The size of the development is completely overwhelming for the surrounding environment. The only viable access to the site will be from the main road. The road through St Athan village would not be able to accommodate the increase in vehicular traffic.
532 dwellings would accommodate approx 1,300 more residents.
Together with the proposed Land West of St Athan development of 600 dwellings, would make a total increase to St Athan's population of approx 3000 residents.
St Athan's current population of just over 4000 would make this an increase of 75% of the population.

MD4 of the old LDP and SP13 of the proposed new RLDP state the requirement of ensuring community infrastructure is not significantly compromised by new developments and ensures provision, improvement and long term maintenance of education and healthcare facilities.
Currently residents of St Athan have to regularly travel outside of St Athan to access healthcare from GPs due lack of access within the village. The proposals make no mention of improving the current resources for access to healthcare within the RLDP, and a further 3000 residents would severely impact current and future residents.
From the gov.uk website, 1000 homes typically includes 250 primary school age children and 130 secondary school age children.
There is mention of improving, developing and expanding St Athan primary school, but no mention of any further resources for Llantwit Major Comprehensive. Children from St Athan have little option for secondary education, as public transport to Cowbridge is not possible due to the nature of the rural lanes not being accessible for buses.
Along with proposed developments outlined in the RLDP for the surrounding areas, all of which are within the catchment of Llantwit Major Comprehensive, there would need to be additional development of this school in order to meet the increased needs.
"The delivery of new or improved infrastructure must be undertaken in a timely and coordinated manner to meet the needs of existing and planned communities prior to, or from the commencement of, the relevant phases of development."
This quote is taken from the proposed RLDP.
There would be a great demand for additional resources from the local council to both health care and education provision in St Athan in order to meet the requirements and mandate of the LDP, prior to any development being undertaken.

Section SSC1 of the RLDP discusses the size of the proposal to ensure the scale is appropriate and compatible with the layout, density and appearance of the existing settlement. A population increase of 75% would not be deemed appropriate or compatible with the current settlement of St Athan in terms of amenity or character of a rural village.
PGD2 Residential Development Densities
6.53 "In line with PPW, and Future Wales[7], Policy PGD2 supports the residential development at higher densities particularly where these proposals are located within urban centres and near major public transport nodes or interchanges and where these can assist in supporting local services and facilities. In such locations proposals that deliver residential densities of 50 dwellings per hectare and above will be encouraged where this would not lead to an adverse impact on the character of the area nor would undermine the wider placemaking and well-being objectives of the plan."
"Higher net densities will be supported where the development is in a location served by regular public transport and Active Travel routes, or near to services and facilities."
St Athan could not be regarded as having either regular public transport, an Active Travel route, nor has it services or facilities that could accommodate a population of over 7,000 residents.
In order to provide the services and facilities, the infrastructure would need to be in place that would change St Athan from a rural village to a town, changing the very nature of the existing settlement, in conflict with SSC1.

Settlement boundaries appear to be more mobile than in previous years with the definitions being altered and boundaries expanded.
6.25 "Settlement boundaries define the areas within which the principle of development would normally be acceptable, encouraging the efficient use and redevelopment of land and buildings and preventing the spread of new development in the open countryside."
6.26 "Settlement boundaries defined the extent of build development where development would normally be allowed, and areas of the countryside and areas of more sporadic buildings, which are considered less suitable for new development, and where a more restrictive approach will be applied. For the purposes of the plan, areas outside of the defined boundaries that are not allocated or protected for specific uses are defined as ‘countryside’, where a more restrictive approach will be applied".
Both Church Farm development and Land West of St Athan fall into the parameters of sites less suitable for new development by being areas of farmland and countryside.

Upgrade the road FIRST before any new houses are built.

Existing road from St Athan/Rhoose to Barry is ALREADY over capacity.

I would echo the exiting concerns regarding placement of the retail unit on the site, coupled with the access issues for an articulated lorry and the extra traffic that will arise. I am somewhat reassured regarding the planned widening of Gilston Road and the new cross roads by the cenotaph. I would also note the concerns regarding necessary infrastructure growth for car parking for additional visitors for the retail, doctors and public transport.

