Testun llawn:
Draft RCS2 sets out three criteria for new A1, A2 or A3 uses on new sites or existing retail areas which are as follows:
1. “It can be demonstrated that there is an additional need for the proposal which cannot be provided within an existing retail, commercial and service centre; and
2. The proposal would not either individually or cumulatively with other recent or proposed consented developments have an unacceptable impact on the trade, turnover, vitality and viability of the retail, commercial and service centres.
3. The proposal would serve local needs in a neighbourhood or rural village.”
We consider the policy should read as follows:
“1 It can be demonstrated that there is an additional need for the proposal which, when applying the sequential approach to locating development as outlined in national guidance, it has been demonstrated that the site is sequentially preferable; and
2 The proposal would not either individually or cumulatively with other recent or proposed consented developments have an unacceptable impact on the trade, turnover, vitality and viability of the retail, commercial and service centres.
3 Proposals serving only local needs should be of a scale and type which does not undermine the vibrancy, attractiveness and viability of neighbourhood centres.”
The settlement boundary, defined by Policy SP2, excludes allocation site SP12 ‘Land at Bridge House Farm, Llanmaes, Llantwit Major’ which is for a retail foodstore. Instead, the draft allocation abuts, but lies outside, the settlement boundary as currently drawn. Although draft Policy SP3 states that “Areas outside settlement boundaries that are not allocated or protected for a specific use will be defined as countryside we consider the settlement boundary must be extended at this location to include the allocation. Its exclusion is illogical and would fail to reflect the ‘on the ground’ position when this allocation is delivered. Moreover, its exclusion could confuse and may constrain any future minor development changes at the site (e.g. those needed to meet operational needs the subject of any planning application).
The draft proposals map shows the allocation as a dot which does not cover the full extent of the allocation. See below:
See plan in attachment
By not including the extent of the site/allocation within the defined settlement boundary, the draft plan fails to recognise the allocation will form an important part of the settlement, the delivery of which is crucial to meeting identified needs. Accordingly, we believe this fails Test 2 (Is the plan appropriate?), and it may fail Test 3 (Will the plan deliver) as its exclusion from the boundary may unduly impact the future site operation.
Lidl Great Britain Ltd objects to draft policy SP11 (Retail, commercial and service centre hierarchy) as worded as it fails to meet Test 2 (Is the plan appropriate?). Draft Policy SP11 sets out the proposed retail hierarchy (See extract below), but it does not accord with the settlement hierarchy as set out in draft Policy SP2 and it is not justified.
The adopted LDP Settlement Hierarchy lists:
Key Settlement: Barry
Service Centre Settlements: Cowbridge, Llantwit Major and Penarth
The adopted LDP Retail hierarchy lists:
Town centres: Barry
District centres: Barry (high street/broad street), Cowbridge, Llantwit Major, Penarth
Draft SP2 of the Deposit Plan identifies Cowbridge, Llantwit Major and Penarth as Service Centre Settlements in the Settlement Hierarchy.
However, draft SP11 lists a retail hierarchy as follows:
Town Centres – Barry (Holton Rd), Penarth, Cowbridge
District Centres – Barry (High Street), Llantwit Major
It is unexplained and unjustified that the SP11 retail hierarchy upgrades Cowbridge to Town Centre status, while Llantwit Major and Barry High Street remain District Centres.
The Deposit Plan includes two retail allocations, neither are intended to directly serve Penarth or Cowbridge. Cowbridge is not a focus for growth. It is therefore unjustified that Llantwit Major, which is served by a train station, is a settlement roughly twice the size of Cowbridge (by population) and is a manifestly more sustainable location and more appropriate focus for growth, is proposed to rank below Cowbridge in the retail hierarchy. Barry, Penarth and Llantwit Major should rank as Town Centres as the most sustainable locations for growth.
Penarth is an accessible settlement and an appropriate focus for growth. Indeed, the Council’s BP13 (Retail and Commercial Leisure Study (June 2023)) recommends a medium to large supermarket to serve Penarth (Zone 5) but the Deposit Plan is absent of any food retail allocation for Penarth/Llandough. In addition to Llantwit Major and St Athan (Deposit Policy SP12) Penarth should be a focus for additional convenience provision over the plan period.
