Has it not been possible / deemed appropriate to extend the statutory 6 week consultation period? Would it not be appropriate to repeat it? 6 weeks has been insufficient for this consultation

As a resident of Dinas Powys, this submission focuses on Site Reference HG1 KS2 Land to the North of Dinas Powys. My key concerns, comments, queries and objections are set out in the attached Annex.
Site Reference: HG1 KS2 Land to the North of Dinas Powys I Disagree / Object and request that the VoGC reconsiders the allocation of this site within the replacement RLDP. Development at Eastbrook would not be sustainable.
Comments:
As a resident of Dinas Powys, this submission focuses on Site Reference HG1 KS2 Land to the North of Dinas Powys. Please find below a summary of my key concerns, comments, queries and objections - there is crossover and duplication in parts. I would consider speaking at any future hearings.
1. It is crucial that this stage and future processes and decisions are not rushed, that matters are given full and proper consideration. There has been insufficient time for decision makers and the public to review and the information and evidence, which is overwhelming. Minutes / recordings of previous council meetings suggest that councillors were required to reach decisions swiftly and without the opportunity to properly consider the documents / evidence and that the RLDP was rushed through to public consultation in spite of valid concerns raised by councillors and pleas for sufficient time to consider the evidence. See for example the minutes of the place scrutiny committee extraordinary hybrid meeting on 6th January 2026 and the recording of that meeting where Councillors raised concerns regarding the volume of papers (900+ pages). The public has similarly been placed under acute pressure to navigate and digest the information presented, prepare and submit representations. Has it not been possible / deemed appropriate to extend the statutory 6 week consultation period? Would it not be appropriate to repeat it? 6 weeks has been insufficient for this consultation, the community has been placed under undue pressure and community engagement has been poor. The onus has been left on the community to engage and muddle through the information. Drop in sessions have not provided answers to the deep concerns of residents relating, inter alia, to traffic congestion and flooding. Circa 7 / 8 months? has been allocated to consider the representations in preparation for Stage 4 submission - which is disproportionate to the time afforded to this consultation.

2. Many in the community have said that this a 'done deal' Why, by so many people and so often? and 'don't bother wasting your energy (making representations) it won't make any difference'.

3. Future processes, evidence gathering and decision making must be genuinely independent, avoid any potential for conflicts of interest and ensure that issues and gaps in evidence are properly and fully addressed in good time – decisions should not be rushed through. If Eastbrook remains in the Deposit RLDP at Stage 4, Welsh Government and the Planning Inspectorate must ensure that the Independent Examination process into the soundness of the plan and compliance with statutory requirements is dealt with by highly experienced and wholly independent individuals / organisations with the skills and confidence to reach the correct and independent conclusions.

4. Statements that Eastbrook is in a sustainable location with good access to local services and will also deliver investment in highways improvements, additional school places....." (VoGC spokesman, Penarth Times 9th March 2026) would need to be substantiated. Senior schools, for example, are already significantly oversubscribed. Highways improvements won't alleviate the congestion on the roads. Congestion on the roads will get even worse. Dinas Powys will never have a bypass.

5. In recent years there has been significant development in Dinas Powys including at Scholars Park and two other locations. Development at Eastbrook, which would join us with Penarth and Llandough, is too far.

