I write as a local resident to formally object I understand the need for new housing but believe the scale of this development and location HGI KS2 risks causing lasting harm to the community.
My objections are:
Flooding and Drainage - residents are increasingly concerned about Surface water Flooding and drainage during heavy rainfall.
Traffic and Road Safety - Traffic congestion is already a problem in Eastbrook. Extra cars will cause worsening congestion and air quality.
The loss of green spaces will destroy habitats, trees reducing land drainage capacity, loss of wildlife.
Doctors, schools are already at capacity. Coalescence between Dinas Powys and Llandough
Eastbrook Station discriminates against people with mobility issues and family's with buggy's, young children etc.
Pavements are very narrow in places allowing only one person to pass at a time.
It is in very close proximity to a hospital causing problems for staff, patients and emergency services.

Planning reference HG1 KS2, all of the additional cars will cause havoc on Cardiff Road, particularly at times people are travelling to work. Traffic monitoring was carried out in school holidays which isn't a true representation. Schools are already struggling with funding and at capacity.
High levels of pollution putting villagers health at risk. the "building site" is always wet, this will cause flooding throughout Dinas Powys. It disturbs natural beauty and has major impact on our wildlife.

I object to the development HG1 KS2, this would cause very big problems and much more traffic which will cause issues:
- Cause traffic jams
- People will be late for work
- People getting children to school on time
- Appointments at the hospital
- Taking away green space
- Residents in the area will be badly affected

Increased congestion - the roads are at capacity
Loss of wildlife and areas of green to walk
Doctors and schools already at capacity
Increased flooding by losing the natural soakaway fields.

The traffic congestion on Cardiff Road is already bad enough as it is! If the 250 new homes development takes place it will significantly increase daily car journeys and make congestion much worse.
GP surgery and pharmacies in Dinas could struggle to cope with a sudden population increase. It's already difficult enough to get appointments as it is!
Limited access to Eastbrook train station currently, which makes it a difficult alternative travel option, meaning more cars on the road. Also, with the station being small and trains only being limited small carriages, forcing more people to use the train could lead to overcrowding on the trains and platforms at the station. The station is difficult to access anyhow with no disability access to walk over the platform bridge.
Parts of Dinas are close to the River Cadoxton and have experienced flooding in recent years. The housing development can worsen the risk of flooding.
Development could lead to loss of Greenfields and wildlife, and add negative impact on social areas such as Seel Park, which could risk to anti-social behaviours from new residents.
Dinas has currently approx 4,000 homes, so a rapid growth risks changing the village's character in a negative manner.

I object because I am concerned about the increased congestion, increased flooding. I am worried about the impact on doctors surgeries and schools which are also oversubscribed. I object also because of impact on wildlife. I am concerned about NHS services, being overwhelmed. It will impact our travel also.

I object to HG1 KS2 Eastbrook because these fields already hold water after heavy rain and with no evidence of drainage network capacity, developing here would put homes, roads, local schools and shops at serious risk. loss of wildlife. As an avid walker in the Eastbrook fields, I have noted the vast amount of wildlife we have e.g. rabbits, hedgehogs, considerable amounts of bat species, doormouse sightings, Snipe (due to waterlog fields - an environment which they enjoy), foxes, geese, ducks, amongst many others including a large variety of bird species. Increased congestion - Cardiff Road is already at capacity.

Cardiff Road is already incredibly congested at all times of the day, there is no way it could accomodate any further traffic.
The land they intend to use absorbs so much of our rainfall, with out that Dinas is at huge risk of increased flooding.
The doctors surgeries and schools are already over- subscribed.
The habitats of our wildlife will be destroyed.

I strongly object to HG1 KS2. As a resident of Dinas Powys for nearly 60 years. I am only too aware of the congestion on Cardiff Road - often nose to tail and very difficult if emergency vehicles want to pass.
The proposed development plans have not provided the required traffic modelling. Suggestions of walking and cycling over car dependent travel are made - pollution at the moment from the traffic, not to mention with more vehicles - makes this a very unpleasant experience as well as dangerous with pavements not adequate for pushchairs/wheelchairs. Accessibility to Eastbrook is very poor.
Horrified to see the proposals that our green space will be destroyed - wildlife is thriving and living on a very busy road. This is where we walk as a family. the development conflicts with the Well-being of Future Generations Act which has a duty to improve the social, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales.

250 houses at Eastbrook, Dinas Powis.
The Welsh Government has a plan to build 8525 houses in The Vale of Glamorgan since 2016 ie the last 10 years.
They have built about 7000, but are still 1525 short of the Welsh Governments target.
So far, the houses they have built have introduced 14000 new adult residents to the Vale. If we guess one child per house , then that's 3500 children so that's 17,500 people. All requiring schools, doctors etc.
Has anything been done to increase surgery places or schools places?
As far as Eastbrook is concerned, 250 houses means 500 cars, 500 adults, and if we assume 1 child per household, 250 more school places What is planned to cover extra surgery space, or schools space?
On the diagram there is a drainage feature. This looks like a lake. Hopefully not filled by the nearby Eastbrook Stream, which all locals know runs into the Cadoxton River, a main cause of flooding in the village already.
To think you can reduce flooding down river by putting a lake right by these new houses, may work on a computer plan, but in reality it will cause problems, as the small lake on the Cross Common development did, I think , in it's first year.
Most people would not invest their hard earned cash in any house built near a water source liable to flooding.
Access to this new site is from 2 roads between the Swan bend and the Harriers lights. To call one a secondary entrance is clearly an attempt to pull the wool over the public's eyes.
We know car users will use both , and regularly, because the traffic along Cardiff Road, in both rush hours, and indeed during the day , is crawling along at a snails pace, due the amount of housing already built in the Vale, and lack of any new road infrastructure, or repair to the existing worn out roads. due to the anti- motorist policy of the Welsh Government..
Most of these drivers are trying to get to Cardiff, which is where most employment is.
Experience of normal resident like me shows it will cause further chaos, to a poorly managed and maintained road system, which is deteriorating daily, due lack of investment in the road system due to the Welsh Government's anti motorist policy.
My Road enters onto Cardiff Road from St Davids Avenue. The traffic is already so congested, that to turn right towards Barry, I do not bother., I turn left along Cardiff Road and immediately turn right into Brookside, where I 3 point turn, back onto Cardiff Road,. because, on Cardiff Road there is a small DO NOT ENTER box, so other cars have to leave a gap. NO TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ON CARDIFF ROAD AT PRESENT THEN !!!!! . Over the years , nothing has been done to improve access by road to Cardiff, due to political decisions made by the Welsh Government. This is due to our Welsh Governments anti motorist policy. Their intention is to force drivers onto buses and trains. BUT, unfortunately they haven't improved these services either. !! They state they must build near a railway station, but has any of these planners actually tried to get on a Cardiff bound train at 8am, at Eastbrook. Of course they have not. The trains arriving are usually full after already picking up at Barry stations en route. It's like playing sardines!!
Perhaps they can explain to all of the residents of Dinas how to get to Heath Hospital on time for a 9am appointment using trains or buses
There are only 3 main road routes from the Vale into Cardiff. Port Road, Cardiff Road, and Pen Yr Turnpike Road which we know is not a road, just a heavily overused lane.
All these roads are rammed with traffic every rush hour, and are very busy during the rest of the day. One fallen tree on the Turnpike closed the road last month and chaos ensued.
ALL THESE ROADS ARE FALLING APART DUE TO NEGLECT, by The Vale Council and our Welsh Government. Does anyone think that another 500 cars entering onto Cardiff Road in rush hour will have little or no impact on our villages existing traffic problems Let alone the chaos caused by construction traffic over the housing development period.
How many of these house will housing association, for LOCALS to live in How many will be HELP TO BUY for LOCALS trying to get on the housing ladder
Is it just me, but at the moment, in the existing housing climate, who will buy these houses, and if so will they be BOUGHT TO LET as happened to a lot of housing of the Barry Dock development.
Finally, does anyone really believe that this Welsh Government will survive in anything like its current form after the May election?

