Cyngor Bro Morgannwg
Vale of Glamorgan Council

It is considered that the Model Farm (Policy SP14(2)) Employment allocation should not be rolled forward into the Replacement LDP, and rather it would be more appropriate to de-allocate for sites with much more certainty.

Boyer have prepared and submitted the following representation on behalf of The Stevens Family in response to the current Vale of Glamorgan Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) 2021- 2036 Deposit Plan Consultation.

As you will be aware previous representations were submitted on behalf of The Stevens Family between 2019 and 2024 in response to the Quashed outline application submitted on behalf of Legal & General, and subsequent Appeal, in relation to the proposed Parc Busness Porth Cymru (PBPC) Business Park on land at Model Farm, Port Road, Rhoose (Ref: 2019/00871/OUT).

It is in this context upon which these representations, outlined below, are specifically made in relation to the Deposit Plan, and should also be read in conjunction with the previous 2024 Preferred Strategy representations relating to the proposed identification of the 44.75ha (net) Land South of Port Road, Rhoose (Model Farm) as a rollover Major Employment Allocation within Employment Growth Policy SP14(2).

As identified in previous correspondence, The Stevens Family does not object in principle to the provision of employment land within the Vale of Glamorgan, nor to the overarching objective of supporting economic growth and job creation. However, serious concerns remain as to whether the Model Farm site (SP14(2)) can realistically and credibly be relied upon as a deliverable employment allocation within the emerging RLDP period. These concerns relate to matters of soundness, deliverability, viability, market demand and unresolved technical constraints, as required to be assessed under national policy and guidance.

A summary of our main representations are as follows:
- The Stevens Family question the need for Model Farm to be included in the provision for 182 net ha of employment land for the requirement of 67.8 ha under Policy SP14. If the rollover allocation at Model Farm (Policy SP14(2)) was removed, then the provision would still allow for nearly doubling the projected employment land needs.
- Significant concern is raised regarding the ‘rollover’ Land South of Port Road, Rhoose (Model Farm) Employment Allocation (as part of SP14: Employment Growth) as deliverability is not sufficiently demonstrated by the Council and Representors. Currently there is significant ambiguity regarding the actual delivery, contrary to the Welsh Government’s Development Plans Manual (DPM) Edition 3 requirements.
- The proposed Model Farm allocation is currently subject to an Appeal, having had the previous planning applications quashed by the High Court.
- It is inappropriate to allocate an employment site which has been proven to be unviable through detailed independent assessment which predicted a loss of £10,405,000 before interest, or £34,508,455M if interest costs were payable at 5%.
- Supporting evidence confirms that whilst the Representors suggest they remain committed, there is a huge contradiction as they also suggest that they are taking a “long-term view” about when the scheme might come forward.
- Serious questions are raised in terms of the employment demand and delivery for a 161,834 sqm floorspace development considering the current available space, low uptake over the last decade and availability of more attractive and better connected alternatives.
- When assessed against the Tests of Soundness CE2 & CE3, Policy SP14(2) fails to adequately justify Model Farm’s continued inclusion in the Deposit Plan.
- There are a number of technical constraints which have not been addressed sufficiently via the planning application process, and these simply cannot be left to roll forward to the Local Development Plan.

Policy SP14 – Economic Growth
It is acknowledged that the RLDP must make adequate provision for employment land to meet forecast economic needs over the plan period and that a range of sites of differing scales and uses will be required.

Within the Preferred Strategy, Policy SP13 – Economic Growth outlined that the RLDP makes provision for 168 net ha to meet the projected employment land needs of 67.8 ha of employment land, including for B1 (Office and Light Industry), B2 (General Industries) and B8 (Distribution and Storage) employment uses which has the potential to support an additional 5,338 jobs over the plan period.

From a review of the current Deposit Plan, it is noted that employment growth is now assessed under Policy SP14 and that whilst the provision of jobs has not increased, The Stevens Family wish to highlight that the provision of proposed employment land has in fact increased to 182 ha. This is a result of an increase at both the major employment allocations at Bro Tathan Aerospace and Business Park (from 48.5 to 66.7 ha net) and Land to the South of Junction 34 of the M4, Hensol (29.59 to 36.23ha net).

Furthermore, the local employment allocations have also altered from the Preferred Strategy with, Atlantic Trading Estate, Barry (reduced from 6.21ha to 1.59 ha net); Vale Business Park, Llandow (reducing from 12.4 to 10.9 ha net); and Land at Llandow Trading Estate (1.85 ha net) replacing Land to the South of Junction 34 M4 Hensol (Area D 6.64 ha net).