6. Any claims that 'modern sustainable drainage systems' would be capable of managing surface water runoff and reduce the risk of flooding would need to be substantiated.
The Eastbrook runs through the proposed site and when it rains (even light rain) the fields become very boggy and impassable. Water runs from Seel Park, down the path towards Highfields. There are significant underground water courses at Seel Park and issues with the drainage. Development will only exacerbate the problem and create huge issues for Dinas Powys, Llandough and wider. There won't be any / sufficient land for the water to drain into. Drainage ditches / suds won't work, not for anything more than a light shower.
Residents at Wayside say they have been hit by flooding and silt since the Llandough hospital car parks and new buildings were built, with drainage diverted into the Eastbrook river through attenuation tanks - i.e. that the attenuation tanks have not worked and indeed have made the situation and risk worse.
It is hard to see how the risk of flooding could be mitigated by development at Eastbrook and 'modern sustainable drainage systems'.
Cogent, independent, evidence is required.
It is noted that the same consultants commissioned by the VoGC to undertake the section 19 flood investigation into the 23rd December 2020 flood event have been part of the Persimmon / Boyer team in relation to the Eastbrook development (providing technical support on drainage and services). I'm confused why the Persimmon team / the VoGC would claim that 'modern sustainable drainage systems' would mitigate the risk of flooding.
7. Building on the greenbelt to meet alleged affordable housing requirements - where local infrastructure is already under immense pressure, schools and the medical centre are significantly oversubscribed with limited expansion potential, traffic congestion will worsen and our flood risk will be heightened - is wrong.
8. The negative impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the community cannot be underestimated or ignored.
9. The wildlife habitat will be lost.
10. Dinas Powys does not have links to existing and new employment zones. It is a rural village. I have not seen evidence in support of a need for so many houses in our rural location. We are looking at hundreds and downstream potentially thousands of people and no jobs to support them.
11. Businesses, employers of all sizes and across all sectors are having a challenging time - redundancies have been steadily increasing for some time. Things are hard and not likely to improve.
12. Under the proposals Dinas Powys would become a commuter belt zone, increasing car use and traffic in the Vale and beyond - contrary to the RLDP objectives.
13. Dinas Powys, Llandough and Penarth would become one if the Eastbrook site goes ahead - whether 250 houses or more. The site lies on the northern edge of the village and is part of the open countryside. Development would erode the existing settlement boundaries. Even though the VoGC may have advised has Persimmon that a smaller higher density residential allocation would be more appropriate, there is talk that Persimmon will eventually succeed in obtaining consent to build 650+ houses. Any development at Eastbrook would remove a huge proportion of the green rural space, which people enjoy and need.
14. A development at Eastbrook would invariably result in an increase in anti-social behaviour and crime, as has happened with Scholars Park whereas historically Dinas Powys has been a rural village with contented residents and a low crime rate - a key reason for my family moving to Dinas in 1975.
15. 40% + affordable housing seems disproportionate.
16. Access to the Eastbrook site is also a concern. Didn't the VoGC Highways department previously conclude that the Eastbrook site is unsuitable?
17. People will continue to drive through Dinas to reach Cardiff, Barry etc - mostly by way of necessity not choice. People need to and will continue to drive - it would be naive to suggest that people will use alternatives to cars and / or that electric vehicles will be the norm. It would be naïve to claim that people will drive less and public transport is a viable alternative to using cars. For example the newish Cardiff bus service to the medical centre on Murch Road. Bus drivers / Murch Road residents say that the bus is always empty. Trains to Cardiff are overcrowded, too infrequent and often delayed or cancelled. The train stations in Dinas Powys are not really accessible. There is no parking at Dinas and the parking at Eastbrook is limited. From Eastbrook the easiest option is to drive into Cardiff / to Cardiff station- - which is defeating the object. There are steep steps at Dinas and Eastbrook, particularly Eastbrook with a bridge over the track. This challenging even for the fitter and more able bodied. Few people could or would want to walk or cycle to work. Commuters: working from home has been / continues to be phased out for many. Even so, traffic along Cardiff Road has increased and congestion has increased, since the new developments in Dinas.
18. The proposed active travel routes are also not viable- take as an example the lane leading to Powys Close, which is mainly banked by walls around private property and of varying widths ranging from 110cm, to 140cm to 180cm. There is also a sharp 90 degree turn in the middle of the lane and gradients at each end of the lane, a particularly steep gradient into Powys Close. Two people cannot walk side by side or pass through any part of the lane. Let alone a bike / wheelchair and a person. Cyclists need to dismount and walk their bikes through. Wheelchair users don't use the lane due to its narrow parts and the steep gradient at the Powys Close end. The lane is only suitable for use in the day, its pitch black at night and unsafe and to erect a light would cause light pollution to surrounding properties. Even in the day time, you cannot see from one end of the lane to the other. When you make it to the top of the lane there is a wall requiring a sharpish left turn across a pavement / drive. Powys Close itself is very steep and hazardous in icy weather. Towards the bottom of Powys Close there is a very steep gradient. It is very difficult to cycle or push a pram up it, impossible to use wheelchair and the fittest find it a challenge walking up it. At the other (Seel Park) end of the path there is also a gradient followed by a downhill slalom if travelling towards Highfields. The pavements are not great. The tarmac in the lane is in a bad state of repair and the lane often floods. Garden boundaries have in the past been vandalised and graffiti has been drawn on the walls. Criminals have in the past attempted to use the lane as a base (and the police were called). Rubbish has also been dumped in the lane and people (including refuse workers) have used the lane as a toilet. The alternative active travel route is not without its issues either, including steep gradients from Chapel Close and up towards Seel Park. Both routes would involve travel alongside Cardiff Road and to crossing Cardiff Road. From Powys Close, Powys Place onto Cardiff Road the quickest and most used route to the Murch shops and Ash Path to St Cyres school is to cross the busy Cardiff road weaving in between the traffic and crossing the railway line (walking up to the pedestrian crossing by the Murch infants school would add on 20 minutes easily and is not a direct route and the crossing by chapel close leads to the Eastbrook station bridge which is not accessible). Its not particularly safe. I believe that, certainly the proposed active travel route through the lane from Highfields / Seel Park to Powys Close and down towards Cardiff Road, falls within the red category, when looking at appendix H of the Active travel route guidance.
19. Our medical centre is already finding it challenging to cope with the number of patients and the needs of its patients.
20. Local Primary and Senior schools are oversubscribed too. If children are required to attend schools out of the area they will need to (1) secure a place (which is usually challenging); and (2) travel to get there.
21. There are no shops within reasonable walking distance of Eastbrook. It would take a good 20 to 25 minutes to walk briskly to the shops / amenities at the Murch or the village and the pedestrian access is poor and dangerous in parts. Adding traffic lights / pedestrian crossings will add to the traffic congestion.

