Please refer to the previous section above.

1. Introduction
1.1 We act for the Llangan Action Group (“LAG”) and are instructed by them to submit this letter of representation objecting to the proposed allocation and expansion of the Gypsy and Traveller site at Llangan (the “Site”) within the Vale of Glamorgan Replacement Local Development Plan (“RLDP”). LAG respectfully submits that the proposed allocation should be removed from the RLDP. The proposal raises serious legal and planning concerns which go to the heart of whether the RLDP can properly be considered sound.
1.2 In particular, the proposed allocation is inconsistent with the Council’s previous Undertaking (defined below) concerning the Site, conflicts with the Council’s own planning policy framework and evidence base and fails to satisfy the recognised tests of soundness required for inclusion within the RLDP.
1.3 This representation therefore addresses both the legal issues arising from the Council’s previous Undertaking and the planning merits of the proposed allocation. LAG recognises that the Council has statutory duties in relation to the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers. However, the existence of such duties does not remove the requirement for site allocations within the development plan to be appropriate, sustainable, and supported by robust evidence.

2. Background and Planning History
2.1 The Site has a long and complex planning history which is directly relevant to the Council’s current proposal to allocate and expand the Site within the RLDP. In December 1994, the former South Glamorgan County Council granted planning permission to itself for the use of the Site as a Gypsy site. That decision was subsequently challenged by local residents and ultimately quashed following judicial review proceedings in R v South Glamorgan County Council ex parte Harding (1997).
2.2 The High Court therefore confirmed that the planning permission granted by the Council was unlawful. The judicial review proceedings were significant not only because they resulted in the planning permission being quashed but also because they led to the Council giving a formal Undertaking concerning the future use of the land.

3. The Council’s Undertaking
3.1 On 1 May 1996, during the course of the judicial review proceedings, the Chief Executive of the Council gave a formal Undertaking on behalf of the Council (“Undertaking”). The Undertaking was expressed to bind the Council and all successors in office and contained two key elements.
3.1.1 First, the Council undertook to use its best endeavours to remove the occupiers from the Site, including Mr William Carroll and any other persons occupying the Site.
3.1.2 Secondly, the Council undertook that once the Site became vacant it would remove all structures and services installed on the Site and restore the land to its original agricultural condition.
3.2 The clear intention of the Undertaking was therefore that the land should ultimately revert to its former use once the occupation had ceased. However, the RLDP now proposes to retain and expand the use of the land as a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site. This proposal is inconsistent with the Undertaking previously given by the Council.
3.3 In addition to the Undertaking given on 1 May 1996, the Council subsequently engaged in discussions with representatives of the LAG, the Community Council, and the occupiers of the Site with a view to resolving the long-standing issues relating to the Site. Minutes of a meeting held on 12 June 2017 between representatives of the Vale of Glamorgan Council, members of LAG and the occupier of the Site record that the Council acknowledged that, if the occupier and his family were to relocate or if the Site were otherwise vacated, the Site would effectively fall away from the Local Development Plan and could be returned to community use, including as allotments through the Community Council. The minutes further record that the Council indicated that the Site could be removed from the development plan at a future review stage once the occupation issue had been resolved.
3.4 This discussion is most significant because it demonstrates that the Council itself previously contemplated a resolution which was consistent with the Undertaking given in 1996 and with the expectation that the Site would ultimately revert to community or agricultural use rather than being expanded or retained as a permanent traveller site. The current proposal within the RLDP to allocate the Site for seven pitches therefore is inconsistent not only with the original Undertaking but also with the subsequent position discussed and agreed in principle between the Council and the members of LAG in 2017.

4. Legitimate Expectation
4.1 The Undertaking (together the with consensus reached at the meeting on 12 June 2017) given by the Council created a clear legitimate expectation among local residents that the Site would ultimately be cleared and restored. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is well established in public law and arises where a public authority makes a clear representation or promise which it would be unfair or an abuse of power to depart from without compelling justification.
4.2 The leading authority is R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213. In that case the Court of Appeal held that where a public authority makes a clear and unequivocal representation to a particular group of individuals, and those individuals reasonably rely upon that representation, the authority may be required to honour that promise unless it can demonstrate an overriding public interest which justifies departing from it. The Court recognised that in appropriate circumstances such representations may give rise to a substantive legitimate expectation, meaning that the authority is not merely required to consult before changing its position, but may be legally constrained from departing from the promise at all.
4.3 In the present case, the Undertaking given by the Council on 1 May 1996 was made in the context of judicial review proceedings and was relied upon by local residents when those proceedings were resolved. The Undertaking clearly indicated that the Council would use its best endeavours to remove the occupiers from the Site and would restore the land to its original condition once the occupation had ceased. Residents were therefore entitled to expect that the Council would act in accordance with that Undertaking and also the subsequent consensus reached at the June 2017 meeting.
4.4 Against that background, the Council’s decision to promote the Site within the RLDP as a permanent Gypsy and Traveller allocation is inconsistent with the Undertaking previously given and may therefore amount to an unlawful frustration of the legitimate expectation created by that promise. In the absence of a compelling public interest justification, it would be difficult to reconcile the Council’s current position with the principles established in Coughlan.

5. National Planning Policy
5.1 National planning policy contained within Planning Policy Wales (“PPW”) emphasises that development should be directed to sustainable locations and that new development should minimise reliance on private car travel. PPW also emphasises the importance of ensuring that development contributes to the creation of sustainable communities.
5.2 Welsh Government guidance relating to Gypsy and Traveller sites similarly emphasises that such sites should normally be located close to services and facilities. The Site does not meet these criteria on any analysis. The Site is located in a small rural settlement with extremely limited services and facilities.

6. Conflict with Local Development Plan Policy
6.1 The proposed allocation also conflicts with the Council’s own development plan policies. In particular, Policy MD18 (Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation) sets out the criteria against which proposals for Gypsy and Traveller sites must be assessed. The policy requires that such sites must be located in sustainable locations, must have safe and appropriate access, must be of a scale appropriate to their surroundings and must be capable of being adequately serviced.
6.2 These criteria are intended to ensure that Gypsy and Traveller sites are located in places where residents can reasonably access services and facilities and where development can take place without causing unacceptable impacts on the surrounding area.
6.3 The Site does not meet these requirements on any analysis. The Site is located within a small rural settlement which has extremely limited services and facilities. Essential services such as shops, healthcare facilities and other community services are not available within the village itself and are located in larger settlements some distance away.
6.4 In addition, access to the Site is via a narrow rural lane which is constrained in width and is unsuitable for the level of activity that would arise from an expanded site accommodating multiple pitches. These access constraints were previously identified during the examination of the Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan.
6.5 The scale of development proposed also raises significant concerns. The Planning Inspector previously concluded that the Site was suitable only for two pitches. The proposal to expand the Site to seven pitches therefore represents a substantial increase in scale which has not been adequately justified.
6.6 For these reasons, the proposed allocation fails to satisfy the criteria contained within Policy MD18 and is therefore inconsistent with the Council’s own development plan policy framework.