I would echo the concerns regarding the following:
Increased traffic flow in the village to visit the new retail unit.
Access to the retail unit along Gilston Road currently seems inappropriate given the width of that street, current resident parking and inevitable increases in traffic, both private and commercial.
Concerns about the levels of off road parking in the village centre and the extra traffic the new centre will attract.
Pleased to note that there are plans to widen the Gilston Road - this would seem the only way to facilitate some sort of sensible flow - but I am concerned about the impacts on the environment with hedge loss.
I would echo the concerns of the local council and suggest that a roundabout rather then traffic lights by the war memorial would be prudent to enhance traffic flow.
Also impacts to infrastructure such as doctors, public transport and emergency services.

Access to this site is shown as Gileston Rd. We think that all access should be off a roundabout on B4265. Gileston rd is often blocked at peak times buy being difficult to turn right or cross this junction. Please move war memorial and put a roundabout on junction. Gilstone rd to north by junction of Glyndwr is a bottle neck as narrowed to single lane by parked vehicles, which will also become a problem as traffic increases.

Utilise Traditional Architecture Design Codes for all new construction with a ban on demolition of all buildings constructed prior to 1950. See my PDF Umbrella Representation for additional Placemaking/ Planning and Greenery Proposals.

To whom it may concern. I am writing to object about the Church Farm development. We have a big problem pulling out of Glyndws Avenue onto Gileston road without all the extra traffic that the propose will also come onto Gileston Road. It will also make the monument juction even more dangeous than it all ready is.

I am writing to protest at the building of houses and especially the proposed supermarket in St Athan. I feel that the village is big enough as it is and does not have the facilities for the extra people that you want to live here. Where you propose to put the supermarket is in a dangerous place, the access especially would make it a danger to children who access the primary school, for the people living on Gileston road. In order to have the extra houses and people you would need to extend the school to accommodate the extra children, need more doctor's surgeries, communities hub etc ..... putting a supermarket in the proposed site is not acceptable. We already have a supermarket here ( Co-Op) and a local shop (Londis). Building on green land is also not acceptable. There is plenty of empty space at Picketson area that could be used and the homes between Elgwis Brewis, Pichetson, west camp and church meadow would benefit more than putting new property in the village.

Planners
I do not think it is a good idea to put the church Farm development entrance onto Gileston Road as the traffic will be very busy and cause more accidents at the Monument and I can't see why the entrance can't be down by the petrol/ station.

I am writing to raise my concerns about Church Farm St Athan Development. The Planned access point for the development is deeply concerning as it will create ongoing disruption For both existing residents and Future
occupants of the estate. Please consider putting the entrance by the Four cross petrol Station

Planned development church farm needs to have exits and entry points kept outside of the St Athan this junction is dangerous enough without putting more cars into the equation

St Athan can't cope with it present population so with the proposed additions this struggling village will get no more than over crowded the roads etc to enter and exit St Athan are all ready James up during peak period

There is only one change
Plans should include new school !

No2 healthy environment the houses will increase traffic in St ATHAN by a minimum of 1000 vehicles, leaving and entering every peak period how will this promote heath cars will be backed up at all junctions try to exit St Athan these cars will also be causing chaos out side an already scene of of chaos every day when dropping and collecting school kids already blocks up roads

Reconsider the proposed entrance location

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed estate entrance at Church Farm and strongly object to the new layout of the proposed entrance for the hybrid Barratt/David Wilson retail outlet and resident housing for the 500 plus dwellings with the main hybrid access positioned on Gileston Road.

I believe that the proposed entrance layout is inappropriate for this location and is contrary to the principles set out in the well being of future generations(Wales) Act particularly with regard to sustainable infrastructure, road safety with the local school and community dwellings.

-IMPACT THE PROPOSED CURRENT ENTRANCE WILL HAVE ON THE VILLAGE

1-Traffic Congestion/Volume

Gileston Roadis the main access route into St Athan and already experiences significant traffic issues. There have been numerous accidents at the top of the road due to its existing layout. Vehicle speeds frequently exceed the 20mph limit, with cars travelling at excessive speeds both into and out of the village in this built-up area.

Traffic volumes are already high, and it can take up to 5 minutes to safely exit residential driveways. Vehicles approaching from the village create a significant blind spot for residents particularly affecting those who live on Gileston Road.

The proposed entrance would introduce a substantial increase in traffic, which the current road infrastructure is wholly incapable of supporting even with suggested plans of widening the road this will not solve the current issue. This would significantly worsen congestion and pose serious safety risks not only to residents of Gileston Road but also to the wider village road network


2- Noise disturbance

This area is currently a very quiet residential location. The scale of the proposed development would result in severe noise pollution, fundamentally altering the character of the neighbourhood and destroying the amenity of existing and surrounding homes in the village. Is there a need for the volume of houses proposed?