SP12 – RETAIL FLOORSPACE PROVISION
Lidl Great Britain Ltd firmly supports the allocation within draft Policy SP12 (Retail Floorspace Provision) for 1,251sqm of convenience floorspace at Land at Bridge House Farm, Llanmaes, Llantwit Major. This allocation is needed to ensure the plan is sound, by addressing unmet need at Llantwit Major which is a Service Centre and focus for growth. This should be made clear in the reasoned justification.
In respect to Penarth, Policy SP12, together with supporting paragraphs 6.208–6.210, do not, however, adequately reflect the findings of the Council’s Retail & Leisure Study (BP13). Policy SP12 should also plan positively for the identified convenience retail needs within Zone 5 (Penarth/ Llandough). BP13 confirms that Penarth District Centre is not served by a medium to larger supermarket (para. 9.2). The BP13 Study finds quantitative and qualitative capacity for a medium to larger supermarket by 2036 in Penarth (paras. 9.23, 12.24).
It finds overall quantitative convenience capacity of up to c.5,862sqm net floorspace (assuming deep discounter operators). In qualitative terms the following Centres have been identified in potential need for a medium to larger supermarket: Barry Holton Road town centre; Penarth district centre and Llantwit Major district centre. Quantitative and qualitative need is identified.
Despite the evidence of unmet need, the Deposit LDP Policy SP12 allocates only two sites for convenience retail totalling c. 3,109sqm net; one site at Llanwit Major and a second site at St Athan. This is below the overall (up to 4,282–5,862sqm net) requirement identified in BP13. The allocation of land at Llantwit Major aligns with the evidence base, has been thoroughly tested at application stage and this is fully supported.
Policy SP12 is silent on the need for additional floorspace at Penarth/Llandough (Zone 5) and as such does not reflect the evidence base findings and address identified need in Penarth, with a ‘residual’ quantitative capacity of c.1,173–2,753sqm net unmet/unallocated. We note Policy SP12 states that any additional convenience and comparison retail floorspace beyond that provided by the identified sites should be directed towards the town and district centres outlined in Policy SP11. However, this merely reflects national guidance in respect to directing growth to town/district centres (i.e. applying a sequential approach). The Policy should go further and seek to allocate the residual unmet need to Penarth/ Llandough. We note the BP13 is silent on additional need at St Athan.
Planning Policy Wales (PPW) 12 requires LPAs to identify the appropriate form, scale and location to meet retail needs (para. 4.3.8) and emphasises ensuring communities have access to adequate retail provision (para. 4.3.13). PPW therefore places a duty on LPAs to plan positively for evidenced retail needs. In respect to Penarth/Llandough Policy SP12 should seek to address this requirement.
Under PPW and TAN4, LPAs must apply the sequential test, directing new retail development to locations that are:
• In-centre,
• Edge-of-centre, and only then,
• Out-of-centre locations that are accessible and well-connected to the catchment.
Penarth Centre is physically constrained. In the absence of any in-centre or edge-of-centre sites capable of accommodating a medium/larger supermarket, the next sequentially preferable option is the most accessible, well-connected site within the same catchment, capable of meeting identified need and reducing expenditure leakage.
Policy SP12 should plan positively for needs in Zone 5 (Penarth/Llandough) and include provision for a medium to large convenience foodstore in Zone 5 in accordance with BP13.
Enclosed with this representation is a separate representation (Under 8. New site submission) promoting a site for food retail development to meet identified needs within the Zone 5 Penarth/Llandough catchment. The site is considered accessible and sequentially preferable to meeting identified needs in Penarth.
The policy should be clear that identified need should be delivered in accordance with the sequential approach as set out in national guidance. As set out in Policy SP12 any additional convenience and comparison retail floorspace beyond that provided by identified sites should be directed towards the town and district centres in accordance with the sequential approach. We support that the inclusion of retail floorspace as part of a mix of uses on allocated sites will also be supported.
POLICY DNP2 – GREEN WEDGES
Lidl objects to the inclusion of land at Penlan Road, Llandough (see Site Location Plan, drawing no. 3744 F420) within the Green Wedge designation under Policy DNP2. The site forms a distinct and enclosed parcel of land on the north-eastern edge of the designated Green Wedge, and its physical characteristics demonstrate that it does not serve the strategic purposes of the wider designation.