7. Policy SP9 – Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision
7.1 Policy SP9 proposes to allocate land at Llangan for the provision of seven Gypsy and Traveller pitches. The supporting text states that the Site has capacity to accommodate seven pitches and that the principle of the Site’s use as a Gypsy and Traveller site is well established.
7.2 However, the planning history demonstrates that the Site has been the subject of legal challenge and that the Council itself gave an undertaking requiring the land to be restored once the occupation ended.
7.3 In those circumstances, the assertion that the principle of the Site’s use is well established is difficult to reconcile with both the legal history and the Undertaking previously given by the Council.

8. Policy GT1 – Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation
8.1 Policy GT1 sets out the criteria against which proposals for new Gypsy and Traveller sites, or extensions to existing sites, are to be assessed. The purpose of the policy is to ensure that any such sites are located in appropriate and sustainable locations and that development does not give rise to unacceptable impacts on surrounding communities or the environment.
8.2 The policy requires, amongst other matters, that sites must be reasonably accessible to essential services and facilities such as healthcare, education, employment opportunities and public transport. The intention behind this requirement is to ensure that residents of Gypsy and Traveller sites are able to access everyday services and participate fully in community life without being heavily dependent on private car travel.
8.3 The Site does not satisfy this requirement. Llangan is a small rural settlement with extremely limited services and facilities. The nearest town providing a wider range of services is Cowbridge, which lies approximately 7.5 kilometres from the Site. Public transport provision serving the area is limited and there are few local facilities within walking distance of the Site. As a result, residents would inevitably be heavily dependent on private vehicles in order to access essential services such as healthcare, education and employment.
8.4 Policy GT1 also requires that safe and appropriate vehicular access can be provided from the highway network and that the Site layout allows for adequate provision for parking, turning, servicing and emergency vehicles. These requirements reflect the need to ensure that Gypsy and Traveller sites can operate safely and effectively without creating highway safety concerns.
8.5 In the case of the Site, access is obtained via a narrow rural lane which is constrained in width and alignment. These access constraints were previously identified during the examination of the Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan. In that examination the Inspector concluded that access and drainage works would need to be improved for the Site to meet Welsh Government guidance. Those concerns remain relevant and it is not clear from the RLDP evidence base how they have been addressed.
8.6 Policy GT1 further requires that development should not have unacceptable impacts on the character and appearance of the landscape and should be sensitively designed to mitigate any impact on its surroundings. The Site lies within a designated Special Landscape Area and is located adjacent to the Llangan Conservation Area. These designations reflect the importance of protecting the landscape character and historic setting of the area.
8.7 The proposed expansion of the Site therefore raises significant concerns in relation to the potential impact on the surrounding landscape and the setting of the conservation area. The scale of the proposed development is likely to intensify activity at the Site and may therefore give rise to impacts which are inconsistent with the objectives of Policy GT1.
8.8 For these reasons, the proposed allocation of the Site fails to satisfy several of the key criteria contained within Policy GT1 and is therefore inconsistent with the policy framework set out in the RLDP.

9. Previous Inspector’s Findings
9.1 The Inspector who examined the Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan previously considered the suitability of the Site in the context of the Council’s earlier development plan process. The Inspector’s report, which forms part of the evidence base for the adopted Local Development Plan, identified a number of concerns regarding the physical constraints affecting the Site.
9.2 In particular, the Inspector concluded that:
“It is clear that access and drainage works would need to be improved for the site to meet Welsh Government guidance.”
9.3 The Inspector’s conclusion is significant because it recognises that the Site is affected by fundamental infrastructure constraints which must be addressed before the Site could reasonably be considered suitable for development. Those concerns related in particular to the adequacy of the highway access serving the Site and the drainage arrangements necessary to support residential occupation.
9.4 These issues remain unresolved. The RLDP documentation does not clearly explain how the access and drainage concerns identified by the Inspector have now been addressed or how the necessary improvements would be delivered in practice. In circumstances where the Inspector previously identified these constraints as matters requiring improvement, it is incumbent upon the Council to demonstrate clearly that those issues have been satisfactorily resolved before relying upon the Site as a deliverable allocation within the RLDP.
9.5 In the absence of such evidence, the concerns previously identified by the Inspector remain relevant and cast doubt on the suitability and deliverability of the proposed allocation.

10. Sustainability and Location
10.1 Llangan is a small rural settlement with extremely limited services and facilities. The village does not contain the range of services that would normally be expected to support new residential development of the scale proposed within the RLDP.
10.2 The nearest settlement providing a wider range of services and facilities is Cowbridge, which lies approximately 7.5 kilometres from the Site. Essential services such as healthcare facilities, shops and employment opportunities are therefore located some distance away from the Site.
10.3 Public transport provision serving the area is extremely limited and there are no regular or convenient public transport connections serving the village of Llangan itself or linking the Site to Cowbridge or other nearby settlements. The nearest bus service operates along the A48, approximately 1.7 miles from the village. The nearest rail connections are located at Pencoed, approximately 4 miles (6.3km), Bridgend railway station, approximately 4.5 miles (7.3km) away, and Llantwit Major railway station, approximately 8 - 9 miles (13 – 15km) away. Distances are by road from the Site.
10.4 In practical terms, this means that residents of the proposed development would be required to travel some distance in order to access even basic public transport services. Access to those services is further constrained by the nature of the local road network. Pedestrian routes connecting the village to the wider transport network are limited and, in places, involve walking along rural roads which lack pavements and street lighting. These characteristics are typical of rural and relatively isolated locations and have been identified in various studies and reports examining accessibility issues affecting rural communities.
10.5 The absence of accessible public transport, together with the lack of safe and convenient pedestrian routes, means that residents of the proposed development would be heavily dependent on private vehicles in order to access employment, education, healthcare and other essential services. This raises concerns regarding the sustainability of the location when assessed against the relevant planning policy requirements.
10.6 As a result, residents of the proposed development would inevitably be heavily dependent on private vehicles in order to access everyday services and facilities. This level of reliance on private car travel is inconsistent with the RLDP’s stated objectives of promoting sustainable communities and reducing reliance on private vehicles.
10.7 The lack of accessible services is also directly relevant to Policy GT1, which requires Gypsy and Traveller sites to be reasonably accessible to essential services and facilities such as healthcare, education, employment and public transport. In circumstances where such services are not readily available, it is most difficult to conclude that the Site satisfies this requirement.
10.8 Access to the Site is provided by a narrow, single-lane track known as Waterston Lane. The lane is constrained in width and operates effectively as a single-file access route to the Site. The surrounding land is also known to be prone to flooding and waterlogging, which contributes to persistently damp conditions in the immediate area. These environmental conditions are relevant when considering the suitability of the Site for residential occupation.
10.9 During discussions held in 2017, the current occupier of the Site indicated that the damp conditions associated with the Site had resulted in respiratory health problems affecting members of his family. This observation highlights the potential implications of the Site’s environmental conditions for the health and wellbeing of those living there.
10.10 In circumstances where the Site is known to experience damp and waterlogged conditions, careful consideration should be given to whether the Site provides an appropriate and sustainable environment for residential use, particularly if the scale of occupation is increased as proposed within the RLDP.