I strongly object to the proposed development at HG1 KS2.
The development of this site will lead to an increased flood risk to Dinas Powys. A community which is already experiencing flooding episodes, that will no doubt increase in the coming years.
The development of this site will lead to an additional increase in traffic on an already highly congested and polluted road. The increased traffic flow from the housing developments in Barry and Dinas Powys have compounded this problem. The increased traffic flow will lead to law breaking pollution levels putting the residents and children of Dinas Powys at increased risk of traffic pollution related illness and poor health.
The development will add to an already overburdened local GP surgery and local schools system. The development of this site will lead to the loss of green wedge and natural habitat.
The development is unstable to be considered for active travel. The pavements to and from the site in addition to the Railway Station at Eastbrook do not legally comply to be considered to be included in active travel consideration. In conclusion Dinas Powys has seen considerable housing development without any meaningful investment in services or infrastructure and this cannot be allowed to continue. The resident of Dinas Powys feel this is the wrong development, for the wrong reasons, in the wrong site.

The proposal appears to disregard current statistical evidence and the real infrastructure constraints facing Dinas Powys and the wider Vale of Glamorgan. Key concerns include:
Census data and housing need
Increased congestion
Increased pollution
Pressure on local services
Loss of the Green Wedge
Floodplain and flood risk
Each of these concerns demonstrates that the proposed development is neither appropriate nor sustainable in its current form.

Census Data: Recent census data indicates that the largest area of population growth in the Vale of Glamorgan is among elderly dependants, with an increase of 24.9%. Therefore, the claim that this development is required to meet the housing needs of the Vale is questionable. The proposed site lies on the periphery of the village, which risks segregating and isolating those who will live there. If the aim is to meet the needs of an ageing population, the development should prioritise bungalows, sheltered housing, and accessible homes. There is little evidence within the proposal to suggest that this will be the case.

Increased Congestion: According to the 2021 Census, 83% of households in Dinas Powys own at least one car. Based on this figure, the development could introduce a minimum of 250 additional vehicles, potentially rising to 500 vehicles if households own two cars. Road and pavement infrastructure within Dinas Powys has seen little meaningful investment for decades and is already under strain. The peripheral location of the proposed development will inevitably increase reliance on private vehicles. The nearest railway station is already oversubscribed, with passengers from Eastbrook often unable to board trains during peak hours due to congestion from Barry commuters. The station car park is limited and the facilities provide little accessibility for people with disabilities, parents with pushchairs, or cyclists. This undermines the credibility of the proposed "active travel" routes within the development. Furthermore, 12.8% of Dinas Powys residents do not own a car, meaning they rely heavily on public transport and local infrastructure. Given the current limitations of rail services and active travel routes, the development does little to improve accessibility for these residents.

Increased Pollution: Air quality will inevitably deteriorate as a result of increased congestion. Prior to the development of Scholars Park, reports indicated that Cardiff Road was already operating at 100% capacity. Following the completion of that development, traffic studies showed that the road was operating at 120% capacity. Cardiff Road remains the primary route through Dinas Powys, and the proposed development will feed directly into this already overstretched corridor. Stationary traffic along this route passes three schools and a day care facility, exposing children and vulnerable residents to increased pollution. The suggestion that a significant increase in traffic will not impact local air quality or residents' quality of life is unrealistic.

Pressure on Local Services: Local services are already under significant strain. The local health centre is oversubscribed, and has recently absorbed patients from Penarth following the closure of the Redlands Road surgery. Schools are also oversubscribed. For the 2023 academic year, St Cyres School re over 500 applications for just 210 places. Crucially, there are no legally binding provisions within the Local Development Plan (LDP) ensure schools, healthcare facilities, or other services are delivered before housing development completed. This has already been demonstrated by the Plas Dwr development, where the plan secondary school has been delayed by nine years. Without guaranteed infrastructure delivery, residents face further deterioration in access to education and healthcare.

Loss of the Green Wedge: The Green Wedge is intended to protect open space and prevent urban sprawl. However, its treatment within the Local Development Plan appears inconsistent. In recent years, individual planning applications within the Green Wedge have been rejected specifically to avoid loss of this protected designation. It is therefore deeply concerning that large-scale development is now being considered that would permanently erode this protected area. The Eastbrook site also contains protected flora and fauna, as well as historic Holy Wells, making it an environmentally and culturally sensitive landscape. These habitats and features should be preserved rather than sacrificed for development.

Floodplain and Flood Risk: Flooding in Dinas Powys has worsened in recent years. The proposed developments will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces, leading to greater levels of surface runoff and reduced lag time following rainfall events. This will result in higher volumes of water entering the River Cadoxton more rapidly, increasing both river velocity and energy levels. The consequence is not only an increased likelihood of flooding but also greater erosional damage to surrounding areas. Large parts of the proposed development lie within existing floodplains or areas with high ground saturation. With climate change increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall events, this risk will only grow over time.
Conclusion: The proposal does not adequately address the demographic realities, infrastructure limitations, environmental risks, or community impacts outlined above. Proceeding with the development in its current form would demonstrate a disregard for both local evidence and the legitimate concerns raised by residents.

As a resident in Dinas Powys within 1km of the proposed site, I strongly object to the development. Dinas Powys lacks the infrastructure to support 250 additional homes. The scheme relies on Cardiff Rd, already heavily congested and has no capacity for extra traffic. I invite the Council to observe traffic at peak hours. Local schools and the Murch surgery is already overstretched. Parking at the Train Stations is often full. Development risks increasing flood risks and cause unacceptable ecological harm. It will erode the Green Belt land and affect the unique character and feel of the village in a negative way.

TRANSPORT
Eastbrook Transport Documents reveal Highway objections ignored by RLWP planners.
The Highway Development Section would inform the Planning Authority that it is essential. that a development of this size and nature MUST be accompanied by a robust and comprehensive Scoping Study to be agreed by the Local Planning / Highway Authority and a comprehensive Transport Assessment being undertaken to evaluate the affects the proposed change of use will have on the surrounding highway network and how they will be addressed by carrying out off site highway improvements / public transport facilities. and other sustainable modes of transport like cycling and walking.
It is very clear from the lack of information and comments from the public consultation that this has not been taken into account due to the inability to answer the questions. In addition, Dinas Powys Community Council received and email saying the plans had been revised. When asked about what revisions had been made, I was told 'none'.

'Emergency access' adjacent to 14 Cardiff Rd. The planners changed it to secondary access for the recent display. When asked at the consultation what this was. They did not have an answer.

Highways said, "given the issue along Cardiff Road with congestion a TA will need to demonstrate is suitability". The consultants SLR provided no such Transport Assessment. SLR argued they did not require to provide foot/cycleways along Cardiff Rd to the Murch crossroad, as St Georges Row and Highfield Close could be used, which they would assess further. As no such routes exist (to AT standards) the site is not accessible via active travel to all local amenities as per the Active Travel Act 2021, as Highways require.

In the plans there are active travel routes along Georges Row, cutting through garages just off it. This route is not owned by the council and is not adopted by them. So they have no jurisdiction to offer it as an active travel route. The access from the top of Highfield Close through the alley into Powys Gardens does not comply with criteria from Active Travel guidelines due to no lighting and a 90-degree angle rendering it unsafe as you are not able to see all the way through. This is the same with the one going from Chapel Close to Highfield Close. Powys Gardens is extremely steep and would be a challenge for the fittest of people to walk or push a pushchair up, never mind people with mobility issues and is extremely dangerous during icy weather. Cardiff Road is not suitable as there is no capacity to widen it to accommodate the width that is required following active travel guidelines for various configurations of pedestrians. When asked during the consultation meeting if they had walked the route along Cardiff Road. The officer admitted they had not.

Attached 'Vectos' pictures show over-narrow passages. No wonder SLR chose not to assess them.

Highways commented overall.
The site may not be able to accommodate connectivity via active travel due to limited space along Cardiff Road. Other locations at the Southern end of the site will need to be investigated to confirm it the site can be accessed via walking and cycling.
Persimmons' documents omit the "investigation", Vectos pictures show over-narrow passages, but the RLWP planners still nodded the site through. Highways require public transport improvements should be provided along with the implementation of the site including internally and along the existing adopted highway, yet SLR ignore the proposed turn-in with internal roundabout for buses.

It is not good enough to assume because there is a train station/bus stop that it makes this development sustainable. It doesn't. What this development provides is discrimination against people with protected characteristics. Due to the lack of a ramp at the station people who have mobility issues or people with pushchairs are unable to use the train both ways without incurring a lengthy walk. Again when I asked about this during the consultation I was told 'it is fine for the majority'. I replied, 'what about the minority, you're discriminating against? There was no reply.

