Respondent: Resident of Gileston
Area of Interest: Gileston, St Athan and the Glamorgan Heritage Coast

1. Introduction and Context

I am a resident of Gileston and a regular user of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, surrounding public rights of way, and the local road network between Gileston and St Athan. My comments relate to the implications of the Deposit Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) for the setting of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, the villages of Gileston and St Athan, and the cumulative impacts of strategic development in this part of the Vale.

I recognise the need for the RLDP to support decarbonisation, renewable energy, and employment growth. However, the Plan must do so in a way that protects nationally important landscapes, avoids inappropriate development in sensitive locations, and ensures that communities hosting strategic development receive tangible infrastructure benefits.

2. Protection of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast and Its Setting

The Glamorgan Heritage Coast is one of the Vale’s most valuable environmental and recreational assets and is fundamental to the character, identity and wellbeing of nearby communities, including Gileston. While the Deposit Plan recognises the importance of the Heritage Coast itself, there is insufficient clarity and strength in policy terms regarding the protection of its wider setting, particularly from large-scale or industrial forms of development on adjacent greenfield land.

The RLDP should be strengthened to ensure that development proposals within the setting of the Heritage Coast are subject to a robust presumption against development where landscape character, visual amenity, tranquillity, or public enjoyment would be harmed. Without this clarity, there is a real risk of incremental erosion of the coastal landscape through development that may be justified as “strategic” but is poorly located.

3. Gileston and St Athan – Cumulative and Place-Based Impacts

Gileston is a small rural village with limited services and infrastructure, located adjacent to open countryside and the coast. St Athan, while larger and more developed, already experiences pressure from major employment and infrastructure uses, including the former MOD site and proposed strategic employment and energy uses in the wider area.

The RLDP should do more to assess and respond to the cumulative impacts of development affecting this corridor of the Vale, rather than considering sites in isolation. This includes impacts on landscape, traffic, tranquillity, and the everyday experience of residents and visitors.

4. Strategic Energy Development and Site Selection

I support renewable and low-carbon energy development in principle. However, the RLDP should make clear that such development must be directed to appropriate locations, with a strong preference for previously developed or industrial land. In this part of the Vale, the former Aberthaw Power Station site represents a logical location for energy-related uses, given its industrial character and existing infrastructure.

The Plan should avoid creating policy ambiguity that could be interpreted as support for large-scale energy infrastructure on greenfield land in sensitive coastal or rural locations, particularly within the setting of the Heritage Coast.

5. Infrastructure and Fairness to Host Communities

A key concern for residents of Gileston and St Athan is that strategic development brings limited direct benefit to local communities while generating long-term impacts. The RLDP places significant emphasis on growth and strategic infrastructure, but there is insufficient certainty that villages hosting or neighbouring such development will see meaningful improvements in connectivity or services.

In particular, the Plan should take a more proactive approach to safeguarding and planning for enhanced public transport connectivity in the Barry–Rhoose–Llantwit Major corridor. While the delivery of a new rail station serving St Athan and potentially Gileston would be a long-term and multi-agency undertaking, the RLDP could play a critical role by safeguarding land, identifying the corridor as a priority for future rail or rapid transit enhancement, and linking strategic development to long-term transport planning objectives.

Without such forward-looking infrastructure commitments, communities risk bearing the impacts of development without corresponding benefits.

6. Conclusion and Requested Changes

In its current form, I object to the Deposit RLDP insofar as it does not provide sufficient policy protection for the setting of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, nor does it adequately address cumulative impacts and infrastructure fairness for villages such as Gileston and St Athan.

I would urge the Council to strengthen the Plan by:

Explicitly protecting the setting of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast from inappropriate development

Directing strategic and energy-related development to brownfield and industrial sites wherever possible

Embedding a clearer, place-based approach to cumulative impacts

Committing to long-term transport and infrastructure planning, including safeguarding opportunities for improved rail or high-quality public transport serving St Athan and surrounding communities

Subject to these changes, the RLDP would provide a more balanced and sustainable framework that supports growth while respecting the unique environmental and community assets of this part of the Vale.

To cancel the plan of developing housing. Too much green land is being lost and it is having a detrimental effect on the planet and the world we live in and our community. People are expected to make it to work to provide for families and contribute to the economy, how can we do this when the roads are flooded with traffic. Losing so much green space will also impact wildlife which is another vital factor to the way of human life. How can we keep building houses, surely one day we will run out of room and is it worth getting to that stage?

The plan will cause a lot of damage to natural wildlife, reduce green land even more and we do not have the infrastructure to support this. Lots of animals use this land and we are losing so much space to houses and families that don’t always look after the spaces provided. This town is already so full of houses, there cannot possibly be room for more.

Find somewhere other than both Rhoose and St Athan to build houses. Do not build on farms and existing green spaces and spend the money to support the community, rather than adding increased pressure on the community, local facilities and local residents.

The population of Rhoose is already too high and does not have the facilities needed to accommodate current residents, let alone the additional residents the plan aims to accommodate. It is impossible to get a doctors appointment, schools are overcrowded and underfunded, public transport is poor and the only road out of the village towards Cardiff and Barry is already too busy in the morning, especially as it is the only road from Rhoose, St Athan, Llantwit and surrounding villages. Traffic will become a nightmare unless NO houses are built. No one in Rhoose supports this.

I am completely in support of new housing. I often wonder how my children will get on the housing ladder and in particular where.

