Build the social homes in Barry and Penarth

Your own words state:
backlog of need from people on the housing waiting list is most acute within Barry and Penarth/Llandough

so put the social homes in Barry and Penarth. Why should Rhoose and St Athan have to provide them??

Cwmpas is positive in its response to the Deposit RLDP statements and welcomes the reference to community led housing as noted in:

Paragraph 6.121 – positive response though observation and request would be made to minor amendment to wording that after the words ‘co-operative housing’ the words ‘and other forms of community led affordable housing’ are inserted as this would accord with the context of PPW Edition 12 as noted.

Paragraph 6.141 – positive comment and response within the context of Exceptions Policy HG5. However, a request would be made that as well as reference to community land trusts that wording is supplemented with suggested words of ‘and other forms and models of community led affordable housing.’

Furthermore, it is considered that the direct reference to community led affordable housing in the Deposit Plan document addresses and removes some of the potential barriers and challenges faced in the delivery of such forms of housing.

It is now clearly the case that PPW supports community-led housing as a form of affordable housing and that, in the view of Cwmpas, this is material to the considerations of Local Development Plan preparation and from which the Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan would benefit.

Going forward, however, Cwmpas, would consider that detailed planning policy development within the Deposit RLDP could make an overt and explicit community led affordable housing development reference and with specific community led housing policies in addition to those subsumed within more generic and general housing policies.

Firstly, the addition of a specific reference to community led housing within Policies HG1, HG2, HG3 akin to that within HG5 would enable to the benefits and reach of community led housing to be expanded into mainstream housing policies and allocations and not only Exceptions Policy.

Secondly, it would be considered as beneficial that the Deposit RLDP policies on community led housing development could include a clear definition of this type of affordable housing.

In summary, it is considered that the direct reference to community led housing in the Deposit Plan document as noted in Paragraphs 6.121 and 6.141 represent very positive inclusion and that it addresses and removes some of the potential barriers and challenges faced in the delivery of such forms of housing by drafting specific community led housing policies at the RLDP Deposit Plan stage. However, as outlined, our comments and observations are such as to suggest that references could be further extended within the Housing policies and still be in accordance with the framework of PPW Edition 12, key to the evolution of these policies.

Request for minor amendment to wording that after the words ‘co-operative housing’ the words ‘and other forms of community led affordable housing’ are inserted as this would accord with the context of PPW Edition 12 as noted.

Cwmpas is positive in its response to the Deposit RLDP statements and welcomes the reference to community led housing as noted in:

Paragraph 6.121 – positive response though observation and request would be made to minor amendment to wording that after the words ‘co-operative housing’ the words ‘and other forms of community led affordable housing’ are inserted as this would accord with the context of PPW Edition 12 as noted.

Paragraph 6.141 – positive comment and response within the context of Exceptions Policy HG5. However, a request would be made that as well as reference to community land trusts that wording is supplemented with suggested words of ‘and other forms and models of community led affordable housing.’

Furthermore, it is considered that the direct reference to community led affordable housing in the Deposit Plan document addresses and removes some of the potential barriers and challenges faced in the delivery of such forms of housing.

It is now clearly the case that PPW supports community-led housing as a form of affordable housing and that, in the view of Cwmpas, this is material to the considerations of Local Development Plan preparation and from which the Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan would benefit.

Going forward, however, Cwmpas, would consider that detailed planning policy development within the Deposit RLDP could make an overt and explicit community led affordable housing development reference and with specific community led housing policies in addition to those subsumed within more generic and general housing policies.

Firstly, the addition of a specific reference to community led housing within Policies HG1, HG2, HG3 akin to that within HG5 would enable to the benefits and reach of community led housing to be expanded into mainstream housing policies and allocations and not only Exceptions Policy.

Secondly, it would be considered as beneficial that the Deposit RLDP policies on community led housing development could include a clear definition of this type of affordable housing.

In summary, it is considered that the direct reference to community led housing in the Deposit Plan document as noted in Paragraphs 6.121 and 6.141 represent very positive inclusion and that it addresses and removes some of the potential barriers and challenges faced in the delivery of such forms of housing by drafting specific community led housing policies at the RLDP Deposit Plan stage. However, as outlined, our comments and observations are such as to suggest that references could be further extended within the Housing policies and still be in accordance with the framework of PPW Edition 12, key to the evolution of these policies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amend the wording of the policy accordingly in line with the above comments.

The words 'including a minimum of 3,070 affordable homes' should be changed to ' a target of 3,070 affordable homes'. The reason for this is that a minimum suggests it should be more; however, other relevant housing policies are worded to provide for a defined number or target and do not provide for more to be delivered. This change of wording does not stop more affordable homes from being provided, should developers choose to do so.

Additional wording should be included at the end of the policy:

'The mix of affordable housing will also take into account the character of the site and its surroundings to ensure the development creates a sustainable community in line with placemaking principles.'

On the basis of the above, it is proposed that Policy SP7 and Policy SP8 should be aligned so that they are consistent with each other and provide flexibility on a “case-by-case basis”. This would ensure that the RLDP will meet the third test of soundness (Will the Plan deliver?).

Policy SP7 stipulates that in order to meet the affordable housing target of 3,070 dwellings during the RLDP period “a mix of affordable housing will be required, informed by the Local Housing Market Assessment LHMA, waiting list data and the Older Persons Housing Strategy. This should include a range of tenures, types and sizes of homes, as well as an appropriate balance of general needs and specialist accommodation”.

Whilst it is understood that it is a core RLDP objective to deliver affordable homes in VoG which respond to identified need, Policy SP7 must allow for viability to be considered. Whilst paragraph 6.120 of the RLDP states “In calculating the affordable housing target, the Council recognises that the number of affordable homes delivered during the plan period could be lower as a result of site viability constraints or greater where they are on sites delivered by the Council, Registered Social Landlords or on land owned by the Welsh Government”, this recognition is not transferred into the wording of Policy SP7.

The blanket approach to affordable housing requirement percentage across VoG fails to take into account that there may be unique technical complexities at individual allocations that are required to be overcome before sites can be delivered. This is in contrast to PPW paragraph 4.2.32 which states that: “When setting the affordable housing thresholds and/or site-specific targets planning authorities must consider their impact on site viability to ensure residential sites remain deliverable.”

Policy SP8 sets out that Primary and Minor Rural Settlements should meet an affordable housing requirement level of 40%. We do query why affordable housing led allocations in the same geographic areas have a requirement of 50% affordable housing? It is understood from paragraphs 6.122-6.123 of the RLDP that the affordable housing percentage requirements for the settlements in VoG are being carried over from the adopted LDP. However, this does not explain why windfall sites in the Primary and Minor Rural Settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area would need to provide a minimum 40% affordable housing and the Affordable Housing Led Schemes in the Primary and Minor Rural Settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area would need to provide a minimum of 50%. Further evidence is required on this matter to ensure that Policy SP8 meets the second test of soundness (Is the Plan appropriate?).

Policy SP8 also states that: “The provision of affordable housing will be negotiated on a site-by-site basis considering the evidenced viability of the development.” Policy SP8 also states: “Where developers claim that the target is unviable, a detailed viability assessment must be submitted and independently reviewed.” The consideration of viability in Policy SP8 is endorsed as it is consistent with paragraph 4.2.32 of PPW.

Policy SP8 also states that: “The exact mix of affordable housing required will be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the Council’s latest needs evidence at the
time of the application”. Again, this level of flexibility is endorsed. However, we are concerned that there is contradiction between Policy SP7 (Affordable Housing) and Policy SP8 that needs to be addressed. As drafted Policy SP8 (which relates to all new residential developments in VoG including Affordable housing led allocations) allows flexibility for the delivery of mix of affordable homes as it allows for the exact mix to be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the Council’s latest evidence needs. Yet, Policy SP7 (which relates to all affordable residential units to be delivered in the RLDP period) applies a blanket approach that requires the mix of affordable housing to be informed by the Council’s evidence base only, with no flexibility or consideration for site-specific cases or viability. Thus, the two policies as drafted in the RLDP currently contradict one another. This is especially important for the affordable led schemes as the housing mix (affordable and market) can have a big impact on the viability of the scheme given that they have more onerous planning obligations.

On the basis of the above, it is proposed that Policy SP7 and Policy SP8 should be aligned so that they are consistent with each other and provide flexibility on a “case-by-case basis”. This would ensure that the RLDP will meet the third test of soundness (Will the Plan deliver?).

Policy SP7 stipulates that in order to meet the affordable housing target of 3,070 dwellings during the RLDP period “a mix of affordable housing will be required, informed by the Local Housing Market Assessment LHMA, waiting list data and the Older Persons Housing Strategy. This should include a range of tenures, types and sizes of homes, as well as an appropriate balance of general needs and specialist accommodation”.

Whilst it is understood that it is a core RLDP objective to deliver affordable homes in VoG which respond to identified need, Policy SP7 must allow for viability to be considered. There is a lack of clarity around the term ‘informed’. It is unclear whether the Council will require the mix reflect the LHMA etc or whether it is just a starting point for negotiation. It is assumed that it is just a starting point but this could helpfully be clarified.

It is noted that the Council has ambitious policies for both affordable housing and net zero operational homes. In working towards delivery of these it will be necessary to carefully consider site viability and there must be some flexibility in both Policy SP7 to ensure that necessary new homes are built.

PPW paragraph 4.2.32 states that: ““When setting the affordable housing thresholds and/or site-specific targets planning authorities must consider their impact on site viability to ensure residential sites remain deliverable.”

Policy SP8 also states that: “The provision of affordable housing will be negotiated on a site-by-site basis considering the evidenced viability of the development.” Policy SP8 also states: “Where developers claim that the target is unviable, a detailed viability assessment must be submitted and independently reviewed.” The consideration of viability in Policy SP8 is endorsed as it is consistent with paragraph 4.2.32 of PPW.

Policy SP8 also states that: “The exact mix of affordable housing required will be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the Council’s latest needs evidence at the time of the application”. Again, this level of flexibility is endorsed. However, we are concerned that there is possible contradiction between Policy SP7 (Affordable Housing) and Policy SP8 that needs to be addressed. As drafted Policy SP8 (which relates to all new residential developments in VoG including Affordable housing led allocations) allows flexibility for the delivery of mix of affordable homes as it allows for the exact mix to be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the Council’s latest evidence needs. Yet, Policy SP7 (which relates to all affordable residential units to be delivered in the RLDP period) requires the mix of affordable housing to be informed by the Council’s evidence base only, it is unclear the extent to which there is no flexibility or consideration for site-specific cases or viability. Thus, the two policies as drafted in the RLDP currently contradict one another. This is especially important for the affordable led schemes as the housing mix (affordable and market) can have a big impact on the viability of the scheme given that they have more onerous planning obligations.

To ensure the RLDP is sound, the Council should increase the overall housing requirement by apply a meaningful flexibility allowance that ensure sufficient contingency measures are in place to consistently meet local need over the plan period. This would directly increase the quantum of affordable housing secured through policy mechanisms, thereby aligning the Plan with national policy objectives. The latter goes to the heart of the tests of soundness within the Development Plan Manual in ensuring the plan is not only appropriate but capable of delivering the step change required to address affordable housing needs up to 2036.

This submission relates to the site known as ‘Land North of Dinas Powys’ and builds upon previous responses provided in respect of the Call for Sites exercise in September 2022 and more recently Preferred Strategy in February 2024.
For context the site is identified as part of Candidate Site Ref. No 444 within the latest Candidate Sites Assessment (Background Paper – BP18A) which has been published as part of the supporting evidence base.
As you are aware to date Persimmon have presented, what is in effect, two options for the development of the site with a Smaller Option (extending c13ha) and an Extended Scheme (extending to c31ha). Whilst there are significant benefits of both schemes this representation will focus on the smaller option which has been identified as a proposed site allocation for residential development within the Deposit under Policy HG1 – KS2 ‘Land North of Dinas Powys’.
Having reviewed the Deposit Plan it is evident that the document is structured around a number of key themes/ sections. For convenience this submission discusses each of which in chronological order and should be considered in conjunction with the accompanying technical reports/ plans provided to date.
The overarching purpose of which shall be to respond to the relevant draft Replacement Local Development Plan policies, with particular consideration given to the Welsh Government’s tests of soundness as set out within the Development Plan Manual for Wales (Third Edition) March 2020)):
• Test 1 – Does the Plan Fit?
• Test 2 – Is the Plan Appropriate?
• Test 3 – Will the Plan Deliver?

Section 3: Key Characteristics
Settlement Pattern
In principle, Persimmon support the Settlement Pattern as set out in Section 3 and in particularly the identification of Dinas Powys as a Primary Settlement.
Paragraph 3.9 explains that primary settlements “offer several key services and facilities, which are vital to their role as sustainable communities, as they reduce the need to travel to Barry or the Service Centre Settlements to address day-to-day needs”.
The importance of the Primary Settlements in supporting the Service Centre Settlements is noted, however Persimmon consider that Dinas Powys, in particular, is capable of a higher role/ function and thus accommodate even further levels of growth. This is particularly relevant given the fact that the Service Centres at Cowbridge, Llantwit Major and Penarth are generally more constrained physically and environmentally.
Housing Market and Housing Need
In light of the Vale of Glamorgan’s strategic location in-between Cardiff and Bridgend, and the significant employment opportunities associated with these areas, the Deposit RLDP should seek to maximise housing provision to ensure a more sustainable balance is achieved between homes and jobs, and in turn reduce commuting distances/ carbon emissions.
Paragraph 3.18 clearly acknowledges the scale of affordable housing need, identifying a requirement for 1,075 affordable homes per annum between 2023–2028 and 154 per annum thereafter. Yet it remains unclear whether existing unmet need has been fully factored into the overall housing requirement presented within the Deposit RLDP. This is particularly importance in the context of the Welsh Government’s 2025-based estimates which identify 9,400 units of unmet need at a national level and a requirement for 8,700 additional homes per annum over the next five years simply to address newly arising need.
Accordingly, there is a compelling justification for a further uplift in housing numbers to ensure the Plan proactively addresses both existing and emerging need. Increasing the overall housing requirement would directly enhance the overall delivery rate for affordable homes which is crucial in a local authority area with the highest affordability ratio in Wales. Paragraph 3.17 confirms that in the Vale average house prices are 9.7 times average workplace earnings compared to the Wales average of 6.1, therefore a step change in housing targets is needed to support a more balanced housing market across the region.
Section 4: Key Themes, Vision & Objectives
Key Themes
Persimmon supports the theme ‘Homes for all’ and the need for the housing supply to respond to the growing population and provided in appropriate locations, with a mix of tenure and types. In that respect site Land north of Dinas Powys provides an opportunity to ensure future residential development aligns with such objectives to deliver high quality housing development in a sustainable location, whilst also facilitating additional services and facilities as part of the proposed offer.
In principle, Persimmon support the ‘Placemaking’ theme and consider that the proposed allocation in Dinas Powys shall ensure a strong sense of identity is achieved.
Persimmon also support the theme of ‘Promoting active travel and sustainable transport choices’, and highlight that the proposed residential development at Dinas Powys clearly further assists in ensuring that the new development be in a highly sustainable location with very good access to alternative transport, other than the private car.
Vision
In general, Persimmon support the RLDP Vision, however highlight that whilst Barry and other Sustainable Service Centres are identified as playing a vital role in delivering the strategy, the importance of the ability for Primary Settlements to deliver sustainable and high-quality residential development also needs to be suitably recognised.
The site Land north of Dinas Powys clearly aligns with the Council’s ambition to ensure future growth delivers homes which caters for all (including affordable homes) and are prioritised in areas of greatest demand. Whilst simultaneously facilitating much needed additional infrastructure improvements to further enhance Dinas Powys’ role as a Primary Settlement thereby supporting both existing and future residents.
In light of the above it is considered that Dinas Powys plays a significant part in delivering the Council’s strategy and the role, function, and ability of this settlement to accommodate growth needs to be significantly reinforced. The settlement is capable of accommodating more growth in a highly sustainable location we believe warrants greater recognition within the vision itself.
Strategic Objectives
Objective 3 – Home for All
Persimmon supports the principle of Objective 3, in particular the provision of high quality housing which includes the right mix, tenure and type. Persimmon supports the notion of providing residential development in places which people want to live, and in particular Dinas Powys as a Primary Settlement.
Objective 4 – Placemaking
As above, in principle Persimmon support the Council’s placemaking objectives which seeks to ensure all development will contribute positively toward creating a sense of place. Most notably this involves prioritising future growth in sustainable locations which are placed to create attractive, safe and accessible schemes that are equally effective from a functional standpoint.
Our site in Danis Powys aligns with such principles whilst also providing an opportunity to facilitate a logical extension to the existing urban form and in doing so meet local need in a sustainable matter. The scope of which includes full market and affordable housing in accordance with proposed policy requirements along with ample public open space, active travel links via dedicated pedestrian footpaths and cycleways and SuDS features.
Objective 8 – Promoting Active and Sustainable Travel Choices
Persimmon supports the principle of promoting active and sustainable travel choices and highlight that their residential development at Dinas Powys has been designed to ensure accessibility it’s at the heart of the scheme with regards to walking, cycling and connectivity to public transport.
Moreover, the proposed allocation would also facilitate both on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements further enhancing the existing excellent accessibility to Eastbrook Station. Therefore, providing an opportunity to encourage a modal shift towards more active forms of travel and consequently reducing dependency on private vehicle and associated carbon emissions. From a plan-making standpoint the proposed allocation at Land north of Dinas Powys (HG1 KS2) is therefore crucial to ensure growth is prioritised in such a highly sustainable location and maximise opportunities for greater connectivity at both a regional and local level.
Section 5: Sustainable Growth Strategy
RLDP Sustainable Growth Strategy comprises six key elements as follows:
1. Delivering a sustainable level of housing and employment growth supported by appropriate infrastructure that accords with the Vale’s position within the Cardiff Capital Region (CCR).
In order to meet the overarching Vision, the Vale have identified a need to deliver at least 8,679 new dwellings over the proposed plan period which responds to the identified housing requirement of 7,890 homes (526 per annum) and incorporates a 10% flexible allowance. Persimmon support the proposed approach, however maintain it should be considered a minimum figure with aspirations to achieve greater levels of growth in sustainable locations across the district.
Whilst we appreciate these figures are based on average completion rates over the first ten years of the adopted Local Development Plan. It is important to recognise that a higher rate of housing delivery is demonstrably achievable. Annual completion rates peaked at 917 dwellings, with six of the ten monitoring years exceeding the 526 per annum figure currently relied upon. This demonstrates that delivery capacity within the Vale has historically operated well above the proposed requirement and should therefore provide confidence that a higher housing target could realistically be achieved over the emerging plan period.
Furthermore, the Council’s own evidence base (BP7 - Housing and Employment Growth Options) identifies a five-year average build rate of 780 units per annum between 2016 and 2021. Again, this figure exceeds the annual delivery rate currently proposed within the emerging RLDP and reinforces the fact that the proposed housing requirement should not be unduly constrained by a lower long-term average.
Whilst Paragraph 5.8 explains that the proposed figures are based on a ten-year average delivery rate, it fails to acknowledge that this period included the Covid-19 pandemic and at a time where construction costs experienced significant inflation. These factors had a material impact on the housebuilding industry nationally and inevitably suppressed delivery rates during those years. From an objective perspective, basing the future housing requirement on an average that includes these exceptional circumstances risks skewing the figures and underestimates the district’s true delivery potential for the Vale.
In light of the above we believe a sensible response would be to incorporate a greater flexible allowance of 15% within the RLDP to demonstrate an appropriate level of growth will be achieved. Whilst also ensuring there is sufficient supply of sites to come forward early on during the plan period to proactively address housing need from the point of adoption up to 2036.
From a procedural standpoint it is also important to note that the currently adopted plan predates the publication of Future Wales: The National Plan 2040 and the Vale’s position within a national growth area. As such, pursuing an approach which seeks to maintain historic delivery rates is not considered to reflect this enhanced role and arguably lacks the level ambition set out at a national level. The proposed housing requirement should therefore be uplifted to positively respond to such matters in order to ensure conformity with Future Wales and regional aspirations.
Increasing the overall housing target would also act as a catalyst to enhance the delivery of affordable housing which is identified as a key objective for the RLDP. Each proposed site allocation is subject to a policy-compliant percentage contribution, therefore a higher level of market housing would proportionately generate a greater number of affordable homes to meet local need across the region.
As evidence above, the proposed allocation Site Ref HG1 KS2 – Land to the North of Dinas Powys, represents a suitable, available and deliverable location for residential development without any constraints preventing it from delivering units in the first five years of the emerging plan period.
Persimmon Homes remain fully committed to the development opportunities presented by the site and its progression as a proposed allocation within the RLDP. The latter is essential in assisting the Vale of Glamorgan meet local housing need which ultimately goes to the heart of the plan and ensuring it has been soundly prepared.

2. Aligning locations for new housing, employment, services and facilities to reduce the need to travel.
Persimmon supports the Vale’s objective to locate new major development in areas of the region best served by existing infrastructure and supporting services. The Settlement Appraisal Review (BP5) identifies Dinas Powys as the most sustainable primary settlement in the region with suitable local services to accommodate future growth which remains in keeping with the overall function of the existing settlement.
Whilst the settlements of Barry, Penarth, Llantwit Major and Cowbridge are deemed to score higher on certain criteria (as shown within the table below), it is clear Dinas Powys is considered to be the third most accessible settlement to modes of public transport which clearly aligns with the Council’s intension to pursue a transport orientated spatial strategy for future growth. On this basis it is evident that Dinas Powys is more sustainably located when compared to Cowbridge and Llantwit Major, and therefore warrants a higher ranking within the Settlement Appraisal Review and thus greater levels of growth within the RLDP.
Tables 1& 2. Extracts of Key Settlement, Service Centres & Primary Settlement Scores from Settlement Appraisal Review (BP5)
3. Focusing development at locations that are well served by existing and proposed rail stations as part of the South Wales Metro and in areas with good bus links.
The Deposit RLDP explains that whilst reducing the need to travel is a key policy objective, it is recognised that there are journeys that will need to be made by other modes of transport, particularly due to the strong relationship with Cardiff as a designation for employment, retail and entertainment. As such the proposed growth strategy seeks to locate development in places that are inherently well served by sustainable transport in line with the Vale of Glamorgan’s transport hierarchy.
Persimmon supports these principles and recognises the importance of prioritising development in sustainable locations across the regions, particular those well connected to Cardiff city centre. Paragraph 5.18 of the Deposit Plan states that “Targeting new development to the settlements that are served by the rail network is a key part of the strategy, as it will facilitate journeys being made by means other than the car”. Persimmon wholly agree with this approach on the basis that this would enable the RLDP to achieve a more sustainable pattern of development and in doing so support growth over the emerging plan period.
In order to help identify suitable locations for future development Transport for Wales have produced isochrone maps which delineates different travels times for walking and cycling around each of the existing railway stations in the Vale. Most notably the site known as at ‘Land North of Dinas Powys’ is situated within 5-10 minutes walking / 0-5 minutes cycling distance to Eastbrook Station and 15-20 minutes walking/ 5-10 minutes cycling distance from the station at Dinas Powys. This evidence clearly demonstrates the proposed site represents one of the most sustainable locations for residential-led growth and thereby justified its position within the RLDP as a key allocation.
Land North of Dinas Powys further strengthens the spatial strategy by prioritising development at a location that is well served by existing rail stations. Focusing growth in settlements with established rail connectivity ensures that future residents have direct access to sustainable transport infrastructure from the outset. This approach supports a more sustainable pattern of development by reducing reliance on the private vehicle and encouraging a modal shift towards rail, alongside walking and cycling for local trips.
By directing development to locations well served by existing bus and rail infrastructure , the proposal would help reduce the need for commuting via private vehicles, particularly for journeys to key employment and service destinations. In doing so, it would make a positive contribution towards the Council’s climate change targets through the reduction of carbon emissions and promoting a modal shift within the local community.
Moreover, the proposed allocation HG1 KS2 presents a significant opportunity to support local facilities and facilitate green infrastructure provision within a highly accessible and sustainable location. The scope of which shall include ample public open space, dedicated active travel links via pedestrian footpaths and cycleways, Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) features, and other associated infrastructure. Integrating these elements at the heart of the site shall enable residents to meet a greater proportion of their daily needs locally while benefiting from high-quality public transport connections.
In terms of the overall distribution of growth, Persimmon fully supports the proposed approach to prioritise development in sustainable locations near existing rail infrastructure as depicted by the strategic transport corridor within the RLDP Key Diagram (Figure 10). However, to optimise the effectiveness of this strategy it would be prudent to focus growth in areas of greatest demand.
Paragraph 3.14 of the Deposit Plan explains that a significant proportion of the population increase in the Vale over the past 10 years has been as a direct result of a people migrating from Cardiff to the Vale, with the Vale ultimately experiencing a net increase of an average of 716 people per year for the period 2011-2021. These principles should therefore be better reflected in the general pattern of development set out within the RLDP. This would be achieved by prioritising higher levels of growth in areas such as Dinas Powys, which is not only the nearest settlement geographically to Cardiff but also inherently well connected by the existing rail network and other modes of public transport.
Focussing further growth in well-connected, sustainable locations such Dinas Powys will therefore support the Council’s transport-led placemaking approach. These principles fully align with the Welsh Governments strategic objectives as set out within the Future Wales – the National Plan 2040, Planning Policy Wales Edition 12 and Llwybr Newydd: The Wales Transport Strategy, which in turn shall contribute towards achieving a more sustainable pattern of development within the RLDP.

Figure 1. Extract of Key Diagram/ Strategic Growth Area from Deposit Plan
Section 6: Policy Framework
This section identifies the strategic policies, criteria-based development management policies, site specific allocations and designated areas to be protected. These are broadly arranged by topic theme under the key policy headings set out in PPW which are reflected below.
Strategic and Spatial Choices (Placemaking)
Policy SP1 – Sustainable Growth Strategy (& Policy SP6 – Housing Requirements)
This policy states that in order to deliver the Sustainable Growth Strategy for the VoG, the emerging RLDP will make provision for 7,890 dwellings and 5,338 jobs over the plan period. In order to achieve the former Policy SP6 explains that to meet the identified housing requirement of 7,890 dwellings, provision will be made for the delivery of 8,660 homes in the Plan Period 2021 to 2036 which incorporates a 10% flexible allowance. In turn this will be distributed as follows: i) 3,837 dwellings from the existing land supply; ii) 3,520 dwellings on allocated sites; & iii) 1,303 dwellings from large and small windfall developments.

Whilst Persimmon supports the Council’s conclusion that in principle the ‘Medium’ growth option reflected in Policy SP1 generally accords with the Welsh Government’s aspirations for the Vale of Glamorgan within the Future Wales national growth area, which is identified as a focus for strategic economic and housing growth. Given the Vale forms part of the Cardiff Capital Region, it is equally important that the overall level of growth remains suitably ambitious to support the region’s economic aspirations and continues to complement Cardiff which remains the nearest neighbouring authority.
Although we understand the proposed approach uses the Dwelling-led 10 Year scenario, which is based on the average annual build rate for the first 10 years of the adopted plan and equates to a total of 7,890 new homes or 526 dwellings per annum over the emerging plan period. The overarching intention is to ensure the projected level of growth is deliverable whilst recognising the fact there is sufficient capacity within the Vale to support further growth towards the higher end of the ‘medium’ range.
As noted, Persimmon are wholly in support of Key Housing-Led Site Ref. KS2 - North Dinas Powys, off Cardiff Road, which seeks to actively contribute towards the housing requirement.
However, the Deposit Plan also needs to recognise that there exists an opportunity to further extend the allocation to provide a logical extension to the defined urban area of Dinas Powys and which will facilitate the delivery of much needed full market and affordable housing to help address the significant level of demand identified across the Vale.
This additional land is promoted in the context of the concerns raised regarding the current figure of 8,660 new dwellings which is underpinned by a 10% flexible allowance in relation to housing delivery. Persimmon consider it relevant to take account of recent evidence provided to other Local Planning Authorities in Wales which have either adopted or are in the latter stages of bringing forward a new Local Development Plan.
For example, in Bridgend the Council recently adopted their new Local Development Plan (covering the period 2018 to 2033) which is underpinned by a flexibility allowance of 14% equating to an additional 1,053 dwellings. This level of provision was required in order to demonstrate the Anticipated Annual Build Rate (AABR) were deliverable and ensure that the Plan remains effective in the event of changing circumstances. During the examination process the Inspector explained that an increase beyond the standard 10% was fundamental to enable the plan and its housing trajectory to be resilient and sufficiently adaptable. The overarching purpose of which is to account for any unforeseen changes and potential shortfalls/ delays to the strategic site allocations whilst still enabling the overall housing requirement to be delivered.
For Swansea, the Council published their LDP2 Pre-Deposit Plan (Preferred Strategy) for consultation last year. In terms of housing delivery this incorporates a 20% flexible allowance above the proposed housing requirement and is predicated on the basis of needing to account for certain sites not coming forward as anticipated and other unforeseen factors affecting delivery. Similar to the Vale, Swansea City Council’s latest Annual Monitoring Report (6th Edition) (October 2025) confirms that since adoption of the current LDP in February 2019 they have not met their annual housing target for any of the past six years. To date this has resulted in a shortfall of approximately 3,767 homes which is predominantly attributed to delays associated with larger strategic allocations. Therefore, in order to avoid having similar implications next time around the Council have uplifted the proposed flexible allowance within LDP2 and intend to incorporate a more diverse portfolio of sites going forward. The main purpose of which is to build in an additional margin of flexibility above the standard 10% threshold, and therefore enable other sites to come forward to account for potential slippage elsewhere to ensure the plan is effective in meeting local need.
More recently in Monmouthshire, the Council submitted their proposed RLDP to PEDW in November 2025. As part of which they have identified a requirement of 6,210 homes which incorporates a 15% flexible allowance. Similar to above an increase beyond the standard 10% threshold has been justified to account for potential shortfalls/ delays due to longer lead in times needed for strategic site allocations whilst proactively addressing any historic unmet need.
Whilst Persimmon appreciate that the Council intends to prioritise growth towards the higher end of the ‘medium’ range. Having reviewed the Deposit Plan evidence base we believe a minimum allowance of 15% would be more reflective of the Vale’s strategic position and would seek an additional 395 dwellings to the medium growth option equating to a total of 9,074 homes. The benefits of which are evident above and justification well-established from a plan-making perspective to ensure the RLDP is underpinned by a robust evidence base which incorporates a suitable level of flexibility to effectively meet local housing need from the outset.
In addition to the above the importance of increasing the RLDP’s housing target, by virtue of uplifting the proposed flexible allowance, has recently been highlighted by the findings of data published by the Welsh Government (WG). Most notably that includes the 2022-based Local authority household projections (Dated 20th November 2025) and 2025-based estimates of additional housing need (Dated 12th February 2026).
Upon publishing the former superseded the previous 2018-based demographic projections and provides updated figures from mid-2022 to mid-2032. The results show that whilst the overall number of households in Wales is projected to increase by around 98,500/ 7.2%, to a total of 1.46 million. The local authorities projected to see the largest percentage increases are the Vale of Glamorgan (up 11.7%) and Cardiff (up 11.1%).
In turn these trends are carried through into WG’s 2025-based estimates of additional housing need, which identifies an existing unmet need of 9,400 homes. This is supplemented by a requirement to deliver an average of 8,700 new homes annually over the next five years to account for newly arising need alone. The combination of which demonstrates that there is an urgent need to increase delivery rates on both a national and local level, and therefore it’s imperative that the latest position with regards to the need for affordable and full market homes are accurately reflected within the Council’s housing figures.
In terms of considering the level of housing provision for a plan, Paragraph 5.34 of the DPM is explicit in that the most up-to date suite of Welsh Government Population and Household Projections must form the foundation of any evidence base. LPAs are then required to use a household conversion factor when translating households to dwellings to establish overall need.
Once again, the DPM explains that failure to include a robust conversion rate from the outset is a high-risk strategy and may undermine the overall soundness of any emerging plan. To avoid such circumstances, we believe it’s essential the LMNA is updated to reflect the latest WG datasets, which in turn is likely to provide grounds to warrant extending the proposed 15% threshold further. Ultimately this approach intends to ensure the emerging RLDP more effectively meet local need over the entire plan period and thus soundly prepared.
Figure 2. Extract of the Welsh Government’s Calculation Method for Total Dwellings as per the Development Plan Manual
As mentioned above, Policy SP6 provides a high-level breakdown of how the Council’s housing growth is expected to be delivered over the plan period. For completeness this includes: i) 3,837 dwellings from the existing land supply; ii) 3,520 dwellings on allocated sites; & iii) 1,303 dwellings from large and small windfall developments.
Whilst we do not dispute those relating to proposed site allocations and/ or windfall developments. The proportion of dwellings set to be accounted for within the Vale of Glamorgan’s existing landbank (3,837 units) is considered excessive given it represents 44.3% of the Council’s overall housing requirement.
Although Persimmon acknowledge that this is partly derived on the basis that emerging plan period has technically already commenced (2021 to 2036), and therefore is made up of sites at various different stages of planning process (i.e. either already built out, being constructed or secured consent - as shown below). It is important to recognise the potential implications this approach has in terms of stifling opportunities for growth, which is contrary to the Welsh Government’s aspirations for the Vale of Glamorgan as part of a National Growth Area within Future Wales: The National Plan 2040.

Table 3. Extract of the Vale of Glamorgan’s Housing Supply and Housing Requirement
From an objective standpoint this means there is only a need for 2,561 additional dwellings (3,520 dwellings minus 959 units rolled forward) to be delivered from new allocations over the emerging plan period. This reinforces the point that in reality the overall quantum of new homes will be significantly lower than the figure set out within the RLDP’s vision and strategic objectives. In turn this prevent opportunities for new sites to come forward as part of the plan-making process and in doing so hinder the Council’s ability to account for historic unmet need. Collectively this substantiates Persimmon’s position that in order for the plan to be considered sound the Council must accommodate a greater flexible allowance, optimising the use of sites such as Land north of Dinas Powys, to ensure the emerging local plan complies with the Welsh Government’s aspirations set out within Future Wales.
As illustrated above, the Council anticipate 1,303 dwellings coming forward in the form of windfall sites. This accounts for both small and large sites which in turn represents around 15% of the Council’s overall housing requirement. Once again, whilst we do not contest the overall windfall provision or the projected delivery rate of 87 dwellings per annum up to 2036. It is important to recognise that based on past trends the annual number of homes which comes forward on windfall sites varies significantly year on year.
Table 18 of the Development Plan Manual (DPM) is explicit in that respect and explains that although due regard must be attributed to analysis of past delivery rates, periods of abnormally high or low completions should be considered inappropriate/anomalies when extrapolating future rates of windfall sites. On that basis ensuring the RLDP incorporates a greater flexible allowance will not only provide certainty that any shortfalls/fallow periods are offset, but also enable a more consistent supply of homes to be achieved over the plan period as a whole.
Lastly, in terms of overall growth Paragraph 5.8 of the Deposit Plan states that the level of growth they have identified ‘’has been demonstrated to be deliverable and is sufficiently ambitious to reflect the Vale’s position in the Future Wales national growth area.’’ It also notes that this level of growth has been chosen so that it is ‘’complementary to, rather than competing with, the neighbouring authority of Cardiff and the wider Cardiff Capital Region (CCR).’’.
Whilst it is agreed that the level of growth may be realistic based on past trends, the claim that this is sufficiently ambitious and needs to be at this level to avoid competing with Cardiff is not substantiated by evidence to suggest that a higher level of growth could not also achieve these principles.
Cardiff, as the capital city of Wales, also demonstrated historic under delivery when publishing its deposit plan for consultation in February 2025, which was the case for allocated sites as well as generally for annual delivery rates over the adopted plan period. This resulted in a failure to meet targets over the last 10 years of their adopted plan. Whilst Cardiff has made progress in more recent years, the latest Annual Monitoring Report published in October 2025 notes that to date the region has met just 58% of its overall dwelling requirements over the plan period from 2006-2025.
Accordingly, with Cardiff opting to continue with a medium growth option for their RLDP despite these shortfalls, there is no sound basis to suggest that adopting a higher growth level within the VoG would detrimentally impact upon housing delivery or ‘compete’ with Cardiff.
In summary, Persimmon supports the overall medium growth strategy and key allocations such as North Dinas Powys. Although given the Vale’s position within the Cardiff Capital Region and its designation as a national growth area, we maintain that the proposed RLDP should be more ambitious when it comes to housing targets. Drawing on examples from Bridgend (14% flexibility), Swansea (20%), and Monmouthshire (15%), alongside evidence of historic under-delivery and recent Welsh Government household projections, there are sufficient grounds to warrant increasing the proposed flexibility allowance to a minimum of 15%, equating to a total requirement of 9,074 homes up to 2036.
These steps would help account for any potential overreliance on existing landbanks and variable windfall delivery rates which could in theory limit the plan’s ability to address unmet housing need. Overall, we conclude that a higher flexibility allowance is necessary to the ensure the RLDP is able to effectively meet local need over the plan period. From a practical standpoint whilst further sites may well be required to accommodate the additional growth, it is important the current proposed allocations are safeguarded and therefore supplemented accordingly. The benefits of which shall also demonstrate the emerging RLDP is supported by a robust, proportionate and credible evidence base to accord with the requirements of the Development Plan Manual for Wales and national growth objectives.
Policy SP2 – Settlement Hierarchy
In principle, Persimmon supports the Settlement Pattern set out in Policy SP2, particularly the identification of Dinas Powys as a Primary Settlement.
Whilst the role of Primary Settlements is acknowledged, in that they contain several key services and facilities, vital to supporting sustainable communities including primary schools, small convenience shops, food and drink outlets and employment opportunities.
Persimmon considers that Dinas Powys is capable of fulfilling an enhanced role given its proximity to strategic transport infrastructure which provide regular services to key designations throughout the region and Cardiff city centre. Whilst the proposed allocation HG1 KS2 undoubtedly supports such principles, given the area is inherently well served by existing infrastructure we maintain that it has the capacity to accommodate even further levels of growth, which could be delivered through the extended Candidate Site (Ref. No. 444). This approach would align with the Council’s spatial strategy given that the Service Centres at Cowbridge, Llantwit Major and Penarth are generally subject to greater physical and environmental constraints.
Policy SSC1 – Development within Settlement Boundaries
Persimmon Homes support the premise of Policy SSC1, and the objective of directing development to areas within defined settlement boundaries. This approach will help reinforce sustainable growth patterns and prioritise development in locations well served by both existing and planned infrastructure. Collectively these principles align with the Councils ambitions for Land north of Dinas Powys (HG1 KS2) and supporting local services and facilities to reduce overreliance on private vehicle travel.
Policy SP4 – Placemaking
In principle Persimmon Homes supports Policy SP4 and the aim of ensuring all new development is of high-quality sustainable design.
The proposed allocation Land north of Dinas Powys has been designed with landscape led approach and therefore clearly aligns with the placemaking principles set out in Policy SP4 and the sustainable placemaking framework of PPW12. The site’s location on the edge of Dinas Powys enables the scheme to positively responds to the character of the local area whilst remaining in keeping with the wider landscape setting. The layout reflects the prevailing scale and form of surrounding neighbourhoods, incorporating similar architectural cues and a coherent street hierarchy. Green infrastructure forms the structural framework of the masterplan, integrating retained landscape features, new planting, and sustainable drainage measures to ensure climate resilience and biodiversity enhancement. The density proposed makes efficient use of land in accordance with national policy while remaining sensitive to local character and the edge-of-settlement context.
In line with PPW12’s emphasis on health and well-being, the scheme promotes active travel that connects to existing pedestrian routes, public transport links and community facilities within Dinas Powys. The development prioritises walking and cycling, supports access to local schools, shops and services, and reduces reliance on the private car. Public open spaces have been prioritised towards the centre of the scheme and homes orientated accordingly to promote natural surveillance, thereby creating a safe area that encourage recreation, social interaction and community cohesion. The integrated green network delivers benefits such as improving general air quality and strengthening ecological connectivity within the Vale of Glamorgan.
The proposal also reflects the design principles set down within the Design Commission for Wales in respect of quality architectural design, contextual response and multifunctional spaces. This will be achieved through a balanced mix of housing types and tenures responds to local need. Careful consideration has also been given to the wider landscape setting of Dinas Powys, ensuring that key views, settlement edges and local character are respected and enhanced.
Policy PGD1 – Creating Well Designed and Inclusive Places
Persimmon question the need for both Policies SP4 and PGD1 as there is notable repetition between the two. In principle the criteria set out within the proposed policy aligns with our expectations, however there is a need to recognise that not all criteria will be able to be accommodated on development sites. Particularly given the need to accommodate other legislative requirements relating to environmental and economic matters that warrant equal consideration as part of the planning process.
On that basis if the Council are minded to continue with this particular policy’s inclusion, we request the proposed wording be updated to clarify that such the merit of such principles will be considered on a site-by-site basis rather than the current blanket approach suggested.
Policy PGD2 – Residential Development Densities
Residential densities are supported as a principle, however, should not be so prescriptive as to unnecessarily restrict development. Policy PGD2 outlines that residential development over 0.5ha will be permitted where the proposed density achieves a minimum of 35 dwellings per net hectare within Key, Service Centre and Primary Settlements and 30 dwellings per net hectare in Minor Rural Settlements.
From a planning standpoint, Persimmon support the Councils approach to prioritise higher density development in Key Settlements, Service Centres and Primary Settlements. These locations are naturally better connected to existing transport infrastructure, modes of public transport, Active Travel routes and local services/facilities to accommodate future growth.
A minor point in relation to the policy wording is the ‘dwellings per net hectare’ and the removal of non-developable space in any calculations. Whilst this is normal, the increased requirements relating to SAB, green infrastructure requirements and increased ecological mitigation all have a direct impact on the remaining available land and it is positive to see there is an allowance for some flexibility.
The density requirement appears to be reasonable in its approach, and the flexibility to allow individual site adjustments (as per the remaining text within the Policy) is welcomed. As there will undoubtedly be occasions where the density will need to be considered in further detail due to other on-site factors/ mitigation measures.
Possibly update to highlight support for higher net densities being prioritised in Key, Service Centres and Primary Settlements which are naturally well served by regular public transport provision and Active Travel routes, or near to services and facilities.
Policy SP5 – Creating Healthy & Inclusive Places and Spaces
Policy SP5 is supported in principle insofar as it seeks to promote healthier and more inclusive places, consistent with the objectives of Planning Policy Wales and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. However, to ensure the policy is robust and effective, it is important that it is supported by an up-to-date and clearly evidenced policy framework. In this regard, the supporting evidence base, particularly BP36 – Planning Healthy Places (June 2024), should be reviewed to ensure that the datasets referenced reflect the most recent available information. For example, life expectancy data currently cited (2018–2020) and indicators based on the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation 2019 should be updated where possible to reflect the most recent datasets, including the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation 2025 and any updated public health, active travel, air quality and demographic data. Ensuring that the evidence base reflects the latest available information is necessary to demonstrate that the policy is justified and based on an accurate understanding of local health conditions and inequalities.
The policy framework should also be updated to reflect the Health Impact Assessment (Wales) Regulations 2025, which were approved by the Senedd in November 2025 and will come into force on 6 April 2027. At present, these forthcoming statutory requirements are not referenced within Policy SP5 or the supporting guidance. Given that the regulations will establish a statutory framework for the preparation of Health Impact Assessments in Wales, it will be important for the RLDP and supporting documents to clarify how the policy’s screening, checklist and Rapid HIA requirements will interact with the statutory regime once implemented. Including reference to the regulations would help ensure that the policy remains aligned with national legislation and is future-proofed over the plan period.
The supporting Rapid Participatory HIA of the Deposit RLDP (BP3, September 2025) provides useful background regarding the Council’s engagement with stakeholders in preparing the plan. However, it would be beneficial for the Council to clearly explain how the findings of that work have informed the specific requirements contained within Policy SP5. Providing a clearer link between the outcomes of the participatory HIA and the policy approach adopted in the RLDP would improve transparency and demonstrate that the policy has been shaped by the evidence gathered through the stakeholder engagement process.
Table 4. Extract of Proposed Criteria for HIA Assessments
The emerging Health Placemaking Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) is broadly welcomed as a practical tool to support implementation of the policy. Nevertheless, a number of matters require further clarification prior to its adoption. In particular, whilst the SPG provides greater clarity regarding the use of the Healthy Placemaking Checklist and Rapid HIAs, it does not clearly identify the circumstances in which a comprehensive (full) HIA would be required. The SPG should also be updated to reflect forthcoming guidance from the Welsh Health Impact Assessment Support Unit (WHIASU) expected in 2026, and ensure alignment with other relevant policies and guidance, including those relating to design, travel plans, public transport accessibility and open space provision. Given the number of cross-references within the SPG, it will be important that these documents are fully aligned and consistent.
Finally, any requirement for a Health Impact Assessment should be applied on a proportionate basis, reflecting the scale, nature and likely impacts of the development proposed. The policy should therefore make clear that the scope and level of detail required for HIAs will be proportionate to the scale and type of development. Subject to these amendments and clarifications, the policy would provide a clearer and more effective framework for integrating health considerations into the planning process.

Active and Social Places
Policy SP6 – Housing Requirements
Please refer to Policy SP1 as written response also accounts for information proposed under this particular policy.
Policy HG1 – Housing Allocations
HG1 KS2 – Land to the North of Dinas Powys
Persimmon wholly support the inclusion of Land to the North of Dinas Powys (HG1 KS2) as a proposed site allocation within the emerging RLDP. The site represents a logical extension to the existing settlement of Dinas Powys and provides an opportunity to address local housing needs within a highly accessible and well-connected location. Given its position adjacent to the existing settlement boundary of Dinas Powys, the site also is also well served by existing services, public transport links, schools and community facilities, thereby reducing reliance on private car travel and supporting national and local placemaking objectives.
The proposed scheme has also been designed to make effective use of land that is both logically related to the existing urban form and clearly aligns with the Council’s growth strategy. Given the level of demand in the area, a particularly significant benefit of proposed allocation HG1- KS2 is the commitment to deliver a minimum of 100 affordable homes, representing 40% of the total provision. The site will therefore make a meaningful contribution to meeting locally needs and incorporate a mix of tenures that directly responds to the Vale’s LHMA/evidance base. These principles align with the Councils aspirations to foster more inclusive communities and thus remain consistent with Policy SP4 and Policy PGD1. From a design perspective the proposed scheme has also informed by a comprehensive masterplanning process ensuring that high quality design, integrated green infrastructure, and sustainable transport connections integrated throughout the proposed layout.
Ecological considerations have similarly informed the proposed layout for the site. Technical work, including the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and subsequent strategy documents, have confirmed suitable biodiversity enhancements can be delivered through a network of retained and reinforced green corridors, historic woodland protection, and supplementary planting. The masterplan prioritises ecological connectivity, incorporating wildlife corridors, dark routes for nocturnal species, and extensive areas of multifunctional open space. These measures not only mitigate potential impacts on identified species, such as dormice, but provide clear opportunities for biodiversity net gain in accordance with the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. The integration of Sustainable Drainage Systems within landscaped areas further demonstrates how flood attenuation, habitat creation and recreational provision can be delivered in a cohesive manner. Thereby ensuring that environmental enhancements are incorporated throughout the scheme from the outset which fully accord with the RLDP’s objectives in that respect.
In transport and community infrastructure terms, the site’s sustainable credentials are equally compelling. The proposed access arrangements onto Cardiff Road have been refined in response to feedback from the highway department, whilst demonstrating deliverability and promoting safe access for all users to avoid having any adverse impacts on local highway network. Geographically the site also lies within immediate walking distance of Eastbrook and Dinas Powys rail stations, which inevitably aligns with the Council’s transport-orientated growth strategy. In turn these principles accord with national placemaking objectives set out in PPW12 and shall actively encouraging a modal shift away from private vehicles to incentivise more active forms of travel. Most notably this includes dedicated pedestrian and cycle links through the site providing connectivity with a range of local services and facilities.
By virtue of the above we fully support the proposed allocation of Land to the North of Dinas Powys (HG1 KS2). As the proposed developer Persimmon Homes remain committed to development opportunities the site presents and its ability to help deliver much needed full market and affordable homes in a highlight sustainable location, which clearly accord with the Council’s proposed growth strategy.
Policy HG1 (B) – Housing Allocations
HG1 (3) Barry - Land at Hayes Lane
Persimmon Homes question to suitability of allocating residential development on the site known as Land at Hayes Lane, The Bendricks. These concerns are centred on the following:
Unsustainable Location & Poor Connectivity
Whilst the site is technically identified within the settlement boundary, it is clearly not a sustainable location for residential development. This is evident by virtue of the fact that Land at Hayes Lane is situated within an existing industrial estate and lacks any supporting facilities. The former reinforces the principle that as a whole the area is characterised by a mix of light industrial and heavy industrial uses which naturally conflicts with the prospect of future residential housing. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume vehicles using the local highway network will be larger in nature (such as HGV’s), and given the majority of streets do not contain dedicated pedestrian footpaths/ cycleways, this raises concerns from a highway safety perspective.
Although we note the Transport Statement from AECOM suggests access can theoretically be achieved to Barry and Sully. Both of these settlements remain over 2km from the site and lie outside of the distances deemed acceptable by Transport for Wales (TfW) to support resident development. Allocating housing on Land at Hayes Lane which therefore does not comply with such criteria would clearly undermine the Council’s objective of pursuing a Transport Orientated Growth approach and by virtue of which risk promoting an unsustainable pattern of development within the emerging RLDP.
As outlined above given the nature of the area there are almost no existing active travel routes in this part of the region. This lack of provision would ultimately lead to future residents using alterative options and many of which would require residents to overcome physical barriers in order to travel in a more sustainable manner. For instance, due to the level of infrastructure associated with the port, the site is effectively detached from the main urban area of Barry and would involve crossing an active railway line halfway along Wimborne Road without sufficient mitigation measures in place. On the other hand, whilst Hayes Road extends further west towards Sully, it follows the southern boundary of the Polaris Industrial Estate which contains various access points that are in regular use throughout the day. Collectively these characteristics would prevent future occupants travelling in a more active manner which is in direct conflict with both local and national planning policy objectives.
The site’s geographic isolation means that access to modes of public transport are extremely limited. Most notably that includes railway stations with the nearest being Cadoxton Station which is located circa 3.8km north of the site. By AECOM’s own accord this is considered to equate to a minimum walking distance of 52 minutes which exceeds TFW’s standards for residential development. Again, this reinforces the fact future residents would be overly reliant on private vehicles to access local services (such as employment opportunities, schools, doctor surgeries etc) which in turn shall achieve an unsustainable pattern of growth and increase associated carbon emissions.
Loss of Allocated Employment Land
Crucially, the site remains allocated in the adopted LDP for B1/B8 employment uses. These intended to facilitate small industrial and workshop units as part of the Atlantic Trading Estate’s expansion and in turn support opportunities for local businesses/ enterprise ventures. The council’s latest Employment Land Review confirms a clear demand for such uses in Barry, with Land at Hayes Lane representing the most logical location for further growth. Reallocating this land for housing would therefore diminish the Vale of Glamorgan’s ability to attract sufficient economic investment to support the requisite levels of growth over the emerging plan period, and potentially displace businesses to other less suitable parts of the region which would not be in the interests of good placemaking as per PPW12.
Although the RLDP’s evidence base suggests there are other development opportunities within the region that could compensate for the proposed loss of employment land. Upon further review it is apparent these are in less favourable locations from both a strategic and operational standpoint. Reassigning Land at Hayes Lane from employment to residential would therefore undermine the Council’s objective of safeguarding existing employment land and prioritising business/ industrial uses in area’s well served by infrastructure designed to accommodate such activities (such as Barry Docks). Furthermore, it would also set a precedent for other potential losses and in doing so impact the Council’s ability to meet the region’s employment needs up to 2036.
By virtue of the above, Persimmon Homes object to the proposed allocation of residential development on Land at Hayes Lane. The principle of which is in direct conflict with the Welsh Government’s objectives set out within PPW12 & Future Wales: The National Plan 2040 and the need to ensure existing employment land is suitably protected. The latter is crucial in attracting future investment to the region and shall act as a catalyst to enable housing to be delivered elsewhere, in more sustainable locations better connected to local services/ facilities, such as Dinas Powys.

