form was being increasingly recognised by locals within the City and is already in useby many institutions when referring to the area.

53. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the single name of Butetown.The Welsh Language Commissioner recognises that the coined Welsh form, Tre-biwt, has

Page 22


become well established and is in common use. Entities within the local area are known to use Tre-biwt and Butetown on their websites. However, Cardiff Council has not yet officially adopted the Welsh form. The Welsh Language Commissioner recognises both forms of the name, and the Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the single name of Butetown due to a lack of strong local support for the change. Any comments on the recommended name can be sent to the Minister for Housing and Local Government.

54. The Commission agrees with the recommendations to increase the number of councillors forButetown made within the representations and the need for improvement in electoral parity.The inclusion of a third councillor for this ward ensures this arrangement addresses both theexisting and projected levels of electoral variance for Butetown.

55. The Commission considered the representation from the Atlantic Wharf Residents Associationof creating two new wards. However, this proposal would maintain an inappropriate level ofelectoral variance. It is the view of the Commission that a three-member electoral wardprovides the best arrangement for the ward.



Page 23

Page 24


Grangetown

57. The existing Grangetown electoral ward is comprised of the Community of Grangetown. It has13,088 electors (15,439 projected) represented by three councillors which is 42% above therecommended county average. The electoral ward has an estimated population of 16,581eligible voters.

58. In its draft proposals the Commission proposed that the Community of Grangetown form anelectoral ward represented by four councillors (an increase of one).

59. The Commission received ten representations in response to the draft proposals regardingthis area from: Stephen Doughty MP, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors ofPlasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Cllr NormaMackie, Cllr Stephen Cunnah, Cllr Owen Llewellyn Jones, Cardiff Council Labour Group, theCardiff Council Conservative Group and a resident of Cardiff.

60. Stephen Doughty MP, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, theCity Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Cllr Norma Mackie, Cllr StephenCunnah, Cllr Owen Llewellyn, Cardiff Council Labour Group, Cardiff Council ConservativeGroup and a resident of Cardiff all supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals forGrangetown.

61. The Commission recommends that the Community of Grangetown forms an electoral ward of13,088 electors (15,439 projected) which if represented by four councillors (an increase ofone) would result in a level of representation that is 6% above the recommended countyaverage.

62. The Commission proposed the single name of Grangetown. The Welsh LanguageCommissioner agreed with the proposed name. The Commission received one representationregarding the name.

63. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the single name of Grangetown.The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. Any comments onthe recommended name can be sent to the Minister for Housing and Local Government.

64. The Commission agrees with the representations made to increase the number of councillorsrepresenting the Grangetown electoral ward.

65. The Commission acknowledges that this recommendation diverges from its policy of notrecommending any new four-member wards. However, the Commission received noproposals to split the Grangetown electoral ward and any other alternative arrangementwould result in a recommended electoral ward in excess of four members.

66. The Commission considers that the recommended electoral ward shares a common identityand would provide for an effective electoral ward which would build on the establishedcommunity, communication and social links within the area.



Page 25

Page 26


Llanrumney and Old St Mellons and Pontprennau

68. The existing Llanrumney electoral ward is comprised of the Community of Llanrumney. It has7,694 electors (7,575 projected) represented by three councillors which is 17% below therecommended county average. The electoral ward has an estimated population of 8,485eligible voters.

69. The existing Pontprennau/Old St. Mellons electoral ward is composed of the Communities ofOld St Mellons and Pontprennau. It has 7,537 electors (10,410 projected) represented by twocouncillors which is 22% above the recommended county average. The electoral ward has anestimated population of 7,498 eligible voters.

70. In its draft proposals the Commission proposed that the Community of Llanrumney form anelectoral ward represented by two councillors (a reduction of one), and that the Communitiesof Pontprennau and Old St Mellons form an electoral ward represented by three councillors(an increase of one).

71. The Commission received 15 representations in response to the draft proposals regarding thisarea from: Stephen Doughty MP, Anna McMorrin MP, the City Councillors of Llanrumney, theCity Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors ofGrangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, Councillor Norma Mackie, Councillor Stephen Cunnah,Councillor Owen Llewellyn Jones, Councillor Ed Stubbs, the Cardiff Council Labour Group, theCardiff Council Conservative Group, the Llanrumney Labour Party and a local resident.

72. Stephen Doughty MP, Anna McMorrinn MP, the City Councillors of Cathays, the CityCouncillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely,Councillor Norma Mackie, Councillor Stephen Cunnah, Councillor Owen Llewellyn Jones andthe Cardiff Council Labour Group all opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals forLlanrumney. The respondents cited the proposed changes to the Butetown ward (reducingthe number of Councillors in Llanrumney based on a population of 7,694, whilstsimultaneously proposing an increase in the number of Councillors in Butetown based on anelectorate of 7,550). They also proposed an alternative arrangement for the area to combinethe electoral ward of Llanrumney with the Community of Old St Mellons. They also proposedto combine the Pentwyn electoral ward with the Community of Pontprennau.