We have documentation from the Department of Transport that there are no plans to upgrade Easbrook train station.

They offer a bus stop but no crossing of Cardiff Rd to access it.

A recent meeting with a bus company talked about reducing the service due to the volume of traffic along the Cardiff Road and that they are unable to keep to the timetable. You can make all the alterations you like to the area from Mathew Terrace to the Merrie Harrier. But you will not get away from the fact that prior to that there is NO capacity to widen the road and improve the flow of traffic from Mathew Terrace towards Barry. I asked how many houses were being built in Barry and was told 700. This traffic will come through Dinas Powys adding to the already congested road.

Highways saying, "likely need to be improvements to the Cardiff Road A4055/Murch Road/Millbrook Road junction" ('11' circled on plan) is ignored by SLR.

FLOODING
BA Consulting suppressed DP flooding in the RLDP documents.

Their Strategic Flooding Assmt (SFCA) had to record detains of historical flood events. yet omitted the Dec.2020 flooding of 100 homes in Dinas. The same company wrote its Section 19 legal report in 2021. Their SFCA just mentions the flooding measures dealt with the problem - yet their 2021 report recommends that NRW assess the viability of options to manage the flood risk across Dinas Powys; for DCWW to assess the viability of offline storage for the Cae'r Odyn surface water system. These measures were ignored, I was surprised to find their map on the last page of the SFCA that proposes woodland planting to hold-back rainstorm run-off, on part of Persimmon's Eastbrook site.

Covering up Eastbrook and Dinas flooding issue in the RLDP There's a legal requirement on the Vale to conduct a Strategic Flood Consequences Assessment. Yet the flooding assessment for the RLDP shows the Vale and their consultants JBA Consulting suppressing the flooding in Penarth/Cosmeston and Sully and pretending the measures taken in Dinas Powys for individual house protection dealt with the Cadoxton flooding issue. The Vale say (https://valeofglamorgan.oc2.uk/document63) that JBA did a desk study of available documents in their report at the end of 2022. Yet no mention of the Statutory S.19 reports for Dinas and Sully (2021) or Penarth/Cosmeston (mid 2023). They knew from those that the rainstorm was a 1 in 20yr event, whereas they need to plan for rainstorms twice as intense**. Still, the BP21 Strategic Flood Consequences Assessment (p153 last page) has a map by JBA+VoG of Dec.2021, Working with Natural Processes - Potential Mapping. It shows tree planting on the hillside of the Eastbrook Housing site. Not the whole of the site, but an important part.
The Map is only indicative, giving no source for the data, so in principle it requires a survey to establish the full potential for such measures. Persimmon did none, indeed their drainage expert did not reveal this proposal when asked at their presentation. Nor did JBA consider diverting Llandough Hospital drainage into new woodland and soakaways on the hillside, instead of the East Brook (via attenuation tanks) which the Vale wrongly approved for the recent car parks and hospital buildings. Did the Vale steer JBA away from this proposal? There's a good basis for strong objections over Persimmon's documents, since reversing the increased flooding of the East Brook from recent developments and increasing storms requires priority in use of this land (Working with Natural Processes).

The Vale of Glamorgan have no flood strategy. Their last one is dated 2013. Since then Dinas Powys have had nearly 100 houses flooded. NRW decided that it was too costly to make any improvements. In addition in the Vale of Glamorgan, Project Zero Update Report dated 14 January 2025 it states.

PZC11.1 Implement a Flood Risk Management Plan and Shoreline Management Plan. No progress. - Resource and competing priorities within the service area.

PZC6.1 Produce Sustainable Urban Drainage Guidance. No Further progress to date due to limited resource and other ongoing flood action priorities - Resource, funding and competing priorities.

These two statements contradict each other. There is no acknowledgement of the flooding or issues with the drains which are unable to cope with the volume of water. With additional flooding just before Christmas again in 2025. In addition there is no mention of the Holy Well as referenced in the NRW document on flooding in Dinas Powys which is not located and could cause extensive issues if disturbed during the building process.

During the consultation / asked what happens when the proposed Swales, Suds and ponds fail. Again no response.

EDUCATION
What evidence is there that the schools in the local area can cope with the demand this housing estate will bring? St Cyres is over subscribed. This will be exacerbated the development of 250 properties at Leckwith. As that development falls on the Vale side of the river St Cyres will be the nearest school for these children to attend.
In the previous plans it was proposed a school would be built on the Eastbrook site. Was that because of the volume of children they expected within the development? If so, now the school has gone. Where do they expect those children to go when schools are oversubscribed?
GP SURGERY
I have written confirmation from the surgery that there has been no consultation with them about the proposed development. It is not good enough to speak to just the health authority. Consultation should take place with the surgery involved. I note from the scrutiny meeting with regard to this development that Councillor Selby had a dispensation to speak as she is a member of the Health Board and also chaired the meeting when discussing this development. Was nobody else available to chair?

HOUSING
The Vale of Glamorgan are holding roughly £1 million pounds of affordable S106 money for Dinas Powys. Dinas Powys has been told that there are no housing developments planned in Dinas Powys and that the Vale wish to move this money to Myrtle Close in Penarth. If this is the case the Eastbrook development should be withdrawn from the RLDP. If this is not the case and it will not be removed then the £1 million pounds should be moved back for the benefit of Dinas Powys residents and the affordable housing it was intended for. The argument that there is a need for affordable housing does not stack up with the removal of S106 money.

There is capacity to remove this development from the RLDP as statistics have shown that the Vale have an additional 700 housed on top of their 8000-target included.
With regard to the article in the Penarth Times about this development the Vale is delusional! We have asked for evidence of their alleged need for housing and none has been provided. It does not meet the needs of the community as the community are objecting. If 250 houses = 100 affordable homes this would mean you would have to build 1250 houses in Dinas Powys to meet your target. This would mean a 25% increase on the total amount of housing that already exists. You say about affordable housing but when it suits you that is not important. Only 10% instead of the 40% which should have been provided in Leckwith is being set aside for affordable housing. The S106 money set aside for affordable housing in Dinas Powys has disappeared. In your 'Housing growth Barry' document you have admitted that the greatest need for housing is Barry, Penarth and Llandough. No mention of Dinas Powys.
It is evidently clear your proposal is not sustainable and the information which has been provided is very questionable.

A Vale of Glamorgan Council spokesman said: "With a need for more than 500 affordable homes locally in Dinas Powys over the next 15 years, this site will make an important contribution to meeting the needs of the community.

"The proposed development is in a sustainable location with strong public transport links and good access to local services, and will also deliver investment in highways improvements, additional school places and community facilities alongside enhancements to open spaces and biodiversity projects.

"The site will also be required to incorporate sustainable drainage systems to manage surface water runoff and reduce the risk of flooding in the area."

Dinas Powys crowded into Eastbrook /RLWP display.

On Friday at Murchfield community centre. Eight Vale planning officers were busy trying to answer, but unable to cope with the numbers of residents.

One thing caught them, that was the sewage treatment works at Cog Moors often discharges untreated sewage. Assurances from Welsh Water cannot be trusted - the RLWP lacks genuine data to show how and the sewage will be taken. A second crucial point that WGovt required in 2023/4 that plans "build with Nature". The Eastbrook site was chosen earlier, in 2023 and has not been reviewed - despite going against Nature in increasing flooding via speeding storm run-off from the hillside meadows which currently soak up rainwater. These basic objections run alongside the remoteness from shops and community facilities and the dreadful traffic and walk/cycle route on the Cardiff Rd.

CONCLUSION
I also wish to bring to the attention that during the meeting held on the 6 January 2026 a number of councillors stated that they had not had enough time to read the 900 pages of dialogue. Bearing in mind that the previous meeting was held on the 18 December and there was the Christmas period this was overlooked/ignored. How is this fair and democratic. How do you expect councillors to make such an important decision when they have not had time to read all the paperwork or have access to all of it if it has not been included.

I also note from the scrutiny meeting with regard to this development that Councillor Selby had a dispensation to speak as she is a member of the Health Board and also chaired the meeting when discussing this development.

This development is ill thought out and ill-conceived and is not a sustainable development. The information seems heavily reliant on the information Persimmon have provided. I don't believe the process has been open and transparent. The lack of information during the consultation process and the speed in which this is going through is a concern. How can people make informed judgements when they are not given all of the facts and those facts are not correct. Documentation has shown that the Vale has said the residents are in support of the development. From the responses the Opposition to the Development group have received along with the petition, objections, and comments on Dinas Powys Chat they show they are very much not in support!

