Comment DBCC-7116

Consultation Response – Neath Port Talbot Council

In response to the Commission’s request for comments regarding their initial proposals published on 3 September 2024, the following ‘points of principle’ have been put forward for consideration.

The commentary as outlined below about the proposed new Senedd constituencies was agreed upon by the four main political groups before the Commission’s 30 September submission deadline and is expected to be endorsed by the Cabinet at its meeting on 2 October 2024.

The particular Senedd constituency pairings of relevance to this local authority are:

Aberafan Maesteg, Rhondda and Ogmore

Brecon, Radnor, Neath and Swansea East

Given the radical nature of the proposals, it is understood that the Commission has had an invidious task in selecting the relevant UK parliamentary constituencies to be combined.

Nevertheless, while it is acknowledged that the recommendations do allow for the reunification of certain parts of the Neath Port Talbot and Bridgend principal council areas, regrettably they have also ended up creating enlarged boundaries which simply do not reflect natural community or economic ties and are not easily recognisable for local electors.

Looking first at the proposed Brecon, Radnor, Neath and Swansea East Senedd constituency.

As part of this Council’s previous consultation responses to the UK Parliamentary Boundary Review, it has long been argued that the communities of the Upper Amman and Swansea Valley should always have formed part of areas of Neath or Swansea and should never have formed part of the Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe constituency.

While it is clear the Commission's intention was to resolve this anomaly, the solution offered essentially creates a larger problem with a ‘super’ constituency encompassing a huge area of both urban and rural communities of vastly different demographics that offers no proper sense of community ties, identity, or place.

It is acknowledged that there are suitable road links along with regular public transport connections between Neath Town Centre and the Brecon area. However, if you travel further north to towns and villages in and around Builth Wells or Llandrindod Wells the public transport network becomes far more limited.

The time required to travel between such areas even by the most direct routes, excluding public transport, averages between 2-3 hours on non-motorway roads.

Coupled with the concerns around the size of the constituency, the council also felt it important to highlight the added complexity that creating new Senedd constituencies will generate.

The Commission’s initial proposals, if adopted will result in significant cross-boundary overlap with neighbouring local authorities in the north and east.

This will result in electoral administrative coordination across three local authorities having to collaborate forensically (excluding any additional logistic coordination also required in other constituencies located within the principal council areas).

Turning to the proposals for the Aberafan Maesteg, Rhondda and Ogmore Senedd constituency.

As outlined in the Commission’s report it is stated that good road links exist between the two areas. However, while we concur that such road links do exist we would not agree that such links are sufficiently robust.

To provide one simple example the most direct and only connecting route between Port Talbot and Treorchy would be the A4107 across the Bwlch Mountain.

This single mountain road is occasionally subject to road closures due to poor weather conditions, particularly in the winter months, and we are not aware of any specific direct public transport connections between these communities. In terms of direct connectivity, far better links exist between Port Talbot and Bridgend with access to the M4 motorway.

In addition, while reference is made to a shared sense of character between the valley communities of Maesteg, Pontycymmer, and Ogmore it is highlighted that there is little in the way of community connection between the larger community areas of Aberafan and Rhondda.

Aberafan electors tend to be more westward facing with strong links with communities in the Neath, Swansea, Bridgend, and other southern coastal areas. Alternatively, electors residing in Rhondda arguably have stronger eastward connections with communities in and around Cardiff and the Valleys.

Concluding Comments:

It is the council’s strong belief that the most natural combination for electors living in the Neath and Swansea East UK parliamentary constituency remains with electors residing in the Aberafan Maesteg UK parliamentary constituency along an east/west axis.

These two constituencies form the vast majority of the Neath Port Talbot principal council area, encompassing some overlap with neighbouring authorities in the east and west albeit regretfully with the exclusion of the Cwm Tawe area in the north.

If such a pairing proves problematic for the Commission to implement, we would offer a supplementary recommendation to combine the Aberafan Maesteg constituency with the Bridgend constituency similarly along an east/west axis.

The council views this combination, while in no way being perfect, as offering a far more appropriate pairing with communities with stronger cultural and economic ties and much more robust transport links.

Undoubtedly, these initial proposals will result in significant confusion and misunderstanding for local electors who will no longer be able to easily identify or establish who represents them which may also diminish engagement with the democratic process.

In turn, this will inevitably lead to difficulties in the administration of electoral events with overly complex multiple cross-boundary issues and the potential high risk of administrative failure in the event of any future combined electoral events where different boundary types will be in effect.

Overall, the Council believes that any boundary alteration proposals should be for change that is desirable, effective and convenient for local communities.

On that basis, it is felt that these initial proposals will regretfully be inconvenient for the electorate and increase the complexity and risk of administrative error in the running of elections.

In addition, members of Council have also expressed their concern over the added layers of complexity newly elected representatives will face in advocating for constituents across multiple principal councils, health boards, police forces and rescue services.

It is understood that the remit of the Commission in undertaking the current 2026 Senedd constituencies review is exceptionally restricted which may limit the ability to offer alternative combination pairings.

Nevertheless, we would question whether the voter is being placed at the heart of the democratic process and request that the Commission acknowledge the significant concerns over the current initial proposals.

Any future review, where greater flexibility is afforded, must give careful consideration to the current proposed constituency combinations, particularly the disconnected and detached communities in the Cwm Tawe and Ogmore areas.

The aim must be to restore the traditional community ties in these areas established over the past century but regretfully diminished by the recommendations made as part of the UK Parliamentary Review and further exacerbated by the current Senedd Constituencies Review.

We ask the Commission to take full consideration of all of these impacts in relation to the current and any future Senedd constituency reviews.

Comment on naming and designations of Senedd constituencies:

In relation to the naming and designation of constituencies, the Council will reserve comment until publication of the revised proposals.

Respondent type

On behalf of a local authority

This comment refers to

The entire area under review.