HG1 (5) Llantwit Major - Land between the Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road (Site C – Central Parcel)
Whilst we do not oppose the overall principle of residential development at Site C (Central Parcel), this position must be considered in the context of the wider allocation. Applications for Sites A and B (2020/00351/OUT (Site A) & 2020/00352/OUT (Site B)) are currently pending subject to respective Section 106 Agreements, with prolonged negotiations resulting in significant delays to delivery. This experience clearly demonstrates that development within this allocation is complex and subject to extended viability and legal discussions, which inevitably impacts the rate at housing is able to come forward.
According to the Council’s register we understand Site C has not been subject to any formal planning application, and therefore there is no detailed evidence available regarding the proposed layout design, infrastructure requirements, viability, or anticipated submission and determination timeframes. Despite this, the Council’s housing trajectory assumes development commencing in 2028/29, with 35 units initially and 45 units annually thereafter. Given the absence of a live application and the precedent of delays on Sites A and B, these delivery assumptions appear overly optimistic based on current evidence.
On that basis we maintain that the Council should reassess the trajectory assumptions for this particular site and identify other alternatives to help account for any unforeseen slippage on Site C. The overarching purpose of which shall be to ensure the RLDP incorporates sufficient flexibility to consistently meet housing need over the entire plan period.
Policy HG3 – Housing Led Redevelopment Opportunity
Persimmon Homes acknowledges the Council’s position in respect of Site HG3 (1) – Former Eagleswell Primary School, including the temporary five-year consent (2024–2029) for 90 units of short-term accommodation and their inclusion within housing completions for monitoring purposes.
Given their expressly temporary nature and planned relocation to other sites within the Vale by 2029, it is essential that these units are not double counted in a way. As the risk of doing so would artificially inflate the Vale’s housing numbers, thereby preventing delivery opportunities elsewhere over the plan period.
Although we welcome the clarification provided at paragraph 6.111 which states that once the temporary units are removed and the site is redeveloped for permanent accommodation, any future dwellings will not be included within the RLDPs housing supply figures. In the interest of soundness, we believe this should explicitly set out within the proposed wording of Policy HG3 to avoid any potential ambiguity and thus ensure no additional net housing contributions will arise from the site upon its redevelopment later down the line.
This approach is critical given the Vale’s substantial existing landbank and the number of allocations being rolled forward, as cumulatively factoring in additional units from this site would further constrain opportunities to accommodate genuine growth elsewhere. Thereby limiting the Council’s ability to effectively meet local housing need up to 2036.
Policy SP7 – Affordable Housing Provision
In principle, Persimmon support Policy SP7’s objective to secure a minimum of 3,070 affordable homes over the plan period. That said, given the level of affordable housing is directly proportionate to the total housing provision within RLDP we believe there is scope for further uplifts in that respect.
As mentioned above Persimmon maintain that there is sufficient evidence to justify increasing the proposed housing requirements through the Vale’s flexible allowance in order to maximise opportunities for growth. In turn this would prevent artificially capping affordable housing provision at 3,070 homes to ensure the plan is positively prepared by incorporating measures that proactively address demand across the region.
National policy clearly supports this approach. Planning Policy Wales requires development plans to be positively prepared and to maximise the delivery of affordable housing as a key component of sustainable placemaking. The Development Plan Manual reinforces the need for plans to be aspirational, evidence-led and sufficiently flexible to ensure delivery. Furthermore, the Welsh Government 2025-based estimates of additional housing need report highlights the need for a step change in affordable housing delivery across Wales, recognising that continuation of past trends will not address the current affordability challenges. Collectively, this provides a clear direction of travel in that it’s imperative to uplift housing provision where affordability pressures are acute such as the Vale of Glamorgan.
To ensure the RLDP is sound, the Council should increase the overall housing requirement by apply a meaningful flexibility allowance that ensure sufficient contingency measures are in place to consistently meet local need over the plan period. This would directly increase the quantum of affordable housing secured through policy mechanisms, thereby aligning the Plan with national policy objectives. The latter goes to the heart of the tests of soundness within the Development Plan Manual in ensuring the plan is not only appropriate but capable of delivering the step change required to address affordable housing needs up to 2036.
Policy SP8 – Affordable Housing Requirements
Persimmon supports the position that residential development should help meet affordable housing need. Although to ensure Policy SP8 is effective its important the percentage requirements and site thresholds proposed are viable across a range of site types and market areas to ensure they do not inadvertently suppress delivery.
On that basis we believe it would be prudent for the Deposit Plan to clarify that affordable housing targets are subject to site-specific viability considerations and can be adjusted in circumstances where comply with such parameters would render the sites viable and thus prevent delivery. Greater flexibility is also needed in tenure and mix to better reflect evolving local needs over the entire plan period including the point when planning applications are formally submitted.
Policy SP10 – Sustainable Transport
Persimmon support the overall objective of Policy SP10 in seeking to promote sustainable transport, increase active travel opportunities and reduce reliance on the private car in accordance with national placemaking objectives. Encouraging development in accessible locations such as Dinas Powys and enhancing connectivity between settlements is welcomed. However, for soundness its important the policy recognises the different physical characteristics across the Vale of Glamorgan, particularly in edge-of-settlement and rural contexts where flexibility is necessary to ensure sustainable growth is not unduly constrained.
In this regard, the extend site at Dinas Powys represents a suitable and deliverable opportunity that aligns fully with the objectives of Policy SP10. The Authority will be aware that Transport Strategies were submitted at earlier plan-making stages, and these have now been refined through a Technical Note prepared by Vectos (now SLR) in direct response to the Candidate Sites Assessment. The scope of which confirms the proposed access arrangements presented within Policy HG1 KS2 with regards to the primary and secondary vehicular entry/ egress points on to Cardiff Road are acceptable. The former includes the creation of a new signalised junction on to the A4055/ Cardiff Road which has been modelled by Vectos (now SLR) to confirms there will be no adverse impacts with regards to the overall capacity of the local highway network. Furthermore, these measures shall be supplemented by financial contribution towards off-site improvements to help alleviate any existing connection issues/ pinch points and thus enable traffic to flow more freely within Dinas Powys and the wider surrounding area.
In addition, the scheme will deliver significant active travel benefits, including dedicated pedestrian footpaths and cycleways throughout the site that connect seamlessly into the surrounding network. The site lies within immediate walking distance of Eastbrook and Dinas Powys railway stations and therefore aligning with the Vale’s transport-orientated growth strategy. Overall, the refined Transport Strategy demonstrates that the development would not result in any significant adverse impact on the highway network, while actively promoting sustainable travel choices. Subject to proportionate application of Policy SP10 and recognition of the robust mitigation proposed, the site clearly supports and advances the sustainable transport objectives of the emerging RLDP.
Policy TR1 – Transport Proposals
Persimmon supports the overarching objectives of Policy TR1, which seeks to protect and enhance strategic transport infrastructure across the Vale of Glamorgan, including active travel routes, public transport schemes and highway improvements. Land north of Dinas Powys aligns with these objectives by directing growth to a sustainable settlement capable of supporting integrated transport solutions. The scheme has also been designed to incorporate dedicated pedestrian and cycle routes that ensures development sympathetically integrates with the surrounding area. Most notably that includes measures to enhance pedestrian permeability whilst also encouraging a shift towards more sustainable modes of travel.
In addition to the above, allocation future growth at Land North of Dinas Powys will support planned improvements between the Barry/Biglis roundabout and Dinas Powys Active Travel Route by providing on-site pedestrian and cycle infrastructure that links directly to the proposed 2 km shared walking and cycling corridor. By aligning the site layout and access points with this strategic route the scheme shall naturally maximise the route’s functionality, safety and long-term success.
Finally, the site’s highly sustainable location reinforces its accordance with the Council’s transport-led growth strategy. The development is within immediate walking distance of both Eastbrook and Dinas Powys railway stations, which provide frequent services to Cardiff and Barry other key destinations. Prioritising residential growth in such locations continues towards the Vale of Glamorgan’s aim of creating a more sustainable pattern of development, maximising the use of public transport, supporting active travel and reducing reliance on private cars.
Policy SP13 – Community Infrastructure and Planning Obligations
Persimmon Homes do not consider that Policy SP13 – Community Infrastructure and Planning Obligations is required. This is predicated on the basis that such matters are dealt with under separate legislative and policy frameworks. Therefore, as currently drafted the proposed policy (and supporting text) do not add anything further information for planning purposes and risk unnecessary duplication.
Policy CI1 – Open Space Provision
Whilst there are no comments regarding the principle, thresholds and use of the FIT standards in terms of the open space provision. As such Persimmon query the requirement for an Open Space Strategy for all sites that meet the thresholds.
The requirement within emerging Policy CI1 for applicants to prepare or submit an Open Space Strategy is not considered to be sufficiently justified or proportionate when assessed against Planning Policy Wales, which promotes access to open space and recreational provision but does not prescribe the preparation of standalone Open Space Strategies for individual planning applications. There is a lack of clarification as to what it proposed and also how the level of detail would be proportional to the size of the site.
Productive and Enterprising Places
Policy CC1 – Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development
Persimmon Homes, strongly object to Policy CC1 on the basis that it duplicates Welsh Government’s Future Homes Standard (FHS), which is intended to ensure all new homes are “zero-carbon ready” through a consistent national Building Regulations framework.
Building Regulations Part L currently sets the requirements for energy efficiency in new homes, with the current dwellings built by Persimmon Homes being designed to exceed the minimum requirements of Part L by incorporating enhanced insultation and improved building fabric performance. This includes low U-values for key elements such as walls, roofs, floors and windows to minimise heat loss and improve overall energy efficiency. As a result, Persimmon Homes are achieving a high rating under the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) System, typically within the A-B range.
Introducing a separate and potentially more onerous operational net zero requirement at the local level risks imposing additional cost and complexity that undermines site viability and deliverability. The Development Plans Manual for Wales is clear that development plans must avoid repeating national policy and should not introduce requirements that are more appropriately addressed through other regulatory regimes. In this respect, Policy CC1 is not considered justified or appropriate and thereby conflicts with the second test of soundness set out within the DPM.
The proposed step change in standards from 1 April 2030 (particularly the reduction in space heating demand from 40 kWh/m²/year to 15 kWh/m²/year) represents a significant and abrupt step change in performance expectations. Whilst reference is made to initiatives such as Tai ar y Cyd and AECB CarbonLite, these have largely been associated with grant-funded affordable housing schemes. There is no clear evidence that equivalent standards are able to be delivered on mainstream housing sites without compromising their overall viability. On that note the Development Plans Manual requires policies to be underpinned by robust evidence and deliverable over the plan period. In the absence of which the proposed policy could well prevent housing delivery and undermines the emerging RLDP’s ability to effectively meet housing need.
Further to the above Policy CC1 also risks creating fragmented energy performance standards across different Local Planning Authorities in Wales. This contradicts the benefit of a consistent national approach through Building Regulations and makes it significantly more difficult for mainstream housebuilders operating across multiple authority areas to deliver homes efficiently. The DPM emphasises the need for development plans to create policy frameworks that encourage housing delivery and avoid unnecessary complications. By introducing bespoke operational monitoring requirements and energy modelling thresholds the policy as currently worded blurs the boundary between planning and Building Control functions. In turn this raises concerns as to whether the policy is justified and capable of being applied consistently across the board.
Finally, the Council’s own Viability Assessment (Paragraph 6.60 of BP42) acknowledges current uncertainty given the outcome of Welsh Government’s consultation on this topic are still unknown at the time of writing. In the event the Welsh Government decide to peruse national regulation progresses, it may be more appropriate for such matters to be addressed through Building Control rather than planning policy. Once again, this reinforces Persimmon’s concern that Policy CC1 is premature and not in general conformity with national policy. As drafted, the policy risks undermining the council’s proposed housing supply, affordable housing delivery rate and general implementation over the plan period. For these reasons, we believe it fails to meet the relevant tests of soundness and should be omitted from the proposed RLDP.
Distinctive and Natural Places
Policy SP19 – Green Infrastructure
In principle Persimmon Homes support the aim of this policy in ensuring proposed development incorporate measures that protect and enhance green infrastructure provision.
For completeness the proposed allocation (Land at north Dinas Powys) has been informed by a comprehensive Green Infrastructure Strategy and Landscape Summary Note prepared by Tir Collective (August 2023). The reports demonstrate that the site has been designed in a manner consistent with the objectives of Policy SP19. While future development of the site technically requires a release from the locally designated Green Wedge between Dinas Powys, Penarth and Llandough, the scope of which is limited in nature. Paragraph 3.70 of PPW12 states that Green Wedge boundaries should only include land that is required to remain open for the longer term. In this context, the Council’s Green Wedge Background Paper indicates that proposed allocation HG1 KS2 shall not result in any coalescence between settlements and nor does it make a significant contribution to the overall integrity of the designation. These factors confirm that the site is suitable for accommodating future residential development.
The emerging masterplan adopts a landscape-led approach that responds to the site’s physical characteristics and surrounding context. Development has therefore been excluded from the most visually sensitive parts of the site which will instead be retained as public open space to avoid having any adverse impact in that respect. This approach is reinforced through the retention and enhancement of existing hedgerows, woodland and field boundaries, alongside supplementary planting to naturally integrate the site into the wider landscape framework.
Policy SP20 – Biodiversity and Ecosystem Resilience
In principle, Persimmon support the objective of Policy SP20 which intends to protect and enhance biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. However, in the interests of soundness we believe the proposed requirement relating to biodiversity enhancement should be reframed to ensure it remains consistent with national policy. In particular, the policy should clarify that development proposals are expected to deliver biodiversity betterment in a manner that is proportionate to the scale and nature of development and consistent with national guidance. The wording should avoid introducing a requirement for a specific or quantified biodiversity net gain approach that goes beyond the national policy framework. Ensuring that the policy reflects the approach set out in Planning Policy Wales 12 will provide greater certainty for applicants and decision-makers while still providing sufficient comfort in securing the requisite biodiversity improvements.
Policy DNP1 – Special Landscape Areas
Persimmon support the revision of the Cwrt-yr-Ala Basin Special Landscape Area (SLA) to reflect the allocation of key site (HG1KS2 North of Dinas Powys off Cardiff Road) as per Policy DNP1. As indicated in Background Paper BP28 – Special Landscape Areas, the future development proposals for the site will be required to incorporate mitigation to reduce the impact of the site on the SLA. These works are incorporated into the proposed masterplan.
Policy DNP2 – Green Wedges
Persimmon support the revision to the green wedge between Dinas Powys, Penarth and Llandough, at Policy DNP2 (1) which has been amended to reflect the key site allocation HG1KS2 North of Dinas Powys.
Policy DNP8 – Severn Estuary Recreational Pressure
Policy DNP8 seeks to address recreational pressure on the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area and Ramsar Site. Whilst Persimmon appreciate the overarching purpose in its current form the proposed policy lacks sufficient supporting information explaining how it will operate in practice. The supporting text suggests that key details relating to mitigation delivery, including mechanisms such as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace and wider access management measures, will be set out in future Supplementary Planning Guidance. Deferring these important details until later down the line creates uncertainty at the plan-making stage and makes it difficult to assess whether the policy is sound, effective and/ or capable of being implemented on a consistent basis.
The policy also provides no clear threshold or criteria for determining what level of activity would constitute “visitor pressure” or an “adverse impact” on the integrity of the designated sites. Similarly, the evidence demonstrating what level of impact residents moving into new homes across the Vale of Glamorgan will generate additional recreational pressure on the Severn Estuary does not appear to have been quantified to date. While a 12.6 km recreational catchment is referenced, the supporting text does not clearly explain the evidence or methodology underpinning this distance. Moreover, the proposed text also fails to set out how new residential development will be assessed in terms of measurable impacts on the European site and thus the scope of mitigation that would subsequently be required.
From a practical standpoint this level of uncertainty is concerning given the implication of this policy are unable to be fully assessed due to the lack of evidance. For instance, if development sites within the catchment are expected to contribute financially towards mitigation measures, then the scale and mechanism of those contributions must be clearly established as part of the plan-making process. Without this clarity, there is a risk that Policy DNP8 could introduce unforeseen costs and extensive time delays, potentially affecting the viability and overall deliverability of proposed housing sites. The cumulative impact of which would then undermining the plan’s ability to meet its housing requirements and risk finding the RLDP unsound.
Conclusion
Subject to the comments within this response, Persimmon are broadly supportive of the Deposit RLDP put forward. Persimmon Homes’ most pertinent comments on the consultation document are summarised below:
• Persimmon fully supports the proposed approach to prioritise development in sustainable locations near existing rail and bus infrastructure as depicted by the strategic growth area within the RLDP Key Diagram. However, to optimise the effectiveness of this strategy growth should be focused in areas of greatest demand, such as Dinas Powys, which is not only the nearest settlement geographically to Cardiff but also inherently well connected by the existing rail network and other modes of public transport.
• Persimmon support the principle of the Settlement Hierarchy and the identification of Dinas Powys as a Primary Settlement. Whilst the importance of which is noted, Persimmon maintain that Dinas Powys, in particular, is capable of a higher role and function which can be accommodated in the extended Candidate Site Ref. No 444. This is particularly relevant given the fact that the Service Centres at Cowbridge, Llantwit Major and Penarth are generally more constrained physically and environmentally.
• Whilst Persimmon supports the overall principle of a medium growth strategy and key allocations such as North Dinas Powys. Given the Vale’s position within the Cardiff Capital Region and its designation as a national growth area, we maintain that the proposed RLDP should be more ambitious when it comes to overall housing targets. Drawing on examples from Bridgend (14% flexibility), Swansea (20%), and Monmouthshire (15%), alongside evidence of historic under-delivery and recent Welsh Government household projections, there are sufficient grounds to warrant increasing the proposed flexibility allowance to a minimum of 15%, equating to a total requirement of 9,074 homes up to 2036.
• In the interests of soundness these changes shall help account for any potential overreliance on existing landbanks and variable windfall delivery rates which could in theory limit the plan’s ability to address unmet housing need. Persimmon therefore conclude that a higher flexibility allowance and additional site allocations, such as the extended option at Dinas Powys, are necessary to ensure the RLDP is able to effectively meet local need over the plan period. The benefits of which shall also demonstrate the emerging RLDP is supported by a robust, proportionate and credible evidence base to accord with the requirements of the Development Plan Manual for Wales and national growth objectives.
• Whilst Persimmon welcome the majority of the proposed planning policies from a development management perspective. They strongly object to Policy CC1 (Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development) on the basis that it duplicates Welsh Government’s Future Homes Standard (FHS), which is intended to ensure all new homes are “zero-carbon ready” through a consistent national Building Regulations framework.
• Although Persimmon appreciate the overarching purpose of Policy DNP8 (Severn Estuary Recreational Pressure). In its current form the proposed policy lacks sufficient information to understand how it will operate in practice. Whilst supporting text suggests that key details relating to mitigation delivery will be set out in future Supplementary Planning Guidance. Deferring these important details until later down the line creates uncertainty at the plan-making stage and makes it difficult to assess whether the policy is sound, effective and/ or capable of being implemented on a consistent basis.
• Persimmon are wholly supportive of Land North of Dinas Powys’ (HG1 KS2) position as a proposed allocation within the emerging RLDP. The site represents a suitable, available and deliverable location for residential development without any constraints preventing it from delivering much needed homes in line with the Council’s proposed housing trajectory. Furthermore, its position as a key site is crucial to ensure growth is prioritised in such a highly sustainable location, adjacent to the defined urban area of Dinas Powys, and maximise opportunities for greater connectivity at both a regional and local level.
Persimmon would welcome the opportunity to continue on-going conversations with Officers and subsequently support the site’s progression through the next stages of the plan-making process.

Policy SP7 should include a note similar to the following:
‘Where the target affordable housing percentage is considered unviable due to physical, financial, or other constraints, sites will be reviewed on an individual basis following submission of a detailed viability assessment and any supporting evidence as necessary’.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 These representations build upon the responses previously provided to the Call for Sites Consultation, additional information submission, and more recently the Barry Growth Paper in July 2025. For the avoidance of doubt these representations relate to Barratt Redrow Homes’ land interest know as ‘Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe’. The site has previously been identified as Ref No 437 within the Council’s Candidate Site Assessments including the Preferred Strategy Stage, which has been published as part of the technical evidence base and background papers alongside the Deposit Plan.
1.2 Having reviewed the Deposit Plan it is evident that the document is structured around a number of key sections including:
• Section 3 – The Vale of Glamorgan Key Characteristics;
• Section 4 – RLDP Key Themes, Vision, and Objectives;
• Section 5 – Sustainable Growth Strategy; and
• Section 6 – Policy Framework.

1.3 For completeness this submission shall discuss each section in turn.
1.4 The overarching purpose of which shall be to respond to the relevant draft Replacement Local Development Plan policies, with particular consideration given to the Welsh Government’s tests of soundness as set out within the Development Plan Manual for Wales (Third Edition) March 2020)):
• Test 1 – Does the Plan Fit?
• Test 2 – Is the Plan Appropriate?
• Test 3 – Will the Plan Deliver?

2. THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN KEY CHARACTERISTICS
Settlement Pattern
2.1 Barratt Redrow support, in principle, the Settlement Pattern as set out in Section 3 of the Deposit Plan and in particular the identification of Wenvoe as a Primary Settlement.
2.2 Paragraph 3.9 explains that primary settlements “offer several key services and facilities, which are vital to their role as sustainable communities, as they reduce the need to travel to Barry or the Service Centre Settlements to address day-to-day needs”.
2.3 The importance of the Primary Settlements in supporting the Service Centre Settlements is noted, however Barratt Redrow consider that Wenvoe, in particular, is capable of a higher role and function and can accommodate a higher level of growth over and above affordable led exception sites, which can be accommodated at Candidate Site Ref. No 437. This is particularly relevant given the fact that the Service Centres at Cowbridge, Llantwit Major and Penarth are generally more constrained physically and environmentally.
Housing Need
2.4 In light of the Vale of Glamorgan’s strategic location in-between Cardiff and Bridgend, and the significant employment opportunities associated with these areas, the Deposit RLDP should seek to maximise housing provision to ensure a more sustainable balance is achieved between homes and jobs, and in turn reduce commuting distances/ carbon emissions.
2.5 Paragraph 3.18 clearly acknowledges the scale of affordable housing need, identifying a requirement for 1,075 affordable homes per annum between 2023–2028 and 154 per annum thereafter. Yet it remains unclear whether existing unmet need has been fully factored into the overall housing requirement presented within the Deposit RLDP. This is particularly importance in the context of the Welsh Government’s 2025-based estimates which identify 9,400 units of unmet need at a national level and a requirement for 8,700 additional homes per annum over the next five years simply to address newly arising need.
2.6 Accordingly, there is a compelling justification for a further uplift in housing numbers to ensure the Plan proactively addresses both existing and emerging need. Increasing the overall housing requirement would directly enhance the overall delivery rate for affordable homes which is crucial in a local authority area with the highest affordability ratio in Wales. Paragraph 3.17 confirms that in the Vale average house prices are 9.7 times average workplace earnings compared to the Wales average of 6.1, therefore a step change in housing targets is needed to support a more balanced housing market across the region.
3. RLDP KEY THEMES, VISION, AND OBJECTIVES
3.1 Section 4 of the Deposit RLDP sets out the Council’s vision over the emerging plan period. The vision establishes a series of strategic goals the Council intends to work towards and in doing so provides an insight into how the Vale of Glamorgan is envisioned to develop up to 2036.
Key Themes
3.2 Barratt Redrow supports the theme ‘Homes for all’ and the need for the housing supply to respond to the growing population and provided in appropriate locations, with a mix of tenure and types. In that respect the site at Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe offers a sustainable and deliverable opportunity to ensure future residential development aligns with such objectives to deliver high quality housing development in a sustainable location.
3.3 In principle, Barratt Redrow support the ‘Placemaking’ theme and consider that development in Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe would ensure a strong sense of identity and that the scheme is capable of providing a well designed and sustainable development.
3.4 Barratt Redrow also support the theme of ‘Promoting active travel and sustainable transport choices’, and in particular the need to ensure that the new development will be in a highly sustainable location with very good access to alternative transport, such as bus services, rather than a reliance on the rail network. This is clearly evident at Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe.
Vision
3.5 In general, Barratt Redrow support the RLDP Vision, however highlight that whilst Barry and other Sustainable Service Centres are identified as playing a vital role in delivering the strategy, the importance of the ability for Primary Settlements, such as Wenvoe, to deliver sustainable and high-quality residential development also needs to be suitably recognised.
3.6 The allocation of Swn Y Coed (Candidate Site Ref: 437) is capable of providing a comprehensive residential development in a highly sustainable location and within an important Primary Settlement. The principle of which aligns with the Council’s ambition to ensure future growth delivers homes which caters for all (including affordable homes) and are prioritised in areas of greatest demand.
3.7 In light of the above it is considered that Wenvoe plays a significant part in delivering the Council’s strategy and the role, function, and ability of this settlement to accommodate growth needs to be significantly reinforced. The settlement is capable of accommodating more growth in a highly sustainable location we believe warrants greater recognition within the vision itself.
Strategic Objectives
Objective 3 – Home for All

3.8 Barratt Redrow supports the principle of Objective 3, in particular the provision of high quality housing which includes the right mix, tenure and type. Barratt Redrow supports the notion of providing residential development in places which people want to live, and in particular Wenvoe as a Primary Settlement.
Objective 4 – Placemaking
3.9 As above, in principle Barratt Redrow support the Council’s placemaking objectives which seeks to ensure all development will contribute positively toward creating a sense of place. Most notably this involves prioritising future growth in sustainable locations which are placed to create attractive, safe and accessible schemes that are equally effective from a functional standpoint.
3.10 The proposed allocation at Swn Y Coed (Ref 437) at Wenvoe aligns with such principles whilst also providing an opportunity to facilitate a high quality, mixed tenure residential development of circa 80+ open market & affordable homes, with a high-quality distinct character responding to the site context and creating a sense of place.
Objective 8 – Promoting Active and Sustainable Travel Choices
3.11 Barratt Redrow supports the principle of promoting active and sustainable travel choices and highlight that their residential development at Wenvoe has been designed to ensure accessibility it’s at the heart of the scheme with regards to walking, cycling and connectivity to public transport.
3.12 Given the site abuts the defined urban area of Wenvoe it represents a logical extension to the existing settlement and is well served by a range of local amenities and public transport. In terms of the latter the nearest bus stop is located within 100 meters of the site whilst the majority of local amenities are situated within 1.2 kilometres walking distance. Together these factors naturally promote the principle of linked trips which fully accords with the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportations (CIHT) guidelines and reinforces the fact the site is a sustainable location for residential development.
3.13 Therefore, the site provides an opportunity to promote a modal shift towards more active forms of travel and consequently reducing dependency on private vehicle and associated carbon emissions. From a plan-making standpoint allocating further growth in this highly sustainable location would help achieve greater connect at both a regional and local level.

4. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH STRATEGY
Growth Strategy
4.1 RLDP Sustainable Growth Strategy comprises six key elements as follows:
1. Delivering a sustainable level of housing and employment growth supported by appropriate infrastructure that accords with the Vale’s position within the Cardiff Capital Region (CCR).
4.2 In order to meet the overarching Vision, the Vale have identified a need to deliver at least 8,679 new dwellings over the proposed plan period which responds to the identified housing requirement of 7,890 homes (526 per annum) and incorporates a 10% flexible allowance. Barratt Redrow acknowledge the proposed approach, however, maintain it should be considered a minimum figure with aspirations to achieve greater levels of growth in sustainable locations across the district.
4.3 Whilst Barratt Redrow appreciate these figures are based on average completion rates over the first ten years of the adopted Local Development Plan, it is important to recognise that a higher rate of housing delivery is demonstrably achievable. Annual completion rates peaked at 917 dwellings, with six of the ten monitoring years exceeding the 526 per annum figure currently relied upon. This demonstrates that delivery capacity within the Vale has historically operated well above the proposed requirement and should therefore provide confidence that a higher housing target could realistically be achieved over the emerging plan period.
4.4 Furthermore, the Council’s own evidence base (BP7 - Housing and Employment Growth Options) identifies a five-year average build rate of 780 units per annum between 2016 and 2021. Again, this figure exceeds the annual delivery rate currently proposed within the emerging RLDP and reinforces the fact that the proposed housing requirement should not be unduly constrained by a lower long-term average.
4.5 Whilst Paragraph 5.8 explains that the proposed figures are based on a ten-year average delivery rate, it fails to acknowledge that this period included the Covid-19 pandemic and at a time where construction costs experienced significant inflation. These factors had a material impact on the housebuilding industry nationally and inevitably suppressed delivery rates during those years. From an objective perspective, basing the future housing requirement on an average that includes these exceptional circumstances risks skewing the figures and underestimates the district’s true delivery potential for the Vale.
4.6 In light of the above Barratt Redrow believe a sensible response would be to incorporate a greater flexible allowance of 15% within the RLDP to demonstrate an appropriate level of growth will be achieved. Whilst also ensuring there is sufficient supply of sites to come forward early on during the plan period to proactively address housing need from the point of adoption up to 2036.
4.7 From a procedural standpoint it is also important to note that the currently adopted plan predates the publication of Future Wales: The National Plan 2040 and the Vale’s position within a national growth area. As such, pursuing an approach which seeks to maintain historic delivery rates is not considered to reflect this enhanced role and arguably lacks the level ambition set out at a national level. The proposed housing requirement should therefore be uplifted to positively respond to such matters in order to ensure conformity with Future Wales and regional aspirations.
4.8 Increasing the overall housing target would also act as a catalyst to enhance the delivery of affordable housing which is identified as a key objective for the RLDP. Each proposed site allocation is subject to a policy-compliant percentage contribution, therefore a higher level of market housing would proportionately generate a greater number of affordable homes to meet local need across the region.
2. Aligning locations for new housing, employment, services and facilities to reduce the need to travel.
4.9 Barratt Redrow supports the Vale’s objective to locate new major development in areas of the region best served by existing infrastructure and supporting services. The Settlement Appraisal Review (BP5) identifies Wenvoe as primary settlement in the region with suitable local services to accommodate future growth which remains in keeping with the overall function of the existing settlement.
4.10 Whilst the settlements of Barry, Penarth, Llantwit Major and Cowbridge are deemed to score higher on certain criteria it is clear that Wenvoe has a role and function providing both local key facilities and also acceptable linkages and distance to wider key and daily facilities.
3. Focusing development at locations that are well served by existing and proposed rail stations as part of the South Wales Metro and in areas with good bus links.
4.11 The Deposit RLDP explains that whilst reducing the need to travel is a key policy objective, it is recognised that there are journeys that will need to be made by other modes of transport, particularly due to the strong relationship with Cardiff as a designation for employment, retail and entertainment. As such the proposed growth strategy seeks to locate development in places that are inherently well served by sustainable transport in line with the Vale of Glamorgan’s transport hierarchy.
4.12 Barratt Redrow supports these principles and recognises the importance of prioritising development in sustainable locations across the regions, particular those well connected to Cardiff city centre. Paragraph 5.18 of the Deposit Plan states that “Targeting new development to the settlements that are served by the rail network is a key part of the strategy, as it will facilitate journeys being made by means other than the car”. Barratt Redrow consider that the rail network is an important way to facilitate journeys other than by car, however it is not the only option available and that other sustainable sites, such as Swn Y Coed, are also accessible by public transport – namely bus services.
4.13 Whilst Barratt Redrow support the principle of prioritising growth within the Council’s sustainable transport corridor, it is important to recognise that there is not an infinite supply of land within close proximity to railway stations across the Vale of Glamorgan. Physical constraints, settlement patterns and environmental designations mean that the availability of suitable and deliverable sites within immediate walking distance of rail infrastructure is somewhat limited. Therefore, relying solely on these locations risks unnecessarily constraining the overall supply of land for housing and may limit the Council’s ability to maintain a consistent supply of homes up to 2036.
4.14 In this context, Barratt Redrow believe the RLDP should be updated to also identify opportunities for growth in locations that are well served by the strategic bus network. From a procedural standpoint this approach would remain consistent with the overarching objective of a transport-orientated growth strategy, whilst recognising the wider role bus corridors can play in facilitating a sustainable pattern of development. The benefits of which would provide greater certainty that local housing needs can be met over the proposed plan period and in turn strengthen the council’s ability to demonstrate the plan has been soundly prepared.
4.15 By directing development to locations well served by existing bus infrastructure, the proposal would help reduce the need for commuting via private vehicles, particularly for journeys to key employment and service destinations. In doing so, it would make a positive contribution towards the Council’s climate change targets through the reduction of carbon emissions and promoting a modal shift within the local community.
4.16 In relation to Swn Y Coed, bus stops are conveniently located at Walston Castle and Station Road approximately 95m and 440m from the site off the A4050, providing regular services to Cardiff City and surrounding settlements.
4.17 Furthermore, to the north of the site Culverhouse Cross is easily accessed by cycling, walking or via bus routes which can be caught just 100m east of the site. Culverhouse Cross Retail Park has an extensive range of facilities and employment opportunities that are within 2km of the site (easy walking and cycling distance).
4.18 Overall, it is considered that the site is in a relatively sustainable location and is within easy walking distance of public transport and Wenvoe village centre, which provides some basic facilities approximately 600m south of the site. For the reasons set out above, the site is considered to offer an opportunity for residential development in a suitable location that would facilitate and encourage sustainable travel, with no major highway related concerns.
4.19 Focussing further growth in well-connected, sustainable locations such Wenvoe will therefore support the Council’s transport-led placemaking approach. These principles fully align with the Welsh Governments strategic objectives as set out within the Future Wales – the National Plan 2040, Planning Policy Wales Edition 12 and Llwybr Newydd: The Wales Transport Strategy, which in turn shall contribute towards achieving a more sustainable pattern of development within the RLDP.

5. POLICY FRAMEWORK
5.1 Section 6 of the Deposit Plan outlines the policy framework for delivering the plan, including both Strategic and Development Management Policies following revisions pursuant to the Preferred Strategy consultation.
5.2 The Deposit Plan has arranged these policies into the four themes of Planning Policy Wales as follows:
• Strategic and Spatial Choices
• Active and Social Places
• Productive and Enterprising Places
• Distinctive and Natural Places
5.3 Whilst some of the technical details overlap, each of the policies considered to be of relevance are discussed in further detail below.
Policy SP1 – Sustainable Growth Strategy (& Policy SP6 – Housing Requirements)

5.4 This policy states that in order to deliver the Sustainable Growth Strategy for the Vale, the emerging RLDP will make provision for 7,890 dwellings and 5,338 jobs over the plan period. In order to achieve the former Policy SP6 explains that to meet the identified housing requirement of 7,890 dwellings, provision will be made for the delivery of 8,660 homes in the Plan Period 2021 to 2036 which incorporates a 10% flexible allowance. In turn this will be distributed as follows: i) 3,837 dwellings from the existing land supply; ii) 3,520 dwellings on allocated sites; & iii) 1,303 dwellings from large and small windfall developments.
5.5 Barratt Redrow acknowledge the Council’s conclusion that in principle the ‘Medium’ growth option reflected in Policy SP1 generally accords with the Welsh Government’s aspirations for the Vale of Glamorgan within the Future Wales national growth area, which is identified as a focus for strategic economic and housing growth. Given the Vale forms part of the Cardiff Capital Region, it is equally important that the overall level of growth remains suitably ambitious to support the region’s economic aspirations and continues to complement Cardiff which remains the nearest neighbouring authority.
5.6 Although we understand the proposed approach uses the Dwelling-led 10 Year scenario, which is based on the average annual build rate for the first 10 years of the adopted plan and equates to a total of 7,890 new homes or 526 dwellings per annum over the emerging plan period. The overarching intention is to ensure the projected level of growth is deliverable whilst recognising the fact there is sufficient capacity within the Vale to support further growth towards the higher end of the ‘medium’ range.
5.7 As noted, Barratt Redrow are wholly in support of providing additional sites, such as Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe, which would provide a logical extension to the defined urban area of Wenvoe and which will facilitate the delivery of much needed full market and affordable housing to help address the significant level of demand identified across the Vale.
5.8 Swn Y Coed is promoted in the context of the concerns raised regarding the current figure of 8,660 new dwellings which is underpinned by a 10% flexible allowance in relation to housing delivery. Barratt Redrow consider it relevant to take account of recent evidence provided to other Local Planning Authorities in Wales which have either adopted or are in the latter stages of bringing forward a new Local Development Plan.
5.9 For example, in Bridgend the Council recently adopted their new Local Development Plan (covering the period 2018 to 2033) which is underpinned by a flexibility allowance of 14% equating to an additional 1,053 dwellings. This level of provision was required in order to demonstrate the Anticipated Annual Build Rate (AABR) were deliverable and ensure that the Plan remains effective in the event of changing circumstances. During the examination process the Inspector explained that an increase beyond the standard 10% was fundamental to enable the plan and its housing trajectory to be resilient and sufficiently adaptable. The overarching purpose of which is to account for any unforeseen changes and potential shortfalls/ delays to the strategic site allocations whilst still enabling the overall housing requirement to be delivered.
5.10 For Swansea, the Council published their LDP2 Pre-Deposit Plan (Preferred Strategy) for consultation last year. In terms of housing delivery this incorporates a 20% flexible allowance above the proposed housing requirement and is predicated on the basis of needing to account for certain sites not coming forward as anticipated and other unforeseen factors affecting delivery. Similar to the Vale, Swansea City Council’s latest Annual Monitoring Report (6th Edition) (October 2025) confirms that since adoption of the current LDP in February 2019 they have not met their annual housing target for any of the past six years. To date this has resulted in a shortfall of approximately 3,767 homes which is predominantly attributed to delays associated with larger strategic allocations. Therefore, in order to avoid having similar implications next time around the Council have uplifted the proposed flexible allowance within LDP2 and intend to incorporate a more diverse portfolio of sites going forward. The main purpose of which is to build in an additional margin of flexibility above the standard 10% threshold and therefore enable other sites to come forward to account for potential slippage elsewhere to ensure the plan is effective in meeting local need.
5.11 More recently in Monmouthshire, the Council submitted their proposed RLDP to PEDW in November 2025. As part of which they have identified a requirement of 6,210 homes which incorporates a 15% flexible allowance. Similar to above an increase beyond the standard 10% threshold has been justified to account for potential shortfalls/ delays due to longer lead in times needed for strategic site allocations whilst proactively addressing any historic unmet need.
5.12 Whilst Barratt Redrow appreciate that the Council intends to prioritise growth towards the higher end of the ‘medium’ range, having reviewed the Deposit Plan evidence base Barratt Redrow believe a minimum allowance of 15% would be more reflective of the Vale’s strategic position and would seek an additional 395 dwellings to the medium growth option equating to a total of 9,074 homes. The benefits of which are evident above and justification well-established from a plan-making perspective to ensure the RLDP is underpinned by a robust evidence base which incorporates a suitable level of flexibility to effectively meet local housing need from the outset.
5.13 In addition to the above the importance of increasing the RLDP’s housing target, by virtue of uplifting the proposed flexible allowance, has recently been highlighted by the findings of data published by the Welsh Government (WG). Most notably that includes the 2022-based Local authority household projections (Dated 20th November 2025) and 2025-based estimates of additional housing need (Dated 12th February 2026).
5.14 Upon publishing the former superseded the previous 2018-based demographic projections and provides updated figures from mid-2022 to mid-2032. The results show that whilst the overall number of households in Wales is projected to increase by around 98,500/ 7.2%, to a total of 1.46 million. The local authorities projected to see the largest percentage increases are the Vale of Glamorgan (up 11.7%) and Cardiff (up 11.1%).
5.15 In turn these trends are carried through into WG’s 2025-based estimates of additional housing need, which identifies an existing unmet need of 9,400 homes. This is supplemented by a requirement to deliver an average of 8,700 new homes annually over the next five years to account for newly arising need alone. The combination of which demonstrates that there is an urgent need to increase delivery rates on both a national and local level, and therefore it’s imperative that the latest position with regards to the need for affordable and full market homes are accurately reflected within the Council’s housing figures.
5.16 In terms of considering the level of housing provision for a plan, Paragraph 5.34 of the DPM is explicit in that the most up-to date suite of Welsh Government Population and Household Projections must form the foundation of any evidence base. LPAs are then required to use a household conversion factor when translating households to dwellings to establish overall need. Once again, the DPM explains that failure to include a robust conversion rate from the outset is a high-risk strategy and may undermine the overall soundness of any emerging plan. To avoid such circumstances, we believe it’s essential the LMNA is updated to reflect the latest WG datasets, which in turn is likely to provide grounds to warrant extending the proposed 15% threshold further. Ultimately this approach intends to ensure the emerging RLDP more effectively meet local need over the entire plan period and thus soundly prepared.
5.17 As mentioned above, Policy SP6 provides a high-level breakdown of how the Council’s housing growth is expected to be delivered over the plan period. For completeness this includes: i) 3,837 dwellings from the existing land supply; ii) 3,520 dwellings on allocated sites; & iii) 1,303 dwellings from large and small windfall developments.
5.18 Whilst we do not dispute those relating to proposed site allocations and/ or windfall developments. The proportion of dwellings set to be accounted for within the Vale of Glamorgan’s existing landbank (3,837 units) is considered excessive given it represents 44.3% of the Council’s overall housing requirement.
5.19 Although Barratt Redrow acknowledge that this is partly derived on the basis that emerging plan period has technically already commenced (2021 to 2036) and therefore is made up of


Figure 2. Extract of the Welsh Government’s Calculation Method for Total Dwellings as per the Development Plan Manual Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan Representations | Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe – Site 437


sites at various different stages of planning process (i.e. either already built out, being constructed or secured consent - as shown below). It is important to recognise the potential implications this approach has in terms of stifling opportunities for growth, which is contrary to the Welsh Government’s aspirations for the Vale of Glamorgan as part of a National Growth Area within Future Wales: The National Plan 2040.
5.20 From an objective standpoint this means there is only a need for 2,561 additional dwellings (3,520 dwellings minus 959 units rolled forward) to be delivered from new allocations over the emerging plan period. This reinforces the point that in reality the overall quantum of new homes will be significantly lower than the figure set out within the RLDP’s vision and strategic objectives. In turn this prevent opportunities for new sites to come forward as part of the plan-making process and in doing so hinder the Council’s ability to account for historic unmet need. Collectively this substantiates Barratt Redrow’s position that in order for the plan to be considered sound the Council must accommodate a greater flexible allowance, optimising sites such as Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe, to ensure the emerging local plan complies with the Welsh Government’s aspirations set out within Future Wales.
5.21 As illustrated above, the Council anticipate 1,303 dwellings coming forward in the form of windfall sites. This accounts for both small and large sites which in turn represents around 15% of the Council’s overall housing requirement. Once again, whilst we do not contest the overall windfall provision or the projected delivery rate of 87 dwellings per annum up to 2036. It is important to recognise that based on past trends the annual number of homes which comes forward on windfall sites varies significantly year on year.
5.22 Table 18 of the Development Plan Manual is explicit in that respect and explains that although due regard must be attributed to analysis of past delivery rates, periods of abnormally high or low completions should be considered inappropriate/anomalies when extrapolating future rates of windfall sites. On that basis ensuring the RLDP incorporates a greater flexible allowance will not only provide certainty that any shortfalls/fallow periods are offset but also enable a more consistent supply of homes to be achieved over the plan period as a whole.
5.23 Lastly, in terms of overall growth Paragraph 5.8 of the Deposit Plan states that the level of growth they have identified ‘’has been demonstrated to be deliverable and is sufficiently ambitious to reflect the Vale’s position in the Future Wales national growth area.’’ It also notes that this level of growth has been chosen so that it is ‘’complementary to, rather than competing with, the neighbouring authority of Cardiff and the wider Cardiff Capital Region (CCR).’’.
5.24 Whilst it is agreed that the level of growth may be realistic based on past trends, the claim that this is sufficiently ambitious and needs to be at this level to avoid competing with Cardiff is not substantiated by evidence to suggest that a higher level of growth could not also achieve these principles.
5.25 Cardiff, as the capital city of Wales, also demonstrated historic under delivery when publishing its deposit plan for consultation in February 2025, which was the case for allocated sites as well as generally for annual delivery rates over the adopted plan period. This resulted in a failure to meet targets over the last 10 years of their adopted plan. Whilst Cardiff has made progress in more recent years, the latest Annual Monitoring Report published in October 2025 notes that to date the region has met just 58% of its overall dwelling requirements over the plan period from 2006-2025.
5.26 Accordingly, with Cardiff opting to continue with a medium growth option for their RLDP despite these shortfalls, there is no sound basis to suggest that adopting a higher growth level within the Vale would detrimentally impact upon housing delivery or ‘compete’ with Cardiff.
5.27 In summary, Barratt Redrow acknowledge the overall medium growth strategy, however given the Vale’s position within the Cardiff Capital Region and its designation as a national growth area, Barratt Redrow maintain that the proposed RLDP should be more ambitious when it comes to housing targets. Drawing on examples from Bridgend (14% flexibility), Swansea (20%), and Monmouthshire (15%), alongside evidence of historic under-delivery and recent Welsh Government household projections, there are sufficient grounds to warrant increasing the proposed flexibility allowance to a minimum of 15%, equating to a total requirement of 9,074 homes up to 2036.
5.28 These steps would help account for any potential overreliance on existing landbanks and variable windfall delivery rates which could in theory limit the plan’s ability to address unmet housing need. Overall, we conclude that a higher flexibility allowance and additional site allocations, such as Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe, are necessary to ensure the RLDP is able to effectively meet local need over the plan period. The benefits of which shall also demonstrate the emerging RLDP is supported by a robust, proportionate and credible evidence base to accord with the requirements of the Development Plan Manual for Wales and national growth objectives.
Policy SP2 – Settlement Hierarchy
5.29 Policy SP2 highlights that development will be focused with the Strategic Growth Area and that its distribution will be shaped by settlement hierarchy and seeks to direct ‘growth to locations that will provide the greatest opportunities for delivering housing to meet affordable needs, community infrastructure and enhanced sustainable transport provision’.
5.30 Accordingly, despite Wenvoe being identified as a primary settlement, Policy SP2 notes that development in this location will be limited to ‘the efficient and sustainable use of existing buildings, infill opportunities, small-scale affordable housing led schemes, and rural enterprise/ agricultural related developments.’ Similarly, it is noted that Policy SP2 does not consider Wenvoe to be an appropriate location for ‘’substantial additional growth’’.
5.31 Barratt Redrow object to the approach to Primary Settlements as set out under this Policy, as Wenvoe is inherently sustainable and the explanation for discounting it as an area to accommodate growth is considered unjustified.
5.32 First of all, the Deposit Plan acknowledges that it performs a similar function to the Primary Settlements located within the Strategic Growth Area and it is described as one of the ‘sustainable communities’ in The Vale of Glamorgan Key Characteristics section, as noted previously in Section 3.
5.33 Likewise, the site benefits from excellent accessibility the local public transport network, active travel routes and local services. These characteristics fully accord with Welsh Government’s strategic objectives and emphasise the fact that Swn Y Coed constitutes an appropriate location for future housing.
5.34 With regard to Policy SP2 discounting Wenvoe as a location to accommodate growth, this is due to the Vales’s stance that the settlement is ‘’significantly limited by the presence of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land on the edge’’. Barratt Redrow do not consider this to be sufficient justification to discount the site from allocation as there would be limited impact on BMW agricultural land arising from the development of Swn Y Coed.




5.35 For example, as set out in the ALC report prepared by Kernon CCL and provided as part of the Candidate Submission Ref 437, the highest grade on site would be Subgrade 3a, with the site comprising a mix of Subgrades 3a and 3b. This means that in National Policy terms, development of the site would be in accordance with paragraph 3.59 of PPW 12 as the lowest grade available.
5.36 Furthermore, any perceived harm in terms of agricultural land is not considered to outweigh the benefits brought by the development in terms of contributing to both affordable and market housing need over the plan period, not least given the historic shortfalls identified earlier in this submission.
Policy SP4 - Placemaking
5.37 Policy SP4 is recognised as a key Policy in the emerging RLDP to ensure that new proposals align with existing communities and placemaking principles across the county.
5.38 Policy SP4 also requires all major development to provide a ‘Placemaking Statement’. It should be made clear in the Policy, as per Paragraph 6.34 of the Deposit Plan, that this is not expected to be a standalone statement, but will form part of a Design and Access Statement. We recommend the policy is amended as follows:
5.39 Nonetheless, the development of Swn Y Coed is considered to coincide with the objectives of Policy SP4, where the illustrative masterplan submitted as part of previous representations demonstrates its capability to deliver a range of housing types and tenures, whilst integrating key green infrastructure features.
5.40 Local services and facilities are also accessible from this location, tying in with criteria 7, and supports public transport use (as per criteria 4) given the close proximity to a frequent bus route.
5.41 Likewise, the quantum of units proposed demonstrates efficient use of the land based on the net developable area and site constraints in line with emerging Polic PGD2.
5.42 In principle Barratt Redrow supports Policy SP4 and the aim of ensuring all new development is of high-quality sustainable design.
Policy PGD1 – Creating Well Designed and Inclusive Places
5.43 Barratt Redrow question the need for both Policies SP4 and PGD1 as there is repetition. In principle the criteria as set out is as to be expected, however there is a need to recognise that not all criteria can always be accommodated on development sites. There are other environmental and economic factors need to be considered. However, if Policy PGD1 remains, then the text needs to be updated to suggest a site by site basis rather than the current blanket approach suggested.
Policy PGD2 – Residential Development Densities
5.44 Residential densities are supported as a principle, however, should not be so prescriptive as to unnecessarily restrict development. Policy PGD2 outlines that residential development over 0.5ha will be permitted where the residential density is a minimum of 35 dwellings per net hectare within Key, Service Centre and Primary Settlements and 30 dwellings per net hectare in Minor Rural Settlements.
5.45 A minor point in relation to the policy wording is the ‘dwellings per net hectare’ and the removal of non-developable space in any calculations. Whilst this is normal, the increased requirements relating to SAB, green infrastructure requirements and increased ecological mitigation all have a direct impact on the remaining available land and it is positive to see there is an allowance for some flexibility.
5.46 The density requirement appears to be reasonable in approach, and the flexibility to allow individual site adjustments (as per the remaining text within the Policy) is supported. There will be occasions where the density will need to be considered due to other on-site factors.
5.47 Policy SP5 is supported in principle insofar as it seeks to promote healthier and more inclusive places, consistent with the objectives of Planning Policy Wales and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. However, to ensure the policy is robust and effective, it is important that it is supported by an up-to-date and clearly evidenced policy framework. In this regard, the supporting evidence base, particularly BP36 – Planning Healthy Places (June 2024), should be reviewed to ensure that the datasets referenced reflect the most recent available information. For example, life expectancy data currently cited (2018–2020) and indicators based on the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation 2019 should be updated where possible to reflect the most recent datasets, including the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation 2025 and any updated public health, active travel, air quality and demographic data. Ensuring that the evidence base reflects the latest available information is necessary to demonstrate that the policy is justified and based on an accurate understanding of local health conditions and inequalities.
5.48 The policy framework should also be updated to reflect the Health Impact Assessment (Wales) Regulations 2025, which were approved by the Senedd in November 2025 and will come into force on 6 April 2027. At present, these forthcoming statutory requirements are not referenced within Policy SP5 or the supporting guidance. Given that the regulations will establish a statutory framework for the preparation of Health Impact Assessments in Wales, it will be important for the RLDP and supporting documents to clarify how the policy’s screening, checklist and Rapid HIA requirements will interact with the statutory regime once implemented. Including reference to the regulations would help ensure that the policy remains aligned with national legislation and is future-proofed over the plan period.
5.49 The supporting Rapid Participatory HIA of the Deposit RLDP (BP3, September 2025) provides useful background regarding the Council’s engagement with stakeholders in preparing the plan. However, it would be beneficial for the Council to clearly explain how the findings of that work have informed the specific requirements contained within Policy SP5. Providing a clearer link between the outcomes of the participatory HIA and the policy approach adopted in the RLDP would improve transparency and demonstrate that the policy has been shaped by the evidence gathered through the stakeholder engagement process.


Policy SP5 - Creating Healthy and Inclusive Places and Spaces


5.50 The emerging Health Placemaking Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) is broadly welcomed as a practical tool to support implementation of the policy. Nevertheless, a number of matters require further clarification prior to its adoption. In particular, whilst the SPG provides greater clarity regarding the use of the Healthy Placemaking Checklist and Rapid HIAs, it does not clearly identify the circumstances in which a comprehensive (full) HIA would be required. The SPG should also be updated to reflect forthcoming guidance from the Welsh Health Impact Assessment Support Unit (WHIASU) expected in 2026, and ensure alignment with other relevant policies and guidance, including those relating to design, travel plans, public transport accessibility and open space provision. Given the number of cross-references within the SPG, it will be important that these documents are fully aligned and consistent.
5.51 Finally, any requirement for a Health Impact Assessment should be applied on a proportionate basis, reflecting the scale, nature and likely impacts of the development proposed. The policy should therefore make clear that the scope and level of detail required for HIAs will be proportionate to the scale and type of development. Subject to these amendments and clarifications, the policy would provide a clearer and more effective framework for integrating health considerations into the planning process.
5.52 Please refer to Policy SP1 as written response also accounts for information proposed under this particular policy.