There is less and less suitable land for housing developments in Barry. Too much is being squeezed into an already overdeveloped area

With the stated need for affordable/social housing in Barry it seems to me that these larger developments are only paying lip service to the stated need, the rest from what I see is a commercial/revenue seeking stream for the council

Need to look at infrastructure to cope with present and future traffic levels.

Not enough of suitable land for large housing developments and infrastructure not designed to sustain current levels of traffic and increasing. People are travelling by car/van/lorry to employment out of the area because there are no large employers in the Vale now

The plan needs to improve infrastructure

Growth has got to be sensible and not prohibitive

We need more gps and dentists in the area but cannot see that happening in the near future

The plan does not improve access to medical facilities. There has been no improvement in access to doctors/dentists since the last development plan

focus on infrastructure all around

the amount of suitable land is getting smaller and smaller in Barry. You can only squeeze so much in an already tight area

The area highlighted St Athan has no space for industry growth the proposed developements will put people in to a employment void which has no employ available to them

I would welcome clarification on the above matters and would be grateful for the opportunity to discuss how the RLDP can better reflect:
• The correct Future Wales spatial classification;
• The requirements of Policies 4 and 5 for rural areas;
• Local biodiversity assets and LNR opportunities;
• A stronger evidence-based approach consistent with Welsh Government expectations.

I hope you are well. I’m writing to raise several concerns regarding the way the Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) currently interprets Future Wales: The National Plan 2040, particularly in relation to spatial strategy, rural policy requirements, and biodiversity designations. I would appreciate clarification on the following points.

1. Future Wales – Growth Area Classification
The RLDP appears to assume that the Vale of Glamorgan is a “growth area,” but Future Wales does not classify the Vale—especially the western Vale—as part of the Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys National Growth Area.
Key points:
• Future Wales identifies specific National Growth Areas, and the Vale is not within them.
• The document additionally defines countryside communities, covering rural parts of Wales including the western Vale.
• Welsh Government stresses that LDPs must be in general conformity with Future Wales, which makes the spatial designation critical for soundness.
Could you please confirm:
• Where Future Wales designates the Vale (or the western Vale) as a growth area; and
• The evidence used by the RLDP team to justify treating the authority as such.

2. Applicability of Future Wales Policies 4 & 5 to the Western Vale
Given that the western Vale is identified as a rural area, Future Wales Policies 4 and 5 must apply:
• Policy 4: LDPs must identify rural communities, assess their needs, and set out supportive policies.
• Policy 5: LDPs must plan positively to meet the employment needs of rural areas.
Bullet point issues:
• The western Vale is clearly categorised as rural, not as a growth-focused settlement zone.
• St Athan may have distinct airport related status, but this does not reclassify the surrounding rural settlements.
• The RLDP should demonstrate how Policies 4 and 5 are shaping its spatial and economic approach.
Could you outline how the RLDP intends to incorporate Policies 4 and 5 into its strategy?

3. Biodiversity & Green Infrastructure – Key Omissions
The RLDP’s Green Infrastructure (GI) Strategy appears to overlook several significant local biodiversity assets:
• Aberthaw Biodiversity Area (Council owned and agreed for retention).
An area with clear potential for designation such as Local Nature Reserve (LNR).
• Cadoxton Ponds Nature Reserve, a major ecological asset not reflected in GI mapping.
[gov.uk]
• Other sites already being considered by Scrutiny for LNR status (e.g., Barry Old Harbour, Rhoose Point), demonstrating an active Council interest in expanding nature designations.
These omissions raise questions about:
• Whether the GI Strategy has adequately captured local ecological opportunities;
• Who authored and quality assured the document, given factual omissions (e.g., mis counting bathing beaches) and lack of reference to key local sites;
• Whether biodiversity “net gain” claims are being interpreted proportionately, rather than reduced to minimal measures such as bird boxes.
Welsh Government expects the RLDP to be evidence led and based on a robust environmental baseline.
Could you confirm:
• Whether Aberthaw, Cadoxton Ponds, and related sites will be added to the GI evidence base;
• Who prepared and signed off the current GI content;
• How biodiversity requirements will be strengthened to reflect site specific ecological value.

4. Next Steps
I would welcome clarification on the above matters and would be grateful for the opportunity to discuss how the RLDP can better reflect:
• The correct Future Wales spatial classification;
• The requirements of Policies 4 and 5 for rural areas;
• Local biodiversity assets and LNR opportunities;
• A stronger evidence-based approach consistent with Welsh Government expectations.
Thank you for considering these points. I appreciate the significant work undertaken on the RLDP and hope these observations are useful in ensuring the plan is fully aligned with national policy and local opportunities.

Rhoose to have better transport and infrastructure both public and road before any further development is considered. Rhoose needs local accessible facilities such as comprehensive schools, doctors etc before any further development. The plan should provide these to ensure it is sound. The evidence does not point to Rhoose being sustainable.

No evidence is provided within the Plan to better public transport and other infrastructure with the key settlement of Rhoose. Rhoose also does not have good existing public transport infrastructure compared to other settlements with only 1 train per hour and 1 bus service which is long and tedious. Rhoose has few shops and most shops are accessed in Barry. Most doctors are in Barry or Llantwit Major. Rhoose has no comprehensive school. Rhoose is a town with the facilities of a village and should be treated as such.

Brown field sites should be the first sites used. Look after the are we live in. Please don’t destroy it.

