Testun llawn:
A comparison of the proposed development sites around Cowbridge was included in the RLDP, yet the suitability ratings given to Bryn Mellin (Site 370) contain major inconsistencies when set against those allocated to other local sites—specifically Site 367 (South of Llantwit Major Road) and Site 455 (Primrose Hill). Although all sites were supposedly assessed through on‑site visits, the outcomes suggest that the evaluation would have been more accurate had the local council, with its direct knowledge of the area, undertaken the assessment.
BP16 states that where several sites exist within a settlement, those scoring proportionately more positively should be ranked above those with a disproportionate number of negative scores. Despite this, Bryn Mellin—located within the Thaw Valley Special Landscape Area (SLA), which the Vale of Glamorgan has a duty to protect—was scored more favourably than comparable sites. This raises the question of whether the existence of an active developer proposal influenced the assessment.
Built Form, Layout and Compatibility
• Bryn Mellin (370) was rated green for compatibility with existing built form.
• Site 367 received amber.
• Site 455 received red.
This is difficult to justify. Bryn Mellin sits within the Thaw Valley SLA, where there is no existing housing density or built form to integrate with. On this basis alone, Bryn Mellin should have been rated red, not green.
Visual and Landscape Impact
• Bryn Mellin was given an amber rating.
• Sites 367 and 455 were both rated red.
Again, this is inconsistent. Bryn Mellin lies entirely within a designated Special Landscape Area, meaning its visual impact should be considered more severe, not less. A red rating is the only reasonable outcome.
Significance of the Site to the Area
Bryn Mellin received an amber rating, while the other two sites were rated red. This is illogical given that:
• The Thaw Valley SLA is of recognised landscape importance.
• Development would significantly affect Windmill Lane, a private lane with restricted access.
• Residents’ privacy and security would be compromised by increased pedestrian movement.
• A public footpath—previously protected in a planning refusal and upheld on appeal—would be fundamentally altered and diminished in value.
The inspector previously confirmed that the footpath’s character would be “considerably diminished” once the site was built upon. This should have resulted in a red rating.
Density in Relation to Existing Development
Bryn Mellin was rated green, while Sites 367 and 455 were rated amber. This is counterintuitive. Bryn Mellin has no surrounding development to relate to, and its density would be entirely out of character with the valley landscape.
Vehicular Access and Movement
All three sites were rated amber, yet Bryn Mellin clearly presents the most severe access issues:
• St Athan Road has significant width restrictions.
• HGV traffic associated with construction would create major delays and safety risks.
• The steep gradient of the site would increase carbon emissions from vehicle movements.
These factors should have resulted in a red rating for Bryn Mellin.
Access to Public Transport and Active Travel
Bryn Mellin was rated green, while the other two sites were rated amber. This is demonstrably incorrect:
• Bryn Mellin has the worst access to bus routes, pedestrian links and cycle routes.
• There are no pavements on any approach roads.
• The Brookfield Park walkway does not meet minimum width standards.
• Sites 367 and 455 have direct access to public transport and established pedestrian/cycle networks.
Bryn Mellin should have been rated red.
Accessibility for All Users
Bryn Mellin was not given any rating at all under this category—an unacceptable omission. Given the 12% slope and poor access routes, it should clearly be rated red. Sites 367 and 455, both rated amber, are significantly more accessible.
Opportunities for Green Infrastructure and Active Travel
Bryn Mellin received a green rating, while the other sites received amber. This is again unjustified:
• Access relies on an under‑width walkway and a private lane (Windmill Lane).
• Bus services to Cardiff—the main employment centre—are limited to two per hour at peak times.
• Development here would increase car dependency and undermine sustainability goals.
If the Vale of Glamorgan wishes to support sustainable travel, development should be focused around rail‑connected settlements such as Barry or Penarth.
Placemaking Outcome Summary
Bryn Mellin was categorised as green, despite:
• Its location within a protected Special Landscape Area.
• Poor public transport access.
• High reliance on private car travel.
• Significant landscape, ecological and amenity impacts.
Cowbridge and Llanblethian Town Council unanimously opposed the inclusion of Site 370 in the RLDP, and they are responsible for the Cowbridge Placemaking Plan.
The RLDP claims that development at Bryn Mellin could “enhance the character of the area” and “respond to its setting”. This is not credible. The development would destroy landscape features, disrupt a valued public footpath, and damage local habitats.
By contrast:
• Primrose Hill (455) was rated amber, with impacts considered neutral if mitigated.
• Land South of Llantwit Major Road (367) was rated red, with likely detrimental effects.
Alignment with Emerging Placemaking Principles
The draft Cowbridge Placemaking Plan emphasises:
• Local identity
• Sustainable growth
• Protection of the town’s character and edges • Enhancement of public spaces and green infrastructure
Allocating a large greenfield site within a protected landscape directly contradicts these principles. There is little evidence that the local council’s placemaking criteria or local knowledge were meaningfully incorporated into the assessment.
Cowbridge Town Council unanimously rejected Site 370 on 24/02/2026.
Conclusion and Recommended Changes
• Retain Bryn Mellin as open countryside under existing rural protection policies.
• Direct future growth to locations where environmental enhancement and green infrastructure can be delivered.
• Provide transparent, up‑to‑date landscape and ecological evidence before allocating any greenfield land.
• Demonstrate clearly that alternative sites are genuinely less suitable before expanding Cowbridge’s physical footprint