The northern and western boundaries are formed by Llandough Hospital, including the hospital access road and surface car parking, which clearly separate the site from the wider Green Wedge. The southern boundary is defined by residential properties along Corbett Road and the Merrier Harrier public house. The south-western and western boundaries are formed by further residential properties within Llandough. As such, built development extends beyond the site in multiple directions, meaning it does not contribute to the open land between settlements that Green Wedges are intended to protect.
The site is physically and visually contained with strong, defensible boundaries. Its close association with existing
built form means that it does not exhibit the level of openness required for Green Wedge designation under PPW or BP27. BP27 requires Green Wedge boundaries to include only land that must remain open in the long term. When assessed against the four-stage SE Wales Green Wedge methodology, the site performs weakly. In terms of
openness (Stage A), the site has low perceived openness as it is enclosed by development. Under development
pressure (Stage B), the influence of surrounding built form means the site is already urban in character. In relation
to Green Wedge purposes (Stage C), the site does not materially contribute to preventing coalescence, safeguarding open countryside, or protecting the setting of an urban area. The conclusion (Stage D) is therefore that the site’s inclusion within the Green Wedge is anomalous.
Recent decisions in the emerging RLDP, such as the allocation of HG1 KS2, demonstrate that selective Green Wedge boundary amendments are acceptable where supported by evidence. Not all areas within the current designation are equally sensitive, and the site represents one of the least sensitive parts.
The Council’s own evidence further supports the suitability of the land for development. The site does not lie within
the Special Landscape Area that covers much of the remaining Green Wedge, highlighting its lower landscape
sensitivity. The Candidate Site Assessment (BP18a examined the wider parcel (Site ID 400) for housing and concluded that it would form a natural extension to the Llandough settlement boundary. It noted that the land would represent an incursion only if less sensitive sites could not be delivered and discounted the site solely because housing need had been met elsewhere, not due to landscape or Green Wedge harm. This confirms the Council recognises the land is capable of development. The same land can therefore appropriately meet other evidenced needs, including retail provision.
In separate representations, Lidl is promoting land to the south of Llandough Hospital via ‘RDLP New site
submissions’. It is considered that the site can be developed in a low-impact, landscape-led and sensitively designed manner that respects its transitional position between the urban edge and the wider Green Wedge. A modest single storey medium sized foodstore delivers a built form that can sit comfortably below surrounding tree lines and hospital structures. A comprehensive landscape strategy, including reinforced boundary planting, native woodland edge enhancement, and carefully designed building can soften building edges, strengthen the site’s defensible boundaries, and integrate the scheme with its surroundings. The development would therefore appear as an infill of the existing urban area, rather than any intrusion into the open countryside, and can be designed to maintain the wider Green Wedge’s openness and character by delivering a strong defensible physical boundary which prevents any further development beyond the site.
As set out in separate representations the Council’s Retail and Leisure Study (BP13) identifies a clear quantitative
and qualitative need for a medium to larger supermarket within Zone 5, alongside notable levels of convenience
expenditure leakage to Zone 3 (Cardiff). The promoted site is well positioned to intercept this leakage, meet the
identified convenience floorspace requirement, and provide improved local convenience retail provision for
Llandough/Penarth. There is, therefore, a clear needs-based justification for release of this parcel of land from the Green Wedge designation.
The Green Wedge boundary should be amended at this location to remove the promoted site from Policy DNP2
(Green Wedge designation) and from the Proposals Map. In parallel, the settlement boundary defined by Policy SP2
should be realigned to include the promoted site, reflecting the site’s physical relationship with existing
development, its defensible boundaries, and its suitability to meet an evidenced strategic retail need.
The Policy text should be changed as follows:
“Proposals involving the change of use at ground floor level uses from A1 retail use within Service Centres will permitted where the proposal would:…”
The Policy RCS1 (Resilient retail, commercial and service centres) supporting text adds new policy requirements which are not within the draft policy. Paragraph 6.214 states that:
“Changes of use class in Retail, Commercial and Service Centres must be justified by evidence that the property has been affected by a sustained period of long-term vacancy and that proactive marketing has been undertaken by a property agent for a minimum of 12 months in an effort to secure tenants. The marketing report should include:
• Details of the existing use or previous use if vacant;
• The length of time the unit has been vacant, if applicable;
• The type of use which the unit has been marketed for, what the marketing strategy involved and its duration;
• The amount of interest in the unit during the marketing period – this should detail the number of queries, the type of uses sought, and if known, the reason for not pursuing any initial enquiries.”