Policy SP6 – Housing Requirements
Policy HG1 – Housing Allocations
Policy HG1 (B) – Housing Allocations
• HG1 (3) Barry - Land at Hayes Lane 5.53 Barratt Redrow question the suitability of allocating residential development on the site known as Land at Hayes Lane, The Bendricks. These concerns are centred on the following:
• 5.54 Whilst the site is technically identified within the settlement boundary, it is clearly not a sustainable location for residential development. This is evident by virtue of the fact that Land at Hayes Lane is situated within an existing industrial estate and lacks any supporting facilities. The former reinforces the principle that as a whole the area is characterised by a mix of light industrial and heavy industrial uses which naturally conflicts with the prospect of future residential housing. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume vehicles using the local highway network will be larger in nature (such as HGV’s) and given the majority of streets do not contain dedicated pedestrian footpaths/ cycleways, this raises concerns from a highway safety perspective.
• 5.55 Although we note the Transport Statement from AECOM suggests access can theoretically be achieved to Barry and Sully. Both of these settlements remain over 2km from the site and lie outside of the distances deemed acceptable by Transport for Wales (TfW) to support resident development.
•

Unsustainable Location & Poor Connectivity Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan Representations | Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe – Site 437


• 5.56 Allocating housing on Land at Hayes Lane which therefore does not comply with such criteria would clearly undermine the Council’s objective of pursuing a Transport Orientated Growth approach and by virtue of which risk promoting an unsustainable pattern of development within the emerging RLDP.
• 5.57 As outlined above given the nature of the area there are almost no existing active travel routes in this part of the region. This lack of provision would ultimately lead to future residents using alterative options and many of which would require residents to overcome physical barriers in order to travel in a more sustainable manner. For instance, due to the level of infrastructure associated with the port, the site is effectively detached from the main urban area of Barry and would involve crossing an active railway line halfway along Wimborne Road without sufficient mitigation measures in place. On the other hand, whilst Hayes Road extends further west towards Sully, it follows the southern boundary of the Polaris Industrial Estate which contains various access points that are in regular use throughout the day. Collectively these characteristics would prevent future occupants travelling in a more active manner which is in direct conflict with both local and national planning policy objectives.
• 5.58 The site’s geographic isolation means that access to modes of public transport are extremely limited. Most notably that includes railway stations with the nearest being Cadoxton Station which is located circa 3.8km north of the site. By AECOM’s own accord this is considered to equate to a minimum walking distance of 52 minutes which exceeds TFW’s standards for residential development. Again, this reinforces the fact future residents would be overly reliant on private vehicles to access local services (such as employment opportunities, schools, doctor surgeries etc) which in turn shall achieve an unsustainable pattern of growth and increase associated carbon emissions.
• 5.59 Crucially, the site remains allocated in the adopted LDP for B1/B8 employment uses. These intended to facilitate small industrial and workshop units as part of the Atlantic Trading Estate’s expansion and in turn support opportunities for local businesses/ enterprise ventures. The council’s latest Employment Land Review confirms a clear demand for such uses in Barry, with Land at Hayes Lane representing the most logical location for further growth. Reallocating this land for housing would therefore diminish the Vale of Glamorgan’s ability to attract sufficient economic investment to support the requisite levels of growth over the emerging plan period, and potentially displace businesses to other less suitable parts of the region which would not be in the interests of good placemaking as per PPW12.
• 5.60 Although the RLDP’s evidence base suggests there are other development opportunities within the region that could compensate for the proposed loss of employment land. Upon further review it is apparent these are in less favourable locations from both a strategic and operational standpoint. Reassigning Land at Hayes Lane from employment to residential would therefore undermine the Council’s objective of safeguarding existing employment land and prioritising business/ industrial uses in area’s well served by infrastructure designed to accommodate such activities (such as Barry Docks). Furthermore, it would also set a precedent for other potential losses and in doing so impact the Council’s ability to meet the region’s employment needs up to 2036.
•

Loss of Allocated Employment Land Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan Representations | Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe – Site 437


• 5.61 By virtue of the above, Barratt Redrow object to the proposed allocation of residential development on Land at Hayes Lane. The principle of which is in direct conflict with the Welsh Government’s objectives set out within PPW12 & Future Wales: The National Plan 2040 and the need to ensure existing employment land is suitably protected. The latter is crucial in attracting future investment to the region and shall act as a catalyst to enable housing to be delivered elsewhere, in more sustainable locations better connected to local services/ facilities, such as Wenvoe.
• 5.62 Whilst we do not oppose the overall principle of residential development at Site C (Central Parcel), this position must be considered in the context of the wider allocation. Applications for Sites A and B (2020/00351/OUT (Site A) & 2020/00352/OUT (Site B)) are currently pending subject to respective Section 106 Agreements, with prolonged negotiations resulting in significant delays to delivery. This experience clearly demonstrates that development within this allocation is complex and subject to extended viability and legal discussions, which inevitably impacts the rate at housing is able to come forward.
• 5.63 According to the Council’s register we understand Site C has not been subject to any formal planning application, and therefore there is no detailed evidence available regarding the proposed layout design, infrastructure requirements, viability, or anticipated submission and determination timeframes. Despite this, the Council’s housing trajectory assumes development commencing in 2028/29, with 35 units initially and 45 units annually thereafter. Given the absence of a live application and the precedent of delays on Sites A and B, these delivery assumptions appear overly optimistic based on current evidence.
• 5.64 On that basis we maintain that the Council should reassess the trajectory assumptions for this particular site and identify other alternatives to help account for any unforeseen slippage on Site C. The provision of Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe represents an ideal opportunity to absorb the fallout in terms of housing numbers whilst ensuring the RLDP incorporates sufficient flexibility to consistently meet housing need over the entire plan period.
• 5.65 Although we do not necessarily dispute this sites progression, given Wates have submitted a full planning application (Ref 2024/01152/FUL) which is currently under consideration.
• 5.66 It is important to recognise that, according to the Council’s online planning register, two substantive consultation concerns remain outstanding. Firstly, the Highways response raises fundamental layout issues; and secondly, the Ecology department maintains a holding objection on the basis of insufficient supporting evidence. To date we understand both matters remain unresolved and may well require extensive design amendments, additional technical work, and potentially further consultation before the application can ultimately be determined.
• 5.67 In the absence of confirmed solutions to these issues, there remains uncertainty regarding the timeframe for determining the planning permission. Furthermore, even if consent is secured, there will be a need to discharge conditions and address any pre-commencement requirements, which will inevitably impact the lead-in time before development gets underway.
•

• HG1 (5) Llantwit Major - Land between the Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road (Site C – Central Parcel)
• HG1 (7) St Athan - Former Stadium Site, adjacent to Burley Place
Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan Representations | Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe – Site 437


• 5.68 Given these outstanding matters, the assumption that development will commence in 2027/28 appears optimistic at this stage. Delivery timescales may be extended depending on the scale of amendments required and the duration of condition discharge processes. With this in mind, we believe it is prudent for the emerging RLDP to identify a broader and more diverse portfolio of site allocations to support housing delivery earlier on in the plan period. Ensuring flexibility through additional deliverable sites (such as Swn Y Coed) will reduce the Council’s overreliance on sites such as this one and provide greater certainty in maintaining a more consistent supply of homes over the plan period irrespective of potential delays that may arise on this site.
• 5.69 Whilst we understand that the proposed developer, Edenstone Homes, has recently engaged with the Council through its pre-application service. According to the Council’s planning register, no formal planning application has been submitted to date. As such, there remains no confirmed development proposal, agreed technical evidence base, or indicative determination timeframe associated with the allocation.
• 5.70 In the absence of a live application, there is a considerable degree of uncertainty surrounding the anticipated delivery programme. The housing trajectory assumes development commencing in 2027/28; however, this appears optimistic given that an application has yet to be submitted, validated or determined. Even following any grant of planning permission, there would be a requirement to discharge pre-commencement conditions and satisfy any relevant planning obligations before development could lawfully begin. From experience these processes can be time-consuming and may result in significant delays with regards to lead-in times prior to first completions.
• 5.71 Given this uncertainty, reliance on the site to deliver within the early phases of the plan period carries risk. It is therefore important that the emerging RLDP identifies a broader and more diverse portfolio of deliverable site allocations to support housing delivery, particularly in the earlier years of the plan. Incorporating additional sites with stronger prospects of short-term delivery will provide flexibility, resilience, and greater confidence in maintaining a robust housing land supply should delays arise on this allocation.
• 5.72 Barratt Redrow acknowledges the Council’s position in respect of Site HG3 (1) – Former Eagleswell Primary School, including the temporary five-year consent (2024–2029) for 90 units of short-term accommodation and their inclusion within housing completions for monitoring purposes.
• 5.73 Given their expressly temporary nature and planned relocation to other sites within the Vale by 2029, it is essential that these units are not double counted in a way. As the risk of doing so would artificially inflate the Vale’s housing numbers, thereby preventing delivery opportunities elsewhere over the plan period.
• 5.74 Although Barratt Redrow welcome the clarification provided at paragraph 6.111 which states that once the temporary units are removed and the site is redeveloped for permanent accommodation, any future dwellings will not be included within the RLDPs housing supply
•

• HG1 (8) St Athan - Clive Road, St Athan

Policy HG3 – Housing Led Redevelopment Opportunity Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan Representations | Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe – Site 437


• figures. In the interest of soundness, we believe this should explicitly set out within the proposed wording of Policy HG3 to avoid any potential ambiguity and thus ensure no additional net housing contributions will arise from the site upon its redevelopment later down the line.
• 5.75 This approach is critical given the Vale’s substantial existing landbank and the number of allocations being rolled forward, as cumulatively factoring in additional units from this site would further constrain opportunities to accommodate genuine growth elsewhere. Thereby limiting the Council’s ability to effectively meet local housing need up to 2036.
• 5.76 In principle, Barratt Redrow support Policy SP7’s objective to secure a minimum of 3,070 affordable homes over the plan period. That said, given the level of affordable housing is directly proportionate to the total housing provision within RLDP we believe there is scope for further uplifts in that respect.
• 5.77 As mentioned above Barratt Redrow maintain that there is sufficient evidence to justify increasing the proposed housing requirements through the Vale’s flexibility allowance in order to maximise opportunities for growth. In turn this would prevent artificially capping affordable housing provision at 3,070 homes to ensure the plan is positively prepared by incorporating measures that proactively address demand across the region.
• 5.78 National policy clearly supports this approach. Planning Policy Wales requires development plans to be positively prepared and to maximise the delivery of affordable housing as a key component of sustainable placemaking. The Development Plan Manual reinforces the need for plans to be aspirational, evidence-led and sufficiently flexible to ensure delivery. Furthermore, the Welsh Government 2025-based estimates of additional housing need report highlights the need for a step change in affordable housing delivery across Wales, recognising that continuation of past trends will not address the current affordability challenges. Collectively, this provides a clear direction of travel in that it’s imperative to uplift housing provision where affordability pressures are acute such as the Vale of Glamorgan.
• 5.79 To ensure the RLDP is sound, the Council should increase the overall housing requirement by apply a meaningful flexibility allowance that ensure sufficient contingency measures are in place to consistently meet local need over the plan period. This would directly increase the quantum of affordable housing secured through policy mechanisms, thereby aligning the Plan with national policy objectives. The latter goes to the heart of the tests of soundness within the Development Plan Manual in ensuring the plan is not only appropriate but capable of delivering the step change required to address affordable housing needs up to 2036.
• 5.80 Similarly, it is considered that Policy SP7 should be updated to allow flexibility and avoid the risk of contradicting Policy SP8. At present the blanket approach to affordable provision does not allow for site-specific delivery or viability requirements which may arise and as such, the amplification text should also include a note similar to the following:
•

Policy SP7 – Affordable Housing Provision
‘Where the target affordable housing percentage is considered unviable due to physical, financial, or other constraints, sites will be reviewed on an individual basis following submission of a detailed viability assessment and any supporting evidence as necessary’. Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan Representations | Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe – Site 437


• 5.81 Barratt Redrow supports the position that residential development should help meet affordable housing need. Although to ensure Policy SP8 is effective its important the percentage requirements and site thresholds proposed must be viable across a range of site types and market areas to ensure they do not inadvertently suppress delivery.
• 5.82 On that basis we believe it would be prudent for the Deposit Plan to clarify that affordable housing targets are subject to site-specific viability considerations and can be adjusted in circumstances where comply with such parameters would render the sites viable and thus prevent delivery. Greater flexibility is also needed in tenure and mix to better reflect evolving local needs over the entire plan period including the point when planning applications are formally submitted. This would help ensure that the approach is consistent with paragraph 4.2.32 of PPW 12 which suggests that ‘site specific targets are indicative affordable housing targets which should be established for each residential site…’.
• 5.83 As noted above, the blanket approach to affordable housing requirements based on the Council’s latest needs evidence does not have due consideration for the event of unique technical complexities that many sites could face, nor viability considerations which may affect delivery, particularly early on in the plan period. As such, re-wording of the policy text to allow for sites to be reviewed on an individual basis where such circumstances apply is considered necessary for soundness.
• 5.84 Barratt Redrow support the overall objective of Policy SP10 in seeking to promote sustainable transport, increase active travel opportunities and reduce reliance on the private car in accordance with national placemaking objectives. Encouraging development in accessible locations such as Wenvoe and enhancing connectivity between settlements is welcomed. However, for soundness its important the policy recognises the different physical characteristics across the Vale of Glamorgan, particularly in edge-of-settlement and rural contexts where flexibility is necessary to ensure sustainable growth is not unduly constrained.
• 5.85 In this regard, the Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe site (Ref 437) represents a sustainable and deliverable opportunity that aligns fully with the objectives of Policy SP10.
• 5.86 The Candidate Site submission was accompanied by a Technical Note prepared by Lime Transport. Seen as the site abuts the defined urban area of Wenvoe it represents a logical extension to the existing settlement and is well served by a range of local amenities and public transport. In terms of the latter the nearest bus stop is located within 100 meters of the site whilst the majority of local amenities are situated within 1.2 kilometres walking distance. Together these factors naturally promote the principle of linked trips which fully accords with the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportations (CIHT) guidelines and reinforces the fact the site is a sustainable location for residential development.
• 5.87 As shown within the latest illustrative masterplan the proposed site will be served by a new junction off Old Port Road. This is confirmed as being the most appropriate arrangement from a highway safety perspective and would be supported by other technical analysis to demonstrate that sufficient visibility can be achieved on to the road for all potential users.
•

Policy SP8 – Affordable Housing Requirements
Policy SP10 – Sustainable Transport Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan Representations | Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe – Site 437


• 5.88 The accompanying Transport Assessment also demonstrates that there is sufficient capacity within the local highway network to accommodate the projected level of demand associated with this level of development. Where necessary, any future scheme would also facilitate other improvements which may well include widening the highway along Old Port Road and/ or Walston Road to accommodate two-way traffic and providing a dedicated pedestrian/ cycle junction to connect on to the existing active travel route which leads into the centre of Wenvoe. The existing field access would also be blocked up to create a more cohesive layout. However as shown within the latest masterplan the existing public right of way which crosses the site shall be retained and enhanced to promote better pedestrian connectivity throughout the local area.
• 5.89 In terms of active travel, dedicated pedestrian footpaths and cycleways will be incorporated throughout the scheme before filtering into the surrounding area. The site is also situated within an area which benefits from good access on to existing active travel routes and a number of which have also been identified for further improvements which reinforces the schemes sustainability. These principles fully accord with the relevant placemaking objectives set out within the National Plan 2040 and PPW12, and demonstrates that safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users.
• 5.90 Subject to proportionate application of Policy SP10 and recognition of the robust mitigation proposed, the site clearly supports and advances the sustainable transport objectives of the emerging RLDP.
• 5.91 Barratt Redrow object to Policy CC1 on the basis that it duplicates and potentially exceeds Welsh Government’s Future Homes Standard (FHS), which is intended to ensure all new homes are “zero-carbon ready” through a consistent national Building Regulations framework. Introducing a separate and more onerous operational net zero requirement at the local level risks imposing additional cost and complexity that undermines site viability and deliverability. The Development Plans Manual for Wales is clear that development plans must avoid repeating national policy and should not introduce requirements that are more appropriately addressed through other regulatory regimes. In this respect, Policy CC1 conflicts with the principle that plans should be clear, proportionate and not duplicate national controls, raising concerns under the tests of soundness relating to coherence and consistency with national policy (Test 2) and whether the plan is justified (Test 3).
• 5.92 The proposed step change in standards from 1 April 2030 — particularly the reduction in space heating demand from 40 kWh/m²/year to 15 kWh/m²/year — represents a significant and abrupt escalation in performance expectations. Whilst reference is made to initiatives such as Tai ar y Cyd and AECB CarbonLite, these have largely been associated with grant-funded affordable housing schemes. There is no clear evidence that equivalent standards can be viably delivered across mainstream private housing schemes without public subsidy. The Development Plans Manual requires policies to be underpinned by robust evidence and deliverable over the plan period. In the absence of clear viability evidence across different site typologies and market conditions, the policy fails to demonstrate that it is justified and effective (Tests 3 and 4).
•

Policy CC1 - Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan Representations | Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe – Site 437


• 5.93 Policy CC1 also risks creating fragmented energy performance standards across different Local Planning Authorities in Wales. This undermines the benefit of a consistent national approach through Building Regulations and makes it more difficult for volume housebuilders operating across multiple authority areas to deliver homes efficiently at scale. The Manual emphasises that development plans should facilitate delivery and avoid unnecessary complexity. By introducing bespoke operational monitoring requirements, energy modelling thresholds and potential financial offset mechanisms, the policy blurs the boundary between planning and Building Control functions. This raises concerns as to whether the policy is effective and capable of consistent implementation (Test 4).Finally, the Council’s own Viability Assessment (BP42, paragraph 6.60) acknowledges uncertainty pending Welsh Government’s consultation outcome and suggests that, if national regulation progresses, it may be more appropriate for such matters to be addressed through Building Control rather than planning policy. This reinforces the concern that Policy CC1 is premature and may quickly become misaligned with national policy. As drafted, the policy risks undermining housing supply, affordable housing delivery and overall plan implementation. For these reasons, it fails to satisfy the tests of soundness in respect of coherence with national policy, justification and effectiveness, and should be deleted or fundamentally amended to align fully with the national regulatory framework.
• 5.94 Alternatively, if Policy CC1 is kept in the RLDP, there must be some flexibility introduced for the requirements of Policy CC1 to fall away should Building Regulations catch up or exceed or require different provisions than the requirements of Policy CC1 during the lifetime of the RLDP. To not provide this flexibility would mean that the ability of the RLDP to deliver the new homes in VoG needs could be compromised. Clarification is also required on how the contribution to the Council’s Project Zero fund is to be calculated and whether the timeframes in Policy CC1 relate to the date of planning approval.
• 5.95 Furthermore, the demands of Policy CC1 have to be considered in the context of all of the other demands that impact on development viability (e.g. affordable housing). The Council must provide evidence that an assessment has been undertaken to demonstrate that development, specifically the housing allocations in Policy HG1, can bear the cumulative policy costs of the RLDP, including Policy CC1.
• 5.96 The policy wording should be amended so that the performance requirements apply based on the date of planning permission rather than the RLDP adoption date. Changes in energy performance requirements can significantly affect site layout, building orientation, and design considerations. Without this amendment, approved schemes could unnecessarily require variations via Section 73 or Non Material Amendment applications.
• 5.97 As such, Policy CC1 should be amended to ensure that it is precise, measurable and enforceable and achieves the three tests of soundness. The proposed amended wording is as follows:
•

Developments that secure a planning permission from RLDP adoption to 31st March 2030 will be required to meet the following criteria:
i. Space heating demand less than or equal to 40kWh/m2/year;
ii. Energy use intensity less than or equal to 75kWh/m2/year; and Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan Representations | Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe – Site 437


• 5.98 Barratt Redrow do not consider that Policy SP13 – Community Infrastructure and Planning Obligations is required. This is predicated on the basis that such matters are dealt with under separate legislative and policy frameworks. Therefore, as currently drafted the proposed policy (and supporting text) do not add anything further information for planning purposes and risk unnecessary duplication.
• 5.99 Whilst there are no comments regarding the principle, thresholds and use of the FIT standards in terms of the open space provision, Barratt Redrow do question the requirement for an Open Space Strategy for all sites that meet the thresholds.
• 5.100 The requirement within emerging Policy CI1 for applicants to prepare or submit an Open Space Strategy is not considered to be sufficiently justified or proportionate when assessed against Planning Policy Wales, which promotes access to open space and recreational provision but does not prescribe the preparation of standalone Open Space Strategies for individual planning applications. There is a lack of clarification as to what it proposed and also how the level of detail would be proportional to the size of the site, which would be addressed comprehensively in a DAS or Green Infrastructure Statement in any event.
• 5.101 Furthermore, the proposed 62.2 m² per dwelling requirement is overly prescriptive and not aligned with FiT’s methodology, which is per person and intended to be applied strategically across different open space typologies, not as a uniform per dwelling metric. FiT’s approach emphasises flexibility, multifunctionality and local context, meaning that applying a rigid per dwelling standard oversimplifies the guidance and risks generating disproportionate land take and unnecessary design constraints. When combined with the wider cumulative policy burdens of the RLDP, such an approach has the potential to impact development viability and reduce delivery.
• 5.102 In principle Barratt Redrow support the aim of this policy in ensuring proposed development incorporate measures that protect and enhance green infrastructure provision.
• 5.103 For completeness Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe exhibits a landscape led design that sensitively responds to its existing features, and provides an attractive, landscaped and high-quality public realm throughout. A number of priority habitats including a network of hedgerows have been retained throughout. Extensive landscape buffers and a continued natural edge will be provided to the site to accommodate root protection zones of existing trees and hedgerows which visually screen the development from adjacent uses. Moreover, a dedicated area of Public Open Space and Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) is proposed to the south of the site.
•

Developments that secure a planning permission from 1st April 2030 onwards will require:
i. Space heating demand less than or equal to 15kWh/m2/year;
ii. Energy use intensity less than or equal to 40kWh/m2/year; and
Policy SP13 - Community Infrastructure and Planning Obligations
Policy CI1 – Open Space Provision
Policy SP19 – Green Infrastructure Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan Representations | Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe – Site 437


• 5.104 Barratt Redrow object to the continued inclusion of Swn Y Coed within the Dyffryn Basin & Ridge Slopes - 5 Special Landscape Area (SLA) under Policy DNP1.
• 5.105 As highlighted in Background Paper BP28 – Special Landscape Areas, Paragraph 1.8, the Council considers that the SLA as defined in the 2008 ‘Designation of Special Landscape Areas - Final Report’ remain relevant, up-to-date, and based on current best practise and have therefore not undertake a review of the report to inform the emerging Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP).
• 5.106 Whilst the Authority have not sufficiently updated their evidence base, the site was subject to a detailed review as part of the Candidate Site submission by Soltys Brewester Landscape which highlighted that the site is located on the edge of land subject to Dyffryn Basin and Ridge Slopes SLA. This designation is ‘underpinned’ by LANDMAP Areas St Nicholas and Bonvilston Ridge Slopes, (VLFGLVS614) and St Nicholas and Bonvilston Ridge Crest (VLFGLVS271), both evaluated as High.
• 5.107 However, the vast majority of the designated land will fall outside the visual envelope for the Swn Y Coed site and there will be no change to the key characteristics of the SLA or the LANDMAP areas to the west or to the north of the site boundary.
• 5.108 A noted characteristic of the SLA relates to the prominence of the sloping edge, (i.e. St Nicholas and Bonvilston Ridge Slopes, (VLFGLVS614), within views from Wenvoe Valley to the east. The visual appraisal establishes that site development has the potential to partially change the appearance of this edge within available views.
• 5.109 However, opportunities for GI provision within the site including retention and enhancement of the existing boundary hedges and trees which has the potential to minimise any visible change. Furthermore, as illustrated on the submitted masterplan, the existing hedges and field pattern within and around the site will be key structural elements guiding and sub-dividing the development form.
• 5.110 When considered in the context of the extensively wooded nature of the slopes visible to the east, any visible change to valley slope characteristics is likely to be very marginal and visually insignificant within the study area.
• 5.111 Moreover, the illustrative masterplan includes measures that will assist with GI mitigation and enhancement, including SUDs features, accessible landscape buffers and green spaces.
• 5.112 Therefore, it was concluded that from a landscape and visual perspective the site has the ability to suitably incorporate residential development and include GI enhancements, to assist with its visual integration, as a visually appropriate extension to Wenvoe, and should be removed from the Dyffryn Basin & Ridge Slopes - 5 Special Landscape Area under Policy DNP1.
•

Policy DNP1 - Special Landscape Areas Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan Representations | Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe – Site 437


• 5.113 Barratt Redrow object to the site at Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe still forming part of Green Wedge 3 - North of Wenvoe within Policy DNP2, which seeks to prevent coalescence between the western edge of Cardiff and Wenvoe.
• 5.114 Barratt Redrow have reviewed BP27 Green Wedges and consider that the assessment under NW2 does not consider nor reference the fact that the site at Swn Y Coed relates to the context of built development at Wenvoe and is very well-contained by both mature woodland and landform and possesses strong intervisibility with the northern edge of Wenvoe. Instead, BP27 looks to discuss the southern boundary of Culverhouse Cross and the association with the wider countryside.
• 5.115 As previously states Barratt Redrow consider that the site boundaries are well-defined and would provide a strong established ‘defensible’ limit to development. The topography connects with the main settlement to the extent that any new development would appear well connected to the existing settlement, physically and visually. This is a similar situation to the adjoining former Wenvoe Quarry and Vale of Glamorgan Council Depot which are considered to be ‘largely shielded from view by woodland blocks/strips’.
• 5.116 Furthermore, the existing dispersed housing and the hotel/pub along Old Port Road also provide some precedent for ‘infilling’ the site. Proposed development should seek to reflect the low density, height and well-treed character of Wenvoe to help ensure it has a coherent and visually connected relationship. GI mitigation and enhancement benefits likely to result from the site development, including placemaking, value or integration in relation to landscape and visual considerations.
• 5.117 The proposed development of the small area of the Green Wedge would not undermine the principles and would still prevent the coalescence of Wenvoe with Cardiff by maintaining a minimum 0.7km separation and would not significantly impact upon the openness of land.
• 5.118 Moreover, the illustrative masterplan provided as part of Candidate Site 437 includes measures that will assist with GI mitigation and enhancement, including SUDs features, accessible landscape buffers and green spaces. Further recommendations to maximise opportunities to reinforce GI, including placemaking, value or integration are outlined below:
• 5.119 Overall, Barratt Redrow maintain their objection to the inclusion of the Swn Y Coed site within Green Wedge 3 - North of Wenvoe under Policy DNP2. From a landscape and visual
•

Policy DNP2 – Green Wedges
• Retention, management and strengthening of structural green corridors and boundaries to the site, including the overgrown hedges and trees;
• More visible areas on elevated sections of the site should include a higher proportion of trees, including gardens and street trees and woodland to more visually integrate the development when viewed from the Wenvoe Valley to the east; and
• Footpath corridors through the site could be integrated with the development through appropriate hedge and garden vegetation to ensure attractive recreational corridors are provided. Similarly informal routes around the perimeter could continue to offer amenity value through sympathetic boundary treatments and informal planting.
Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan Representations | Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe – Site 437


• perspective, the site has the ability to suitably incorporate residential development and include GI enhancements, to assist with its visual integration, as a visually appropriate extension to Wenvoe. Moreover, the development of the site immediately adjoining the existing settlement boundary at Wenvoe would not detract from the purpose of the wider Green Wedge.
• 5.120 Policy DNP8 seeks to address recreational pressure on the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area and Ramsar Site. Whilst Barratt Redrow appreciate the overarching purpose in its current form the proposed policy lacks sufficient supporting information explaining how it will operate in practice. The supporting text suggests that key details relating to mitigation delivery, including mechanisms such as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace and wider access management measures, will be set out in future Supplementary Planning Guidance. Deferring these important details until later down the line creates uncertainty at the plan-making stage and makes it difficult to assess whether the policy is sound, effective and/ or capable of being implemented on a consistent basis.
• 5.121 The policy also provides no clear threshold or criteria for determining what level of activity would constitute “visitor pressure” or an “adverse impact” on the integrity of the designated sites. Similarly, the evidence demonstrating what level of impact residents moving into new homes across the Vale of Glamorgan will generate additional recreational pressure on the Severn Estuary does not appear to have been quantified to date. While a 12.6 km recreational catchment is referenced (in which Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe would technically sit within), the supporting text does not clearly explain the evidence or methodology underpinning this distance. Moreover, the proposed text also fails to set out how new residential development will be assessed in terms of measurable impacts on the European site and thus the scope of mitigation that would subsequently be required.
• 5.122 From a practical standpoint this level of uncertainty is concerning given the implication of this policy are unable to be fully assessed due to the lack of evidence. For instance, if development sites within the catchment are expected to contribute financially towards mitigation measures, then the scale and mechanism of those contributions must be clearly established as part of the plan-making process. Without this clarity, there is a risk that Policy DNP8 could introduce unforeseen costs and extensive time delays, potentially affecting the viability and overall deliverability of proposed housing sites. The cumulative impact of which would then undermining the plan’s ability to meet its housing requirements and risk finding the RLDP unsound.
• 5.123 Barratt Redrow understand the need for a sustainable provision of minerals, as per Policy SP18, however object to the continued inclusion of Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe within an area that is designated as a Category 1 Limestone mineral resource. The site should not be safeguarded from permanent development as detailed in response to Policy MIN1.
•

Policy DNP8 – Severn Estuary Recreational Pressure
SP18 - Sustainable Provision of Minerals Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan Representations | Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe – Site 437


• 5.124 Barratt Redrow object to the continued inclusion of the land at Swn Y Coed as a Category 1 Limestone mineral resource safeguarding area.
• 5.125 A Mineral Resource Assessment, undertaken by Wardell Armstrong, was provided as part of the Candidate Site Assessment and considered the proposed development against the four criteria of Policy MG 22 of the current Adopted Local Development Plan and National Policy. Those criteria are carried forward into Policy MIN1 and the following conclusions are reiterated:
• 5.126 As the resource is constrained by sensitive development any prior extraction would have an unacceptable impact on environmental and amenity considerations.
• 5.127 Limestone extraction has the potential to give rise to unacceptable impact to the immediate residential properties and would be wholly inappropriate.
• 5.128 The extraction of limestone resources beneath the Site has the potential to have an unacceptable impact upon:
•

MIN1 - Development in Minerals Safeguarding Areas
• Criterion 1: Prior extraction of economic minerals prior to development
• Criterion 2: Demonstrating extraction would have unacceptable impact

a) Ambient noise levels,
b) Air quality,
c) Ground vibration and air overpressure from blasting,
d) Limited site access/egress onto the Old Port Road would be problematic, and
e) Increased traffic generation by HGVs.
• Criterion 3: Development would have no significant impact on the possible working of the resource by reason of its nature or size 5.129 Development would not have significant impact on mineral resources
•
• Criterion 4: Poor quality resource 5.130 The quality and quantity of the mineral resources have not been assessed given the resource is already constrained by sensitive development and any testing or extraction would not be viable nor possible.
• 5.131 As already demonstrated the Category 1 resources cannot be extracted under Criteria 1 and 2 (due to the impact upon amenity) and the proposed residential development would not have a significant impact upon the wider mineral resource (Criterion 3).
• 5.132 Therefore, it is considered unnecessary to undertake site investigations by boreholes and trial pits to determine the ratio of overburden to mineral resource, mineral quality and estimation of the gross mineral resource affected by the proposed development.
• 5.133 Overall, Barratt Redrow consider that the presence of the mineral resource does not preclude the allocation and development of the site as any extraction does not accord with the criteria
•
Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan Representations | Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe – Site 437


• requirements in MIN1. Therefore, the site at Swn Y Coed should be removed from the safeguarding area.
• 5.134 Barratt Redrow acknowledge the need to retain buildings in some circumstances, however consider that the wording of Policy CC2 is overly restrictive in the sense that a presumption against demolition could impact upon delivery timescales for sites, particularly those including farm buildings.
• 5.135 Accordingly, it is considered necessary to re-word the policy to allow for the demolition of buildings where they are no longer used or needed in the event that a site is proposed to be developed for residential purposes, to assist in meeting the housing need over the plan period.
• 5.136 An additional point should be added to the list of 4 criteria, to note that demolition will be acceptable where it is demonstrated that ‘The existing building occupies a minority portion of the site, and to not demolish the building would prevent and/or restrict the delivery of the wider land for the provision of housing’.
•

CC2 – Presumption Against Demolition Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan Representations | Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe – Site 437


• 6.1 In summary, Barratt Redrow, remain committed to the development opportunities at ‘Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe’. By virtue of its location the site represents a sustainable extension to the existing settlement of Wenvoe, and we maintain that its inclusion within the emerging RLDP would help promote a more sustainable pattern of development in line with the Council’s vision for the VoG.
• 6.2 Although we understand the Council have opted to pursue a ‘medium growth option’. Having reviewed the accompanying evidence base there is clear justification to warrant higher levels of growth, particularly in respect of housing over the emerging plan period. This would better accommodate the identified housing requirements and align with the Welsh Government’s aspirations to prioritise future development within a National Growth Area. These principles fully accord with PPW12 and Future Wales, whilst also enabling the VoG to proactively take action in order to account for historic unmet need across the county as shown within the latest Annual Monitoring Report (7th Edition).
• 6.3 Barratt Redrow Homes’ most pertinent comments on the consultation document are summarised below:
•

6. CONCLUSION
• Barratt Redrow fully supports the proposed approach to prioritise development in sustainable locations near existing rail and bus infrastructure as depicted by the strategic growth area within the RLDP Key Diagram. However, to optimise the effectiveness of this strategy growth should be focused in areas of high demand, such as Wenvoe, which is near to Cardiff but also inherently well connected by the existing bus network.
• Barratt Redrow support the principle of the Settlement Hierarchy and the identification of Wenvoe as a Primary Settlement. Whilst the importance of which is noted, Barratt Redrow maintain that Wenvoe, in particular, is capable of a higher role and function which can be accommodated at Candidate Site Ref. No 437. This is particularly relevant given the fact that the Service Centres at Cowbridge, Llantwit Major and Penarth are generally more constrained physically and environmentally.
• Barratt Redrow maintain that a higher growth option should be followed. Given the Vale’s position within the Cardiff Capital Region and its designation as a national growth area, we maintain that the proposed RLDP should be more ambitious when it comes to overall housing targets. Drawing on examples from Bridgend (14% flexibility), Swansea (20%), and Monmouthshire (15%), alongside evidence of historic under-delivery and recent Welsh Government household projections, there are sufficient grounds to warrant increasing the proposed flexibility allowance to a minimum of 15%, equating to a total requirement of 9,074 homes up to 2036.
• In the interests of soundness these changes shall help account for any potential overreliance on existing landbanks and variable windfall delivery rates which could in theory limit the plan’s ability to address unmet housing need. Barratt Redrow therefore conclude that a higher flexibility allowance and additional site allocations, such as the land at Swn Y Coed, are necessary to ensure the RLDP is able to effectively meet
Vale of Glamorgan Deposit Plan Representations | Swn Y Coed, Wenvoe – Site 437


local need over the plan period. The benefits of which shall also demonstrate the emerging RLDP is supported by a robust, proportionate and credible evidence base to accord with the requirements of the Development Plan Manual for Wales and national growth objectives.
• Whilst Barratt Redrow welcome the majority of the proposed planning policies from a development management perspective. They strongly object to Policy CC1 (Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development) on the basis that it duplicates Welsh Government’s Future Homes Standard (FHS), which is intended to ensure all new homes are “zero-carbon ready” through a consistent national Building Regulations framework.
• Although Barratt Redrow support the requirements for affordable housing in new development. In its current form the proposed policies SP7 and SP8 lack sufficient flexibility for site specific circumstances and physical constraints which may impact upon delivery. This inevitably creates uncertainty for a number of sites, where the blanket approach to affordable housing requirements based on the Council’s latest needs evidence does not have due consideration for the event of unique technical complexities.
• From a planning perspective it is also important to recognise the additional benefits the site (Candidate Site Ref No. 437) could provide in accommodating the increased housing need generated by the suggested 15% flexibility allowance within a highly sustainable location. The principles of which clearly align with the Council’s aspirations and would maximise opportunities for linked trips, enabling residents to meet a greater proportion of their daily needs locally while benefiting from high-quality public transport

ANNEX 1
Preface

This Annex sets out the detailed case in support of these representations, and by association the case for allocation of the site.

The representations are structured into the following sections:

1. Response to the Deposit Plan;
2. Comments on specific policies; and
3. A summary of the suitability of the site for development.

SECTION 1. Response to the Deposit Plan

Distribution of Growth

We object to the distribution of growth within the Deposit Plan. Specifically, we object to the strategy that underpins the Deposit Plan, which seeks to introduce the proposed ‘Strategic Growth Area’ which is expected to contain the majority of housing growth in the Vale over the Plan period, or rather the over-reliance on this defined area, and the associated absence of growth in other parts of the Plan area.

As outlined in our previous representations, the allocation of housing and the location of strategic growth neglects the Rural Vale, and in our view, overprovides in the Strategic Growth Area. For example, with limited housing stock and average house sales at over £500,000 over the last 12 months, there is a clear and established need for new homes in the Ystradowen area, particularly at an affordable level. This is reinforced by the Local Housing Market Assessment that identified a need for over 1,114 new affordable homes per annum over the next five years throughout the county, and 196 units per annum thereafter (average of 502 units per annum over 15 years). Further to this, it is widely known that the rural Vale comprises the majority of the county’s ageing population, which, as a demographic, has and will continue to grow rapidly over the Plan period. This is evident in the ‘Population Change’ chart below – which is taken from the Deposit Plan:
VofG Deposit Plan: Figure 4 Population Change 2011 to 2021

It is clearly the case that younger populations are migrating to other Authorities, where access to housing is typically cheaper and more affordable, whilst more older populations are significantly migrating into the Authority. This trend will result in an extremely unbalanced demographic, given that the working-age population have sought housing elsewhere.

Without a suitable supply of affordable housing delivered over the Plan period, this trend will only worsen. Accordingly, it is not considered that the RLDP takes into account the lack of supply of affordable homes within the rural Vale, as well as increased housing to support the growing ageing population within these areas.

Para 3.19 of the Deposit Plan clearly outlines that affordable housing is required in the short term, in order to meet pressing needs. Specifically, it outlines the following: “There is significant pressure on temporary accommodation in the Vale, for a variety of reasons including increased homelessness presentations… The need for sufficient permanent affordable housing to assist in moving people out of temporary accommodation is critical and the planning system has a vital role in assisting in new affordable housing delivery.”
Accordingly, the distribution of growth within the Authority must be proportionate, to ensure that populations / areas are not left behind where they must seek access to housing elsewhere.

The RLDP Sustainable Growth Strategy sets out 6 objectives. Objective 4 states: “Allowing for small scale affordable housing led development in settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area at a scale proportionate to the size of settlement.” (Page 66)
Para 5.25 states “Therefore, a key part of the strategy is to allow for affordable housing led developments within sustainable primary and minor rural settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area, at a scale that is appropriate to the size of the community it is serving. An ‘affordable housing led’ scheme is one where a minimum of 50% of the dwellings would need to be affordable, although this could increase to a maximum of 100% if the site is brought forward by a social landlord”.

In terms of the definition / explanation of what the affordable housing-led development sites are seeking to achieve, paragraph 6.132 of the Deposit Plan outlines the following:

“Accordingly, to ensure that new developments respond to the high demand for smaller properties, as identified in the LHMA, priority will be given to affordable homes that are small to medium-sized, typically comprising one to three bedrooms. Representations received from the local community through the RLDP process also highlighted a desire for new housing developments to offer opportunities for accessing smaller market homes. This is particularly relevant in the rural Vale, where housing choices are more limited. Providing smaller, more affordable market homes may assist first-time buyers and enable older residents to downsize to more manageable properties within their local area. Affordable housing-led sites will therefore need to demonstrate that an appropriate range of both affordable and market dwellings has been provided.”

Despite the acknowledgement within this strategic objective, we do not consider that the RLDP goes far enough to meet this objective, nor are its provisions and allocations adequate.

It is considered that this objective is undermined by the allocations set out by the RLDP (not least the absence of allocations in the rural Vale). Notwithstanding the Vision’s clear acknowledgement of the benefit of the growth of the rural Vale, these areas have not been supported through the plan due to the lack of growth which has been attributed to these areas in terms of further housing, employment and sustainable transport. All growth options have been selected on the basis of being in either a Key Settlement, Service Centre Settlement or Primary Settlement, all of which are already sustainable areas served by rail. As a result, it is not clear how this objective can be achieved, without the allocation of further sites within the Minor Rural Settlements, such as Ystradowen. The Vale is characteristically ‘rural’, and as such, there needs to be a stronger emphasis on supporting and delivering new development in order to bolster the rural economy. This includes enabling opportunities to provide employment and business premises within / near to rural settlements, as well as focusing housing growth in these areas to reduce travel time, and promote the use of sustainable transport.

It is considered that the current Strategy does not provide adequately for all residents across the Vale, only those within the Strategic Growth Area. The underlying Vision and Objectives set out in the emerging Plan are accordingly wholly un-provided for by the detail of the Plan. This brings into question the “soundness” of the Plan.

The Strategic Growth Area does not take into account the important role and proximity of Bridgend to the West and/or the Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant to the north (as defined in the RCTCBC LDP). The Minor Rural Settlements to the west are more likely to be supported by job opportunities and employment in Bridgend than further east in Barry or Cardiff. Similarly, those in the north align with, and function in association with, the Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant to the north. These settlements are served by existing bus services that provide sustainable modes of travel to key employment locations in and around Bridgend. This is acknowledged in Paragraph 3.3 of the Strategy which states “The greatest number of residents who travel outside of the Vale for work purposes travel to Cardiff followed by Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taf, whilst a smaller proportion commute into the Vale from these neighbouring authorities”. The Demographic Evidence (Feb 2023) estimates the Vale as being a net importer of workers from RCT and Caerphilly (Para 3.6) - as shown in Figure 10 in the Preferred Strategy.

The current Strategy does not support any improvement of sustainable travel or further investment in settlements linked more closely to these areas - given that Growth has been apportioned in only the Key Service Centre and Primary Settlements. It is considered that this will fail to support and facilitate the current (and any future) employment coming into the Vale, nor will it support any employment which is located outside of the Vale to the West and North. The Growth Option is too heavily reliant on access to railway stations as the key and sole sustainable transport method, whereas access to bus services should also be appropriately assessed and focused on in terms of promoting sustainable development. It is unreasonable to devise a strategy that hinges on directing growth to areas that are accessible to railway facilities, where it is recognised in the Plan that the Vale is inherently rural. The delivery and soundness of the Plan is therefore questioned and we continue to object to the spatial growth strategy as set out in the Deposit Plan.

Housing Supply

RLDP Allocations - Key Sites

As set out in representations made throughout the Plan preparation process, we consider that the Plan is too reliant on the delivery of ‘key sites’ to meet the housing need over the Plan period. Specifically, the Plan makes provision for 2,278 units in these Key Sites, which equates to circa 65% of RLDP allocations in the housing supply. The 5 key sites that are allocated in the Deposit Plan are as follows:

• Land at North West Barry – 376no. units;
• North of Dinas Powys – 250no. units;
• Land at Readers Way, Rhoose – 520no. units;
• Land at Church Farm, St Athan – 532no. units; and
• Land to the West of St Athan – 600no. units.

We object to the current housing supply to allocate 2,278no. (65%) of units across strategic sites, as this makes for a risky and unrobust strategy for delivering housing, and in turn, meeting the identified housing need over the Plan period.

As stated in previous representations, there is concern that the proposed timing and phasing of the proposed Key Sites is unrealistic and unrobust, and in turn, undermines the soundness of the Plan, given the heavy reliance on Key Sites delivering new homes across the Plan period. Whilst it is not disputed that the sites would have gone through rigorous assessment to inform their proposed allocation, the timescales for securing planning permission (with all associated conditions discharged) is considered to be unachievable. This is particularly the case for the following timescales that are set out in the Housing Trajectory that underpin the Plan:

• “Time period of pre-application discussions/PAC consultation” – 4 months
• “Time between submission of planning application and determination” – 6 months
• “Time taken from planning consent to the discharge of relevant conditions to enable site construction” – 4 months

It is considered that the above timescales are fundamentally unrobust, and result in a distorted position of housing sites over the RLDP Plan period. It is not considered that these reflect or are informed by the timescales that are currently being incurred for planning applications submitted for major housing sites across Wales. It is rather the case that such applications would typically be determined 1-2 years following submission, given that there are a wide range of stakeholders involved in the determination of major planning applications – which often adds to the delays associated with the determination of such applications.

It is equally the case that the assumptions in the trajectory are solely based on expected timescales for processing formal submissions made to the Council, and do not factor in the timescales associated with, and needed for, the preparation of the material for submission.

It is assumed that these timescales have not considered that such major developments can be subject to the need to undertaking and submitting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which adds another layer to the determination of any planning application – given the additional considerations that form part of this process. As such, any site subject to EIA would very likely result in further delays extending beyond the timescales set out in the trajectory. Equally, as set out above, the preparation of an application subject to an EIA requires even more detail and assessment, which only further adds to the preparation stage (which has not been factored into as part of the trajectory). Accordingly, it is not considered that the trajectory contains any contingency if any site is required to undertake EIA as part of their application.

For the reasons stated above, it is unlikely that the sites will yield in full, particularly those sites which are expected to deliver housing right up to the final year of the Plan period (‘Land at Readers Way’ and ‘Land to the West of St Athan’). These sites do not allow for any ‘slippage’ should any delays arise through the development management process (which for the reasons set out above, will very likely be the case), and as such, a gap in housing delivery will be brought about as a result of these sites not yielding in full.

Given the proposed ambitious timescales set out for the delivery of the Key Sites, it is considered the housing trajectory is unrobust, and in turn, undermines the soundness of the Plan as a result. A change in strategy should be pursued whereby a greater proportion of small to medium sites are allocated for housing in the Plan period, which are more likely to fully yield given that such sites are subject to less assessment and consideration compared to strategic sites. This would make for a more robust strategy, where a greater number of small to medium sites can deliver housing in the short and medium term of the Plan period, whereas the strategic sites represent a more longer-term strategy to deliver housing – which would then spill into the next Plan period.

Accordingly, we object to the Deposit Plan in its current form, where there is an overreliance on housing need to be met through the delivery of the Key Sites, which we consider to be unrobust, and undermine the integrity and soundness of the Plan. The current strategy of the Plan is at significant risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated, as least as swifty as identified in the housing trajectory. Should no change be made to the Plan to address the above issues, then it is extremely likely that the Plan would ‘fail’ in meeting the identified housing need.

Windfall Sites

It is noted that the RLDP is made up of the following:

• Existing land supply (3,838 units)
• Windfall sites (1,303 units)
• Allocated sites (3,521 units)

Para 6.69 states that “Analysis of historical delivery of housing indicates that on average small windfall sites (sites of less than 10 dwellings) have provided some 53 dwelling completions per year, and large windfall sites (10 dwellings or greater) contributed on average 80 dwellings per year. Overall, it is projected that windfall sites could contribute a further 1,303 dwellings over the remainder of the plan”.

As set out in our previous representations to the Housing Trajectory, we would object to the expected numbers of completions expected during the Plan period, given that there are a number of issues with delivering housing in Wales and given past completions rates for The Vale of Glamorgan – which is discussed in greater detail later in this submission. Again, this results in the Plan being at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated – including any windfall sites.

St Athan Train Station

The RLDP Sustainable Growth Strategy comprises six key elements, of which the following is set out in respect to the allocation of new housing growth in the Authority:

“3. Focusing development at locations that are well served by existing and proposed rail stations as part of the South Wales Metro and in areas with good bus links.”

The strategy outlines that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken in 2022, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. Accordingly, in line with the spatial strategy adopted for the RLDP (i.e. focus development around sustainable transport nodes), St Athan was identified as a ‘Strategic Opportunity Area’ to accommodate strategic growth – through the proposed allocation of two key sites : ‘Land at Church Farm’ and ‘Land West of St Athan’. These sites have been identified to deliver 532no. and 600no. units respectively in the Plan period. These are separate to, and are in addition to, the 51no. units that have now been attributed to the site ‘Land South of Clive Road’ and 80no. units attributed to ‘Former Stadium Site, adjacent to Burley Place’ in St Athan. Accordingly, in total, the Housing Trajectory makes a provision for a total of 1,263no. homes to be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period.

It is now the case, however, that the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales – as confirmed in the ‘Today, Tomorrow, Together: A vision for rail across Wales and Borders’ (February 2026) recently published by Transport For Wales. This paper acknowledges that a new railway station at St Athan would represent a longer term opportunity, and therefore, will not be delivered in the short term / within the Plan period of the emerging Plan. Equally the Council have not provided any evidence to contradict this, and therefore, it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period. This brings about significant questions regarding the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

The strategy to allocate new housing growth is predicated on focusing residential development around sustainable transport nodes, and given that St Athan will be without any railway station in the Plan period, it is not considered that the sites align with the strategy of the RLDP. Accordingly, the wider Housing Trajectory is considered to be unsound, given that a total of 1,263no. homes (36% of the Plan’s new housing allocations) are expected to be delivered in St Athan within the Plan period.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision. Given this, to add further sites for housing in this location over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites - given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

In terms of the expected delivery of the Key Sites in St Athan, it is noted that the trajectory identifies that for the majority of the Plan period, both sites will be delivering 80no. dwellings per annum on each site (equating to 160no units in total). Whilst these are two separate sites, we seriously question the realistic prospects of the significant number of homes being built simultaneously on two sites in proximity to one another – given the considerable logistical issues that would be brought about.

Accordingly, it remains that there are serious questions regarding the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations at St Athan, which do not accord with the strategy adopted for the RLDP – to focus housing growth on settlements that are supported by railway stations. Moreover, the scale of development proposed at St Athan is also not considered to be proportionate, with a significant number of homes delivered in a location not served by a railway station.

Rolled forward LDP Sites

The proposed land supply within the housing trajectory includes provision for ‘rolled forward’ LDP sites, which contribute to the total of ‘Proposed Additional Housing Allocations’ forming part of the housing supply. Specifically, a total of 1,242no. units have been identified as additional housing allocations, of which 959no. are expected to be delivered on the rolled forward LDP sites. As such, these sites are to provide for a significant proportion of additional housing in the Plan period (specifically circa 77%).

The Development Plans Manual (DPM) sets out that allocations rolled forward from a previous plan will require careful justification for inclusion in a revised plan. The DPM outlines that “there will need to be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate sites can be delivered and justify being included again. Clear evidence will be required that such sites can be delivered.” The below table included in the consultation document provides a breakdown of the rolled forward LDP sites, and in particular, sets out the status of each site:
Table 6: Existing LDP allocations to be carried forward

The above table evidences that the current LDP has under delivered in regard to its targeted unit number of the Plan period, given that these sites did not yield any housing over the current Plan period. This is further exacerbated by the Land Bank sites that have also not delivered any housing across the existing LDP period, amounting to 1,860no units. Accordingly, when considering the non-delivery of both rolled forward LDP sites and Land Bank sites, this amounts to an approximate shortfall of 2,189 homes being delivered, or 33% of the total housing supply identified for the current LDP (8,525no. dwellings).

It is therefore considered that, as a minimum, the units carried over from the LDP (without planning permission) should be a surplus to the housing supply proposed for the RLDP, as opposed to being relied on to deliver the housing need over the Plan period. This is particularly the case for the two sites (Land to the west of Pencoedtre Lane, and Land between Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road) which do not currently have any active planning application submitted for their development. These sites total an amount of 370no. units to be delivered in the Plan period, which represents more than a third of the additional housing allocations to make up the housing supply.

As such, it is considered that the unmet need deriving from the existing LDP is still present – indeed it has grown, and will continue to do so, not least when considered in conjunction with the projected population growth over the coming years to 2036, and the aspirations for growth in the Plan’s strategy.

Accordingly, in order to secure the targeted level of housing, a greater level of provision for new allocations should be applied in order to meet the housing requirement. This would bring about better certainty that the housing requirement is met by the housing supply over the Plan period, not least given that the current Plan failed in this respect. Without a re-apportioning of the housing supply, it is considered that the Plan would heavily rely on the contingency (i.e. rolled forward LDP sites) coming forward in the Plan period, yet there is uncertainty that these will yield in full over the new Plan period. This raises issues of ’soundness’, and risks rendering the Plan unrobust.

Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions

As set out in our previous representations to the Housing Trajectory consultation, we have considerable concerns in relation to the proposed delivery of the sites identified in the trajectory – which we do not consider are robust or reasonable.

Appendix 1 of the Deposit Plan sets out the development trajectory bar chart – which illustrates the proposed delivery of housing, on a per annum basis, over the Plan period.
Extract of Housing Trajectory (annotated by GJP - red dotted line)

It is our view that the trajectory makes for an unrealistic and unrobust delivery rate of housing, which does not reflect the pattern of housing completions in the Vale of Glamorgan. We therefore have concerns regarding the soundness of the trajectory, not least that there remain significant uncertainties as to the delivery of the Key Sites (as discussed earlier in these representations).

Firstly, the graph / trajectory illustrates a large ‘spike’ in terms of housing delivery in the year 2027-28, which is considered to be a marked and pronounced step change in the rate of delivery. This envisages / relies on a significantly higher rate of delivery than previous years in the Vale of Glamorgan (2021 through 2021 – as depicted by the green columns). It is considered that this level of delivery is unlikely to materialise, not least given prevailing market circumstances, past rates of delivery on the ground, and also in light of levels achieved across Wales and the UK in general.

The published trajectory shows that the average level of completions from 2021 - 2025 has been approx. 400 - 500 units, however, the chart shows that from 2027 – 2028, completions are expected to rise to approx. 1,000 units per year. The expected delivery levels in the trajectory therefore show and assume a doubling in delivery rates and unit numbers (an increase of approx. 100% relative to past rates). There is no clear evidence as to how this level of completions can be achieved let alone guaranteed. This is the case in particular given that the forthcoming years (2025-2027) are expected to see performance (yield) drop significantly (delivery rates in 2025 – 2026 and 2026 – 2027). The chart shows only approx. 200 units being delivered over these years. It is therefore unclear how completion rates are expected to rise so quickly (from 200 in 2025-26 to 1000 in 2027-28), and by such a significant amount. The assumptions in the trajectory are wholly unrobust in our view.

It is also the case that the anticipated delivery of housing fails to be consistent within and across the Plan period. It is unclear as to why completions rates aren’t spread out more evenly throughout the Plan period - to ensure a robust and most realistic housing trajectory until 2036. By comparison to the marked increase in the rate of delivery between and over the period 2027 to 2031, there is then a marked fall-off or drop in delivery towards and by the end of the Plan period. Indeed, in the final year, the level of completions are expected to be lower than the period 2021-2025.

Accordingly, we consider that the housing trajectory, as proposed, is entirely manufactured and unreflective of the past completion rates, as well as the recent published completion rates provided by Welsh Government recently in August 2025. As set out in our previous representations, it has been evidenced that there has been a general decline in the number of new dwellings started and completed.
Description of Figure 1: ‘New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’
As identified in the graph above, in 2024-25, 4,631 new dwellings were completed, which represents 3% fewer than the previous year. This figure represented the second lowest number on record, with the lowest number recorded in 2021-22, a year heavily affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (in 2021-22, 4,616 new dwellings were completed) The New Housing Pipeline Report Quarter 3, 2025 Report (December 2025) published by the HBF evidenced that the number of residential units approved in the UK fell by 7% during the third quarter of 2025, extending the decline seen during the first half of the year. At 45,075, the number of units approved was 34% down on the third quarter of 2024 and the lowest quarterly total since 2012 Q2. At 146,798, the overall number of units approved during the first nine months of 2025 was 25% lower than a year ago.
HBF Graph Illustrating Residential Approvals (2006-2025)

The above graph clearly shows a pronounced downward trend in the number of residential planning approvals over the period, particuarly with a sharp decrease seen since 2020. Further, the HBF document ‘Increasing Housing Supply in Wales’ (4th September 2025) clearly shows that The Vale of Glamorgan has not met the housing delivery requirements in recent years in 2023 – 2024 – along with every other authority in Wales (except Newport). Accordingly, this further adds to the argument that historically The Vale (and most other authorities) have underprovided. This adds considerable uncertainty on the assumed transformation in yield and delivery as built into the trajectory.
Graph: Housing Delivery as a proportion of annual housing requirement in Wales per Authority

More recently, the Welsh Government has released its new estimates of housing need (Estimates of Additional Hosing Need: 2025-based – February 2026). The estimates show how many new homes need to be built over the next twenty years to address existing unmet need as well as newly arising need. The figures set out that around 8,700no. new homes a year are needed over the next Senedd term up to 2030 to meet new housing need. Additionally, there is an unmet need for 9,400 affordable homes.

Overall, this represents more than double 2024/25 levels of supply, where just 4,638 new homes were built.

HBF: Estimates of Housing Need

HBF: Actual Delivery vs Estimates of Need

The above graphs unequivocally evidence that historical rates of delivery of housing in Wales has remained low, and moreover, significant numbers of housing need to be allocated in order to meet the estimate of need. It is not considered that the housing trajectory, in its current form, is robust to meet the housing need over the Plan period, given the uncertainties of the Key Sites, and the level of housing delivery that has been identified for the Plan.

Affordable Housing-Led Sites

HG4 - Rural Affordable Housing Led Sites

Policy HG4 of the Deposit Plan identifies four sites to be allocated as affordable housing-led sites, totalling approximately 122 dwellings within the plan period. Given the target levels of achieving 3,070 affordable dwellings over the course of the Plan period (up to 2036), it is not considered that this policy goes far enough to address the target and level of affordable housing need.
It is noted that the number of units identified for each site relate to the ‘total’ number of units delivered, as opposed to the affordable housing provision. Accordingly, it can be assumed that circa 50% of each allocation will comprise affordable units (given each site is affordable-led), which would equate to a total provision of circa 61no. units. The contribution from the affordable housing-led sites would only equate to 2% of the total need (3,070no. units). Even when coupled with the affordable housing provision from open market sites and 100% exception sites, the total delivery of affordable housing will still be nowhere near enough to meet the overall affordable housing need over the Plan period. Accordingly, it is considered that inadequate provision has been made for such sites.

Insofar as to the sites chosen and allocated are concerned, it is clear from reviewing the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Candidate Site Assessment that the allocated sites HG4(1) – (4) were not considered acceptable due to being outside the strategic growth areas, and were considered to be unacceptable intrusions into the open countryside. After being resubmitted as affordable housing-led sites, the sites were allocated, some with a smaller area in order to accommodate less dwellings in total.

The sustainable credentials of the sites allocated is not disputed, and it is acknowledged that these minor rural settlements have the ability to accommodate further growth, in the form of affordable-led housing allocations. However, it is considered that Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 430 / 4060) should also form an allocation as part of this policy, given its high sustainability credentials and its appropriate location to accommodate a suitable level of development. Please refer to the previous representations made to the Housing Trajectory Consultation (dated 17th October) and Annex 2 for further, more detailed comments regarding the above sites.

The LHMA 2023 shows that there is a need for 230 affordable homes in the Cowbridge housing market area / ward - which Ystradowen is located within. As such, there is an identified need for affordable housing in this area, something which the site could address through an allocation – see Annex 2.

Securing further delivery of Affordable Units

As set out above, the affordable housing-led allocated sites only provide 122no. affordable dwellings, which comprise 4no. allocated sites that are expected to deliver approximately between 20 – 50 dwellings. However, the RLDP sets a target of 3,070 affordable homes to be delivered in the Plan period. This means that affordable housing-led allocations make up less than 4% of the target provision and will only make provision for 2% of the targeted number. We would therefore object to the sites included within Policy HG4 and would suggest that more sites should be allocated as part of the policy in order to secure delivery of a higher number of affordable housing units to mere the target.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the Key Sites will provide for a significant proportion of affordable housing, as set out above in these representations, there is serious concern regarding the deliverability of these sites, which would result in a significant gap of affordable housing delivered.

A greater number of affordable housing-led sites allocated would ensure there is sufficient contingency built into the Plan, to ensure that the overall affordable housing need is met over the Plan period. Failure to do so would result in affordable housing need being unmet, with demand continuing to outstrip supply.

Previous representations to the Preferred Strategy (dated 14th February 2024) provided comment on the sustainability scoring of Ystradowen and the proposed site. As outlined within these representations, it is considered that the site (ID 430) represents a sustainable, deliverable and acceptable site. The site is located within 2.7 miles Cowbridge and
2.8 miles of Pontyclun. Due to the availability of frequent bus services, and active travel links, key services are readily available to access for any residents within Ystradowen without the need to travel by car. The site is within a maximum 9- and 14-minute bus journey (respectively) of the following key services:

• Cowbridge and ‘Y Pant’ Comprehensive Schools;
• Cowbridge Health Centre and Old School Surgery; and
• Cowbridge Town Centre, and Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant (Strategic Growth Area), for various Retail Services.

Accordingly, the settlement of Ystradowen represents an acceptable location to allocate an affordable housing-led site, given the access to existing services and facilities that would serve future residents of the site.

To conclude, the settlement, location and site are inherently suitable and deliverable, and will make a significant contribution to achieving and realising the housing and economic development needs of Ystradowen, support the surrounding settlements, and the Plan area as a whole. As such, the site should be considered further.

Comments on Specific Policies

HG5 - Affordable Housing Exception Sites

Given the unmet need and extant backlog of affordable housing, as identified within the LHMA (2023), it is noted that an Affordable Housing Exception Sites policy has been adopted in order to assist in the delivery of affordable housing. Policy HG5 sets out the specific criteria where proposals for 100% small scale affordable housing developments will be permitted outside settlement boundaries. The current policy wording for the Affordable Housing Site Exception Policy and the criteria listed out in the policy is generally supported.

That said, it is noted that a ‘cap’ of 10 dwellings (as referenced within supporting text Para 6.140) is set. This should be amended due to such a ‘cap’ limiting the flexibility of the policy, in particularly for sites coming forward as part of this policy in Minor Rural Settlements.
As such, we would suggest that supporting Para 6.140 should be amended in order to allow for further flexibility for sites in Minor Rural Settlements to come forward and to deliver affordable housing, given that the criteria set out in the policy would already protect and restrict the extent of any development as it stands. Therefore, the proposed amendments to Para 6.140 are outlined below in red:

6.140 “For the purposes of this policy, ‘small-scale’ will generally mean no more than around 10 dwellings on sites adjoining Minor Rural Settlements. In Primary Settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area, proposals for more than 10 dwellings may be acceptable where required to meet a specific need and where the number of dwellings is proportionate to the size of the settlement. In assessing the scale and extent of any proposed local needs housing, consideration should also be given to affordable housing already planned in the ward or nearby area, including sites with existing planning permissions and those allocated in the RLDP. The size and type of affordable housing proposed should reflect the identified local need in the area.”
The above suggested wording would achieve a more flexible policy, which would allow for a variety of scaled applications to secure planning permission for solely 100% affordable housing across the Authority area. This greater flexibility would enable the policy to make a significant contribution towards meeting the affordable housing need – which, as set out earlier is in considerable need.
SECTION 3. Suitability of the site for development

The site promoter objects to the overall assessment of the site, in that it is not considered suitable for further development in the Plan. The promoted site has undergone extensive scrutiny and appraisal at a high level to ascertain the qualities of the site, in light of all identified material considerations which relate to the proposals.

The delivery of the site will yield much needed housing (including Affordable housing) and contribute to the overall supply in the new Plan period, whilst making effective use of a suitably located site for residential development.

Moreover, as set out in ‘Annex 2’ of our representations, the site has overcome the ‘constraints’ set out in the Candidate Site Assessment undertaken for the site, which demonstrates that the proposal is both acceptable and deliverable.

Deliverability of the Site

In summary, the site seeks to deliver the following key elements:

• Provision of circa 67 new-build residential dwellings (including 50% affordable housing provision);
• A mix of house-types and tenures across the site to cater for a variety of needs;
• Creation of a new primary access into the site;
• Connection to pedestrian links within the wider area;
• Public open space; and
• Green Infrastructure; and
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the site promoters:

• Object to the distribution of growth proposed for the Plan area, with a more balanced and equitable distribution of housing sites required in order to meet the identified housing need;
• Object to the level of growth identified for the Plan period;
• Object to the housing trajectory that underpins the delivery of housing within the Plan period – which is considered to be unrealistic and unrobust, leading to serious uncertainty regarding the “soundness” of the Plan;
• Object to the over-reliance on Key Sites and Rolled Forward Sites in making up the Plan’s housing land supply;
• Object to the scale and timing of delivery of sites in / around St Athan – all of which are predicated on railway station provision which will not be realised in the Plan period;
• Object to the under-provision of sites under Policy HG4 – Rural Affordable Housing-Led sites, not least given their extremely limited contribution to the targeted need for affordable housing;
• Object to the current wording of the HG5 Policy ‘Affordable Housing Exception Sites’ which requires greater flexibility to play an important role in delivery much-needed affordable homes across the Authority; and
• Object the Council’s assessment that the site is not considered suitable for development.