Given this change, The Stevens Family question the actual need for SP14(2) Land south of Port Road (Model Farm), Rhoose. The total amount of employment space within the Vale has increased by 14 net ha by virtue of the amendments to Policy SP14, and in fact without the allocation of Model Farm would still provide 137.25 net ha which would still allow for nearly doubling the projected employment land needs of 67.8 ha of employment land.
Continued RLDP ‘Rollover’ Allocations

It is acknowledged that the RLDP must make adequate provision for employment land to meet forecast economic needs over the plan period and that a range of sites of differing scales and uses will be required. However, as noted above The Stevens Family consider that this can adequately be met without Model Farm. They reiterate some serious concerns over the deliverability of the rollover allocation, for reasons discussed below.
Welsh Government’s Development Plans Manual (DPM) Edition 3 specifies that “Allocations rolled forward from a previous plan will require careful justification for inclusion in a revised plan, aligning with PPW. There will need to be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate sites can be delivered and justify being included again. Clear evidence will be required that such sites can be delivered (Boyer emphasis). The sites should be subject to the same candidate site process requirements as new sites i.e. they must be demonstrated to be sustainable and deliverable”. Given that these factors are clearly set out within the latest version of the DPM reinforces their importance for the Welsh Government and the on-going need for Local Planning Authority’s to demonstrate deliverability.

Having reviewed both the Preferred Strategy and the current Deposit Plan background technical evidence base there is nothing to indicate that the circumstances surrounding the Model Farm (Policy SP14(2)) have materially improved since the site was previously allocated. The site remains undelivered, subject to planning uncertainty following the quashing of the previous permission and current Appeal process, as well as being constrained by unresolved technical and infrastructure issues. The continued allocation therefore represents a rollover in the strictest sense, without the justification required by national policy.

Furthermore, Paragraph 6.270 of the Deposit Plan outlines that ‘Land south of Port Road (Model Farm) Rhoose is currently subject to an appeal for non-determination of an outline planning application for a B1, B2, B8 Business. If the appeal is allowed (Boyer emphasis), the site is anticipated to deliver 1.7 million sq. ft of Class B1, B2 and B8 offices, light industrial and warehousing and distribution units, alongside car parking, landscaping, drainage infrastructure and biodiversity enhancement works which include land for expansion of Porthkerry Country Park to the south.

Clearly, the Quashed decision notice and the subsequent Appeal (which has been significantly delayed and only now looking to reopen in late March 2026) are important factors in the delivery of the employment allocation.
The Council, in their own words, note that the outcome of the Appeal impacts the anticipated delivery and therefore no decisions on the site’s acceptability nor allocation should be taken forward until the Appeal is determined. This may not fit with the Council’s timeframe for the RLDP, however the level of ambiguity on the actual delivery is so significant as to impact on the Council’s ability to deliver their employment land and jobs over the plan period.
The distinct lack of actual timeframes and delivery is further outlined in the supporting Employment Land Study (March 2023 BP12) document. Paragraph 5.40 outlines that ‘Model Farm is an employment proposal for Legal and General owned land in the east of the Land adjacent to Cardiff Airport and south of Port Road, Rhoose… Agents for Legal and General have confirmed that the investor remains committed to a development here but is taking a long term view about when the scheme might come forward (Boyer emphasis). It still sees strong potential here for a high-quality business cluster reinforced by Cardiff and Vale College’s investment nearby. It has stated that there is a development partner for the project.
Paragraph 3.9 of the Employment Supplementary Paper (November 2025 BP12A) further outlines that ‘Consideration will be given to the outcome of the Appeal decision and any implications this may have’.

The lack of evidence for the delivery is further illustrated in the Candidate Site Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage (October 2023 BP 18) background paper in regard to Candidate Site 551 – Model Farm. The RAG Analysis system to assess sites against the Preferred Strategy (Appendix 2 of BP18) highlights that developer interest is coloured Amber which means that the Council themselves consider that the site accords with the strategy but there are some concerns around deliverability that would need to be addressed.

Evidently, there is a distinct lack of surety on the deliverability of the site, both from the current Appeal and the promoters in terms of timeframe. Moreover, what is conveniently ignored in all of the RLDP assessment is the unviable nature of the proposed allocation.