It is also understood that there is a further proposal for approximately 600 additional dwellings at the rear of the village. When considered cumulatively, the impact of both developments would be overwhelming and would dramatically intensify what is already becoming an unsustainable situation for residents.

3- Parking issues

Parking is already a significant issue with the village. While parking provision may meet minimum standards for new dwellings, experience shows that households frequently own more vehicles than allocate spaces.

This will inevitably lead to overall parking on surrounding roads, creating additional congestion, obstruction, and safety concerns for existing residents.

The below is another matter.

INFRASTRUCTURE, SERVIECS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR THOUGHT

Whilst I support the principle of providing housing for future generations, this scale of development is not supported by adequate infrastructure. The proposal conflicts with both National and Welsh Future Generations policies due to insufficient healthcare provisions transport infrastructure and community services.

Local GP surgeries are already overstretched, with residents struggling to secure appointments within a two-month period. Public transport provision remains inadequate, the promised train station at St Athan has not materialised and bus service are infrequent and often cancelled leaving residents stranded.

Furthermore, the introduction of a large retail outlet on this site will not resolve infrastructure shortcoming and will likely harm local businesses by diverting trade away from the village centre. The increased footfall from outside this area that the retail outlet will attract will further exacerbate traffic congestion. Could this not perhaps, be a consideration to incorporate smaller shops & businesses to thrive within the growing community.

ALTERNATIVE ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS

I respectfully urge the planning authority to please reconsider the proposed entrance location.While I understand that access from a roundabout cannot be positioned near the monument, it would be far safer and more appropriate to locate the entrance further along the B road at the top, where traffic flows more freely and visibility is improved. The current proposal presents an unacceptable highway hazard especially with the blind spot on Gileston Road, where the cars speed around the bend towards the junction at the top which has caused the aforementioned previous accidents.

Many residents have already attended meetings to discuss this matter, and a petition is under way in support and there is widespread agreement within the community regarding the concerns outlined above, particularly to the proposed entrance road. Residents are willing to engage constructively and work together to a compromise, however the proposed entrance as currently designed would cause significant disruption and lasting harm to the small and quiet village.

Re: Pre-Application Consultation — Land at Church Farm, St Athan

I write in my capacity as County Councillor to provide formal comments on the emerging proposals for the residential-led development at Land at Church Farm, St Athan.

I recognise that this site forms part of the Local Development Plan strategy for delivering housing growth, including affordable homes, and I support the principle of well-planned, sustainable development where it is genuinely infrastructure-led and reflects the needs and character of the existing community. However, I must emphasise that significant concerns have been raised locally regarding several aspects of the current proposals, and it is essential that these matters are addressed comprehensively prior to any planning application being submitted.

1. Housing Density and Layout

Given the scale of development anticipated, housing density and overall layout require careful reconsideration to ensure compatibility with the established character of St Athan.
While efficient land use is recognised, development that appears overly dense or urban in form risks undermining local distinctiveness and placing additional pressure on already stretched infrastructure. The masterplanning approach should clearly demonstrate:

• How proposed density levels respond to local context rather than purely numerical targets.
• High-quality placemaking principles that prioritise green infrastructure, open space, and liveability.
• Integration with existing neighbourhoods to avoid creating a disconnected or overly intensive development form.

2. Traffic Impact, Site Access, and Gileston Road

Traffic and highway impacts represent one of the most significant areas of concern among local residents, and I wish to stress that these concerns are both widespread and strongly held within the community.
In particular, there has been substantial local concern regarding the proposed site entrance arrangements. Residents have questioned whether the current approach adequately considers safety, visibility, traffic flow, and cumulative impacts when viewed alongside other planned growth within St Athan.

Furthermore, Gileston Road already experiences notable congestion and operational pressures. There is serious concern regarding the potential impact of both construction traffic and future residential traffic on this route. Any proposals must therefore include:

• A robust and transparent assessment of cumulative traffic impacts.
• Detailed modelling demonstrating that the proposed access arrangements are safe and appropriate.
• A comprehensive Construction Traffic Management Plan that minimises disruption, protects residential amenity, and avoids unacceptable impacts on Gileston Road.
• Clear mitigation measures to improve safety, reduce congestion, and promote active travel alternatives.

It is essential that highway considerations are addressed proactively rather than as a reactive mitigation exercise.