73. The City Councillors of Llanrumney and the Llanrumney Labour Party opposed theCommission’s Draft Proposals for Llanrumney. They cited the increase in councillors proposedin Butetown and the similar electorate figures as reason to retain the existing three-memberarrangement.

74. The City Councillors also proposed that with some changes, Llanrumney could be representedby four members. They proposed to transfer ten streets from Old St Mellons into theLlanrumney ward which would increase the number of electors to justify the increase inrepresentation for the ward.

75. They also proposed as an alternative to combine the electoral ward of Llanrumney with theCommunity of Old St Mellons stating that those communities are closely connected bothhistorically and geographically. Consequently, they proposed that the Pentwyn electoral wardbe combined with the Community of Pontprennau.

Page 27


76. Cardiff Council Conservative Group supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the areaand opposed any arrangements that would split the existing Pontprennau and Old St Mellonselectoral ward.

77. Councillor Ed Stubbs proposed to retain the existing arrangements in Llanrumney.

78. A local resident opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals to reduce the number ofcouncillors representing the Llanrumney ward from three to two.

79. The Commission recommends that the Communities of Llanrumney and Old St Mellons forman electoral ward of 10,024 electors (10,793 projected) which, if represented by threecouncillors would result in a level of representation that is 9% above the recommended countyaverage.

80. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the Welsh language name ofLlanrhymni a Phentref Llaneirwg; and the English language name of Llanrumney and Old StMellons. The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. Anycomments on the recommended names can be sent to the Minister for Housing and LocalGovernment.

81. The Commission, as a consequence, recommends that the Community of Pontprennau forman electoral ward of 5,207 electors (7,192 projected) which, if represented by two councillorswould result in a level of representation that is 15% below the recommended county average.

82. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the single name of Pontprennau.The Welsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. Any comments onthe recommended name can be sent to the Minister for Housing and Local Government.

83. The Commission considered the representations received and agrees with elements of theproposals from Stephen Doughty MP, Anna McMorrinn MP, the City Councillors of Cathays,the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors ofEly, the City Councillors of Llanrumney, Councillor Norma Mackie, Councillor Stephen Cunnah,Councillor Owen Llewellyn Jones, Cardiff Council Labour Group and the Llanrumney LabourParty, who proposed to combine the Communities of Llanrumney and Old St Mellons to forman electoral ward represented by three members.

84. The Commission has not recommended the proposal to combine the electoral ward ofPentwyn with the Community of Pontprennau as this would have created a large electoralward with an inappropriate level of variance at 30% above the recommended county average.

85. The Commission considers that this recommendation provides for improvements in electoralparity and would be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.


Page 28


Page 29

Page 30


Pentwyn

86. The existing Pentwyn electoral ward is composed of the Communities of Llanedeyrn andPentwyn. It has 10,741 electors (10,206 projected) represented by four councillors which is13% below the recommended county average. The electoral ward has an estimatedpopulation of 11,872 eligible voters.

87. In its draft proposals the Commission proposed that Communities of Llanedeyrn and Pentwynare combined to form an electoral ward represented by three councillors (a reduction of one).

88. The Commission received 33 representations in response to the draft proposals regarding thisarea from Stephen Doughty MP, Anna McMorrin MP, Jo Stevens MP, Jenny Rathbone MS, theCity Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillors of Plasnewydd, the City Councillors ofGrangetown, the City Councillors of Llanrumney, the City Councillors of Ely, Cllr Ed Stubbs, CllrNorma Mackie, Cllr Stephen Cunnah, Cllr Owen Llewellyn Jones, Cardiff Council Labour Group,Cardiff Council Conservative Group, the Welsh Liberal Democrats Group, Llanrumney BranchLabour Party and 15 local residents.

89. Stephen Doughty MP, Anna McMorrin MP, the City Councillors of Cathays, the City Councillorsof Plasnewydd, the City Councillors of Grangetown, the City Councillors of Ely, the CityCouncillors of Llanrumney, Cllr Norma Mackie, Cllr Stephen Cunnah, Cllr Owen Llewellyn,Cardiff Council Labour Group and the Llanrumney Branch Labour Party all opposed theCommission’s Draft Proposals for Pentwyn. The respondents proposed to combine theelectoral ward of Pentwyn with the Community of Pontprennau to form a three-memberelectoral ward.

90. Jenny Rathbone MS opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals for the Pentwyn electoralward and proposed to retain the existing four-member electoral arrangements. JennyRathbone MS also proposed that the Pentwyn electoral ward be combined with theCommunity of Pontprennau if need be.

91. The Cardiff Council Conservative Group supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals forPentwyn.

92. The Cardiff Council Liberal Democrats Group suggested that the Pentwyn electoral ward bere-named Pentwyn and Llanedeyrn in the English language and Pentwyn a Llanedern in theWelsh language.