Further to our conversation I am writing to ask if you can raise the concerns we spoke of regarding the ´Housing Growth in Barry’ consultation document to the Sennedd. As you know, we and a large number of residents in this north west area of Barry are very concerned about the ramifications that will ensue from a development of 370 new houses opening onto the already gridlocked Weycock Roundabout. This ´pinch point’ lies on a main route between emergency services (fire, ambulance and police) and the airport. Who in their right mind would put further pressure here?

TRAFFIC and AIR POLLUTION
will increase exponentially and the measures the council and developer are proposing will not properly address them. Extra (very narrow) lanes entering the roundabout and a few traffic lights will not stop the gridlock. In fact they could increase it. The backups would extend beyond the lengths of Pontypridd Road, Port Road and ‘Five mile Lane’. They already do - quite frequently - at the slightest traffic hiccup. Despite the council’s assertion that public transport is available, there is none from the roundabout to and from the railway station or town centre. They assert that there are buses. This is not true. If they can lie about this patent untruth, how can we trust any of their or the developer’s ‘studies’. Inevitably the new residents would use their cars to access all services, and walking or cycling from Weycock Cross to station or shops and back is not really feasible. It is a big climb back, and very few residents are capable of it.
The same lack of clear vision and honesty is true for the ‘mitigation packages’ proposed on other matters of serious concern to us:

SERVICES
GP and dental services are already at over capacity in our area. If health and wellbeing are important to this Labour administration, then increasing the load on overstretched services that we all know will not have capacity to meet that demand, would seem cavalier. There will also be need for a considerable number of school places, and those children will need to get to and from school. Secondary schoolchildren can walk if they can safely cross the roads. Traffic lights to enable this will of course cause even longer delays for road traffic. There are no easy answers. For primary pupils it is not walkable. This will mean more cars on the road at extremely busy times.