3. Scale and Type of Retail Provision

I strongly encourage the provision of small-scale, locally focused retail and community-serving commercial units rather than large-format retail development.
The priority should be to:

• Support a walkable neighbourhood.
• Encourage independent local businesses and flexible community uses.
• Avoid retail formats that could generate excessive traffic or undermine existing local centres.

Retail provision should enhance local resilience and community cohesion rather than introduce unnecessary commercial scale.

4. Safe Access to St Athan Primary School

Safe and convenient access to St Athan Primary School is a critical issue, particularly given existing congestion and safety concerns during peak school periods.
The development must incorporate:

• Direct road connection including, high-quality pedestrian and cycle links to the school.
• Traffic calming and road safety measures designed into the masterplan from the outset.
• Consideration of school capacity impacts and appropriate developer contributions.

Safe routes to school should be fundamental to the design strategy and not treated as secondary mitigation.

5. Infrastructure-Led Approach

More broadly, it is essential that this development proceeds on an infrastructure-led basis. Local residents are understandably concerned that housing delivery may outpace necessary supporting infrastructure.
The proposals should therefore demonstrate clear alignment with:

• Transport infrastructure and active travel connectivity.
• Community facilities and local services.
• Green infrastructure and biodiversity enhancements.
• Measures that genuinely support sustainable living rather than increasing reliance on private vehicles.

Conclusion

I remain supportive in principle of sustainable growth within St Athan where it delivers genuine benefits for both existing and future residents. However, it is clear that housing density, traffic impacts — particularly regarding the proposed site entrance and the implications for Gileston Road — the scale of retail provision, and safe access to the primary school are matters of significant local concern.
I strongly encourage the development team to engage further with the community and address these issues in a meaningful and demonstrable way prior to submission of any planning application.

Further to my earlier comments on the Church Farm proposal, I would like to add a few additional points after reviewing the layout and the supporting RLDP material.
Hedgerows and landscape
The drawings show that existing hedgerows are to be retained. However, many appear to sit directly behind rear garden fences. From what I have read in the RLDP about green infrastructure and protecting landscape features, these hedgerows are meant to form part of the site’s overall landscape structure, not simply act as garden boundaries.
I would therefore ask that proper space is left between gardens and the retained hedgerows, that they are protected during construction, and that there is a clear long-term plan for their maintenance. These hedgerows contribute to the rural character of this edge of St Athan and should remain strong, healthy features over time.
Materials and village character
The layout shows a large number of standard house types repeated across the site. I appreciate that this is common on developments of this size, but it makes the choice of materials and the treatment of the main edges even more important.
Older parts of St Athan are characterised by stone and white render, simple building forms and a softer edge to the countryside. The RLDP refers to respecting local character and distinctiveness. I would ask that this is reflected in the materials used, particularly along Gileston Road, at the main entrance and on the more visible parts of the site. This would help the development feel like part of St Athan rather than a separate, generic estate.
Retail area and the B4265
As in my previous correspondence the proposed retail area should be located on the B4625. As it is likely to shape the first impression the design should offer a clear and well-designed edge to the village.

The building and its frontage should be carefully designed, with appropriate materials and landscaping, so that it sits comfortably on the main B4265 road and strengthens the sense of arrival into the Gileston Road corner and War Memorial of St Athan.
I would also like you to consider making vehicle access to site only from the B4625 and not Gileston Road. This would be consistent with other developments along the B4265.
These points are offered in the hope that the scheme can be shaped in a way that better reflects the character and landscape of the village, in line with the principles set out in the RLDP.

I request re‑assessment of the site, redesigned access, full FCA/SuDS, biodiversity strategy, and revised retail proposals.

I submit this objection to the proposed development at Land at Church Farm, St Athan. While the site has featured in plan-making for some time, the RLDP remains at consultation and is not adopted. The proposal conflicts with national and local policies.

Spatial Strategy & Conformity with Future Wales
- Future Wales does not place the western Vale within the Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys National Growth Area.
- Local LDP Policy MD1 requires safeguarding countryside and ensuring infrastructure capacity.
This area is naturally a rural area. Any build will negatively impact the rural element of St Athan and the Village.

Education Capacity
• Local primary and secondary schools may already be at or near capacity local people report they are unable to get adequate local schooling.
• New development increases pupil numbers, placing pressure on school places.
• Lack of available spaces can result in longer travel distances for children or overcrowded classrooms.