93. One local resident opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals to reduce the number ofcouncillors representing the Pentwyn electoral ward from four to three.

94. One local resident opposed the changes in Llanedeyrn and requests that the existingarrangements are retained.

95. Thirteen local residents supported the Commission’s Draft Proposals to reduce the number ofcouncillors representing the Pentwyn electoral ward from four to three.

96. The Commission recommends that the Communities of Llanedeyrn and Pentwyn form anelectoral ward of 10,741 electors (10,206 projected) which, if represented by three councillors(a reduction of one) would result in a level of representation that is 16% above therecommended county average.

Page 31


97. The Commission proposed the single name of Pentwyn. The Welsh Language Commissioneragreed with the proposed name. The Commission received one representation regarding thename from the Cardiff Council Liberal Democrats Group.

98. The Commission has given the recommended electoral ward the single name of Pentwyn. TheWelsh Language Commissioner agrees with the recommended name. The Commissionconsidered the representation from the Liberal Democrats Group to re-name the wardPentwyn and Llanedeyrn. However, the Commission recommends retaining the existing wardname due to a lack of local support for the change within the representations received. Anycomments on the recommended name can be sent to the Minister for Housing and LocalGovernment.

99. The Commission agrees with the recommendations made by the Cardiff Council ConservativeGroup and the 13 local residents. It is the view of the Commission that the Pentwyn electoralward returns an appropriate level of electoral variance and creates a compact electoral wardwith good community and communication links.



Page 32

Page 33


Chapter 6. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ARRANGEMENTS 1. The existing electoral arrangements (as shown at Appendix 2) provide for the following levels

of electoral representation within the City and County of Cardiff:

• Electoral variance ranges from 23% below the current county average (Cathays) to133% above the current county average (Butetown) of 3,243 electors per councillor.

• Two electoral wards had levels of representation more than 50% above or below thecurrent county average of 3,243 electors per councillor.

• Two electoral wards have levels of representation between 25% and 50% above orbelow the current county average of 3,243 electors per councillor.

• 14 electoral wards have levels of representation between 10% and 25% above orbelow the current county average of 3,243 electors per councillor.

• 11 electoral wards have levels of representation less than 10% above or below thecurrent county average of 3,243 electors per councillor.

2. In comparison with the existing electoral arrangements shown above, the recommendedelectoral arrangements (as shown in Appendix 3) illustrate the following improvements to theelectoral representation across the County:

• Electoral variance ranges from 24% below the recommended county average (Pentyrchand St Fagans) to 27% above the recommended county average (Caerau) of 3,078electors per councillor.

• Two of the electoral wards have a level of representation more than 25% aboveor below the recommended county average of 3,078 electors per councillor.

• 12 electoral wards have levels of representation between 10% and 25% above orbelow the recommended county average of 3,078 electors per councillor.

• 14 electoral wards have levels of representation less than 10% above or below therecommended county average of 3,078 electors per councillor.

3. As described in Chapter 4 and Appendix 4, in producing a scheme of electoral arrangementsthe Commission must have regard to a number of issues contained in the legislation. It is notalways possible to resolve all of these, sometimes conflicting, issues. In the Commission’srecommended scheme the Commission has placed emphasis on achieving improvements inelectoral parity whilst maintaining community ties wherever possible.

4. The Commission recognises that the creation of electoral wards which depart from the pattern which now exists would inevitably bring some disruption to existing ties between communitiesand may straddle community council areas. The Commission has made every effort to ensurethat the revised electoral wards do reflect logical combinations of existing communities andcommunity wards.

5. The Commission has looked at each area and is satisfied that it would be difficult to achieveelectoral arrangements that keep the existing combination of communities and communitywards without having a detrimental effect on one or more of the other issues that it mustconsider.

Page 34


Chapter 7. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT 1. Having completed the review of the City and County of Cardiff and submitted the

Commission’s recommendations to the Welsh Government on the future electoralarrangements for the principal authority, the Commission has fulfilled its statutory obligationsunder the Act.

2. It now falls to the Welsh Government, if it thinks fit, to give effect to these recommendationseither as submitted, or with modifications. The Welsh Government may also direct us toconduct a further review.

3. Any further representations concerning the matters in this report should be addressed to theWelsh Government. They should be made as soon as possible and, in any event, not later thansix weeks from the date the Commission’s recommendations are submitted to the WelshGovernment. Representations should be addressed to:

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

Or by email to:

[email protected]


Page 35


Chapter 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1. The Commission wishes to express its gratitude to the principal council, all the town

and community councils and other interested bodies and persons who made representations to us during the course of developing these final recommendations. We, the undersigned, commend this recommendations report.