Viability/Deliverability
The Stevens Family have previously provided detailed comments on this issue in relation to the planning application (Ref: 2019/00871/OUT), however they continue to consider that the matter is of significant relevance to the proposed rollover allocation at Model Farm through the RLDP.
Given there has been no further information provided between the previous Preferred Strategy consultation and the current Deposit Plan, The Stevens Family reiterate that viability is a core determinant of deliverability and must be addressed at plan-making stage. The previously published RPS & Sutton Viability Assessment as well as the Avison Young independent review provided independent viability assessments relating to the quashed planning application and remain highly material. Those assessments demonstrated a substantial and structural viability deficit, even before accounting for interest costs. When realistic assumptions were applied, the deficit increased significantly, confirming that the scheme is not commercially viable.

Crucially, the evidence also illustrated that the development could not support policy-compliant infrastructure and mitigation requirements. Significant reductions in sustainable transport contributions and other obligations were required even to marginally improve viability. This is not a minor viability issue but a fundamental failure to support policy-compliant development.

In summary, the independent viability assessments prepared in relation to the site demonstrate that:
• The scheme generates a significant financial deficit (c. £10.4m without interest and c. £34.5m with interest);
• The development cannot viably support policy-compliant infrastructure or mitigation contributions; and
• Delivery would be dependent on substantial public sector intervention or gap funding, for which no commitment exists.

No updated viability evidence accompanies the Deposit RLDP to demonstrate that circumstances have materially changed. As viability is a core component of deliverability under the Development Plans Manual (Edition 3), the allocation cannot be considered effective or considered justified or deliverable.

Consequently, the demand, and indeed the appetite to construct such a development is highly questionable. Serious concern is raised as to why this information is not taken into consideration in Employment Land Study (March 2023 BP12) document and the update (November 2025 BP12A) as there is clear evidence of the unviable nature of the allocation.
The Stevens Family have considerable business/ commercial experience and seriously question why such an unviable and undeliverable allocation would be maintained, unless it was for a future alternative use.

Employment Need
The Stevens Family maintain that the scale of employment development proposed at Model Farm is not supported by historic or current market evidence.

The Employment Land Study (March 2023 BP12) demonstrates very modest employment floorspace take-up within the Vale of Glamorgan over the past decade. When compared to the quantum proposed at Model Farm alone, it is clear that the allocation assumes an absorption rate significantly exceeding historic trends. The Employment Land Study records that over the past decade approximately 83,950 sqm of industrial floorspace has been transacted across the Vale of Glamorgan. This is only around half of the floorspace proposed at Model Farm alone. Even under optimistic assumptions, the proposed floorspace would take well beyond the plan period to be absorbed. This introduces a high risk that the site would remain undeveloped or only partially developed by 2036, undermining the effectiveness of the RLDP. This is further Page evidenced by the Agents for Legal and General confirming that the investor is taking a long-term view about when the scheme might come forward. Demand for large-format B2 and B8 units has been particularly limited. Transactions for units exceeding 5,000 square metres are rare within the Vale of Glamorgan. The allocation therefore relies heavily on speculative demand that has not historically materialised. When assessed against average annual take-up rates:
• The proposed floorspace would take in excess of 20 years to be absorbed by the market, even if Model Farm were the only site available.
• This timeframe extends well beyond the plan period, directly conflicting with the requirement for effective delivery.

The evidence further shows that:
• There has been very limited demand for large-scale units exceeding 5,000 sqm within the Vale of Glamorgan;
• Only a single transaction of this scale occurred over a ten-year period; and
• Several of the unit sizes envisaged at Model Farm significantly exceed historic demand patterns.
In the surrounding context, the Cardiff Capital Region (CCR) £36 million investment at Aberthaw Power Station, brings into doubt the desirability of the Model Farm. The Study states that CCR have received a range of suggestions from business for uses on the site and is ultimately a more attractive opportunity for businesses and operations that Model Farm. Whilst it is acknowledged that there are on-going works required, the clear investment is evident at Aberthaw, which is in stark contrast to Model Farm and L&G’s stance of a very long term view about when the scheme might come forward.