Please stop building on green field sites. There are a lot of brown field sites in the vale that can be used. They are more expensive to clear but that shouldn’t matter. The health of the vale should be of primary concern. Soon we won’t have any nature left.

Reading the plan everything sounds wonderful. Will reality live up to its aims.

What is the problem with the building of council houses.

Total re think

I object

This is an objection to further development in Rhoose on the following grounds:
● over development without improvement to infrastructure
● current roads unable to support additional traffic as a result of further development, roads in/out of Rhoose are already choked
● loss of green fields/arable land to building, solar panels, battery storage units
● Model Farm proposed development will change the landscape, destroy habitats, reduce biodiversity, add pressure to roads, cause flooding in Porthkrry Park
● additional pressure on already overloaded pumping stations/sewerage infrastructure
● adverse effect on current residents mental health due to over population of the village and loss of green areas
● increase in youth annoyance/antisocial behaviour

Thank you for consulting the Welsh Government on the Vale of Glamorgan Council Replacement Local Development Plan (LDP) – Deposit Plan. It is essential the authority is covered by an up-to-date LDP to give certainty to local communities and businesses and provide a robust basis for decision making.
Without prejudice to the Minster’s powers, the Welsh Government is committed to assisting Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) minimise the risk of submitting unsound plans by making comments at the earliest stages of plan preparation. The Welsh Government looks for clear evidence that the plan is in general conformity with Future Wales: The National Development Framework, aligns with Planning Policy Wales (PPW) and the tests of soundness, as set out in the LDP Manual.
National planning policies are set out in Planning Policy Wales (PPW) Edition 12 and seek to deliver high quality, sustainable places through a place-making approach (the LDP should ensure it takes into account any further iterations of PPW prior to the examination). The implementation of the core policy areas in PPW, such as adopting a sustainable spatial strategy, appropriate housing and economic growth levels, infrastructure delivery and place-making, are articulated in more detail in the LDP Manual (Edition 3). We expect the core elements of the Manual, in particular Chapter 5 and the ‘De-risking Checklist(s)’ to be followed. Failure to comply with these key requirements may result in unnecessary delays later in the plan making process. The development planning system in Wales is evidence-led and demonstrating how a plan is shaped by the evidence is a key requirement of the LDP examination.
After considering the key issues and policies in Future Wales, the Welsh Government is of the opinion that the Replacement Deposit Plan is in general conformity with Future Wales: The National Development Framework. Specific comments are set out in the Statement of General Conformity (Annex 1 of this letter). Annex 2 highlights a range of issues that need to be addressed for the plan to align with PPW and the DPM. Collectively, our comments highlight a range of issues that need to be addressed for the plan to be considered ‘sound’ as follows:
Annex 1 – General Conformity with Future Wales
• No significant concerns
Annex 2 – Core matters that need to be/have been addressed (PPW and the DPM)
• Spatial Strategy and Primary Settlements
• Housing and Economic Growth Levels – Regional Collaboration
• Maximising Affordable Housing Provision
• Delivery & Implementation – General
• Gypsy and Travellers
• Renewable Energy
• Minerals
• Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land (BMV)
• Welsh Language

I would urge you to seek your own legal advice to ensure you have met all the procedural requirements, including the Sustainability Appraisal (SA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA), as responsibility for these matters’ rests with your authority. A requirement to undertake a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) arising from the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, if appropriate, should be carried out to assess the likely effect of the proposed development plan on health, mental well-being and inequality.
My colleagues and I look forward to meeting you and the team to discuss matters arising from this response.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Hemington
Chief Planner Welsh Government

Annex 1 - Statement of General Conformity
The Welsh Government is of the opinion that the Vale of Glamorgan Council Replacement Local Development Plan (2021-2036) Deposit Plan is in general conformity with the National Development Framework: Future Wales, as set out in paragraphs 2.16 – 2.18 of the Development Plans Manual (Edition 3).
There is a joint position statement on the relationship between Bridgend, Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan (BP20A), which considers population growth, migration patterns, housing completions, employment characteristics, demographics, commuting and transport links between the three adjoining authorities. The Welsh Government supports the principle of this work which demonstrates how change in the Vale of Glamorgan relates and complements growth in adjoining local authorities. This approach illustrates a good mechanism for other local authorities to follow.
Reasons
Future Wales places emphasis on the development of National Growth Areas in a sustainable manner. Growth areas must be sustainably planned, reduce the need to travel by car, encourage walking and cycling (active travel), maximise public transport usage and incorporate green infrastructure. Growth areas must embed these principles within a wider regional consensus, focussing on the opportunities they bring to promote social and economic benefits across a broader geographical area. The Welsh Government supports sustainable growth in National Growth Areas to respond to the climate change and biodiversity emergencies, making the best use of resources.
Policy 1 and Policy 33 of Future Wales states that Cardiff, Newport, and the Valleys will be the main focus for growth and investment in the region. The strategic diagram (p163) also identifies the Vale of Glamorgan within the National Growth Area. The Vale of Glamorgan RLDP, specifically BP20A, provides robust evidence on the interrelationship and key issues with adjoining authorities, including their interaction and how they have shaped and influenced the scale/location of growth in the RLDP. This is set out in the three Joint Position Statements (JPSs).
BP45 ‘Regional Assessment of Future Growth and Migration for the Cardiff Capital Region (CCR), May 2024, provides further evidence on how the scale of growth indicated for the region has shaped the scale of future economic growth within the Vale of Glamorgan. This results in a higher level of employment growth in the Vale of Glamorgan primarily to increase self-containment and reduce out-flows to adjoining urban areas. Two key areas for future economic growth are identified at Cardiff Airport/Bro Tathan Enterprise Zone and Aberthaw Power Station.
The result is a Sustainable Transport Orientated Growth spatial strategy focusing on the Cardiff – Bridgend railway line and A48 corridor, with the key settlement for growth at Barry, followed by service centres on public transport corridors. On balance, the Welsh Government considers the Deposit Plan is in general conformity with key policies in Future Wales namely (not exhaustive):
Policy 1: Where will Wales grow
Policy 2: Shaping Urban Growth and Regeneration – Strategic Placemaking
Policy 6: Town Centre First
Policy 10: International Connectivity – Cardiff Airport
Policy 12 Regional Connectivity
Policy 33: National Growth Area – Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys
Policy 36: South-East Metro
Future Wales brings a new perspective that all LDPs have to embrace on how each LDP sits within the region as a whole and the relationship to other LDPs, in essence, a strategic approach to cross boundary relationships. There is evidence to support that approach in advance of an SDP. 4