Dr. DEBRA WILLIAMS (Chair)

CERI STRADLING (Deputy Chair)

DAVID POWELL (Member)

JULIE MAY (Member)

THEODORE JOLOZA (Member)

SHEREEN WILLIAMS MBE OStJ (Chief Executive)

[November 2020]

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 1 – GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Commission The Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales.

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

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

Community / Town ward

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

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

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

Electoral wards The areas into which Principal Councils are divided for the purpose of electing county councillors, previously referred to as electoral divisions.

Electoral review A review in which the Commission considers the electoral arrangements for a Principal Council.

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

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

Estimated Population of Eligible Voters

The estimated number of eligible persons (18+) within a local government area who are eligible to vote. These figures have been sourced from the Office of National Statistics’ 2015 Ward population estimated for Wales, mid-2015 (experimental statistics).

Interested party Person or body who has an interest in the outcome of an electoral review such as a community or town council, local MP or AM or political party.

Order Order made by an implementing body, giving effect to proposals made by the Principal Council or the Commission.

Over-representation

Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward compared to the county average.

APPENDIX 1

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

Principal council The single tier organ of local government, responsible for all or almost all local government functions within its area. A county or county borough council.

Projected electorate

The five-year forecast of the electorate.

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

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

Town Council A Community Council with the status of a town are known as Town Councils. A Town Council may be divided for community electoral purposes into wards.

Under-representation

Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward compared to the county average.

The

City

and

Cou

nty

of C

ardi

ffEx

istin

g El

ecto

ral A

rran

gem

ents

Appe

ndix

2

No.

NAM

ED

ESC

RIP

TIO

NN

o. O

F C

OU

NC

ILLO

RS

ELEC

TOR

ATE

2019

2019

R

ATIO

% v

aria

nce

from

C

ount

y av

erag

eEL

ECTO

RAT

E 20

2420

24

RAT

IO

%

varia

nce

from

C

ount

y av

erag

e

Popu

latio

n El

igib

le to

Vo

te

1Ad

amsd

own

Com

mun

ity o

f Ada

msd

own

(5,5

85),

[7,3

74]

25,

585

2,79

3-1

4%7,

374

3,68

75%

9,24

92

But

etow

nC

omm

unity

of B

utet

own

(7,5

50),

[10,

046]

*inc

lude

s Fl

at H

olm

17,

550

7,55

013

3%10

,046

10,0

4618

6%11

,449

3C

aera

uC

omm

unity

of C

aera

u (7

,813

), [7

,772

]2

7,81

33,

907

20%

7,77

23,

886

10%

8,76

34

Can

ton

Com

mun

ity o

f Can

ton

(10,

913)

, [12

,239

]3

10,9

133,

638

12%

12,2

394,

080

16%

11,7

585

Cat

hays

Com

mun

ities

of C

atha

ys (9

,084

), [1

1,02

7] a

nd C

astle

(940

), [1

,141

]4

10,0

242,

506

-23%

12,1

683,

042

-14%

21,3

09

6C

reig

iau/

St. F

agan

sTh

e C

reig

iau

war

d of

the

Com

mun

ity o

f Pen

tyrc

h (2

,135

), [4

,273

] and

the

Com

mun

ity o

f St F

agan

s (2

,046

), [4

,094

]1

4,18

14,

181

29%

8,36

78,

367

138%

3,96

0

7C

ynco

edC

omm

unity

of C

ynco

ed (8

,343

), [7

,973

]3

8,34

32,

781

-14%

7,97

32,

658

-24%

9,71

58

Ely

Com

mun

ity o

f Ely

(9,5

21),

[9,3

58]

39,

521

3,17

4-2

%9,

358

3,11

9-1

1%10

,729

9Fa

irwat

erC

omm

unity

of F

airw

ater

(9,5

62),

[9,4

11]

39,

562

3,18

7-2

%9,

411

3,13

7-1

1%10

,099

10G

abal

faC

omm

unity

of G

abal

fa (5

,205

), [6

,097

]2

5,20

52,

603

-20%

6,09

73,

049

-13%

8,54

411

Gra

nget

own

Com

mun

ity o

f Gra

nget

own

(13,

088)

, [15

,439

]3

13,0

884,

363

35%

15,4

395,

146

46%

16,5

8112

Hea

thC

omm

unity

of H

eath

(9,4

73),

[9,1

68]

39,

473

3,15

8-3

%9,

168

3,05

6-1

3%10

,120

13Li

svan

eC

omm

unity

of L

isva

ne (2

,894

), [6

,256

]1

2,89

42,

894

-11%

6,25

66,

256

78%

2,88

714

Llan

daff

Com

mun

ity o

f Lla

ndaf

f (6,

855)

, [6,

968]

26,

855

3,42

86%

6,96

83,

484

-1%

7,29

515

Llan

daff

Nor

thC

omm

unity

of L

land

aff N

orth

(5,8

17),

[5,5

74]