Healthcare Provision
• GP surgeries, dental practices, and community health services are already oversubscribed.
• Additional demand increases waiting times and reduces access for existing residents.
• Emergency services (ambulance response times) can also be affected if road congestion increases.

Transport & Highways
• Increased traffic on a small rural road contributes to congestion and safety risks.
• The proposed junctions are not designed for higher traffic flow or delivery vehicles. Proposed exit is intrusive on current properties in the region

Footways or safe pedestrian routes are limited.
• Public transport is infrequent or insufficient to support current yet alone additional population. No rail station at St Athan. People have to drive to either Rhoose or Llantwit to be uncomfortable on a 2 carriage train for 40 minutes into Cardiff, often standing.
Hourly bus services cannot be relied on to connect to rail services or to get to employment on time.
Traffic to Barry or Bonvilston backs up either side of Cardiff Airport roundabouts from Rhoose and St Athan. Increased traffic flow will have further negative impact on congestion.


Utilities & Drainage
• Existing drainage networks may not cope with increased surface water run off.
• Local sewer systems are overloaded, illegally discharging into the sea polluting the area.
• Water supply or pressure issues may arise where systems are already stretched.
• Electricity networks may require upgrades to support new loads.


5. Community Services & Facilities
• Additional demand on parks, play areas, wastage and recycling facilities.
• Pressure on community infrastructure

Digital Connectivity
• Rural broadband infrastructure are already limited.
• New development is likely to worsen network strain unless upgraded.

Placemaking, Design Quality & Amenity
- LDP Policies MD2 and MD7 require good design, protection of amenity, and avoiding unacceptable impacts.
• Poor integration with existing design and settlement pattern. Local houses will feel imposed upon with the nature of the new build and placement of the supermarket
• Incremental urbanisation of the village.
• The development will impact on amenity and sense of place.

Access, Highway Safety & Active Travel
- Entrance location is unsafe and contrary to Travel Plan SPG (2018) and Parking Standards SPG (2019).
• Unsafe road conditions – connecting Gilestone road is narrow, parked cars outside houses, people park to access shops, poor visibility on bend of the road.
• Dangerous connection to the B4265. (cars block, stagger, cross roadways unsure where to wait, take risks to stop blocking traffic on the B4265)
• No safe footways or crossing points.
• Fails to meet active travel standards.


Education, Health & Emergency Services
- MD1 requires infrastructure to be available or funded; evidence is lacking.

Flood Risk & Drainage (TAN 15 & MD1)
- FCA required; greenfield development increases run off.
- Gilestone Road and B4265 known flood risk areas.
-Attenuation ponds require maintenance to ensure ongoing efficiency. Flood risks in the village, and the risk on the B4265.

Biodiversity, Net Benefit & Green Infrastructure (MD9)
- Protected species present; hedgerow removal harmful.
Hedgerow is full of red listed species; sparrows, yellow hammer, starlings all use the hedge alongside Gilestone road. To maintain safety, foraging and wildlife corridors it is essential for this hedge to remain and space between hedge and new builds essential to limit disturbance. Rooks feed off the land, as do gulls and egrets.

Retail Scale & Location
- Retail unit disproportionate and harmful to amenity and safety.entrance
- this impacts on current residents with increase in traffic, proximity and exit to narrow road, residential area, lack of paths, changing the value and nature of the area
-impact detrimental to current businesses
- location impacts negatively on local residents

Countryside Protection & Green Wedge (MG18)
- Openness and rural character reduced. Countryside protection policies aim to safeguard rural character, landscape openness, biodiversity, and the separation of settlements. In the Vale of Glamorgan, this is primarily supported through LDP Policy MG18 (Green Wedges) and associated design and landscape policies. Their core purpose is to prevent inappropriate development that would erode the distinctive rural environment.
This Proposal introduces commercial activity, large-scale housing, can resulting in incremental urbanisation, undermining the quiet rural setting that countryside policies seek to protect.
Protecting Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure
• Hedgerows, pastures, and field margins support priority species (e.g., sparrows, starlings, yellowhammers, bats). This is evident running along Gilestone road and is essential this hedgerow maintains its ecological value.
• Countryside protection therefore also supports ecological connectivity, ensuring habitats are retained, enhanced, and not fragmented by development.




Conclusion
In Summary
Countryside protection policies exist to:
• Maintain openness
• Protect the rural landscape
• Prevent settlements merging
• Avoid urbanisation
• Safeguard biodiversity
• Support plan led development only
This proposed development harms these qualities and so is not supported under the policy framework.
I request re‑assessment of the site, redesigned access, full FCA/SuDS, biodiversity strategy, and revised retail proposals.