11. Scale of Development
11.1 The Planning Inspector examining the Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan previously concluded, after considering the available evidence, that the Site was suitable only for two pitches.
11.2 The proposal within the RLDP to expand the Site to seven pitches therefore represents a substantial increase in scale when compared with the level of development previously considered appropriate for the Site.
11.3 This represents a significant intensification of development which has not been supported by clear evidence demonstrating why such an increase is now considered acceptable.
11.4 The scale of the proposed development must also be considered in light of Policy GT1, which requires that the scale of a Gypsy and Traveller site should be proportionate to both the evidenced needs of the occupiers and the surrounding area.
11.5 In addition, earlier research undertaken for the Council, including the Fordham Research Group study on Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, indicated a preference among members of the Gypsy and Traveller community for smaller family-sized sites. The proposal to expand the Site significantly beyond its previously accepted capacity is therefore inconsistent with those findings.

12. Landscape and Environmental Impact
12.1 The Site lies within a designated Special Landscape Area and is located adjacent to the Llangan Conservation Area. These designations reflect the importance of protecting the landscape character and historic setting of the area.
12.2 Policy GT1 requires that development should not have unacceptable impacts on the character and appearance of the landscape and should be sensitively designed to mitigate any impacts on its surroundings. The expansion of the Site therefore raises concerns regarding the potential impact on the surrounding landscape and the setting of the conservation area.
12.3 In particular, the intensification of activity associated with a larger traveller site has the potential to introduce development which is out of keeping with the established rural character of the area.

13. Settlement Hierarchy
13.1 Evidence prepared by the Council as part of the Sustainable Settlements Appraisal identifies Llangan as a “Hamlet / Rural Area” within the settlement hierarchy. Settlements within this category are characterised by a limited range of services and infrastructure and are therefore not generally considered suitable locations for significant new development.
13.2 The settlement hierarchy forms an important part of the spatial strategy underpinning the development plan and is intended to ensure that development is directed to the most sustainable locations. Allocating and expanding a traveller site within a settlement identified as a rural hamlet is therefore inconsistent with the Council’s own spatial strategy.

14. Deliverability
14.1 Site allocations within the RLDP must be realistic and capable of being delivered within the plan period. In the case of the Site, significant highway improvements would be required in order to make it suitable for development.
14.2 The evidence base supporting the RLDP does not clearly demonstrate that these improvements could be delivered within a reasonable timeframe. The Council’s reliance on the fact that the Site is in its ownership does not in itself demonstrate that the Site is deliverable. The key issue is whether the necessary infrastructure improvements and environmental mitigation measures can be implemented in practice.
14.3 In circumstances where the deliverability of an allocation is uncertain, the allocation cannot reasonably be relied upon as a means of meeting identified accommodation needs.
14.4 The issue of drainage infrastructure at the Site also raises significant practical and financial concerns. The Site is not connected to the mains sewer network and is instead served by a cesspit. It is understood that the cost of emptying this cesspit has historically been approximately £200 per week. During earlier discussions it appears that the Council may have assumed that these costs were borne by the Site occupants. However, the occupier of the Site has clarified that the cost of emptying the cesspit has in fact been borne by the Council.
14.5 Even on the basis of the historic figure referred to during discussions in 2017, the ongoing maintenance cost associated with the cesspit is substantial. It is reasonable to assume that this cost will have increased significantly in the years since those discussions took place. Moreover, if the Site were expanded to accommodate multiple pitches as proposed under the RLDP, the frequency and cost of cesspit emptying would inevitably increase.
14.6 It is also understood that Welsh Water has previously indicated that connection to the main sewer network would not be feasible in rural locations such as Llangan. If that position remains unchanged, the Site will therefore continue to rely on cesspit infrastructure for the foreseeable future.
14.7 In those circumstances, the financial implications of the proposed allocation require careful consideration. If the costs associated with maintaining the drainage arrangements continue to fall on the Council, the expansion of the Site could result in a significant and ongoing financial burden on the local authority and, ultimately, on local taxpayers. The Council must therefore have regard to its duty to act in the best interests of its residents and to ensure the responsible use of public funds when assessing the appropriateness of this allocation.
14.8 Given these considerations, it would be appropriate for the Council to provide clarity regarding the current costs associated with maintaining the Site, including the ongoing cost of cesspit emptying and the extent to which those costs are borne by the Council.

15. Alternative Sites
15.1 Evidence previously produced in connection with the Local Development Plan indicates that a number of alternative sites exist which perform better when assessed against sustainability criteria. Those sites are considered to offer more sustainable locations with better access to services and infrastructure.
15.2 The RLDP supporting information does not adequately explain why these alternative sites have been rejected in favour of the Site. In the absence of such explanation, it is difficult to conclude that the site selection process has identified the most appropriate location for the proposed development.

16. Tests of Soundness
16.1 For a Local Development Plan to be adopted it must be considered sound.
16.2 In the context of the RLDP, this requires the plan to be justified, effective and consistent with national planning policy. The proposed allocation of the Site fails these tests of soundness.
16.3 In particular, the allocation is not justified by robust evidence, there is considerable doubt as to whether it is deliverable within the plan period, and it conflicts with national planning policy which seeks to direct development to sustainable locations.