25,

817

2,90

9-1

0%5,

574

2,78

7-2

1%6,

544

16Ll

anis

hen

Com

mun

ities

of L

lani

shen

(7,7

14),

[7,5

99] a

nd T

horn

hill (

5,45

3), [

5,37

2]4

13,1

673,

292

2%12

,971

3,24

3-8

%13

,953

17Ll

anru

mne

yC

omm

unity

of L

lanr

umne

y (7

,694

), [7

,575

]3

7,69

42,

565

-21%

7,57

52,

525

-28%

8,48

518

Pent

wyn

Com

mun

ities

of P

entw

yn (5

,295

), [5

,031

] and

Lla

nede

yrn

(5,4

46) [

5,17

5]4

10,7

412,

685

-17%

10,2

062,

552

-27%

11,8

7219

Pent

yrch

Com

mun

ities

of G

wae

lod-

y-ga

rth (8

94),

[916

] and

Pen

tyrc

h (1

,907

), [1

,953

]1

2,80

12,

801

-14%

2,86

92,

869

-18%

2,79

520

Peny

lan

Com

mun

ity o

f Pen

ylan

(9,6

96),

[9,9

29]

39,

696

3,23

20%

9,92

93,

310

-6%

10,7

0321

Plas

new

ydd

Com

mun

ity o

f Roa

th (1

1,27

0), [

12,3

17]

411

,270

2,81

8-1

3%12

,317

3,07

9-1

2%15

,461

22Po

ntpr

enna

u/O

ld S

t. M

ello

nsC

omm

unitie

s of

Pon

tpre

nnau

(5,2

07),

[7,1

92] a

nd O

ld S

t. M

ello

ns (2

,330

), [3

,218

]2

7,53

73,

769

16%

10,4

105,

205

48%

7,49

8

23R

adyr

Com

mun

ity o

f Rad

yr (5

,259

), [5

,562

]1

5,25

95,

259

62%

5,56

25,

562

58%

5,16

024

Rhi

wbi

naC

omm

unity

of R

hiw

bina

(9,2

73),

[8,7

71]

39,

273

3,09

1-5

%8,

771

2,92

4-1

7%9,

387

25R

iver

side

Com

mun

ities

of P

ontc

anna

(5,1

37),

[5,1

19] a

nd R

iver

side

(4,5

13),

[4,4

97]

39,

650

3,21

7-1

%9,

617

3,20

6-9

%11

,192

26R

umne

yC

omm

unity

of R

umne

y (6

,514

), [6

,658

]2

6,51

43,

257

0%6,

658

3,32

9-5

%7,

029

27Sp

lott

The

Com

mun

ities

of S

plot

t (4,

975)

, [4,

927]

and

Tre

mor

fa (4

,039

), [4

,000

]3

9,01

43,

005

-7%

8,92

72,

976

-15%

10,4

3628

Trow

brid

geC

omm

unity

of T

row

brid

ge (1

0,92

6), [

11,2

89]

310

,926

3,64

212

%11

,289

3,76

37%

12,2

35

29W

hitc

hurc

h an

d To

ngw

ynla

isTh

e C

omm

unitie

s of

Whi

tchu

rch

(11,

435)

[11,

255]

and

Ton

gwyn

lais

(1

,395

) [1,

369]

412

,830

3,20

8-1

%12

,594

3,14

9-1

1%13

,393

7524

3,19

63,

243

263,

905

3,51

928

8,60

1

2019

2024

Gre

ater

than

+ o

r - 5

0% o

f Cou

nty

aver

age

27%

414

%Be

twee

n +

or -

25%

and

+ o

r - 5

0% o

f Cou

nty

aver

age

27%

414

%Be

twee

n +

or -

10%

and

+ o

r - 2

5% o

f Cou

nty

aver

age

1448

%14

48%

Betw

een

0% a

nd +

or -

10%

of C

ount

y av

erag

e11

38%

724

%

TOTA

L:R

atio

is th

e nu

mbe

r of e

lect

ors

per c

ounc

illor

Elec

tora

l fig

ures

sup

plie

d by

Car

diff

City

Cou

ncil

Popu

latio

n fig

ures

sup

plie

d by

the

Offi

ce fo

r Nat

iona

l Sta

tistic

s

CITY

AN

D CO

UN

TY O

F CA

RDIF

FPr

opos

ed E

lect

oral

Arr

ange

men

ts a

nd C

ounc

il M

embe

rshi

pVa

rianc

e fr

om th

e Re

com

men

ded

Coun

ty A

vera

ge

Appe

ndix

3

No

Nam

eD

escr

iptio

nN

o. o

f Cllr

sEl

ecto

rate

20

1920

19 R

atio

% V

aria

nce

from

re

com

men

ded

Cou

nty

Aver

age

Elec

tora

te

2024

2024

Rat

io

% V

aria

nce

from

re

com

men

ded

Cou

nty

Aver

age

1Ad

amsd

own

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Ada

msd

own

(5,5

85) [

7,37

4]2

5,58

52,

793

-9%

7,37

43,

687

10%

2B

utet

own

The

Com

mun

ity o

f But

etow

n (7

,550

) [10

,046

]3

7,55

02,

517

-18%

10,0

463,

349

0%

3C

aera

uTh

e C

omm

unity

of C

aera

u (7

,813

) [7,

772]