It is my hope the process will be fair, open and transparent and that the examiner will be in a position to consider matters thoroughly and reach their conclusions entirely independently, within good time, without any undue influence and with following further investigations that are necessary.

I object to HG1 KS2 Eastbrook because this development puts residents at risk by blocking emergency vehicles and creating a single choke point and failure that could cost lives.

I object because of the increased congestion. increased flooding likely and impacts on NHS services. I think doctors and schools are already at capacity and over-subscribed.

I worry that it will impact wildlife, reduce our greenbelt by merging communities. Our village identity risks being impacted.

Concerns around increased congestion, increased chances of flooding, doctors and schools are already at capacity and deterioration of the green belt.

Thank you for consulting Natural Resources Wales (NRW) on the Vale of Glamorgan Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) Deposit Plan, which we received on 28 January 2026.
We have reviewed the deposit plan and published documents and have recommendations on matters relating to coherence and consistency. We advise these are addressed prior to submission of the RLDP.
1. Summary
We welcome that the Vale of Glamorgan Council has declared a ‘nature emergency’ and in 2021 committed to a target of no net loss of biodiversity in the Vale of Glamorgan. The deposit plan takes this a step further through its vision, objectives and policies in seeking
the achievement of net biodiversity benefit. We also welcome the recognition within the deposit plan and supporting documents that additional growth within the Vale has the potential to lead to negative effects on nationally and locally designated biodiversity. We
appreciate that the deposit plan’s policies seek to mitigate against these potential adverse effects with detailed wording and requirements.
However, we consider that the deposit plan would benefit from more specific mention of designated conservation sites especially where these are related to specific allocations and their associated policies. We note this issue was raised within the Integrated Sustainability Assessment (ISA) (see Section 2 below) however we do not see this recommendation properly reflected within the deposit plan itself. We consider this is a gap that should be addressed to ensure clarity within the policy requirements for any future planning applications.
General Approach to Designated Sites
In line with our role in development planning and our consultation remit, we advise that where new development may occur within or be likely to affect statutory designated sites including Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Nature Reserves (NNR) and Marine Conservation Zones (MCZ) this could be more clearly identified as a key consideration especially with respect to site allocations (housing and employment). We consider that the issue of avoiding or mitigating potential impacts and utilising opportunities for supporting and enhancing these sites (as noted by para 6.401 of the deposit plan) could have more substantial recognition across the deposit plan and its supporting documents. This would improve the clarity of approach.
We have furthermore noted that Policy SP20 (Biodiversity and Ecosystem Resilience) currently excludes specific mention of designated sites (although it does refer to protected species and habitats) and we suggest that this is addressed – our comments on SP20 are set out in Section 3 of this letter.
By across the plan, we mean there is scope to include mention of relevant statutorily designated sites within the constraints text for the sites listed in Appendix B of document BP44 Infrastructure Delivery Plan (perhaps summarising in line with the approach taken to the Historic Environment Record) and within document BP32A Green Infrastructure Assessment of Key Sites, evidence which can then be reflected as appropriate in Key Sites Policies (HG1 KS1 to KS5) to inform their master planning. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisals already undertaken for Key Sites (Key Site Supporting Information) would appear to hold relevant information in this respect.
We note that document BP32A has a useful general paragraph on biodiversity assets at paras 3.7-3.8 linked to the evidence collated in the Green Infrastructure Assessment (GIA). In short, where designated sites are identified in proximity to allocated sites it would be
helpful to make clear reference to them in a consistent manner. This would bring the deposit plan more fully into alignment with the ISA findings. For any employment sites
within proximity of designated sites, we consider that the employment background paper BP12A could potentially be updated to similar effect.
With reference to omissions on this matter, we refer you to our comments on sites set out in Section 4 of this letter, including sites KS1, HG1 (1), SP14 1. and SP14 4.
Overall, we consider that the recognition of designated sites appears somewhat inconsistent in the deposit plan, although we recognise that much of this is done by the
Green Infrastructure Strategy (GIS) which incorporates the GIA.
It may be that Policy SP20 (please see our suggested amendments in Section 3 of this letter) together with addressing the meaning of “areas of high ecological value” will also go some way towards resolving the points we raise.
Master Planning
We welcome the illustrative master plans included in the deposit plan but would caveat that at the detailed stages schemes must be able to adapt, where necessary, to site
specific environmental constraints (including protected sites, species and habitats), for example in response to updated ecological appraisals or detailed species surveys.
Designs need to be flexible enough to ensure compliance with the stepwise approach (avoid, minimise, mitigate) in achieving Net Biodiversity Benefit (NBB) and improving the resilience of ecosystems as required by Planning Policy Wales, edition 12 (PPW12) and Policy 9 of Future Wales, the National Plan. We note the plan has good reference to this within Policy SP20 and supporting paragraph 6.405, thus enabling thorough consideration
at the project/planning application level and in master planning.
Please see our detailed site-specific comments in Section 4 in order to consider where our comments may lead to adjustments in master plans. For example, the species protection issues we highlight with regard to KS3 at Readers Way, Rhoose.
Strategic Opportunity at Bro Tathan
In addition to the above points, we advise that the Bro Tathan area of the Vale includes a number of different allocations and is already known as an important ecological area for great crested newts (GCN) and dormice, in particular. Given the commitments already
made under previous planning applications at the site and the necessary requirement for future biodiversity provisions, we advise a more strategic overview of the area should be considered and either set out within the deposit plan or secured within an updated GIS.
This will ensure that development in the area:
• does not cause detriment to the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of protected species;
• results in green spaces and infrastructure that is meaningfully spatially connected and sufficient in size.
Overall, we consider piecemeal development of the St Athan area will not lead to effective conservation delivery and will make the planning process less efficient at project level.
Areas of High Ecological Value
As previously noted within our preferred strategy response (Ref: CAS-244275-Q4F4, dated: 14th February 2024), the deposit plan continues to make reference to avoiding
areas of ‘High Ecological Value’ (criterion 1 of SP20). We have not been able to establish where these areas are or how their ecological value is being determined. We consider this issue needs to be clarified and ideally a definition provided.
2. Integrated Sustainability Assessment (ISA)
With regards to Section 9.9 of the ISA, we agree that additional growth in the Vale has the potential to lead to negative effects on nationally and locally designated biodiversity. The ISA concludes that the housing-specific policies set out within the deposit plan work well to
mitigate the potential adverse effects, through design stipulations and policy inclusions.
The ISA then goes on to recommend that Key Site policies are updated, where appropriate, to reference specific designated sites which they are in proximity to, in
order to help establish appropriate protection and/or enhancement measures.
We agree with these recommendations and would go further in advising that all allocations and their associated policies should reference specific designated sites relevant to that site. For instance, we would advise Barry Woodlands SSSI and Walters Farm SSSI is identified in relation to Key Site 1 – Land at North West of Barry, and Barry Woodlands SSSI should also be identified for Housing Allocation HG1 (1) Land to the West of
Pencoedtre Lane. Please refer to our site-specific comments in Section 4 below.