DRAINAGE and SEWERAGE for Pontypridd Road, St James Crescent and Nant Talwg Way is already inadequate, and tarmacking over a large area of ‘Green Wedge’ which currently helps to drain the heavier rains caused by climate change, will make things worse. Many of us already experience foul smells at times. The system is already failing.

The chosen developers, Persimmon, have shown themselves to be untrustworthy in honouring contracted commitments, as seen in relation to their buildings on the Barry Waterfront. They also have a dismal record on the quality of their construction countrywide. It is widely reported as shoddy. How can it be responsible for a Labour administration to even consider entrusting them not to cause real damage on what is a very sensitive site?

ECOLOGY and BIODIVERSITY
The arguments the council puts out for abandoning the Green Wedge at north west Barry would seem to be spurious, formulated to justify their own backtracking on the reasons upheld for the Wedge in 2015. The loss of green space that housing and hardcore will replace is unforgivable. There will be less uncovered land to drain the increasing heavy rainfall. The impact on biodiversity will also be felt. Loss of habitat is a main reason for the drastic decline in wildlife species countrywide. Bats, field mice, otters, owls, raptors, wood pigeons and skylarks inhabit these fields. Swallows skim them in summer for the plethora of insects. Wrens and other small birds nest in the scrub and hedges surrounding them. From my garden I hear the songs of robins, wood pigeons, blackbirds, dunnocks, tits and goldfinches. Skylarks nest in them all through spring and summer, their songs lifting up into the air above us as they rise. These are endangered red-listed birds. THIS is biodiversity. These Green Wedge fields act as a wildlife corridor, (essential for successful breeding and survival) between the country park and the further landscape. Take it away and it is gone for good. Yet more numbers of species will be lost. Wildlife is not just a luxury. It is the web that supports the health and wellbeing of all creatures on this earth, ourselves included.
(For me, as an artist and a gardener this aspect is close to my heart. Landscape, vegetation and wildlife are key inspirations.)

CONSULTATION
Others within our group, with far better digital skills than I have tell me that the data they offer is flawed and often self-contradictory. And it is here, that the real nub of our complaints becomes apparent. The quantity, complexity, inaccessibility and sheer chaotic organisation of the online consultation process makes it well-nigh impossible for the average resident to navigate and respond to. We struggle to ‘read’ or understand the thousands of pages of graphs and text. It is dispiriting and the cause of significant distress. In truth it is an information dump rather than a consultation. This makes a mockery of democracy and fairness.

I know this is a strong message, and I don’t enjoy having to write it. I and many of my neighbours, who are long time Labour voters, feel betrayed by Labour. This is desperately sad. It’s not the fact that they want to build more housing, we know that is needed, but this is not the right place for it, not for us, or the future people who would live in it. But most of all it is about how the council is so dismissively treating us.

1) Why have the Vale Council made the form online so hard to navigate and fill in out objections to the proposed build up in Eastbrook. I believe it was deliberate so that many people give up.
2) The traffic congestion through Dinas Powys especially Eastbrook, a new built can possibly add another 500 cars causing even more disruption. I have heard that there will be another set of traffic lights before the Merrier Harrier lights, which will cause more chaos. What about the emergency vehicles ie: paramedics, ambulance and fire services???
3) The risk of flooding. Dinas Powys was flooded in 2020 flood prevention measures have not been taken into account. These fields are practically impossible to navigate during winter months because of standing water on the fields-where will this water go if houses are built here-down into Cadoxton river cause more flooding.
4) I believe that the independent examination will be carried out by PEDW.
5) These houses are supposedly being built because of the active travel route-the Eastbrook station is totally inadequate especially for disabled persons, elderly and mothers with pushchairs at prams.