27,

813

3,90

727

%7,

772

3,88

616

%

4C

anto

nTh

e C

omm

unity

of C

anto

n (1

0,91

3) [1

2,23

9]3

10,9

133,

638

18%

12,2

394,

080

22%

5C

atha

ysTh

e C

omm

uniti

es o

f Cat

hays

(9,0

84) [

11,0

27] a

nd C

astle

(940

) [1,

141]

410

,024

2,50

6-1

9%12

,168

3,04

2-9

%

6C

ynco

edTh

e C

omm

unity

of C

ynco

ed (8

,343

) [7,

973]

38,

343

2,78

1-1

0%7,

973

2,65

8-2

0%

7El

yTh

e C

omm

unity

of E

ly (9

,521

) [9,

358]

39,

521

3,17

43%

9,35

83,

119

-7%

8Fa

irwat

erTh

e C

omm

unity

of F

airw

ater

(9,5

62) [

9,41

1]3

9,56

23,

187

4%9,

411

3,13

7-6

%

9G

abal

faTh

e C

omm

unity

of G

abal

fa (5

,205

) [6,

097]

25,

205

2,60

3-1

5%6,

097

3,04

9-9

%

10G

rang

etow

nTh

e C

omm

unity

of G

rang

etow

n (1

3,08

8) [1

5,43

9]4

13,0

883,

272

6%15

,439

3,86

016

%

11H

eath

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Hea

th (9

,473

) [9,

168]

39,

473

3,15

83%

9,16

83,

056

-9%

12Li

svan

e an

d Th

ornh

illTh

e C

omm

uniti

es o

f Lis

vane

(2,8

94) [

6,25

6] &

Tho

rnhi

ll (5

,453

) [5,

372]

38,

347

2,78

2-1

0%11

,628

3,87

616

%

13Ll

anda

ffTh

e C

omm

unity

of L

land

aff (

6,85

5) [6

,968

]2

6,85

53,

428

11%

6,96

83,

484

4%

14Ll

anda

ff N

orth

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Lla

ndaf

f Nor

th (5

,817

) [5,

574]

25,

817

2,90

9-6

%5,

574

2,78

7-1

7%

15Ll

anis

hen

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Lla

nish

en (7

,714

) [7,

599]

27,

714

3,85

725

%7,

599

3,80

014

%

16Ll

anru

mne

y an

d O

ld S

tM

ello

nsTh

e C

omm

unity

of L

lanr

umne

y (7

,694

) [7,

575]

and

Old

St M

ello

ns (2

,330

) [3,

218]

310

,024

3,34

19%

10,7

933,

598

8%

17Pe

ntw

ynTh

e C

omm

uniti

es o

f Lla

nede

yrn

(5,4

46) [

5,17

5] P

entw

yn (5

,295

) [5,

031]

310

,741

3,58

016

%10

,206

3,40

22%

18Pe

ntyr

ch a

nd S

t Fag

ans

The

Com

mun

ities

of P

enty

rch

(4,9

36) [

7,14

2] a

nd S

t. Fa

gans

(2,0

46) [

4,09

4]3

6,98

22,

327

-24%

11,2

363,

745

12%

19Pe

nyla

nTh

e C

omm

unity

of P

enyla

n (9

,696

) [9.

929]

39,

696

3,23

25%

9,92

93,

310

-1%

20Pl

asne

wyd

dTh

e C

omm

unity

of R

oath

(11,

270)

[12.

317]

411

,270

2,81

8-8

%12

,317

3,07

9-8

%

21Po

ntpr

enna

uTh

e C

omm

unity

of P

ontp

renn

au (5

,207

) [7,

192]

25,

207

2,60

4-1

5%7,

192

3,59

68%

22R

adyr

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Rad

yr a

nd M

orga

nsto

wn

(5,2

59) [

5,56

2]2

5,25

92,

630

-15%

5,56

22,

781

-17%

23R

hiw

bina

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Rhi

wbi

na (9

,273

) [8,

771]

39,

273

3,09

10%

8,77

12,

924

-12%

24R

iver

side

The

Com

mun

ities

of P

ontc

anna

(5,1

37) [

5,11

9] a

nd R

iver

side

(4,5

13) [

4,49

7]3

9,65

03,

217

4%9,

617

3,20

6-4

%

25R

umne

yTh

e C

omm

unity

of R

umne

y (6

,514

) [6,

658]