17. Summary and Conclusion
17.1 In summary, the proposed allocation of the Site within the RLDP raises a number of serious legal and planning concerns which cast significant doubt on whether the allocation can properly be regarded as sound.
17.2 First, the allocation is inconsistent with the Council’s previous Undertaking given on 1 May 1996 in the context of the judicial review proceedings in R v South Glamorgan County Council ex parte Harding, and the later consensus reached on 17 June 2017. Under that Undertaking the Council agreed to use its best endeavours to remove the occupiers from the Site and, once the Site became vacant, to remove the structures and restore the land to its original agricultural condition. The proposal within the RLDP to retain and expand the Site is therefore inconsistent with the Council’s earlier Undertaking and gives rise to issues of legitimate expectation and potential public law unlawfulness.
17.3 Secondly, the proposed allocation conflicts with both national planning policy and the Council’s own development plan policies. Planning Policy Wales emphasises that development should be directed to sustainable locations and that new development should minimise reliance on private car travel. Policy MD18 of the adopted Local Development Plan and Policy GT1 of the RLDP similarly require Gypsy and Traveller sites to be located in sustainable locations with safe and appropriate access and to be of a scale appropriate to their surroundings. The Site does not meet these criteria.
17.4 Thirdly, the Site is located in a small rural settlement with extremely limited services and facilities. Essential services such as shops, healthcare and employment opportunities are located in Cowbridge, approximately 7.5 kilometres away, and public transport provision serving the Site is extremely limited. Residents would therefore be heavily dependent on private vehicles in order to access basic services, which is inconsistent with the objectives of sustainable development.
17.5 Fourthly, the Planning Inspector examining the Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan previously identified concerns regarding the suitability of the Site, concluding that access and drainage works would need to be improved in order for the Site to meet Welsh Government guidance. Those concerns remain unresolved and it is not clear from the RLDP evidence base how they have now been addressed.
17.6 Fifthly, the proposed expansion represents a significant intensification of development at the Site. The Planning Inspector previously concluded that the Site was suitable only for two pitches, yet the RLDP now proposes to expand the Site to seven pitches. No clear evidence has been provided to justify this substantial increase.
17.7 The Site also lies within a Special Landscape Area and adjacent to the Llangan Conservation Area, raising concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape.
17.8 In addition, the Council’s own evidence base identifies Llangan as a “Hamlet / Rural Area” within the settlement hierarchy. Settlements within this category are not intended to accommodate significant new development and allocating a larger traveller site in this location is therefore inconsistent with the Council’s spatial strategy.
17.9 Finally, there are serious concerns regarding the deliverability and justification of the allocation. Significant highway improvements would be required to make the Site suitable for development, and it is unclear how these improvements would be delivered within the plan period. Evidence previously produced also indicates that alternative sites exist which perform better when assessed against sustainability criteria.
17.10 In these circumstances the proposed allocation cannot properly be regarded as justified, effective or consistent with national planning policy and therefore fails the recognised tests of soundness required for adoption of the RLDP.
17.11 For all of these reasons, the allocation of land at Llangan for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller pitches should be removed from the RLDP on any view.

The site should be removed from the plan and the asset transferred to the community as agreed in 2017.

Llangan Community Council make the following objection on behalf of Mr William Carroll as he does not have access to the website, however he has verbally communicated the following with Llangan Community Councillors.
Mr Carroll's current position is that he is very angry about the VOG proposing to expand the site again and offer the 7 pitches to people he doesn't know and has no family connections with.
In July 2017 there was a meeting between Llangan Community Council, Llangan Action and the traveller family occupying the site and an agreement was reached with the VOG for vacation of the site and for the site to be transferred to the Community Council for use by the community. The current family was granted planning permission for there own private site and have mostly moved to the new location, just leaving a few family members on the original site to protect the land as requested by the VOG at the meeting. Our understanding was that the action taken by all parties fulfilled the requirements of the meeting and the land could now be transfer to the Community Council as agreed. The VOG have breached this agreement with no further discussion with the Community over the last 9 years.
I hear from the Community Council that the VOG are new proposing to expand the Llangan site to 7 pitches. I am concerned and angry about proposal to expand the site again and to offer the 7 pitches to people I don't know and have no connection with. This is very unfair on the community and my family.
The local area cannot support an increase from 2 to 7 pitches. The site is not reasonably accessible to services, facilities, employment, medical facilities, shops and community facilities (there are no shops, restaurants, pubs/bars in the area) and there is no public transport. Cowbridge, the nearest town, is circa 7.5km from the site which is the nearest settlement providing a range of services. There is no public transport serving the site. No mains drainage on only a cesspit and this could not support any additional people.

For the reasons set out above, the allocation of the site at Llangan for additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches is not justified and is inconsistent with the Council’s own policy framework and previous legal commitments relating to the land.
· The site should therefore be removed from the Replacement Local Development Plan and alternative sites identified which better meet the criteria set out in the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment and Policy MD18.
· New site grants are available and cost should not be a material planning consideration.

· In around June 2017, Llangan Action, Llangan Community Council and the traveller family occupying the site reached an agreement with the VOG for vacation of the site and for the site to be transferred to the Community Council for use by the community. The proposal in the RLDP for the site is wholly contrary to what was agreed.
· The site is not suitable for the proposed use and does not meet the VOG’s own criteria for a gypsy and traveller site, including because:
o Access is poor, with the lane being only 2.5m wide, which is less than the recommended access requirements for emergency vehicles of 3.7m. Extending the pitches would also restrict the ability of emergency vehicles to turn around on the site.
o The site is situated in low-lying land and has poor drainage.
o There is no public footpath near the site and no street lighting.
o There is no public transport and the site is not reasonably accessible to day-to-day services, such as medical facilities, shops and community facilities. Cowbridge is around 7.5km from the site.
o The size of the site and number of pitches is not appropriate to its location and accommodation needs.
· Further:
o The site would not meet the standards required for social housing. The same standards apply for housing for the Gypsy and Traveller community.
o The scale of the proposed number of pitches poses a real risk of escalating fear and tension within the local community, which would be contrary to encouraging and developing good relations between Gypsy Travellers and the settled community.
o The site is in a Special Landscape Area and adjacent to the Llangan Conservation Area. The RDLP background paper acknowledges the importance of protecting views and landscape character within these areas. The proposed expansion is contrary to that view.
o The agreement reached with the VOG to transfer the site to the Community Council for use as allotments (following the success of a similar project in the neighbouring village of Treoes) would better meet the VOG’s vision to in its RLDP objectives to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change and to enhance and promote community facilities and services in the VOG.
o The proposed expansion of the site goes against the VOG’s objective to reduce the need for travel for VOG residents to meet their daily needs.
o The proposed development would also be contrary to the VOG’s object to protect and enhance the VOG’s historic, built and natural environment.
o The fact that the VOG owns the site does not in and of itself make it suitable for the proposed expansion.

For the reasons set out above, the allocation of the site at Llangan for additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches is not justified and is inconsistent with the Council’s own policy framework and previous legal commitments relating to the land.
· The site should therefore be removed from the Replacement Local Development Plan and alternative sites identified which better meet the criteria set out in the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment and Policy MD18.
· New site grants are available and cost should not be a material planning consideration.

In around June 2017, Llangan Action, Llangan Community Council and the traveller family occupying the site reached an agreement with the VOG for vacation of the site and for the site to be transferred to the Community Council for use by the community. The proposal in the RLDP for the site is wholly contrary to what was agreed.
· The site is not suitable for the proposed use and does not meet the VOG’s own criteria for a gypsy and traveller site, including because:
o Access is poor, with the lane being only 2.5m wide, which is less than the recommended access requirements for emergency vehicles of 3.7m. Extending the pitches would also restrict the ability of emergency vehicles to turn around on the site.
o The site is situated in low-lying land and has poor drainage.
o There is no public footpath near the site and no street lighting.
o There is no public transport and the site is not reasonably accessible to day-to-day services, such as medical facilities, shops and community facilities. Cowbridge is around 7.5km from the site.
o The size of the site and number of pitches is not appropriate to its location and accommodation needs.
· Further:
o The site would not meet the standards required for social housing. The same standards apply for housing for the Gypsy and Traveller community.
o The scale of the proposed number of pitches poses a real risk of escalating fear and tension within the local community, which would be contrary to encouraging and developing good relations between Gypsy Travellers and the settled community.
o The site is in a Special Landscape Area and adjacent to the Llangan Conservation Area. The RDLP background paper acknowledges the importance of protecting views and landscape character within these areas. The proposed expansion is contrary to that view.
o The agreement reached with the VOG to transfer the site to the Community Council for use as allotments (following the success of a similar project in the neighbouring village of Treoes) would better meet the VOG’s vision to in its RLDP objectives to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change and to enhance and promote community facilities and services in the VOG.
o The proposed expansion of the site goes against the VOG’s objective to reduce the need for travel for VOG residents to meet their daily needs.
o The proposed development would also be contrary to the VOG’s object to protect and enhance the VOG’s historic, built and natural environment.
o The fact that the VOG owns the site does not in and of itself make it suitable for the proposed expansion.