Penarth Town Council Deposit RLDP Consultation Response

Comments collated at a meeting of the Council’s Consultation Task and Finish Group on 9th February 2026

Some Members attended the RLDP consultation drop-in session in Penarth and in general found it to be very informative.

Members support the general development strategy but did note the lack of information concerning discussions with adjacent and other nearby Principal Councils in the CJC Region. In view of the forthcoming Strategic Development Plan, encompassing the ten authorities, members felt that some further commentary regarding this is warranted.1

It is clear that the approach taken in the Cardiff paper is still that ideally, each Council is self-contained and “consumes its own smoke,” which does not show any wider strategic thinking between the ten authorities in preparation for a regional Strategic Development Plan.

Members agreed with the view that infrastructure to support new housing developments was required in order to create successful developments, although they acknowledged that logistically it was difficult to pre-empt demand for some services such as travel and health services. Members also noted that predicting developmental needs and opportunities within wider context surrounding the UK’s economic, political, and social landscapes.

Members noted that there was not much focus on Penarth or identified potential future development for Penarth beyond that already underway at the location near to Cosmeston but welcomed flexibility in its approach. Members expected to be more closely involved in the decisions and planning of this, and other such developments, and provide opportunity for wider consultation where appropriate, such as pre-application consultations, as well as would expect to be included in consultations concerning sites adjacent to Llandough, Dinas Powys, and Sully given their impact upon the town.

Penarth as a town is currently developed to its boundaries, save for the development at Cosmeston. It is, therefore, more dependent than other Service Centres on windfalls of land or buildings which may arise during the currency of the Plan. In 2023, an extensive assessment of the potential of the town concluded the following:

“There is marginally less capacity in Penarth [and Llandough] than the projected figures. However, this does not mean that the projections are incorrect or unjustifiable. The reported figures have not included a significant amount of capacity on open space land, and the projected figures for conversion of existing buildings and intensifications will be surpassed if the extant consents that exist this early in the Plan period are implemented.”

The degree of flexibility, however, is substantially depending on one large site. P009, Headland School, is identified as both a potentially disused building and as a site with a capacity of 111-120 units. This special school is full to capacity and used by many Council in both Wales and England.

Members did note the inclusion of Cogan Transport Interchange under section 6.196 but would have liked to see more information about its future developments as they see it as key to increasing public transport use to Barry and further to West Wales in general.

Members wished to advise that issues with both the bridge and the platforms at Cogan have been long term, with accessibility being central to these issues. Members felt that improvements to accessibility should be a priority at this site, with planting and landscaping considered secondary to this.

Members felt it was key to consider the additional stress on Penarth from increased anticipated demand of public transport needs and emphasised the need for this to be aptly considered by bus route providers as part of development work.

Members wanted to see a strategy that actively protects the town’s heritage and culture whilst still being able to provide for current and future generations.

Members welcomed the inclusion of specific climate change mitigation and adaptation measures under SP16 and section CC1-CC6, noting the considerable attention given to Net Zero transition proposal relating to public buildings and energy. Whilst the evidence presented does not include the UK Climate Change Committee Report2, Members were pleased to see that CC1-CC6 largely reflect the Committee’s finds and are tailored to a transition which reflects what is presently feasible. This is providing that the necessary skills to understand and undertake carbon assessments within a policy implementation and regulation context are readily available.

Under CC2, it was noted that the presumption against demolition3 in favour of retrofit and reuse may constrain maximum transition to net zero as, whilst there is grant aid available for public buildings and social housing, the retrofit monies available for private stock is limited.

Additional considerations will also need to be made as part of the Third Carbon Budget (2026-2030), Local Area Energy Plans and the climate change ISA theme.

Members also felt similar about the inclusion and consideration of sustainable development through the specific strategy outlined in section 5 of the document and felt this linked in well with ongoing Placemaking work and its strategic approach as detailed in SP4.

Members were pleased to see mention of the diversification of high streets, although noted that Penarth was above average in terms of occupancy. They hoped that the RLDP would be able to support the town centre and support other ways it could be improved, such as a fishmonger or identifying a site for a new Cemetery.