The site and proposals are consistent with the RLDP strategy, other Vale of Glamorgan strategies, and the requirements of Planning Policy Wales and Future Wales. It will make a significant contribution to the Vale’s identified housing requirement in the RLDP period and will provide for a wide range of uses that will support the wider community whilst embodying principles relating to placemaking and the well-being of future generations.

The site has no fundamental constraints and has the ability to deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits for the benefit of future residents and the existing local community. The site is demonstrated to be viable, being able to deliver policy-compliant levels of affordable housing and given its location within a strong market area, will benefit from high delivery rates.

ANNEX 2
SECTION 4. A summary of the suitability of the site for development including a Response to the Candidate Site Assessment

Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)

This section of the overall representations to the Deposit Plan is to respond to, and address, the Council’s assessment of the site. The ‘Candidate Sites Assessment Deposit Plan Stage v2’ for ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ sets out that the position of the site at the Deposit Stage is as follows:

“Amendment of proposed use from housing to affordable housing led. Previous site reference 430. The original assessment concluded that whilst the site was adjoining the existing LDP settlement boundary this is by virtue of an existing adopted plan LDP allocation this is currently under review. Notwithstanding this the site would represent unacceptable intrusion in to the open countryside.
The LDP site in question has subsequently been granted planning permission for housing. This site will serve the future needs of residents in the area and it is not considered that additional land should be allocated in this location.”

In terms of the first paragraph, the assessment/conclusion implies and suggests that ‘Land at Ystradowen’ (4060)’ does not adjoin the existing LDP settlement boundary as the allocated site (‘Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen’) has not been built out – “by virtue of an existing adopted plan LDP allocation this is currently under review”. Detailed representations have been made and submitted previously at the Housing Trajectory (see Appendix B& C) that outlines that this is fundamentally incorrect. This is not repeated in full here, with just the main points re-iterated.

First and foremost, ‘Land at Ystradowen (4060)’ directly adjoins the existing LDP settlement boundary. Secondly, there has been a significant change in the position and circumstances. The allocated site (‘Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen’) is currently being “built out”, with work commencing on site (see photographic evidence in Appendix C)
- post the implementation of the planning permission ref. 2023/00948/FUL (post approval on 9th December 2024). Accordingly, the site no longer adjoins “the existing LDP settlement boundary … by virtue of an existing adopted plan LDP allocation … currently under review”. Given this, the ‘Land at Ystradowen’ site boundary therefore directly adjoins/is adjoining the LDP settlement boundary and the site promoted herein.

With regards to the second paragraph, the assessment/conclusion outlines that “The LDP site … will serve the future needs of residents in the area and it is not considered that additional land should be allocated in this location”. The arguments and case presented in Appendix B & C. There is a clear overreliance on ‘rolled forward’ sites / existing allocated sites. A total of 1,242no. units have been identified as additional housing allocations, of which 959no. are expected to be delivered on the rolled forward LDP sites. As such, these sites are to provide for a significant proportion of additional housing in the Plan period (specifically circa 77%). We believe that a greater level of growth is achievable and should be considered. Not least as there is an approximate shortfall of 2,189 homes being delivered, or 33% of the total housing supply identified for the current LDP (8,525no. dwellings). As such, it is considered that the unmet need deriving from the existing LDP is still present – indeed it has grown, and will continue to do so, not least when considered in conjunction with the projected population growth over the coming years to 2036, and the aspirations for growth in the Plan’s strategy. Accordingly, in order to secure the targeted level of housing, a greater level of provision for new allocations should be applied in order to meet the housing requirement. The provision of housing should be adjusted to rebalance the provision to include new allocations in lieu of rolled forward LDP sites in the housing supply. The “future needs of residents in the area” will therefore not be met/served by just this site, and it is considered that additional land should be allocated in this location.

Furthermore, to reinforce, illustrate, and evidence the point in specific reference to the site the subject to this representation (located in Ystradowen), reference is made to application ref. 2013/00856/OUT – ‘Land off Badgers Brook Rise, Ystradowen’. The Final Report of the application states that “Ystradowen is considered a sustainable settlement for further housing development” – i.e. “additional land should be allocated in this location”.

While the issues the Council have raised in their assessment of the site have been addressed and discussed within the representations made at the Preferred Strategy stage of the Plan (see Appendix B), a similar ‘scoring’ exercise has been undertaken as part evidence base for the Deposit Plan. As such, it is still pertinent to consider and respond to the Council’s assessment of the site as part of these representations. A comparison between the site assessments undertaken at both the Preferred Strategy stage and Deposit Plan stage can be seen below for reference:
BP18 Candidate Ste Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage
As demonstrated above, there has been a positive change to the scoring attributed to the site (‘Land at Ystradowen’). The change is a positive change to the ‘Infrastructure Availability’ section changing from: ‘Grey’ (no score) to ‘Amber’. Infrastructure Availability is outlined as: “Existing or proposed services would be suitable subject to local improvements without impacting on development viability and/or delivery timescales” (see below):
The explanation for the scoring provided by the Vale sets out that “Sites will be assessed against the availability of water connections to the site, in addition to the method of foul sewage disposal from the site. Consultation shall be undertaken with DCWW to determine whether there is sufficient capacity to the wastewater treatments works, and how it links into DCWW’s Capital Investment Programme.
Where consultation indicates limited capacity, or the site is located away from a viable connection this may impact on the deliverability/viability of a site should this require significant connection costs or upgrades. Consequently, the Council shall require site proposers to undertake detailed site viability assessment to determine the impact that additional cost shall have on development cost and deliverability timescales.”

As set out above, this is a positive change. This is most likely derived from the allocated site (‘Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen’) currently being “built out”, with work commencing on site that would facilitate and improve the ‘Infrastructure Availability’. This re-iterates the point made previously re the incorrect assessment reached, and the ever changing position of this site – which will only improve given the neighbouring allocated site (‘Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen’) being “built out”.

Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)

There are material similarities between ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ and the site the subject of these representations. It is therefore considered pertinent to assess and compare the suitability of ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin’. Not least as ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ is for a “small-scale affordable housing led development in a minor rural settlement”, within “the ward of Cowbridge”.

The site ‘Land West of Maendy Road (Site ID: 2299)’ has been registered as an Affordable Housing Led Allocation candidate site for the RLDP, however from our review of the evidence base submitted as part of the Housing Trajectory consultation, there was no assessment and critique of this site at this stage. This raises questions regarding the “soundness” of this site, given it appears this sites acceptability and inclusion was pre-determined.

The site (‘Land West of Maendy Road’) has since had a detailed assessment and critique published, however concerns still remain regarding the “soundness” of the site which forms part of the intended housing land supply. The ‘Stage 2 Detailed Site Assessment’ summary undertaken for ‘Land West of Maendy Road’ has been extracted below:

“The site is proposed for a small-scale affordable housing led development in a minor rural settlement, which would accord in principle with the strategy. Aberthin itself has limited services and facilities, but is within reasonable walking distance of primary and secondary school provision with the wider range of services and facilities in Cowbridge just over 2000m away. The settlement is also served by public transport, although this is relatively infrequent.
The 2023 LHMA indicated that the ward of Cowbridge has a need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years and this site could make an important contribution in meeting that.”

As mentioned previously, there are material similarities between ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ and ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ (the subject of these representations). Firstly ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ is also for a “small-scale affordable housing led development”, that is “in a minor rural settlement” (Ystradowen). Accordingly, it should follow that as ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ “would accord in principle with the strategy”, ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ would also “accord in principle with the strategy”.

Furthermore, there is no material difference between the following assessment of Aberthin and Ystradowen:

“Aberthin itself has limited services and facilities, but is within reasonable walking distance of primary and secondary school provision with the wider range of services and facilities in Cowbridge just over 2000m away. The settlement is also served by public transport, although this is relatively infrequent.”

There is no material difference between ‘Land West of Maendy Road’ and ‘Land at Ystradowen’ in sustainability terms.

As set out in our representations to the Preferred Strategy, we reviewed the key services in proximity to the site. The following services were identified as part of that review:

• In terms of public transport, there are two bus stops located approximately 0.2 miles (4-minute walk) from the site (‘Land West of Maendy Road’), with the 321 providing services between Llantwit Major and Talbot Green;

• In terms of public transport, there are two bus stops located approximately 400m (7-minute walk) from the site (‘Ty Mawr Close’), with the ‘321 Nat Group Service’ providing services between Llantwit Major and Talbot Green. The 321 service is the same bus service that serves ‘Land West of Maendy Road’ / Aberthin;

• The site is also located 0.2 miles (4-minute walk) from The Farmers Arms Pub and 0.2 miles (4-minute walk) from The Hare and Hounds Inn; and

• The site is located 0.2 miles (5-minute walk) from Aberthin Village Hall.

Given the above, “The settlement (Ystradowen) is also served by public transport”.
Furthermore, Ystradowen is located only 2.7 miles from Cowbridge (9-minute bus journey). The “primary and secondary school provision with the wider range of services and facilities in Cowbridge” mentioned in relation to Aberthin are therefore also in close proximity to Ystradowen.

Given the above, any candidate site at ’Land at Ystradowen’ (the subject of these representations – Site ID: 430 / 4060) is no less sustainable than the site at Aberthin (Site ID: 2299).

Not least as the following additional key services are located within Ystradowen and therefore in close proximity to the promoted site:

• The site is also located 300m (3-minute walk) and 600m (10-minute walk) from Sports Pitches/Playing Fields such as ‘Ystradowen Children’s Park’, and the 3/4G Sports Pitch at ‘Ystradowen Petanque Club’; and
• Furthermore, the site is located 480m (7-minute walk) from the ‘Murco – Tudor Garage’ which can provide basic goods to meet day-today needs such as bread, butter, milk etc.

Furthermore it is important to note that the above scoring criteria is very limiting, and does not take into account the important role and proximity of settlements in a wider context. For example, it does not take into account the important role and proximity of the Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area (as defined in the RCTCBC LDP) of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant which is 2.8 miles to the north (14-minute bus journey). Ystradowen would also naturally align, and function, in association with this Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area (of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant) – see Appendix B for full details.

In addition, as set out within the representations made in relation to the House Trajectory (Appendix C), the following extracts have been taken from the Officer’s Reports associated with the applications for the site that directly adjoins the western boundary of the promoted site 430 - ‘Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen’ (Housing Allocation 48). An aerial view extract is outlined below to give spatial context:
As set out above, it is important to note that the Final Report of application ref. 2013/00856/OUT states that “Ystradowen is considered a sustainable settlement for further housing development”, due to “the sustainable nature of the settlement”. Furthermore, the Final Report of app ref. 2023/00948/FUL states:

• “Notwithstanding this, the site is located in close proximity to local services and there is a bus stop located nearby. Whilst the comments relating to the reliance and frequency of the bus services have been considered, there still remains a bus service in the area”; and
• “Firstly, as aforementioned, many neighbouring comments refer to the site as unsustainable and have commented on the suitability of public transport and cycle routes etc. This has been addressed above.”

The above clearly evidences that the location has previously been endorsed as, and is currently still found to be, sustainable.

Accordingly, it can be considered therefore that if the proposed allocated site ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ is considered sustainable and by association suitable to be an Affordable Housing Led Allocation, ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 430 / 4060)’ is equally suitable to be an Affordable Housing Led Allocation.

The second section/paragraph of the assessment states:

“The 2023 LHMA indicated that the ward of Cowbridge has a need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years and this site could make an important contribution in meeting that.”
‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ is also located within “the ward of Cowbridge”. As per the above and outlined by the Authority, there is “a need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years”. It is clear therefore that there is a need for additional affordable units in this ward, and this site would therefore also help to alleviate this need.

This position is a direct contradiction of course of the assessment/conclusion for ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ which stated “it is not considered that additional land should be allocated in this location”. It is clear from the above however that “additional land should be allocated in this location” to satisfy this “need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years” – which ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ can do. This is not least the case given the detailed arguments, case and representations presented and evidenced previously above and in Appendix B & C.
To briefly reiterate there is a clear overreliance on ‘rolled forward’ sites / existing allocated sites which has resulted in the unmet need deriving from the existing LDP being still present. A greater level of provision for new allocations should therefore be applied in order to meet the housing requirement. The provision of housing should be adjusted to rebalance the provision to include new allocations in lieu of rolled forward LDP sites in the housing supply, so these can “make an important contribution in meeting” the “need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years” in “the ward of Cowbridge” – which ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ can do.

As set out within the representations made in relation to the housing trajectory (see Appendix C), a further key consideration to note and one which does differentiate between the relative merits of the ‘Land at Maendy Road, Aberthin’ and ‘Land at Ystradowen’ is that the LDP Proposals Map demonstrates that ‘Land West of Maendy Road’ is within a Special Landscape Area - see below:
Vale of Glamorgan Proposals Map (Land West of Maendy Road outlined in red
Under Policy MG17 ‘Special Landscape Areas’ it is considered that development in SLA could pose an “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area”. Accordingly, this development and proposed allocation could therefore cause “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area”.

‘Land at Ystradowen’ by contrast does not sit within a SLA (see below). This site would therefore not pose any potential concern in this respect as it would ultimately not cause any “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area”.
Vale of Glamorgan Proposals Map (Land at Ystradowen in red)
It is noted that the detailed assessment scores the site ‘amber’ in respect to Special Landscape Area (refer to / see later section for full details), with the assessment methodology setting out that “the site is located within a Special Landscape Area/The Glamorgan Heritage Coast and the development may result in little or no change in character and little or no significant effect on landscape character and visual amenity.”
A detailed assessment of the impact upon the SLA in respect to the development of ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin’ should therefore be, and will need to be, undertaken as part of any planning application. If it is found that the site causes “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area”, this will lead to this proposed allocation being at risk of not being delivered. This will be as a result of its impacts and acceptability at the planning application stage that the landscape and visual impact of development of the site is unacceptable. As such, these proposed affordable units are at a potential considerable risk of being lost and not satisfying the “need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years” in “the ward of Cowbridge” – which ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ can do as it is not located in an SLA.

In addition the draft housing trajectory set out that “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”. There is a clear possibility therefore that this proposed allocation is not delivered (as it is located in a SLA), and so a “small scale affordable housing led development” which is needed to “respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities” is not provided for. This is clearly an issue. Given however ‘Land at Ystradowen’ does not sit within a SLA – and so not pose any potential concern or cause any “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area” – the allocation of this site would be more suitable and “safer” - as there would be no concerns over this proposed allocation being removed and/or not being delivered in this respect (as it is not located in a SLA). This would ensure that affordable units, where “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”, are provided for, and the need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years” in “the ward of Cowbridge” would be satisfied.

As mentioned previously, a detailed assessment and critique has now been undertaken of ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ as part evidence base for the Deposit Plan using the similar ‘scoring’ exercise. As such, it is again pertinent to consider and respond to the Council’s ‘scoring’ exercise assessment of the site ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ as part of these representations.

The ‘Summary of Assessment of New Candidate Sites’ table can be seen overleaf for reference:
BP18A Candidate Site Assessment at Deposit Plan Stage
A comparison between the site assessments undertaken for both ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ (on the left), and ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ (on the right) has been undertaken, and can be seen below for reference:

Having undertaken a review of the scoring for both ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ and ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’, it is clear that ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ scores higher/more positively (i.e. green) than ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’:

• ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’: 17/33 criteria are scored green = 52%

• ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’: 12/34 criteria are scored green = 36%

It is clear therefore given the above that ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ is a better site, and should be allocated accordingly.

One key example to note is how the criterion ‘Access to Services and Facilities’ has been scored. For ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ this has been scored green, yet for ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’, this has been scored red. Given this, this corroborates the position outlined previously above that, if the proposed allocated site ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ is considered sustainable and by association suitable to be an Affordable Housing Led Allocation, ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 430 / 4060)’ is equally as sustainable – in fact considered more suitable (given its higher scoring in this respect).

Furthermore, we question the “soundness” of the assessment of ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’, given that 7/34 (21%) of the criteria do not appears to have not been assessed – i.e. 7/34 (21%) of the criteria are scored grey. This raises questions regarding the “soundness” of this site, given it appears this sites acceptability and inclusion was pre-determined.

It is clear therefore that if ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ has been deemed acceptable for allocation, yet ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ scores higher/more positively (i.e. green) than this site, ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ should also be deemed acceptable and be allocated. Not least as the site is “proposed for a small-scale affordable housing led development in a minor rural settlement … would accord in principle with the strategy”, and “could make an important contribution in meeting “a “need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years” in “the ward of Cowbridge”.

Summary and Conclusion

To re-iterate, and to summarise the case made and set out, these representations seek to object to the Deposit Plan published as part of the consultation.

In terms of SECTION 4, and a response to the Candidate Site Assessment at Deposit Plan Stage, the following key points have been made:

• The Council’s ‘Stage 2 Detailed Site Assessment’ justification for ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ is fundamentally incorrect;

• Given the material positive similarities between ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ and ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’, which has been deemed acceptable and allocated, ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ should also be deemed acceptable and allocated accordingly;

• ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ would help to alleviate and satisfy “a need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years” within “the ward of Cowbridge”; and
• ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ scores higher/more positively (i.e. green) than ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’, and so should also be deemed acceptable and be allocated;

Ultimately, ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ is “proposed for a small-scale affordable housing led development in a minor rural settlement”, and as such “would accord in principle with the strategy”. It would therefore “make an important contribution in meeting“ the “need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years” in “the ward of Cowbridge”.

We would therefore object the Council’s assessment that the site is not considered suitable for development.

Summary of These Representations

In short, and to summarise the case made and set out, these representations seek to object to the Housing Trajectory published as part of the consultation on the Draft Housing Trajectory For Housing Stakeholder Group (October 2025) which underpins the Plan and the delivery / realisation of its underlying strategy.

Detailed submissions and objections are raised below in respect to the trajectory information published regarding the soundness and robustness of this information (and it’s consultation), which we do not consider are adequate, robust, or sound to deliver the Plans aims and objectives.

Preface

This Submission sets out the detailed case in support of these representations. The representations are structured as follows:

1. Procedural Consultation Matters;
2. Timing Assumptions underpinning the Trajectory;
3. Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions;;
4. Status & Standing of Sites included in the Trajectory;
5. Key Sites;
6. St Athan Train Station;
7. Geographic distribution of the ‘new’ sites / provision;
8. Detailed comments in respect to ‘new’ sites;
9. Credentials of this site subject to this submission; and
10. Conclusions Procedural Consultation Matters
Firstly, we do not consider that the consultation on the Housing Trajectory information has been procedurally undertaken appropriately or suitably.

Only 14 days have been afforded to parties to make representations on the information provided. This is despite new sites being introduced (at this late stage) i.e. Land South of Clive Road (identified in Table 4), as well as a number of affordable housing-led housing sites being introduced (i.e. those outlined in Table 5). This does not provide an adequate process or timescale for objectors to scrutinise the published content, and to make comments on sites which have been presented for the first time at a late stage in the process.

As part of these representations, we will be making brief comment on the sites which have not been previously consulted upon, namely:
Other Housing Allocations
• Land south of Clive Road, St Athan;

Affordable Housing Led Sites
• Land at Heol Fain, Wick;
• Land west of Maendy Road, Aberthin;
• Land Noth of West Winds Business Park, Fferm Goch; and
• Land to the east of Coliwinston, Colwinston.

It is considered necessary to comment on these sites, given that they form an important and critical part of the housing trajectory, and by association in the Council and Plan reaching their targets. Moreover, these sites have not been consulted on previously. Accordingly we consider it necessary to pass comment on these in order to ensure that the consultation is fair and robust.

As well as limited time given to comment on the information contained within the Housing Trajectory, the LPA have failed to set up a Housing Stakeholder group to agree and discuss the trajectory information and data – with the cover email to the consultation (dated 3rd October 2025) stating “it is considered that it would be the best use of stakeholder time to conduct this engagement via email, particularly as many of the forecasts have been developed in consultation with site promoters including developers and their agents”.

We submit that the stakeholder consultation has not been a transparent nor robust consultation process, given that the Development Plans Manual states at Para 5.66 “A housing trajectory must be prepared to support the Deposit Plan. In order to generate a housing trajectory and associated phasing tables it will be necessary for LPAs to engage with stakeholders through a Housing Stakeholder Group. This will ensure that the timing and phasing of sites is robust and based on up to date information”. Given that this has not taken place, we would raise fundamental concerns that the consultation of the trajectory has not adequately taken place as per the relevant guidance. Afterall, the guidance stresses that a Group should be formed as a necessity. Accordingly, there has not been an adequate process and opportunity to review and comment on the information published, including in respect to the other sites have been introduced at this late stage.

Timing Assumptions underpinning the Trajectory

The assumed and factored in timescales of the various stages of bringing forward sites i.e. the pre-application stage, the planning application process, and the discharge of condition process outlined in the trajectory are considered to be fundamentally inaccurate, and result in a distorted position of the delivery of housing sites over the RLDP Plan period. The assumptions are far too ambitious, and without evidence / are not comparable with the timescales being incurred in processing such stages at the Development Management stage(s).

Specifically, we raise objection to the following timescales which are considered to be extremely ambitious and unrealistic:

• “Time period of pre-application discussions/PAC consultation” = 4 months
• “Time between submission of planning application and determination” = 6 months
• “Time taken from planning consent to the discharge of relevant conditions to enable site construction” = 4 months

In our experience, having submitted a significant number of major and other applications for housing and other forms of development in the last 1-2 years to the Council (and elsewhere in Wales and England), it is extremely unlikely that major applications can be submitted, and planning permissions granted, within the timeframes assumed by the trajectory. A wide range of stakeholders are also involved in the determination of major planning applications, which often adds to the delays associated with the determination of such applications. We would therefore consider that a time period of “6 months” given to all major applications in the housing trajectory is not feasible, and distorts the trajectory timescales for the remaining Plan period.

The assumptions in the trajectory are also solely based on expected timescales for the processing of formal submissions made to the Council, and do not factor in the timescales associated with, and needed for, the preparation of the material for submission (i.e. pre-application enquiry submissions / planning application / discharge of condition details etc). When factored in these will elongate the timescales for bringing forward schemes considerably.

Moreover, it is common practice for larger housing sites and major applications to have a range of pre-commencement conditions attached to a permission once granted. Again, we would raise concerns with the timescales indicated in the trajectory related to this part of the planning process. It is highly unusual and questionable that any technical work required by these conditions (usually relating to drainage and highways matters) would be instructed, completed and submitted within 2 months, and for these to then be signed off / approved in a further 2 months. There are also other technical matters and necessary approvals falling outside of, and over and above, the planning system, such as SAB, s.106, s.38 and s.278 agreements, timescales for which have not been accounted for – and all of which are rarely completed within “4 months” as indicated.

It is therefore highly doubtful that the timescales legislated for in the trajectory for the various stages pre-construction are achievable – with no information about these proposed timescales outlined within the supporting text of the Housing Trajectory. We would therefore raise considerable concerns and objections to these as they stand without full evidence to fully show how these have been calculated, and without there being considerable (and necessary) adjustment to the timescales indicated and factored in.

We would therefore object to the timescales indicted in the ‘Timing and Phasing of Sites’ table, given that the delivery start dates will be pushed back further into the Plan period. Accordingly, and as a result, the Plan is at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated, at least as swiftly as is set out in the trajectory.

Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions

We would also raise considerable doubt over the proposed delivery of the sites identified in the Housing Trajectory - which we do not consider are robust or reasonable.

The development trajectory bar chart set out in the consultation material (extracted below) anticipates and legislates for a number of critical events and circumstances – all of which are considered to be unrobust and unsound.
Extract of Housing Trajectory Graph (annotated by GJP – red dotted line)

Firstly, a large ‘spike’ (material increase) in housing delivery is factored in to take place in 2027 – 2028. This is a marked and pronounced step change in the rate of delivery, and envisages / relies on a significantly higher rate of delivery than previous years in The Vale of Glamorgan (2021 through 2025 - as depicted by the green columns). This is considered extremely unlikely to materialise, not least given prevailing market circumstances, past rates of delivery on the ground, and also in light of levels achieved across Wales and the UK in general.

The published trajectory shows that the average level of completions in The Vale of Glamorgan from 2021 - 2025 has been approx. 400 - 500 units. However, the chart shows that from 2027 – 2028, completions are expected to rise to approx. 1,000 units per year. The expected delivery levels in the trajectory therefore show and assume a doubling in delivery rates and unit numbers (an increase of approx. 100%relative to past rates). There is no clear evidence as to how this level of completions can be achieved let alone guaranteed. This is the case in particular given that the forthcoming years (2025-2027) are expected to see performance (yield) drop significantly (delivery rates in 2025 – 2026 and 2026 – 2027). The chart shows only approx. 200 units being delivered over these years. It is therefore unclear how completion rates are expected to rise so quickly (from 200 in 2025-26 to 1000 in 2027-28), and by such a significant amount. The assumptions in the trajectory are wholly unrobust in our view.
The anticipated delivery of housing also fails to be consistent within and across the Plan period. It is unclear as to why completions rates aren’t spread out more evenly throughout the Plan period - to ensure a robust and most realistic housing trajectory until 2036. By comparison to the marked increase in the rate of delivery between and over the period 2027 to 2031, there is then a marked fall-off or drop in delivery towards and by the end of the Plan period. Indeed, in the final year, the level of completions are expected to be lower than the period 2021-2015.

To summarise, we consider the defined position to be wholly manufactured and unreflective of the past completion rates, as well as the recently published completion rates provided by Welsh Government recently in August 2025. In the Welsh Government Statistics Document ‘’New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’, information on the number of new dwellings started is provided, where building has commenced and those completed for April 2024 to March 2025. Figure 1 provides a graph showing starts in the last 10 years, and it is clear that there has been a general decline in the number of new dwellings started and completed.
Description of Figure 1:.‘New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’
In 2024-25, 4,631 new dwellings were completed, 3% fewer than in the previous year. This was the second lowest number on record, with the lowest number recorded in 2021-22, a year heavily affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (in 2021-22, 4,616 new dwellings were completed). The New Housing Pipeline Report Quarter 2, 2025 Report (September, 2025) published by the HBF evidenced that the number of residential units approved in the UK fell by 6% during the second quarter of 2025, continuing the decline of approval during the first three months of the year. Wales saw one of the largest declines in the UK in approvals with a decline of 29%.

Further, the HBF document ‘Increasing Housing Supply in Wales’ (4th September 2025) clearly shows that The Vale of Glamorgan has not met the housing delivery requirements in recent years in 2023 – 2024 – along with every other authority in Wales (except Newport). Accordingly, this further adds to the argument that historically The Vale (and most other authorities) have underprovided. This adds considerable uncertainty on the assumed transformation in yield and delivery as built into the trajectory.
Graph: Housing Delivery as a proportion of annual housing requirement in Wales per Authority

The Home Building Sector Skills Plan (Aug 2025) published by the HBF also identified the following issues with the workforce to bring forward built development in Wales:

• “A shortfall in numbers entering roles from the education system;
• An ageing workforce: 25% of the home building workforce is aged over 50, meaning the sector is facing an impending retirement cliff edge;
• Challenges attracting a wider talent pipeline into the sector;
• A lack of understanding of critical future skills needed, and direction from the Future Homes Standard; and
• Output within the sector fluctuating with demand and economic pressures, leading to additional pressures in recruitment and training”.

It is not considered that in the next 1-2 years that any of these issues can or will be substantially corrected – at least sufficiently so to allow for, and enable, the planned delivery rates of new housing completions to be as high as < > 1,000 homes in one year (and for four consecutive years at that).

We would therefore object to the proposed numbers of completion expected during the Plan period, given that there are a number of issues with delivering housing in Wales and given past completions rates for The Vale of Glamorgan. Again, this results in the Plan being at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated.

Status & Standing of Sites included in the Trajectory

The proposed land supply within the housing trajectory includes provision for ‘rolled forward’ LDP sites, which contribute to the total of ‘Proposed Additional Housing Allocations’ forming part of the housing supply. Specifically, a total of 1,242no. units have been identified as additional housing allocations, of which 959no. are expected to be delivered on the rolled forward LDP sites. As such, these sites are to provide for a significant proportion of additional housing in the Plan period (specifically circa 77%).

The Development Plans Manual (DPM) sets out that allocations rolled forward from a previous plan will require careful justification for inclusion in a revised plan. The DPM outlines that “there will need to be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate sites can be delivered and justify being included again. Clear evidence will be required that such sites can be delivered.” The below table included in the consultation document provides a breakdown of the rolled forward LDP sites, and in particular, sets out the status of each site:
Table 6: Existing LDP allocations to be carried forward
The above table evidences that the current LDP has under delivered in regard to its targeted unit number of the Plan period, given that these sites did not yield any housing over the current plan period. This is further exacerbated by the Land Bank sites that have also not delivered any housing across the existing LDP period, amounting to 1,860no units. Accordingly, when considering the non-delivery of both rolled forward LDP sites and Land Bank sites, this amounts to an approximate shortfall of 2,189 homes being delivered, or 33% of the total housing supply identified for the current LDP (8,525no. dwellings).

It is therefore considered that, as a minimum, the units carried over from the LDP (without planning permission) should be a surplus to the housing supply proposed for the RLDP, as opposed to being relied on to deliver the housing need over the Plan period. This is particularly the case for the two sites (Land to the west of Pencoedtre Lane, and Land between Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road) which do not currently have any active planning application submitted for their development. These sites total an amount of 370no. units to be delivered in the Plan period, which represents more than a third of the additional housing allocations to make up the housing supply.

As such, it is considered that the unmet need deriving from the existing LDP is still present – indeed it has grown, and will continue to do so, not least when considered in conjunction with the projected population growth over the coming years to 2036, and the aspirations for growth in the Plan’s strategy.

Accordingly, in order to secure the targeted level of housing, a greater level of provision for new allocations should be applied in order to meet the housing requirement. This would bring about better certainty that the housing requirement is met by the housing supply over the Plan period, not least given that the current Plan failed in this respect. Without a re-apportioning of the housing supply, it is considered that the Plan would heavily rely on the contingency (i.e. rolled forward LDP sites) coming forward in the Plan period, yet there is uncertainty that these will yield in full over the new Plan period. This raises issues of ‘’soundness’’, and risks rendering the Plan unrobust.

On this basis, we would object to the Plan if the provision of housing is not adjusted to rebalance the provision to include new allocations in lieu of rolled forward LDP sites in the housing supply.
Key Sites

As set out in previous representations at Preferred Strategy stage, it is considered that the housing supply relies heavily on the delivery of the ‘key sites’ to deliver housing (and meet need) over the Plan period. The total number of housing units attributed to key sites amounts to 2,278, which equates to over 25% of the total provision in the Plan period.

As detailed above, we consider there to be concerns regarding the proposed ‘Timing and Phasing of Sites’ table included in the Housing Trajectory which we consider are not reflective or accurate and will therefore have the effect of delivery start dates being much later into the Plan period than anticipated. The result of this will be that the Plan will be at risk of not delivery the level of housing expected and needed. Moreover, the Housing Trajectory Graph presents an overly ambitious level of housing completions over the Plan period - which the Council consider will be markedly higher than the average levels experienced in the last five years. Again, for the reasons set out above, we consider that these rates of expected completions to have no evidence supporting them, and to be unachievable and unsound.

Insofar as to the removal of the previously proposed site ‘Land at North East Barry’, this site was expected to deliver 900no. units in the Plan period. Following its omission from the housing supply, other sites have been identified, which comprises the inclusion of a new key site (Land at North West Barry), 3no. non-strategic sites, and also affordable housing-led allocations. In terms of the quantum of development attributed to these new sites, this amounts to 659no. dwellings. This is some 250 units less than the 900no. homes that was previously attributed to ‘Land at North East Barry’. Whilst it is appreciated that the number of homes forming part of the existing supply (completions, units with planning permission etc.) have increased since Preferred Strategy stage, there will be a net loss in market housing provision and delivery.

This position is made worse and compounded as a result of accounting for the affordable-led sites in making up the housing supply.

As set out within the Preferred Strategy, these sites are expected to deliver at least 51% affordable housing. These units are not open market units, and will not / cannot contribute to the supply of such housing. These units will contribute to the provision of affordable housing, and will go some way to meeting the acute need for such housing (albeit will not eradicate / address in full the well known and accepted considerable requirement). Accordingly it is considered that these sites should be in addition to the housing supply, as opposed to forming part of the provision. In turn, there would need to be an increase in allocations for non-strategic sites, to ensure that there is sufficient market housing delivery over the Plan period.

Were such changes to be made and introduced, this would achieve and assist realise a more robust and sound housing supply, which will ensure that the identified housing need is met / addressed over the Plan period. Without these changes it is considered that the housing supply is not sufficient, and inevitably, housing need will not be met within the Plan.

St Athan Train Station

As set out in the Preferred Strategy (para A3.29), the strategy seeks to focus development around key sustainable transport nodes. The strategy outlined that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. Accordingly, in line with the spatial strategy adopted for the RLDP (i.e. focus development around sustainable transport nodes), St Athan was identified as a ‘Strategic Opportunity Area’ to accommodate strategic growth – through the proposed allocation of two key sites : ‘Land at Church Farm’ and ‘Land West of St Athan’. These sites have been identified to deliver 532no. and 600no. units respectively in the Plan period. These are separate to, and are in addition to, the 51no. units that have now been attributed to the site ‘Land South of Clive Road’ in St Athan. Accordingly, in total, the Housing Trajectory makes a provision for a total of 1,183no. homes to be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period.

It is now the case that, subsequent to the publication of the Preferred Strategy, the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales. The focus in the first phase of such improvements across the region is towards improving connectivity in east Cardiff, Newport, and Magor. Accordingly, it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period, which significantly questions the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

The strategy to allocate new housing growth is predicated on focusing residential development around sustainable transport nodes, and given that St Athan will be without any railway station in the Plan period, it is not considered that these sites align with the strategy of the RLDP. Accordingly, the wider Housing Trajectory is considered to be unsound, given that a total of 1,183no. homes are expected to be delivered in St Athan within the Plan period.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision. Given this, to add a further site for housing in this location over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites - given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

We therefore consider the Trajectory to be both unrobust and unsound, and therefore, we object to the Trajectory in its current form accordingly.

Geographic distribution of the ‘new’ sites / provision

As a general and overarching comment in respect to the additional sites now included within the Plan, and forming part of the trajectory, (and a matter expanded upon when critiquing each of these sites in the next section to this submission), it is clear and evident that these additional sites have been positioned to settlements that have already, and recently, been attributed significant growth in the preceding Plan and plan period.

Significant allocations (which have also contributed to significant levels of affordable housing) have been realised and built out in locations such as Wick and Colwinston). Notwithstanding this, two of the additional sites are now proposed for these recently expanded settlements. Given that the purpose of the affordable housing led allocations is to meet unmet affordable housing need, it is questioned why such new allocations are attributed to settlements that have already seen open market and affordable housing provision, as compared to other comparable settlements that have not received any growth whatsoever over a considerable period of time.

It is considered accordingly that the geographic positioning of these allocations is at odds with their underlying purpose - to meet unmet affordable housing need in communities that have seen no provision.
Detailed Comments in respect to ‘new’ sites

Other Housing Allocations

Land south of Clive Road, St Athan

A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below for ease:
As set out at the outset of these representations, and whilst we note the findings of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage (i.e. Suitable for further consideration), we do not consider that the consultation on this site has been undertaken procedurally appropriately or suitably. We therefore consider the consultation on this site is “unrobust” and “unsound”.
As set out previously, the strategy seeks to focus development around key sustainable transport nodes. The strategy outlined that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. It is now the case that, subsequent to the publication of the Preferred Strategy, the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales, where the focus is towards improving connectivity in east Cardiff, Newport, and Magor. Accordingly, it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period, which significantly questions the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision, and as such, to add a further site for housing over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites – given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

Affordable Housing Led Allocations

Land at Heol Fain, Wick
A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below for ease:
Candidate Site Stage 2 Assessment (Site Ref. 404)
The findings of the Candidate Site Assessment for this site are noted. We are assuming the reason this site is proposed to be allocated is a product of the site promoters/developers heading the findings stated below, and changing the form of development to be in accord with this:
“A market housing led scheme would not be acceptable, but the site could be reconsidered as a small scale affordable housing led development subject to need and viability at a maximum of 50 dwellings. In accordance with the Settlement Appraisal Review, it is considered that Wick could potentially accommodate limited affordable housing led growth.”

Whilst no clearly evident deficiency exists in respect to the site, it is known that Wick has been subject to significant growth and expansion in recent years – not least by virtue of significant housing allocations in the settlement as part of previous plans.

To evidence this, 35% of the 124 units approved on the ‘Rectory Field, St Brides Road’ site (i.e. circa 43 units as per site allocation ref. MG(47) and PP ref. 2014/01424/FUL) were approved as Affordable Housing units. This makes a substantial provision of such Affordable Housing units (and housing generally) in the settlement in recent years.

Other similarly sized and comparable settlements and locations have not by contrast been subject to any growth for some considerable time, and accordingly would warrant and benefit from provision as part of this new replacement plan.

Notwithstanding the location of such provision, and as set out in detail at the outset of these representations, National Planning Policy advocates the high and acute need for affordable housing, whilst recent analysis evidences that there is a housing emergency. These circumstances - coupled with the shortcomings identified and set out earlier in these submissions in respect to the adequacy of provision within the plan (rolled forward sites / inadequate provision etc) – means that notwithstanding any potential allocation at Wick, further provision ought to be made in comparable (previously unprovided for) locations, such as Ystradowen.
Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin

‘Land West of Maendy Road’ has been registered as an Affordable Housing Led Allocation candidate site for the RLDP, however as far as we know from our review, there is no assessment and critique of this site. This site has not been included in the ‘Candidate Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage’ (October 2023). As such, with an absence of publicly available information, it is not clear how the Council has judged this site against the criteria. This raises questions accordingly in respect to the “soundness” of a site which forms part of the intended housing land supply, and by association the trajectory. Without this, and without being consulted on (as others have been prior to this) we question whether this allocation is “sound” (i.e. its allocation is considered to be “unsound”).

Despite the absence of site-specific assessment criteria, as the RLDP preferred strategy states a key objective guiding site selection is that the Plan will “provide for vital and vibrant rural communities whilst protecting the countryside through the delivery of growth in sustainable locations related to the settlement hierarchy alongside the provision of supporting infrastructure” (Objective 7 ‘Fostering Diverse Vibrant and Connected Communities’), it is reasonable to assume that the Council considers ‘Land West of Maendy Road’ to be a ‘sustainable’ location.

Given this, we have reviewed the key services in proximity to the site. The following services were identified:

• In terms of public transport, there are two bus stops located approximately 0.2 miles (4-minute walk) from the site (‘Land West of Maendy Road’), with the 321 providing services between Llantwit Major and Talbot Green.

• The site is also located 0.2 miles (4-minute walk) from The Farmers Arms Pub and 0.2 miles (4-minute walk) from The Hare and Hounds Inn.

• The site is located 0.2 miles (5-minute walk) from Aberthin Village Hall.

Aberthin is in close proximity (1.2 miles/14-minute walk) to the key settlement of Cowbridge - which is identified as a sustainable location, and is ranked 4th place for services and facilities within the Vale of Glamorgan. The following key services are found in Cowbridge, and are therefore in close proximity to ‘Land West of Maendy Road’:

• Cowbridge Comprehensive Schools;
• Cowbridge Health Centre; and
• Cowbridge Town Centre for various Retail Services.

Considering this, there is no material difference between ‘Land West of Maendy Road’ and ‘Land at Ystradowen’ in sustainability terms. Given that Ystradowen is located only 2.7 miles from Cowbridge (9- minute bus journey), the candidate site at ’Land at Ystradowen’ is no less sustainable than the site at Aberthin. The following key services are within Ystradowen and therefore in close proximity to the promoted site:

• In terms of public transport, there are two bus stops located approximately 400m (7-minute walk) from the site (‘Ty Mawr Close’), with the ‘321 Nat Group Service’ providing services between Llantwit Major and Talbot Green. The 321 service is the same bus service that serves ‘Land West of Maendy Road’ / Aberthin.
• The site is also located 300m (3-minute walk) and 600m (10-minute walk) from Sports Pitches/Playing Fields such as ‘Ystradowen Children’s Park’, and the 3/4G Sports Pitch at ‘Ystradowen Petanque Club’.

• Furthermore, the site is located 480m (7-minute walk) from the ‘Murco – Tudor Garage’ which can provide basic goods to meet day-today needs such as bread, butter, milk etc.

Accordingly, it can be considered therefore that if the proposed allocated site ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin’ is considered sustainable and by association suitable to be an Affordable Housing Led Allocation, ‘Land at Ystradowen’ is equally suitable to be an Affordable Housing Led Allocation.
Furthermore, to reinforce the above position and to illustrate and evidence the site’s sustainability, the following has been taken from the Officer’s Reports associated with the applications for the site that directly adjoins the western boundary of the promoted site 430 - ‘Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen’ (Housing Allocation 48). An aerial view extract is outlined below to give spatial context:
Reference is made in the Final Report of app ref. 2013/00856/OUT which states that “Ystradowen is considered a sustainable settlement for further housing development”, due to “the sustainable nature of the settlement”.

Furthermore, the Final Report of app ref. 2023/00948/FUL states:

• “Notwithstanding this, the site is located in close proximity to local services and there is a bus stop located nearby. Whilst the comments relating to the reliance and frequency of the bus services have been considered, there still remains a bus service in the area.”
• “Firstly, as aforementioned, many neighbouring comments refer to the site as unsustainable and have commented on the suitability of public transport and cycle routes etc. This has been addressed above.”

The above clearly evidences that the location has previously been endorsed as, and is currently still found to be, sustainable.

A further key consideration to note and one which does differentiate between the relative merits of the ‘Land at Maendy Road, Aberthin’ and ‘Land at Ystradowen’ is that the LDP Proposals Map demonstrates that ‘Land West of Maendy Road’ is within a Special Landscape Area - see overleaf:
Vale of Glamorgan Proposals Map (Land West of Maendy Road outlined in red)
Under Policy MG17 ‘Special Landscape Areas’ it is considered that development in SLA could pose an “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area”. Accordingly, this development and proposed allocation could therefore cause “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area”.

‘Land at Ystradowen’ by contrast does not sit within a SLA (see below). This site would therefore not pose any potential concern in this respect as it would ultimately not cause any “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area”.
Vale of Glamorgan Proposals Map (Land at Ystradowen in red)

This is a significant factor to consider. ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin’ causing “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area” will lead to this proposed allocation being at risk of not being delivered by virtue of detailed assessments of its impacts and acceptability at planning application stage holding that the landscape and visual impact of development of the site is unacceptable. As such 25 affordable units will be lost from the proposed affordable 122 units, and ultimately being lost from the overall housing land supply. As stated in the draft housing trajectory “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”. There is a clear possibility therefore that this proposed allocation is not delivered (as it is located in a SLA), and so a “small scale affordable housing led development” which is needed to “respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities” is not provided for. This is clearly an issue. Given however ‘Land at Ystradowen’ does not sit within a SLA – and so not pose any potential concern or cause any “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area” – the allocation of this site would be more suitable and “safer” - as therefore would be no concerns over this proposed allocation being removed and/or not being delivered in this respect (as it is not located in a SLA). This would ensure that affordable units, where “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”, are provided for. As such the proposed housing trajectory would be maintained.
Land North of West Winds Business Park, Fferm Goch

The below sets out the candidate site stage two assessment of ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’:

Candidate Site Stage 2 Assessment (Site Ref. 398)
As can be seen above, the site was not considered suitable for further consideration, with the site scoring negatively (red) in respect to a number of key factors. These include the following:

• Access to Retail;
• Access to Health Services;
• Sustainable Transport- Public Transport;
• Access/ Proximity to services and facilities conclusion;
• Climate Change; and
• Health and Wellbeing.

Given the fact the site scores red in ‘Sustainable Transport – Public Transport’, this shows the site is not served by public transport connections within 800m, as outlined in the key below:
Additionally, Policy SP7 (Sustainable Transport) of the Vale of Glamorgan Preferred Strategy states “New development must support an enhanced transport network that increases the proportion of journeys being undertaken by sustainable travel modes”. Additionally Objective 8 (Promoting Active and Sustainable Travel Choices) states “new development is directed to locations that are or can be accessible by a choice of modes of transport, including walking, cycling, and public transport.”

It is well known that residents of affordable housing are statistically less likely to own private vehicles, making access to reliable and frequent public transport essential for ensuring equitable mobility. The provision of public transport infrastructure in close proximity to such developments is therefore a critical component in supporting access to employment, education, healthcare, and other key services, while also promoting sustainable travel patterns and social inclusion.

The site also scores red in respect to Access/Proximity to services, showing the site is greater than 1200m away from key services, as seen in the key below:
In respect of the above, Preferred Strategy 6.40 states the need “To ensure that new development takes place in locations that have the best access to a wide range of services, facilities, and employment opportunities, whilst minimising the need to travel, the distribution of growth is guided by the following settlement hierarchy”. To further highlight the importance of both sustainable transport and proximity to services, the preferred strategy also states the need to “Facilitate the development of adaptable, accessible, well-connected communities that have a strong sense of identity, offer a sustainable range of services and facilities and are equipped with adequate infrastructure”. In addition, Promoting Active and Sustainable Travel Choices outlines to “Promote and encourage the use of sustainable methods of travel, particularly active modes of transport, whilst simultaneously reducing the need to travel”.

In light of the above, this site does not align with the aims and targets set out in the Preferred Strategy, as it fails to meet several key development goals set out. It should therefore not be considered suitable to be allocated for future developments. Its inclusion is therefore unsound.

Should this view be concurred with, 22 affordable units will be lost from the proposed affordable 122 units, and ultimately will be lost from the overall housing land supply. As stated in the draft housing trajectory “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”. There is a clear possibility therefore that this proposed allocation is removed and/or not delivered as its inclusion is unsound as it does not align with the aims and targets set out in the Preferred Strategy - as it fails to meet several key development goals set out. A “small scale affordable housing led development” which is needed to “respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities” will therefore not be provided for. This is clearly an issue.

When comparing this with ‘Land at Ystradowen’, the following is set out:

Access to Services and Facilities

This criterion has been assessed firstly on the location of the site proposal in terms of whether it is located within, adjacent to, or outside a settlement, and secondly the ease of pedestrian and cycle access to key services listed below.
With reference to the above:

• In terms of public transport, there are two bus stops located approximately 400m (7-minute walk) from the site (‘Ty Mawr Close’), with the ‘321 Nat Group Service’ providing services between Llantwit Major and Talbot Green.

• The site is also located 300m (3-minute walk) and 600m (10-minute walk) from Sports Pitches/Playing Fields such as ‘Ystradowen Children’s Park’, and the 3/4G Sports Pitch at ‘Ystradowen Petanque Club’.

• Furthermore, the site is located 480m (7-minute walk) from the ‘Murco – Tudor Garage’ which can provide basic goods to meet day-today needs such as bread, butter, milk etc.

These services and facilities are therefore well within the best category (i.e. categorised/scored as ‘green’) - within 800m of site (10-minute walk). Accordingly, the site therefore has good access to services and facilities.

Furthermore, the settlement of Ystradowen has been ranked highly in the VoG Sustainable Settlements Appraisal, scoring a total of 14 points according to the distance to key services and facilities available. This places Ystradowen 26th out of a total of 87 settlements. As a result, this would be deemed a suitable area to accommodate growth.

As stated above the key settlement of Cowbridge is located in close proximity being only 2.7 miles to the south and a 9- minute bus journey. Cowbridge is identified as a sustainable location, and is ranked 4th place for services and facilities within the Vale of Glamorgan. The following key services are found in Cowbridge, and are therefore in close proximity to ‘Land West of Maendy Road’:

• Cowbridge Comprehensive Schools;
• Cowbridge Health Centre; and
• Cowbridge Town Centre for various Retail Services.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the above criteria does not take into account the important role and proximity of the Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area (as defined in the RCTCBC LDP) of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant which is 2.8 miles to the north (14-minute bus journey). Ystradowen would also naturally align, and function, in association with this Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area (of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant). These areas comprise for example the following key services:

• Cowbridge and ‘Y Pant’ Comprehensive Schools;
• Cowbridge Health Centre and Old School Surgery; and
• Cowbridge Town Centre, and Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant (Strategic Growth Area), for various Retail Services.

Given the above, ‘Land at Ystradowen’ does/should align with the aims and targets set out in the Preferred Strategy as it meets several of the key development goals set out. Its inclusion should therefore, in our view, be considered “sound” and therefore suitable to be allocated for future developments. The site should properly and appropriately be allocated in lieu of ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’ – the inclusion of which is “unsound”. ‘Land at Ystradowen’ would therefore ensure that affordable units, where “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”, are provided for. As such the proposed housing trajectory would be maintained.
Land to the East of Colwinston, Colwinston

A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below:

As outlined above, the site was rejected and considered not suitable for further consideration. In fact, and unlike ‘Land at Heol Fain, Wick’ and ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’ it was stated that this site “could not be considered as a suitable affordable housing led development site”. Despite this, this site is identified to be allocated as an Affordable Housing Led Allocation. As such, the inclusion of this site is “unsound”.

It is known that Colwinston has been subject to significant housing allocations in the settlement as part of previous plans. To evidence this, 25% of the 64 units (i.e. 16 units) were approved on the site allocation ref. MG2(41) and PP ref. 2014/00242/FUL. This makes a substantial provision of such Affordable Housing units (and housing generally) in the settlement in recent years.
Other similarly sized and comparable settlements and locations have not by contrast been subject to any growth for some considerable time, and accordingly would warrant and benefit from provision as part of this new replacement plan.

Notwithstanding the location of such provision, and as set out in detail at the outset of these representations, National Planning Policy advocates the high and acute need for affordable housing, whilst recent analysis evidences that there is a housing emergency. These circumstances - coupled with the shortcomings identified and set out earlier in these submissions in respect to the adequacy of provision within the plan (rolled forward sites / inadequate provision etc) – means that notwithstanding any potential allocation at Colwinston, further provision ought to be made in comparable (previously unprovided for) locations, such as Ystradowen.
Credentials of this site subject to this submission

There has been a significant change in the position and circumstances since the promoted site herein was assessed at Candidate Site Stage and the Assessment undertaken. The Stage 2 Assessment of the site concluded the following: ‘Whilst adjoining the existing LDP settlement boundary this is by virtue of an existing adopted plan LDP allocation this is currently under review. Notwithstanding this the site would represent unacceptable intrusion in to the open countryside.’
The assessment/conclusion implies that as this site (‘Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen’) has not been built out and is “currently under review”, it suggests that ‘Land at Ystradowen’ (430) does not adjoin the existing LDP settlement boundary. Given recent developments however associated with the implementation of the planning permission ref. 2023/00948/FUL (post approval on 9th December 2024) and the site being currently being “built out” and work commencing on site, the site no longer adjoins “the existing LDP settlement boundary … by virtue of an existing adopted plan LDP allocation … currently under review”. Accordingly, and given this, the ‘Land at Ystradowen’ site boundary therefore directly adjoins/is adjoining the LDP settlement boundary and the site promoted herein.
The following specific photo evidences ‘Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen’ (Housing Allocation 48) is being built out the western boundary of the promoted Site ID 430. This therefore clearly highlights that the site’s boundary is representing the existing settlement limit in the existing development plan. Accordingly, the ‘Land at Ystradowen’ site boundary therefore directly adjoins/is adjoining the existing LDP settlement boundary.
Summary of These Representations

To re-iterate, and to summarise the case made and set out, these representations seek to object to the Housing Trajectory published as part of the consultation on the Draft Housing Trajectory For Housing Stakeholder Group (October 2025) which underpins the Plan and the delivery / realisation of its underlying strategy.

Detailed submissions and objections are raised above in respect to the trajectory information published regarding the soundness and robustness of this information (and it’s consultation), which we do not consider are adequate, robust, or sound to deliver the Plans aims and objectives.