To make the plan sound, the Council must:
(1) commission an independent wastewater compliance review,
(2) integrate findings into the RLDP evidence base,
(3) add a policy requiring demonstrated wastewater capacity before permitting development, and
(4) assess environmental risks tied to unlawful sewage discharges.

The plan should not progress without independent review, evidence-based adjustments to allocations, and strong policy safeguards linking development to legal and environmental wastewater capacity.

St Athan Church Farm
Topic: Wastewater Infrastructure Capacity and Compliance
Plan: Vale of Glamorgan Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) 2021–2036
Representation Type: Soundness Representation – Plan Not Sound Unless Changed

1. Summary of Representation
This response raises serious concerns regarding the adequacy, legality, and environmental compliance of wastewater treatment infrastructure across the Vale of Glamorgan, and the implications for delivering new housing allocations within the RLDP (2021–2036). Reports, including representations from Dwr Cymru indicate that over 50 sewage treatment plants may be operating unlawfully, with untreated sewage reportedly being released into the sea. These concerns must be addressed before permitting additional growth. The RLDP requires adequate supporting infrastructure, meaning the plan is not currently sound under tests of effectiveness, deliverability, and environmental protection.

2. Policy Context
The Vale of Glamorgan Council’s planning policy framework confirms that the RLDP guides where new development will occur and mandates appropriate infrastructure, including wastewater treatment. The Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) evaluates impacts on water, natural resources and pollution. The Deposit RLDP sets out land allocations for new housing and is subject to public consultation (Jan–Mar 2026).

3. Evidence of Wastewater Treatment Concerns
Reports indicate that more than 50 sewage treatment plants in the Vale may be failing to meet their legal discharge conditions, potentially releasing untreated sewage into the sea. This poses risks to public health, marine ecosystems, environmental permitting compliance, and overall infrastructure capacity.

West Aberthaw According to publicly available monitoring data, the West Aberthaw WWTW has a significant recent history of spills. The most recent site specific figures published for 2023 report:
• 88 spills during the year
• A total of 1,372.7 hours of untreated sewage discharged into the Bristol Channel Inner North
These figures follow similarly concerning records for 2022, which reported:
• 30 spills
• 364 hours of discharge

4. Implications for New Housing Allocations in the RLDP
If wastewater systems are already non-compliant or over capacity, allocating further housing becomes undeliverable and environmentally unsafe. The ISA objectives to protect water quality and health are undermined. Delays in delivering sites under the previous LDP highlight the consequences of infrastructure constraints.

5. Requested Changes to the RLDP
To make the plan sound, the Council must:
(1) commission an independent wastewater compliance review,
(2) integrate findings into the RLDP evidence base,
(3) add a policy requiring demonstrated wastewater capacity before permitting development, and
(4) assess environmental risks tied to unlawful sewage discharges.

In addition, Ofwat has recently expanded formal investigations into all wastewater companies operating in England and Wales—including Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water—over concerns regarding potentially unlawful sewage discharges. While this does not attribute illegality to West Aberthaw specifically, it does underscore the seriousness of compliance failures across the sector and the need for clear accountability.

6. Conclusion
Until wastewater treatment compliance issues are resolved, the RLDP’s proposed housing growth is not justified or deliverable. The plan should not progress without independent review, evidence-based adjustments to allocations, and strong policy safeguards linking development to legal and environmental wastewater capacity.

1. Recognise that existing convenience provision already serves the village and that a supermarket-scale retail unit is not needed here.
2. Remove the retail provision from its current proposed location on Gileston Road and relocate any wider retail use to the main road towards the Esso garage.
3. Place traffic safety and child safety ahead of commercial convenience.
4. Commit to stronger architectural controls so the development respects Gileston Road’s established form, scale and appearance.
5. Ensure St Athan does not become a retail traffic destination for the wider county.

