Testun llawn:
I wish to object to HG4(3)/Site ID 404 /Site ID 2814, which proposes allocating land at Heol Fain, Wick for approximately 50 dwellings within the Replacement Local Development Plan 2021–2036.
My primary concern is that the allocation appears inconsistent with the Plan’s overall spatial strategy. The site lies outside the strategic growth area, and the Council’s own Candidate Site Stage 2 Assessment Register (November 2023) indicates that market-led housing would not be acceptable in this location. The same assessment states that development might only be reconsidered as small-scale affordable housing subject to evidence of need and viability. Allocating the site within the Plan therefore appears premature when this evidence has not been clearly demonstrated.
Development plans must be supported by a robust evidence base demonstrating that site allocations are appropriate, deliverable and consistent with the strategy of the Plan. In this case, it is not clear that such evidence has been provided. For an allocation to be considered sound, it should be clearly justified, supported by evidence and capable of being delivered without unacceptable environmental or infrastructure impacts.
The Council’s Candidate Site Summary identifies the site as Red for Climate Change and Red for Access to Health Services, with several infrastructure criteria rated Amber. These ratings suggest significant sustainability concerns. However, the Deposit Plan documentation does not appear to clearly explain the basis for these ratings or demonstrate how the impacts identified would be mitigated.
National planning policy in Wales places strong emphasis on decarbonisation, sustainable placemaking and reducing reliance on private car travel. Where a site is identified as performing poorly against climate objectives, it would normally be expected that clear evidence and mitigation measures are provided to justify its allocation. In this case, that justification is not evident within the published documentation. Access to healthcare services is also identified as a significant constraint. The Red rating for Access to Health Services reflects the limited proximity of the village to healthcare facilities. While travel to services may be necessary in rural areas, additional housing growth should still be supported by evidence that local healthcare provision has the capacity to accommodate it. The Deposit Plan does not appear to include confirmation of GP capacity, agreement from the relevant Health Board, or identified mitigation measures.
Infrastructure capacity more generally remains uncertain. Several aspects of the site assessment are rated Amber, indicating unresolved constraints. While it is recognised that some detailed matters are addressed at planning application stage, allocating land within the Local Development Plan should normally be supported by reasonable certainty that the necessary infrastructure can be delivered during the Plan period.
From a local perspective, it is also important to consider the scale of development already experienced within Wick in recent years. The village had a population of approximately 927 at the 2021 Census. A development of around 124 dwellings was completed in 2019, representing a significant expansion for a settlement of this size. A further 17 affordable homes have also recently been delivered nearby. These developments together represent a substantial increase in housing within a relatively short period.
Despite this growth, local services remain limited. Wick contains a single primary school, a small shop/post office and one remaining public house. There is no secondary school or GP surgery within the village, and many residents rely on nearby towns such as Bridgend, Llantwit Major and Cowbridge for employment, healthcare and everyday services. Continued expansion risks increasing reliance on private car travel and may not align with the sustainability objectives set out in national planning policy.
There may also be drainage considerations associated with the site. The field lies at a slightly lower elevation than surrounding housing and is bounded by a lane and a sewage pumping station at its lowest point. Parts of the land appear to contain reeds or similar vegetation, which may indicate naturally wet conditions. While this is based on my own observations and not supported by a formal assessment, it suggests the site may already form part of the local surface water drainage pattern. It is also relevant that the adjacent housing development approved under the previous Local Development Plan included a requirement to investigate the potential for sustainable drainage systems and the suitability of soakaways for surface water disposal. Development of the remaining portion of the field could potentially affect those drainage assumptions. In the absence of detailed drainage evidence within the Plan documentation, it is difficult to be confident that development could proceed without creating flood risk or surface water issues for neighbouring properties.
The allocation would also result in the loss of undeveloped greenfield land on the edge of the village. Continued outward expansion can gradually change the character and form of a rural settlement. The Plan does not appear to provide clear evidence demonstrating how development on this edge of Wick would integrate with the existing settlement pattern while maintaining its rural character. Although the field is privately owned and not formally designated as public open space, it has for years been used informally by residents for activities such as dog walking. This informal use provides a valued local amenity and contributes to the character of the surrounding area.
Overall, my concern is not solely about the characteristics of this individual site, but about the cumulative effect of continued housing growth in a small rural settlement with limited infrastructure. Wick has already expanded significantly in recent years, and the Plan does not clearly demonstrate that an additional allocation of 50 dwellings is proportionate to the size and service capacity of the village.
For these reasons, I do not consider that HG4(3)/Site ID 404 /Site ID 2814 is sufficiently justified by the evidence presented. The Plan does not clearly demonstrate that infrastructure constraints, healthcare access, drainage considerations or sustainability concerns have been adequately addressed.