Introduction
These representations are provided on behalf of Barratt Redrow in respect of the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s consultation on the Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) Deposit Plan and Candidate Site Register. They should be read in conjunction with the enclosed completed Comments Forms.
Barratt Redrow are promoting land at St Nicholas (Site ID 486) for a residential-led development of up to 140 modern, energy efficient homes, 40% of which are currently proposed to be affordable.
Barratt Redrow is generally supportive of the Council’s work in preparing the RLDP. The preparation of an up-to-date development plan for the Vale is plainly important and the Council is to be supported in progressing the RLDP through to Deposit stage. The principle of a plan-led strategy, rooted in settlement evidence, affordable housing need and sustainable transport objectives, is endorsed. That is particularly important in the current plan-led Welsh planning context.
That said, in its current form the Deposit RLDP is not sufficiently ambitious and, in our view, requires a number of important changes in order to ensure soundness. The key concerns relate to the overall housing requirement, the level of flexibility built into the strategy, the degree of reliance placed on key sites, windfalls and rolled forward supply, the unduly restrictive approach taken to sustainable settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area and the introduction of onerous policies that when considered together could impact deliverability. Those issues are especially relevant to St Nicholas, which the Council’s own evidence identifies as one of the better performing Minor Rural Settlements and one which has an established role in supporting a sustainable rural community.
The Council’s own evidence base supports a stronger role for St Nicholas than the Deposit Plan currently allows. It demonstrates that proportionate growth in settlements such as St Nicholas is not a departure from the Council’s established strategy; it is consistent with it. The Deposit RLDP should be amended so that it better reflects both national policy and the Council’s own evidence, and in particular so that sustainable and deliverable opportunities such as St Nicholas are able to make an appropriate contribution to meeting the Vale’s housing needs.
The remainder of these representations address the specific policies of the Deposit Plan.
Deposit Plan Plan Period Position: Object
Based on the Development Plans Manual, when a plan is adopted, there should be at least 10 years of the plan period remaining.
On the Council’s current timetable, adoption is only anticipated for August/September 2027, and those post-Deposit stages are expressly identified in the Delivery Agreement as indicative, because they depend on external factors including the number of representations received and the examination process. The Deposit Plan runs only to 2036. That means that, even if the Council hits its best-case programme and adopts in September 2027, the Plan would have only about 8 years and 3 months left to run. That is already below the DPM expectation of at least 10 years remaining at adoption. Any slippage would make that position worse.
Based on the current timetable, an end date of 2038 (with associated increase in housing requirement) would therefore ensure a sound plan.
Policy SP1 – Sustainable Growth Strategy Position: Comment / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the broad objective of pursuing a sustainable growth strategy and agrees that growth should be directed towards the most sustainable locations. The emphasis on public transport connectivity, access to services and the need to align housing growth with wider regional aspirations is supported in principle. The Deposit Plan’s summary of Future Wales correctly notes that the Vale lies within the Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys National Growth Area and that Local Development Plans should recognise this area as the focus for strategic economic and housing growth, services and facilities, and transport infrastructure. The Plan also correctly highlights Future Wales’ wider outcomes, including vibrant rural places with access to homes, jobs and services.
Our concern is that the strategy as drafted is not sufficiently nuanced and, in practice, it places too much weight on the Strategic Growth Areas and not enough weight on sustainable settlements outside it. In doing so, it risks overlooking villages which perform well against the Council’s own settlement evidence and which can accommodate proportionate growth in a highly sustainable way. St Nicholas is a clear example of that. The earlier Barratt David Wilson Homes representations made this point and it remains equally relevant now: the strategy should not be read as favouring rail-served locations to the exclusion of settlements with strong bus accessibility and established local services.
This is important because the Council’s own evidence does not justify such a narrow interpretation of sustainable transport. The BP5 methodology was adapted specifically to better appreciate the role and function of settlements in the Vale, including their relationship to key services and facilities. In other words, the Council has already recognised in its evidence base that sustainability in the Vale cannot sensibly be reduced to rail access alone.
St Nicholas benefits from strong bus connectivity and a strategic relationship to Cardiff and other settlements. Supporting population growth in proximity to regular bus services can itself help reinforce the viability of those routes. Para 3.45 of PPW states the following in respect of relationships beyond the Council’s administrative area:
“The evidence to identify suitable areas and sites for development should not be confined by local authority boundaries. It should reflect realities like housing markets, travel to work areas, retail catchments and the nature of activity or development itself.” (emphasis added)
Cardiff is by far the greatest attractor in terms of commuting destination, as shown in the below Census data for the Vale of Glamorgan:
St Nicholas is 16 minutes from Cardiff via bus. Not all people will want to live in towns (as recognised by the Council in their response to the draft NDF). The Spatial Option is depicted on Page 28 of the Spatial Options Background Paper (June 2023). This fails to show St Nicholas as a settlement with frequent bus connectivity despite it being served by excellent bus service provision.
Future Wales supports development which aligns with the South East Wales Metro which includes bus infrastructure and services as well as the rail network. The Deposit Plan’s focus on settlements with railway stations ignores settlements with bus service provision such as St Nicholas where travel via bus is an attractive, sustainable and convenient option for residents. For example, the travel time on bus to Cardiff from St Nicholas is 15 minutes, whereas the travel time from Rhoose to Cardiff via train is over double the time at 36 minutes.
Settlements such as St Nicholas will require additional growth over the coming years in order to contribute to their vibrancy and support existing services and facilities such as the local school and bus service. That remains a legitimate and important planning point. Future Wales, as summarised in the Deposit Plan, requires local authorities to maximise opportunities arising from public transport investment and to plan for growth that supports sustainable connectivity more generally, not simply around rail stations.
There is therefore a soundness issue here. The Council’s own evidence and national policy context support a strategy that captures sustainable bus-connected settlements as well as rail-served settlements. St Nicholas should be expressly recognised as one of those locations. If the Council is seeking to direct development to places “best served by public transport connectivity and [which] offer a good range of services and facilities”, then it should ensure that this is applied consistently to settlements such as St Nicholas rather than in a way that, in practice, privileges only a narrow subset of locations.
For that reason, Policy SP1 should be amended to make clearer that sustainable settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area, where there is good bus connectivity, local facilities and a clear functional relationship with wider employment and service centres, are capable of accommodating proportionate growth. That change would make the strategy more aligned with the evidence base and would support a more robust and resilient pattern of housing delivery.
Policy SP2 – Settlement Hierarchy Position: Object
Barratt Redrow objects to Policy SP2 in its current form.
The Council’s own evidence shows that St Nicholas performs strongly as a Minor Rural Settlement. It scored 39 points and ranked 5th out of 21 Minor Rural Settlements within the Settlement Appraisal Background Paper. It is one of the few settlements in this tier with a school in the village and that its strategic position and public transport accessibility lend support to it being treated as a sustainable settlement capable of accommodating further growth.
That broader conclusion is reinforced by the Deposit Plan itself. Paragraph 6.16 expressly identifies St Nicholas as one of the smaller rural settlements which contains a primary school serving a wider catchment area. The Plan goes on to recognise that, due to the functional links between rural settlements, it is essential to ensure that existing services and facilities are safeguarded, supported or enhanced where appropriate. Those are helpful and important acknowledgements.
However, notwithstanding that evidence, the policy framework remains highly restrictive. The Deposit Plan states that, in Minor Rural Settlements, general market housing will be limited to infill and conversion opportunities within the settlement boundary, whilst any more meaningful growth outside the Strategic Growth Area is essentially restricted to small scale affordable housing-led schemes with a minimum 50% affordable housing requirement. In our view that is too blunt an approach and is not justified by the evidence.
The reason this matters is because the Council’s own historic and current evidence points in the opposite direction. BP5 explains that the adopted LDP provided for moderate growth in Minor Rural Settlements to help meet local housing need and support existing local services. The adopted LDP Written Statement similarly states that minor rural settlements such as St Nicholas play an important role in underpinning sustainable rural communities and that there is a need for some moderate growth in these settlements. The earlier strategy therefore recognised that such locations could accommodate growth without undermining their character or function. The successful development of by Redrow of Cae Newydd, St Nicholas provides an example of how new residential development can successfully integrate into a Minor Rural Settlement.
In our view the current Deposit strategy has moved too far away from that balanced position. The Plan now acknowledges the sustainability credentials of St Nicholas but does not allow those credentials to translate into an appropriate development role. That disconnect between the evidence and the policy response is one of the main reasons why the Plan, as drafted, is not sound.
Accordingly, Policy SP2 should be amended. At the very least, it should be recast so that settlements such as St Nicholas are not treated as locations where only very limited growth can occur. A more proportionate and evidence-led approach would be to allow moderate mixed-tenure growth in the more sustainable Minor Rural Settlements, where this is supported by site-specific evidence and good placemaking. That would better reflect both the Council’s own settlement appraisal and the adopted LDP approach that preceded it. As drafted, the Plan expects a great deal from a very limited rural supply offer. It seeks to secure a minimum 50% affordable housing provision on qualifying sites, requires the mix of homes to respond to latest evidence, including specialist and older persons’ needs, and recognises the need for both affordable and market housing to support mixed communities in rural areas. The Plan also acknowledges the functional role of Minor Rural Settlements such as St Nicholas and the importance of supporting local services within them. In our view, those objectives are unlikely to be achieved through the very limited number of affordable housing-led allocations currently proposed. Additional sites in the more sustainable Minor Rural Settlements are therefore required if the Plan is to deliver what it seeks in a realistic, deliverable and sustainable manner.
Policy SP6 – Housing Requirement Position: Object
Barratt Redrow objects to Policy SP6.
Whilst we support the Council’s intention to plan positively for housing growth through an up-to-date RLDP, the proposed housing requirement of 7,890 dwellings is not considered sufficiently ambitious and, in our view, is no longer justified by the most up-to-date evidence. The Deposit Plan identifies a requirement of 7,890 dwellings, equating to 526 dwellings per annum, with provision for 8,660 homes once the 10% flexibility allowance is applied. That requirement remains rooted in the RLDP’s dwelling-led scenario, which the LHMA explains was derived from average completions over a 10-year period. In our view, that is too conservative an approach in present circumstances.
PPW and the Development Plans Manual is clear on this point. PPW sets out the following requirements for local authorities when setting a housing requirement at paragraph 4.2.6:
“The latest Welsh Government local authority level Household Projections for Wales, alongside the latest Local Housing Market Assessment (LHMA) and the Well-being plan for a plan area, will form a fundamental part of the evidence base for development plans. These should be considered together with other key evidence in relation to issues such as what the plan is seeking to achieve, links between homes and jobs, the need for affordable housing, Welsh language considerations and the deliverability of the plan, in order to identify an appropriate strategy for the delivery of housing in the plan area. Appropriate consideration must also begiven to the wider social, economic, environmental and cultural factors in a plan area in order to ensure the creation of sustainable places and cohesive communities.”
The Deposit Plan housing requirement is based on past delivery rates and does not take account of the above policy requirements. Whilst past build rates can be used as a benchmark for comparison, it is not appropriate for this to be used to set the future growth of the Authority Area. The Development Plans Manual states the following in this respect:
“5.55 Extrapolating forward past take-up rates for both jobs and homes over various time periods gives a factual representation of what has been delivered in the past. This approach can provide a useful benchmark against which to compare future employment and household growth, assuming previous conditions remained constant. However, this may have been constrained by contextual influences applicable at a previous point in time, for example global economic markets, or have led to undesirable outcomes which should not be repeated, such as a mismatch between the number of homes and jobs.
5.56 It will be important to understand the relationship between the past and the future direction of the plan, including such contextual circumstances. If there are/were limitations that hindered the ability to deliver growth previously, then until mechanisms are in place to address such matters this could have a bearing on future growth levels. Understanding the context within which delivery was/can be achieved will be important, particularly when considering a housing trajectory as this could influence the speed and increase delivery rates, or conversely result in a delivery cap until such matters are resolved.
5.57 Just relying on past build rates as the sole evidence base to quantify future employment and housing land requirements is not sufficient on its own. Additional evidence will be required to identify the scale of new jobs and homes necessary and the related land requirement.”
Contextual factors that mean utilising past build rates in setting future housing growth is inappropriate include:
• Utilising past build rates incorporates recession-based trends. This includes supressed build rates following the 2008 recession and more recently, reduced housing completions as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and the current cost of living crisis;
• Does not actively seek to address the area’s ageing demographic;
• Does not reflect or take account of the Vale of Glamorgan’s position within a Growth Area within Future Wales;
• Does not seek to leverage any of the investment into the region through the CCR City Deal;
• Conflicts with the Deposit Plan’s ambition in terms of Homes For All and the Economy – in that there has been no recent job growth in the Vale of Glamorgan delivered under the current LDP and there is a shortage of housing and affordable housing. Applying the same build rate over the RLDP plan period would compound these issues; and
• During the period considered, many people were prevented from forming new households due to a lack of mortgage finance, lower employment levels and reduced rates of housing completions. There is a considerable body of evidence to show that household formation will return to long term trends if housing is made available. Research by the former National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU)4 found that cohorts who are less able to access home ownership earlier in their housing career due to “boom” or “recession” factors impacting on affordability are nevertheless able to “catch-up” later on – 80% of the gap at the age of 30 is “caught-up” by the age of 40. This finding supports the resumption of long-term household formation trends.
In short, just relying on past build rates as the sole evidence base to quantify future housing land requirements is not sufficient on its own, and that additional evidence is required to identify the scale of new homes necessary, with alternative scenarios considered rather than simply extrapolating previous delivery trends. That is directly relevant here. A housing requirement derived too closely from historic completion rates risks baking in past under-delivery rather than planning positively for future need.
That concern is reinforced by the updated Welsh Government evidence published after the RLDP’s preferred growth scenario was formulated. The latest 2025-based estimates of additional housing need identify newly arising need in Wales of between 7,800 and 9,300 additional homes per annum over the first five years, with a central estimate of around 8,700 homes per annum, alongside a separate estimate of existing unmet need of 9,400 homes. Whilst those are national figures and do not automatically translate into a single local housing target, they plainly point towards a materially higher level of need than has previously been assumed and strengthen the case for local planning authorities, particularly in growth areas, to revisit conservative housing requirements.
The updated 2022-based household projections point in the same direction. Welsh Government’s latest figures show that the number of households in Wales is projected to increase by 7.2% between mid-2022 and mid-2032, and that the Vale of Glamorgan is projected to experience one of the largest percentage increases in Wales, at 11.7%. The same release notes that the Vale is also amongst the authorities expected to experience some of the strongest private household population growth. In short, the latest demographic evidence does not support a low-growth or “business as usual” response for the Vale. It points the other way.
This sits uncomfortably with the Council’s own housing evidence. The Deposit Plan records that the Vale has the highest affordability ratio in Wales and a significant need for affordable homes. It further records that the LHMA identifies affordable housing need averaging 461 dwellings per annum over 15 years using the principal projections, rising to 502 dwellings per annum under the RLDP projection figures. The Deposit Plan also acknowledges that only a proportion of new households will require affordable housing because others will meet their needs through the market. That is important, because it underlines the need for both affordable and open market housing, and therefore for a higher overall housing requirement than the Plan currently proposes.
The Deposit Plan principally seeks to address issues of affordability through a blanket 50% affordable housing requirement on sites other than the Key Sites. Whilst we fully support the Council in looking to address issues of affordability, we consider that an increase in the housing requirement and subsequent increase in housing supply (both open market and affordable) should be pursued.
There is a broader strategic point as well. The Vale sits within the wider Cardiff housing market and the Deposit Plan itself recognises the strong migration relationship with Cardiff and the role that strategic collaboration should play in considering housing growth. Against that background, and having regard to the updated Welsh Government evidence, the present requirement of 7,890 dwellings does not appear sufficiently ambitious for a National Growth Area authority with strong migration inflows, severe affordability pressures and one of the highest projected household growth rates in Wales. In our view, the Plan should test a higher housing requirement through examination.
A higher growth rate, such as the PG-5Y scenario or higher should be adopted to better align housing and job growth and redress socio economic trends. The likelihood of this of level of growth occurring is even greater in the context of the ambition and funding available to support the City Deal. However, in seeking to deliver the economic vision for the area, it is important to ensure that economic growth is not constrained by a lack of land (for either housing or employment).
Whilst this is higher than past build rates, it should be noted that build rates are closely related to the availability of deliverable sites; therefore, the allocation of sufficient housing land in the RLDP would go a long way to increasing delivery. Current delivery rates have been supressed by wider socio economic trends and reliance within the existing LDP on large strategic sites (i.e. Barry Waterfront). Basing the RLDP Growth Option on past delivery would therefore result in an increase in the number of suppressed households. There is no rationale or justification to set future housing need by reference solely to past delivery rates.
The key point for soundness is therefore a simple one. The Development Plans Manual requires a housing requirement to be grounded in a broad evidence base and not simply in past completion trends. The latest demographic and housing need evidence now available points towards stronger growth pressure than that reflected in Policy SP6. In those circumstances, retaining the current requirement without revisiting it would not, in our view, be consistent with the Development Plans Manual or with a genuinely evidence-led plan-making exercise.
The Council’s own evidence supports the use of a 4% household-to-dwelling conversion factor. The LHMA states that the RLDP preferred growth scenario assumes growth of 7,586 households, which equates to 7,890 dwellings once vacancy rates are applied, effectively applying a 4% uplift in practice. That approach is also consistent with the adopted Vale of Glamorgan LDP, which expressly applied a
1.04 household-to-dwelling conversion ratio in deriving part of its housing requirement. In those circumstances, and absent any robust local evidence justifying a different factor, it is entirely appropriate to apply the Development Plans Manual baseline uplift of 4% to any updated household-led requirement. On that basis, a requirement of 9,623 households would convert to 10,008 dwellings, which is around 26.8% above the 7,890 dwellings currently sought under Policy SP6 and further underlines that the Deposit RLDP is not sufficiently ambitious in housing terms.Accordingly, Policy SP6 should be amended to provide for a higher housing requirement. The precise figure is ultimately a matter for examination, but the current requirement is too low, too closely tied to past build rates, and insufficiently responsive to updated Welsh Government projections and housing need evidence. A higher requirement would also require a broader and more resilient supply portfolio, which in turn strengthens the case for additional deliverable sites in sustainable settlements such as St Nicholas.
Policy SP6 – Flexibility, housing land supply and trajectory Position: Object
Barratt Redrow also objects to the level of flexibility embedded within Policy SP6 and raises concern regarding the resilience of the housing land supply and the robustness of the housing trajectory.
The Development Plans Manual is clear that housing supply is the housing requirement plus a flexibility allowance. It further states that it will be extremely rare for all sites identified in a plan to come forward within the timescales anticipated, and that a development plan will not be effective if it cannot accommodate changing circumstances. For that reason, a flexibility allowance must be embedded into the plan. Whilst the Manual says that 10% may be a starting point, it also makes clear that the level of flexibility is for each authority to determine based on local issues and that any chosen level must be robustly evidenced.
In our view, a 10% flexibility allowance is not sufficient in the context of this Plan. The Deposit Plan’s housing provision of 8,660 dwellings is made up of 3,837 dwellings from the existing land supply, 3,520 dwellings on allocated sites and 1,303 dwellings from windfalls. The Council’s housing land supply paper then shows that the allocation component itself includes 959 dwellings on rolled-forward LDP sites, 2,278 dwellings on key housing allocations, 122 dwellings on affordable housing-led sites and 161 dwellings on other allocations. That is a relatively exposed and finely balanced supply portfolio.
The resilience issue is due to a substantial element of the supply depends on a relatively small number of key sites, a significant rolled-forward component, and a large windfall assumption. The Development Plans Manual states that rolled-forward allocations require careful justification, that there must be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate such sites can be delivered and justify being included again, and that clear evidence will be required that those sites can be delivered. That is a demanding test, as it should be. In our view, the Plan’s reliance on rolled-forward sites and key sites means that a modest flexibility allowance of 10% does not provide a sufficient margin of safety.
The housing trajectory also warrants closer scrutiny. The Development Plans Manual describes the housing trajectory as the key mechanism for demonstrating how all sites will be delivered in the identified timescales throughout the whole plan period. It states that lead-in times for larger sites, inter-relationships between sites, constraints, infrastructure timing and assumptions for both large and small windfalls must all be taken into account. It also requires trajectories to provide a steady flow of sites through the plan period and not to be unduly loaded towards the end of the period.
Against that benchmark, there is a legitimate question over whether the RLDP trajectory is sufficiently robust. The Council’s own housing land supply paper records stakeholder concerns that the trajectory shows a significant step change in delivery above previous rates, that there is too great a reliance on key sites, and that the assumed timescales for pre-application work, application determination and discharge of conditions are too short. The consultation summary specifically records concern that delivery rises from around 400 to 500 dwellings per annum in the early monitored years to around 1,000 dwellings per annum by 2027/28, and that this represents a marked and pronounced step change. Those are not peripheral issues; they go directly to the credibility and resilience of the trajectory.
The same background paper also confirms that over 25% of the Plan’s total provision is attributed to key sites. Again, that does not make the Plan unsound in itself, but it does mean the trajectory and flexibility allowance need to be particularly robust. In our view, the current Plan does not yet demonstrate that level of resilience. The delivery assumptions may prove achievable, but the point for examination is that they require close scrutiny and should not simply be accepted at face value, particularly when the Development Plans Manual emphasises realism, flexibility and steady delivery through the full plan period.
There is also a concern about the windfall component. The Council’s evidence assumes delivery of 1,303 dwellings from large and small windfall developments over the lifetime of the plan. The Development Plans Manual accepts that windfalls can form part of supply, but it also requires the assumptions behind them to be evidenced and scrutinised. Here, the windfall figure is material, not marginal. That is another reason why the resilience of the identified allocation portfolio matters so much. Where a plan is relying on rolled-forward sites, key sites and substantial windfalls all at once, there is a stronger case for a higher flexibility allowance and for a broader pool of deliverable sites.
In our view, the sounder approach would be to increase the flexibility allowance from 10% to 15% and broaden the supply base through the inclusion of additional sustainable and deliverable sites. That would better reflect the Development Plans Manual’s requirement for plans to remain effective in the face of delay and changing circumstances, and it would reduce the risk of the RLDP becoming over-dependent on a narrow set of sites and optimistic delivery assumptions. It would also be entirely consistent with wider Welsh plan-making practice, where flexibility allowances above 10% have been accepted where local circumstances justify it. By way of example, Flintshire’s adopted LDP applies a flexibility allowance of over 13%, while Bridgend’s recently adopted RLDP provides for a 14% flexibility allowance following examination. Against that background, and having regard to the Vale RLDP’s reliance on key sites, rolled-forward allocations, a substantial windfall component and a stepped housing trajectory, a 15% allowance is justified here as a proportionate and robust response to the particular delivery risks of this Plan.This point also links directly back to St Nicholas. If the Plan is to be made sound, it should not rely so heavily on a small number of large, longer-lead sites and on a substantial windfall allowance. It should include a broader range of deliverable sites capable of contributing earlier and more reliably to the housing trajectory. A sustainable, mixed-tenure site at St Nicholas would assist in precisely that respect by diversifying the supply portfolio and improving resilience.
Policy SP7 – Affordable Housing Provision Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the objective of delivering affordable housing and agrees that this is one of the key issues the RLDP must address. Policy SP7 is therefore supported in principle. However, the policy should be read in conjunction with a more ambitious overall housing strategy, because affordable housing delivery cannot sensibly be divorced from the wider question of total supply.
The Deposit Plan is clear that the delivery of affordable housing is a key objective of the RLDP and that the strength of the Vale’s housing market has resulted in many local people experiencing difficulties in purchasing suitable housing on the open market. Barratt Redrow supports that objective in principle. The policy also correctly identifies that a mix of affordable housing will be required, with reference to the LHMA, and that this should include a range of tenures, types and sizes of homes. That said, the wording of Policy SP7 lacks sufficient clarity. In particular, the reference to the affordable housing mix being “informed” by the LHMA is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the LHMA is intended to provide a broad evidence base and starting point for negotiation, or whether the Council expects schemes to replicate that mix as a fixed requirement. In our view, the policy should be clarified so that the LHMA is expressly treated as a guiding framework rather than a prescriptive formula, with the final tenure mix, type and size of affordable provision being determined having regard to site-specific circumstances, up-to-date evidence, viability and deliverability.The LHMA is highly relevant here. It explains that affordable need is no longer confined to traditional social rented housing and that current economic conditions have squeezed many households out of both home ownership and the private rented sector, creating additional need for intermediate rent and low-cost home ownership products. It also notes that an ongoing supply of new build properties remains important to the operation of assisted home ownership products in the Vale.
That evidence is important because it confirms there is a need for both affordable and open market housing. The market sector is not separate from the affordable housing challenge; it is part of how that challenge is addressed. The LHMA also makes clear that only a proportion of new households will require affordable housing because others will meet their needs through the market. This is another reason why the overall housing requirement matters so much.
There is also a more local point relevant to St Nicholas. The LHMA identifies St Nicholas & Llancarfan as a distinct housing market area and shows need arising there across tenures. It is therefore not correct to approach St Nicholas on the basis that only one tenure or one product type is needed. The evidence points to a requirement for a broader mix.
The Deposit Plan itself supports that conclusion. It acknowledges that, in meeting Policy SP7, a range of affordable tenures, types and sizes of homes will be required. It also records that the Council will seek to secure an appropriate level and mix of affordable housing in all proposed residential developments.
In our view, the main issue with Policy SP7 is therefore not its objective, but the fact that the rest of the strategy is not sufficiently ambitious to support it. The Plan cannot identify very substantial affordable need and then pursue a relatively low overall housing requirement combined with a narrow rural growth model. A sound approach would be to increase the overall housing provision and broaden the pool of sustainable and deliverable mixed-tenure sites so that affordable housing delivery through the planning system can be maximised. St Nicholas should form part of that response.
Policy SP8 – Affordable Housing Requirements Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the principle that residential development should contribute towards affordable housing need. However, there are concerns about how Policy SP8 interacts with the rest of the strategy, especially outside the Strategic Growth Area.
The Deposit Plan confirms that, within Primary and Minor Rural Settlements, new development will generally be required to provide 40% affordable housing. It also confirms that outside delineated settlement boundaries proposals for additional housing will be strictly controlled and limited to affordable housing exception sites or housing in support of rural enterprises. The Plan then layers on the separate affordable housing-led model under Policy HG4, where a minimum of 50% affordable housing is required.
In principle, Barratt Redrow has no issue with seeking ambitious affordable housing delivery where supported by viability evidence. The concern is that the overall strategy becomes too rigid when SP8 is read alongside SP2, SP3, HG4 and other potentially onerous policy requirements, including Policy CC1. In practice, this risks leaving sustainable settlements such as St Nicholas with very little scope to contribute to general housing delivery unless schemes meet a highly demanding affordable-led model. That is not a balanced or flexible way to plan for rural communities. It also gives rise to a lack of clarity between Policies SP7 and SP8 which should be addressed. Policy SP7 states that the mix of affordable housing to be delivered over the plan period will be “informed” by the LHMA, waiting list data and the Older Persons Housing Strategy, but it is unclear whether that is intended simply as a starting point for negotiation or whether the Council expects the identified mix to be applied more prescriptively. By contrast, Policy SP8 expressly provides greater flexibility: it states that affordable housing will be negotiated on a site-by-site basis having regard to evidenced viability, that the exact mix of affordable housing will be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the Council’s latest needs evidence, and that where proven economic circumstances affect delivery the Council may negotiate the level, type, tenure and nature of provision. In our view, those two policies should be aligned. That would better reflect Planning Policy Wales, which requires planning authorities to develop evidence-based market and affordable housing policies, but also makes clear that affordable housing targets and policy expectations must take account of deliverability and viability considerations. In that context, Policy SP7 should be clarified so that the LHMA and related evidence are expressly treated as guiding the starting point for discussions on mix, rather than imposing a fixed outcome irrespective of site-specific circumstances, technical constraints, abnormal costs or viability. That is especially important given the Deposit Plan’s blanket affordable housing percentages across the Vale and the cumulative effect of other policy requirements, which may affect the deliverability of particular allocations and should therefore be capable of being addressed on a site-by-site basis.The Deposit Plan recognises that an appropriate mix of affordable housing will be required, and that in the rural Vale there is a desire for smaller market homes as well as affordable homes. It also accepts that affordable housing delivery may be lower than anticipated because of viability constraints and that, where proven economic circumstances affect delivery, the Council may negotiate the level, type, tenure and nature of provision. This should feed through into a more flexible strategy overall. In particular, the Plan should not be read or applied in a way that suppresses the delivery of mixed-tenure schemes in sustainable rural settlements where those schemes can contribute both market and affordable housing and support local services. That is especially so given the evidence in the LHMA that a range of tenures is required and that intermediate and low-cost home ownership products are an increasingly important part of the housing response.
8. Policy HG1 / Housing Allocations and overall supply portfolio Position: Comment / Object in part
Barratt Redrow does not object in principle to the Council allocating key sites and other strategic locations. However, there remains a significant concern that the Plan is overly reliant on a relatively narrow supply portfolio.
The Deposit Plan confirms that the allocation component of supply comprises 2,278 dwellings on key sites, 959 dwellings on rolled forward sites, 161 dwellings on new housing allocations and 122 dwellings on affordable housing-led sites. It also confirms that 1,303 dwellings are expected from windfalls. That means a large proportion of the Plan’s supply is tied up either in a small number of large sites, historic carry-over, or a substantial assumption about unallocated windfall delivery.
Our earlier Preferred Strategy reps raised exactly this issue and those points should all be carried forward. In particular:
• the Plan is overly reliant on a small number of key sites;
• medium-sized sites in sustainable locations can provide resilience to the housing trajectory;
• windfalls account for a significant proportion of the supply and provide less certainty over geographical distribution and delivery; and
• rolled forward allocations require careful justification if they are to be relied upon as part of the plan’s effective provision.
The Deposit Plan’s own figures support that concern. It states that only a small proportion of development is likely to take place outside of the Strategic Growth Area, with some of this reflecting permissions granted under the adopted strategy. It also shows that the total housing provision attributable to Minor Rural Settlements and Primary Settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area is only 390 dwellings. In our view that is too low, particularly given the evidence that some of those settlements perform relatively well and can help diversify the supply portfolio.
Based on the revised RLDP Delivery Agreement, should there be no further slippage the RLDP will be adopted in September 2027 with there being some 7 years before the end of the plan period (of 2034) post-adoption. There may of course be some slippage in the adoption of the RLDP. We therefore would query whether the quantum of homes proposed on the larger Key Sites can realistically be delivered within the plan period.
The following conclusions of Lichfield’s Start to Finish (2nd Edition, Feb 2020) research are relevant in this respect:
• From the date at which an outline application is validated, the average figures can be 5.0-8.4 years for the first home to be delivered.
• If a scheme of more than 500 dwellings has an outline permission, then on average it delivers its first home in circa 3 years.
• The average build out rate of sites between 500-999 dwellings is 68 homes per annum and 107 homes per annum for sites between 1,000 and 1,499 dwellings.
All of the Key Sites have no outline application having been submitted. Given the revocation of TAN 1 and Welsh Government’s emphasis on a plan led system, the very earliest that the Key Sites could have outline permission in place would be post-adoption of the plan limiting its housing land supply contribution within the early years of the plan period. Allowing for an appropriate amount of time to secure necessary permissions, consents and infrastructure delivery, the Key Sites’ contribution to housing supply within the plan period would fall significantly below the quantum currently assumed in the Preferred Strategy. In that context, it is all the more important that sustainable and deliverable medium-sized sites are included in the Plan where appropriate. Again, St Nicholas is an obvious example.
In short, the issue is not that key sites should not exist. It is that the current portfolio is not broad enough and not resilient enough. The Plan should be strengthened through the inclusion of additional medium-sized, sustainable allocations capable of delivery within the plan period.
Policy HG4 – Rural Affordable Housing Led Sites Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the principle of identifying rural affordable housing-led sites. It is entirely appropriate that the RLDP seeks to respond to local housing need in rural communities and to secure affordable provision in settlements where opportunities may otherwise be more limited.
However, Policy HG4 also illustrates the broader weakness in the Plan’s current rural strategy. The Deposit Plan allocates four affordable housing-led sites at Colwinston, Aberthin, Wick and Fferm Goch, totalling 122 dwellings. It also requires applicants to demonstrate how both the market and affordable housing on those sites will meet local housing needs in terms of tenure, type and size, so that a range of housing is delivered to meet different groups in the community. The supporting text then expressly notes that Planning Policy Wales requires a sufficient number of sites suitable for the full range of housing types, and that in the rural Vale there is demand for smaller market homes as well as affordable homes.
Those are important statements and, in our view, they assist the case being made here. They show that the Council itself accepts that rural settlements need a range and choice of homes, not just affordable housing in isolation. They also show that some open market housing in rural locations is not only acceptable, but in fact part of how mixed communities and affordable delivery are achieved.
The problem is that the strategy remains too narrow in how it applies that logic. The Plan effectively says that outside the Strategic Growth Area, growth should generally be confined to affordable-led schemes with a minimum 50% affordable requirement, and anything below that will not be supported. In our view that is too rigid and may well suppress otherwise sustainable and beneficial development, particularly where sites are capable of delivering a strong policy-compliant affordable contribution but not necessarily the precise affordable-led model the Council has chosen.
We continue to raise concerns that a blanket 50% affordable requirement could create deliverability issues, including reliance on complex developer/RSL arrangements and a level of uncertainty around funding and market conditions. Without repeating every operational point, the central planning concern remains valid: the strategy should not be so rigid that it prevents settlements from growing and adapting in a sustainable way. This is especially the case given the ever more challenging delivery context set by increasingly onerous policy requirements.
St Nicholas is relevant here because it demonstrates the missed opportunity in the current approach. The village is expressly identified by the Council as one of the smaller rural settlements with a primary school serving a wider catchment area. It performs well in the settlement appraisal and is the sort of place where a sensitive mixed-tenure allocation could help support local services, provide both market and affordable housing, and diversify the Plan’s supply. In our view, the omission of St Nicholas from the rural housing strategy is not justified by the evidence currently before the Council.
Policy CC1 – Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development Position: Object
Barratt Redrow supports the wider objective of improving the energy performance of new homes and reducing carbon emissions from development. However, Policy CC1 in its current form gives rise to a number of concerns regarding consistency with national standards, deliverability, viability and practical implementation. The Deposit Plan is explicit that Policy CC1 is intended to require new dwellings to exceed current Building Regulations standards. Welsh Government’s own sustainable buildings guidance confirms that Building Regulations set mandatory standards for the design and construction of buildings, including environmental performance. In our view, that raises a legitimate question as to whether an additional local policy layer of this kind is necessary or proportionate, particularly where it risks inconsistency across local planning authorities and may duplicate, or move ahead of, the national regulatory framework.
There is also a need for greater precision in the policy wording itself. As drafted, Policy CC1 requires development to provide on-site renewable electricity generation equivalent to at least the annual energy consumption of the development, assessed through an energy performance model. The supporting text explains that the relevant metric is Energy Use Intensity, which measures all energy consumed by the building. If the policy approach is to be progressed, the policy should make clear that compliance relates only to regulated energy use, consistent with Building Regulations methodology. Developers can influence the performance of the building fabric and regulated building services, but they cannot control future occupant behaviour, appliance use, plug loads or other forms of unregulated energy demand. Without that clarification, there is a risk that the policy extends beyond matters that can reasonably and consistently be secured through the planning process.
A further issue is that the policy should expressly allow its requirements to fall away, or be treated as satisfied, where national Building Regulations subsequently catch up with or exceed the standards sought under Policy CC1, or where the national regime adopts a different but equivalent methodology. Without such a safeguard, there is a real risk that the RLDP imposes outdated or duplicative requirements later in the plan period, which would not only create unnecessary complexity but could also compromise the delivery of much-needed housing. That concern is heightened by the cumulative policy burden elsewhere in the Plan, including affordable housing, open space, placemaking, green infrastructure and other low carbon requirements. In our view, the Council should therefore demonstrate, through its viability work, that the housing allocations in Policy HG1 are capable of absorbing the cumulative costs of Policy CC1 alongside the wider requirements of the RLDP.
Clarification is also required in relation to the fallback Project Zero Fund contribution. The Deposit Plan states that where it is not technically feasible to provide a policy-compliant level of renewable energy on site, the residual energy is to be offset through an appropriate contribution to the Council’s Project Zero Fund “as far as economic viability allows”, with further detail to be provided in SPG. In our view, that is presently too uncertain. The policy should make clear how any such contribution will be calculated, what assumptions will be used, what evidence will be required, and how viability will be taken into account. These are all matters which go directly to deliverability and should not be left entirely to post-adoption guidance.
In summary, Building Regulations are sufficient to achieve Welsh Government’s objectives for improving energy efficiency and delivering net-zero carbon development. Additional local policy requirements risk creating inconsistency across Local Planning Authorities and may exceed what is necessary to align with national policy. If a local approach is to be taken, as a minimum, Policy CC1 should be amended so that: (i) it applies only to regulated energy use; (ii) its requirements fall away, or are deemed satisfied, where Building Regulations subsequently meet or exceed them or adopt an alternative national methodology; and (iii) the policy and supporting text provide a clearer framework for viability, Project Zero contributions and practical implementation.
Policy CI1 – Open Space Provision
Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the objective of ensuring that new development makes appropriate provision for open space and recreation. That is entirely consistent with good placemaking and with national policy support for healthy, inclusive and green environments. However, Policy CI1 as drafted is overly prescriptive and, in our view, requires amendment to provide greater flexibility and to better reflect local context and design-led principles.
The main concern is the way in which the policy translates the Fields in Trust benchmarks into a rigid per-dwelling requirement of 62.2 sq m per dwelling. The Deposit Plan itself recognises, at paragraph 6.233, that on-site provision should be design led rather than standards led, and that the type of provision should respond to local context and identified local need having regard to the Open Space Background Paper. That is an important and sensible acknowledgement. In our view, however, the policy wording pulls in the opposite direction by setting out what reads in practice as a uniform quantitative requirement. Fields in Trust guidance is ordinarily framed around population and typologies, to be applied strategically and flexibly, rather than as a blanket per-dwelling metric irrespective of scheme context, form and composition. A rigid application of the standard risks disproportionate land take, unnecessary design constraints and, ultimately, pressure on viability and delivery.
There is also concern regarding the separate requirement for an Open Space Strategy for all housing and commercial developments meeting the thresholds. In many cases, the provision of open space within a development will already be addressed through the Design and Access Statement, Green Infrastructure Statement and the overall layout and placemaking rationale of the scheme. We would therefore question whether a standalone Open Space Strategy is necessary in every case. In our view, the policy should be amended so that open space can be addressed through the principal design and green infrastructure material submitted with the application, unless there is a particular site-specific reason why a separate strategy is required. That would avoid unnecessary duplication without weakening the quality of assessment.
Change sought: amend Policy CI1 and supporting text to make clear that the benchmark standards are to be applied flexibly and strategically, having regard to site context, typology and local need, and that open space provision may be addressed through the Design and Access Statement and/or Green Infrastructure material rather than requiring a standalone Open Space Strategy in every case.
Policy SP4 – Placemaking
Position: Support in principle / Comment
Barratt Redrow supports Policy SP4 in principle. The emphasis on placemaking is fully consistent with Planning Policy Wales and with the Deposit Plan’s wider design-led approach to development. The policy framework rightly seeks to ensure that major development is shaped by the placemaking principles from the outset.
That said, the wording of the policy should better reflect the position already set out in the supporting text. Paragraph 6.34 of the Deposit Plan makes clear that the required Placemaking Statement should form part of the Design and Access Statement for most major planning applications. That is helpful and sensible. In our view, the policy itself should say the same thing expressly, so that there is no suggestion that applicants are expected to prepare a separate freestanding document in addition to the DAS.
Suggested wording amendment:
“Major development proposals must be supported by a Placemaking Statement, to be incorporated within the Design and Access Statement where one is required, demonstrating clearly how the proposal accords with the placemaking principles of the Plan.”
That amendment would improve clarity, avoid duplication and align the policy wording with paragraph
6.34 of the supporting text.
Policy SP5 – Creating Healthy and Inclusive Places and Spaces Position: Support in principle / Comment in part
Barratt Redrow supports the objective of creating healthy and inclusive places and spaces and agrees that health and well-being are legitimate and important planning considerations. The wider thrust of Policy SP5 is consistent with PPW’s placemaking agenda and with the Deposit Plan’s recognition that the built environment can have a significant influence on health outcomes.
However, there is a need to ensure that the assessment requirements under Policy SP5 are proportionate and do not create unnecessary cost and duplication. The policy requires all qualifying major development to undertake screening at pre-application stage and, for significant developments, a rapid Health Impact Assessment. The supporting text explains that a rapid HIA may involve literature review, stakeholder engagement and wider evidence gathering. In our view, whilst that may be appropriate for larger or more complex schemes, the policy should recognise more clearly that the health implications of development will often already be addressed through the Design and Access Statement, Placemaking Statement, Green Infrastructure material, Transport Assessment and related application documents. There is a risk that the current wording adds a further procedural burden, with associated cost implications, without always adding materially new value.
We therefore consider that the policy should be applied proportionately, with the checklist and any rapid HIA focused on developments where there is a realistic prospect of significant or complex health implications, rather than as a routine additional requirement in every qualifying case. The policy would also benefit from clarification that the conclusions of the screening/HIA can be incorporated into the main design and supporting statements submitted with the application, rather than requiring standalone reporting unless specifically justified by the scale or sensitivity of the proposal.
Change sought: amend Policy SP5 and/or its supporting text to confirm that health assessment requirements will be applied proportionately, and that the outcomes of the checklist or rapid HIA may be integrated within other application documents, including the Design and Access Statement, Placemaking Statement and Green Infrastructure material, unless a standalone report is specifically justified.
Policy CC2 – Presumption Against Demolition Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the broad objective of encouraging the repair, refurbishment, re-use and re-purposing of existing buildings where that represents the most sustainable outcome. The policy’s underlying intent, to avoid unnecessary loss of embodied carbon and encourage circular economy principles, is understood.
Nevertheless, Policy CC2 as drafted is overly onerous and risks giving rise to unintended consequences for deliverability. The policy establishes a strong presumption against demolition and requires extensive justification through either a Demolition Statement or an Energy Report / Whole Life Carbon Assessment. Whilst that may be appropriate in certain cases, a blanket presumption of this kind risks frustrating otherwise sustainable redevelopment proposals, including proposals involving poor quality farm buildings, obsolete structures, and buildings that are not well suited to modern standards of layout, accessibility, thermal performance or efficient land use. In some cases, insisting on retention or retrofit may not represent the most sustainable outcome overall.
There is also a tension with the wider objective of making the most effective and efficient use of land. Some buildings may be technically capable of retention, but only at disproportionate cost, with compromised design outcomes or reduced site efficiency. On previously developed or rural redevelopment sites alike, that could affect development timescales, viability and ultimately the ability to bring forward policy-compliant schemes. The policy does contain some flexibility through criteria 3 and 4, which recognise that a lower net carbon solution may in some circumstances arise from demolition and redevelopment. However, in our view, the overall wording still leans too heavily towards a presumption against demolition rather than a balanced assessment of the most sustainable whole-life outcome in each case.
The policy would therefore benefit from a more balanced formulation which supports retention and reuse where appropriate, but does not create a disproportionate barrier to demolition where redevelopment would deliver a better placemaking, operational carbon, viability or land-use outcome. That is particularly important in relation to sites containing redundant agricultural or rural buildings, and sites where retrofit would be impractical, inefficient or environmentally sub-optimal.
Change sought: amend Policy CC2 so that it supports the retention and re-use of existing buildings where feasible and sustainable, but allows demolition where this would deliver a more effective overall development outcome having regard to whole-life carbon, operational performance, design quality, viability, land efficiency and deliverability.
Land at St Nicholas / omission from the Deposit Plan Position: Object to omission
Barratt Redrow objects to the omission of land at St Nicholas from the Deposit Plan.
The case for St Nicholas is, in our view, strong and is rooted in the Council’s own evidence base. As already noted, the settlement performs strongly in the BP5 appraisal, the adopted LDP and current review both identify the role of minor rural settlements in supporting sustainable communities, and both the adopted LDP and the current Deposit Plan recognise the specific significance of St Nicholas as a village with a primary school serving a wider catchment area.
Deposit Plan Conclusion
Overall, Barratt Redrow is supportive of the Council’s continued work in preparing the RLDP and supports the objective of putting in place a robust, plan-led framework for growth in the Vale of Glamorgan. However, the Plan in its current form is not sufficiently ambitious and requires modification in order to be sound.
In particular:
• The Plan Period is too short. An extended plan period (and associated increase in housing requirement) is required to provide for at least ten years post adoption;
• the housing requirement under Policy SP6 is too low and is too closely tied to past build rates;
• the 10% flexibility allowance is not sufficient given the structure and risk profile of the supply;
• the Plan relies too heavily on key sites, rolled forward sites and windfalls;
• the strategy for settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area is too restrictive and does not properly reflect the evidence on bus-connected, serviceable and functionally linked settlements; and
• the omission of St Nicholas is not justified by the Council’s own evidence base.
The evidence before the Council supports a stronger role for St Nicholas. The adopted LDP and current BP5 review both recognise the role of Minor Rural Settlements in supporting sustainable rural communities and providing for moderate growth. The Deposit Plan itself acknowledges St Nicholas’ role as a settlement with a primary school serving a wider catchment area. The LHMA demonstrates that there is a need for a range of housing products and tenures, and the Deposit Plan itself accepts that rural areas require both affordable and market housing to meet local needs.
For those reasons, Barratt Redrow seeks amendments to Policies SP1, SP2, SP6, SP7, SP8 and HG4, together with a more flexible and resilient housing strategy overall, and the inclusion of land at St Nicholas as an appropriate and deliverable source of mixed-tenure housing growth within the RLDP period.
Candidate Site Register - Site ID 486
Land to the south of the A48 at St Nicholas (Site ID 486) is being promoted by Barratt Redrow for a residential-led development.
Stage 2 Candidate Site Assessment
The Council’s Stage 2 Candidate Site Assessment states:
“The development would have an adverse impact on the character and setting of the St Nicholas Conservation Area and would also be considered to represent an unacceptable intrusion in to the open countryside. Predictive Agricultural Land Classification Map indicates that the site is Grade 3a agricultural land loss of this land would be contrary to national policy.”
The key issues raised are all capable of being overcome as part of the ongoing promotion of the site, as set out below:
Impact upon Character and Setting of the St Nicholas Conservation Area
Wessex Archaeology have prepared a Heritage Appraisal in support of the site’s development. This concludes that future development within the site would unlikely cause harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets if the development is in keeping with the surrounding built character.
The impact upon the character and setting of the St Nicholas Conservation Area is considered acceptable and the site is considered to be the best option to accommodate the growth of St Nicholas in a sensitive manner, particularly with regard to the following:
• The Site is located outside of the Conservation Area whereas other fields outside the settlement boundary (e.g. to the south of The Manor House) are within the Conservation Area;
• The Conservation Area covers the majority of St Nicholas and most options for the village’s growth would be within its setting;
• PPW Para. 6.5.22 advises that proposals should be tested against a Conservation Area Appraisal where they are available. The St Nicholas Conservation Area Appraisal does not identify any features or important characteristics on the candidate site; and
• The proposals for the site are being developed so that they are sensitively designed, in keeping with the surrounding built character and retain important landscape features and views beyond the site.
Countryside Impacts
The Urbanists have undertaken a Landscape and Visual Appraisal in support of the site’s development. It concludes that the site could be developed without causing unacceptable visual impacts on key receptors, the landscape character and types within the proposed site and its surrounds, with the inclusion of appropriate green infrastructure enhancement and mitigation.
The emerging proposals have been underpinned by existing landscape features, with green infrastructure areas and landscape edges proposed within and around the site. New parkland and amenity spaces, footpaths along with a network of sustainable drainage features are incorporated with tree planting proposed throughout. It is accordingly considered that the proposals will sit well within the receiving landscape with limited impacts beyond its immediate setting.
Agricultural Land Quality
Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6 notes that agricultural land within Grades 1, 2, and 3a are considered to be the “most flexible, productive and efficient land in terms of output”. Paragraph 3.59 of PPW sets out the search sequence when considering allocating land within LDPs stating that poorer quality agricultural land should be considered ahead of higher quality land. Accordingly, whilst the site comprises Grade 3a agricultural land quality based on the currently available survey data, it comprises the poorest quality of other options for growth around St Nicholas. There is an overriding need for housing growth as part of the preparation of the RLDP and the allocation of the site would accord with the search sequence set out in PPW.
As the proposals for the site develop further, there is scope to include allotments/community growing areas and open space areas allowing much of the very good quality soils to be retained. The soils that are retained on site in the open spaces and gardens will still be able to provide various ecosystem functions, particularly in the support of biodiversity, and water and carbon storage.
Appendix 2 – Summary of Assessment
We comment on the Council’s Summary of Assessment as follows:
• Developer Interest: should be amended from red to green. The site is under single positive control by Barratt Redrow who have a track record of successfully developing residential-led sites within the Vale of Glamorgan.
• Historic Environment: should be amended from red to green. The site and proposal’s potential impact upon the historic environment is outlined within the candidate site submission and earlier within these representations as being acceptable.
• Special Landscape Area and Glamorgan Heritage Coast Designations: should be amended from red to green. The Urbanists have undertaken a Landscape and Visual Appraisal in support of the site’s development. It concludes that the site could be developed without causing unacceptable visual impacts on these designations.
• Environmental & Physical Constraints Conclusions: should be amended from red to green. The site is not subject to any environmental or physical constraints which cannot be accommodated through the sensitive design approach adopted by Barrat Redrow.
• Access/proximity to services and facilities conclusions: should be amended from amber to green. The Transport Appraisal which formed part of the candidate site submission evidences the site’s accessibility and proximity to services and facilities.
• Connectivity and Capacity: should be amended from red to green. The candidate site submission demonstrates the site’s capacity for the quantum of development proposed and its connectivity to the settlement and other key locations in the Vale of Glamorgan via sustainable transport modes.
• Climate Change: should be amended from red to green. The site is in a sustainable location, with a number of local facilities including a bus stop, a school, health and wellbeing facilities all within a short walk from the site as well as the retail facilities situated within acceptable cycling distances site and highly accessible by public transport. Overall, the accessible location of the development will mean that there is a reduced need for private car journeys, in turn reducing overall pollution. The development will be supported by a Travel Plan in favour of sustainable modes of travel. Moreover, the dwellings will be built to Part L 2025 which means the new homes will produce reduced levels of CO2.
• Placemaking Character and Place: should be amended from red to green. The proposals comply with the National Sustainable Placemaking Outcomes, as set out within the Appraisal which formed part of the candidate site submission.
• Suitable for Further Consideration: should be amended from red to green for the reasons set out below and within the candidate site submission.
Suitability for Allocation and Key Benefits
For the sake of brevity, we do not intend to repeat the considerable and detailed content of the Candidate Site Submission here. The previously submitted information however contained substantial information to support the allocation of the site as well as a detailed sustainability and connectivity appraisal undertaken in accordance with PPW.
In summary, the submission demonstrated that the site is suitable for allocation within the Council’s RLDP and its inclusion would help contribute to the overall soundness of the emerging Plan. The proposed site fully accords with National Sustainable Placemaking Outcomes and Sustainable Transport Hierarchy set out in PPW and the site is considered to be deliverable and viable.
The proposed development of the site would deliver the following key benefits:
• Delivering a range and choice of housing (including a proportion of affordable housing) in a sustainable location on a deliverable site which can contribute towards the resilience of the RLDP’s housing trajectory and the effectiveness of the Plan;
• The proposals would support the vibrancy of St Nicholas with the site being closely related to the settlement and capable of integrating effectively with the settlement to the benefit of existing and proposed residents;
• The provision of multi-functional open space – including amenity space for residents, play spaces, potential for local growing spaces, nature walks, sustainable drainage and wildlife habitats to achieve biodiversity enhancements;
• Encouraging and supporting active travel with cleaner, greener travel choices and reduced out commuting being located close to public transport provision;
• Good quality open spaces with significant biodiversity benefits (delivering a biodiversity enhancement), surface water resilience and efficient energy, water and communications infrastructure;
• Economic benefits – including that the proposed development is expected to:
o Support the employment of 434 people;
o Create circa £1,687,420 in additional tax, including £158,124 in council tax revenue for the Vale of Glamorgan Council.
It is accordingly concluded that allocation of the site would contribute to the soundness of the RLDP and would accord with the well-being goals specified in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.
Barratt Redrow, Highlight Planning and the project team are keen to work collaboratively with the Council and other parties to demonstrate the suitability of the land for development and its identification as an allocation in the RLDP.
I trust the above representations assist in the Council’s preparation of the RLDP. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss the above matters with the Council if that would be helpful. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Introduction
These representations are provided on behalf of Barratt Redrow in respect of the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s consultation on the Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) Deposit Plan and Candidate Site Register. They should be read in conjunction with the enclosed completed Comments Forms.
Barratt Redrow are promoting land at St Nicholas (Site ID 486) for a residential-led development of up to 140 modern, energy efficient homes, 40% of which are currently proposed to be affordable.
Barratt Redrow is generally supportive of the Council’s work in preparing the RLDP. The preparation of an up-to-date development plan for the Vale is plainly important and the Council is to be supported in progressing the RLDP through to Deposit stage. The principle of a plan-led strategy, rooted in settlement evidence, affordable housing need and sustainable transport objectives, is endorsed. That is particularly important in the current plan-led Welsh planning context.
That said, in its current form the Deposit RLDP is not sufficiently ambitious and, in our view, requires a number of important changes in order to ensure soundness. The key concerns relate to the overall housing requirement, the level of flexibility built into the strategy, the degree of reliance placed on key sites, windfalls and rolled forward supply, the unduly restrictive approach taken to sustainable settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area and the introduction of onerous policies that when considered together could impact deliverability. Those issues are especially relevant to St Nicholas, which the Council’s own evidence identifies as one of the better performing Minor Rural Settlements and one which has an established role in supporting a sustainable rural community.
The Council’s own evidence base supports a stronger role for St Nicholas than the Deposit Plan currently allows. It demonstrates that proportionate growth in settlements such as St Nicholas is not a departure from the Council’s established strategy; it is consistent with it. The Deposit RLDP should be amended so that it better reflects both national policy and the Council’s own evidence, and in particular so that sustainable and deliverable opportunities such as St Nicholas are able to make an appropriate contribution to meeting the Vale’s housing needs.
The remainder of these representations address the specific policies of the Deposit Plan.
Deposit Plan Plan Period Position: Object
Based on the Development Plans Manual, when a plan is adopted, there should be at least 10 years of the plan period remaining.
On the Council’s current timetable, adoption is only anticipated for August/September 2027, and those post-Deposit stages are expressly identified in the Delivery Agreement as indicative, because they depend on external factors including the number of representations received and the examination process. The Deposit Plan runs only to 2036. That means that, even if the Council hits its best-case programme and adopts in September 2027, the Plan would have only about 8 years and 3 months left to run. That is already below the DPM expectation of at least 10 years remaining at adoption. Any slippage would make that position worse.
Based on the current timetable, an end date of 2038 (with associated increase in housing requirement) would therefore ensure a sound plan.
Policy SP1 – Sustainable Growth Strategy Position: Comment / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the broad objective of pursuing a sustainable growth strategy and agrees that growth should be directed towards the most sustainable locations. The emphasis on public transport connectivity, access to services and the need to align housing growth with wider regional aspirations is supported in principle. The Deposit Plan’s summary of Future Wales correctly notes that the Vale lies within the Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys National Growth Area and that Local Development Plans should recognise this area as the focus for strategic economic and housing growth, services and facilities, and transport infrastructure. The Plan also correctly highlights Future Wales’ wider outcomes, including vibrant rural places with access to homes, jobs and services.
Our concern is that the strategy as drafted is not sufficiently nuanced and, in practice, it places too much weight on the Strategic Growth Areas and not enough weight on sustainable settlements outside it. In doing so, it risks overlooking villages which perform well against the Council’s own settlement evidence and which can accommodate proportionate growth in a highly sustainable way. St Nicholas is a clear example of that. The earlier Barratt David Wilson Homes representations made this point and it remains equally relevant now: the strategy should not be read as favouring rail-served locations to the exclusion of settlements with strong bus accessibility and established local services.
This is important because the Council’s own evidence does not justify such a narrow interpretation of sustainable transport. The BP5 methodology was adapted specifically to better appreciate the role and function of settlements in the Vale, including their relationship to key services and facilities. In other words, the Council has already recognised in its evidence base that sustainability in the Vale cannot sensibly be reduced to rail access alone.
St Nicholas benefits from strong bus connectivity and a strategic relationship to Cardiff and other settlements. Supporting population growth in proximity to regular bus services can itself help reinforce the viability of those routes. Para 3.45 of PPW states the following in respect of relationships beyond the Council’s administrative area:
“The evidence to identify suitable areas and sites for development should not be confined by local authority boundaries. It should reflect realities like housing markets, travel to work areas, retail catchments and the nature of activity or development itself.” (emphasis added)
Cardiff is by far the greatest attractor in terms of commuting destination, as shown in the below Census data for the Vale of Glamorgan:
St Nicholas is 16 minutes from Cardiff via bus. Not all people will want to live in towns (as recognised by the Council in their response to the draft NDF). The Spatial Option is depicted on Page 28 of the Spatial Options Background Paper (June 2023). This fails to show St Nicholas as a settlement with frequent bus connectivity despite it being served by excellent bus service provision.
Future Wales supports development which aligns with the South East Wales Metro which includes bus infrastructure and services as well as the rail network. The Deposit Plan’s focus on settlements with railway stations ignores settlements with bus service provision such as St Nicholas where travel via bus is an attractive, sustainable and convenient option for residents. For example, the travel time on bus to Cardiff from St Nicholas is 15 minutes, whereas the travel time from Rhoose to Cardiff via train is over double the time at 36 minutes.
Settlements such as St Nicholas will require additional growth over the coming years in order to contribute to their vibrancy and support existing services and facilities such as the local school and bus service. That remains a legitimate and important planning point. Future Wales, as summarised in the Deposit Plan, requires local authorities to maximise opportunities arising from public transport investment and to plan for growth that supports sustainable connectivity more generally, not simply around rail stations.
There is therefore a soundness issue here. The Council’s own evidence and national policy context support a strategy that captures sustainable bus-connected settlements as well as rail-served settlements. St Nicholas should be expressly recognised as one of those locations. If the Council is seeking to direct development to places “best served by public transport connectivity and [which] offer a good range of services and facilities”, then it should ensure that this is applied consistently to settlements such as St Nicholas rather than in a way that, in practice, privileges only a narrow subset of locations.
For that reason, Policy SP1 should be amended to make clearer that sustainable settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area, where there is good bus connectivity, local facilities and a clear functional relationship with wider employment and service centres, are capable of accommodating proportionate growth. That change would make the strategy more aligned with the evidence base and would support a more robust and resilient pattern of housing delivery.
Policy SP2 – Settlement Hierarchy Position: Object
Barratt Redrow objects to Policy SP2 in its current form.
The Council’s own evidence shows that St Nicholas performs strongly as a Minor Rural Settlement. It scored 39 points and ranked 5th out of 21 Minor Rural Settlements within the Settlement Appraisal Background Paper. It is one of the few settlements in this tier with a school in the village and that its strategic position and public transport accessibility lend support to it being treated as a sustainable settlement capable of accommodating further growth.
That broader conclusion is reinforced by the Deposit Plan itself. Paragraph 6.16 expressly identifies St Nicholas as one of the smaller rural settlements which contains a primary school serving a wider catchment area. The Plan goes on to recognise that, due to the functional links between rural settlements, it is essential to ensure that existing services and facilities are safeguarded, supported or enhanced where appropriate. Those are helpful and important acknowledgements.
However, notwithstanding that evidence, the policy framework remains highly restrictive. The Deposit Plan states that, in Minor Rural Settlements, general market housing will be limited to infill and conversion opportunities within the settlement boundary, whilst any more meaningful growth outside the Strategic Growth Area is essentially restricted to small scale affordable housing-led schemes with a minimum 50% affordable housing requirement. In our view that is too blunt an approach and is not justified by the evidence.
The reason this matters is because the Council’s own historic and current evidence points in the opposite direction. BP5 explains that the adopted LDP provided for moderate growth in Minor Rural Settlements to help meet local housing need and support existing local services. The adopted LDP Written Statement similarly states that minor rural settlements such as St Nicholas play an important role in underpinning sustainable rural communities and that there is a need for some moderate growth in these settlements. The earlier strategy therefore recognised that such locations could accommodate growth without undermining their character or function. The successful development of by Redrow of Cae Newydd, St Nicholas provides an example of how new residential development can successfully integrate into a Minor Rural Settlement.
In our view the current Deposit strategy has moved too far away from that balanced position. The Plan now acknowledges the sustainability credentials of St Nicholas but does not allow those credentials to translate into an appropriate development role. That disconnect between the evidence and the policy response is one of the main reasons why the Plan, as drafted, is not sound.
Accordingly, Policy SP2 should be amended. At the very least, it should be recast so that settlements such as St Nicholas are not treated as locations where only very limited growth can occur. A more proportionate and evidence-led approach would be to allow moderate mixed-tenure growth in the more sustainable Minor Rural Settlements, where this is supported by site-specific evidence and good placemaking. That would better reflect both the Council’s own settlement appraisal and the adopted LDP approach that preceded it. As drafted, the Plan expects a great deal from a very limited rural supply offer. It seeks to secure a minimum 50% affordable housing provision on qualifying sites, requires the mix of homes to respond to latest evidence, including specialist and older persons’ needs, and recognises the need for both affordable and market housing to support mixed communities in rural areas. The Plan also acknowledges the functional role of Minor Rural Settlements such as St Nicholas and the importance of supporting local services within them. In our view, those objectives are unlikely to be achieved through the very limited number of affordable housing-led allocations currently proposed. Additional sites in the more sustainable Minor Rural Settlements are therefore required if the Plan is to deliver what it seeks in a realistic, deliverable and sustainable manner.
Policy SP6 – Housing Requirement Position: Object
Barratt Redrow objects to Policy SP6.
Whilst we support the Council’s intention to plan positively for housing growth through an up-to-date RLDP, the proposed housing requirement of 7,890 dwellings is not considered sufficiently ambitious and, in our view, is no longer justified by the most up-to-date evidence. The Deposit Plan identifies a requirement of 7,890 dwellings, equating to 526 dwellings per annum, with provision for 8,660 homes once the 10% flexibility allowance is applied. That requirement remains rooted in the RLDP’s dwelling-led scenario, which the LHMA explains was derived from average completions over a 10-year period. In our view, that is too conservative an approach in present circumstances.
PPW and the Development Plans Manual is clear on this point. PPW sets out the following requirements for local authorities when setting a housing requirement at paragraph 4.2.6:
“The latest Welsh Government local authority level Household Projections for Wales, alongside the latest Local Housing Market Assessment (LHMA) and the Well-being plan for a plan area, will form a fundamental part of the evidence base for development plans. These should be considered together with other key evidence in relation to issues such as what the plan is seeking to achieve, links between homes and jobs, the need for affordable housing, Welsh language considerations and the deliverability of the plan, in order to identify an appropriate strategy for the delivery of housing in the plan area. Appropriate consideration must also begiven to the wider social, economic, environmental and cultural factors in a plan area in order to ensure the creation of sustainable places and cohesive communities.”
The Deposit Plan housing requirement is based on past delivery rates and does not take account of the above policy requirements. Whilst past build rates can be used as a benchmark for comparison, it is not appropriate for this to be used to set the future growth of the Authority Area. The Development Plans Manual states the following in this respect:
“5.55 Extrapolating forward past take-up rates for both jobs and homes over various time periods gives a factual representation of what has been delivered in the past. This approach can provide a useful benchmark against which to compare future employment and household growth, assuming previous conditions remained constant. However, this may have been constrained by contextual influences applicable at a previous point in time, for example global economic markets, or have led to undesirable outcomes which should not be repeated, such as a mismatch between the number of homes and jobs.
5.56 It will be important to understand the relationship between the past and the future direction of the plan, including such contextual circumstances. If there are/were limitations that hindered the ability to deliver growth previously, then until mechanisms are in place to address such matters this could have a bearing on future growth levels. Understanding the context within which delivery was/can be achieved will be important, particularly when considering a housing trajectory as this could influence the speed and increase delivery rates, or conversely result in a delivery cap until such matters are resolved.
5.57 Just relying on past build rates as the sole evidence base to quantify future employment and housing land requirements is not sufficient on its own. Additional evidence will be required to identify the scale of new jobs and homes necessary and the related land requirement.”
Contextual factors that mean utilising past build rates in setting future housing growth is inappropriate include:
• Utilising past build rates incorporates recession-based trends. This includes supressed build rates following the 2008 recession and more recently, reduced housing completions as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and the current cost of living crisis;
• Does not actively seek to address the area’s ageing demographic;
• Does not reflect or take account of the Vale of Glamorgan’s position within a Growth Area within Future Wales;
• Does not seek to leverage any of the investment into the region through the CCR City Deal;
• Conflicts with the Deposit Plan’s ambition in terms of Homes For All and the Economy – in that there has been no recent job growth in the Vale of Glamorgan delivered under the current LDP and there is a shortage of housing and affordable housing. Applying the same build rate over the RLDP plan period would compound these issues; and
• During the period considered, many people were prevented from forming new households due to a lack of mortgage finance, lower employment levels and reduced rates of housing completions. There is a considerable body of evidence to show that household formation will return to long term trends if housing is made available. Research by the former National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU)4 found that cohorts who are less able to access home ownership earlier in their housing career due to “boom” or “recession” factors impacting on affordability are nevertheless able to “catch-up” later on – 80% of the gap at the age of 30 is “caught-up” by the age of 40. This finding supports the resumption of long-term household formation trends.
In short, just relying on past build rates as the sole evidence base to quantify future housing land requirements is not sufficient on its own, and that additional evidence is required to identify the scale of new homes necessary, with alternative scenarios considered rather than simply extrapolating previous delivery trends. That is directly relevant here. A housing requirement derived too closely from historic completion rates risks baking in past under-delivery rather than planning positively for future need.
That concern is reinforced by the updated Welsh Government evidence published after the RLDP’s preferred growth scenario was formulated. The latest 2025-based estimates of additional housing need identify newly arising need in Wales of between 7,800 and 9,300 additional homes per annum over the first five years, with a central estimate of around 8,700 homes per annum, alongside a separate estimate of existing unmet need of 9,400 homes. Whilst those are national figures and do not automatically translate into a single local housing target, they plainly point towards a materially higher level of need than has previously been assumed and strengthen the case for local planning authorities, particularly in growth areas, to revisit conservative housing requirements.
The updated 2022-based household projections point in the same direction. Welsh Government’s latest figures show that the number of households in Wales is projected to increase by 7.2% between mid-2022 and mid-2032, and that the Vale of Glamorgan is projected to experience one of the largest percentage increases in Wales, at 11.7%. The same release notes that the Vale is also amongst the authorities expected to experience some of the strongest private household population growth. In short, the latest demographic evidence does not support a low-growth or “business as usual” response for the Vale. It points the other way.
This sits uncomfortably with the Council’s own housing evidence. The Deposit Plan records that the Vale has the highest affordability ratio in Wales and a significant need for affordable homes. It further records that the LHMA identifies affordable housing need averaging 461 dwellings per annum over 15 years using the principal projections, rising to 502 dwellings per annum under the RLDP projection figures. The Deposit Plan also acknowledges that only a proportion of new households will require affordable housing because others will meet their needs through the market. That is important, because it underlines the need for both affordable and open market housing, and therefore for a higher overall housing requirement than the Plan currently proposes.
The Deposit Plan principally seeks to address issues of affordability through a blanket 50% affordable housing requirement on sites other than the Key Sites. Whilst we fully support the Council in looking to address issues of affordability, we consider that an increase in the housing requirement and subsequent increase in housing supply (both open market and affordable) should be pursued.
There is a broader strategic point as well. The Vale sits within the wider Cardiff housing market and the Deposit Plan itself recognises the strong migration relationship with Cardiff and the role that strategic collaboration should play in considering housing growth. Against that background, and having regard to the updated Welsh Government evidence, the present requirement of 7,890 dwellings does not appear sufficiently ambitious for a National Growth Area authority with strong migration inflows, severe affordability pressures and one of the highest projected household growth rates in Wales. In our view, the Plan should test a higher housing requirement through examination.
A higher growth rate, such as the PG-5Y scenario or higher should be adopted to better align housing and job growth and redress socio economic trends. The likelihood of this of level of growth occurring is even greater in the context of the ambition and funding available to support the City Deal. However, in seeking to deliver the economic vision for the area, it is important to ensure that economic growth is not constrained by a lack of land (for either housing or employment).
Whilst this is higher than past build rates, it should be noted that build rates are closely related to the availability of deliverable sites; therefore, the allocation of sufficient housing land in the RLDP would go a long way to increasing delivery. Current delivery rates have been supressed by wider socio economic trends and reliance within the existing LDP on large strategic sites (i.e. Barry Waterfront). Basing the RLDP Growth Option on past delivery would therefore result in an increase in the number of suppressed households. There is no rationale or justification to set future housing need by reference solely to past delivery rates.
The key point for soundness is therefore a simple one. The Development Plans Manual requires a housing requirement to be grounded in a broad evidence base and not simply in past completion trends. The latest demographic and housing need evidence now available points towards stronger growth pressure than that reflected in Policy SP6. In those circumstances, retaining the current requirement without revisiting it would not, in our view, be consistent with the Development Plans Manual or with a genuinely evidence-led plan-making exercise.
The Council’s own evidence supports the use of a 4% household-to-dwelling conversion factor. The LHMA states that the RLDP preferred growth scenario assumes growth of 7,586 households, which equates to 7,890 dwellings once vacancy rates are applied, effectively applying a 4% uplift in practice. That approach is also consistent with the adopted Vale of Glamorgan LDP, which expressly applied a
1.04 household-to-dwelling conversion ratio in deriving part of its housing requirement. In those circumstances, and absent any robust local evidence justifying a different factor, it is entirely appropriate to apply the Development Plans Manual baseline uplift of 4% to any updated household-led requirement. On that basis, a requirement of 9,623 households would convert to 10,008 dwellings, which is around 26.8% above the 7,890 dwellings currently sought under Policy SP6 and further underlines that the Deposit RLDP is not sufficiently ambitious in housing terms.Accordingly, Policy SP6 should be amended to provide for a higher housing requirement. The precise figure is ultimately a matter for examination, but the current requirement is too low, too closely tied to past build rates, and insufficiently responsive to updated Welsh Government projections and housing need evidence. A higher requirement would also require a broader and more resilient supply portfolio, which in turn strengthens the case for additional deliverable sites in sustainable settlements such as St Nicholas.
Policy SP6 – Flexibility, housing land supply and trajectory Position: Object
Barratt Redrow also objects to the level of flexibility embedded within Policy SP6 and raises concern regarding the resilience of the housing land supply and the robustness of the housing trajectory.
The Development Plans Manual is clear that housing supply is the housing requirement plus a flexibility allowance. It further states that it will be extremely rare for all sites identified in a plan to come forward within the timescales anticipated, and that a development plan will not be effective if it cannot accommodate changing circumstances. For that reason, a flexibility allowance must be embedded into the plan. Whilst the Manual says that 10% may be a starting point, it also makes clear that the level of flexibility is for each authority to determine based on local issues and that any chosen level must be robustly evidenced.
In our view, a 10% flexibility allowance is not sufficient in the context of this Plan. The Deposit Plan’s housing provision of 8,660 dwellings is made up of 3,837 dwellings from the existing land supply, 3,520 dwellings on allocated sites and 1,303 dwellings from windfalls. The Council’s housing land supply paper then shows that the allocation component itself includes 959 dwellings on rolled-forward LDP sites, 2,278 dwellings on key housing allocations, 122 dwellings on affordable housing-led sites and 161 dwellings on other allocations. That is a relatively exposed and finely balanced supply portfolio.
The resilience issue is due to a substantial element of the supply depends on a relatively small number of key sites, a significant rolled-forward component, and a large windfall assumption. The Development Plans Manual states that rolled-forward allocations require careful justification, that there must be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate such sites can be delivered and justify being included again, and that clear evidence will be required that those sites can be delivered. That is a demanding test, as it should be. In our view, the Plan’s reliance on rolled-forward sites and key sites means that a modest flexibility allowance of 10% does not provide a sufficient margin of safety.
The housing trajectory also warrants closer scrutiny. The Development Plans Manual describes the housing trajectory as the key mechanism for demonstrating how all sites will be delivered in the identified timescales throughout the whole plan period. It states that lead-in times for larger sites, inter-relationships between sites, constraints, infrastructure timing and assumptions for both large and small windfalls must all be taken into account. It also requires trajectories to provide a steady flow of sites through the plan period and not to be unduly loaded towards the end of the period.
Against that benchmark, there is a legitimate question over whether the RLDP trajectory is sufficiently robust. The Council’s own housing land supply paper records stakeholder concerns that the trajectory shows a significant step change in delivery above previous rates, that there is too great a reliance on key sites, and that the assumed timescales for pre-application work, application determination and discharge of conditions are too short. The consultation summary specifically records concern that delivery rises from around 400 to 500 dwellings per annum in the early monitored years to around 1,000 dwellings per annum by 2027/28, and that this represents a marked and pronounced step change. Those are not peripheral issues; they go directly to the credibility and resilience of the trajectory.
The same background paper also confirms that over 25% of the Plan’s total provision is attributed to key sites. Again, that does not make the Plan unsound in itself, but it does mean the trajectory and flexibility allowance need to be particularly robust. In our view, the current Plan does not yet demonstrate that level of resilience. The delivery assumptions may prove achievable, but the point for examination is that they require close scrutiny and should not simply be accepted at face value, particularly when the Development Plans Manual emphasises realism, flexibility and steady delivery through the full plan period.
There is also a concern about the windfall component. The Council’s evidence assumes delivery of 1,303 dwellings from large and small windfall developments over the lifetime of the plan. The Development Plans Manual accepts that windfalls can form part of supply, but it also requires the assumptions behind them to be evidenced and scrutinised. Here, the windfall figure is material, not marginal. That is another reason why the resilience of the identified allocation portfolio matters so much. Where a plan is relying on rolled-forward sites, key sites and substantial windfalls all at once, there is a stronger case for a higher flexibility allowance and for a broader pool of deliverable sites.
In our view, the sounder approach would be to increase the flexibility allowance from 10% to 15% and broaden the supply base through the inclusion of additional sustainable and deliverable sites. That would better reflect the Development Plans Manual’s requirement for plans to remain effective in the face of delay and changing circumstances, and it would reduce the risk of the RLDP becoming over-dependent on a narrow set of sites and optimistic delivery assumptions. It would also be entirely consistent with wider Welsh plan-making practice, where flexibility allowances above 10% have been accepted where local circumstances justify it. By way of example, Flintshire’s adopted LDP applies a flexibility allowance of over 13%, while Bridgend’s recently adopted RLDP provides for a 14% flexibility allowance following examination. Against that background, and having regard to the Vale RLDP’s reliance on key sites, rolled-forward allocations, a substantial windfall component and a stepped housing trajectory, a 15% allowance is justified here as a proportionate and robust response to the particular delivery risks of this Plan.This point also links directly back to St Nicholas. If the Plan is to be made sound, it should not rely so heavily on a small number of large, longer-lead sites and on a substantial windfall allowance. It should include a broader range of deliverable sites capable of contributing earlier and more reliably to the housing trajectory. A sustainable, mixed-tenure site at St Nicholas would assist in precisely that respect by diversifying the supply portfolio and improving resilience.
Policy SP7 – Affordable Housing Provision Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the objective of delivering affordable housing and agrees that this is one of the key issues the RLDP must address. Policy SP7 is therefore supported in principle. However, the policy should be read in conjunction with a more ambitious overall housing strategy, because affordable housing delivery cannot sensibly be divorced from the wider question of total supply.
The Deposit Plan is clear that the delivery of affordable housing is a key objective of the RLDP and that the strength of the Vale’s housing market has resulted in many local people experiencing difficulties in purchasing suitable housing on the open market. Barratt Redrow supports that objective in principle. The policy also correctly identifies that a mix of affordable housing will be required, with reference to the LHMA, and that this should include a range of tenures, types and sizes of homes. That said, the wording of Policy SP7 lacks sufficient clarity. In particular, the reference to the affordable housing mix being “informed” by the LHMA is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the LHMA is intended to provide a broad evidence base and starting point for negotiation, or whether the Council expects schemes to replicate that mix as a fixed requirement. In our view, the policy should be clarified so that the LHMA is expressly treated as a guiding framework rather than a prescriptive formula, with the final tenure mix, type and size of affordable provision being determined having regard to site-specific circumstances, up-to-date evidence, viability and deliverability.The LHMA is highly relevant here. It explains that affordable need is no longer confined to traditional social rented housing and that current economic conditions have squeezed many households out of both home ownership and the private rented sector, creating additional need for intermediate rent and low-cost home ownership products. It also notes that an ongoing supply of new build properties remains important to the operation of assisted home ownership products in the Vale.
That evidence is important because it confirms there is a need for both affordable and open market housing. The market sector is not separate from the affordable housing challenge; it is part of how that challenge is addressed. The LHMA also makes clear that only a proportion of new households will require affordable housing because others will meet their needs through the market. This is another reason why the overall housing requirement matters so much.
There is also a more local point relevant to St Nicholas. The LHMA identifies St Nicholas & Llancarfan as a distinct housing market area and shows need arising there across tenures. It is therefore not correct to approach St Nicholas on the basis that only one tenure or one product type is needed. The evidence points to a requirement for a broader mix.
The Deposit Plan itself supports that conclusion. It acknowledges that, in meeting Policy SP7, a range of affordable tenures, types and sizes of homes will be required. It also records that the Council will seek to secure an appropriate level and mix of affordable housing in all proposed residential developments.
In our view, the main issue with Policy SP7 is therefore not its objective, but the fact that the rest of the strategy is not sufficiently ambitious to support it. The Plan cannot identify very substantial affordable need and then pursue a relatively low overall housing requirement combined with a narrow rural growth model. A sound approach would be to increase the overall housing provision and broaden the pool of sustainable and deliverable mixed-tenure sites so that affordable housing delivery through the planning system can be maximised. St Nicholas should form part of that response.
Policy SP8 – Affordable Housing Requirements Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the principle that residential development should contribute towards affordable housing need. However, there are concerns about how Policy SP8 interacts with the rest of the strategy, especially outside the Strategic Growth Area.
The Deposit Plan confirms that, within Primary and Minor Rural Settlements, new development will generally be required to provide 40% affordable housing. It also confirms that outside delineated settlement boundaries proposals for additional housing will be strictly controlled and limited to affordable housing exception sites or housing in support of rural enterprises. The Plan then layers on the separate affordable housing-led model under Policy HG4, where a minimum of 50% affordable housing is required.
In principle, Barratt Redrow has no issue with seeking ambitious affordable housing delivery where supported by viability evidence. The concern is that the overall strategy becomes too rigid when SP8 is read alongside SP2, SP3, HG4 and other potentially onerous policy requirements, including Policy CC1. In practice, this risks leaving sustainable settlements such as St Nicholas with very little scope to contribute to general housing delivery unless schemes meet a highly demanding affordable-led model. That is not a balanced or flexible way to plan for rural communities. It also gives rise to a lack of clarity between Policies SP7 and SP8 which should be addressed. Policy SP7 states that the mix of affordable housing to be delivered over the plan period will be “informed” by the LHMA, waiting list data and the Older Persons Housing Strategy, but it is unclear whether that is intended simply as a starting point for negotiation or whether the Council expects the identified mix to be applied more prescriptively. By contrast, Policy SP8 expressly provides greater flexibility: it states that affordable housing will be negotiated on a site-by-site basis having regard to evidenced viability, that the exact mix of affordable housing will be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the Council’s latest needs evidence, and that where proven economic circumstances affect delivery the Council may negotiate the level, type, tenure and nature of provision. In our view, those two policies should be aligned. That would better reflect Planning Policy Wales, which requires planning authorities to develop evidence-based market and affordable housing policies, but also makes clear that affordable housing targets and policy expectations must take account of deliverability and viability considerations. In that context, Policy SP7 should be clarified so that the LHMA and related evidence are expressly treated as guiding the starting point for discussions on mix, rather than imposing a fixed outcome irrespective of site-specific circumstances, technical constraints, abnormal costs or viability. That is especially important given the Deposit Plan’s blanket affordable housing percentages across the Vale and the cumulative effect of other policy requirements, which may affect the deliverability of particular allocations and should therefore be capable of being addressed on a site-by-site basis.The Deposit Plan recognises that an appropriate mix of affordable housing will be required, and that in the rural Vale there is a desire for smaller market homes as well as affordable homes. It also accepts that affordable housing delivery may be lower than anticipated because of viability constraints and that, where proven economic circumstances affect delivery, the Council may negotiate the level, type, tenure and nature of provision. This should feed through into a more flexible strategy overall. In particular, the Plan should not be read or applied in a way that suppresses the delivery of mixed-tenure schemes in sustainable rural settlements where those schemes can contribute both market and affordable housing and support local services. That is especially so given the evidence in the LHMA that a range of tenures is required and that intermediate and low-cost home ownership products are an increasingly important part of the housing response.
8. Policy HG1 / Housing Allocations and overall supply portfolio Position: Comment / Object in part
Barratt Redrow does not object in principle to the Council allocating key sites and other strategic locations. However, there remains a significant concern that the Plan is overly reliant on a relatively narrow supply portfolio.
The Deposit Plan confirms that the allocation component of supply comprises 2,278 dwellings on key sites, 959 dwellings on rolled forward sites, 161 dwellings on new housing allocations and 122 dwellings on affordable housing-led sites. It also confirms that 1,303 dwellings are expected from windfalls. That means a large proportion of the Plan’s supply is tied up either in a small number of large sites, historic carry-over, or a substantial assumption about unallocated windfall delivery.
Our earlier Preferred Strategy reps raised exactly this issue and those points should all be carried forward. In particular:
• the Plan is overly reliant on a small number of key sites;
• medium-sized sites in sustainable locations can provide resilience to the housing trajectory;
• windfalls account for a significant proportion of the supply and provide less certainty over geographical distribution and delivery; and
• rolled forward allocations require careful justification if they are to be relied upon as part of the plan’s effective provision.
The Deposit Plan’s own figures support that concern. It states that only a small proportion of development is likely to take place outside of the Strategic Growth Area, with some of this reflecting permissions granted under the adopted strategy. It also shows that the total housing provision attributable to Minor Rural Settlements and Primary Settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area is only 390 dwellings. In our view that is too low, particularly given the evidence that some of those settlements perform relatively well and can help diversify the supply portfolio.
Based on the revised RLDP Delivery Agreement, should there be no further slippage the RLDP will be adopted in September 2027 with there being some 7 years before the end of the plan period (of 2034) post-adoption. There may of course be some slippage in the adoption of the RLDP. We therefore would query whether the quantum of homes proposed on the larger Key Sites can realistically be delivered within the plan period.
The following conclusions of Lichfield’s Start to Finish (2nd Edition, Feb 2020) research are relevant in this respect:
• From the date at which an outline application is validated, the average figures can be 5.0-8.4 years for the first home to be delivered.
• If a scheme of more than 500 dwellings has an outline permission, then on average it delivers its first home in circa 3 years.
• The average build out rate of sites between 500-999 dwellings is 68 homes per annum and 107 homes per annum for sites between 1,000 and 1,499 dwellings.
All of the Key Sites have no outline application having been submitted. Given the revocation of TAN 1 and Welsh Government’s emphasis on a plan led system, the very earliest that the Key Sites could have outline permission in place would be post-adoption of the plan limiting its housing land supply contribution within the early years of the plan period. Allowing for an appropriate amount of time to secure necessary permissions, consents and infrastructure delivery, the Key Sites’ contribution to housing supply within the plan period would fall significantly below the quantum currently assumed in the Preferred Strategy. In that context, it is all the more important that sustainable and deliverable medium-sized sites are included in the Plan where appropriate. Again, St Nicholas is an obvious example.
In short, the issue is not that key sites should not exist. It is that the current portfolio is not broad enough and not resilient enough. The Plan should be strengthened through the inclusion of additional medium-sized, sustainable allocations capable of delivery within the plan period.
Policy HG4 – Rural Affordable Housing Led Sites Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the principle of identifying rural affordable housing-led sites. It is entirely appropriate that the RLDP seeks to respond to local housing need in rural communities and to secure affordable provision in settlements where opportunities may otherwise be more limited.
However, Policy HG4 also illustrates the broader weakness in the Plan’s current rural strategy. The Deposit Plan allocates four affordable housing-led sites at Colwinston, Aberthin, Wick and Fferm Goch, totalling 122 dwellings. It also requires applicants to demonstrate how both the market and affordable housing on those sites will meet local housing needs in terms of tenure, type and size, so that a range of housing is delivered to meet different groups in the community. The supporting text then expressly notes that Planning Policy Wales requires a sufficient number of sites suitable for the full range of housing types, and that in the rural Vale there is demand for smaller market homes as well as affordable homes.
Those are important statements and, in our view, they assist the case being made here. They show that the Council itself accepts that rural settlements need a range and choice of homes, not just affordable housing in isolation. They also show that some open market housing in rural locations is not only acceptable, but in fact part of how mixed communities and affordable delivery are achieved.
The problem is that the strategy remains too narrow in how it applies that logic. The Plan effectively says that outside the Strategic Growth Area, growth should generally be confined to affordable-led schemes with a minimum 50% affordable requirement, and anything below that will not be supported. In our view that is too rigid and may well suppress otherwise sustainable and beneficial development, particularly where sites are capable of delivering a strong policy-compliant affordable contribution but not necessarily the precise affordable-led model the Council has chosen.
We continue to raise concerns that a blanket 50% affordable requirement could create deliverability issues, including reliance on complex developer/RSL arrangements and a level of uncertainty around funding and market conditions. Without repeating every operational point, the central planning concern remains valid: the strategy should not be so rigid that it prevents settlements from growing and adapting in a sustainable way. This is especially the case given the ever more challenging delivery context set by increasingly onerous policy requirements.
St Nicholas is relevant here because it demonstrates the missed opportunity in the current approach. The village is expressly identified by the Council as one of the smaller rural settlements with a primary school serving a wider catchment area. It performs well in the settlement appraisal and is the sort of place where a sensitive mixed-tenure allocation could help support local services, provide both market and affordable housing, and diversify the Plan’s supply. In our view, the omission of St Nicholas from the rural housing strategy is not justified by the evidence currently before the Council.
Policy CC1 – Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development Position: Object
Barratt Redrow supports the wider objective of improving the energy performance of new homes and reducing carbon emissions from development. However, Policy CC1 in its current form gives rise to a number of concerns regarding consistency with national standards, deliverability, viability and practical implementation. The Deposit Plan is explicit that Policy CC1 is intended to require new dwellings to exceed current Building Regulations standards. Welsh Government’s own sustainable buildings guidance confirms that Building Regulations set mandatory standards for the design and construction of buildings, including environmental performance. In our view, that raises a legitimate question as to whether an additional local policy layer of this kind is necessary or proportionate, particularly where it risks inconsistency across local planning authorities and may duplicate, or move ahead of, the national regulatory framework.
There is also a need for greater precision in the policy wording itself. As drafted, Policy CC1 requires development to provide on-site renewable electricity generation equivalent to at least the annual energy consumption of the development, assessed through an energy performance model. The supporting text explains that the relevant metric is Energy Use Intensity, which measures all energy consumed by the building. If the policy approach is to be progressed, the policy should make clear that compliance relates only to regulated energy use, consistent with Building Regulations methodology. Developers can influence the performance of the building fabric and regulated building services, but they cannot control future occupant behaviour, appliance use, plug loads or other forms of unregulated energy demand. Without that clarification, there is a risk that the policy extends beyond matters that can reasonably and consistently be secured through the planning process.
A further issue is that the policy should expressly allow its requirements to fall away, or be treated as satisfied, where national Building Regulations subsequently catch up with or exceed the standards sought under Policy CC1, or where the national regime adopts a different but equivalent methodology. Without such a safeguard, there is a real risk that the RLDP imposes outdated or duplicative requirements later in the plan period, which would not only create unnecessary complexity but could also compromise the delivery of much-needed housing. That concern is heightened by the cumulative policy burden elsewhere in the Plan, including affordable housing, open space, placemaking, green infrastructure and other low carbon requirements. In our view, the Council should therefore demonstrate, through its viability work, that the housing allocations in Policy HG1 are capable of absorbing the cumulative costs of Policy CC1 alongside the wider requirements of the RLDP.
Clarification is also required in relation to the fallback Project Zero Fund contribution. The Deposit Plan states that where it is not technically feasible to provide a policy-compliant level of renewable energy on site, the residual energy is to be offset through an appropriate contribution to the Council’s Project Zero Fund “as far as economic viability allows”, with further detail to be provided in SPG. In our view, that is presently too uncertain. The policy should make clear how any such contribution will be calculated, what assumptions will be used, what evidence will be required, and how viability will be taken into account. These are all matters which go directly to deliverability and should not be left entirely to post-adoption guidance.
In summary, Building Regulations are sufficient to achieve Welsh Government’s objectives for improving energy efficiency and delivering net-zero carbon development. Additional local policy requirements risk creating inconsistency across Local Planning Authorities and may exceed what is necessary to align with national policy. If a local approach is to be taken, as a minimum, Policy CC1 should be amended so that: (i) it applies only to regulated energy use; (ii) its requirements fall away, or are deemed satisfied, where Building Regulations subsequently meet or exceed them or adopt an alternative national methodology; and (iii) the policy and supporting text provide a clearer framework for viability, Project Zero contributions and practical implementation.
Policy CI1 – Open Space Provision
Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the objective of ensuring that new development makes appropriate provision for open space and recreation. That is entirely consistent with good placemaking and with national policy support for healthy, inclusive and green environments. However, Policy CI1 as drafted is overly prescriptive and, in our view, requires amendment to provide greater flexibility and to better reflect local context and design-led principles.
The main concern is the way in which the policy translates the Fields in Trust benchmarks into a rigid per-dwelling requirement of 62.2 sq m per dwelling. The Deposit Plan itself recognises, at paragraph 6.233, that on-site provision should be design led rather than standards led, and that the type of provision should respond to local context and identified local need having regard to the Open Space Background Paper. That is an important and sensible acknowledgement. In our view, however, the policy wording pulls in the opposite direction by setting out what reads in practice as a uniform quantitative requirement. Fields in Trust guidance is ordinarily framed around population and typologies, to be applied strategically and flexibly, rather than as a blanket per-dwelling metric irrespective of scheme context, form and composition. A rigid application of the standard risks disproportionate land take, unnecessary design constraints and, ultimately, pressure on viability and delivery.
There is also concern regarding the separate requirement for an Open Space Strategy for all housing and commercial developments meeting the thresholds. In many cases, the provision of open space within a development will already be addressed through the Design and Access Statement, Green Infrastructure Statement and the overall layout and placemaking rationale of the scheme. We would therefore question whether a standalone Open Space Strategy is necessary in every case. In our view, the policy should be amended so that open space can be addressed through the principal design and green infrastructure material submitted with the application, unless there is a particular site-specific reason why a separate strategy is required. That would avoid unnecessary duplication without weakening the quality of assessment.
Change sought: amend Policy CI1 and supporting text to make clear that the benchmark standards are to be applied flexibly and strategically, having regard to site context, typology and local need, and that open space provision may be addressed through the Design and Access Statement and/or Green Infrastructure material rather than requiring a standalone Open Space Strategy in every case.
Policy SP4 – Placemaking
Position: Support in principle / Comment
Barratt Redrow supports Policy SP4 in principle. The emphasis on placemaking is fully consistent with Planning Policy Wales and with the Deposit Plan’s wider design-led approach to development. The policy framework rightly seeks to ensure that major development is shaped by the placemaking principles from the outset.
That said, the wording of the policy should better reflect the position already set out in the supporting text. Paragraph 6.34 of the Deposit Plan makes clear that the required Placemaking Statement should form part of the Design and Access Statement for most major planning applications. That is helpful and sensible. In our view, the policy itself should say the same thing expressly, so that there is no suggestion that applicants are expected to prepare a separate freestanding document in addition to the DAS.
Suggested wording amendment:
“Major development proposals must be supported by a Placemaking Statement, to be incorporated within the Design and Access Statement where one is required, demonstrating clearly how the proposal accords with the placemaking principles of the Plan.”
That amendment would improve clarity, avoid duplication and align the policy wording with paragraph
6.34 of the supporting text.
Policy SP5 – Creating Healthy and Inclusive Places and Spaces Position: Support in principle / Comment in part
Barratt Redrow supports the objective of creating healthy and inclusive places and spaces and agrees that health and well-being are legitimate and important planning considerations. The wider thrust of Policy SP5 is consistent with PPW’s placemaking agenda and with the Deposit Plan’s recognition that the built environment can have a significant influence on health outcomes.
However, there is a need to ensure that the assessment requirements under Policy SP5 are proportionate and do not create unnecessary cost and duplication. The policy requires all qualifying major development to undertake screening at pre-application stage and, for significant developments, a rapid Health Impact Assessment. The supporting text explains that a rapid HIA may involve literature review, stakeholder engagement and wider evidence gathering. In our view, whilst that may be appropriate for larger or more complex schemes, the policy should recognise more clearly that the health implications of development will often already be addressed through the Design and Access Statement, Placemaking Statement, Green Infrastructure material, Transport Assessment and related application documents. There is a risk that the current wording adds a further procedural burden, with associated cost implications, without always adding materially new value.
We therefore consider that the policy should be applied proportionately, with the checklist and any rapid HIA focused on developments where there is a realistic prospect of significant or complex health implications, rather than as a routine additional requirement in every qualifying case. The policy would also benefit from clarification that the conclusions of the screening/HIA can be incorporated into the main design and supporting statements submitted with the application, rather than requiring standalone reporting unless specifically justified by the scale or sensitivity of the proposal.
Change sought: amend Policy SP5 and/or its supporting text to confirm that health assessment requirements will be applied proportionately, and that the outcomes of the checklist or rapid HIA may be integrated within other application documents, including the Design and Access Statement, Placemaking Statement and Green Infrastructure material, unless a standalone report is specifically justified.
Policy CC2 – Presumption Against Demolition Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the broad objective of encouraging the repair, refurbishment, re-use and re-purposing of existing buildings where that represents the most sustainable outcome. The policy’s underlying intent, to avoid unnecessary loss of embodied carbon and encourage circular economy principles, is understood.
Nevertheless, Policy CC2 as drafted is overly onerous and risks giving rise to unintended consequences for deliverability. The policy establishes a strong presumption against demolition and requires extensive justification through either a Demolition Statement or an Energy Report / Whole Life Carbon Assessment. Whilst that may be appropriate in certain cases, a blanket presumption of this kind risks frustrating otherwise sustainable redevelopment proposals, including proposals involving poor quality farm buildings, obsolete structures, and buildings that are not well suited to modern standards of layout, accessibility, thermal performance or efficient land use. In some cases, insisting on retention or retrofit may not represent the most sustainable outcome overall.
There is also a tension with the wider objective of making the most effective and efficient use of land. Some buildings may be technically capable of retention, but only at disproportionate cost, with compromised design outcomes or reduced site efficiency. On previously developed or rural redevelopment sites alike, that could affect development timescales, viability and ultimately the ability to bring forward policy-compliant schemes. The policy does contain some flexibility through criteria 3 and 4, which recognise that a lower net carbon solution may in some circumstances arise from demolition and redevelopment. However, in our view, the overall wording still leans too heavily towards a presumption against demolition rather than a balanced assessment of the most sustainable whole-life outcome in each case.
The policy would therefore benefit from a more balanced formulation which supports retention and reuse where appropriate, but does not create a disproportionate barrier to demolition where redevelopment would deliver a better placemaking, operational carbon, viability or land-use outcome. That is particularly important in relation to sites containing redundant agricultural or rural buildings, and sites where retrofit would be impractical, inefficient or environmentally sub-optimal.
Change sought: amend Policy CC2 so that it supports the retention and re-use of existing buildings where feasible and sustainable, but allows demolition where this would deliver a more effective overall development outcome having regard to whole-life carbon, operational performance, design quality, viability, land efficiency and deliverability.
Land at St Nicholas / omission from the Deposit Plan Position: Object to omission
Barratt Redrow objects to the omission of land at St Nicholas from the Deposit Plan.
The case for St Nicholas is, in our view, strong and is rooted in the Council’s own evidence base. As already noted, the settlement performs strongly in the BP5 appraisal, the adopted LDP and current review both identify the role of minor rural settlements in supporting sustainable communities, and both the adopted LDP and the current Deposit Plan recognise the specific significance of St Nicholas as a village with a primary school serving a wider catchment area.
Deposit Plan Conclusion
Overall, Barratt Redrow is supportive of the Council’s continued work in preparing the RLDP and supports the objective of putting in place a robust, plan-led framework for growth in the Vale of Glamorgan. However, the Plan in its current form is not sufficiently ambitious and requires modification in order to be sound.
In particular:
• The Plan Period is too short. An extended plan period (and associated increase in housing requirement) is required to provide for at least ten years post adoption;
• the housing requirement under Policy SP6 is too low and is too closely tied to past build rates;
• the 10% flexibility allowance is not sufficient given the structure and risk profile of the supply;
• the Plan relies too heavily on key sites, rolled forward sites and windfalls;
• the strategy for settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area is too restrictive and does not properly reflect the evidence on bus-connected, serviceable and functionally linked settlements; and
• the omission of St Nicholas is not justified by the Council’s own evidence base.
The evidence before the Council supports a stronger role for St Nicholas. The adopted LDP and current BP5 review both recognise the role of Minor Rural Settlements in supporting sustainable rural communities and providing for moderate growth. The Deposit Plan itself acknowledges St Nicholas’ role as a settlement with a primary school serving a wider catchment area. The LHMA demonstrates that there is a need for a range of housing products and tenures, and the Deposit Plan itself accepts that rural areas require both affordable and market housing to meet local needs.
For those reasons, Barratt Redrow seeks amendments to Policies SP1, SP2, SP6, SP7, SP8 and HG4, together with a more flexible and resilient housing strategy overall, and the inclusion of land at St Nicholas as an appropriate and deliverable source of mixed-tenure housing growth within the RLDP period.
Candidate Site Register - Site ID 486
Land to the south of the A48 at St Nicholas (Site ID 486) is being promoted by Barratt Redrow for a residential-led development.
Stage 2 Candidate Site Assessment
The Council’s Stage 2 Candidate Site Assessment states:
“The development would have an adverse impact on the character and setting of the St Nicholas Conservation Area and would also be considered to represent an unacceptable intrusion in to the open countryside. Predictive Agricultural Land Classification Map indicates that the site is Grade 3a agricultural land loss of this land would be contrary to national policy.”
The key issues raised are all capable of being overcome as part of the ongoing promotion of the site, as set out below:
Impact upon Character and Setting of the St Nicholas Conservation Area
Wessex Archaeology have prepared a Heritage Appraisal in support of the site’s development. This concludes that future development within the site would unlikely cause harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets if the development is in keeping with the surrounding built character.
The impact upon the character and setting of the St Nicholas Conservation Area is considered acceptable and the site is considered to be the best option to accommodate the growth of St Nicholas in a sensitive manner, particularly with regard to the following:
• The Site is located outside of the Conservation Area whereas other fields outside the settlement boundary (e.g. to the south of The Manor House) are within the Conservation Area;
• The Conservation Area covers the majority of St Nicholas and most options for the village’s growth would be within its setting;
• PPW Para. 6.5.22 advises that proposals should be tested against a Conservation Area Appraisal where they are available. The St Nicholas Conservation Area Appraisal does not identify any features or important characteristics on the candidate site; and
• The proposals for the site are being developed so that they are sensitively designed, in keeping with the surrounding built character and retain important landscape features and views beyond the site.
Countryside Impacts
The Urbanists have undertaken a Landscape and Visual Appraisal in support of the site’s development. It concludes that the site could be developed without causing unacceptable visual impacts on key receptors, the landscape character and types within the proposed site and its surrounds, with the inclusion of appropriate green infrastructure enhancement and mitigation.
The emerging proposals have been underpinned by existing landscape features, with green infrastructure areas and landscape edges proposed within and around the site. New parkland and amenity spaces, footpaths along with a network of sustainable drainage features are incorporated with tree planting proposed throughout. It is accordingly considered that the proposals will sit well within the receiving landscape with limited impacts beyond its immediate setting.
Agricultural Land Quality
Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6 notes that agricultural land within Grades 1, 2, and 3a are considered to be the “most flexible, productive and efficient land in terms of output”. Paragraph 3.59 of PPW sets out the search sequence when considering allocating land within LDPs stating that poorer quality agricultural land should be considered ahead of higher quality land. Accordingly, whilst the site comprises Grade 3a agricultural land quality based on the currently available survey data, it comprises the poorest quality of other options for growth around St Nicholas. There is an overriding need for housing growth as part of the preparation of the RLDP and the allocation of the site would accord with the search sequence set out in PPW.
As the proposals for the site develop further, there is scope to include allotments/community growing areas and open space areas allowing much of the very good quality soils to be retained. The soils that are retained on site in the open spaces and gardens will still be able to provide various ecosystem functions, particularly in the support of biodiversity, and water and carbon storage.
Appendix 2 – Summary of Assessment
We comment on the Council’s Summary of Assessment as follows:
• Developer Interest: should be amended from red to green. The site is under single positive control by Barratt Redrow who have a track record of successfully developing residential-led sites within the Vale of Glamorgan.
• Historic Environment: should be amended from red to green. The site and proposal’s potential impact upon the historic environment is outlined within the candidate site submission and earlier within these representations as being acceptable.
• Special Landscape Area and Glamorgan Heritage Coast Designations: should be amended from red to green. The Urbanists have undertaken a Landscape and Visual Appraisal in support of the site’s development. It concludes that the site could be developed without causing unacceptable visual impacts on these designations.
• Environmental & Physical Constraints Conclusions: should be amended from red to green. The site is not subject to any environmental or physical constraints which cannot be accommodated through the sensitive design approach adopted by Barrat Redrow.
• Access/proximity to services and facilities conclusions: should be amended from amber to green. The Transport Appraisal which formed part of the candidate site submission evidences the site’s accessibility and proximity to services and facilities.
• Connectivity and Capacity: should be amended from red to green. The candidate site submission demonstrates the site’s capacity for the quantum of development proposed and its connectivity to the settlement and other key locations in the Vale of Glamorgan via sustainable transport modes.
• Climate Change: should be amended from red to green. The site is in a sustainable location, with a number of local facilities including a bus stop, a school, health and wellbeing facilities all within a short walk from the site as well as the retail facilities situated within acceptable cycling distances site and highly accessible by public transport. Overall, the accessible location of the development will mean that there is a reduced need for private car journeys, in turn reducing overall pollution. The development will be supported by a Travel Plan in favour of sustainable modes of travel. Moreover, the dwellings will be built to Part L 2025 which means the new homes will produce reduced levels of CO2.
• Placemaking Character and Place: should be amended from red to green. The proposals comply with the National Sustainable Placemaking Outcomes, as set out within the Appraisal which formed part of the candidate site submission.
• Suitable for Further Consideration: should be amended from red to green for the reasons set out below and within the candidate site submission.
Suitability for Allocation and Key Benefits
For the sake of brevity, we do not intend to repeat the considerable and detailed content of the Candidate Site Submission here. The previously submitted information however contained substantial information to support the allocation of the site as well as a detailed sustainability and connectivity appraisal undertaken in accordance with PPW.
In summary, the submission demonstrated that the site is suitable for allocation within the Council’s RLDP and its inclusion would help contribute to the overall soundness of the emerging Plan. The proposed site fully accords with National Sustainable Placemaking Outcomes and Sustainable Transport Hierarchy set out in PPW and the site is considered to be deliverable and viable.
The proposed development of the site would deliver the following key benefits:
• Delivering a range and choice of housing (including a proportion of affordable housing) in a sustainable location on a deliverable site which can contribute towards the resilience of the RLDP’s housing trajectory and the effectiveness of the Plan;
• The proposals would support the vibrancy of St Nicholas with the site being closely related to the settlement and capable of integrating effectively with the settlement to the benefit of existing and proposed residents;
• The provision of multi-functional open space – including amenity space for residents, play spaces, potential for local growing spaces, nature walks, sustainable drainage and wildlife habitats to achieve biodiversity enhancements;
• Encouraging and supporting active travel with cleaner, greener travel choices and reduced out commuting being located close to public transport provision;
• Good quality open spaces with significant biodiversity benefits (delivering a biodiversity enhancement), surface water resilience and efficient energy, water and communications infrastructure;
• Economic benefits – including that the proposed development is expected to:
o Support the employment of 434 people;
o Create circa £1,687,420 in additional tax, including £158,124 in council tax revenue for the Vale of Glamorgan Council.
It is accordingly concluded that allocation of the site would contribute to the soundness of the RLDP and would accord with the well-being goals specified in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.
Barratt Redrow, Highlight Planning and the project team are keen to work collaboratively with the Council and other parties to demonstrate the suitability of the land for development and its identification as an allocation in the RLDP.
I trust the above representations assist in the Council’s preparation of the RLDP. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss the above matters with the Council if that would be helpful. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Increase the overall housing provision and broaden the pool of sustainable and deliverable mixed-tenure sites.