Re: St Athan Housing Development Church Farm (Gileston Road) – Objection to Retail Provision and Design Approach
I am writing as a long-term resident of St Athan to formally object to the proposed retail provision within this development and to raise serious concerns about the design approach and its impact on Gileston Road and the wider village.
I want to be clear from the outset: I am not opposed to new housing. Villages must evolve, and younger families need homes.
But development should strengthen St Athan, not change it beyond recognition. What is proposed here risks doing exactly that.
Objection to the proposed retail site on Gileston Road
The planning layout identifies a “Potential Area for Retail Development (2 Acres)” fronting Gileston Road.
This is not a modest village shop. A site of this size could easily accommodate a supermarket-style unit, with the traffic, delivery vehicles, servicing activity, and parking demand that comes with it.
Gileston Road is not a strategic road. It is part of the village itself. It already carries significant through-traffic, particularly during busy periods, and is not an appropriate location for a major retail use.
St Athan already has local convenience provision
St Athan already has several convenience stores within a short walk of the proposed site.
A supermarket-scale development here does not enhance village life. It risks drawing shoppers from outside the village, turning Gileston Road into a retail access route rather than a residential street.
My concern is simple: why place a traffic-generating commercial use in the centre of the village, rather than on the main road where access could be safer and more direct?
A better location exists on the main road network
If retail provision for the wider area is genuinely required, the sensible location is towards the Esso garage on the main road.
That is where traffic already flows, where access can be managed properly, and where vehicles from Cowbridge, Llantwit Major, Rhoose and the wider Vale could enter and exit without being diverted through narrow village streets.
If the store is intended to serve the county, it should be located where the county can reach it safely, without turning St Athan into a retail traffic corridor.
Traffic and child safety concerns
Gileston Road is already busy, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times. Children and families regularly walk along these routes.
Introducing a supermarket access point here would permanently increase vehicle movements and delivery activity in exactly the wrong place.
Once built, these impacts cannot be reversed.
Design and village character
My objection is not only about traffic. It is also about the character of Gileston Road, which has an established village feel, including the distinctive white post-war housing that gives the street continuity and identity.
The proposed materials may be acceptable in principle, but the concern is how they will be applied at scale.
A large estate of standardised house types, repetitive frontages, and broad areas of red brick risks looking imported rather than rooted in St Athan.
As residents, we are asking, are you building homes that belong in St Athan, or homes that could be placed anywhere in the UK without change?
Protecting the village for future generations
People value St Athan because it feels like a village:
• streets and homes that are in keeping with the area
• a familiar local character
• a safe place for children and families to walk and live
• new development that fits St Athan, not a generic estate
If your proposal ignores local context, the village will lose its identity one phase at a time. Once that character is gone, it cannot be rebuilt.
What I ask Barratt David Wilson Homes to do
I respectfully request that you:
1. Recognise that existing convenience provision already serves the village and that a supermarket-scale retail unit is not needed here.
2. Remove the retail provision from its current proposed location on Gileston Road and relocate any wider retail use to the main road towards the Esso garage.
3. Place traffic safety and child safety ahead of commercial convenience.
4. Commit to stronger architectural controls so the development respects Gileston Road’s established form, scale and appearance.
5. Ensure St Athan does not become a retail traffic destination for the wider county.

This is not opposition for its own sake.
It is a practical objection about scale, safety, and whether this proposal genuinely serves St Athan or simply uses the village as the most convenient place to insert a supermarket-style site.
I urge you to reconsider this element of the scheme now, before irreversible decisions are made, and to work with residents to deliver development that truly belongs here.
I have copied my local representatives regarding my concerns about the current planning situation. I feel it is important that these issues are properly considered, as they have a direct impact on the local area, residents, and the wider community. I am asking for greater scrutiny and transparency in the planning process, and I hope my local representatives can help ensure that my concerns are taken seriously and addressed appropriately.

I am writing about my concerns about the Church Farm Development St Athan. The entrance for the development is going to be very dangerous for people who are trying to pull out of Glyndwr Avenue. It is very difficult now without all the extra traffic the New development would cause. The bottom of the Field is one of the only places the Yellowhammer can be seen. Also not enough Drs, School places, job and rubbish bus services.

Church Farm Consultation Team, As an original inhabitant of St Athan, I would like to make the following observations on the proposed Church Farm development. Despite local opposition to the LDP's plan to build over 1000 houses in the parish the builders have gone ahead with their application to build 232 homes on Church Farm and it seems that the further development to the west of the village will soon follow ruining the rural character of the village I knew. It seems to me that the Church Farm plan will be going ahead shortly. But their are still genuine concerns amongst present villagers, mainly traffic problems. The traffic in Gileston Road and through the village is already excessive, most vehicles ignoring the 20mph restriction and the highway being reduced to one lane at the north end alongside the school crossing patrol due to parked cars (see photo A in the application). I think the entrance to the site should be at the Monument end. This would have given the Council ideal opportunity to improve the dangerous junction with the B4265 with a roundabout and also reducing the need of vehicles to enter the village via Gileston Road solely to visit the retail store which looks to be quite sizeable with over 80 parking spaces marked on the plan. I should add that the LDP seems to have ignored the schooling needs of potentially hundreds of children and the medical needs of a vastly increased population generally. And where are all these people going to work? They would all need to commute, without even a railway stop despite a service passing just across the road.