26,

514

3,25

76%

6,65

83,

329

0%

26Sp

lott

The

Com

mun

ities

of S

plot

t (4,

975)

[4,9

27] a

nd T

rem

orfa

(4,0

39) [

4,00

0]3

9,01

43,

005

-2%

8,92

72,

976

-11%

27Tr

owbr

idge

The

Com

mun

ity o

f Tro

wbr

idge

(10,

926)

[11,

289]

310

,926

3,64

218

%11

,289

3,76

313

%

28W

hitc

hurc

h an

d To

ngw

ynla

isTh

e C

omm

uniti

es o

f Whi

tchu

rch

(11,

435)

[11,

255]

and

Ton

gwyn

lais

(1,3

95) [

1,36

9]4

12,8

303,

208

4%12

,594

3,14

9-6

%

7924

3,19

63,

078

263,

905

3,34

1

2019

2024

Betw

een

+ or

- 10

% o

f the

pro

pose

d co

unty

ave

rage

1450

%15

54%

Betw

een

+ or

- 10

% a

nd +

or -

25%

of t

he p

ropo

sed

coun

ty a

vera

ge10

36%

1346

%

Betw

een

+ or

- 25

% a

nd +

or -

50%

of t

he p

ropo

sed

coun

ty a

vera

ge2

7%0

0%

Gre

ater

than

+ o

r - 5

0% o

f the

pro

pose

d co

unty

ave

rage

00%

00%

Rat

io is

the

num

ber o

f ele

ctor

s pe

r cou

ncillo

r

Elec

tora

te fi

gure

s su

pplie

d by

Car

diff

Cou

ncil

Popu

latio

n fig

ures

sup

plie

d by

Offi

ce fo

r Nat

iona

l Sta

tistic

s (O

NS)

APPENDIX 4

RULES AND PROCEDURES

Scope and Object of the Review

1. Section 29 (1) of the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013 (the Act) lays upon theCommission the duty, at least once in every review period of ten years, to review the electoralarrangements for every principal area in Wales, for the purpose of considering whether or notto make proposals to the Welsh Government for a change in those electoral arrangements. Inconducting a review the Commission must seek to ensure effective and convenient localgovernment (Section 21 (3) of the Act).

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

Electoral Arrangements

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

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

(b) in consequence of such changes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iv) the name of any electoral ward.

APPENDIX 4

Considerations for a review of principal area electoral arrangements

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

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

(b) have regard to:

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

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

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

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

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

Local government changes

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

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

• The City and County of Cardiff (Communities) Order 2016.

Procedure

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

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

9. In line with Section 35 of Chapter 4 of the Act, the Commission published its DraftProposals Report on 14 January 2020, notifying the listed mandatory consultees andother interested parties of a period of consultation on the draft proposals wouldcommence on 21 January 2020 and end on 13 April 2020. However, due to theCoronavirus pandemic, the Commission paused the Consultation on its DraftProposals on the 27 March 2020. The Consultation was then reopened on the 15 June2020 and ended on the 3 July 2020. The Commission met with Cardiff City and CountyCouncil Group Leaders and Chief Executive to discuss the Draft Proposals and theprocess of developing the Final Recommendations. The Commission invited the Cityand County Council and other interested parties to submit comments on the DraftProposals and how they could be improved. The Commission also asked Cardiff Cityand County Council to display copies of the report alongside public notices in the area.

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

Policy and Practice

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

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

Crown Copyright

13. The maps included in this report, and published on the Commission’s website, wereproduced by the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales under licencefrom Ordnance Survey. These maps are subject to © Crown Copyright. Unauthorisedreproduction will infringe Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civilproceedings. Any newspaper editor wishing to use the maps as part of an articleabout the draft proposals should first contact the copyright office at Ordnance Survey.

APPENDIX 4

http://ldbc.gov.wales/reviews/electoralreviews/currreviews/?lang=en

Appendix 5

Page 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix 5

Page 2

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

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

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

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

Page 3

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

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

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

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

Appendix 5

Appendix 5

Page 4

12. Councillor Ash Lister, Lynda Thorne and Abdul Sattar (All Grangetown) wrote on the 2 July2020 in response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals Report. The Group takes issue with howthe Draft Proposals are predicated on high levels of population growth. The Group accepted the Commission’s Proposal to increase the number of councillors representing the Butetown wardfrom one to three, however, they believe an increase of one may be more appropriate. TheGroup also opposed the reduction of one councillor from the Cathays ward due to the actualpopulation growth on the electoral register being higher than the predicted figures shown inthe report. The group proposed that the Cathays ward retain its existing four-memberrepresentation, however, the group believed that this could be increased to five members tofurther improve the variation from the County Average. The Group also accepted theCommission’s Draft Proposals for Grangetown, Lisvane and Thornhill, Pentwyn and Radyr.However, the group opposed the Commission’s Draft Proposals for Llanrumney, Plasnewydd,Pentyrch and St Fagans and Pontrennau and Old St Mellons. The Group proposed an alternativeoption for Llanrumney and Pontprennau and Old St Mellons wards by combining theCommunities of Pentwyn and Pontprennau, and then the Communities of Old St Mellons andLlanrumney. The Group proposed that the Pentwyn and Pontprennau proposed ward would berepresented by four councillors, and the proposed Llanrumney and Old St Mellons ward wouldbe represented by three councillors.