However, nowhere in the draft policy wording does it explicitly state to include 12 months of marketing activity. The draft supporting text reads as though this is a policy requirement, rather than supportive guidance. This is contrary to caselaw which confirms that supporting text cannot be used to expand the policy beyond its wording (R (Cherkley Campaign Ltd) v Mole Valley District Council). A proposal could meet the requirements of the criteria sets out in draft policy RCS1 without being marketed for a minimum of 12 months. If the Plan is adopted as currently set out, there is a risk of internal inconsistency between policy RSC1 and the supporting text. Accordingly, this would fail Test 2 (Is the plan appropriate?) as it is not coherent or consistent.
We also have concerns with criterion 5 which states to “Avoid an over-concentration of non-retail uses that would undermine the retail function of the centre”. This is because ‘over-concentration’ has not been defined within the draft policy. This contrasts with draft policy RCS3 which includes a definition of what an over-concentration of hot food takeaways would be. Without a definition of what an over-concentration of non-retail uses is, the draft policy will remain and lack clarity. Additionally, without a definition, the draft policy may fail Tests 2 and 3 as it is currently unclear (Test 2: Is the plan appropriate?) and cannot be effective (Test 3: Will the plan deliver?).
At present, we consider the Deposit Plan inadequately supports the Welsh language. Although the Welsh Language is included within Objective 6 (Embracing Culture and Heritage), the Deposit Plan does not contain a policy which seeks to promote the Welsh language, nor is the promotion of the Welsh language referenced in other Deposit Plan policies where this may be appropriate. Without a clear policy, applicants do not need to explicitly consider impact on the Welsh language so the role of the RLDP will be limited.
Local Development Plans should accord with national policy and guidance. For instance, the supporting text to Policy 1 of Future Wales states that “Key issues, including … the Welsh language, are core elements of policy 1 and are common threads underpinning all Future Wales policies.” However, we believe that the Welsh language is not currently underpinning the policies within the Deposit Plan.
Additionally, paragraph 3.25 of PPW states that “The Welsh language is part of the social and cultural fabric and its future well being will depend upon a wide range of factors, particularly education, demographic change, community activities and a sound economic base to maintain thriving sustainable communities and places. The land use planning system should take account of the conditions which are essential to the Welsh language and in so doing contribute to its, use and the Thriving Welsh Language well being goal.” Paragraph 3.29 goes on to suggest language impact assessments are required for “large developments not allocated in a development plan which are proposed in areas of particular sensitivity or importance for the language” with these areas defined in the LDP. In this instance, PPW sets out guidance for developers which is not present in the Deposit Plan.
The Vale of Glamorgan Council commissioned AECOM to produce the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) for the Replacement Local Development Plan (November 2025). Paragraph 9.5.9 recommends including a specific policy that supports and protects the Welsh language within the Deposit Plan. This contrasts with the Welsh Language (November 2025) Background paper, produced by the VoGC, which concludes that a specific Welsh Language policy is not warranted, albeit it does acknowledge the Plan’s statutory duty to consider the Welsh language and embed relevant provisions within broader thematic policies. However, this is currently lacking as the Deposit Plan does not reference the Welsh language within other policies. Although the Background Paper considers that the RLDP is “unlikely to adversely affect the existing patterns of Welsh language use within the Vale of Glamorgan”, the Plan should seek to promote the Welsh language.
Developers should be encouraged to promote the Welsh language where this may be reasonable and appropriate e.g. bilingual signage and announcements. Lidl actively promotes the Welsh language through their business. The Deposit Plan should be amended to strengthen the importance of the Welsh language, helping to meet Objective 6 over the RLDP period. Overall, without clear Welsh Language policy promotion, the Deposit Plan cannot positively impact the Welsh language. The Deposit Plan needs to go further.
