Cyngor Bro Morgannwg
Vale of Glamorgan Council

I am objecting to the inclusion of Site ID 4069 (Land East of Colwinston) for the following reasons:

1. The village has expanded considerably in recent years with the Heol Cae Pwll development of 64 houses. Before this there were roughly 155 houses in the village. Another 25 houses would represent an increase of over 57% in housing in recent years. Colwinston is an historic rural settlement with a heritage built on it's size and pattern of linear development. There is little evidence that there is a need for extra modern housing in Colwinston with nearly 10% of the current development at Heol Cae Pwll currently on the market with some of these being on the market since last summer. There is a strong community spirit and this and it's character are in danger of being lost if the village continues to increase in size. Part of Colwinston is in a Conversation Area and further expansion is in contradiction to 'The County Treasures Report' which acknowledged that any expansion to the eastern boundary would have a detrimental impact on the village's character and adversely affect the village and its Conservation Area .

2. I have serious concerns about existing road access to the village and the lack of public transport. Road improvements which were needed after the completion of Heol Cae Pwll have not been undertaken and access to and from the village from the A48 remains an issue with roads that are single lane in many places and are particularly congested during school start and end times. The speed of traffic on the A48 and visibility at junctions remain a concern for both access to and from the village for pedestrians, cyclists and car users. The lack of public transport means that in effect all villagers need a car; another 25 households could potentially add 50 cars to the daily traffic through the village which will exasperate existing concerns and cause further damage to roads which are already badly in need of repair. The only 'regular' bus service is from the A48 and requires villagers to walk an unrealistic distance along country lanes with no pavements and then to cross the three lane A48 on either their outward or return journey. This can not be deemed a safe route for pedestrians.

3. Everyday services are non existent or limited. There are no health services within the village and whilst there is a small cafe selling a few items there is no shop to meet daily needs. There is no mobile signal in some areas of the village and internet connectivity can be 'patchy' at times.
Concerns regarding flood risk in the village and around this site are well documented and there are also issues with low water pressure and sewerage system capacity. All these issues need an improved and costly infrastructure if they are to be remedied.

4. Four candidate sites in Colwinston were rejected for inclusion in the RLDP. The reasons given for this apply equally to site 4069; major highway constraints, limited services and facilities, over 1km to nearest bus stop along lanes with no footpaths and development on edge of existing settlement. There appears to be a significant contradiction here and in fact site 4069 was rejected at The Preferred Strategy Phase 2A in October 2023.