Test of Soundness
When assessed against the Tests of Soundness, Policy SP14(2) fails in several key respects.
• The allocation is not justified (CE2) because it is not supported by robust or proportionate evidence on viability or market demand and fails to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances required for a rollover allocation.
The continued allocation of Model Farm is not justified by proportionate or robust evidence and the Development Plans Manual (Edition 3) is explicit that rollover allocations must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances and be subject to the same scrutiny as new sites. No such change has been evidenced. Instead:
• The site remains undelivered;
• Viability evidence demonstrates a substantial financial deficit;
• Market demand assumptions appear optimistic when assessed against historic take-up data; and
• Multiple technical and environmental constraints remain unresolved.
In this context, the allocation of the site under Policy SP14(2) cannot be considered justified.
• The allocation is not effective (CE3) because there is no reasonable prospect of delivery within the plan period, and the site remains constrained by viability deficits, weak demand and unresolved delivery uncertainty.
For a plan to be sound it must be effective and capable of being delivered. The evidence demonstrates that this test is not met in respect of Model Farm (Policy SP14(2)).
The Employment Land Study (March 2023 BP12) and the Employment Supplementary Paper (November 2025 BP12A) confirm that the site promoter is taking a long-term view regarding delivery. This position is fundamentally incompatible with plan-making requirements, which demand a reasonable prospect that allocated sites will come forward within the plan period. There is no delivery programme, no agreed phasing strategy and no evidence of imminent implementation.
The Council’s own Candidate Site Assessment (October 2023 BP 18) assigns the site an “Amber” rating for deliverability, acknowledging unresolved concerns. This confirms that uncertainty persists and that the site cannot be relied upon to deliver employment land between 2021 and 2036.

Taken together, these factors demonstrate that there is no reasonable prospect that the Model Farm site will deliver employment development between 2021 and 2036. As such, the allocation cannot be considered effective.

Technical Constraints
In addition to viability and market demand, The Stevens Family have continually reiterated that there are a number of technical constraints which have been highlighted in relation to the planning application, and which materially affect deliverability and reinforce concerns regarding soundness.

Drainage
Drainage remains a fundamental constraint. Concerns have previously been raised by statutory consultees (Dwr Cymru Welsh Water - DCWW) regarding insufficient capacity within existing foul sewerage infrastructure to accommodate development of this scale. A suitable point of connection has not been clearly identified, and there is no confirmed strategy demonstrating how capacity issues will be resolved.

The absence of a comprehensive Hydraulic Modelling Assessment is a significant evidential gap. For a site of this scale, drainage capacity is a prerequisite for delivery. Without certainty on foul and surface water solutions, the site cannot be considered deliverable.

Furthermore, proposed foul drainage routes continue to cross third-party land, including private residential land in the ownership of The Stevens Family. There is a significant conflict in the proposed route as it passes directly through an area of The Stevens Family land which has an extant consent for the reinstatement of a range of domestic garden buildings; the reinstatement and extension of adjoining south facing greenhouse; and the reconstruction of the terraced cold frames (application ref: 2020/01007/FUL – Granted November 2020). Following the discharge of relevant conditions the works on the reinstatement has commencement and is nearing completion. Clearly there is a significant conflict and it would be wholly unreasonable for The Stevens Family to undo any consented works for the sake of any future proposed drainage.

Furthermore, the route impacts sensitive ecological areas (including a SINC and Ancient Woodland), introducing legal, environmental and deliverability risks that have not been resolved at plan-making stage.
Transport

The site is acknowledged to be heavily reliant on off-site transport infrastructure improvements to mitigate its impact and promote sustainable travel. However, the viability evidence demonstrates that the development cannot support policy-compliant transport contributions.
The reliance on land transfer in lieu of financial contributions does not provide certainty that necessary infrastructure will be delivered, nor does it demonstrate compliance with national sustainable transport policy. This creates a clear disconnect between policy aspirations and realistic delivery.

A strategic employment allocation that cannot viably deliver sustainable transport mitigation is inherently unsound.

Ecology
The site is subject to significant ecological constraints, including impacts on SINCs, Ancient Woodland and habitats supporting protected species. Previous ecological assessments provided by The Stevens Family have identified the potential presence of species such as Great Crested Newts and Dormice, and concerns remain regarding habitat loss and fragmentation.

These constraints were reflected in the Candidate Site Assessment, where the site scored “Red” in relation to impacts on SINCs and Local Nature Reserves and “Amber” across a wide range of environmental criteria. The scale of mitigation required has direct implications for both viability and deliverability and has not been adequately addressed in the evidence base.

Given the significance of the ecological constraints then it is considered that there are still further works required to evidence the allocation of the site. In particular this relates to the concerns around the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI), assessment of the on-site pond for its suitability for Great Crested Newts (GCN) as well as Dormice.