For the reasons set out above, the allocation of the site at Llangan for additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches is not justified and is inconsistent with the Council’s own policy framework and previous legal commitments relating to the land.



· The site should therefore be removed from the Replacement Local Development Plan and alternative sites identified which better meet the criteria set out in the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment and Policy MD18.



· New site grants are available and cost should not be a material planning consideration.

In around June 2017, Llangan Action, Llangan Community Council and the traveller family occupying the site reached an agreement with the VOG for vacation of the site and for the site to be transferred to the Community Council for use by the community. The proposal in the RLDP for the site is wholly contrary to what was agreed.

· The site is not suitable for the proposed use and does not meet the VOG’s own criteria for a gypsy and traveller site, including because:
o Access is poor, with the lane being only 2.5m wide, which is less than the recommended access requirements for emergency vehicles of 3.7m. Extending the pitches would also restrict the ability of emergency vehicles to turn around on the site.
o The site is situated in low-lying land and has poor drainage.
o There is no public footpath near the site and no street lighting.
o There is no public transport and the site is not reasonably accessible to day-to-day services, such as medical facilities, shops and community facilities. Cowbridge is around 7.5km from the site.
o The size of the site and number of pitches is not appropriate to its location and accommodation needs.
· Further:
o The site would not meet the standards required for social housing. The same standards apply for housing for the Gypsy and Traveller community.
o The scale of the proposed number of pitches poses a real risk of escalating fear and tension within the local community, which would be contrary to encouraging and developing good relations between Gypsy Travellers and the settled community.
o The site is in a Special Landscape Area and adjacent to the Llangan Conservation Area. The RDLP background paper acknowledges the importance of protecting views and landscape character within these areas. The proposed expansion is contrary to that view.
o The agreement reached with the VOG to transfer the site to the Community Council for use as allotments (following the success of a similar project in the neighbouring village of Treoes) would better meet the VOG’s vision to in its RLDP objectives to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change and to enhance and promote community facilities and services in the VOG.
o The proposed expansion of the site goes against the VOG’s objective to reduce the need for travel for VOG residents to meet their daily needs.
o The proposed development would also be contrary to the VOG’s object to protect and enhance the VOG’s historic, built and natural environment.
o The fact that the VOG owns the site does not in and of itself make it suitable for the proposed expansion.

The agreement reached with the VOG to transfer the site to the Community Council for use as allotments (following the success of a similar project in the neighbouring village of Treoes) would better meet the VOG’s vision to in its RLDP objectives to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change and to enhance and promote community facilities and services in the VOG.

• In around June 2017, Llangan Action, Llangan Community Council and the traveller family occupying the site reached an agreement with the VOG for vacation of the site and for the site to be transferred to the Community Council for use by the community. The proposal in the RLDP for the site is wholly contrary to what was agreed.
• The site is not suitable for the proposed use and does not meet the VOG’s own criteria for a gypsy and traveller site, including because:
o Access is poor, with the lane being only 2.5m wide, which is less than the recommended access requirements for emergency vehicles of 3.7m. Extending the pitches would also restrict the ability of emergency vehicles to turn around on the site.
o The site is situated in low-lying land and has poor drainage.
o There is no public footpath near the site and no street lighting.
o There is no public transport and the site is not reasonably accessible to day-to-day services, such as medical facilities, shops and community facilities. Cowbridge is around 7.5km from the site.
o The size of the site and number of pitches is not appropriate to its location and accommodation needs.
• Further:
o The site would not meet the standards required for social housing. The same standards apply for housing for the Gypsy and Traveller community.
o The scale of the proposed number of pitches poses a real risk of escalating fear and tension within the local community, which would be contrary to encouraging and developing good relations between Gypsy Travellers and the settled community.
o The site is in a Special Landscape Area and adjacent to the Llangan Conservation Area. The RDLP background paper acknowledges the importance of protecting views and landscape character within these areas. The proposed expansion is contrary to that view.
o The agreement reached with the VOG to transfer the site to the Community Council for use as allotments (following the success of a similar project in the neighbouring village of Treoes) would better meet the VOG’s vision to in its RLDP objectives to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change and to enhance and promote community facilities and services in the VOG.
o The proposed expansion of the site goes against the VOG’s objective to reduce the need for travel for VOG residents to meet their daily needs.
o The proposed development would also be contrary to the VOG’s object to protect and enhance the VOG’s historic, built and natural environment.
o The fact that the VOG owns the site does not in and of itself make it suitable for the proposed expansion.

For the reasons set out above, the allocation of the site at Llangan for additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches is not justified and is inconsistent with the Council’s own policy framework and previous legal commitments relating to the land.
· The site should therefore be removed from the Replacement Local Development Plan and alternative sites identified which better meet the criteria set out in the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment and Policy MD18.
· New site grants are available and cost should not be a material planning consideration.

· In around June 2017, Llangan Action, Llangan Community Council and the traveller family occupying the site reached an agreement with the VOG for vacation of the site and for the site to be transferred to the Community Council for use by the community. The proposal in the RLDP for the site is wholly contrary to what was agreed.
· The site is not suitable for the proposed use and does not meet the VOG’s own criteria for a gypsy and traveller site, including because:
o Access is poor, with the lane being only 2.5m wide, which is less than the recommended access requirements for emergency vehicles of 3.7m. Extending the pitches would also restrict the ability of emergency vehicles to turn around on the site.
o The site is situated in low-lying land and has poor drainage.
o There is no public footpath near the site and no street lighting.
o There is no public transport and the site is not reasonably accessible to day-to-day services, such as medical facilities, shops and community facilities. Cowbridge is around 7.5km from the site.
o The size of the site and number of pitches is not appropriate to its location and accommodation needs.
· Further:
o The site would not meet the standards required for social housing. The same standards apply for housing for the Gypsy and Traveller community.
o The scale of the proposed number of pitches poses a real risk of escalating fear and tension within the local community, which would be contrary to encouraging and developing good relations between Gypsy Travellers and the settled community.
o The site is in a Special Landscape Area and adjacent to the Llangan Conservation Area. The RDLP background paper acknowledges the importance of protecting views and landscape character within these areas. The proposed expansion is contrary to that view.
o The agreement reached with the VOG to transfer the site to the Community Council for use as allotments (following the success of a similar project in the neighbouring village of Treoes) would better meet the VOG’s vision to in its RLDP objectives to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change and to enhance and promote community facilities and services in the VOG.
o The proposed expansion of the site goes against the VOG’s objective to reduce the need for travel for VOG residents to meet their daily needs.
o The proposed development would also be contrary to the VOG’s object to protect and enhance the VOG’s historic, built and natural environment.
o The fact that the VOG owns the site does not in and of itself make it suitable for the proposed expansion.

