Testun llawn:
am objecting to the inclusion of grounds Site ID 4069 Land East of Colwinston due to the following points;
1. The development of Site 4069 would represent a significant and disproportionate expansion of Colwinston. Prior to the Heol Cae Pwll development, the village contained approximately 155 homes. The addition of 64 dwellings at Heol Cae Pwll (including 35% affordable housing) has already increased the housing stock substantially. The construction of a further 25 dwellings at Site 4069 would bring the total increase in housing since 2016 to approximately 57%. Such cumulative growth is excessive for a small rural village and would fundamentally alter the character and scale of Colwinston. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable increase in the size and density of the settlement, contrary to its historic form and setting. Colwinston's character as a compact historic village would be eroded, replacing it with the form of a significantly enlarged, commuter-style settlement. This would harm the village's conservation setting, rural heritage, and distinct identity.
2. The special character of Colwinston is intrinsically linked to its small scale, rural isolation and the clarity of its long-established settlement boundary. Altering this boundary risks exposing the village to incremental and cumulative development pressures that would fundamentally erode its rural character.
The RLDP proposes that the Settlement Boundary for Colwinston be redrawn to incorporate Candidate Site 4069 (Land to the East of Colwinston). However, the proposal appears to lack sufficient evidence, detailed analysis, or settlement-specific justification. There has also been no clear or targeted consultation explaining the rationale for altering what has historically been a well-defined and established boundary.
I do not understand why the settlement boundary for Colwinston has been amended or why the previous reasons for rejecting Site 4069 no longer apply?
The proposed amendment to the settlement boundary appears unjustified and risks setting a precedent for further incremental expansion that would undermine the rural character and spatial integrity of Colwinston.
3. Historically, the village has experienced drainage problems in which sewerage overflows
have combined with surface water runoff during periods of heavy rainfall. Development of
Site 4069 would result in the loss of agricultural land that currently provides important natural
drainage and water-absorption capacity for the wider area.
Development on greenfield land could exacerbate surface water flooding, which would be
contrary to the principles set out in Welsh planning guidance.
The Local Development Plan (2011–2026) also acknowledged a historic record of localised
surface water flooding within this area, and these problems remain unresolved.
4. Increased levels of car use resulting from the previous housing and primary school
development have already adversely affected traffic flows, parking, and the safety of walking
and cycling throughout the village. I believe that any further increase in traffic associated
with further development will intensify risks and could endanger lives.
5. Colwinston is a highly car-dependent village. Contrary to the principles of the
Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP), there are no safe footways, cycle routes, or
reliable bus services along the A48 or within the village that enable residents to travel
sustainably. Therefore any future development should not be considered within Colwinston
village as it is not possible for residents to realistically walk, cycle or use public transport to
access employment, schools or services.
Visibility splays on both entrances and exits onto the A48 at Twmpath and Crack Hill are
poor and do not meet appropriate safety standards for a road subject to a 60mph speed
limit. Also the road surfaces within the village lanes remain substandard and there are many
obscured bends and narrow sections which make them hazardous for vehicles, pedestrians,
and cyclists.