Annex 2 – Core matters that need to be addressed (PPW and the DPM)
Spatial Strategy - Location of Growth
The Council tested 4 spatial options:
Option 1 – Continuation of the adopted LDP growth strategy
Option 2 – Dispersed Growth
Option 3 – Focused Growth
Option 4 – Sustainable Transport Orientated Growth
The Council has chosen Option 4: Sustainable Transport Orientated Growth for its Deposit Plan. The strategy seeks to locate most of the new growth in those settlements well served by existing/proposed rail infrastructure along the Vale of Glamorgan/Penarth branch lines. This will encourage and maximise the use of sustainable transport modes in the plans designated Strategic Growth Area (SGA). The SGA encompasses most of the Council’s largest and more sustainable settlements and the Council considers that focussing development here will reduce the need to travel and will co-locate housing with employment opportunities, services, and community facilities.
With a significant proportion of the Council’s brownfield land already developed/committed, there are limited opportunities for brownfield development moving forward. The existing land bank is stated as 5,140 dwellings (land supply 3,837 + windfall assumptions 1,303), to meet a proposed housing requirement 7,890 (provision 8,660). The authority has allocated 3,520 dwellings on new sites (Policy SP6, Table 2). As a result, the plan has adopted a predominantly greenfield strategy allocating the majority of new development on five key sites (Policy HG1, Sites KS1-5 totalling 2,278 dwellings) well-connected edge of settlement sites, close to existing or proposed rail stations. We note the Council has used TfW data in the site assessment process to assess sites and their proximity to transport nodes. The remaining sites are mainly ‘rolled’ forward from the adopted LDP. The Welsh Government supports the spatial strategy, which accords with Planning Policy Wales (PPW) and is in general conformity with Future Wales.
Spatial Strategy - Primary Settlements
The Council’s settlement hierarchy allocates circa 92% of all housing development (committed and proposed) to settlements in the top three tiers of the hierarchy. The Welsh Government does not object to this approach. The recognition that Culverhouse Cross with few facilities on site and the presence of BMV Land, the expectation for limited growth (paragraph 6.14 & 6.15) is welcomed. Similarly, it is noted that Wick benefits from a primary school and has some scope for future growth, albeit in keeping with the scale and accessibility of the settlement. The Welsh Government is content that the scale of growth reflected in these two locations will reflect the availability of local facilities and services.
The Level of Growth - Homes and Jobs
The Deposit Plan (Policy SP1 & SP6) makes provision for 8,660 homes to deliver a housing requirement of 7,890 new homes (526 p/a) over the plan period 2021-2036, of which a minimum of 3,070 homes will be affordable. The flexibility allowance proposed by the Council is 9.8%. The delivery of new jobs is for 5,388 over the plan period (Policy SP14).
Homes: The 2018 WG Principal Projection results in a requirement of 431 units p/a, or 6,465 units over the plan period. The housing growth proposed in the plan (requirement) is around +1,425 units (22%) above the WG 2018 principal projection, the provision being +2,195 (34%) above. The Council consider the 10 year average housing completions to represent a more realistic level of growth to deliver the key issues the plan is seeking to address. The Council considers that a lower level of growth (2018 projection) is not appropriate because the projections do not take account of 5

