Cyngor Bro Morgannwg
Vale of Glamorgan Council

The site is not allocated for development and
remains outside the defined settlement boundary.

Formal Objection to the Inclusion of Site 4069 within the Settlement Boundary :
Land to the East of Colwinston
I wish to register a formal objection to the proposed inclusion of Site 4069 within the
settlement boundary. The proposal raises significant concerns in relation to heritage
protection, sustainability, infrastructure capacity, transport accessibility and the overall
scale of development within the historic settlement of Colwinston. The proposal
appears inconsistent with the objectives of the Local Development Plan (LDP) and the
principles of sustainable development.
1. Redrawing of the Settlement Boundary
The site currently forms part of the rural setting of the Conservation Area and
contributes to the open countryside that defines the existing settlement edge.
Extending the settlement boundary to incorporate Site 4069 would materially alter the
established settlement envelope and erode the historic transition between the village
and surrounding countryside. This conflicts with the statutory duty to preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The proposal lacks clear, site-specific justification and is not supported by the
accompanying impact assessment. Notably, the site was previously rejected during
earlier stages of the plan preparation process on the basis that development would
represent an “unacceptable intrusion into the open countryside.” No clear evidence has
been presented to demonstrate why that conclusion no longer applies.
2. Heritage and Landscape Impact
Colwinston is recognised as a County Treasure and its historic character forms an
important component of the local heritage landscape. Development on this site would
have an adverse impact on the character, setting and wider landscape context of the
Conservation Area and would therefore conflict with relevant heritage protection
principles.
The open fields forming Site 4069 contribute to important views into and out of the
village and form part of the agricultural landscape that defines the historic setting of the
settlement. Development in this location would fundamentally alter the relationship
between the village and its surrounding countryside.
3. Integrated Site Appraisal
The inclusion of this site is not supported by the findings of the Integrated Sustainability
Appraisal (ISA). The ISA undertaken for the Deposit Plan concludes that development of
Site 4069 would result in 82% negative impacts across the 17 sustainability objectives,
including 29% major negative effects and 35% minor negative effects, with a further
18% assessed as uncertain. Only two objectives were identified as having minor
positive effects.
This demonstrates that the site performs poorly against the Council’s own sustainability
framework and raises serious concerns regarding its suitability for allocation.
4. Inadequate Community Consultation
The consultation process has relied predominantly on digital engagement. This
approach is likely to have excluded sections of the local community who may not have
reliable access to digital platforms, thereby limiting meaningful public participation in
the planning process.
5. Disproportionate Scale of Development
When considered alongside recent development within the village, the proposed level
of growth would represent a disproportionate expansion of the settlement.
Prior to the development at Heol Cae Pwll, Colwinston contained approximately 155
dwellings. The addition of 64 homes at Heol Cae Pwll, together with the proposed 25
dwellings on Site 4069, would represent an approximate 57% increase in the size of the
village since 2016.
Such expansion would fundamentally alter the scale and character of this historic rural
settlement and risks undermining its conservation status and community cohesion. The
proposal does not appear to be supported by robust evidence demonstrating a clear
settlement-based housing need.
6. Inconsistent Site Assessment
The Local Authority has previously assessed this site as unsuitable for development on
several occasions. The current proposal therefore represents a significant departure
from earlier assessments. Given that the site continues to present adverse impacts and
conflicts with relevant planning policies, the rationale for this change in position
remains unclear and insufficiently justified.
7. Flood Risk and Drainage Constraints
There are known drainage and flooding issues affecting both the site and the
surrounding area. In addition, there are concerns regarding sewerage capacity and
connectivity with the Cowbridge Wastewater Treatment Works.
The Integrated Sustainability Appraisal identifies that the site intersects with
Groundwater Source Protection Zones and highlights potential risks associated with
development on greenfield land in relation to surface water flooding. These constraints
raise legitimate concerns regarding the suitability of the site for development and its
resilience to future climate conditions.
8. Highways and Traffic Impact
Recent residential development and the construction of the new primary school have
already increased traffic movements within the village. This has affected traffic flow,
parking availability and the safety of walking and cycling routes.
Access to and from the village via the A48 is already constrained, with junctions at
Twmpath and Crack Hill presenting visibility and safety concerns on a high-speed road.
Any additional traffic associated with further development would intensify existing
pressures on the local road network.
9. Site Access and Construction Traffic
The proposed access arrangements raise significant safety concerns. Construction
activity associated with the development would generate substantial volumes of plant,
machinery and contractor traffic, which would be inappropriate within a small village
setting.
Access through an existing residential estate would introduce additional risks for
pedestrians, school children, walkers and animals, creating unacceptable safety
hazards for residents.
10. Lack of Sustainable Transport and Local Services
The village has extremely limited public transport provision. The nearest bus stop is
approximately a 30-minute walk from the site along roads that lack pavements and have
poor lighting, making pedestrian access unsafe and impractical, particularly during
winter months.
The site also lies in a location that would extend development outward toward the A48
rather than consolidating the existing settlement pattern. This cannot reasonably be
described as infill or rounding-off development and instead represents a form of “rural
crawl” toward the A48. Access to services from this location would require crossing or
travelling alongside the A48, a three-lane road with a 60mph speed limit, which
presents clear safety concerns and reinforces reliance on private car travel.
In addition, the village lacks essential services such as a GP surgery and larger retail
facilities, meaning future residents would be heavily dependent on private vehicles. This
runs contrary to the principles of sustainable development and the objective of
reducing car dependency.
11. Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
The site comprises predominantly greenfield land identified as Best and Most Versatile
(BMV) agricultural land, including Grades 2 and 3a. National planning policy requires
that such land be protected and only released for development where there is an
overriding need and no reasonable alternatives.
No evidence has been presented to demonstrate such a need. The site is also identified
as lying within a mineral safeguarding area, raising further questions regarding the
appropriateness of residential allocation.
Planning Policy Context
The proposal appears inconsistent with the principles of sustainable development set
out in Planning Policy Wales, which requires development to be located in sustainable
locations with appropriate access to services, infrastructure and public transport.
It also conflicts with the placemaking and rural development principles within Future
Wales: The National Plan 2040. Furthermore, potential harm to the Conservation Area is
contrary to the heritage protection principles set out in Technical Advice Note 24: The
Historic Environment.
In accordance with national planning policy and the requirements of the Local
Development Plan process, site allocations must be supported by robust evidence,
demonstrate clear sustainability credentials and represent the most appropriate option
when reasonable alternatives have been considered.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the inclusion of Site 4069 within the settlement
boundary cannot be considered justified, sustainable or consistent with the objectives
of the Local Development Plan. The proposal would harm the character and setting of
the Conservation Area, place additional strain on local infrastructure and introduce
safety and accessibility concerns that have not been adequately addressed.
It is therefore respectfully requested that Site 4069 is not allocated for development and
remains outside the defined settlement boundary. In the absence of clear evidence
demonstrating that the site represents the most appropriate and sustainable option, its
allocation risks undermining the overall soundness of the Replacement Local
Development Plan and may require further scrutiny during the independent examination
process.