Site should therefore be removed forthwith from the Replacement Local Development Plan and alternative sites identified which better meet the criteria set out in the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment and Policy MD18.

Response to SP9 (Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision) & GT1 (Gypsy Traveller Accommodation)
Location – Land at Llangan (the “Site”)
Primary objection
The Site was the subject of judicial review proceedings.
The former South Glamorgan County Council granted itself planning permission to use the Site as a gypsy site on 20 December 1994. The High Court quashed the planning permission, such that it had no standing in law (R v South Glamorgan County Council ex parte Harding (1997).
In connection with the judicial review proceedings, the Council, through its the Chief Executive,
Mr Foster, entered into a formal undertaking dated 1 May 1996 (the “Undertaking”). The Undertaking was made for the benefit of the wider Llangan community and required the Council to use its best endeavours to remove the occupiers from the Site and, once the Site became va
cant, to remove all structures and services and restore the Site to its original agricultural position.
Notwithstanding that the Undertaking was given some time ago, the Council remain bound by
the same, as they have not yet complied with its terms.
Further, in around June 2017, Llangan Action Group, Llangan Community Council and the traveller family occupying the Site reached an agreement with key members of the Council for the Site to be vacated, and for the Site to be transferred to the Community Council for use by the community.
The discussions and agreement reached in around June 2017 were the result of much time and
effort by all parties and the result would have allowed the Council to discharge the Undertaking it had agreed to be bound by.
For reasons that I believe were not explained, the Council reneged on the agreement without notice or explanation, such that the terms of the legally binding Undertaking are yet to be dis charged.
The proposal to extend the Site to accommodate 7 pitches was received as a surprise in light of the above, as to increase the number of pitches goes completely against what was agreed and goes against the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Whilst it is appreciated that the Council has an obligation under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014
to make provision for the gypsy and traveller community, it is not clear on what basis the Council has identified a single site to fulfil its obligation in respect of which it is bound by an under taking to return to agricultural land.

Secondary abjection – Suitability of the Site
Notwithstanding the above, the Site is not suitable in any event. It is again surprising how the Council has identified this as the only single suitable site without providing justification to why other alternative sites were not put forward. A list of reasons is set out below. These are not intended to be exhaustive, but illustrative of why the Site is considered unsuitable:
The Site does not meet the criteria set in the VOG’s own current Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (“GTAA”) and with reference to Policy MD18 (Gypsy and Traveler Accommodation), including because:
Access to the Site is poor. The lane is narrow (circa 2.5m). As such, it does not meet the recommended access requirements for emergency vehicles of is 3.7m.
The alternative route through Llangan village is not suitable for emergency vehicles due to it having a weak bridge.
Extending the proposal to 7 pitches on the Site would further restrict the ability of emergency vehicles to manoeuvre around the Site.
The fact that access is poor was recognised in the Report on the examination into the Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan 2011 – 2016, prepared by Richard E. Jenkins BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI, as Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers, dated 25 May 2017, which also found that drainage at the Site was poor. The Report stated, “It is clear that access and drainage works would need to be improved for the site to meet Welsh Government guidance.”. These constraints remain relevant when considering the proposed significant expansion of the Site. The issue with drainage near the Site can be seen from the photograph below. No changes have been made since 2017, such that the same issues remain.
Site access is “unsafe” having extended walks (in excess of 800m) along unlit land with no public footpath or street lighting.
The local area cannot support an increase from 2 to 7 pitches. The Site is not reasonably accessible to day-to-day services, facilities and employment, medical facilities, shops and community facilities (there are no shops, restaurants, pubs/bars in the area) and there is no public transport in Llangan. The nearest train station is in
Pencoed, which is over 6km away by road. Cowbridge, the nearest town, is circa 7.5km from the Site which is the nearest settlement providing a range of services. As there is no public transport serving the Site and no local facilities within walking distance, the location therefore conflicts with the RLDP objective of reducing the need
to travel and promoting sustainable transport.
The size of the Site and number of pitches proposed is not appropriate to its location and accommodation needs.
The Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Survey and Assessment of Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation – Final Report – August 2008, prepared by the Fordham Research Group Limited made a finding that there was a preference for members of the Gypsy / Traveller community for smaller, family-sized sites. The expansion of the Site to 7 pitches is wholly contrary to the findings of the report commissioned for the benefit and assistance of the VOG.
9.3 The Replacement Local Development Plan 2021 – 2036: Issues, Vision and Objectives June 2023 (Background Paper – BP2) states, at 4.1. that: “Our Vision for the Vale of Glamorgan is a place:
• That is safe, clean, and attractive, where individuals and communities have sustainable opportunities to improve their health, learning and skills, prosperity, and wellbeing; and
• Where there is a strong sense of community in which local groups and individuals have the capacity and incentive to make an effective contribution to the future
sustainability of the area.”

The RLDP objectives are set out at paragraph 5 as follows:

To sustain and further the development of sustainable communities within the VOG, providing opportunities for living, learning, working and socialising for all.

The location of the Site does not support this objective.

To ensure that development within the VOG makes a positive contribution towards reducing the impact of and mitigating the adverse effects of Climate Change. In respect of mitigating climate change,it is stated this means:

“Encourage development that reduces the need to travel by car and encourage people to participate in active travel and use sustainable transport to reduce emissions and improve air quality.

Ensure that all new development and infrastructure is reliant to future impacts arising from Climate Change, Direct development away from areas prone to flood risk and incorporate water management, biodiversity enhancement and adaptation measures.”

Development of the Site will not contribute towards this objective. In particular, as stated above, the lack of
public transport will no doubt result in multiple vehicles being used to transport to and from the Site. Such a need could be avoided if the allocation requirement was situated in an area with better public transport / an area close to facilities such as healthcare etc.

Alternatively, the agreement previously reached with the VOG to return the Site to the Community Council for
use as allotments would have a positive impact in respect of climate change, not least due to the fact that produce would be grown locally. The success of allotments in Treoes has demonstrated the viability of such a programme and the VOG had previously indicated its support for returning the Site to the Community Council
for such a purpose.

To reduce the need to VOG residents to travel to meet their daily needs and enabling them greater access to sustainable forms of transport.