any policy decisions and were prepared in advance of the Covid-19 pandemic with implications for migration patterns and fewer jobs proposed.
BP8A (November 2025) considers the latest 2022 Welsh Government population and housing projections, noting they are higher than the 2018 based projections. The projections for the Vale of Glamorgan show significant variation in internal migration in particular which the Council considers should be treated with caution. The projections are trend based and are affected by specific factors that may have occurred within the previous 5 years. The 5 years in question included a period of high housebuilding associated with a newly adopted LDP, as well as the Covid 19 pandemic, where many students returned to home from term-time addresses and re-registered with GPs in the Vale.
Given the fluctuation in recent migration figures, the Council consider longer-term trends are more appropriate, and it is noted that the population change identified in the 10-year migration variant is of a similar level to that proposed under the RLDP projection. In conclusion, for the reasons identified above, despite the updated projections, the Council considers the RLDP housing requirement continues to represent a robust basis to deliver a sustainable and deliverable level of growth over the plan period. The Welsh Government does not object to the scale of housing contained within the plan.
The demographic evidence (February 2023, Edge Analytics) tested 12 growth scenarios comprising: demographic-led, dwelling-led, and employment-led scenarios. The preferred housing requirement is based on a 10-year dwelling-led scenario (526 dpa) that would result in a population growth of 9.7% over the plan period with an annual net in-migration of 1,009 persons. The Council considers this level of housing growth is deliverable with a large proportion met through existing commitments (51%) and a jobs total (4,875 jobs) that broadly aligns with the level of new jobs forecast in the Employment Land Study (5,338 jobs). Moreover, the scale of growth is considered by the Council to be compatible with Future Wales and the role the authority plays within the wider southeast region. With inward migration to the Vale of Glamorgan from Cardiff expected to slow as Cardiff’s strategic sites deliver higher levels of housing and with employment opportunities in the Vale co-located with housing sites, there are further opportunities to reduce the high levels of out-commuting into Cardiff. Overall, this approach is proposed by the Council to deliver a level of growth that is balanced with the emerging Cardiff LDP and wider southeast region. The Welsh Government does not object to the level of growth proposed in the plan.
We note that historic completion rates in the Vale of Glamorgan have fluctuated considerably over recent years. The past 10-year (2011-2021) average completion rate is 526 dwellings p/a. This has been exceeded over the last 5-years (2016-2021) with 698 dwellings constructed p/a. Build rates in recent years are in part attributed to the delivery of the current adopted LDP strategy that has more of a ‘rural settlement' focus, with multiple sites across many settlements being built out. Replicating this approach going forward (10,470 dwellings) would not comply with FW/PPW in terms of sustainable development and transport, potentially adversely impacting on Cardiff’s growth strategy. On this basis, the Council considers that achieving 526 dwellings p/a in the preferred 10-year dwelling-led scenario is sustainable and deliverable and would provide a level of job growth (5,338 jobs) that is balanced with the housing requirement. The Welsh Government does not object to the level of housing proposed in the plan but demonstrating delivery of the key housing sites will be essential.
The Welsh Government notes that BP0A identifies small and large windfalls, based on historic trends of 53/yr and 80/yr respectively. Also, the large windfalls are not included in the first two years of the trajectory, as per the DPM. A non-delivery allowance of 5% is identified, which reflects local characteristics in the Vale of Glamorgan. A flexibility allowance of 9.8% has been factored into the provision. The Welsh Government supports this approach, although whilst Appendix 1 contains a housing trajectory, there is no table to mirror that of Table 21, DPM. This should be included in Appendix 1. 6

Jobs: The Council’s 10-year dwelling-led growth option results in a requirement for 4,875 new jobs (325 p/a) over the plan period. This broadly aligns with the projected growth for 5,338 (355 p/a) new jobs in the Employment Land Review (BP12) and as set out in Policy SP14.
The level of employment growth proposed (5,338 jobs) over the plan period is below the target in the currently adopted plan (7,610-10,610 jobs). The lower target is considered by the Council to more accurately reflect the cohort of working aged people in the Vale of Glamorgan and would support a continuation of long-term housing delivery trends that takes into account lower housing growth post-recession and a shorter period of historically high dwelling completions (2016-2021). The Welsh Government does not object to the level of job growth proposed in the plan.
In summary, (and subject to the above clarification), the Welsh Government has no significant concerns with the level of homes and jobs proposed in the plan, which is in general conformity with Future Wales.
Affordable Housing Provision
The Local Housing Market Assessment 2023 (LHMA) (BP10B) calculates affordable housing need over the replacement plan period using the ‘policy neutral’ Welsh Government 2018 Principal Projection and the preferred growth option. The LHMA provides the latest evidence on affordable housing need, identifying a net annual need for 1,075 affordable units per annum for the next five-years and a further 154 units per annum over the following 10 years (BP10B, Executive Summary), resulting in a requirement for 6,915 affordable homes over the plan period (461 p/a) with a tenure split of 65% social rent and 35% intermediate. The Welsh Government note that the RLDP housing requirement is higher than the 2018 projections. Accordingly, to take this into account the affordable housing need for the RLDP is 502/yr which equates to a need of 7,530 over the plan period (RLDP, paragraph 6.116, Table 4).
Policy SP7 identifies a target of delivering a minimum of 3,070 affordable homes, the housing need being across all 13 Housing Market Areas, albeit it is more acute in Barry, Penarth, and Llantwit Major for 1-bed properties. The Welsh Government notes that most of the new housing development (51%) is proposed in the Key Settlement of Barry and Service Centre Settlements, which include Penarth and Llantwit Major.
The Welsh Government has no significant concerns regarding the relationship between the LHMA and the Deposit Plan.
Affordable Housing Led Sites
To deliver additional affordable housing above that which market led housing can provide, the authority proposes (Policy SP3 & HG4) to permit small scale affordable housing-led developments that provide a minimum of 50% affordable housing on sites up to 25 dwellings in minor rural settlements and 50 dwellings in primary settlements. The principle of this approach is supported.
Paragraph 6.137 of the plan states:
“Policy HG4 makes provision for affordable housing-led sites in locations outside the Strategic Growth Area. These sites, which are allocated for a minimum of 50% affordable housing, are included within the settlement boundary.”
The reference to being within the settlement boundary is not referenced in policy HG4. It would be beneficial to either include such a reference or demonstrate that settlement boundaries do include those sites listed in policy HG4 for clarity.
These sites must be in addition to the market housing led requirement and identified in the LDP. This policy approach is justified by the high level of affordable housing need evidence by the LHMA and must be accompanied by additional control over the land by the local planning authority to 7