3. Plan and Policy Wording
Strategic Policies
Strategic Policy SP19 – Green Infrastructure
We welcome that the GIS and GIA has informed the master planning of the Key Site allocations (6.395). To ensure this approach is carried forward for other development proposals, we consider there should be a stronger “policy hook” within Policy SP19 to link the content and evidence of the GI work to the policy and its influence on decision-making. Without this we consider there may be a risk of a policy gap/mismatch when determining planning applications.
This could be resolved by a new criterion such as:
“the provision of green infrastructure must have regard to any adopted or emerging guidance including the Green Infrastructure Strategy/Green Infrastructure Assessment
(and the Assets listed therein), and Green Infrastructure (Action) Plan for the Vale.”
To strengthen Policy SP19 we also recommend an addition to the wording of criterion 2 to read:
“Protect and enhance connectivity between existing green infrastructure assets and be planned wherever possible to positively support areas of high ecological value”.
We furthermore note that criterion 3 of SP19 refers to achieving net benefit for biodiversity whilst the policy overall seeks to provide, protect and enhance high quality multi-functional green infrastructure. We have previously commented that multi-functional green spaces may not always be compatible with biodiversity. It should be recognised that multifunctional uses of space can be to the detriment of the natural environment and so must be carefully considered. We recommend that paragraph 6.397 wording is updated to reflect this potential conflict so that NBB required by PPW (and as promoted by para 6.396 together with Policy SP20) is able to be prioritised and not compromised.
This point could also be raised under Policy SP4 Placemaking – at para 6.32. It should not be assumed that multifunctional spaces will also be delivering for nature in every situation and in some cases separate provision of spaces to meet biodiversity goals will be essential.
Paragraph 6.401 is welcomed regarding the opportunities that exist for the protection, maintenance and further enhancement of green infrastructure assets.
Strategic Policy 20 (SP20) – Biodiversity and Ecosystem Resilience
We welcome the inclusion of SP20 which recognises the importance of natural assets and aims to protect these. We have made comments regarding the term “high ecological value” in our Summary section at the start of this letter.
We also note that whilst reference is made to sites and areas of European, national and local importance (para. 6.402), this is not distinctly carried through within SP20 or within a specific detailed policy in the deposit plan. We advise that a more detailed policy for the Natural Environment (similar to DNP4 for the Historic Environment) could be included within the deposit plan and this should include reference to the protection of statutorily designated sites. Alternatively, SP20 itself could be updated to include reference to these in a similar manner to the approach taken to non-statutory designated sites provided by criterion 5 of SP20. We consider this would strengthen the deposit plan’s alignment to
section 6.4.3 of PPW12. This issue is also reflected in our feedback to the ISA as set out in Section 2.
By adding a detailed policy for the wider protection of the natural environment, there is scope to ensure a clearer message within the deposit plan regarding the need for natural resources (including land, air, water and soils) in the Vale to be protected for themselves and the essential ecosystem services they deliver. This is opposed to merely preventing pollution (deposit plan Policy DNP5). Taking such an approach would enable an
opportunity to add the consideration of Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (SMNR) into the plan policy framework rather than confining this to the deposit plan context (para 2.11) and the policy context of the GIS (page 53).
We note that Policy CC4: Renewable, Low and Zero Carbon Energy Generation is more distinct in seeking to safeguard a range of assets (including nature conservation interests and soil conservation interests) and we consider a similar policy approach may be useful
for all development proposals. We also suggest that the placemaking strategic policy (Policy SP4) could be altered in order to highlight the Natural Environment alongside its
current reference to the Historic Environment. We note that placemaking principles (Figure 11 - Identity) includes the need for development to respond to natural physical attributes of the site. This is an issue is linked to our site-specific comments (Section 4 below) where we cite, for example, the need to buffer woodlands, hedgerows and watercourses and preserve linear corridors.
Ensuring an SMNR approach will impact positively on the ground to safeguard and improve ecological networks and protect and enhance ecosystems, essential to meeting
the nature emergency. Topics we draw your attention to include river restoration where, in particular, the removal/remediation of physical modifications can make a significant impact upon water quality. The GIS provides scope to capture various projects and wider initiatives, including those based on catchment scale improvements and we welcome the opportunity to be continually involved in this work. We note and welcome the recognition of
nature-based solutions within Policies SP16, SP19 and SP20 and in detailed Policy CC6.
With regards to natural assets and water resources, we consider that specific reference to water quality is lacking within the strategic and/or detailed policies. Whilst we note that water quality is mentioned within criterion 9 of Policy SP16, we consider the deposit plan should include more direct reference to the Water Framework Directive. We consider there is an opportunity for SP20 to be updated to ensure developments protect water quality and quantity. Alternatively, as mentioned above, this could fit within a detailed policy for the protection of the natural environment.
As a minor point, please note that the South Central Area Statement is not hyphenated (para 2.10 and 2.11). Please note also that, referring to paragraph 6.404 and 6.405, the
requirements for developments to demonstrate NBB is based on PPW12, rather than The Environment (Wales) Act 2016.

Detailed Policies

Infrastructure
Whilst we note that the infrastructure requirements (such as sewerage capacity) have been investigated for certain key sites within the deposit plan, we consider there could be scope for a detailed policy to cover infrastructure requirements for all development.

Policy DNP7
We welcome Policy DNP7 of the deposit plan, which recognises the importance of preserving the natural darkness of the night sky and minimising light pollution, which we consider to be important in limiting adverse impacts upon local biodiversity and ecological
connectivity.

Policy DPN8
Please refer to comments made with regards to this policy under Section 6: Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA).

Policy HG5 - Affordable Housing Exception Sites
We advise that, particularly given these sites are permissible outside of settlements and could be in countryside locations, criterion 6 should be amended to:
“There is no loss of land with significant recreational, amenity, agricultural, ecological or natural heritage value”.

EMP1 – Employment Regeneration Opportunity Areas
We note that the Former Aberthaw Power Station has been identified as an employment regeneration opportunity area. There are otter and water vole records on the site and we are aware of GCN records within the local area. We would advise against the inclusion of
the Aberthaw Nature Reserve within the allocation and advise that any application on the site would need to be supported by up-to-date ecological survey information and
appropriate conservation measures. Given the nature of the site, future applications will also need to be supported by appropriate land contamination investigations.

CC3 – Renewable Energy Local Search Areas
This policy identifies several sites where the potential for wind and solar development are the greatest (known as ‘search areas’). There are significant search areas located between Llantrithyd and St Hilary; no ecological information has been provided for these search areas, however given the records for GCN, water vole and otter local to these areas, it is likely that provision in the form of suitable habitats will need to be made for these species.
This could be substantial in scale, however without further ecological information we cannot advise further at this time. Notwithstanding, given the scale of the search area in this location and the likely ecological impacts, we advise that this area would benefit from spatial planning of biodiversity provision, at a greater than individual site scale.

Paragraph 2.81 – The Vale Nature Recovery Action Plan
We note reference to ‘6 broad habitat types’ including Woodland, Freshwater, Grassland, Coastal, Agriculture and Urban. We suggest this is amended to ‘6 broad ecosystems’ to reflect correct terminology and the State of Natural Resources Report 2025.

4. Strategic Sites
Overview
We previously provided detailed comments on the RLDP’s Strategic Sites, as set out in our response ref: CAS-234819-C1V3, dated 4th October 2023, which we refer you to. We welcome the additional information provided and note the inclusion of Green Infrastructure
Strategies for each of the Key Sites. However, we note that these do not include reference to protected species specifically and as a result we are unable to confirm that the provision for each site is appropriate. We observe that the road infrastructure for many of these sites severs woodlands and other substantial linear corridors. We advise that such sites are designed to minimise fragmentation in the landscape and advise that the road layouts and consequent severance is re-visited.

KS4 and KS5 are located within the vicinity of St Athan. This area is important for (and we are aware of) multiple records of GCN and dormice. Some of the area is already secured as compensation for impacts on these species associated with previous developments. We advise that the wider St Athan area is subject to spatial planning of biodiversity provision at a greater than individual site scale (as we have referenced in the Section 1 of this letter), in order to determine that:
• It does not cause detriment to the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of both GCN and dormice (strategic conservation plans should be established for both species);
• To ensure that green spaces and infrastructure are meaningfully spatially connected and sufficient in size;
We consider piecemeal development of these areas will not lead to effective conservation delivery and will cause the delivery of these sites to be less effective during the planning process.

Spatial Planning of Biodiversity
A masterplan or spatial biodiversity or GI plan should demonstrate the retention, provision and enhancement of essential areas for protected species. It should ensure that individual site-based habitat provisions are not designed in isolation but considered in association with nearby sites to demonstrate how habitat connectivity and resilience will be provided both across the site and to the wider landscape. Note that functional separation of public
open space and areas for biodiversity compensation may be required. Suitable buffers will need to be applied to any woodland and retained or created habitats on site. A sensitive lighting strategy will also likely be required for these sites. This point was raised previously during our review of the strategic candidate sites (ref: CAS-234819-C1V3, dated 4th October 2023).

Updated Surveys and Appropriate Buffer Zones
Further to the above comments, we welcome reference within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan for the requirement for updated ecological surveys and appropriate buffer zones to watercourses and retained habitat features for KS1 and KS2. Given the various ecological
constraints for each key site, we consider this advice should be included for each of the key sites.