It is considered that this information should be provided now as part of the allocation process as it has significant implications.

Furthermore, The Stevens Family also note that the recently passed Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill establishes a strengthened framework for environmental protection in Wales by embedding key environmental principles such as the precautionary principle, prevention of environmental harm, rectification at source and the polluter pays principle into Welsh law and requiring public authorities to apply them in policy and decision-making. It also introduces a new environmental governance system, including the Office of Environmental Governance Wales, and enables Welsh Ministers to set legally binding biodiversity targets aimed at halting and reversing the decline of nature, increasing native species and improving ecosystem resilience.

In this context, the proposed employment allocation of Model Farm, under Policy SP14(2), should be carefully reconsidered where there is no clear demonstrable need for the allocation. The principles embedded in the Bill emphasise preventative action and the integration of environmental protection into policy decisions, meaning that avoidable harm to biodiversity should be prevented wherever possible. Where development would result in the loss or degradation of habitats and ecological networks, and the allocation is not required to meet identified employment needs, protecting the site from development would better align with the Bill’s objectives to safeguard ecosystems and contribute to reversing biodiversity decline in Wales.

Cumulative Impact of Constraints
Individually, each of the above constraints presents a challenge. Collectively, they demonstrate that Model Farm is a highly constrained site with no clear pathway to resolution. The cumulative impact of drainage, transport, ecological and environmental constraints further undermines the assumption that the site can be viably and effectively delivered within the plan period.
Candidate Site Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage (October 2023 BP 18)

As highlighted, the proposed Candidate Site 551 (Model Farm) has undertaken a RAG Analysis system to assess sites against the Preferred Strategy (Appendix 2 of BP18). Whilst it has already been noted that the site scored Amber in terms of deliverability (meaning that the Council themselves consider that the site raises concerns around deliverability that would need to be addressed), there are a number of other concerns raised where there is a distinct lack of evidence for the delivery of the site.

In particular, it is illustrated that the site scored Red (does not accord with the strategy) in regard to the direct impact on surrounding SINCs and Local Nature Reserves and is a significant factor that needs addressing to allow any rollover allocation.

Furthermore, in terms of the Amber scores, the following are highlighted as raising concern for the Authority and which need to be addressed:
- Agricultural Land
- Mineral Resource
- Green Wedge Designation
- Special Landscape Areas
- Contaminated Land
- Existing Physical Site Constraints
- Historic Environment

Given the significant amount of Amber scores, it is clearly demonstrated that the Model Farm site has a number of issues which need to be fully assessed and with no apparent solutions or updates, then The Stevens Family seriously question the validity of the proposed rollover allocation at Model Farm.

Summary
In summary, The Stevens Family have strong reservations regarding the proposed rollover allocation at Model Farm under Policy SP14(2), many of which have been previously raised and continue to be unaddressed by the evidence base underpinning the Deposit Plan.
It has been demonstrated that even without the allocation of Model Farm the Deposit Plan would still provide 137.25 net ha which would be nearly double the projected Vale employment land needs of 67.8 ha.
There are significant deliverability concerns, not only with the evidenced lack of viability (as independently assessed), but also demand. It is considered that when assessed against the Tests of Soundness, Policy SP14(2) – Model Farm, fails in several key respects.
In particular, the proposed rollover allocation is not justified under Test of Soundness CE2 because it is not clearly supported by robust or proportionate evidence on viability or market demand and fails to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances required for a rollover allocation.
Furthermore, the allocation is not effective under Test of Soundness CE3 because there is no reasonable prospect of delivery within the plan period (as suggested by the promoters that they are taking a long-term view), and the site remains constrained by viability deficits, weak demand and unresolved delivery uncertainty.

The Stevens Family consider that the rollover allocation of the site is contrary to the Welsh Government’s Development Plans Manual (DPM) Edition 3 and does not substantially evidence any deliverability.

It is considered that the Model Farm (Policy SP14(2)) Employment allocation should not be rolled forward into the Replacement LDP, and rather it would be more appropriate to de-allocate for sites with much more certainty.

Moreover, there still remains concerns regarding drainage, transport, and ecology and the distinct lack of any evidence base update to prove otherwise. This is supported by the Councils own assessment as part of the Candidate Site Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage (October 2023 BP 18) background paper which maintained an Amber score for a number of issues which, by the Councils own admission, identifies concerns around deliverability that would need to be addressed.

Overall, there remains serious questions as to how such an unviable scheme can even be considered for a rollover allocation.