To whom it may concern,

I am Writing to categorically object to the building of 500+houses and a supermarket in our village. We were never told that a supermarket was planned for our village. This should be built on brownfield area's not Greenfields. The houses could be built by the camp not ruining our village. The proposed entrances straights into our village is disrespectful to everyone who lives here, there is no care whatsoever for the people who live here. Please explain why you are intent on ruining our green spaces and our village?

I am writing to express the disappointment Vale of Glam Council and Councillors have in reading all time low in regarding the appalling way to which the residents of St Athan village are expected to sit back and take what is being decided for us.
I think it is unacceptable to think St Athan can cope with the pressure all these building site in and around this are is going to manifest itself:
Flooding
Road distribution (Gileston Road will not cope)
More cars (Not enough public trans)
Wildlife disturbance
St Athan Village has inadequate facilities for its residents. Therefore Council money should be spent on improving in and around St Athan, rather than disrupting everything causing more pressure on its residents.

To whom it may Concern,
I am writing to protest about the supermarket you are proposing to build in St Athan.

1. It is too near to the primary School
2. It will make accessing the School for the Children dangerous from all the extra traffic
3. The people living on Greston road will also be in danger from the extra traffic and will find it difficult to access their properties.
4. The access for the estate which will also make the area congested.
5. We already have a supermarket and local shop. The addition of the extra houses will also make the traffic on Gileston road congested. There is plenty of open space at Picketson area that could be utilised for housing and industry so as not to build up and congest the village further.

My objection is with the vehicular access (particularly construction vehicles) to and from phase one onto Gileston Rd, and the effects and congestion it would cause to the village. Please consider incorporating the roundabout access to B4265 shown in phase two into phase one and making this into the ONLY vehicular access to this site. It would also seem sensible to move any retail sites shown from north west corner to nearer the roundabout entrance.

St athan does not have the info structure for so many house we have a part time doctors, a hourly bus service and no train station, where the entrance is to the new house plus retail shop is a busy road where cars park and you have to give way causing tailbacks and theft junction has already had quite a few crashes.

We are very concerned about the huge hybrid entrance planned for the middle of Gileston Road.

Our focus is to try and work with the developers and Vale of Glamorgan Council to ensure the health and safety of the local residents and school children is prioritised.

524 houses and a retail unit will increase the congestion hugely in the village. The impact this will have is a serious issue!

Adding a huge entrance and the potential of over 1000 cars will not only increase emissions, but traffic congestion, air pollution and risk to safety of pedestrians.
Lots of these issues can be mitigated by moving the entrance to the B2465 (opposite the Four Cross Petrol station) and having no road access onto Gileston Road.

We do NOT require an access road for the new development into the middle of the village! A roundabout near Four Cross is the safer, more sensible option.

With this, a relocation of the retail unit which would be better placed on the B4265 for passing trade and the inevitable visitors this will attract from Llantwit, Rhoose

The traffic routes for this development are not sufficient. There are also bats in the barns at the north of the field which will be affected by the lights of a supermarket in the north west corner. Furthermore HGVs travelling up and down Gileston road creates more unsafe conditions that what already exists and brings unwarranted noise to what is a small village. There are very few jobs in St Athan, Lidl or Aldi (which run on extremely high productivity rates) will reduce jobs. More people will have to travel towards Barry in an already very congested route.

Infrastructure not suitable for traffic on Gileston Road currently but with more houses on the site it will be a nightmare

My objection is to the proposed access in Gileston Road which will cause massive congestion in the village and safety issues for children who use the route for school. Please can consideration be given to putting the access road directly from the B4265 opposite the four crosses petrol station. There are already issues on the proposed stretch of Gileston Road due to parked vehicles outside the existing houses which have no driveways

My objection is to the proposed access from Gileston Road. This stretch of road is already difficult to negotiate due to parked vehicles for existing houses, and additional 500+ cars using this road daily will be a major safety concern especially for school age children who use this route daily. Please give consideration to placing the access road directly from the B4265 opposite the petrol station. This would have far less impact on the village itself as well as for existing residents