Site Specific Comments
KS1 – Land at North West Barry
Protected Species – Dormice and bats are present on site. We advise that the masterplan is informed by surveys to ensure that biodiversity interests are maintained and enhanced. The site may require some areas to be retained an/or provision for habitats to support them. Dark areas and/or bespoke lighting scheme may also be required at project stage.
Protected Sites – The site is located in close proximity to Walters Farm and Barry Woodlands SSSI. As raised in our previous responses (CAS-234819-C1V3, dated: 4th
October 2023 and CAS-276923-N7H6, dated 17th April 2025), we have some concerns with the potential for increased and inappropriate use of the protected sites through recreational activities. We welcome that requirements have been detailed within HG1 KS1
under Green Infrastructure, Recreation Spaces and Biodiversity, which includes reference to emerging guidance for Suitable Alternate Natural Greenspace (SANG).

KS2 – North of Dinas Powys, off Cardiff Road
Protected Species – We note the supporting Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) (13th September 2022) which identifies potential for this site to support GCN, dormouse and bats. In the absence of species specific surveys, we are unable to advise whether the housing number aspirations for the site are realistic. We advise the scheme is designed to minimise severance of ecological corridors.

KS3 – Land at Readers Way
Protected Species – GCN are known to be present on this site (Readers Way Pond). The current masterplan indicates that the pond will be surrounded by built development and therefore built upon much of the terrestrial habitat which supports this pond. It is essential
that the masterplan provides a wide corridor from this pond to the wider countryside, other than via the closely managed grassland at Cardiff Airport. Any masterplan should make provision for this and any loss of habitat should be compensated for.

KS4 – Land at Church Farm
Protected Species - There are records of dormouse and GCN in the wider area. However, the supporting PEA indicates no direct impacts on the latter of the species. There appears to be extensive green space proposed in the illustrative masterplan, which we support.

KS5 – Land to the West of St Athan
Protected Species - The St Athan area is important area for GCN and dormouse. We would generally concur with the lower risk assessed for these species in association with this site. However, this is a substantial site and this and other sites in the St Athan area would benefit from spatial planning of biodiversity provision at a greater scale as reaffirmed elsewhere in this response.

5. Housing And Employment Allocations
Housing Allocations

HG1 (1) Land to the West of Pencoedtre Lane
Protected Sites: The site is within close proximity (200m) to Barry Woodlands Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and there is a risk from increased recreational use as a result of residential development, which could lead to impacts on the SSSI. Green space design must consider any emerging guidance for SANG to reduce recreational pressure on adjacent sites of biodiversity importance.
HG1 (2) Land at the Mole
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination.
Marine: An adjacent watercourse forms a hydrological link to the Severn Estuary European Marine Site (EMS). A HRA at project level will therefore be required.

HG1 (3) Land at Hayes Lane
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination.

HG1 (4) Land at Neptune Road
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination.
Marine: An adjacent watercourse forms a hydrological link to the Severn Estuary EMS. A HRA at project level will therefore be required.

HG1 (5) Land between the Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road (Site C - Central Parcel)
Flood Risk: The site is located partially within Flood Zone 2 and 3 for Rivers, with the southern area of the site located within Flood Zone 3. We refer you to Sections 10.20 and 10.21 of TAN 15, which state that highly vulnerable development in Zone 3 should be avoided. Notwithstanding, we acknowledge that at masterplanning stage, there is scope to locate residential development away from areas of flood risk. We also welcome that
Appendix B of your Infrastructure Delivery Plan notes the requirement for an FCA at project level for this site.
Watercourse: Boverton Brook (Main River) runs through the site and any development will need to ensure no adverse impacts to the watercourse with appropriate buffers and design considerations.

HG1 (6) Land adjoining St Athan Road
Land Contamination: The site is located over a principal aquifer. Any development would need to consider the hydrological setting of the site and vulnerability of pollution.

Rural Affordable Housing Led Sites
HG4 (1) Land to the East of Colwinston
Land Contamination: The site is located over a principal aquifer. Any development would need to consider the hydrological setting of the site and vulnerability of pollution.

Major Employment Allocations
SP14 (1) Land east of Cardiff Airport, Rhoose
Protected Species and Protected Sites: The site is within close proximity (360m) of Barry Woodlands SSSI and there also appears to be significant potential for the site to support dormouse, GCN, otter and water vole. There are large areas of semi-natural habitats associated with this site including woodland, mature hedgerow and watercourses. These should be retained and significantly buffered from development. Connectivity between the
site and the wider environment should also be maintained. It is therefore currently not possible to advise whether the full aspirations of the site could be fulfilled.
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination.

SP14 (2) Land south of Port Road (Model Farm), Rhoose
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination.

SP14 (3) Bro Tathan Aerospace and Business Park
Protected Species: The site is located within an important area for GCN and dormice. As mentioned, this area would benefit from spatial planning of biodiversity provision at a
greater scale to better inform allocation.
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination.

SP14 (4) Land to the South of Junction 34 of the M4, Hensol
Protected Sites: The site is located directly adjacent to Ely Valley SSSI. Given the biodiversity interest at the site, previous applications at the site include planning
commitments to conserve and enhance grasslands habitats on the site. These commitments have not yet materialised and the requirement for these provisions should be noted within the LDP.
Flood Risk: The site is located partially within Flood Zone 3 for Sea. We advise that an FCA will be required at project level to determine any flood risk implications at the site.

Local Employment Allocations
SP14 (5) Atlantic Trading Estate, Barry
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination. The site is located over a principal aquifer. Any development would need to consider the hydrological setting of the site and vulnerability of pollution.
Marine: An adjacent watercourse forms a hydrological link to the Severn Estuary EMS. A HRA at project level will therefore be required.

SP14 (6) Windmill Park, Hayes Road, Barry
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination. The site is located over a principal aquifer. Any development would need to consider the hydrological setting of the site and vulnerability of pollution.
Flood Risk: The site is located partially within Flood Zone 3 for Sea. We advise that an FCA will be required at project level to determine any flood risk implications at the site.
Marine: An adjacent watercourse forms a hydrological link to the Severn Estuary EMS. A HRA at project level will therefore be required.

SP14 (7) Vale Business Park, Llandow
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination.

SP14 (8) Land at Llandow Trading Estate
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination.

6. Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)
Marine and Coastal Physical Processes
Coastal Squeeze
We note that coastal squeeze has been screened in and taken through to Appropriate Assessment where a conclusion of no adverse effect was reached. The justification for this is that it “is unlikely that the Vale of Glamorgan RLDP will allocate many developments on
greenfield sites adjoining the estuary”.
We also note that Policy CC6 specifically relates to Coastal Defences and Shoreline Management, with reference to the Shoreline Management Plans. We recommend the use of NRW’s Assessment of Coastal Squeeze at the project level for anyone proposing to
undertake works to coastal structures.

Loss of Functionally Linked Habitat
As part of the Preferred Strategy consultation, we advised that consideration was given to potential impacts on migratory fish features of the Severn Estuary EMS. In particular, we referenced the River Ely and its tributaries providing supporting habitat for essential life cycle processes of some or all the diadromous fish species.
Within the deposit plan HRA, it is noted that likely significant effects to the migratory fish features of the Severn Estuary EMS has been ruled out, as none of the sites allocated in the RLDP lie in close proximity to the River Ely and connected watercourses. We therefore
agree with this conclusion.
In relation to bird features, Table 8 of the Appropriate Assessment identifies many key sites and allocations with high to medium potential for functional linkage to the Severn Estuary EMS. We note that loss of functionally linked habitat has been screened in and taken through to Appropriate Assessment where a conclusion of no adverse effect was reached. The justification for this is the inclusion of ‘Policy DNP8 – Severn Estuary Recreational
Pressure’ within the deposit plan.

Policy DNP8
We advise that clarification is needed in relation to this policy, as while we welcome the supporting text regarding functionally linked land outlined in paragraph 6.76 of the HRA, the policy is mainly focused on recreational pressure and is titled as such. We also note a discrepancy between the policy wording in paragraph 6.76 and Policy DNP8 in the deposit plan itself.

Visual and Noise Disturbance (During Construction)
Within the deposit plan HRA, visual and noise disturbance has been screened in and taken through to Appropriate Assessment where a conclusion of no adverse effect was reached. The justification for this is through the inclusion of recommendations outlined in 6.83 of the HRA to the supporting text of Policy SP20, which we welcome.
We also welcome the recommendation in relation to potential functionally linked land as outlined in paragraph 6.84 of the HRA.