Introduction
These representations are provided on behalf of Barratt Redrow in respect of the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s consultation on the Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) Deposit Plan and Candidate Site Register. They should be read in conjunction with the enclosed completed Comments Forms.
Barratt Redrow are promoting land at St Nicholas (Site ID 486) for a residential-led development of up to 140 modern, energy efficient homes, 40% of which are currently proposed to be affordable.
Barratt Redrow is generally supportive of the Council’s work in preparing the RLDP. The preparation of an up-to-date development plan for the Vale is plainly important and the Council is to be supported in progressing the RLDP through to Deposit stage. The principle of a plan-led strategy, rooted in settlement evidence, affordable housing need and sustainable transport objectives, is endorsed. That is particularly important in the current plan-led Welsh planning context.
That said, in its current form the Deposit RLDP is not sufficiently ambitious and, in our view, requires a number of important changes in order to ensure soundness. The key concerns relate to the overall housing requirement, the level of flexibility built into the strategy, the degree of reliance placed on key sites, windfalls and rolled forward supply, the unduly restrictive approach taken to sustainable settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area and the introduction of onerous policies that when considered together could impact deliverability. Those issues are especially relevant to St Nicholas, which the Council’s own evidence identifies as one of the better performing Minor Rural Settlements and one which has an established role in supporting a sustainable rural community.
The Council’s own evidence base supports a stronger role for St Nicholas than the Deposit Plan currently allows. It demonstrates that proportionate growth in settlements such as St Nicholas is not a departure from the Council’s established strategy; it is consistent with it. The Deposit RLDP should be amended so that it better reflects both national policy and the Council’s own evidence, and in particular so that sustainable and deliverable opportunities such as St Nicholas are able to make an appropriate contribution to meeting the Vale’s housing needs.
The remainder of these representations address the specific policies of the Deposit Plan.
Deposit Plan Plan Period Position: Object
Based on the Development Plans Manual, when a plan is adopted, there should be at least 10 years of the plan period remaining.
On the Council’s current timetable, adoption is only anticipated for August/September 2027, and those post-Deposit stages are expressly identified in the Delivery Agreement as indicative, because they depend on external factors including the number of representations received and the examination process. The Deposit Plan runs only to 2036. That means that, even if the Council hits its best-case programme and adopts in September 2027, the Plan would have only about 8 years and 3 months left to run. That is already below the DPM expectation of at least 10 years remaining at adoption. Any slippage would make that position worse.
Based on the current timetable, an end date of 2038 (with associated increase in housing requirement) would therefore ensure a sound plan.
Policy SP1 – Sustainable Growth Strategy Position: Comment / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the broad objective of pursuing a sustainable growth strategy and agrees that growth should be directed towards the most sustainable locations. The emphasis on public transport connectivity, access to services and the need to align housing growth with wider regional aspirations is supported in principle. The Deposit Plan’s summary of Future Wales correctly notes that the Vale lies within the Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys National Growth Area and that Local Development Plans should recognise this area as the focus for strategic economic and housing growth, services and facilities, and transport infrastructure. The Plan also correctly highlights Future Wales’ wider outcomes, including vibrant rural places with access to homes, jobs and services.
Our concern is that the strategy as drafted is not sufficiently nuanced and, in practice, it places too much weight on the Strategic Growth Areas and not enough weight on sustainable settlements outside it. In doing so, it risks overlooking villages which perform well against the Council’s own settlement evidence and which can accommodate proportionate growth in a highly sustainable way. St Nicholas is a clear example of that. The earlier Barratt David Wilson Homes representations made this point and it remains equally relevant now: the strategy should not be read as favouring rail-served locations to the exclusion of settlements with strong bus accessibility and established local services.
This is important because the Council’s own evidence does not justify such a narrow interpretation of sustainable transport. The BP5 methodology was adapted specifically to better appreciate the role and function of settlements in the Vale, including their relationship to key services and facilities. In other words, the Council has already recognised in its evidence base that sustainability in the Vale cannot sensibly be reduced to rail access alone.
St Nicholas benefits from strong bus connectivity and a strategic relationship to Cardiff and other settlements. Supporting population growth in proximity to regular bus services can itself help reinforce the viability of those routes. Para 3.45 of PPW states the following in respect of relationships beyond the Council’s administrative area:
“The evidence to identify suitable areas and sites for development should not be confined by local authority boundaries. It should reflect realities like housing markets, travel to work areas, retail catchments and the nature of activity or development itself.” (emphasis added)
Cardiff is by far the greatest attractor in terms of commuting destination, as shown in the below Census data for the Vale of Glamorgan:
St Nicholas is 16 minutes from Cardiff via bus. Not all people will want to live in towns (as recognised by the Council in their response to the draft NDF). The Spatial Option is depicted on Page 28 of the Spatial Options Background Paper (June 2023). This fails to show St Nicholas as a settlement with frequent bus connectivity despite it being served by excellent bus service provision.
Future Wales supports development which aligns with the South East Wales Metro which includes bus infrastructure and services as well as the rail network. The Deposit Plan’s focus on settlements with railway stations ignores settlements with bus service provision such as St Nicholas where travel via bus is an attractive, sustainable and convenient option for residents. For example, the travel time on bus to Cardiff from St Nicholas is 15 minutes, whereas the travel time from Rhoose to Cardiff via train is over double the time at 36 minutes.
Settlements such as St Nicholas will require additional growth over the coming years in order to contribute to their vibrancy and support existing services and facilities such as the local school and bus service. That remains a legitimate and important planning point. Future Wales, as summarised in the Deposit Plan, requires local authorities to maximise opportunities arising from public transport investment and to plan for growth that supports sustainable connectivity more generally, not simply around rail stations.
There is therefore a soundness issue here. The Council’s own evidence and national policy context support a strategy that captures sustainable bus-connected settlements as well as rail-served settlements. St Nicholas should be expressly recognised as one of those locations. If the Council is seeking to direct development to places “best served by public transport connectivity and [which] offer a good range of services and facilities”, then it should ensure that this is applied consistently to settlements such as St Nicholas rather than in a way that, in practice, privileges only a narrow subset of locations.
For that reason, Policy SP1 should be amended to make clearer that sustainable settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area, where there is good bus connectivity, local facilities and a clear functional relationship with wider employment and service centres, are capable of accommodating proportionate growth. That change would make the strategy more aligned with the evidence base and would support a more robust and resilient pattern of housing delivery.
Policy SP2 – Settlement Hierarchy Position: Object
Barratt Redrow objects to Policy SP2 in its current form.
The Council’s own evidence shows that St Nicholas performs strongly as a Minor Rural Settlement. It scored 39 points and ranked 5th out of 21 Minor Rural Settlements within the Settlement Appraisal Background Paper. It is one of the few settlements in this tier with a school in the village and that its strategic position and public transport accessibility lend support to it being treated as a sustainable settlement capable of accommodating further growth.
That broader conclusion is reinforced by the Deposit Plan itself. Paragraph 6.16 expressly identifies St Nicholas as one of the smaller rural settlements which contains a primary school serving a wider catchment area. The Plan goes on to recognise that, due to the functional links between rural settlements, it is essential to ensure that existing services and facilities are safeguarded, supported or enhanced where appropriate. Those are helpful and important acknowledgements.
However, notwithstanding that evidence, the policy framework remains highly restrictive. The Deposit Plan states that, in Minor Rural Settlements, general market housing will be limited to infill and conversion opportunities within the settlement boundary, whilst any more meaningful growth outside the Strategic Growth Area is essentially restricted to small scale affordable housing-led schemes with a minimum 50% affordable housing requirement. In our view that is too blunt an approach and is not justified by the evidence.
The reason this matters is because the Council’s own historic and current evidence points in the opposite direction. BP5 explains that the adopted LDP provided for moderate growth in Minor Rural Settlements to help meet local housing need and support existing local services. The adopted LDP Written Statement similarly states that minor rural settlements such as St Nicholas play an important role in underpinning sustainable rural communities and that there is a need for some moderate growth in these settlements. The earlier strategy therefore recognised that such locations could accommodate growth without undermining their character or function. The successful development of by Redrow of Cae Newydd, St Nicholas provides an example of how new residential development can successfully integrate into a Minor Rural Settlement.
In our view the current Deposit strategy has moved too far away from that balanced position. The Plan now acknowledges the sustainability credentials of St Nicholas but does not allow those credentials to translate into an appropriate development role. That disconnect between the evidence and the policy response is one of the main reasons why the Plan, as drafted, is not sound.
Accordingly, Policy SP2 should be amended. At the very least, it should be recast so that settlements such as St Nicholas are not treated as locations where only very limited growth can occur. A more proportionate and evidence-led approach would be to allow moderate mixed-tenure growth in the more sustainable Minor Rural Settlements, where this is supported by site-specific evidence and good placemaking. That would better reflect both the Council’s own settlement appraisal and the adopted LDP approach that preceded it. As drafted, the Plan expects a great deal from a very limited rural supply offer. It seeks to secure a minimum 50% affordable housing provision on qualifying sites, requires the mix of homes to respond to latest evidence, including specialist and older persons’ needs, and recognises the need for both affordable and market housing to support mixed communities in rural areas. The Plan also acknowledges the functional role of Minor Rural Settlements such as St Nicholas and the importance of supporting local services within them. In our view, those objectives are unlikely to be achieved through the very limited number of affordable housing-led allocations currently proposed. Additional sites in the more sustainable Minor Rural Settlements are therefore required if the Plan is to deliver what it seeks in a realistic, deliverable and sustainable manner.
Policy SP6 – Housing Requirement Position: Object
Barratt Redrow objects to Policy SP6.
Whilst we support the Council’s intention to plan positively for housing growth through an up-to-date RLDP, the proposed housing requirement of 7,890 dwellings is not considered sufficiently ambitious and, in our view, is no longer justified by the most up-to-date evidence. The Deposit Plan identifies a requirement of 7,890 dwellings, equating to 526 dwellings per annum, with provision for 8,660 homes once the 10% flexibility allowance is applied. That requirement remains rooted in the RLDP’s dwelling-led scenario, which the LHMA explains was derived from average completions over a 10-year period. In our view, that is too conservative an approach in present circumstances.
PPW and the Development Plans Manual is clear on this point. PPW sets out the following requirements for local authorities when setting a housing requirement at paragraph 4.2.6:
“The latest Welsh Government local authority level Household Projections for Wales, alongside the latest Local Housing Market Assessment (LHMA) and the Well-being plan for a plan area, will form a fundamental part of the evidence base for development plans. These should be considered together with other key evidence in relation to issues such as what the plan is seeking to achieve, links between homes and jobs, the need for affordable housing, Welsh language considerations and the deliverability of the plan, in order to identify an appropriate strategy for the delivery of housing in the plan area. Appropriate consideration must also begiven to the wider social, economic, environmental and cultural factors in a plan area in order to ensure the creation of sustainable places and cohesive communities.”
The Deposit Plan housing requirement is based on past delivery rates and does not take account of the above policy requirements. Whilst past build rates can be used as a benchmark for comparison, it is not appropriate for this to be used to set the future growth of the Authority Area. The Development Plans Manual states the following in this respect:
“5.55 Extrapolating forward past take-up rates for both jobs and homes over various time periods gives a factual representation of what has been delivered in the past. This approach can provide a useful benchmark against which to compare future employment and household growth, assuming previous conditions remained constant. However, this may have been constrained by contextual influences applicable at a previous point in time, for example global economic markets, or have led to undesirable outcomes which should not be repeated, such as a mismatch between the number of homes and jobs.
5.56 It will be important to understand the relationship between the past and the future direction of the plan, including such contextual circumstances. If there are/were limitations that hindered the ability to deliver growth previously, then until mechanisms are in place to address such matters this could have a bearing on future growth levels. Understanding the context within which delivery was/can be achieved will be important, particularly when considering a housing trajectory as this could influence the speed and increase delivery rates, or conversely result in a delivery cap until such matters are resolved.
5.57 Just relying on past build rates as the sole evidence base to quantify future employment and housing land requirements is not sufficient on its own. Additional evidence will be required to identify the scale of new jobs and homes necessary and the related land requirement.”
Contextual factors that mean utilising past build rates in setting future housing growth is inappropriate include:
• Utilising past build rates incorporates recession-based trends. This includes supressed build rates following the 2008 recession and more recently, reduced housing completions as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and the current cost of living crisis;
• Does not actively seek to address the area’s ageing demographic;
• Does not reflect or take account of the Vale of Glamorgan’s position within a Growth Area within Future Wales;
• Does not seek to leverage any of the investment into the region through the CCR City Deal;
• Conflicts with the Deposit Plan’s ambition in terms of Homes For All and the Economy – in that there has been no recent job growth in the Vale of Glamorgan delivered under the current LDP and there is a shortage of housing and affordable housing. Applying the same build rate over the RLDP plan period would compound these issues; and
• During the period considered, many people were prevented from forming new households due to a lack of mortgage finance, lower employment levels and reduced rates of housing completions. There is a considerable body of evidence to show that household formation will return to long term trends if housing is made available. Research by the former National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU)4 found that cohorts who are less able to access home ownership earlier in their housing career due to “boom” or “recession” factors impacting on affordability are nevertheless able to “catch-up” later on – 80% of the gap at the age of 30 is “caught-up” by the age of 40. This finding supports the resumption of long-term household formation trends.
In short, just relying on past build rates as the sole evidence base to quantify future housing land requirements is not sufficient on its own, and that additional evidence is required to identify the scale of new homes necessary, with alternative scenarios considered rather than simply extrapolating previous delivery trends. That is directly relevant here. A housing requirement derived too closely from historic completion rates risks baking in past under-delivery rather than planning positively for future need.
That concern is reinforced by the updated Welsh Government evidence published after the RLDP’s preferred growth scenario was formulated. The latest 2025-based estimates of additional housing need identify newly arising need in Wales of between 7,800 and 9,300 additional homes per annum over the first five years, with a central estimate of around 8,700 homes per annum, alongside a separate estimate of existing unmet need of 9,400 homes. Whilst those are national figures and do not automatically translate into a single local housing target, they plainly point towards a materially higher level of need than has previously been assumed and strengthen the case for local planning authorities, particularly in growth areas, to revisit conservative housing requirements.
The updated 2022-based household projections point in the same direction. Welsh Government’s latest figures show that the number of households in Wales is projected to increase by 7.2% between mid-2022 and mid-2032, and that the Vale of Glamorgan is projected to experience one of the largest percentage increases in Wales, at 11.7%. The same release notes that the Vale is also amongst the authorities expected to experience some of the strongest private household population growth. In short, the latest demographic evidence does not support a low-growth or “business as usual” response for the Vale. It points the other way.
This sits uncomfortably with the Council’s own housing evidence. The Deposit Plan records that the Vale has the highest affordability ratio in Wales and a significant need for affordable homes. It further records that the LHMA identifies affordable housing need averaging 461 dwellings per annum over 15 years using the principal projections, rising to 502 dwellings per annum under the RLDP projection figures. The Deposit Plan also acknowledges that only a proportion of new households will require affordable housing because others will meet their needs through the market. That is important, because it underlines the need for both affordable and open market housing, and therefore for a higher overall housing requirement than the Plan currently proposes.
The Deposit Plan principally seeks to address issues of affordability through a blanket 50% affordable housing requirement on sites other than the Key Sites. Whilst we fully support the Council in looking to address issues of affordability, we consider that an increase in the housing requirement and subsequent increase in housing supply (both open market and affordable) should be pursued.
There is a broader strategic point as well. The Vale sits within the wider Cardiff housing market and the Deposit Plan itself recognises the strong migration relationship with Cardiff and the role that strategic collaboration should play in considering housing growth. Against that background, and having regard to the updated Welsh Government evidence, the present requirement of 7,890 dwellings does not appear sufficiently ambitious for a National Growth Area authority with strong migration inflows, severe affordability pressures and one of the highest projected household growth rates in Wales. In our view, the Plan should test a higher housing requirement through examination.
A higher growth rate, such as the PG-5Y scenario or higher should be adopted to better align housing and job growth and redress socio economic trends. The likelihood of this of level of growth occurring is even greater in the context of the ambition and funding available to support the City Deal. However, in seeking to deliver the economic vision for the area, it is important to ensure that economic growth is not constrained by a lack of land (for either housing or employment).
Whilst this is higher than past build rates, it should be noted that build rates are closely related to the availability of deliverable sites; therefore, the allocation of sufficient housing land in the RLDP would go a long way to increasing delivery. Current delivery rates have been supressed by wider socio economic trends and reliance within the existing LDP on large strategic sites (i.e. Barry Waterfront). Basing the RLDP Growth Option on past delivery would therefore result in an increase in the number of suppressed households. There is no rationale or justification to set future housing need by reference solely to past delivery rates.
The key point for soundness is therefore a simple one. The Development Plans Manual requires a housing requirement to be grounded in a broad evidence base and not simply in past completion trends. The latest demographic and housing need evidence now available points towards stronger growth pressure than that reflected in Policy SP6. In those circumstances, retaining the current requirement without revisiting it would not, in our view, be consistent with the Development Plans Manual or with a genuinely evidence-led plan-making exercise.
The Council’s own evidence supports the use of a 4% household-to-dwelling conversion factor. The LHMA states that the RLDP preferred growth scenario assumes growth of 7,586 households, which equates to 7,890 dwellings once vacancy rates are applied, effectively applying a 4% uplift in practice. That approach is also consistent with the adopted Vale of Glamorgan LDP, which expressly applied a
1.04 household-to-dwelling conversion ratio in deriving part of its housing requirement. In those circumstances, and absent any robust local evidence justifying a different factor, it is entirely appropriate to apply the Development Plans Manual baseline uplift of 4% to any updated household-led requirement. On that basis, a requirement of 9,623 households would convert to 10,008 dwellings, which is around 26.8% above the 7,890 dwellings currently sought under Policy SP6 and further underlines that the Deposit RLDP is not sufficiently ambitious in housing terms.Accordingly, Policy SP6 should be amended to provide for a higher housing requirement. The precise figure is ultimately a matter for examination, but the current requirement is too low, too closely tied to past build rates, and insufficiently responsive to updated Welsh Government projections and housing need evidence. A higher requirement would also require a broader and more resilient supply portfolio, which in turn strengthens the case for additional deliverable sites in sustainable settlements such as St Nicholas.
Policy SP6 – Flexibility, housing land supply and trajectory Position: Object
Barratt Redrow also objects to the level of flexibility embedded within Policy SP6 and raises concern regarding the resilience of the housing land supply and the robustness of the housing trajectory.
The Development Plans Manual is clear that housing supply is the housing requirement plus a flexibility allowance. It further states that it will be extremely rare for all sites identified in a plan to come forward within the timescales anticipated, and that a development plan will not be effective if it cannot accommodate changing circumstances. For that reason, a flexibility allowance must be embedded into the plan. Whilst the Manual says that 10% may be a starting point, it also makes clear that the level of flexibility is for each authority to determine based on local issues and that any chosen level must be robustly evidenced.
In our view, a 10% flexibility allowance is not sufficient in the context of this Plan. The Deposit Plan’s housing provision of 8,660 dwellings is made up of 3,837 dwellings from the existing land supply, 3,520 dwellings on allocated sites and 1,303 dwellings from windfalls. The Council’s housing land supply paper then shows that the allocation component itself includes 959 dwellings on rolled-forward LDP sites, 2,278 dwellings on key housing allocations, 122 dwellings on affordable housing-led sites and 161 dwellings on other allocations. That is a relatively exposed and finely balanced supply portfolio.
The resilience issue is due to a substantial element of the supply depends on a relatively small number of key sites, a significant rolled-forward component, and a large windfall assumption. The Development Plans Manual states that rolled-forward allocations require careful justification, that there must be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate such sites can be delivered and justify being included again, and that clear evidence will be required that those sites can be delivered. That is a demanding test, as it should be. In our view, the Plan’s reliance on rolled-forward sites and key sites means that a modest flexibility allowance of 10% does not provide a sufficient margin of safety.
The housing trajectory also warrants closer scrutiny. The Development Plans Manual describes the housing trajectory as the key mechanism for demonstrating how all sites will be delivered in the identified timescales throughout the whole plan period. It states that lead-in times for larger sites, inter-relationships between sites, constraints, infrastructure timing and assumptions for both large and small windfalls must all be taken into account. It also requires trajectories to provide a steady flow of sites through the plan period and not to be unduly loaded towards the end of the period.
Against that benchmark, there is a legitimate question over whether the RLDP trajectory is sufficiently robust. The Council’s own housing land supply paper records stakeholder concerns that the trajectory shows a significant step change in delivery above previous rates, that there is too great a reliance on key sites, and that the assumed timescales for pre-application work, application determination and discharge of conditions are too short. The consultation summary specifically records concern that delivery rises from around 400 to 500 dwellings per annum in the early monitored years to around 1,000 dwellings per annum by 2027/28, and that this represents a marked and pronounced step change. Those are not peripheral issues; they go directly to the credibility and resilience of the trajectory.
The same background paper also confirms that over 25% of the Plan’s total provision is attributed to key sites. Again, that does not make the Plan unsound in itself, but it does mean the trajectory and flexibility allowance need to be particularly robust. In our view, the current Plan does not yet demonstrate that level of resilience. The delivery assumptions may prove achievable, but the point for examination is that they require close scrutiny and should not simply be accepted at face value, particularly when the Development Plans Manual emphasises realism, flexibility and steady delivery through the full plan period.
There is also a concern about the windfall component. The Council’s evidence assumes delivery of 1,303 dwellings from large and small windfall developments over the lifetime of the plan. The Development Plans Manual accepts that windfalls can form part of supply, but it also requires the assumptions behind them to be evidenced and scrutinised. Here, the windfall figure is material, not marginal. That is another reason why the resilience of the identified allocation portfolio matters so much. Where a plan is relying on rolled-forward sites, key sites and substantial windfalls all at once, there is a stronger case for a higher flexibility allowance and for a broader pool of deliverable sites.
In our view, the sounder approach would be to increase the flexibility allowance from 10% to 15% and broaden the supply base through the inclusion of additional sustainable and deliverable sites. That would better reflect the Development Plans Manual’s requirement for plans to remain effective in the face of delay and changing circumstances, and it would reduce the risk of the RLDP becoming over-dependent on a narrow set of sites and optimistic delivery assumptions. It would also be entirely consistent with wider Welsh plan-making practice, where flexibility allowances above 10% have been accepted where local circumstances justify it. By way of example, Flintshire’s adopted LDP applies a flexibility allowance of over 13%, while Bridgend’s recently adopted RLDP provides for a 14% flexibility allowance following examination. Against that background, and having regard to the Vale RLDP’s reliance on key sites, rolled-forward allocations, a substantial windfall component and a stepped housing trajectory, a 15% allowance is justified here as a proportionate and robust response to the particular delivery risks of this Plan.This point also links directly back to St Nicholas. If the Plan is to be made sound, it should not rely so heavily on a small number of large, longer-lead sites and on a substantial windfall allowance. It should include a broader range of deliverable sites capable of contributing earlier and more reliably to the housing trajectory. A sustainable, mixed-tenure site at St Nicholas would assist in precisely that respect by diversifying the supply portfolio and improving resilience.
Policy SP7 – Affordable Housing Provision Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the objective of delivering affordable housing and agrees that this is one of the key issues the RLDP must address. Policy SP7 is therefore supported in principle. However, the policy should be read in conjunction with a more ambitious overall housing strategy, because affordable housing delivery cannot sensibly be divorced from the wider question of total supply.
The Deposit Plan is clear that the delivery of affordable housing is a key objective of the RLDP and that the strength of the Vale’s housing market has resulted in many local people experiencing difficulties in purchasing suitable housing on the open market. Barratt Redrow supports that objective in principle. The policy also correctly identifies that a mix of affordable housing will be required, with reference to the LHMA, and that this should include a range of tenures, types and sizes of homes. That said, the wording of Policy SP7 lacks sufficient clarity. In particular, the reference to the affordable housing mix being “informed” by the LHMA is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the LHMA is intended to provide a broad evidence base and starting point for negotiation, or whether the Council expects schemes to replicate that mix as a fixed requirement. In our view, the policy should be clarified so that the LHMA is expressly treated as a guiding framework rather than a prescriptive formula, with the final tenure mix, type and size of affordable provision being determined having regard to site-specific circumstances, up-to-date evidence, viability and deliverability.The LHMA is highly relevant here. It explains that affordable need is no longer confined to traditional social rented housing and that current economic conditions have squeezed many households out of both home ownership and the private rented sector, creating additional need for intermediate rent and low-cost home ownership products. It also notes that an ongoing supply of new build properties remains important to the operation of assisted home ownership products in the Vale.
That evidence is important because it confirms there is a need for both affordable and open market housing. The market sector is not separate from the affordable housing challenge; it is part of how that challenge is addressed. The LHMA also makes clear that only a proportion of new households will require affordable housing because others will meet their needs through the market. This is another reason why the overall housing requirement matters so much.
There is also a more local point relevant to St Nicholas. The LHMA identifies St Nicholas & Llancarfan as a distinct housing market area and shows need arising there across tenures. It is therefore not correct to approach St Nicholas on the basis that only one tenure or one product type is needed. The evidence points to a requirement for a broader mix.
The Deposit Plan itself supports that conclusion. It acknowledges that, in meeting Policy SP7, a range of affordable tenures, types and sizes of homes will be required. It also records that the Council will seek to secure an appropriate level and mix of affordable housing in all proposed residential developments.
In our view, the main issue with Policy SP7 is therefore not its objective, but the fact that the rest of the strategy is not sufficiently ambitious to support it. The Plan cannot identify very substantial affordable need and then pursue a relatively low overall housing requirement combined with a narrow rural growth model. A sound approach would be to increase the overall housing provision and broaden the pool of sustainable and deliverable mixed-tenure sites so that affordable housing delivery through the planning system can be maximised. St Nicholas should form part of that response.
Policy SP8 – Affordable Housing Requirements Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the principle that residential development should contribute towards affordable housing need. However, there are concerns about how Policy SP8 interacts with the rest of the strategy, especially outside the Strategic Growth Area.
The Deposit Plan confirms that, within Primary and Minor Rural Settlements, new development will generally be required to provide 40% affordable housing. It also confirms that outside delineated settlement boundaries proposals for additional housing will be strictly controlled and limited to affordable housing exception sites or housing in support of rural enterprises. The Plan then layers on the separate affordable housing-led model under Policy HG4, where a minimum of 50% affordable housing is required.
In principle, Barratt Redrow has no issue with seeking ambitious affordable housing delivery where supported by viability evidence. The concern is that the overall strategy becomes too rigid when SP8 is read alongside SP2, SP3, HG4 and other potentially onerous policy requirements, including Policy CC1. In practice, this risks leaving sustainable settlements such as St Nicholas with very little scope to contribute to general housing delivery unless schemes meet a highly demanding affordable-led model. That is not a balanced or flexible way to plan for rural communities. It also gives rise to a lack of clarity between Policies SP7 and SP8 which should be addressed. Policy SP7 states that the mix of affordable housing to be delivered over the plan period will be “informed” by the LHMA, waiting list data and the Older Persons Housing Strategy, but it is unclear whether that is intended simply as a starting point for negotiation or whether the Council expects the identified mix to be applied more prescriptively. By contrast, Policy SP8 expressly provides greater flexibility: it states that affordable housing will be negotiated on a site-by-site basis having regard to evidenced viability, that the exact mix of affordable housing will be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the Council’s latest needs evidence, and that where proven economic circumstances affect delivery the Council may negotiate the level, type, tenure and nature of provision. In our view, those two policies should be aligned. That would better reflect Planning Policy Wales, which requires planning authorities to develop evidence-based market and affordable housing policies, but also makes clear that affordable housing targets and policy expectations must take account of deliverability and viability considerations. In that context, Policy SP7 should be clarified so that the LHMA and related evidence are expressly treated as guiding the starting point for discussions on mix, rather than imposing a fixed outcome irrespective of site-specific circumstances, technical constraints, abnormal costs or viability. That is especially important given the Deposit Plan’s blanket affordable housing percentages across the Vale and the cumulative effect of other policy requirements, which may affect the deliverability of particular allocations and should therefore be capable of being addressed on a site-by-site basis.The Deposit Plan recognises that an appropriate mix of affordable housing will be required, and that in the rural Vale there is a desire for smaller market homes as well as affordable homes. It also accepts that affordable housing delivery may be lower than anticipated because of viability constraints and that, where proven economic circumstances affect delivery, the Council may negotiate the level, type, tenure and nature of provision. This should feed through into a more flexible strategy overall. In particular, the Plan should not be read or applied in a way that suppresses the delivery of mixed-tenure schemes in sustainable rural settlements where those schemes can contribute both market and affordable housing and support local services. That is especially so given the evidence in the LHMA that a range of tenures is required and that intermediate and low-cost home ownership products are an increasingly important part of the housing response.
8. Policy HG1 / Housing Allocations and overall supply portfolio Position: Comment / Object in part
Barratt Redrow does not object in principle to the Council allocating key sites and other strategic locations. However, there remains a significant concern that the Plan is overly reliant on a relatively narrow supply portfolio.
The Deposit Plan confirms that the allocation component of supply comprises 2,278 dwellings on key sites, 959 dwellings on rolled forward sites, 161 dwellings on new housing allocations and 122 dwellings on affordable housing-led sites. It also confirms that 1,303 dwellings are expected from windfalls. That means a large proportion of the Plan’s supply is tied up either in a small number of large sites, historic carry-over, or a substantial assumption about unallocated windfall delivery.
Our earlier Preferred Strategy reps raised exactly this issue and those points should all be carried forward. In particular:
• the Plan is overly reliant on a small number of key sites;
• medium-sized sites in sustainable locations can provide resilience to the housing trajectory;
• windfalls account for a significant proportion of the supply and provide less certainty over geographical distribution and delivery; and
• rolled forward allocations require careful justification if they are to be relied upon as part of the plan’s effective provision.
The Deposit Plan’s own figures support that concern. It states that only a small proportion of development is likely to take place outside of the Strategic Growth Area, with some of this reflecting permissions granted under the adopted strategy. It also shows that the total housing provision attributable to Minor Rural Settlements and Primary Settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area is only 390 dwellings. In our view that is too low, particularly given the evidence that some of those settlements perform relatively well and can help diversify the supply portfolio.
Based on the revised RLDP Delivery Agreement, should there be no further slippage the RLDP will be adopted in September 2027 with there being some 7 years before the end of the plan period (of 2034) post-adoption. There may of course be some slippage in the adoption of the RLDP. We therefore would query whether the quantum of homes proposed on the larger Key Sites can realistically be delivered within the plan period.
The following conclusions of Lichfield’s Start to Finish (2nd Edition, Feb 2020) research are relevant in this respect:
• From the date at which an outline application is validated, the average figures can be 5.0-8.4 years for the first home to be delivered.
• If a scheme of more than 500 dwellings has an outline permission, then on average it delivers its first home in circa 3 years.
• The average build out rate of sites between 500-999 dwellings is 68 homes per annum and 107 homes per annum for sites between 1,000 and 1,499 dwellings.
All of the Key Sites have no outline application having been submitted. Given the revocation of TAN 1 and Welsh Government’s emphasis on a plan led system, the very earliest that the Key Sites could have outline permission in place would be post-adoption of the plan limiting its housing land supply contribution within the early years of the plan period. Allowing for an appropriate amount of time to secure necessary permissions, consents and infrastructure delivery, the Key Sites’ contribution to housing supply within the plan period would fall significantly below the quantum currently assumed in the Preferred Strategy. In that context, it is all the more important that sustainable and deliverable medium-sized sites are included in the Plan where appropriate. Again, St Nicholas is an obvious example.
In short, the issue is not that key sites should not exist. It is that the current portfolio is not broad enough and not resilient enough. The Plan should be strengthened through the inclusion of additional medium-sized, sustainable allocations capable of delivery within the plan period.
Policy HG4 – Rural Affordable Housing Led Sites Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the principle of identifying rural affordable housing-led sites. It is entirely appropriate that the RLDP seeks to respond to local housing need in rural communities and to secure affordable provision in settlements where opportunities may otherwise be more limited.
However, Policy HG4 also illustrates the broader weakness in the Plan’s current rural strategy. The Deposit Plan allocates four affordable housing-led sites at Colwinston, Aberthin, Wick and Fferm Goch, totalling 122 dwellings. It also requires applicants to demonstrate how both the market and affordable housing on those sites will meet local housing needs in terms of tenure, type and size, so that a range of housing is delivered to meet different groups in the community. The supporting text then expressly notes that Planning Policy Wales requires a sufficient number of sites suitable for the full range of housing types, and that in the rural Vale there is demand for smaller market homes as well as affordable homes.
Those are important statements and, in our view, they assist the case being made here. They show that the Council itself accepts that rural settlements need a range and choice of homes, not just affordable housing in isolation. They also show that some open market housing in rural locations is not only acceptable, but in fact part of how mixed communities and affordable delivery are achieved.
The problem is that the strategy remains too narrow in how it applies that logic. The Plan effectively says that outside the Strategic Growth Area, growth should generally be confined to affordable-led schemes with a minimum 50% affordable requirement, and anything below that will not be supported. In our view that is too rigid and may well suppress otherwise sustainable and beneficial development, particularly where sites are capable of delivering a strong policy-compliant affordable contribution but not necessarily the precise affordable-led model the Council has chosen.
We continue to raise concerns that a blanket 50% affordable requirement could create deliverability issues, including reliance on complex developer/RSL arrangements and a level of uncertainty around funding and market conditions. Without repeating every operational point, the central planning concern remains valid: the strategy should not be so rigid that it prevents settlements from growing and adapting in a sustainable way. This is especially the case given the ever more challenging delivery context set by increasingly onerous policy requirements.
St Nicholas is relevant here because it demonstrates the missed opportunity in the current approach. The village is expressly identified by the Council as one of the smaller rural settlements with a primary school serving a wider catchment area. It performs well in the settlement appraisal and is the sort of place where a sensitive mixed-tenure allocation could help support local services, provide both market and affordable housing, and diversify the Plan’s supply. In our view, the omission of St Nicholas from the rural housing strategy is not justified by the evidence currently before the Council.
Policy CC1 – Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development Position: Object
Barratt Redrow supports the wider objective of improving the energy performance of new homes and reducing carbon emissions from development. However, Policy CC1 in its current form gives rise to a number of concerns regarding consistency with national standards, deliverability, viability and practical implementation. The Deposit Plan is explicit that Policy CC1 is intended to require new dwellings to exceed current Building Regulations standards. Welsh Government’s own sustainable buildings guidance confirms that Building Regulations set mandatory standards for the design and construction of buildings, including environmental performance. In our view, that raises a legitimate question as to whether an additional local policy layer of this kind is necessary or proportionate, particularly where it risks inconsistency across local planning authorities and may duplicate, or move ahead of, the national regulatory framework.
There is also a need for greater precision in the policy wording itself. As drafted, Policy CC1 requires development to provide on-site renewable electricity generation equivalent to at least the annual energy consumption of the development, assessed through an energy performance model. The supporting text explains that the relevant metric is Energy Use Intensity, which measures all energy consumed by the building. If the policy approach is to be progressed, the policy should make clear that compliance relates only to regulated energy use, consistent with Building Regulations methodology. Developers can influence the performance of the building fabric and regulated building services, but they cannot control future occupant behaviour, appliance use, plug loads or other forms of unregulated energy demand. Without that clarification, there is a risk that the policy extends beyond matters that can reasonably and consistently be secured through the planning process.
A further issue is that the policy should expressly allow its requirements to fall away, or be treated as satisfied, where national Building Regulations subsequently catch up with or exceed the standards sought under Policy CC1, or where the national regime adopts a different but equivalent methodology. Without such a safeguard, there is a real risk that the RLDP imposes outdated or duplicative requirements later in the plan period, which would not only create unnecessary complexity but could also compromise the delivery of much-needed housing. That concern is heightened by the cumulative policy burden elsewhere in the Plan, including affordable housing, open space, placemaking, green infrastructure and other low carbon requirements. In our view, the Council should therefore demonstrate, through its viability work, that the housing allocations in Policy HG1 are capable of absorbing the cumulative costs of Policy CC1 alongside the wider requirements of the RLDP.
Clarification is also required in relation to the fallback Project Zero Fund contribution. The Deposit Plan states that where it is not technically feasible to provide a policy-compliant level of renewable energy on site, the residual energy is to be offset through an appropriate contribution to the Council’s Project Zero Fund “as far as economic viability allows”, with further detail to be provided in SPG. In our view, that is presently too uncertain. The policy should make clear how any such contribution will be calculated, what assumptions will be used, what evidence will be required, and how viability will be taken into account. These are all matters which go directly to deliverability and should not be left entirely to post-adoption guidance.
In summary, Building Regulations are sufficient to achieve Welsh Government’s objectives for improving energy efficiency and delivering net-zero carbon development. Additional local policy requirements risk creating inconsistency across Local Planning Authorities and may exceed what is necessary to align with national policy. If a local approach is to be taken, as a minimum, Policy CC1 should be amended so that: (i) it applies only to regulated energy use; (ii) its requirements fall away, or are deemed satisfied, where Building Regulations subsequently meet or exceed them or adopt an alternative national methodology; and (iii) the policy and supporting text provide a clearer framework for viability, Project Zero contributions and practical implementation.
Policy CI1 – Open Space Provision
Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the objective of ensuring that new development makes appropriate provision for open space and recreation. That is entirely consistent with good placemaking and with national policy support for healthy, inclusive and green environments. However, Policy CI1 as drafted is overly prescriptive and, in our view, requires amendment to provide greater flexibility and to better reflect local context and design-led principles.
The main concern is the way in which the policy translates the Fields in Trust benchmarks into a rigid per-dwelling requirement of 62.2 sq m per dwelling. The Deposit Plan itself recognises, at paragraph 6.233, that on-site provision should be design led rather than standards led, and that the type of provision should respond to local context and identified local need having regard to the Open Space Background Paper. That is an important and sensible acknowledgement. In our view, however, the policy wording pulls in the opposite direction by setting out what reads in practice as a uniform quantitative requirement. Fields in Trust guidance is ordinarily framed around population and typologies, to be applied strategically and flexibly, rather than as a blanket per-dwelling metric irrespective of scheme context, form and composition. A rigid application of the standard risks disproportionate land take, unnecessary design constraints and, ultimately, pressure on viability and delivery.
There is also concern regarding the separate requirement for an Open Space Strategy for all housing and commercial developments meeting the thresholds. In many cases, the provision of open space within a development will already be addressed through the Design and Access Statement, Green Infrastructure Statement and the overall layout and placemaking rationale of the scheme. We would therefore question whether a standalone Open Space Strategy is necessary in every case. In our view, the policy should be amended so that open space can be addressed through the principal design and green infrastructure material submitted with the application, unless there is a particular site-specific reason why a separate strategy is required. That would avoid unnecessary duplication without weakening the quality of assessment.
Change sought: amend Policy CI1 and supporting text to make clear that the benchmark standards are to be applied flexibly and strategically, having regard to site context, typology and local need, and that open space provision may be addressed through the Design and Access Statement and/or Green Infrastructure material rather than requiring a standalone Open Space Strategy in every case.
Policy SP4 – Placemaking
Position: Support in principle / Comment
Barratt Redrow supports Policy SP4 in principle. The emphasis on placemaking is fully consistent with Planning Policy Wales and with the Deposit Plan’s wider design-led approach to development. The policy framework rightly seeks to ensure that major development is shaped by the placemaking principles from the outset.
That said, the wording of the policy should better reflect the position already set out in the supporting text. Paragraph 6.34 of the Deposit Plan makes clear that the required Placemaking Statement should form part of the Design and Access Statement for most major planning applications. That is helpful and sensible. In our view, the policy itself should say the same thing expressly, so that there is no suggestion that applicants are expected to prepare a separate freestanding document in addition to the DAS.
Suggested wording amendment:
“Major development proposals must be supported by a Placemaking Statement, to be incorporated within the Design and Access Statement where one is required, demonstrating clearly how the proposal accords with the placemaking principles of the Plan.”
That amendment would improve clarity, avoid duplication and align the policy wording with paragraph
6.34 of the supporting text.
Policy SP5 – Creating Healthy and Inclusive Places and Spaces Position: Support in principle / Comment in part
Barratt Redrow supports the objective of creating healthy and inclusive places and spaces and agrees that health and well-being are legitimate and important planning considerations. The wider thrust of Policy SP5 is consistent with PPW’s placemaking agenda and with the Deposit Plan’s recognition that the built environment can have a significant influence on health outcomes.
However, there is a need to ensure that the assessment requirements under Policy SP5 are proportionate and do not create unnecessary cost and duplication. The policy requires all qualifying major development to undertake screening at pre-application stage and, for significant developments, a rapid Health Impact Assessment. The supporting text explains that a rapid HIA may involve literature review, stakeholder engagement and wider evidence gathering. In our view, whilst that may be appropriate for larger or more complex schemes, the policy should recognise more clearly that the health implications of development will often already be addressed through the Design and Access Statement, Placemaking Statement, Green Infrastructure material, Transport Assessment and related application documents. There is a risk that the current wording adds a further procedural burden, with associated cost implications, without always adding materially new value.
We therefore consider that the policy should be applied proportionately, with the checklist and any rapid HIA focused on developments where there is a realistic prospect of significant or complex health implications, rather than as a routine additional requirement in every qualifying case. The policy would also benefit from clarification that the conclusions of the screening/HIA can be incorporated into the main design and supporting statements submitted with the application, rather than requiring standalone reporting unless specifically justified by the scale or sensitivity of the proposal.
Change sought: amend Policy SP5 and/or its supporting text to confirm that health assessment requirements will be applied proportionately, and that the outcomes of the checklist or rapid HIA may be integrated within other application documents, including the Design and Access Statement, Placemaking Statement and Green Infrastructure material, unless a standalone report is specifically justified.
Policy CC2 – Presumption Against Demolition Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the broad objective of encouraging the repair, refurbishment, re-use and re-purposing of existing buildings where that represents the most sustainable outcome. The policy’s underlying intent, to avoid unnecessary loss of embodied carbon and encourage circular economy principles, is understood.
Nevertheless, Policy CC2 as drafted is overly onerous and risks giving rise to unintended consequences for deliverability. The policy establishes a strong presumption against demolition and requires extensive justification through either a Demolition Statement or an Energy Report / Whole Life Carbon Assessment. Whilst that may be appropriate in certain cases, a blanket presumption of this kind risks frustrating otherwise sustainable redevelopment proposals, including proposals involving poor quality farm buildings, obsolete structures, and buildings that are not well suited to modern standards of layout, accessibility, thermal performance or efficient land use. In some cases, insisting on retention or retrofit may not represent the most sustainable outcome overall.
There is also a tension with the wider objective of making the most effective and efficient use of land. Some buildings may be technically capable of retention, but only at disproportionate cost, with compromised design outcomes or reduced site efficiency. On previously developed or rural redevelopment sites alike, that could affect development timescales, viability and ultimately the ability to bring forward policy-compliant schemes. The policy does contain some flexibility through criteria 3 and 4, which recognise that a lower net carbon solution may in some circumstances arise from demolition and redevelopment. However, in our view, the overall wording still leans too heavily towards a presumption against demolition rather than a balanced assessment of the most sustainable whole-life outcome in each case.
The policy would therefore benefit from a more balanced formulation which supports retention and reuse where appropriate, but does not create a disproportionate barrier to demolition where redevelopment would deliver a better placemaking, operational carbon, viability or land-use outcome. That is particularly important in relation to sites containing redundant agricultural or rural buildings, and sites where retrofit would be impractical, inefficient or environmentally sub-optimal.
Change sought: amend Policy CC2 so that it supports the retention and re-use of existing buildings where feasible and sustainable, but allows demolition where this would deliver a more effective overall development outcome having regard to whole-life carbon, operational performance, design quality, viability, land efficiency and deliverability.
Land at St Nicholas / omission from the Deposit Plan Position: Object to omission
Barratt Redrow objects to the omission of land at St Nicholas from the Deposit Plan.
The case for St Nicholas is, in our view, strong and is rooted in the Council’s own evidence base. As already noted, the settlement performs strongly in the BP5 appraisal, the adopted LDP and current review both identify the role of minor rural settlements in supporting sustainable communities, and both the adopted LDP and the current Deposit Plan recognise the specific significance of St Nicholas as a village with a primary school serving a wider catchment area.
Deposit Plan Conclusion
Overall, Barratt Redrow is supportive of the Council’s continued work in preparing the RLDP and supports the objective of putting in place a robust, plan-led framework for growth in the Vale of Glamorgan. However, the Plan in its current form is not sufficiently ambitious and requires modification in order to be sound.
In particular:
• The Plan Period is too short. An extended plan period (and associated increase in housing requirement) is required to provide for at least ten years post adoption;
• the housing requirement under Policy SP6 is too low and is too closely tied to past build rates;
• the 10% flexibility allowance is not sufficient given the structure and risk profile of the supply;
• the Plan relies too heavily on key sites, rolled forward sites and windfalls;
• the strategy for settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area is too restrictive and does not properly reflect the evidence on bus-connected, serviceable and functionally linked settlements; and
• the omission of St Nicholas is not justified by the Council’s own evidence base.
The evidence before the Council supports a stronger role for St Nicholas. The adopted LDP and current BP5 review both recognise the role of Minor Rural Settlements in supporting sustainable rural communities and providing for moderate growth. The Deposit Plan itself acknowledges St Nicholas’ role as a settlement with a primary school serving a wider catchment area. The LHMA demonstrates that there is a need for a range of housing products and tenures, and the Deposit Plan itself accepts that rural areas require both affordable and market housing to meet local needs.
For those reasons, Barratt Redrow seeks amendments to Policies SP1, SP2, SP6, SP7, SP8 and HG4, together with a more flexible and resilient housing strategy overall, and the inclusion of land at St Nicholas as an appropriate and deliverable source of mixed-tenure housing growth within the RLDP period.
Candidate Site Register - Site ID 486
Land to the south of the A48 at St Nicholas (Site ID 486) is being promoted by Barratt Redrow for a residential-led development.
Stage 2 Candidate Site Assessment
The Council’s Stage 2 Candidate Site Assessment states:
“The development would have an adverse impact on the character and setting of the St Nicholas Conservation Area and would also be considered to represent an unacceptable intrusion in to the open countryside. Predictive Agricultural Land Classification Map indicates that the site is Grade 3a agricultural land loss of this land would be contrary to national policy.”
The key issues raised are all capable of being overcome as part of the ongoing promotion of the site, as set out below:
Impact upon Character and Setting of the St Nicholas Conservation Area
Wessex Archaeology have prepared a Heritage Appraisal in support of the site’s development. This concludes that future development within the site would unlikely cause harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets if the development is in keeping with the surrounding built character.
The impact upon the character and setting of the St Nicholas Conservation Area is considered acceptable and the site is considered to be the best option to accommodate the growth of St Nicholas in a sensitive manner, particularly with regard to the following:
• The Site is located outside of the Conservation Area whereas other fields outside the settlement boundary (e.g. to the south of The Manor House) are within the Conservation Area;
• The Conservation Area covers the majority of St Nicholas and most options for the village’s growth would be within its setting;
• PPW Para. 6.5.22 advises that proposals should be tested against a Conservation Area Appraisal where they are available. The St Nicholas Conservation Area Appraisal does not identify any features or important characteristics on the candidate site; and
• The proposals for the site are being developed so that they are sensitively designed, in keeping with the surrounding built character and retain important landscape features and views beyond the site.
Countryside Impacts
The Urbanists have undertaken a Landscape and Visual Appraisal in support of the site’s development. It concludes that the site could be developed without causing unacceptable visual impacts on key receptors, the landscape character and types within the proposed site and its surrounds, with the inclusion of appropriate green infrastructure enhancement and mitigation.
The emerging proposals have been underpinned by existing landscape features, with green infrastructure areas and landscape edges proposed within and around the site. New parkland and amenity spaces, footpaths along with a network of sustainable drainage features are incorporated with tree planting proposed throughout. It is accordingly considered that the proposals will sit well within the receiving landscape with limited impacts beyond its immediate setting.
Agricultural Land Quality
Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6 notes that agricultural land within Grades 1, 2, and 3a are considered to be the “most flexible, productive and efficient land in terms of output”. Paragraph 3.59 of PPW sets out the search sequence when considering allocating land within LDPs stating that poorer quality agricultural land should be considered ahead of higher quality land. Accordingly, whilst the site comprises Grade 3a agricultural land quality based on the currently available survey data, it comprises the poorest quality of other options for growth around St Nicholas. There is an overriding need for housing growth as part of the preparation of the RLDP and the allocation of the site would accord with the search sequence set out in PPW.
As the proposals for the site develop further, there is scope to include allotments/community growing areas and open space areas allowing much of the very good quality soils to be retained. The soils that are retained on site in the open spaces and gardens will still be able to provide various ecosystem functions, particularly in the support of biodiversity, and water and carbon storage.
Appendix 2 – Summary of Assessment
We comment on the Council’s Summary of Assessment as follows:
• Developer Interest: should be amended from red to green. The site is under single positive control by Barratt Redrow who have a track record of successfully developing residential-led sites within the Vale of Glamorgan.
• Historic Environment: should be amended from red to green. The site and proposal’s potential impact upon the historic environment is outlined within the candidate site submission and earlier within these representations as being acceptable.
• Special Landscape Area and Glamorgan Heritage Coast Designations: should be amended from red to green. The Urbanists have undertaken a Landscape and Visual Appraisal in support of the site’s development. It concludes that the site could be developed without causing unacceptable visual impacts on these designations.
• Environmental & Physical Constraints Conclusions: should be amended from red to green. The site is not subject to any environmental or physical constraints which cannot be accommodated through the sensitive design approach adopted by Barrat Redrow.
• Access/proximity to services and facilities conclusions: should be amended from amber to green. The Transport Appraisal which formed part of the candidate site submission evidences the site’s accessibility and proximity to services and facilities.
• Connectivity and Capacity: should be amended from red to green. The candidate site submission demonstrates the site’s capacity for the quantum of development proposed and its connectivity to the settlement and other key locations in the Vale of Glamorgan via sustainable transport modes.
• Climate Change: should be amended from red to green. The site is in a sustainable location, with a number of local facilities including a bus stop, a school, health and wellbeing facilities all within a short walk from the site as well as the retail facilities situated within acceptable cycling distances site and highly accessible by public transport. Overall, the accessible location of the development will mean that there is a reduced need for private car journeys, in turn reducing overall pollution. The development will be supported by a Travel Plan in favour of sustainable modes of travel. Moreover, the dwellings will be built to Part L 2025 which means the new homes will produce reduced levels of CO2.
• Placemaking Character and Place: should be amended from red to green. The proposals comply with the National Sustainable Placemaking Outcomes, as set out within the Appraisal which formed part of the candidate site submission.
• Suitable for Further Consideration: should be amended from red to green for the reasons set out below and within the candidate site submission.
Suitability for Allocation and Key Benefits
For the sake of brevity, we do not intend to repeat the considerable and detailed content of the Candidate Site Submission here. The previously submitted information however contained substantial information to support the allocation of the site as well as a detailed sustainability and connectivity appraisal undertaken in accordance with PPW.
In summary, the submission demonstrated that the site is suitable for allocation within the Council’s RLDP and its inclusion would help contribute to the overall soundness of the emerging Plan. The proposed site fully accords with National Sustainable Placemaking Outcomes and Sustainable Transport Hierarchy set out in PPW and the site is considered to be deliverable and viable.
The proposed development of the site would deliver the following key benefits:
• Delivering a range and choice of housing (including a proportion of affordable housing) in a sustainable location on a deliverable site which can contribute towards the resilience of the RLDP’s housing trajectory and the effectiveness of the Plan;
• The proposals would support the vibrancy of St Nicholas with the site being closely related to the settlement and capable of integrating effectively with the settlement to the benefit of existing and proposed residents;
• The provision of multi-functional open space – including amenity space for residents, play spaces, potential for local growing spaces, nature walks, sustainable drainage and wildlife habitats to achieve biodiversity enhancements;
• Encouraging and supporting active travel with cleaner, greener travel choices and reduced out commuting being located close to public transport provision;
• Good quality open spaces with significant biodiversity benefits (delivering a biodiversity enhancement), surface water resilience and efficient energy, water and communications infrastructure;
• Economic benefits – including that the proposed development is expected to:
o Support the employment of 434 people;
o Create circa £1,687,420 in additional tax, including £158,124 in council tax revenue for the Vale of Glamorgan Council.
It is accordingly concluded that allocation of the site would contribute to the soundness of the RLDP and would accord with the well-being goals specified in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.
Barratt Redrow, Highlight Planning and the project team are keen to work collaboratively with the Council and other parties to demonstrate the suitability of the land for development and its identification as an allocation in the RLDP.
I trust the above representations assist in the Council’s preparation of the RLDP. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss the above matters with the Council if that would be helpful. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Policy SP1 - Sustainable Growth Strategy
Policy SPl sets out that the plan will deliver 7,890 dwellings by 2036, including a minimum of 3,070 affordable homes. Policy SP1 also sets out that outside of the Strategic Growth Areas, the allocation of new sites will be limited to small-scale affordable housing led sites.
The number of households in VoG in mid-2021 (i.e. the start of the RLDP period) was 57,676. Based on Welsh Government's 2022-based household projections, the number of households is projected to increase to 67,299 in VoG in mid-2036 (i.e. the end of the RLDP period). This equates to a household increase of 9,623 which is 22.0% more than the 7,890 dwellings the RLDP targets in Policy SPl. In addition, the Development Plan Manual requires a conversion factor from households to dwellings with 4% being the baseline (it is acknowledged that this will vary depending on local circumstances). Taking a 4% uplift, the dwelling requirement figure would be 10,008 which is 26.8% more than the RLDP seeks to deliver in Policy SPl. The number of overall dwellings identified in Policy SPl will therefore not meet the identified household growth needs ofVoG for the RLDP period. The Council should review the position in terms of the updated household projections.
It is important to note that the above calculations are purely to meet newly arising need and do not make any allowance for existing unmet affordable housing needs or any policy aspirations. As stated in the supporting text of Sustainable Growth Strategy 4 of the RLDP (paragraph 5.23) "The Local Housing Market Assessment (LHMA) 2023 identifies a need for 1,075 affordable homes per annum over the next five years based on principal projections or 1,114 based on the RLDP projections. There is an identified backlog of need across all the sub-market areas in the Vale of Glamorgan, and the issue is acute in many communities." Policy SPl seeks to deliver only 3,070 affordable homes over the RLDP period, equating to 205 affordable dwellings per annum. This is only 18.4% of identified need per annum for the five-year period from 2023-2028 in the LHMA. The number of affordable homes identified in Policy SPl therefore falls drastically short of the identified need for affordable homes in VoG for the RLDP period.
In order for Policy SPl to achieve the third test of soundness (Will the plan deliver?), the policy must be updated to accommodate a greater level of housing delivery, that reflects the most up to date evidence. The Development Plans Manual states:
"In terms of considering the level of housing provision for a plan, the most up-to- date suite of Welsh Government Population and Household Projections are a fundamental part of the evidence base [paragraph 5.35]"
Policy SP1 as drafted sets out that the allocation of new [housing] sites will be primarily focused within the Strategic Growth Areas (SGA) identified on the Key Diagram and outside of the SGA, the allocation of sites will be limited to small-scale affordable housing led sites. The identification of St Athan as a settlement where development should be concentrated is supported.

