Comment DBCC-8004

[REDACTED]
However, I would like to submits this consultation response.

I consider that the Commission is correct in making this pairing and also think that the Commission should pair Ynys Mon and Bangor Aberconwy, since the only road (and rail) links from Ynys Mon to the mainland are through Bangor Aberconwy, and the applicable primary legislation requires paired constituencies to be contiguous. If the Commission were instead to pair Ynys Mon with another constituency, so people needed to travel through Bangor Aberconwy to get from one part of their constituency to another, then that constituency would not be contiguous.
I believe the Commission therefore has no choice but to pair the UK Parliamentary constituencies along the coast of north Wales in the way that it has.
Further the Commission should pair Clwyd North with Clwyd East, since Clwyd North is not contiguous with any other Westminster constituency except Bangor Aberconwy, which must be paired with Ynys Mon.
As Clwyd North is paired with Clwyd East, the Commission has to pair Alyn and Deeside with Wrexham. Alyn and Deeside is not contiguous with any other UK parliamentary constituency in Wales except Clwyd East, which is already paired with Clwyd North.
It is a good idea to take account local government boundaries by proposing ‘Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire’ and ‘Carmarthenshire’ as constituencies. I strongly support these if the limit on constituencies is not able to create a Pembrokeshire constituency which would have been preferable. There are not natural ties between Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion due to the limited use of the Welsh language in Pembrokeshire and especially in the South.

I support the Commission’s proposed Brecon, Radnor, Neath and Swansea East constituency.

It is hard to integrate the south Wales valleys appropriately into only 16 constituencies across Wales, and anomalies are inevitable.
The Commission is right in principle in its Initial proposals. Where possible, it is better to respect the topography of the valleys, by using those valleys to link constituencies on a north-south basis, rather than forcing constituencies to pair east-west across valleys which do not share the same local ties and community links.
This is clear with the pairings of ‘Merthyr Tydfil, Aberdare and Pontypridd’ and ‘Blaenau Gwent, Rhymney and Caerphilly’, where the paired constituencies largely run north-south with the contours of the valleys, thus respecting local ties and communities, and not splitting them as alternative east-west pairings would tend to do.
Similarly, I support both the Commission’s proposed Newport and Islwyn pairing, and the natural and historically linked pairing of Monmouthshire and Torfaen.
The Commission is also correct to pair the closely tied communities of Vale of Glamorgan and Bridgend, rather than forcing an unnatural tie between the rural Vale of Glamorgan and a constituency from the Cardiff capital.
The combination of the Aberafan, Maesteg, Rhondda and Ogmore areas as a constituency with a linked industrial heritage also supports local ties.
I believe that it is right for the four Cardiff constituencies to be paired together, and that the Commission has proposed the correct pairings within the capital.
Cardiff East and Cardiff North are tied more closely by geography with Newport, Bristol and the M4 corridor further east into England. Cardiff West and Cardiff South and Penarth tend to look more to the west along the M4 and towards Swansea.
Local ties, links and the road network within Cardiff, particularly the A4232, link Cardiff South and Penarth most closely to Cardiff West, which is also the case for Cardiff East and North with the A48 and their linked geography to the east of the river Taff.
The gap left in what would otherwise have been an M4/A4232/A48(M) Cardiff orbital road leaves Cardiff East and Cardiff South and Penarth poorly linked by the un-dualled Rover Way. The Lamby Way waste site and Rhymney river also contribute to relatively poor connectivity between these two UK parliamentary constituencies.
[REDACTED]

Respondent type

Member of public

This comment refers to

The entire area under review.