Recreational Pressure
Within the deposit plan HRA, recreational pressure has been screened in and taken through to Appropriate Assessment where a conclusion of no adverse effect was reached. Again, the justification for this is the inclusion of ‘Policy DNP8 – Severn Estuary Recreational Pressure’ within the deposit plan, which as above, we advise needs
clarification.
We note that no visitor data has been collected from access points within the Vale of Glamorgan, but we welcome reference to the visitor surveys undertaken by
Monmouthshire and Torfaen, as well as the 2022 visitor survey commissioned by Stroud District Council.
We note that paragraph 6.25 of the HRA states that “three Key Sites and several other housing allocations lie within the 12.6km core recreational catchment that has been
deemed most appropriate for the Severn Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar”. However, we also note that Table 6 in the HRA only includes two Key Sites requiring mitigation, with KS3 being omitted. We advise that clarification is needed at the project level as to whether developments are situated within the 12.6km catchment area.

7. Strategic Flood Consequence Assessment (SFCA)
We have reviewed the submitted SFCA and agree with the scope of the assessment made.
We note there is currently an upper catchment Natural Flood Management (NFM) / Nature Based Solutions (NbS) project on the Cadoxton to reduce flood risk to Dinas Powys, Any updated SCFA should have regard to NFM schemes being progressed in their area and
proposals should be clearly outlined in the Development Plan (in accordance with TAN 15 2025).

8. Green Infrastructure Strategy (GIS)
We understand that the published GIS has not been updated to reflect the latest stage of the deposit plan and refers only to the preferred strategy stage (para 2.2.3). We previously provided advice on the Green Infrastructure Assessment (GIA) (re: CAS-252087-F0H1, dated 14th May 2024) which is included within the GIS. We refer you to these comments, noting that the GIS will be kept under continual review (para 1.2.5).

The proposed new site development in Dinas Powys will greatly increase the amount of traffic in the area. The Cardiff Road is already gridlocked for most of the day-emergency services has difficulty getting through. It will also have a huge impact on schools, doctors, dentists. Schools are already overcrowded and GPs and dentists do not have the capacity to take on extra patients. There is no disabled access at Eastbrook train station, not allowing for wheelchair users both sides of the tracks. Dinas Powys already has great problems with flooding. The proposed new site is already a flood risk building on this land will only make this worse. Where will the water go? I have lived in Dinas Powys since childhood, the main reason for this is because it is a lovely village with a close community. The development of the housing estates will take away the village feel to Dinas Powys. We will end up with one big housing estate from Barry to Llandough. This is not what the residents of Dinas Powys signed up for. The residents of Dinas Powys enjoy the green areas for walking-improving physical/mental health.

As a resident of Dinas Powys, living on Murch Crescent within 1km of the proposed site, I strongly object to this development. The village lacks the infrastructure to support 250 houses. The scheme relies on an already congested road network that has operated at or beyond capacity for years. The level of traffic on Cardiff Road directly impacts my commute, and at certain hours of the day, already struggles to operate. Local schools, and NHS services are overstretched. Parking at Eastbrook station is routinely full. The bus services in the area are not fit for purpose. Development here would increase flood risk, potentially affecting nearby properties and cause unacceptable ecological harm. It would erode Green Belt land and fundamentally alter the character and identity of the village, including negatively upon Welsh Language and culture.

Just before work started on the development of Barry Docks I was at the meeting of Soroptimist International Barry & District. We had invited a Speaker to inform us of the development. His opening "light hearted" remark, mistakenly thinking everyone present was from Barry, was - "Everyone from Dinas Powys should sell up now". He was of course referring to the traffic. As Chaucer said "many a true word is spoken in jest". I was devastated by that remark, my only consolation was that it was 'brown land'. You are STILL building in that area. Anyone wishing to visit Cardiff City, Cardiff Bay, Cardiff Football Ground and Llandough Hospital has to pass through the bottle neck which is our village. We have already had one large Development at Scholars Park but at least that was built on the foot print of the former school and not on green space. As one member of the electorate informed me "God can't create anymore green fields". I can't believe you would allow Westminster to dictate to you and allow greedy developers to build on GREEN WEDGE LAND. I make this statement as I'm reliably informed that Wales has already filled its quota for new houses dictated by this Labour Government, which even avid Labour supporters are telling me is the worst Government ever.

It is even more worrying that you could even think of putting ANOTHER set of traffic lights to allow access and egress to the proposed development causing even more chaos on Cardiff Road. Also where will be the secondary access for emergency services which I'm informed is a requirement and mysteriously didn't appear on the plan we were shown?

We are assured a Survey has been done and there is no pollution. Have any of you Councillors, who we put in power trusting that you would make our lives better, walked from Eastbrook along Cardiff Road to Dinas Infants School and smelt the fumes or felt the heat coming off the cars, especially when our children and grandchildren are 'actively travelling' to and from schools on a narrow road gridlocked with traffic at the height of rush hour.

Much is talked about "anxiety" in this day and age. Do any of you Councillors consider the anxiety of those residents of Dinas Powys who were flooded in 2020? Did you not see Cardiff Road flooded last year? Flood prevention measures were not included in the plans we were shown at the Public Consultation Meeting on 6th February I was assured by your Planning Officer that we would have another opportunity to object when the "Final Plan" is submitted but nowhere could I see this in the Timeline. After much research I now find the only chance we will have to object is to request to speak at the Planning Meeting when the Plan is debated. At the moment no one will tell me the date of this meeting, just not before October/November or how many people will be permitted to speak for a maximum 3 minutes each. Will you sneak it through before the August Recess like you did the Extraordinary Meeting on 6 January when Councillors were given a 1,000 page report to read over Christmas and the New Year?

I have also found out that the Independent Examination will be carried out by PEDW. The Chief Planning Inspector of which, who was appointed by the Welsh Government is married the Head of Sustainable Development, who advised the Councillors at above meeting when the RDLP was APPROVED. I fail to see how either of these Officers or their respective departments can be impartial.

The population of Dinas Powys is twice that of Cowbridge, we don't have the facilities of a town. We don't have a Bypass. We don't even qualify for a road sweeper like the towns in the Vale (one of my neighbours takes a black bag and litter picker when he walks his grandchildren to and from school) yet you still think you can dump more misery on us. We can't get a Doctor's appointment when health issues necessitate it, our senior schools are over subscribed, Cardiff Road is gridlock and can't cope with residential and passing traffic now. How in the name of sanity do you think our village can cope with another 250 houses, possibly another 500 cars and 750 - 1,000 people? And it makes you wonder - is this just the start? How long before all the green fields between Eastbrook, Llandough and Pen-y-turnpike will be covered in housing?

As I delivered leaflets to the residents of Dinas Powys I was disheartened and appalled at some of the comments I received: "You're wasting your time - it's a done deal." "The Councillors/Officers have already received their backhanders off Persimmon" "The Vale Council is hand in glove with Persimmon" "We tried to stop Scholars Park but the Council don't listen to the residents, they just want the money"

Many of these views are also shared on Dinas Powys Chat Facebook page - it might be worth you taking a look if you have any ambition of standing for public office again.

We fought this development two years ago and when it didn't go ahead we were so relieved and believed that our Councillors had listened to reason and the wish of the Electorate - how naive were we.

For once do the right thing and change the perception the electorate I met has of the Vale of Glamorgan Council. Prove them wrong - vote against the RDLP. Any Councillor who votes for this development is once again letting down the residents of the Vale of Glamorgan, Dinas Powys and particularly Eastbrook. Prove to the electorate that you are a democratic Council working on behalf of the people who voted for you.

PS I can assure you that you would have had a lot more objections if your online portal was more user friendly. Many of our elderly residents, which is a large proportion of our population, did not have the means or ability to access it, let along navigate it or even print out the Forms. Am I being cynical or could this be deliberate?

When my wife and I bought our current house (20 Highfield Close) we expressed concern about the volume of traffic on Cardiff Road even them. At the time my wife worked for Penarth Town Council who's Chief Surveyor assured us that a Bypass would be built. That was more than 50 years ago. That hope was finally dashed when Mark Drakeford of the Labour controlled Senedd decreed that no new roads would be built in Wales. Over the years the traffic has increased exponentially. There have been huge development in Barry causing serious gridlock in our village throughout the day. How in the name of sanity can this proposal be entertained. An extra set of traffic light would cause even more traffic jams.
To get a doctor's appointment my wife and I have to start ringing on the dot of 8.00 a.m. on separate phones and even then there is no guarantee we will get an appointment that day, no matter how critical our situation [we are both in our eighties] Again, in the name of sanity, how will the Surgery cope with another 750 - 1,000 patients.
We are being assured the proposed development does not present a flood risk. Tell that to the residents who were flooded in 2020. Have any of you Councillors walked those fields between January and March? The water has to go somewhere.
If you look on Dinas Powys chat, and I respectfully suggest you do, you will see the proposed plan, if implemented, will be against the will of the Electorate who put you in power and would the final nail in the coffin for Dinas Powys existing as a village. If voted for it would probably put a stop to any future political ambitions you may harbour.