Policy SP2 - Settlement Hierarchy
The identification of St Athan as a 'Primary Settlement' is supported. It is important that sufficient growth is directed to the Primary Settlements to reflect the opportunities presented for delivering new homes, both market and affordable.
As recognised at Paragraph 6.11 of the Deposit Plan, St Athan is a key location for employment growth and also benefits from a range of services and facilities. This is also reflected in the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (Paragraph 9.2.10), which recognises that locating new development in proximity to the Cardiff Airport and Bro Tathan Enterprise Zone will help integrate housing and employment, supporting sustainable travel and local labour markets. Future growth at St Athan will therefore support its role within the wider regional growth area, as well as existing and future transport proposals.

Policy SP4 - Placemaking
We support the recognition in Policy SP4 that successful placemaking can add social, economic, environmental and culture value to new development. Placemaking is an important part of all developments brought forward by Barratt Redrow.
The identification of high level placemaking principles in the Deposit Plan is supported, but a degree of flexibility should be applied. This is important to ensure the appropriate placemaking approach can be applied for each site / development. For example, it will not necessarily be appropriate for all developments to incorporate a 'diverse mix of uses... ' or to be developed at 'high densities... and supporting mixed uses'. Where developments are delivered on a phased basis, any mix of uses, residential densities etc may vary between each phase.
Policy SP4 also requires all major development to provide a 'Placemaking Statement'. It should be made clear in the Policy, as per Paragraph 6.34 of the Deposit Plan, that this is not expected to be a standalone statement, but will form part of a Design and Access Statement. We recommend the policy is amended as follows:
"Placemaking Statements will be required as part of Design and Access Statements for all... " Paragraph 6.33, which supports Policy SP4 should also be amended. It is not appropriate to state that development will be 'favoured' where meaningful community involvement has been demonstrated. Taking allocated sites, significant consultation will have already taken place through the LDP process,
with further engagement required at the application stage through the PAC process. The RLDP should be amended to note that consultation will be 'encouraged' or similar.

Policy PGDl - Creating Well Designed and Inclusive Places
There is a degree of crossover and repetition between Policy PGDl and Policy SP4. For clarity and brevity of the Plan, a single policy could be taken forward.

Policy PGD2 - Residential Site Densities
It is noted that the minimum density sought for sites within the Key, Service Centre and Primary Settlements is higher than that currently required by the adopted LDP. It is important that flexibility is adopted where proposed allocations in the RLDP crossover with existing LDP allocations.

This is relevant to Church Farm, St Athan, which is allocated in the adopted LDP. The Deposit Plan retains this allocation, but also proposes a further phase of development to the east (through Policy HGl KS4). A planning application is currently being prepared for the first phase of development (relating to the existing allocation), which accords with the adopted LDP requirement of 30 dph. The RLDP should recognise that flexibility will be required where sites are delivered on a phased basis, with earlier phases also being identified in the adopted LDP.

The inclusion of caveats recognising that lower residential densities can, in some cases, be acceptable is welcomed. It is important that the characteristics of each site/ surrounding context can be taken into account, along with sites constraints and other technical requirements (such as SuDS).

Policy SP6 - Housing Requirement
Policy SP6 currently includes a flexibility allowance of 10%. The provision of a flexibility allowance is supported, but it should be increased to 15%. The Development Plan Manual 3 indicates that 10% should be the starting point. This would be consistent with a number of other adopted and emerging LDPs, which have been based on allowance above the standard 10% (e.g. adopted Bridgend LDP at 14% and emerging Monmouthshire LDP at 15%). A higher figure is considered appropriate due to the low level of new allocations, the limited number of key sites allocated in the plan and the need to increase the level of required growth (as referred to in our response to Policy SPl).

The number of homes delivered through new allocations should be increased to make the Plan more ambitious and align with Future Wales and the Vale's identified role as a National Growth Area.

Policy HSI - Housing Allocations
We support the identification of Church Farm, St Athan as a 'Key Site'.

The table within Policy HG1 should be amended to make it clear that the number of units listed for each site are approximate figures, allowing a degree of flexibility.

Policy HG1 KS4 - Land at Church Farm, St Athan
Paragraph 6.96 rightly acknowledges that the allocation will be delivered on a phased basis. With the first phase (the western parcel), representing land allocated through the adopted LDP. A hybrid planning application is due to be submitted in March 2026 for this phase of development. The application proposes 232 new homes and a new Class Al foodstore - as per Paragraph 6.99 of the Deposit Plan.
Paragraph 6.102 states that there is limited capacity in West Aberthaw Waste Water Treatment Works (WwTW). It continues by stating that if the development wishes to connect in advance of the planned AMP scheme, a Developer Impact Assessment to establish the reinforcement works needed at the WwTW will be required. It should be recognised in the Deposit Plan that this applies to the wider allocation, with sufficient capacity existing for the first phase of development.
Policy HG1 KS4 should be amended to read that the site will deliver "approximately 532 homes over the plan period... ".
The policy requires the development to comply with the Placemaking Principles set out in Policy SP4. This policy has been commented on separately, but as previously noted, it is important that the phased nature of the Church Farm development is recognised when applying the placemaking principles. As a result, there may be slight differences in what is appropriate across each phase.
The policy currently requires affordable dwellings to be dispersed across the site in clusters of not more than 10. This should be amended to clusters of no more than 15 units.
Policy HG1 KS4 also sets out a number of other requirements that the development "must" comply with. We do not support the current wording and use of "must comply with". Some of the requirements listed will require further consideration during the design development of the scheme. This will be supported by detailed technical work to be prepared in support of a future planning application. The wording should be amended to reflect that the list 'requirements' will be subject to further consideration, and should not be treated as definitive.
For example, the points listed under 'Sustainable Transport and Highways' should be informed by a Transport Assessment. This is reflected in Background Paper BP44 (Infrastructure Delivery Plan), which recognises that contributions towards off-site improvements to the capacity/ flow of junctions will be determined through a site-specific Transport Assessment.
The first bullet point under Policy HGl KS4 should be amended to read:
"A proportionate contribution towards off-site improvements to the capacity and flow of junctions on the strategic highway network, if identified as being necessary by a site-specific Transport Assessment". As per Policy HGl KS4, the first phase of development at Church Farm has been developed on the basis of an access point from Gileston Road. This is as per the request from the Highway Authority. The hybrid planning application will also deliver localised road widening on Gileston Road and provision of a new active travel route.

(continued) Policy HG1 KS4 - Land at Church Farm, St Athan
The third bullet point under the 'Sustainable Transport and Highways' heading should be amended. Transport work undertaken to date has demonstrated that there is no need for a new signalised junction at Gileston Road/ B4265. The need for and nature of any work required to this junction should be determined through the planning application process, informed by a Transport Assessment. It is therefore not appropriate for the Policy to state that an upgraded signalised junction 'must' be provided. The intention is for a second access point to be provided for the second phase of development from the B4265. This is in line with the access strategy requested by the Highway Authority. The form and nature of this access point will be agreed through the planning application process, informed by a Transport Assessment.
The hybrid planning application for the first phase makes provision for a new pedestrian and vehicular access to St Athan Primary School. Whilst the developer can make provision for such a link, it will be down to the Highway Authority and Education Department to determine whether it is provided. Policy HGl KS4 should be amended to reflect that it is not within the developers gift to guarantee the link is taken up, delivered or actually 'replace' the existing access on Rock Road. At the moment is unclear what type of access could be sought (e.g. pedestrian and / or vehicular) and whether this would solely be through Phase 1 (as indicated by Figure 16).
Upgrades to existing bus infrastructure is expected to be delivery through planning obligations. Again, the nature of any improvements will be determined through the planning application process.
The Policy sets out a number of requirements relating to 'Community Infrastructure'. This includes the transfer of land to the east of St Athan Primary School and an off-site contribution towards the delivery of additional school places. No detail is provided as to the quantum ofland expected to be transferred. It is also noted that Policy CI3 states that land 'may be' required.
Whilst the principle of transferring land for the redevelopment I expansion of St Athan Primary School would be considered in principle by BWD, further information will be required to consider this request in full. As it stands, no information has been provided as to the extent ofland required. It is also important that Policy HG1 KS4 recognises that the need to provide for/ contribute towards education facilities will need to be determined at the point of any future planning application.
If a land transfer is required and agreed as part of the second phase of development at Church Farm, this must be reflected in any request for off-site contributions. Background Paper 44 (Infrastructure Delivery Plan) states that the second phase of development will require the transfer ofland, or a Section 106 contribution of £5.8 million. The basis and justification for this sum of contribution is not detailed within the Plan or supporting documents. Full details will need to be provided and considered at the planning application stage.

(continued) Policy HG1 KS4 - Land at Church Farm, St Athan
Policy HG1 KS4 also identifies the need for a contribution towards the provision and enhancement of community facilities in the area, and a contribution towards training and development for the commercial element of Phase 1. Whilst the principle of providing a community facilities contribution is accepted, evidence of need for such a contribution will be required at the planning application stage. The Policy should also be amended to recognise that training and development could either be provided a contribution or as part of the development itself.
The need to respect the setting of the listed War Memorial is reflected in the hybrid planning application due to be submitted imminently for Phase 1. The scheme has been carefully designed, with the relocation of the proposed foodstore to the northwest corner of the site, setting housing back from the B4265 and realignment of the central green corridor.
The importance of green infrastructure, recreation spaces and biodiversity is recognised and supported. Land at Church Farm offers the opportunity to deliver high-quality landscape buffers, accessible green space, integrated SuDS features and pedestrian and cycle connectivity with the village of St Athan and the wider strategic active travel route.
It is important that the Policy is not overly prescriptive about the types of green infrastructure and open spaces to be provided, which could potentially constrain the ability to deliver a design and landscape led masterplan. Instead, the policy should focus on outcome-based placemaking principles and flexibility in how these outcomes are achieved through design. It is also important that the ability to provide GI and open space across the site reflects other policy requirements, such as the delivery of SuDS.
The Deposit Plan includes an indicative plan for Church Farm at Figure 16. Whilst referred to as 'indicative', the purpose and status of this plan should be made clear in the supporting text. It should only be treated as illustrative, with the final development for Phase 1 and 2 being subject to further detailed design and technical work. For example, it is noted that within the Phase 1 development, land identified as 'Significant POS' on the plan is actually intended to accommodate the main attenuation basin. Whilst it would serve a qualitative purpose, it would not act as POS per se.

Policy SP7 - Affordable Housing Provision

The provision of a range of tenures, types and sizes of affordable homes is supported in principle. This should be assessed on a site by site basis at the application stage, with the LHMA being a starting point for discussions with the Housing Strategy Service. This flexibility will ensure that the most appropriate mix of dwellings is brought forward based on factors such as site characteristics, local context, placemaking etc.

It is also important that Policy SP7 acknowledges that affordable housing provision should also consider the evidenced viability of a development. This would be consistent with Policy SPS.

Policy SP8 - Affordable Housing Requirements

Recognition that the provision of affordable housing should be negotiated on a site by basis, considering the evidenced viability of a development, is supported. Recognition that the exact mix of affordable housing will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis is also welcomed. This is important to ensure sufficient flexibility when discussing the most appropriate mix of affordable homes at the application stage.

Policy TRI - Transport Proposals
Policy TRI states that to mitigate the impact of development on the highway network, strategic highway improvements have been identified to the Gileston Road junction in St Athan. As per our comments under Policy HG I KS4, the need, and nature of any works to the Gileston Road / B4265 junction must be informed by detailed technical work.

We can confirm that the first phase of development, which will be subject to a hybrid planning application in March 2026, has been designed to not prejudice any future improvement works to the junction (should measures be demonstrated as necessary in the future).

Policy SP12 - Retail Floorspace Provision
The identification of new convenience floorspace at Church Farm, St Athan is supported. The provision of new retail floorspace in this location will support the existing and future population of St Athan, reducing the need to travel to other settlements to serve their needs.

Policy SP13 - Community Infrastructure and Planning Obligations.
We support the recognition in Policy SP13 that any requirement for planning obligations must be appropriate and have regard for development viability.
Policy SP13 also states that the delivery of new/ improved infrastructure should be timed to meet the needs of communities prior to, or from the commencement of, relevant phases of development. It must be recognised in the policy or supporting text that the delivery / timing of some infrastructure measures will be outside the control of developers I developments. This is particularly the case where financial contributions are made and measures will be delivered by others. Flexibility should therefore be allowed for through Policy SP13.

Policy Cll - Open Space Provision
The wording of Policy Cll, and/ or the supporting text, must allow greater flexibility to be applied to the open space standards. This is essential to ensure that the spaces provided are design, rather than standards led. It is also important that the type and range of provision is reflective oflocal context/ needs. This is reflected in Paragraph 6.233 of the Deposit Plan but Policy Cll should also be amended to reference this directly.

The proposed 62.2 sq m per dwelling requirement is overly prescriptive and not aligned with FiT's methodology, which is per person and intended to be applied strategically across different open space typologies, not as a uniform per dwelling metric. FiT's approach emphasises flexibility, multifunctionality and local context, meaning that applying a rigid per dwelling standard oversimplifies the guidance and risks generating disproportionate land take and unnecessary design constraints. When combined with the wider cumulative policy requirements of the RLDP, such an approach has the potential to impact development viability and reduce delivery.
The recognition that in some instances off-site contributions will be appropriate in lieu of on-site provision is welcomed.

Policy Cll requires an 'Open Space Strategy' to be submitted for all housing developments that meet the relevant thresholds. In many instances, the provision of open space within a scheme will be addressed through a Design and Access Statement and/ or Green Infrastructure. This ensures that open space provision is considered as part of the comprehensive approach to design, landscape and biodiversity. We would question the need for a standalone strategy or statement. The Policy should be amended to reflect this.

Policy CI3 - New Community Facilities
Policy CI3 identifies the 'allocation' ofland at St Athan Primary School for new community facilities. The supporting text (Paragraph 6.245) confirms that this land is allocated for the redevelopment and expansion of the existing school site. It continues by stating that a "small area of additional land may be required required ... to facilitate the delivery of the school" as part of the Key Site allocation at Church Farm. It states that improved access "may also be necessary".

As worded, the Policy is not clear what land is allocated - whether it is actually within the Primary School and/ or adjoining land. Ifland may be required within the Church Farm development (as implied by Policy HG1 KS4), it is currently unclear what quantum ofland would be sought. Whilst the principle of transferring land for expansion of the school (as part of Church Farm Phase 2) and facilitating improved access would be considered by BDW, it is important that what is being sought is clear.