As above, the Site does not meet this objective due to its distance from facilities such as healthcare, shops etc.
and the lack of public transport.

To protect and enhance the VOG’s historic, built, and natural environment.

The proposal would adversely impact the undeveloped rural character of the area.

To maintain, enhance and promote community facilities and services in the VOG.

The VOG’s previous agreement to return the Site to the community for use as an allotment is a key illustration of achieving this objective. The proposed extension of the Site for 7 pitches does not promote this objective, but wholly detracts from it. Llangan does not any other land to
enhance and promote community facilities and services. Further, as the VOG is aware, the Community Council
is not seeking funding from the VOG for the maintenance of the Site which the VOG agreed to transfer management of to the Community Council.

To provide the opportunity for people in the VOG to meet their housing needs.

It is accepted the VOG has a lawful duty under section 101(1) of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 to carry out
an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers residing in its area. That is not disputed.
The fact that the VOG has a legal requirement to meet this legal obligation does not, however, mean that the selection of an unsuitable Site is acceptable to ‘tick a box’ to meet that obligation is acceptable.
The fact that the VOG own the Site is not a reason on its own for extending the Site from 2 to 7 pitches. Further,
the fact that the VOG were, through its predecessors in time, party to a lawful undertaking to clear the Site and return it to its previous agricultural status, coupled with the VOG’s agreement to transfer the management of the Site to the Community Council is evidence of a competing
obligation in law for the use of the Site.

To ensure that development within the VOG uses land effectively and efficiently and to promote the sustainable use and management of natural resources.

As above, this objective would not be met by extending the Site to accommodate 7 pitches. Further, this is agricultural land in a Special Landscaped Area.

Further:
The Site would not meet the standards required for social housing. The same standards apply for housing for the Gypsy and Traveller community.

The scale of the proposed number of pitches poses a real risk of escalating fear and tension within the local community, which would be contrary to encouraging and developing good relations between Gypsy Travellers and the settled community.

Notwithstanding the above, the independent inspector’s report concluded the Site was only suitable for 2 pitches after reviewing all the evidence. It is not clear what
has changed for the VOG to conclude that a 350% increase in the number of pitches is suitable.

Mixing families from the Gypsy and Traveller community. The Welsh Government’s approach to Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments (GTAA) emphasizes
culturally appropriate, safe, and secure accommodation that meets the needs of families, rather than dictating the forced mixing of specific family groups on sites. The
guidance was updated in March 2025.

The assessment makes no reference that the Site is in a Special Landscape Area.

The Replacement Local Development Plan 2021 – 2036: Special Landscape Area – Background Paper – BP-28, November 2025, provides at para 1.6: “The designation of the SLA was not intended to prevent development, but to ensure that where development was acceptable, careful consideration was given to the design elements of the proposal such as the siting, orientation, layout and landscaping, to ensure that the special qualities and characteristics for which the SLAs have been designated are protected.”

In addition to being in a designated Special Landscape Area, the Site is adjacent to the Llangan Conservation Area. The RLDP background paper acknowledges the importance of protecting views and landscape character within these areas. The proposed expansion to seven pitches risks materially affecting the rural character and
important views from the conservation area.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, the allocation of the Site at Llangan for additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches is not justified and is inconsistent with the Council’s own policy framework and previous legal commitments relating to the land. It is also highly questionable whether it would
be deliverable within the plan period given the substantial and costly work that would be required at the Site, such as dealing with the drainage issue.

The Site should therefore be removed forthwith from the Replacement Local Development Plan and alternative sites identified which better meet the criteria set out in the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment and Policy MD18.
New site grants are available and cost should not be a material planning consideration.

We are writing to object to part of the local development plan, specifically the consideration that the unauthorised travellers site located to the east of Llangan village should
1. Be continued (by inference from point 2
2. Be enlarged from a 2 to a 7 pitch site
I hope you are aware of the long history of the site which has been a subject of concern since the early 1990s and has been the subject of judicial and local reviews and legal action on numerous times, which directed the then S Glam Authority to return the disputed land to its previous agricultural use.
Subsequently in 2017 it was agreed with the VoG that the land should be transferred to Llangan Community Council for use as a village community site , a position confirmed with Marcus Goldsworthy and the planning department in 2022. Additional land for village use is needed as at present we have no play areas or outside community space for the children and families who live in the village
Other reasons the site is unsuitable for multiple occupation
The village and surrounding land has no public transport
Access to the site is difficult and unsuitable for large
Inadequate sewage system
We await your response with interest