1) Already Flooding issues.
2) Congestion too much traffic for the road to cope with already.
3) Doctors surgery already oversubscribed too.
4) No evidence that we can be made flood proof.
5) Cadoxton River cannot cope with flooding already and no plans for improvement.

No infrastructure planned for extra traffic. Schools, doctors and pedestrians will increase the stress on all residents living in Dinas Powys. Flood risk will increase due to no natural drainage with the houses putting more water in an struggling river system.

This has not been properly considered. This will cause both short and long term problems in the community. There is already inadequate/services to handle the current population. Additional housing will only add stress to the struggling area.

I am very concerned about all the traffic, that Cardiff Road is so congested all the time. It's such a busy road, we don't need another 250 houses in Dinas Powys. Schools are full, Doctors are full. 250 houses about 500 extra cars all coming out of that main road. Are all you councillors mad, use your common sense please. So please no to the houses you think is alright to build.

I love the fields since I was a baby. I like to walk our dog and count butterfly's. Please do not build the houses on them. I hate the traffic smells. I love the birds and bats around, foxes are cute.

I am writing to object to the proposed allocation of HG1 KS2 Eastbrook in the RLDP. My concerns are based on the impact this development would have on transport, commuting, and daily travel through the area.
As someone who commutes from Dinas Powys, I already experience congestion around Eastbrook, especially at school times and near the station. Getting out onto the main road is a nightmare. The roads are narrow, more often backed up, and difficult to navigate safely. Adding a large number of new homes would increase traffic on routes that are already struggling to cope. Schools and health facilities are full. This is not the right place for development- it would cost a fortune and would be far too risky. It can never be safe.
Eastbrook Station is also not accessible for many people due to the steep steps. Encouraging residents to use the train is unrealistic when the station cannot be safely accessed by those with mobility issues, parents with prams, or anyone carrying heavy bags. More commuters would simply mean more cars on the road.
The fields next to the station also become heavily waterlogged after rain. This causes standing water on nearby roads, which slows traffic, reduces visibility, and makes conditions unsafe for drivers and pedestrians. More hard surfaces from a new development would push even more water onto the roads, making commuting conditions worse. I walk my dog in those fields daily, the water is unbelievable. It's a floodplain and the only one in the vicinity - where will the water go into the village and traumatise those residents again.
For these reasons, and many, many more! There are NO advantages for the people of this village I do not believe HG1 KS2 Eastbrook is a suitable site for development, and I ask that it is removed from the RLDP.

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.

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.

Increased Congestion - Cardiff road and Pen-y-turnpike are already oversubscribed. There have been no upgrades to these to ease current congestion and they are not suitable for road widening. The additional houses could potentially add 300-500 extra cars which, in turn will add more pollution and therefore more pressure on the NHS due to lung conditions such as asthma, particular for children at the school on the lights.
The active travel plan is essentially moot, with no legal access for the proposed site that doesn't include using private property not included in the development. Additionally, there is no facilities at Eastbrook station for non able-bodied people or prams etc. The schools are already at capacity, (we have checked) so any new residents may have to take their children by car to school outside the vicinity, so wouldn't be using Eastbrook station.
It's wrong of the plan to show a definite "secondary access" at my address. It's misleading of the documents to show this when highways require Persimmon to carry out further study, yet there transport documents supply none, not even a drawing as supplied for the primary access.
Access from the parking on the left (8 Wayside cottages) would become infeasible so close to a future junction. The wall and trees on the right (9 Wayside cottages) would have to be removed for road widening, while the Eastbrook flows into a pipe culvert under the wall and roadway at that point. Widening the access track over the Brook has technical problems that Persimmon has not addressed.
Flooding of adjacent homes has occurred because of blockage due to debris carried down the Brook and caught at the 90* corers in a narrow (deep) channel. Currently the channel and pipe entrance are visible and accessible so can be cleared. Roadway on top would prevent this. Permission could inset a grill to hold back debris, however, this is not proposed. If they were to do this, Persimmon should take responsibility for regular inspection and maintenance and particularly at any time of rainstorms. I do not trust that they would do this, therefore who would then be responsible for any flooding of my, and my neighbors property? Will the Vale buy our properties as RCT council did in Ynsybwl (Clydach Terrace)?
The storm drain overflow at 9 Wayside cottages that feeds into the Brook has seen a large increase in waterflow since the expansion of Llandough hospital. Therefore, the proposed development will only add to an already overwhelmed drainage system and more water being diverted into the Brook, thereby potentially causing flooding at this point and further down Cardiff Road.
It is also my understanding that if the boundary falls within 10 meters of the bank top of a watercourse, then Persimmon will require a River condition assessment to inform the biodiversity net gain in order to comply with BNG user guidance.
Checks have been made and all the doctors are at capacity, and there has been no on-going consultation with GP services. How will this be addressed? Will a new medical centre be built as part of this development?
I am very aware that Persimmon have had an ecological study done. Where are the results of this? Having spoken to the ecologist who carried out the study, it was very obvious that he was concerned about the "wonderful" meadowland and the old oaks on the site. Permission have a history of cutting such trees regardless and paying the fines. This is well documented on various news and social media sites. Currently I have evidence of bats, various raptors and many birds, foxes etc who call the site home. What is proposed to re-home them?
There are brownfield sites available within the Vale of Glamorgan far more suitable for development. Why are these not being considered? It also appears that JBA consulting suppressed Dinas Powys flooding in the RLDP documents. There SFCA has to record details of historical flooding events yet omitted the flooding of around 100 homes in Dinas Powys in December 2020. The same company wrote its section 19 legal report in 2021. Their SFCA just mentions the flooding measures dealt with the problem yet their 2021 report recommends that NRW access the viability of options to manage flood risk across Dinas Powys, for DCWW to access the viability of offline storage for the Caer odyn surface water system. It's surprising therefore, to find their map on the last page of the SFCA proposes woodland planting to hold back rainstorm run off on part of the proposed site for development by Persimmon.
The Senedd has recently approved groundbreaking new environmental legislation aimed at helping Wales make significant progress in addressing the nature and climate crisis. A new independent watchdog has been created. Will you be consulting this watchdog to ensure compliance with the Senedd's objectives? Deputy first minister with responsibilities for climate change, Huw Irronica-Davies said, "This is a landmark moment for nature in Wales. By passing this bill, we have sent a clear message that protecting our natural environment is a national priority." He further said "As winter has shown, climate change is driving more extreme weather events putting pressure on environment and biodiversity." Therefore, in line with persimmon's own ecology report, this proposed development is in direct opposition to this bill.
In summary, I believe the Vale of Glamorgan council needs to confer with, and report on how these matters are going to be addressed with regard to:
Contacting schools and GP practices in Dinas Powys to ascertain capacity.
Engage, as is required, with highways regarding road capacity etc.
Engage with Welsh Water to establish drainage capacity. Question persimmon regarding access sites for the development.
Ensure Eastbrook station is adequately accessible to all. Ensure proper and effective flood management going forward for ever increasing rainfall etc.
Look at why brownfield sites aren't being considered instead.
Check the SFCA report proposing woodland planting to hold back rainstorm run-offs.
Conduct yourselves in line with Senedd guidance with regard to nature and climate guidance.

Dinas Powys is a village which will lose it's identity if this development goes ahead. The greenbelt will be harmed opening up a large area around a new estate in an area that is little visited. Flood risk with run off increasing into the Eastbrook river - which floods often. Traffic will increase at the Cardiff side of Dinas Powys preventing people from Barry getting to Cardiff. Fumes at the Dinas Powys infant school (and traffic junction) will increase due to traffic jams - impacting on the health of our children. Schools, transport (by train + bus) and health services are poor already. The new estate will make this worse. What advantages will Dinas Powys get - if this scheme goes ahead?