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. Heritage and landscape impact: The village of Colwinston is identified as a County Treasure. Development would have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the Conservation Area contrary to policy. Colwinston is an historic rural settlement with a heritage built on the 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 (and some of these have being on the market since last summer). There is a strong community spirit - this and it's character are in danger of being lost if the village continues to increase in size. Taken together with recent developments in the village, the proposed growth is also not proportionate to the scale of the historic village and is damaging to its conservation status and community cohesion. It is not supported by evidence of settlement based housing need.

2. Public transport and sustainable travel: This site does not meet transport sustainability objectives. Colwinston lacks direct links to public transport (Greenlinks is an inadequate alternative) and increased traffic from development and the school already compromises safety for walking and cycling. There are serious concerns about existing road access to the village and the lack of any public transport. Road improvements were needed after the completion of Heol Cae Pwll but these have not been undertaken and access to and from the village from the A48 remains an issue with single lane roads which are particularly congested during school start and end times. The speed of traffic on the A48 and visibility at junctions remain a safety hazard for both access to and from the village for pedestrians, cyclists and car users. The lack of public transport means all villagers need a car; another 25 households could potentially add 50 cars to the daily traffic through the village which will increase traffic 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 a long distance along country lanes with no pavements and then to cross the three lane A48. This is not a safe route for pedestrians.

3. There is a lack of services: There is no mobile signal in most areas of the village and internet connectivity can be intermittent. There is no mains gas and delivery of oil and LPG often causes traffic issues. Concerns regarding flood risks in the village are well documented and the loss of another Green field site will mean less drainage. There are sewerage system capacity connectivity issues with the Cowbridge Wastewater Treatment Works. Low water pressure is also an issue. These issues need an improved and costly services infrastructure if they are to be remedied. Whilst there is a small cafe selling a few items there is no shop to meet daily needs.

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.

5. Inadequate Consultation with Residents: The digital approach adopted in this consultation is likely to have excluded many people in the local community from participating and responding.