ensure effective delivery. Evidence should include ownership of the land, a binding legal agreement where the land is in private ownership or a resolution of the council to use compulsory purchase powers. RLDP, paragraph 6.133 references to such controls, however, should such controls be contained within the policy?
Affordable Housing Exceptions Sites
Policy HG5, states 100% affordable housing exception sites can be located outside a settlement boundary where they comply with PPW/TAN2 and any threshold/policy requirements set in the Deposit Plan. The Welsh Government supports this approach.
Employment Land
The Council’s Employment Land Study (BP12, March 2023) identifies a requirement for 67.80ha of employment land, which includes a 5-year buffer. The requirement is based on rolling forward past trends (over 25 years) and is of a sufficient scale to meet the 5,338 jobs forecast. However, Policy SP14 identifies employment land allocations totalling 182ha, which is an increase of around 114ha above the employment land requirement. The sites that make-up this supply are largely major employment allocations that attract significant regional inward investment at Cardiff Airport and Bro Tathan Enterprise Zone totalling 127.85ha (70%) of the total provision. The Welsh Government does not object to the over-provision of employment land in the plan. The Enterprise Zone designation must be identified and the allocations within it (SP14: 1-3).
Delivery and Implementation
PPW and the DPM (Chapter 5) contain guidance on the requirements in respect of the delivery and implementation of plans. The Deposit Plan should set out site-specific details for Key Sites that includes general phasing timescales, key infrastructure requirements, placemaking principles (including concept / schematic masterplan frameworks), constraints, and developer requirements, where appropriate. We note the Deposit Plan has included emerging master planning/infrastructure work on key sites.
The phasing, timing, funding, and delivery of Key Sites will be critical to ensure the plan delivers the scale of growth required over the plan period. This includes the relationship between the two Key Sites in St Athan (KS4 and KS5) totalling up to 1,150 units and the delivery of a new rail station in St Athan to meet the objectives of the strategy and encourage a modal shift to more sustainable forms of public transport.
The development sites may also impact on the trunk road network, in particular the M4 J34 and there will need to be a suitable level and form of traffic assessment to accompany the plan. (The transport case may consider the South East Wales Traffic Model as part of any masterplan impacts on the Strategic Road Network (SRN) (Wales Regional Transport Models | TfW)). The Council will also need to demonstrate that all housing components are deliverable through a housing trajectory prepared by the Council and Housing Stakeholder Group. Statements of Common Ground for key allocations, especially those that have ‘rolled over’ from the adopted plan, would be advantageous to demonstrate the sites are deliverable in the timescales set out.
The Deposit plan is supported by a high-level affordable housing study and site-specific viability appraisals for Key Sites. All viability work and must be prepared in conjunction with the Viability Steering Group and site-specific promoters.
It will be for the Council to justify deliverability supported by robust financial viability.
Gypsy and Travellers
The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment GTAA (June 2022, approved June 2024) identifies a total need for 11 pitches over the plan period up to 2036, of which 9 pitches are ‘immediate’ by 2026. WG note that 4 pitches have since gained planning permission, reducing the remaining need over the plan period being 7 pitches. 8

Policy SP9 identifies a site at Llangan (0.76Ha) to accommodate the 7 pitches needed. It will be for the Council to demonstrate the appropriate site selection assessment process has been followed and that the site complies with requirements in PPW (4.2.35), Circular 005/2018 (paragraph 35) any relevant guidance and the DPM (5.80-5.85) to allocate a deliverable site in the plan period. The views of the relevant statutory bodies must also be agreed with no outstanding objections to the delivery of the site. The Welsh Government has no objection in terms of meeting the numerical need for gypsy traveller accommodation.
Renewable Energy
Future Wales: The National Plan 2040 identifies Barry as a District Heat Network (DHN) Priority Area. The Renewable Energy Assessment (BP15) explores the opportunity for a DHN using waste heat from Barry Biomass, but as there is some uncertainty on the future of the plant, the study concludes there is considerable risk to using the plant as a source waste heat. Could the Council provide an update on alternative options for a DHN in Barry?
It is welcome that the Renewable Energy Assessment (REA) has considered BMV policy, specifically for solar PV, and use of the Predictive ALC Map. The assessment has only considered non-BMV land (Subgrade 3b, Grade 4 and 5). The assessment would benefit from referencing the clarification provided in the DCPO letter of 1st March 2022 in respect of solar PV and BMV agricultural land for completeness.
The study identifies that in the Vale of Glamorgan solar development is more suitable than wind energy because of the flight path of aircraft in the south of the County Borough. However, there are some opportunities for wind sites, but these are likely to be small (<10MW) where aviation risks are lower and there is some grid access. Conversely, there are large expanses of land suitable for solar areas (>10MW) to the West of the County Borough, where there is little existing development. The study identifies 20 large-scale solar areas but recognises that grid constraints may impact the ability of sites to come forward.
Solar and wind search areas (where appropriate) below the 10MW Developments of National Significance (DNS) have been identified (Policy CC3). The plan also includes a criteria-based policy for all renewable energy proposals, particularly wind development, under 10MW (Policy CC4). Policy CC3 makes reference to adhering to the criteria in Policy CC4. However, would it not be the case that if search areas have been identified in Policy CC3 have they not already met the criteria? If they would not, should they be identified in the first place? Clarity would be beneficial. The Welsh Government supports the approach but seeks clarity on the point raised.
The Welsh Government notes the proposed search areas for wind energy near Morfa Ystrad Owen/Nant Rhydhalog, according to the Peatlands of Wales Evidence Score Map, the search area includes areas of peatland (Evidence Score 4). The site is also a SINC. This raises concerns as to how the inclusion of this search areas meets the policy test in PPW 6.4.15, 1a and 1b (Stepwise) regarding avoidance of irreplaceable peatland habitats and PPW 6.4.34.
Policy CC4 refers to Developments of National Significance (DNS) in 6.344 and 6.346. This should now refer to Strategic Infrastructure Projects (SIP) which replaced DNS.
Minerals
The Regional Technical Statement (RTS 2nd Review) identifies a nil apportionment for land-won sand and gravel provision in the Vale of Glamorgan. The Welsh Government policy clarification letter (dated 11 November 2021) identifies a surplus of 1.68mt of crushed rock. As there is a surplus of crushed rock reserves and a lack of sand and gravel production in the Vale, no specific allocations are required in the replacement plan. It is unclear whether a Statement of Sub-Regional Collaboration with adjoining authorities in the Cardiff City sub-region been agreed, or does the latest Position Statement (July 2022) explain how any shortfall will be met across 9