With Penarth classified as a Service Centre, they are identified as having a defined role. However, the decline of in-person retailing means that defining role is not that evident, and Members felt there is potentially a need to move away from the traditional retail role of Town Centres in favour of “repurposing, creating multifunctional, commercial, and service centres that meet the needs of the communities they serve” in line with Future Wales Town Centre First Policy. The term ‘repurposing’ suggests a stronger role for the public sector in enabling these new purposes, and Members felt that Placemaking Plans could be one potential framework for this.

Members felt that potential functional support that could be provided could include:
• The appointment of a Town Centre Manager
• Using supporting interventions such as an extension or reshaping of normal services such as Neighbourhood Services.
• Using existing or emerging new powers, such as compulsory purchases.

Members wished for the RLDP to facilitate the safeguarding of essential public services, including health, policing, fire and rescue in the town, which would help to develop the defining role of a Service Centre, and felt that specific reference to these would be beneficial.

Members supported the avoidance of coalescence with adjacent settlements through the reconfirmation of Green Wedges as it allows for relevant extensions to those settlements whilst allowing them to retain their identity.

Members noted that the Quiet Area provision under DNP6 only applies to Penarth and wished to know why this was the case.

Members advised that they welcomed further opportunity for consultation, particularly in relation to developments in the neighbouring Cardiff Bay area whilst acknowledging that this is not necessarily an RLDP concern.

Footnotes

1 There is an evidence paper concerning relations with Cardiff and a Statement of Common Ground with Bridgend. However, there is only a reference in the RLDP text to discussions with other regional Councils and not the paper itself. We would be grateful if you could provide the paper as it does impact on the soundness of this Plan.

2The UK Climate Change Committee’s ‘Progress Report: Reducing Emissions in Wales’ highlighted the following aspects of import: Skills, Vehicle Charging Networks, Improving Recycling, Energy Plans, Decarbonising Public Buildings and Social Housing, and reducing Road transport Demand (Car-Kilometres).

3The UK Environmental Audit Committee (2022) noted that “the evidence we received consistently recommended that retrofit and reuse be prioritised over new build.”

I am writing to oppose the development of houses in the field behind Maes Lloi, Aberthin for the following reasons.

1 The proposed access onto the main road through Aberthin will add to an already dangerous stretch of road which has heavy traffic,. The volume of traffic has increased considerably over many years mainly due to the building of hundreds houses in Ystradowen and beyond. More houses are also proposed in that village which will produce even more traffic cutting through Aberthin to Cowbridge and up to the A48 via Penylan Road which is a dangerous lane.

This access problem was recognized many years ago when The Spinney was built and the old entrance to Skaife House was closed off. A pedestrian crossing has not been allowed due to the very sharp bend in the village around the Farmers Arms which makes crossing the road very hazardous.

2. The field to be developed is on the flood plain which could lead to flooding of the existing houses.

3. The development adjoins the conservation area and will be detrimental to the aspect from it.

I have emailed you as I have had great difficulty in downloading the forms from your website which is extremely complicated and not user friendly

There is sadly nothing sustainable, vibrant or inclusive in the RLDP. It is a confusing dystopian vision. The RLDP is an immensely clumsy, badly-designed, overlong and ill-organized entity. Vale Planning in fact have a public duty of care for local residents, namely, to minimally help and facilitate public understandings of the issues. Sadly they entirely failed in this basic responsibility. Intentionally or not Vale Planning quite literally dumped thousands of pages of overly technical documents on the website with little or no regard, guidance or clear pathways for ordinary readers, which is an unforgivable administrative lapse. This makes the whole consultation process largely inaccessible to ordinary folk and those who have limited digital skills or limited time due to responsibilities. In point, for those with limited digital skills, the online RLDP offends against basic principles of natural justice. It is intrinsically discriminatory against those who found it impossible to navigate.