Vale of Glamorgan Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) 2022-2037
Thank you for consulting Welsh Water on the Vale of Glamorgan Deposit LDP, we appreciate and welcome the opportunity to engage in the Local Development Plan process.
Settlement boundaries
SSC1 – development within settlement boundaries
We welcome the requirement for new development to make efficient use of land and benefit from existing infrastructure provision or, where necessary, make provision for new infrastructure without any unacceptable effect on the natural environment (10).
Housing delivery
HG1 - housing allocations
A. Key sites (Policy HG1 KS1-5)
Our representation on the above sites are included in appendix 1.
B. Housing allocations (HG1 (1) to HG1 (9))
Our representation on the above sites are included in appendix 1.
C. Major landbank sites (HG2 (1) to HG2 (5))
These sites are existing commitments and Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has made representations on the planning applications submitted for these sites.
D. Housing led redevelopment opportunity (HG3 (1))
Our representation on the above site is included in appendix 1.
E. Rural affordable housing led sites (HG4 (1) to HG4(4))
Our representations on the above sites are included in appendix 1.
Our representations on the proposed allocated sites are included in appendix 1. Where planning applications have already been submitted and are pending a decision, we have made representations during the planning application consultation process regarding the capability of our infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development. If capacity does not exist within our infrastructure to accommodate the demands arising from a development site, the planning authority can make planning permission conditional upon there being adequate infrastructure available to cater for the development. A developer has a right to connect to our sewerage networks provided that a development site benefits from planning permission and there are no overriding planning conditions attached to the permission that controls the location or timing of that physical connection.
Gypsy and traveller accommodation (GT)
SP9 - gypsy and traveller site provision
Our representation on the site allocation is included in appendix 1.
Retail, commercial and service centres (RCS)
SP12 - retail floorspace provision
Our representations on the site allocations are included in appendix 2.
Community infrastructure (CI)
SP13 - community infrastructure and planning obligations
We support the provisions within the policy that the Council will secure new and improved community infrastructure where appropriate and within a timely manner, and the specific reference to utilities infrastructure. Where existing water and sewerage infrastructure requires reinforcement to serve a development it must be provided as part of the development to mitigate any adverse impacts. In circumstances where the development generates the need for infrastructure improvements that are not programmed for delivery by infrastructure providers then it must be funded by the development. Therefore, it is important for developers to engage early with relevant infrastructure providers, including the statutory sewerage and water undertaker. We welcome that the policy states that improved infrastructure must be undertaken in a timely manner. The delivery of reinforcements to the sewerage and water networks can controlled either through planning condition or a commercial agreement between the developer and Welsh Water.
Adequate potable water supply and drainage infrastructure is key to ensuring new development sites are sustainable, viable and deliverable. Hydraulic modelling assessments (HMA) may be required to determine an adequate point of connection to the water network and/or public sewers, and developers would be strongly recommended to fund investigations at pre-planning stage. Once commissioned and completed the HMA would identify suitable connection points and/or the necessary reinforcement works required to accommodate the development (for example upsizing sewers/water mains, additional storage tanks etc). In certain circumstances surface water removal could be an alternative option for allocations where foul sewer HMAs are being requested, and we would welcome early engagement with the site developer.
The reinforcements required to the network would be established by the HMA and costings would be provided at detailed design stage. The developer would need to fund a scheme by way of the requisition provisions of the Water Industry Act or via a legal/commercial agreement with Welsh Water.
Community facilities
CI3 – new community facilities
Our representations on the site allocations are included in appendix 2.
CI5 - cemetery and crematorium provision
Our representation on the site allocation is included in appendix 2.
Productive and enterprising places
SP14 - employment growth
Our representations on the site allocations are included in appendix 2.
We support sustainable economic development, however the LPA and potential developers should be aware that the obligations of a water and sewerage undertaker only extend to the ‘domestic’ supply part of an employment development (sinks, toilets, kitchen facilities etc). We are not obliged to provide potable water for use in any industrial process. Where an employment development results in higher demands of water supply and/or trade effluent discharge consent, under Section 118 of the Water Industry Act 1991, we recommend and welcome early consultation with developers. The capability of our infrastructure to service future employment allocations will be assessed when the potential demands arising from the developments are known.
EMP1 - employment regeneration opportunity areas
Our representations on the site allocations are included in appendix 2.
Climate change and transition towards net zero (CC)
SP16 - climate change mitigation and adaptation
We are supportive of this policy as the protection of water resources are key in ensuring we maintain a safe, healthy and reliable water supply. Incorporating water efficiency measures into developments will help minimise adverse impacts on localised and wider water supply networks including the quality of water resources.
We are also pleased that the policy includes particular emphasis on the importance of sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS), in conjunction with Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The tackling of surface water at source is a vital component of sustainable development and will mitigate against overloaded sewers which can ultimately lead to flooding. Disposing of surface water in a sustainable manner by ensuring that it does not communicate with the public sewerage network, including rainwater harvesting systems, protects the environment and assists in ensuring that there is sufficient capacity in the public sewerage network for foul-only flows from development sites.
SP19 – Green Infrastructure
In conjunction with SAB applications, under Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, we welcome provision within this policy to integrate green infrastructure with sustainable drainage systems.
Environmental protection
DNP5 – environmental protection
We welcome provisions within the policy to protect the natural environment from unacceptable impact from pollution of land, surface water, ground water and the air as well as flooding risks.
We hope that the above will assist you as you continue to progress the LDP. If you require any further information, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 917 2652 or forward.plans@dwrcymru.com.

Appendix 1 – HG1 Housing Allocations, SP9 Gypsy & Traveller Site
Our representations on site allocations are provided in the table below. The following caveats are applicable to all sites:
• In accordance with the Water Industry Act 1991, Welsh Water retains rights of access to its assets at all times. Where there are sewers and/or water mains crossing sites then protection measures in respect of these assets will be required, usually in the form of an easement width or in some instances a diversion.
• Where insufficient hydraulic capacity exists within the public sewerage network or water supply network to accommodate/serve a development site, hydraulic modelling assessments (HMA) may be required, and developers would be strongly recommended to fund investigations during pre-planning stages. The findings of the HMA will identify the extent of any reinforcement required to accommodate the development, which can be procured via the requisition provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991 (as amended). If the sewerage network system in the locality is currently at capacity, there may be an opportunity to overcome our concerns by delivering a surface water removal scheme. This approach would ensure that there is no net increase in volume of flows communicating with the public sewer network, and therefore no further detriment to the public sewer network downstream of the development.
• In some instances, off-site water mains or public sewers may be required to connect to a suitable point on the existing networks at the developers’ cost. We may seek to control points of connection to the public sewerage network via appropriate planning conditions. Where assets need to be laid over private land, developers will need to comply with the requisition provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991.
• If there is limited or no capacity available at a Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW), developers may need to fund a Developer Impact Assessment (DIA) to identify required reinforcement works. In these instances, a commercial agreement would be required between the developer and Welsh Water to deliver the necessary reinforcement works.
• Where capacity is currently available in the water supply network to accommodate development, we reserve the right to reassess our position at the time of the formal application for the provision of new water mains under Section 41 and Section 51 of the Water Industry Act (1991) to ensure there is sufficient capacity available to serve the development without causing detriment to existing customers’ supply as demands upon our water systems change continually.
• Please note the below comments are subject to change as the LDP progresses and/or as planning applications are submitted.

See tables in attachment for site specific comments.

Appendix 2 - Employment sites & other uses
Capacity comments for employment allocations can only be provided once the type of development and occupier/end-user of a site is known. Once requirements are confirmed, usually through the planning application process, further assessments will be undertaken. High-level comments are provided in the table below regarding any watermains/sewers crossing the proposed allocations, and the WwTW catchment that the sites are located within.
The following provisions are applicable to all allocated employment sites:
• the obligations of a water and sewerage undertaker extend to ‘domestic’ supplies only. We are not obliged to provide potable water for use in any industrial process. Where an employment allocation results in higher demands of water supply and/or trade effluent discharges we recommend and welcome early consultation with Welsh Water.
• The individual plots available for development can represent a substantial area of land for which the potential demands upon our assets are unknown at present. It is essential that we understand these demands to allow us to assess the impact on our assets. It may be necessary for water and/or sewerage hydraulic modelling assessments (HMAs) to be undertaken at the developer’s expense to establish where the proposed development could connect to the existing networks, and to identify any required infrastructure reinforcement works. Water mains and/or sewerage infrastructure required for any potential development site can be acquired through the requisition provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991 (as amended).
• In accordance with the Water Industry Act 1991, Welsh Water retains rights of access to its assets at all times. Where there are water mains and/or sewers crossing sites then protection measures in respect of these assets will be required, usually in the form of an easement width or in some instances a diversion of the asset.
• Where there is limited or no capacity at a WwTW, dependant on the scale and pace of development, developers may need to fund a Developer Impact Assessment (DIA) to identify required reinforcement works. In these instances, a commercial agreement would be required between the developer and Welsh Water to deliver the necessary reinforcements.
• If any development site gives rise to a new discharge (or alters an existing discharge) of trade effluent, directly or indirectly to the public sewerage system, then a Discharge Consent under Section 118 of the Water Industry Act 1991 is required from Welsh Water. Please note that the issuing of a discharge consent is independent of the planning process and a consent may be refused despite planning permission being granted.

See tables in attachments for site specific comments