the region, particularly for crushed rock, of which the Vale has a surplus? Clarification would be beneficial.
BMV Agricultural Land
The Welsh Government has engaged with the Council for land quality advice, survey advice and ALC survey validation for candidate sites. The LPA has produced a specific topic paper on BMV policy application. BP23A. The Deposit RLDP allocates 188 hectares of housing land, 5.62 ha is identified as BMV land (under 3% of total housing allocations). The RLDP:
• Has sought to avoid BMV land wherever possible;
• Uses the Predictive ALC Map as a core evidence layer to inform: The spatial strategy;
• Settlement hierarchy decisions; and
• Candidate site assessments.
•
• Directs strategic growth to areas with least BMV land
• Removes or avoids allocations where BMV impacts were significant or unjustified.
• Quantifies total BMV loss and demonstrates it is minimal (5.62ha) and proportionate at plan level.
• Applies a sequential approach through: Preference for brownfield and non-BMV sites;
• Replacement of higher-BMV sites with lower-grade alternatives where possible.
•
• Requires site-specific ALC surveys to verify actual land quality before allocation.
• Demonstrates that allocated BMV land is: Often small, fragmented, or constrained;
• Sometimes previously disturbed or incapable of being farmed differently from surrounding lower-grade land; and
• Necessary to deliver the Plan’s housing strategy where reasonable alternatives are unavailable.
•

In conclusion, the Welsh Government consider the Authority has demonstrated a sensible and pragmatic approach to considering BMV loss in the context of national planning policy, and on that basis no objection is offered.
Green Infrastructure
Policy SP19 should explicitly reference the need for development to be accompanied by a Green Infrastructure Statement.
PPW12 requires decision makers to apply the step wise approach to GI, with enhancement secured at every stage where possible, there is no distinction made between the quality of the GI assets – the qualification in the policy statement that states proposals will incorporate measures that protect and enhance high quality multi-functional green infrastructure should be redrafted to remove the quality reference. The need to avoid an impact in the first instance should also be explicitly incorporated into the policy.
Criterion 1 (Policy SP20) should be redrafted – the stepwise approach in PPW 12 6.4.15 1a - does not distinguish between relative ecological value – the avoidance step applies to biodiversity in its widest sense (i.e. the variety of species and habitats and their abundance) and ecosystem functioning.
Welsh Language
There is limited reference to the Welsh language in the plan, either potential adverse impacts arising through development, or mechanisms via a policy framework to support and grow the use of the language. There are references to a number of Welsh-medium schools (3.26) and the increase in the number of people able to speak Welsh according to the 2011 census (3.52) but there is no mention of the authority's Welsh Language Strategy or promoting or cross-referencing to the aims of 10

Cymraeg 2050: A million Welsh-speakers. Paragraph 6.81 of the plan refers to development north west of Barry:
“Land at North West Barry is allocated for a residential development of up to 376 dwellings and public open space. The site is in a sustainable location on the edge of the Barry, a key settlement, in a location that is well served by services and facilities, including a major supermarket, GP surgery, community centre, three primary schools (English Medium, Welsh Medium and Church in Wales) and two high schools (English and Welsh Medium) all located in reasonable walking distance. There is an active travel route along Port Road West, bus stops in close proximity providing buses to Llantwit Major, Cardiff and the centre of Barry. Barry station is 1.3 miles from the site entrance.”
There is no mention that the Council want to undertake a Welsh Language Impact Assessment (WLIA) so there appears no attempt to measure the impact on the Welsh schools resulting from housing development? Could the Council clarify if such implications have already been covered in the WLIA for the plan, ISA, or are any specific policies necessary?

There needs to be a Plan for Wales that includes Housing , Jobs, better Public Transport. The plan should also take into account the wellbeing of the people who live there. This should include much more local, detailed examination of communities ,their feelings, the mix of land use. The plan below is mainly about building housing. Destroying farm land goes against the feeling of what Wales is. I just feel that this is a plan to satisfy the needs of the UK Government and to make developers richer by building over our legacy to future generations.

