Testun llawn:
CANDIDATE SITE 4069: Land to the East of Colwinston: I am writing to express my strong objection to Candidate Site 4069 being included in the RLDP 2021 to 2036 - the only Colwinston site carried forward into the Deposit Plan stage. My reasons are:
ROAD SAFETY: Colwinston has no public transport, terrible roads for walking, cycling and driving, and residents rely on cars for day-to-day life as the village has no key services and facilities. Bustops on the A48 are inaccessible as the road is too dangerous to cross. More houses will result in significantly more cars in a village that already has dangerous traffic levels especially during school times. Most pupils and staff live outside the village and travel by car, so congestion, parking and turning has worsened since Heol Cae Pwll; more new houses would add to this problem as the only access would be via Heol Cae Pwll next to the school. Highway safety is a major concern - having only one entrance in an already problematic area is unsafe.
OVERDEVELOPMENT: Colwinston has already experienced a significant increase in housing (64 homes) and having even more houses (25) would be disproportionate to the size of the village and would cause a large area of dense population uncharacteristic of Colwinston. I also question why the Settlement Boundary has been changed by subtracting from the countryside.
ENTRANCE: The only entrance to the site outside 19, 20, 21 Heol Cae Pwll is frequently used by local children for playing, chalking, riding scooters and bikes as it is one of the very few flat places for children to play safely like this outdoors. One entrance is not enough, and this cul-de-sac is unsuitable with no pavements. It is also crosses a public footpath that runs long the hedgerow of this site; children and adults enjoy the walks, looking at wildlife and views, and gathering blackberries, watching the sheep/lambsand harvesting machine. It is a popular spot for villagers and tourists. The nearby Conservation Area and historic buildings are visible from the footpath and across the fields.
LOSS OF GREENFIELD: Using this greenfield site will be a loss of good agricultural land and farming opportunities, but it needs protecting now and future generations. The land is also near a known flood risk area, and more housing will increase surface water problems from the increasing levels of rainfall. Alternative brownfield sites should be used for housing development instead - like Llandow’s airfield. I fail to see how this site has been judged to be suitable when the Green Infrastructure analysis clearly shows it will have more major and minor negative effects than positive ones. The assessments of the other 4 Colwinston sites and this site 4069 have many errors. Also the reasons for rejecting them should also be applied to site 4069. It needs to be noted that Colwinston already has a supply of affordable homes in comparison to other nearby minor rural locations that have provided none. It is clear that demand for affordable housing is in Strategic Growth Areas where there are many more facilities/services and employment opportunities than in Colwinston like other rural villages.
DAMAGE TO HISTORIC RURAL SETTING: Importantly, using this site will have a huge negagtive impact on the village’s historic character and rural setting. The views to and from the very nearby Conservation Area require protection. Colwinston has important wildlife habitats intermingled with notable historic buildings and monuments listed in the County Treasures. The Vale should safeguard the village’s uniqueness and heritage for now and future generations.