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

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

Appendix 5

Page 5

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

15. Councillor Sue Lent (Plasnewydd) wrote on the 3 July 2020 in response to the Commission’sDraft Proposals for Plasnewydd. Councillor Lent states that Plasnewydd is the most denselypopulated ward in Wales, with a large transitory population. The ward also has a high numberof planning applications and licensing applications. Councillor Lent requests that the existingfour-member arrangements for Plasnewydd be retained.

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

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

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

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

Appendix 5

Page 6

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

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

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

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

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

25. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 23 June 2020 in response to the Commission’s DraftProposals Report. They supported the Commission’s proposals for the Butetown andGrangetown electoral wards and the increase in representation. They also proposed that theLlandaff electoral ward be given the name of ‘Llandaf’ (Similar to Rhondda Cynon Taf nowbeing the accepted English format for the name of that Council). They also proposed that theButetown electoral ward be given the Welsh Language name of Tre-biwt, although They donot believe this is essential or critical.

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

Appendix 5

Page 7

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

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

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

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






Appendix 5

Page 8

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

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


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



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

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

Appendix 5

Page 9

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

43. A resident of Cardiff wrote on the 2 July 2020 to oppose the Commission’s Draft Proposals forthe Cathays electoral ward. They are concerned that the electoral figures used in the Report donot reflect the current reality. They also requested that the existing four- member arrangement in Cathays be maintained.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix 5

Page

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

APPENDIX 6

WRITTEN STATEMENT BY

THE WELSH GOVERNMENT

TITLE LOCAL ELECTIONS AND ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

DATE Thursday 23rd JUNE 2016

BY MARK DRAKEFORD, CABINET SECRETARY FOR FINANCE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Local Authority Elections (Wales) Order 2014 provided for local elections in Wales to be

delayed for a year, from May 2016 to May 2017. This allowed the elections to be separated

from the Assembly elections.

At the present time, the Local Government Act 1972 provides that ordinary elections to local

government in Wales take place on the first Thursday of May every four years. Therefore,

the next local government elections would normally take place in May 2021. Since the

implementation of the provisions of the Wales Act 2014, elections to the National Assembly

take place on a five-yearly cycle. The policy of the Welsh Government is that elections at

local level should also be placed on a five year cycle. It is intended that councillors elected

next May will therefore hold office until May 2022.

The Wales Bill, currently before Parliament, includes provisions which would enable the

Assembly to legislate to determine the term of office for local government. As the Bill is

currently in draft form and should these provisions, for any reason, not come into force, the

Welsh Government could use the same powers under the Local Government Act 2000 as

we did in 2014 to delay the elections by a year. This statement therefore provides clarity to

local government as to the length of office of those to be elected next year.

1

In the light of this, I have considered the decision made last year in relation to the electoral

arrangements of some principal councils. It was determined that reviews conducted by the

Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales in relation to nine principal areas

would not be implemented, given the intention that councils elected in 2017 would only

serve a short term prior to mergers.

However, even though the elections in May next year will now result in a full term, due to

their proximity, the arrangements which would be required and the disruption for potential

candidates, I do not intend to implement any changes to current electoral arrangements in

advance of the 2017 elections resultant from those reviews. The councils concerned are

Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion, Conwy, Denbighshire, Gwynedd, Monmouthshire,

Pembrokeshire, Powys and Torfaen.

The decision that councils will be elected for a full term also means that the Local

Democracy and Boundary Commission (the Commission) will return to its normal ten-year

cycle of reviews of electoral arrangements. I expect the Commission to publish a new,

prioritised programme as soon as possible which takes into account the age of the current

arrangements in some areas and the amount of change since the last review was

undertaken. I will ask the Commission, in planning their work, to start by revisiting the nine

outstanding reviews, with a view to presenting fresh reports on these at the very start of

their programme.

It is my intention that reviews of electoral arrangements in principal councils will be

conducted against a set of common criteria to be agreed through the Commission. I also

expect electoral reviews to have been completed for all 22 authorities within the next local

government term.

These arrangements provide clarity for those considering standing for election in 2017 and

also set out a long term planning horizon for local authorities and their public service

partners. However, I want to be clear that discussions on the reform agenda are on-going

with local authorities and other stakeholders. I will be proposing a way forward on local

government reform in the Autumn.

2

APPENDIX 6

Documents

Review of the Electoral Arrangements of the City and