Gwrthwynebu
1 Ymgynghoriad ar Cynllun Datblygu Lleol Newydd
ID sylw: 5144
Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2026
Respondent ID: 2801
Ymatebydd: Mrs Helena Cook
Cadarn? Heb nodi
Objection 1 – The size of the proposed development.
1a. The size of the proposed development is too big for St Athan to maintain its character and will fail to provide adequate resources and infrastructure to meet the needs of the additional population. This is contravening the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s own policies within the RLPD, section SSC1 6.27.
1b. The proposal aims to build a significant number of dwellings to house employees of jobs that do not currently exist. This is not in accordance with the Vale of Glamorgan’s own policies within the RLDP, SP6 6.95 and SSC1 6.27 which states that facilities must be in place at the time of the application.
Objection/ Concern 2 – The potential traffic on Llantwit Road. I would concur with all the statements from 5.2.4, 5.2.5 and 5.2.11 and support the measures suggested to minimise additional traffic onto Llantwit Road.
Objection 3 – The potential for using Llantwit Road as a bus route. The use of Llantwit Road as a bus route would not be in keeping with the potential Active Travel Route highlighted in the Apex Transport Assessment.
Objection 1 – The size of the proposed development.
The Welsh Government have stated a requirement for 8,660 additional houses to be built within the Vale of Glamorgan.
Of the 5 key sites, St Athan is most heavily targeted with proposals of 1150 new dwellings within the Church Farm sites and Land West of St Athan site, with additional dwellings at other locations within the village.
There is a heavily weighted population increased to the village of St Athan within the 2 key sites and other proposals within St Athan, compared with the other key sites.
An increase of over 1150 dwellings and the associated increase in number of residents would significantly change the existing settlement of St Athan.
Section SSC1 of the RLDP
6.27 To ensure that new development within settlement boundaries is successfully integrated, proposals will need to demonstrate that they complement the layout, scale, fabric, and appearance of the existing settlement. It will also be important to ensure that the scale and quantity of such developments is in proportion to the size of the settlement, and the range of services and community facilities that are available at the time of the application.
The proposal discusses plans to improve infrastructure, facilities and services as part of the development, recognising that there will be a need to provide additional resources to meet the needs of the increased population.
This is acknowledging that there is not the current infrastructure at the time of the application as stated in point 6.27 of the RLDP, and therefore fails to meet the criteria stated in the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s own policies.
1a. The size of the proposed development is too big for St Athan to maintain its character and will fail to provide adequate resources and infrastructure to meet the needs of the additional population. This is contravening the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s own policies within the RLPD, section SSC1 6.27.
The Vale of Glamorgan Council have suggested that St Athan is a suitable placement to justify this number of additional homes, based on the potential employment opportunities at Bro Tathan Business Park.
Section SP6
6.95 - the adjoining Bro Tathan Enterprise Zone provides a range of employment opportunities, with the delivery of a significant number of additional jobs expected over the plan period, ensuring new housing is co-located with employment opportunities
The RLDP requests new housing to be co-located with employment opportunities.
The term “expected” in relation to additional jobs is not a sufficient basis for proposing that the development ensures housing is co-located with employment opportunities if the opportunities do not currently exist.
“The delivery of new or improved infrastructure must be undertaken in a timely and coordinated manner to mee the needs of existing and planned communities prior to, or from the commencement of, the relevant phases of development.” – RLDP
“We need to pledge that employment, training and investment in the built environment is achieved before houses are built otherwise more people are using cars etc.” BP1 Engagement Report
1b. The proposal aims to build a significant number of dwellings to house employees of jobs that do not currently exist. This is not in accordance with the Vale of Glamorgan’s own policies within the RLDP, SP6 6.95 and SSC1 6.27 which states that facilities must be in place at the time of the application.
Objection/ Concern 2 – The potential traffic on Llantwit Road.
The current proposal offers a single access point onto the new development via a new roundabout off the B4265.
The Apex Transport Assessment (dated 3.7.25) comments on the lack of safe pedestrian footpaths on Llantwit Road and acknowledges that low speeds and low traffic volumes have aided minimising road accidents to date.
Section 4.2.12 states -
There may also be the potential for closing Llantwit Road to through traffic to the airfield, which will assist in providing an improved pedestrian environment for existing and potential future users.
5.2.4 The existing Llantwit Road could also be stopped up at its western end, and access through to the existing employment uses on the airfield obtained from the new roundabout / signal junction onto the B4265. There is also an option for a potential new site access onto the B4265 to facilitate access to part of the allocated Enterprise Zone to the west of the site.
5.2.5 The site can also provide a secondary or emergency access onto Llantwit Road to its north-western boundary which enables access in the event of an emergency which blocks the roundabout onto the B4265. However, this would not be accessible in ‘normal’ conditions, to ensure that vehicular traffic does not impact the route along Llantwit Road.
5.2.11 A vehicular access from Llantwit Road for ‘normal’ traffic conditions is not considered appropriate due to the width of the carriageway along Llantwit Road and to ensure it remains appropriate for walking and cycling, as currently. An access from the B4265 was therefore considered the only viable option to and from the site.
2. I would concur with all these statements and support the measures suggested above to minimise additional traffic onto Llantwit Road.
Objection 3 – The potential for using Llantwit Road as a bus route
In the Apex Transport Assessment, section 4.5.4:
“Potential diversion for the 304 bus service through the proposed development, with the option of access via a bus gate on Llantwit Road.”
Appendix I: Indicative Footway Improvement on Llantwit Road shows a diagram of the road widths along Llantwit Road incorporating the recommended 1 – 1.5m footpath.
The resulting highway measures between 6.5m at it’s maximum to 3.5m at the minimum, and does not take into account the parked cars along the road.
Using Llantwit Road as a bus route would negate the potential use for suitable and safe use for pedestrians and cyclists, as advised below in section 5.3.3 of the Apex Transport Assessment.
“The main spine road itself will be designed to accommodate buses and would route through the centre of the site, enabling buses to enter an exit from the B4265. In addition, there is an option to provide a potential route from the B4265 to the allocated employment site to the west, enabling delivery of this land. To bring forwards this connection and ensure that there is no impact from vehicle movements on Llantwit Road, Llantwit Road can be stopped up for through vehicle movements to the west of the residential area, so that all vehicle movements to and from the employment site and the potential residential development site would utilise the potential B4265 roundabout access. This would provide a benefit to existing residents along Llantwit Road by reducing vehicle movements along this route and ensuring it remained suitable and safe for shared use by walking, cycling and vehicles.”
3. The use of Llantwit Road as a bus route would not be in keeping with the potential Active Travel Route highlighted in the Apex Transport Assessment.