Set up more infrastructure first, then look it again

There is no infrastructure to go with all this housing ie: No Dental provisions
No Doctor availability
No school facilities
Everything is overwhelmed!

Remove Rhoose, St Athan and Llantwit Major from the list for housing development.

This indicates that Rhoose, St Athan and Llantwit Major are suitable for additional housing as they are served by existing public transport, however this does not take into account that train services are 1 per hour and have regularly had the promise of increase deferred and those trains at peak times are already overloaded. St Athan does not have a train station. Buses are also 1 per hour in Rhoose, so this can not be considered well served.
Road access is also very overloaded along Port Road, and proposals to mitigate this are based on outdated traffic counts.

The plan needs to lay out more clearly how infrastructure and public transport links will be improved prior to the proposal of new housing developments. Having read through the data much of the information given is based upon, it seems to be out of date and limited in scope. New data needs to be collected and in much greater depth, especially around issues such as traffic volumes. This would allow better decisions to be made and hopefully highlight issues that residents say is currently a problem but the council seem to be unaware of or ignoring.

The plan in its current form is far from sustainable. The amount of housing proposed will overwhelm the current infrastructure which already cannot cope with the current population. The locations are poorly thought out and do not have adequate access to public transport. The plan does not propose adequate solutions to address the lack of public transport and other infrastructure. Simply saying additional infrastructure to support the sale of growth will be identified is not acceptable. The strategy lacks clarity, depth and is based upon inadequate outdated information.

Additional infrastructure statement is totally unacceptable.
Infrastructure improvements should be identified & implemented before & not after any developments go ahead.

Barry is seen as an easy town to cram houses in incorrect sites such as the site at North West Barry.
This site does not have good transport links for commuters, the train station is not an easy walk & will add considerably to the time spent commuting especially if children have to be dropped to school on route. This site will encourage use of cars & increased traffic from proposed sites in Rhoose & the Vale will make life very difficult for commuters & all road users.
Garage is nearest shop which is a dangerous walk across busy forecourt.

Take the focus off Barry for housing.
Provide smaller settlements at places like Culverhouse Cross & provide a little more infrastructure in these areas.
Increase housing in all other areas of the Vale to ensure the burden of extra housing & it's needs are shared & not shouldered by Barry all the time!

Housing is focusing on Barry & the residents of Barry are experiencing problems with lack of healthcare & other services.
Traffic around the town is getting out of hand even during the day.
Commuting to work is taking longer & public transport & parking at the station at Barry is inadequate.
Barry & it's services are at breaking point.
The town needs improving - roads, pavements etc & green space retained such as the land at Weycock Cross to encourage well being for it's residents & wildlife.

For VOG to take clear responsibility for where they plan to allocate housing:
Not on Green Wedge land.
Be honest about local amenities.
Be honest about travel times.
Consider the local environment and wildlife that frequent the area.
Take heed of the flood risk areas.

The plan does not give detailed plans on how it will prevent flood risk in several areas across the plan, mitigate traffic congestion and has significantly underestimated the additional pressures on roads and services.

Across the patch the number of houses proposed exceed the

Rhoose, St Athan, Llantwit Major need to be removed from the plan until sufficient public transport and infrastructure is in place for further development. Developers are being coined as the placemakers of these plans which is incorrect as S106 monies is not sustainable for development given inflation costs, deliverability of projects and also uptake of schemes.

The deposit plan is based around public transport being sufficient in areas that it is not. Rhoose, St Athan, and Llantwit Major are not accessible frequently without vehicular transportation, thus making the base plan for this moot, as it specifies public transport. Infrastructure within these areas is not sufficient for current residents let alone future development.

Rhoose, St Athan and Llantwit Major do not have sustainable bus or train networks, with in frequent bus services and trains once an hour, if at all. This will increase vehicular traffic.

The plan needs to show that Barry has reached its maximum size and is a clean and healthy place to live in. We now need new settlements away from existing towns and villages. Margins either side of main roads can accomodate many houses and further use of such land should be made to spread housing around the area. We do not want to all be crammed into one massive town.

Barry is already oversized and infrastructure, particularly roads and sewage disposal, do not work properly. Green wedges were introduced to prevent urban sprawl (a council policy) and they should be honoured or Barry will continue to grow. Changing Green Wedges to suit developers is unacceptable.
Adding and improving road junctions will not overcome the increased demand on our roads.
The water authority cannot be trusted to dispose of increased sewage/rainwater. They don't even cope with existing load (witnessed by the 'safer-seas' app.) Tourists need to be attracted, not repelled by sewage floating in the sea.

Road capacity needs to be increased to cope properly with current demand before considering expansion.
The irresponsibility and poor performance of Welsh Water also need to be taken into account before considering expansion.

Barry is too large already and overpopulated.
Roads do not cope. Welsh Water do not cope with sewage.

Much more consideration needs to be taken into account of know bottle necks e.g the plan states "proposed railway stations" - it should be "Actual railway stations" -- until its built its not available for use -- same applies for estate parks / facilities that don't have the funds ring fenced before construction of estates begins and then doesn't get completed e.g. Barry waterfront.

Lack of road and basic infrastructure (sewage capacity, electricity + gas grids) - Dr, dentists etc..

Your assuming employment opportunities will be in the local area - we have increased unemployment --