It is important that there is coordination between policies in the Plan - for example, Policy CI3 and Policy HG1 KS4. This should include an amendment to Policy HG1 KS4 that the land 'may' be required, rather than must be provided. It is also important that ifland is provided for the school expansion, or improved access is facilitated, by the development at Church Farm, this is reflected in other requirements and expectations across the Plan (e.g. in terms of design, planning obligations etc).

Policy CCI - Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development
Current Building Regulations targets are sufficient to achieve Welsh Government's objectives for improving energy efficiency and delivering net zero carbon development. Additional local policy requirements risk creating inconsistency across Local Planning Authorities and may exceed what is necessary to align with national policy.

The policy should clarify that it applies only to regulated energy use. Developers have no control over how future homeowners use their homes, and therefore unregulated energy consumption such as appliance use, occupant behaviour, and plug loads, cannot form part of compliance requirements. This is consistent with Building Regulations methodology

Alternatively, if Policy CCI is kept in the RLDP, there must be some flexibility introduced for the requirements of Policy CCI to fall away should Building Regulations catch up or exceed or require different provisions than the requirements of Policy CCI during the lifetime of the RLDP. To not provide this flexibility would mean that the ability of the RLDP to deliver the new homes in VoG needs could be compromised. Clarification is also required on how the contribution to the Council's Project Zero fund is to be calculated and whether the timeframes in Policy CCI relate to the date of planning approval.
Furthermore, the demands of Policy CCI have to be considered in the context of all of the other requirements that impact on development viability (e.g. affordable housing). The Council must provide evidence that an assessment has been undertaken to demonstrate that development, specifically the housing allocations in Policy HGI, can bear the cumulative policy costs of the RLDP, including Policy CCL

The policy wording should be amended so that the performance requirements apply based on the date of planning permission rather than the RLDP adoption date. Changes in energy performance requirements can significantly affect site layout, building orientation, and design considerations. Without this amendment, approved schemes could unnecessarily require variations via Section 73 or Non Material Amendment applications.

Policy SP1 - Sustainable Growth Strategy
Policy SPl sets out that the plan will deliver 7,890 dwellings by 2036, including a minimum of 3,070 affordable homes. Policy SP1 also sets out that outside of the Strategic Growth Areas, the allocation of new sites will be limited to small-scale affordable housing led sites.
The number of households in VoG in mid-2021 (i.e. the start of the RLDP period) was 57,676. Based on Welsh Government's 2022-based household projections, the number of households is projected to increase to 67,299 in VoG in mid-2036 (i.e. the end of the RLDP period). This equates to a household increase of 9,623 which is 22.0% more than the 7,890 dwellings the RLDP targets in Policy SPl. In addition, the Development Plan Manual requires a conversion factor from households to dwellings with 4% being the baseline (it is acknowledged that this will vary depending on local circumstances). Taking a 4% uplift, the dwelling requirement figure would be 10,008 which is 26.8% more than the RLDP seeks to deliver in Policy SPl. The number of overall dwellings identified in Policy SPl will therefore not meet the identified household growth needs ofVoG for the RLDP period. The Council should review the position in terms of the updated household projections.
It is important to note that the above calculations are purely to meet newly arising need and do not make any allowance for existing unmet affordable housing needs or any policy aspirations. As stated in the supporting text of Sustainable Growth Strategy 4 of the RLDP (paragraph 5.23) "The Local Housing Market Assessment (LHMA) 2023 identifies a need for 1,075 affordable homes per annum over the next five years based on principal projections or 1,114 based on the RLDP projections. There is an identified backlog of need across all the sub-market areas in the Vale of Glamorgan, and the issue is acute in many communities." Policy SPl seeks to deliver only 3,070 affordable homes over the RLDP period, equating to 205 affordable dwellings per annum. This is only 18.4% of identified need per annum for the five-year period from 2023-2028 in the LHMA. The number of affordable homes identified in Policy SPl therefore falls drastically short of the identified need for affordable homes in VoG for the RLDP period.
In order for Policy SPl to achieve the third test of soundness (Will the plan deliver?), the policy must be updated to accommodate a greater level of housing delivery, that reflects the most up to date evidence. The Development Plans Manual states:
"In terms of considering the level of housing provision for a plan, the most up-to- date suite of Welsh Government Population and Household Projections are a fundamental part of the evidence base [paragraph 5.35]"
Policy SP1 as drafted sets out that the allocation of new [housing] sites will be primarily focused within the Strategic Growth Areas (SGA) identified on the Key Diagram and outside of the SGA, the allocation of sites will be limited to small-scale affordable housing led sites. The identification of St Athan as a settlement where development should be concentrated is supported.

Policy SP2 - Settlement Hierarchy
The identification of St Athan as a 'Primary Settlement' is supported. It is important that sufficient growth is directed to the Primary Settlements to reflect the opportunities presented for delivering new homes, both market and affordable.
As recognised at Paragraph 6.11 of the Deposit Plan, St Athan is a key location for employment growth and also benefits from a range of services and facilities. This is also reflected in the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (Paragraph 9.2.10), which recognises that locating new development in proximity to the Cardiff Airport and Bro Tathan Enterprise Zone will help integrate housing and employment, supporting sustainable travel and local labour markets. Future growth at St Athan will therefore support its role within the wider regional growth area, as well as existing and future transport proposals.

Policy SP4 - Placemaking
We support the recognition in Policy SP4 that successful placemaking can add social, economic, environmental and culture value to new development. Placemaking is an important part of all developments brought forward by Barratt Redrow.
The identification of high level placemaking principles in the Deposit Plan is supported, but a degree of flexibility should be applied. This is important to ensure the appropriate placemaking approach can be applied for each site / development. For example, it will not necessarily be appropriate for all developments to incorporate a 'diverse mix of uses... ' or to be developed at 'high densities... and supporting mixed uses'. Where developments are delivered on a phased basis, any mix of uses, residential densities etc may vary between each phase.
Policy SP4 also requires all major development to provide a 'Placemaking Statement'. It should be made clear in the Policy, as per Paragraph 6.34 of the Deposit Plan, that this is not expected to be a standalone statement, but will form part of a Design and Access Statement. We recommend the policy is amended as follows:
"Placemaking Statements will be required as part of Design and Access Statements for all... " Paragraph 6.33, which supports Policy SP4 should also be amended. It is not appropriate to state that development will be 'favoured' where meaningful community involvement has been demonstrated. Taking allocated sites, significant consultation will have already taken place through the LDP process,
with further engagement required at the application stage through the PAC process. The RLDP should be amended to note that consultation will be 'encouraged' or similar.

Policy PGDl - Creating Well Designed and Inclusive Places
There is a degree of crossover and repetition between Policy PGDl and Policy SP4. For clarity and brevity of the Plan, a single policy could be taken forward.

Policy PGD2 - Residential Site Densities
It is noted that the minimum density sought for sites within the Key, Service Centre and Primary Settlements is higher than that currently required by the adopted LDP. It is important that flexibility is adopted where proposed allocations in the RLDP crossover with existing LDP allocations.

This is relevant to Church Farm, St Athan, which is allocated in the adopted LDP. The Deposit Plan retains this allocation, but also proposes a further phase of development to the east (through Policy HGl KS4). A planning application is currently being prepared for the first phase of development (relating to the existing allocation), which accords with the adopted LDP requirement of 30 dph. The RLDP should recognise that flexibility will be required where sites are delivered on a phased basis, with earlier phases also being identified in the adopted LDP.

The inclusion of caveats recognising that lower residential densities can, in some cases, be acceptable is welcomed. It is important that the characteristics of each site/ surrounding context can be taken into account, along with sites constraints and other technical requirements (such as SuDS).

Policy SP6 - Housing Requirement
Policy SP6 currently includes a flexibility allowance of 10%. The provision of a flexibility allowance is supported, but it should be increased to 15%. The Development Plan Manual 3 indicates that 10% should be the starting point. This would be consistent with a number of other adopted and emerging LDPs, which have been based on allowance above the standard 10% (e.g. adopted Bridgend LDP at 14% and emerging Monmouthshire LDP at 15%). A higher figure is considered appropriate due to the low level of new allocations, the limited number of key sites allocated in the plan and the need to increase the level of required growth (as referred to in our response to Policy SPl).

The number of homes delivered through new allocations should be increased to make the Plan more ambitious and align with Future Wales and the Vale's identified role as a National Growth Area.

Policy HSI - Housing Allocations
We support the identification of Church Farm, St Athan as a 'Key Site'.

The table within Policy HG1 should be amended to make it clear that the number of units listed for each site are approximate figures, allowing a degree of flexibility.

Policy HG1 KS4 - Land at Church Farm, St Athan
Paragraph 6.96 rightly acknowledges that the allocation will be delivered on a phased basis. With the first phase (the western parcel), representing land allocated through the adopted LDP. A hybrid planning application is due to be submitted in March 2026 for this phase of development. The application proposes 232 new homes and a new Class Al foodstore - as per Paragraph 6.99 of the Deposit Plan.
Paragraph 6.102 states that there is limited capacity in West Aberthaw Waste Water Treatment Works (WwTW). It continues by stating that if the development wishes to connect in advance of the planned AMP scheme, a Developer Impact Assessment to establish the reinforcement works needed at the WwTW will be required. It should be recognised in the Deposit Plan that this applies to the wider allocation, with sufficient capacity existing for the first phase of development.
Policy HG1 KS4 should be amended to read that the site will deliver "approximately 532 homes over the plan period... ".
The policy requires the development to comply with the Placemaking Principles set out in Policy SP4. This policy has been commented on separately, but as previously noted, it is important that the phased nature of the Church Farm development is recognised when applying the placemaking principles. As a result, there may be slight differences in what is appropriate across each phase.
The policy currently requires affordable dwellings to be dispersed across the site in clusters of not more than 10. This should be amended to clusters of no more than 15 units.
Policy HG1 KS4 also sets out a number of other requirements that the development "must" comply with. We do not support the current wording and use of "must comply with". Some of the requirements listed will require further consideration during the design development of the scheme. This will be supported by detailed technical work to be prepared in support of a future planning application. The wording should be amended to reflect that the list 'requirements' will be subject to further consideration, and should not be treated as definitive.
For example, the points listed under 'Sustainable Transport and Highways' should be informed by a Transport Assessment. This is reflected in Background Paper BP44 (Infrastructure Delivery Plan), which recognises that contributions towards off-site improvements to the capacity/ flow of junctions will be determined through a site-specific Transport Assessment.
The first bullet point under Policy HGl KS4 should be amended to read:
"A proportionate contribution towards off-site improvements to the capacity and flow of junctions on the strategic highway network, if identified as being necessary by a site-specific Transport Assessment". As per Policy HGl KS4, the first phase of development at Church Farm has been developed on the basis of an access point from Gileston Road. This is as per the request from the Highway Authority. The hybrid planning application will also deliver localised road widening on Gileston Road and provision of a new active travel route.

(continued) Policy HG1 KS4 - Land at Church Farm, St Athan
The third bullet point under the 'Sustainable Transport and Highways' heading should be amended. Transport work undertaken to date has demonstrated that there is no need for a new signalised junction at Gileston Road/ B4265. The need for and nature of any work required to this junction should be determined through the planning application process, informed by a Transport Assessment. It is therefore not appropriate for the Policy to state that an upgraded signalised junction 'must' be provided. The intention is for a second access point to be provided for the second phase of development from the B4265. This is in line with the access strategy requested by the Highway Authority. The form and nature of this access point will be agreed through the planning application process, informed by a Transport Assessment.
The hybrid planning application for the first phase makes provision for a new pedestrian and vehicular access to St Athan Primary School. Whilst the developer can make provision for such a link, it will be down to the Highway Authority and Education Department to determine whether it is provided. Policy HGl KS4 should be amended to reflect that it is not within the developers gift to guarantee the link is taken up, delivered or actually 'replace' the existing access on Rock Road. At the moment is unclear what type of access could be sought (e.g. pedestrian and / or vehicular) and whether this would solely be through Phase 1 (as indicated by Figure 16).
Upgrades to existing bus infrastructure is expected to be delivery through planning obligations. Again, the nature of any improvements will be determined through the planning application process.
The Policy sets out a number of requirements relating to 'Community Infrastructure'. This includes the transfer of land to the east of St Athan Primary School and an off-site contribution towards the delivery of additional school places. No detail is provided as to the quantum ofland expected to be transferred. It is also noted that Policy CI3 states that land 'may be' required.
Whilst the principle of transferring land for the redevelopment I expansion of St Athan Primary School would be considered in principle by BWD, further information will be required to consider this request in full. As it stands, no information has been provided as to the extent ofland required. It is also important that Policy HG1 KS4 recognises that the need to provide for/ contribute towards education facilities will need to be determined at the point of any future planning application.
If a land transfer is required and agreed as part of the second phase of development at Church Farm, this must be reflected in any request for off-site contributions. Background Paper 44 (Infrastructure Delivery Plan) states that the second phase of development will require the transfer ofland, or a Section 106 contribution of £5.8 million. The basis and justification for this sum of contribution is not detailed within the Plan or supporting documents. Full details will need to be provided and considered at the planning application stage.

(continued) Policy HG1 KS4 - Land at Church Farm, St Athan
Policy HG1 KS4 also identifies the need for a contribution towards the provision and enhancement of community facilities in the area, and a contribution towards training and development for the commercial element of Phase 1. Whilst the principle of providing a community facilities contribution is accepted, evidence of need for such a contribution will be required at the planning application stage. The Policy should also be amended to recognise that training and development could either be provided a contribution or as part of the development itself.
The need to respect the setting of the listed War Memorial is reflected in the hybrid planning application due to be submitted imminently for Phase 1. The scheme has been carefully designed, with the relocation of the proposed foodstore to the northwest corner of the site, setting housing back from the B4265 and realignment of the central green corridor.
The importance of green infrastructure, recreation spaces and biodiversity is recognised and supported. Land at Church Farm offers the opportunity to deliver high-quality landscape buffers, accessible green space, integrated SuDS features and pedestrian and cycle connectivity with the village of St Athan and the wider strategic active travel route.
It is important that the Policy is not overly prescriptive about the types of green infrastructure and open spaces to be provided, which could potentially constrain the ability to deliver a design and landscape led masterplan. Instead, the policy should focus on outcome-based placemaking principles and flexibility in how these outcomes are achieved through design. It is also important that the ability to provide GI and open space across the site reflects other policy requirements, such as the delivery of SuDS.
The Deposit Plan includes an indicative plan for Church Farm at Figure 16. Whilst referred to as 'indicative', the purpose and status of this plan should be made clear in the supporting text. It should only be treated as illustrative, with the final development for Phase 1 and 2 being subject to further detailed design and technical work. For example, it is noted that within the Phase 1 development, land identified as 'Significant POS' on the plan is actually intended to accommodate the main attenuation basin. Whilst it would serve a qualitative purpose, it would not act as POS per se.

Policy SP7 - Affordable Housing Provision

The provision of a range of tenures, types and sizes of affordable homes is supported in principle. This should be assessed on a site by site basis at the application stage, with the LHMA being a starting point for discussions with the Housing Strategy Service. This flexibility will ensure that the most appropriate mix of dwellings is brought forward based on factors such as site characteristics, local context, placemaking etc.

It is also important that Policy SP7 acknowledges that affordable housing provision should also consider the evidenced viability of a development. This would be consistent with Policy SPS.

Policy SP8 - Affordable Housing Requirements

Recognition that the provision of affordable housing should be negotiated on a site by basis, considering the evidenced viability of a development, is supported. Recognition that the exact mix of affordable housing will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis is also welcomed. This is important to ensure sufficient flexibility when discussing the most appropriate mix of affordable homes at the application stage.

Policy TRI - Transport Proposals
Policy TRI states that to mitigate the impact of development on the highway network, strategic highway improvements have been identified to the Gileston Road junction in St Athan. As per our comments under Policy HG I KS4, the need, and nature of any works to the Gileston Road / B4265 junction must be informed by detailed technical work.

We can confirm that the first phase of development, which will be subject to a hybrid planning application in March 2026, has been designed to not prejudice any future improvement works to the junction (should measures be demonstrated as necessary in the future).

Policy SP12 - Retail Floorspace Provision
The identification of new convenience floorspace at Church Farm, St Athan is supported. The provision of new retail floorspace in this location will support the existing and future population of St Athan, reducing the need to travel to other settlements to serve their needs.

Policy SP13 - Community Infrastructure and Planning Obligations.
We support the recognition in Policy SP13 that any requirement for planning obligations must be appropriate and have regard for development viability.
Policy SP13 also states that the delivery of new/ improved infrastructure should be timed to meet the needs of communities prior to, or from the commencement of, relevant phases of development. It must be recognised in the policy or supporting text that the delivery / timing of some infrastructure measures will be outside the control of developers I developments. This is particularly the case where financial contributions are made and measures will be delivered by others. Flexibility should therefore be allowed for through Policy SP13.

Policy Cll - Open Space Provision
The wording of Policy Cll, and/ or the supporting text, must allow greater flexibility to be applied to the open space standards. This is essential to ensure that the spaces provided are design, rather than standards led. It is also important that the type and range of provision is reflective oflocal context/ needs. This is reflected in Paragraph 6.233 of the Deposit Plan but Policy Cll should also be amended to reference this directly.

The proposed 62.2 sq m per dwelling requirement is overly prescriptive and not aligned with FiT's methodology, which is per person and intended to be applied strategically across different open space typologies, not as a uniform per dwelling metric. FiT's approach emphasises flexibility, multifunctionality and local context, meaning that applying a rigid per dwelling standard oversimplifies the guidance and risks generating disproportionate land take and unnecessary design constraints. When combined with the wider cumulative policy requirements of the RLDP, such an approach has the potential to impact development viability and reduce delivery.
The recognition that in some instances off-site contributions will be appropriate in lieu of on-site provision is welcomed.

Policy Cll requires an 'Open Space Strategy' to be submitted for all housing developments that meet the relevant thresholds. In many instances, the provision of open space within a scheme will be addressed through a Design and Access Statement and/ or Green Infrastructure. This ensures that open space provision is considered as part of the comprehensive approach to design, landscape and biodiversity. We would question the need for a standalone strategy or statement. The Policy should be amended to reflect this.

Policy CI3 - New Community Facilities
Policy CI3 identifies the 'allocation' ofland at St Athan Primary School for new community facilities. The supporting text (Paragraph 6.245) confirms that this land is allocated for the redevelopment and expansion of the existing school site. It continues by stating that a "small area of additional land may be required required ... to facilitate the delivery of the school" as part of the Key Site allocation at Church Farm. It states that improved access "may also be necessary".

As worded, the Policy is not clear what land is allocated - whether it is actually within the Primary School and/ or adjoining land. Ifland may be required within the Church Farm development (as implied by Policy HG1 KS4), it is currently unclear what quantum ofland would be sought. Whilst the principle of transferring land for expansion of the school (as part of Church Farm Phase 2) and facilitating improved access would be considered by BDW, it is important that what is being sought is clear.

It is important that there is coordination between policies in the Plan - for example, Policy CI3 and Policy HG1 KS4. This should include an amendment to Policy HG1 KS4 that the land 'may' be required, rather than must be provided. It is also important that ifland is provided for the school expansion, or improved access is facilitated, by the development at Church Farm, this is reflected in other requirements and expectations across the Plan (e.g. in terms of design, planning obligations etc).

Policy CCI - Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development
Current Building Regulations targets are sufficient to achieve Welsh Government's objectives for improving energy efficiency and delivering net zero carbon development. Additional local policy requirements risk creating inconsistency across Local Planning Authorities and may exceed what is necessary to align with national policy.

The policy should clarify that it applies only to regulated energy use. Developers have no control over how future homeowners use their homes, and therefore unregulated energy consumption such as appliance use, occupant behaviour, and plug loads, cannot form part of compliance requirements. This is consistent with Building Regulations methodology

Alternatively, if Policy CCI is kept in the RLDP, there must be some flexibility introduced for the requirements of Policy CCI to fall away should Building Regulations catch up or exceed or require different provisions than the requirements of Policy CCI during the lifetime of the RLDP. To not provide this flexibility would mean that the ability of the RLDP to deliver the new homes in VoG needs could be compromised. Clarification is also required on how the contribution to the Council's Project Zero fund is to be calculated and whether the timeframes in Policy CCI relate to the date of planning approval.
Furthermore, the demands of Policy CCI have to be considered in the context of all of the other requirements that impact on development viability (e.g. affordable housing). The Council must provide evidence that an assessment has been undertaken to demonstrate that development, specifically the housing allocations in Policy HGI, can bear the cumulative policy costs of the RLDP, including Policy CCL

The policy wording should be amended so that the performance requirements apply based on the date of planning permission rather than the RLDP adoption date. Changes in energy performance requirements can significantly affect site layout, building orientation, and design considerations. Without this amendment, approved schemes could unnecessarily require variations via Section 73 or Non Material Amendment applications.

Policy SP1 - Sustainable Growth Strategy
Policy SPl sets out that the plan will deliver 7,890 dwellings by 2036, including a minimum of 3,070 affordable homes. Policy SP1 also sets out that outside of the Strategic Growth Areas, the allocation of new sites will be limited to small-scale affordable housing led sites.
The number of households in VoG in mid-2021 (i.e. the start of the RLDP period) was 57,676. Based on Welsh Government's 2022-based household projections, the number of households is projected to increase to 67,299 in VoG in mid-2036 (i.e. the end of the RLDP period). This equates to a household increase of 9,623 which is 22.0% more than the 7,890 dwellings the RLDP targets in Policy SPl. In addition, the Development Plan Manual requires a conversion factor from households to dwellings with 4% being the baseline (it is acknowledged that this will vary depending on local circumstances). Taking a 4% uplift, the dwelling requirement figure would be 10,008 which is 26.8% more than the RLDP seeks to deliver in Policy SPl. The number of overall dwellings identified in Policy SPl will therefore not meet the identified household growth needs ofVoG for the RLDP period. The Council should review the position in terms of the updated household projections.
It is important to note that the above calculations are purely to meet newly arising need and do not make any allowance for existing unmet affordable housing needs or any policy aspirations. As stated in the supporting text of Sustainable Growth Strategy 4 of the RLDP (paragraph 5.23) "The Local Housing Market Assessment (LHMA) 2023 identifies a need for 1,075 affordable homes per annum over the next five years based on principal projections or 1,114 based on the RLDP projections. There is an identified backlog of need across all the sub-market areas in the Vale of Glamorgan, and the issue is acute in many communities." Policy SPl seeks to deliver only 3,070 affordable homes over the RLDP period, equating to 205 affordable dwellings per annum. This is only 18.4% of identified need per annum for the five-year period from 2023-2028 in the LHMA. The number of affordable homes identified in Policy SPl therefore falls drastically short of the identified need for affordable homes in VoG for the RLDP period.
In order for Policy SPl to achieve the third test of soundness (Will the plan deliver?), the policy must be updated to accommodate a greater level of housing delivery, that reflects the most up to date evidence. The Development Plans Manual states:
"In terms of considering the level of housing provision for a plan, the most up-to- date suite of Welsh Government Population and Household Projections are a fundamental part of the evidence base [paragraph 5.35]"
Policy SP1 as drafted sets out that the allocation of new [housing] sites will be primarily focused within the Strategic Growth Areas (SGA) identified on the Key Diagram and outside of the SGA, the allocation of sites will be limited to small-scale affordable housing led sites. The identification of St Athan as a settlement where development should be concentrated is supported.

Policy SP2 - Settlement Hierarchy
The identification of St Athan as a 'Primary Settlement' is supported. It is important that sufficient growth is directed to the Primary Settlements to reflect the opportunities presented for delivering new homes, both market and affordable.
As recognised at Paragraph 6.11 of the Deposit Plan, St Athan is a key location for employment growth and also benefits from a range of services and facilities. This is also reflected in the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (Paragraph 9.2.10), which recognises that locating new development in proximity to the Cardiff Airport and Bro Tathan Enterprise Zone will help integrate housing and employment, supporting sustainable travel and local labour markets. Future growth at St Athan will therefore support its role within the wider regional growth area, as well as existing and future transport proposals.

Policy SP4 - Placemaking
We support the recognition in Policy SP4 that successful placemaking can add social, economic, environmental and culture value to new development. Placemaking is an important part of all developments brought forward by Barratt Redrow.
The identification of high level placemaking principles in the Deposit Plan is supported, but a degree of flexibility should be applied. This is important to ensure the appropriate placemaking approach can be applied for each site / development. For example, it will not necessarily be appropriate for all developments to incorporate a 'diverse mix of uses... ' or to be developed at 'high densities... and supporting mixed uses'. Where developments are delivered on a phased basis, any mix of uses, residential densities etc may vary between each phase.
Policy SP4 also requires all major development to provide a 'Placemaking Statement'. It should be made clear in the Policy, as per Paragraph 6.34 of the Deposit Plan, that this is not expected to be a standalone statement, but will form part of a Design and Access Statement. We recommend the policy is amended as follows:
"Placemaking Statements will be required as part of Design and Access Statements for all... " Paragraph 6.33, which supports Policy SP4 should also be amended. It is not appropriate to state that development will be 'favoured' where meaningful community involvement has been demonstrated. Taking allocated sites, significant consultation will have already taken place through the LDP process,
with further engagement required at the application stage through the PAC process. The RLDP should be amended to note that consultation will be 'encouraged' or similar.

Policy PGDl - Creating Well Designed and Inclusive Places
There is a degree of crossover and repetition between Policy PGDl and Policy SP4. For clarity and brevity of the Plan, a single policy could be taken forward.

Policy PGD2 - Residential Site Densities
It is noted that the minimum density sought for sites within the Key, Service Centre and Primary Settlements is higher than that currently required by the adopted LDP. It is important that flexibility is adopted where proposed allocations in the RLDP crossover with existing LDP allocations.

This is relevant to Church Farm, St Athan, which is allocated in the adopted LDP. The Deposit Plan retains this allocation, but also proposes a further phase of development to the east (through Policy HGl KS4). A planning application is currently being prepared for the first phase of development (relating to the existing allocation), which accords with the adopted LDP requirement of 30 dph. The RLDP should recognise that flexibility will be required where sites are delivered on a phased basis, with earlier phases also being identified in the adopted LDP.

The inclusion of caveats recognising that lower residential densities can, in some cases, be acceptable is welcomed. It is important that the characteristics of each site/ surrounding context can be taken into account, along with sites constraints and other technical requirements (such as SuDS).

Policy SP6 - Housing Requirement
Policy SP6 currently includes a flexibility allowance of 10%. The provision of a flexibility allowance is supported, but it should be increased to 15%. The Development Plan Manual 3 indicates that 10% should be the starting point. This would be consistent with a number of other adopted and emerging LDPs, which have been based on allowance above the standard 10% (e.g. adopted Bridgend LDP at 14% and emerging Monmouthshire LDP at 15%). A higher figure is considered appropriate due to the low level of new allocations, the limited number of key sites allocated in the plan and the need to increase the level of required growth (as referred to in our response to Policy SPl).

The number of homes delivered through new allocations should be increased to make the Plan more ambitious and align with Future Wales and the Vale's identified role as a National Growth Area.

Policy HSI - Housing Allocations
We support the identification of Church Farm, St Athan as a 'Key Site'.

The table within Policy HG1 should be amended to make it clear that the number of units listed for each site are approximate figures, allowing a degree of flexibility.

Policy HG1 KS4 - Land at Church Farm, St Athan
Paragraph 6.96 rightly acknowledges that the allocation will be delivered on a phased basis. With the first phase (the western parcel), representing land allocated through the adopted LDP. A hybrid planning application is due to be submitted in March 2026 for this phase of development. The application proposes 232 new homes and a new Class Al foodstore - as per Paragraph 6.99 of the Deposit Plan.
Paragraph 6.102 states that there is limited capacity in West Aberthaw Waste Water Treatment Works (WwTW). It continues by stating that if the development wishes to connect in advance of the planned AMP scheme, a Developer Impact Assessment to establish the reinforcement works needed at the WwTW will be required. It should be recognised in the Deposit Plan that this applies to the wider allocation, with sufficient capacity existing for the first phase of development.
Policy HG1 KS4 should be amended to read that the site will deliver "approximately 532 homes over the plan period... ".
The policy requires the development to comply with the Placemaking Principles set out in Policy SP4. This policy has been commented on separately, but as previously noted, it is important that the phased nature of the Church Farm development is recognised when applying the placemaking principles. As a result, there may be slight differences in what is appropriate across each phase.
The policy currently requires affordable dwellings to be dispersed across the site in clusters of not more than 10. This should be amended to clusters of no more than 15 units.
Policy HG1 KS4 also sets out a number of other requirements that the development "must" comply with. We do not support the current wording and use of "must comply with". Some of the requirements listed will require further consideration during the design development of the scheme. This will be supported by detailed technical work to be prepared in support of a future planning application. The wording should be amended to reflect that the list 'requirements' will be subject to further consideration, and should not be treated as definitive.
For example, the points listed under 'Sustainable Transport and Highways' should be informed by a Transport Assessment. This is reflected in Background Paper BP44 (Infrastructure Delivery Plan), which recognises that contributions towards off-site improvements to the capacity/ flow of junctions will be determined through a site-specific Transport Assessment.
The first bullet point under Policy HGl KS4 should be amended to read:
"A proportionate contribution towards off-site improvements to the capacity and flow of junctions on the strategic highway network, if identified as being necessary by a site-specific Transport Assessment". As per Policy HGl KS4, the first phase of development at Church Farm has been developed on the basis of an access point from Gileston Road. This is as per the request from the Highway Authority. The hybrid planning application will also deliver localised road widening on Gileston Road and provision of a new active travel route.

(continued) Policy HG1 KS4 - Land at Church Farm, St Athan
The third bullet point under the 'Sustainable Transport and Highways' heading should be amended. Transport work undertaken to date has demonstrated that there is no need for a new signalised junction at Gileston Road/ B4265. The need for and nature of any work required to this junction should be determined through the planning application process, informed by a Transport Assessment. It is therefore not appropriate for the Policy to state that an upgraded signalised junction 'must' be provided. The intention is for a second access point to be provided for the second phase of development from the B4265. This is in line with the access strategy requested by the Highway Authority. The form and nature of this access point will be agreed through the planning application process, informed by a Transport Assessment.
The hybrid planning application for the first phase makes provision for a new pedestrian and vehicular access to St Athan Primary School. Whilst the developer can make provision for such a link, it will be down to the Highway Authority and Education Department to determine whether it is provided. Policy HGl KS4 should be amended to reflect that it is not within the developers gift to guarantee the link is taken up, delivered or actually 'replace' the existing access on Rock Road. At the moment is unclear what type of access could be sought (e.g. pedestrian and / or vehicular) and whether this would solely be through Phase 1 (as indicated by Figure 16).
Upgrades to existing bus infrastructure is expected to be delivery through planning obligations. Again, the nature of any improvements will be determined through the planning application process.
The Policy sets out a number of requirements relating to 'Community Infrastructure'. This includes the transfer of land to the east of St Athan Primary School and an off-site contribution towards the delivery of additional school places. No detail is provided as to the quantum ofland expected to be transferred. It is also noted that Policy CI3 states that land 'may be' required.
Whilst the principle of transferring land for the redevelopment I expansion of St Athan Primary School would be considered in principle by BWD, further information will be required to consider this request in full. As it stands, no information has been provided as to the extent ofland required. It is also important that Policy HG1 KS4 recognises that the need to provide for/ contribute towards education facilities will need to be determined at the point of any future planning application.
If a land transfer is required and agreed as part of the second phase of development at Church Farm, this must be reflected in any request for off-site contributions. Background Paper 44 (Infrastructure Delivery Plan) states that the second phase of development will require the transfer ofland, or a Section 106 contribution of £5.8 million. The basis and justification for this sum of contribution is not detailed within the Plan or supporting documents. Full details will need to be provided and considered at the planning application stage.

(continued) Policy HG1 KS4 - Land at Church Farm, St Athan
Policy HG1 KS4 also identifies the need for a contribution towards the provision and enhancement of community facilities in the area, and a contribution towards training and development for the commercial element of Phase 1. Whilst the principle of providing a community facilities contribution is accepted, evidence of need for such a contribution will be required at the planning application stage. The Policy should also be amended to recognise that training and development could either be provided a contribution or as part of the development itself.
The need to respect the setting of the listed War Memorial is reflected in the hybrid planning application due to be submitted imminently for Phase 1. The scheme has been carefully designed, with the relocation of the proposed foodstore to the northwest corner of the site, setting housing back from the B4265 and realignment of the central green corridor.
The importance of green infrastructure, recreation spaces and biodiversity is recognised and supported. Land at Church Farm offers the opportunity to deliver high-quality landscape buffers, accessible green space, integrated SuDS features and pedestrian and cycle connectivity with the village of St Athan and the wider strategic active travel route.
It is important that the Policy is not overly prescriptive about the types of green infrastructure and open spaces to be provided, which could potentially constrain the ability to deliver a design and landscape led masterplan. Instead, the policy should focus on outcome-based placemaking principles and flexibility in how these outcomes are achieved through design. It is also important that the ability to provide GI and open space across the site reflects other policy requirements, such as the delivery of SuDS.
The Deposit Plan includes an indicative plan for Church Farm at Figure 16. Whilst referred to as 'indicative', the purpose and status of this plan should be made clear in the supporting text. It should only be treated as illustrative, with the final development for Phase 1 and 2 being subject to further detailed design and technical work. For example, it is noted that within the Phase 1 development, land identified as 'Significant POS' on the plan is actually intended to accommodate the main attenuation basin. Whilst it would serve a qualitative purpose, it would not act as POS per se.

Policy SP7 - Affordable Housing Provision

The provision of a range of tenures, types and sizes of affordable homes is supported in principle. This should be assessed on a site by site basis at the application stage, with the LHMA being a starting point for discussions with the Housing Strategy Service. This flexibility will ensure that the most appropriate mix of dwellings is brought forward based on factors such as site characteristics, local context, placemaking etc.

It is also important that Policy SP7 acknowledges that affordable housing provision should also consider the evidenced viability of a development. This would be consistent with Policy SPS.

Policy SP8 - Affordable Housing Requirements

Recognition that the provision of affordable housing should be negotiated on a site by basis, considering the evidenced viability of a development, is supported. Recognition that the exact mix of affordable housing will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis is also welcomed. This is important to ensure sufficient flexibility when discussing the most appropriate mix of affordable homes at the application stage.

Policy TRI - Transport Proposals
Policy TRI states that to mitigate the impact of development on the highway network, strategic highway improvements have been identified to the Gileston Road junction in St Athan. As per our comments under Policy HG I KS4, the need, and nature of any works to the Gileston Road / B4265 junction must be informed by detailed technical work.

We can confirm that the first phase of development, which will be subject to a hybrid planning application in March 2026, has been designed to not prejudice any future improvement works to the junction (should measures be demonstrated as necessary in the future).

Policy SP12 - Retail Floorspace Provision
The identification of new convenience floorspace at Church Farm, St Athan is supported. The provision of new retail floorspace in this location will support the existing and future population of St Athan, reducing the need to travel to other settlements to serve their needs.

Policy SP13 - Community Infrastructure and Planning Obligations.
We support the recognition in Policy SP13 that any requirement for planning obligations must be appropriate and have regard for development viability.
Policy SP13 also states that the delivery of new/ improved infrastructure should be timed to meet the needs of communities prior to, or from the commencement of, relevant phases of development. It must be recognised in the policy or supporting text that the delivery / timing of some infrastructure measures will be outside the control of developers I developments. This is particularly the case where financial contributions are made and measures will be delivered by others. Flexibility should therefore be allowed for through Policy SP13.

Policy Cll - Open Space Provision
The wording of Policy Cll, and/ or the supporting text, must allow greater flexibility to be applied to the open space standards. This is essential to ensure that the spaces provided are design, rather than standards led. It is also important that the type and range of provision is reflective oflocal context/ needs. This is reflected in Paragraph 6.233 of the Deposit Plan but Policy Cll should also be amended to reference this directly.

The proposed 62.2 sq m per dwelling requirement is overly prescriptive and not aligned with FiT's methodology, which is per person and intended to be applied strategically across different open space typologies, not as a uniform per dwelling metric. FiT's approach emphasises flexibility, multifunctionality and local context, meaning that applying a rigid per dwelling standard oversimplifies the guidance and risks generating disproportionate land take and unnecessary design constraints. When combined with the wider cumulative policy requirements of the RLDP, such an approach has the potential to impact development viability and reduce delivery.
The recognition that in some instances off-site contributions will be appropriate in lieu of on-site provision is welcomed.

Policy Cll requires an 'Open Space Strategy' to be submitted for all housing developments that meet the relevant thresholds. In many instances, the provision of open space within a scheme will be addressed through a Design and Access Statement and/ or Green Infrastructure. This ensures that open space provision is considered as part of the comprehensive approach to design, landscape and biodiversity. We would question the need for a standalone strategy or statement. The Policy should be amended to reflect this.

Policy CI3 - New Community Facilities
Policy CI3 identifies the 'allocation' ofland at St Athan Primary School for new community facilities. The supporting text (Paragraph 6.245) confirms that this land is allocated for the redevelopment and expansion of the existing school site. It continues by stating that a "small area of additional land may be required required ... to facilitate the delivery of the school" as part of the Key Site allocation at Church Farm. It states that improved access "may also be necessary".

As worded, the Policy is not clear what land is allocated - whether it is actually within the Primary School and/ or adjoining land. Ifland may be required within the Church Farm development (as implied by Policy HG1 KS4), it is currently unclear what quantum ofland would be sought. Whilst the principle of transferring land for expansion of the school (as part of Church Farm Phase 2) and facilitating improved access would be considered by BDW, it is important that what is being sought is clear.

It is important that there is coordination between policies in the Plan - for example, Policy CI3 and Policy HG1 KS4. This should include an amendment to Policy HG1 KS4 that the land 'may' be required, rather than must be provided. It is also important that ifland is provided for the school expansion, or improved access is facilitated, by the development at Church Farm, this is reflected in other requirements and expectations across the Plan (e.g. in terms of design, planning obligations etc).

Policy CCI - Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development
Current Building Regulations targets are sufficient to achieve Welsh Government's objectives for improving energy efficiency and delivering net zero carbon development. Additional local policy requirements risk creating inconsistency across Local Planning Authorities and may exceed what is necessary to align with national policy.

The policy should clarify that it applies only to regulated energy use. Developers have no control over how future homeowners use their homes, and therefore unregulated energy consumption such as appliance use, occupant behaviour, and plug loads, cannot form part of compliance requirements. This is consistent with Building Regulations methodology

Alternatively, if Policy CCI is kept in the RLDP, there must be some flexibility introduced for the requirements of Policy CCI to fall away should Building Regulations catch up or exceed or require different provisions than the requirements of Policy CCI during the lifetime of the RLDP. To not provide this flexibility would mean that the ability of the RLDP to deliver the new homes in VoG needs could be compromised. Clarification is also required on how the contribution to the Council's Project Zero fund is to be calculated and whether the timeframes in Policy CCI relate to the date of planning approval.
Furthermore, the demands of Policy CCI have to be considered in the context of all of the other requirements that impact on development viability (e.g. affordable housing). The Council must provide evidence that an assessment has been undertaken to demonstrate that development, specifically the housing allocations in Policy HGI, can bear the cumulative policy costs of the RLDP, including Policy CCL

The policy wording should be amended so that the performance requirements apply based on the date of planning permission rather than the RLDP adoption date. Changes in energy performance requirements can significantly affect site layout, building orientation, and design considerations. Without this amendment, approved schemes could unnecessarily require variations via Section 73 or Non Material Amendment applications.

ANNEX 1
Preface

This Annex sets out the detailed case in support of these representations, and by association the case for allocation of the site.

The representations are structured into the following sections:

1. Response to the Deposit Plan;
2. Comments on specific policies; and
3. A summary of the suitability of the site for development.

SECTION 1. Response to the Deposit Plan

Distribution of Growth

We object to the distribution of growth within the Deposit Plan. Specifically, we object to the strategy that underpins the Deposit Plan, which seeks to introduce the proposed ‘Strategic Growth Area’ which is expected to contain the majority of housing growth in the Vale over the Plan period, or rather the over-reliance on this defined area, and the associated absence of growth in other parts of the Plan area.

As outlined in our previous representations, the allocation of housing and the location of strategic growth neglects the Rural Vale, and in our view, overprovides in the Strategic Growth Area. For example, with limited housing stock and average house sales at over £800,000 over the last 12 months, there is a clear and established need for new homes in the Bonvilston area, particularly at an affordable level. This is reinforced by the Local Housing Market Assessment that identified a need for over 1,114 new affordable homes per annum over the next five years throughout the county, and 196 units per annum thereafter (average of 502 units per annum over 15 years). Further to this, it is widely known that the rural Vale comprises the majority of the county’s ageing population, which, as a demographic, has and will continue to grow rapidly over the Plan period. This is evident in the ‘Population Change’ chart below – which is taken from the Deposit Plan:

VofG Deposit Plan: Figure 4 Population Change 2011 to 2021

It is clearly the case that younger populations are migrating to other Authorities, where access to housing is typically cheaper and more affordable, whilst more older populations are significantly migrating into the Authority. This trend will result in an extremely unbalanced demographic, given that the working-age population have sought housing elsewhere.

Without a suitable supply of affordable housing delivered over the Plan period, this trend will only worsen. Accordingly, it is not considered that the RLDP takes into account the lack of supply of affordable homes within the rural Vale, as well as increased housing to support the growing ageing population within these areas.

Para 3.19 of the Deposit Plan clearly outlines that affordable housing is required in the short term, in order to meet pressing needs. Specifically, it outlines the following: “There is significant pressure on temporary accommodation in the Vale, for a variety of reasons including increased homelessness presentations… The need for sufficient permanent affordable housing to assist in moving people out of temporary accommodation is critical and the planning system has a vital role in assisting in new affordable housing delivery.”
Accordingly, the distribution of growth within the Authority must be proportionate, to ensure that populations / areas are not left behind where they must seek access to housing elsewhere.

The RLDP Sustainable Growth Strategy sets out 6 objectives. Objective 4 states: “Allowing for small scale affordable housing led development in settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area at a scale proportionate to the size of settlement.” (Page 66)
Para 5.25 states “Therefore, a key part of the strategy is to allow for affordable housing led developments within sustainable primary and minor rural settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area, at a scale that is appropriate to the size of the community it is serving. An ‘affordable housing led’ scheme is one where a minimum of 50% of the dwellings would need to be affordable, although this could increase to a maximum of 100% if the site is brought forward by a social landlord”.

In terms of the definition / explanation of what the affordable housing-led development sites are seeking to achieve, paragraph 6.132 of the Deposit Plan outlines the following:

“Accordingly, to ensure that new developments respond to the high demand for smaller properties, as identified in the LHMA, priority will be given to affordable homes that are small to medium-sized, typically comprising one to three bedrooms. Representations received from the local community through the RLDP process also highlighted a desire for new housing developments to offer opportunities for accessing smaller market homes. This is particularly relevant in the rural Vale, where housing choices are more limited. Providing smaller, more affordable market homes may assist first-time buyers and enable older residents to downsize to more manageable properties within their local area. Affordable housing-led sites will therefore need to demonstrate that an appropriate range of both affordable and market dwellings has been provided.”

Despite the acknowledgement within this strategic objective, we do not consider that the RLDP goes far enough to meet this objective, nor are its provisions and allocations adequate.

It is considered that this objective is undermined by the allocations set out by the RLDP (not least the absence of allocations in the rural Vale). Notwithstanding the Vision’s clear acknowledgement of the benefit of the growth of the rural Vale, these areas have not been supported through the plan due to the lack of growth which has been attributed to these areas in terms of further housing, employment and sustainable transport. All growth options have been selected on the basis of being in either a Key Settlement, Service Centre Settlement or Primary Settlement, all of which are already sustainable areas served by rail. As a result, it is not clear how this objective can be achieved, without the allocation of further sites within the Minor Rural Settlements, such as Bonvilston. The Vale is characteristically ‘rural’, and as such, there needs to be a stronger emphasis on supporting and delivering new development in order to bolster the rural economy. This includes enabling opportunities to provide employment and business premises within / near to rural settlements, as well as focusing housing growth in these areas to reduce travel time, and promote the use of sustainable transport.

It is considered that the current Strategy does not provide adequately for all residents across the Vale, only those within the Strategic Growth Area. The underlying Vision and Objectives set out in the emerging Plan are accordingly wholly un-provided for by the detail of the Plan. This brings into question the “soundness” of the Plan.

The Strategic Growth Area does not take into account the important role and proximity of Bridgend to the West and/or the Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant to the north (as defined in the RCTCBC LDP). The Minor Rural Settlements to the west are more likely to be supported by job opportunities and employment in Bridgend than further east in Barry or Cardiff. Similarly, those in the north align with, and function in association with, the Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant to the north. These settlements are served by existing bus services that provide sustainable modes of travel to key employment locations in and around Bridgend. This is acknowledged in Paragraph 3.3 of the Strategy which states “The greatest number of residents who travel outside of the Vale for work purposes travel to Cardiff followed by Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taf, whilst a smaller proportion commute into the Vale from these neighbouring authorities”. The Demographic Evidence (Feb 2023) estimates the Vale as being a net importer of workers from RCT and Caerphilly (Para 3.6) - as shown in Figure 10 in the Preferred Strategy.

The current Strategy does not support any improvement of sustainable travel or further investment in settlements linked more closely to these areas - given that Growth has been apportioned in only the Key Service Centre and Primary Settlements. It is considered that this will fail to support and facilitate the current (and any future) employment coming into the Vale, nor will it support any employment which is located outside of the Vale to the West and North. The Growth Option is too heavily reliant on access to railway stations as the key and sole sustainable transport method, whereas access to bus services should also be appropriately assessed and focused on in terms of promoting sustainable development. It is unreasonable to devise a strategy that hinges on directing growth to areas that are accessible to railway facilities, where it is recognised in the Plan that the Vale is inherently rural. The delivery and soundness of the Plan is therefore questioned and we continue to object to the spatial growth strategy as set out in the Deposit Plan.

Housing Supply

RLDP Allocations - Key Sites

As set out in representations made throughout the Plan preparation process, we consider that the Plan is too reliant on the delivery of ‘key sites’ to meet the housing need over the Plan period. Specifically, the Plan makes provision for 2,278 units in these Key Sites, which equates to circa 65% of RLDP allocations in the housing supply. The 5 key sites that are allocated in the Deposit Plan are as follows:

• Land at North West Barry – 376no. units;
• North of Dinas Powys – 250no. units;
• Land at Readers Way, Rhoose – 520no. units;
• Land at Church Farm, St Athan – 532no. units; and
• Land to the West of St Athan – 600no. units.

We object to the current housing supply to allocate 2,278no. (65%) of units across strategic sites, as this makes for a risky and unrobust strategy for delivering housing, and in turn, meeting the identified housing need over the Plan period.

As stated in previous representations, there is concern that the proposed timing and phasing of the proposed Key Sites is unrealistic and unrobust, and in turn, undermines the soundness of the Plan, given the heavy reliance on Key Sites delivering new homes across the Plan period. Whilst it is not disputed that the sites would have gone through rigorous assessment to inform their proposed allocation, the timescales for securing planning permission (with all associated conditions discharged) is considered to be unachievable. This is particularly the case for the following timescales that are set out in the Housing Trajectory that underpin the Plan:

• “Time period of pre-application discussions/PAC consultation” – 4 months

• “Time between submission of planning application and determination” – 6 months
• “Time taken from planning consent to the discharge of relevant conditions to enable site construction” – 4 months

It is considered that the above timescales are fundamentally unrobust, and result in a distorted position of housing sites over the RLDP Plan period. It is not considered that these reflect or are informed by the timescales that are currently being incurred for planning applications submitted for major housing sites across Wales. It is rather the case that such applications would typically be determined 1-2 years following submission, given that there are a wide range of stakeholders involved in the determination of major planning applications – which often adds to the delays associated with the determination of such applications.

It is equally the case that the assumptions in the trajectory are solely based on expected timescales for processing formal submissions made to the Council, and do not factor in the timescales associated with, and needed for, the preparation of the material for submission.

It is assumed that these timescales have not considered that such major developments can be subject to the need to undertaking and submitting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which adds another layer to the determination of any planning application – given the additional considerations that form part of this process. As such, any site subject to EIA would very likely result in further delays extending beyond the timescales set out in the trajectory. Equally, as set out above, the preparation of an application subject to an EIA requires even more detail and assessment, which only further adds to the preparation stage (which has not been factored into as part of the trajectory). Accordingly, it is not considered that the trajectory contains any contingency if any site is required to undertake EIA as part of their application.

For the reasons stated above, it is unlikely that the sites will yield in full, particularly those sites which are expected to deliver housing right up to the final year of the Plan period (‘Land at Readers Way’ and ‘Land to the West of St Athan’). These sites do not allow for any ‘slippage’ should any delays arise through the development management process (which for the reasons set out above, will very likely be the case), and as such, a gap in housing delivery will be brought about as a result of these sites not yielding in full.

Given the proposed ambitious timescales set out for the delivery of the Key Sites, it is considered the housing trajectory is unrobust, and in turn, undermines the soundness of the Plan as a result. A change in strategy should be pursued whereby a greater proportion of small to medium sites are allocated for housing in the Plan period, which are more likely to fully yield given that such sites are subject to less assessment and consideration compared to strategic sites. This would make for a more robust strategy, where a greater number of small to medium sites can deliver housing in the short and medium term of the Plan period, whereas the strategic sites represent a more longer-term strategy to deliver housing – which would then spill into the next Plan period.

Accordingly, we object to the Deposit Plan in its current form, where there is an overreliance on housing need to be met through the delivery of the Key Sites, which we consider to be unrobust, and undermine the integrity and soundness of the Plan. The current strategy of the Plan is at significant risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated, as least as swifty as identified in the housing trajectory. Should no change be made to the Plan to address the above issues, then it is extremely likely that the Plan would ‘fail’ in meeting the identified housing need.

Windfall Sites

It is noted that the RLDP is made up of the following:

• Existing land supply (3,838 units)
• Windfall sites (1,303 units)
• Allocated sites (3,521 units)

Para 6.69 states that “Analysis of historical delivery of housing indicates that on average small windfall sites (sites of less than 10 dwellings) have provided some 53 dwelling completions per year, and large windfall sites (10 dwellings or greater) contributed on average 80 dwellings per year. Overall, it is projected that windfall sites could contribute a further 1,303 dwellings over the remainder of the plan”.

As set out in our previous representations to the Housing Trajectory, we would object to the expected numbers of completions expected during the Plan period, given that there are a number of issues with delivering housing in Wales and given past completions rates for The Vale of Glamorgan – which is discussed in greater detail later in this submission. Again, this results in the Plan being at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated – including any windfall sites.

St Athan Train Station

The RLDP Sustainable Growth Strategy comprises six key elements, of which the following is set out in respect to the allocation of new housing growth in the Authority:

“3. Focusing development at locations that are well served by existing and proposed rail stations as part of the South Wales Metro and in areas with good bus links.”

The strategy outlines that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken in 2022, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. Accordingly, in line with the spatial strategy adopted for the RLDP (i.e. focus development around sustainable transport nodes), St Athan was identified as a ‘Strategic Opportunity Area’ to accommodate strategic growth – through the proposed allocation of two key sites : ‘Land at Church Farm’ and ‘Land West of St Athan’. These sites have been identified to deliver 532no. and 600no. units respectively in the Plan period. These are separate to, and are in addition to, the 51no. units that have now been attributed to the site ‘Land South of Clive Road’ and 80no. units attributed to ‘Former Stadium Site, adjacent to Burley Place’ in St Athan. Accordingly, in total, the Housing Trajectory makes a provision for a total of 1,263no. homes to be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period.

It is now the case, however, that the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales – as confirmed in the ‘Today, Tomorrow, Together: A vision for rail across Wales and Borders’ (February 2026) recently published by Transport For Wales. This paper acknowledges that a new railway station at St Athan would represent a longer term opportunity, and therefore, will not be delivered in the short term / within the Plan period of the emerging Plan. Equally the Council have not provided any evidence to contradict this, and therefore, it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period. This brings about significant questions regarding the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

The strategy to allocate new housing growth is predicated on focusing residential development around sustainable transport nodes, and given that St Athan will be without any railway station in the Plan period, it is not considered that the sites align with the strategy of the RLDP. Accordingly, the wider Housing Trajectory is considered to be unsound, given that a total of 1,263no. homes (36% of the Plan’s new housing allocations) are expected to be delivered in St Athan within the Plan period.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision. Given this, to add further sites for housing in this location over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites - given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

In terms of the expected delivery of the Key Sites in St Athan, it is noted that the trajectory identifies that for the majority of the Plan period, both sites will be delivering 80no. dwellings per annum on each site (equating to 160no units in total). Whilst these are two separate sites, we seriously question the realistic prospects of the significant number of

homes being built simultaneously on two sites in proximity to one another – given the considerable logistical issues that would be brought about.

Accordingly, it remains that there are serious questions regarding the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations at St Athan, which do not accord with the strategy adopted for the RLDP – to focus housing growth on settlements that are supported by railway stations. Moreover, the scale of development proposed at St Athan is also not considered to be proportionate, with a significant number of homes delivered in a location not served by a railway station.

Rolled forward LDP Sites

The proposed land supply within the housing trajectory includes provision for ‘rolled forward’ LDP sites, which contribute to the total of ‘Proposed Additional Housing Allocations’ forming part of the housing supply. Specifically, a total of 1,242no. units have been identified as additional housing allocations, of which 959no. are expected to be delivered on the rolled forward LDP sites. As such, these sites are to provide for a significant proportion of additional housing in the Plan period (specifically circa 77%).

The Development Plans Manual (DPM) sets out that allocations rolled forward from a previous plan will require careful justification for inclusion in a revised plan. The DPM outlines that “there will need to be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate sites can be delivered and justify being included again. Clear evidence will be required that such sites can be delivered.” The below table included in the consultation document provides a breakdown of the rolled forward LDP sites, and in particular, sets out the status of each site:


The above table evidences that the current LDP has under delivered in regard to its targeted unit number of the Plan period, given that these sites did not yield any housing over the current Plan period. This is further exacerbated by the Land Bank sites that have also not delivered any housing across the existing LDP period, amounting to 1,860no units. Accordingly, when considering the non-delivery of both rolled forward LDP sites and Land Bank sites, this amounts to an approximate shortfall of 2,189 homes being delivered, or 33% of the total housing supply identified for the current LDP (8,525no. dwellings).

It is therefore considered that, as a minimum, the units carried over from the LDP (without planning permission) should be a surplus to the housing supply proposed for the RLDP, as opposed to being relied on to deliver the housing need over the Plan period. This is particularly the case for the two sites (Land to the west of Pencoedtre Lane, and Land between Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road) which do not currently have any active planning application

submitted for their development. These sites total an amount of 370no. units to be delivered in the Plan period, which represents more than a third of the additional housing allocations to make up the housing supply.

As such, it is considered that the unmet need deriving from the existing LDP is still present – indeed it has grown, and will continue to do so, not least when considered in conjunction with the projected population growth over the coming years to 2036, and the aspirations for growth in the Plan’s strategy.

Accordingly, in order to secure the targeted level of housing, a greater level of provision for new allocations should be applied in order to meet the housing requirement. This would bring about better certainty that the housing requirement is met by the housing supply over the Plan period, not least given that the current Plan failed in this respect. Without a re-apportioning of the housing supply, it is considered that the Plan would heavily rely on the contingency (i.e. rolled forward LDP sites) coming forward in the Plan period, yet there is uncertainty that these will yield in full over the new Plan period. This raises issues of ’soundness’, and risks rendering the Plan unrobust.

Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions

As set out in our previous representations to the Housing Trajectory consultation, we have considerable concerns in relation to the proposed delivery of the sites identified in the trajectory – which we do not consider are robust or reasonable.

Appendix 1 of the Deposit Plan sets out the development trajectory bar chart – which illustrates the proposed delivery of housing, on a per annum basis, over the Plan period.

Extract of Housing Trajectory Graph (annotated by GJP – red dotted line)
It is our view that the trajectory makes for an unrealistic and unrobust delivery rate of housing, which does not reflect the pattern of housing completions in the Vale of Glamorgan. We therefore have concerns regarding the soundness of the trajectory, not least that there remain significant uncertainties as to the delivery of the Key Sites (as discussed earlier in these representations).

Firstly, the graph / trajectory illustrates a large ‘spike’ in terms of housing delivery in the year 2027-28, which is considered to be a marked and pronounced step change in the rate of delivery. This envisages / relies on a significantly higher rate of delivery than previous years in the Vale of Glamorgan (2021 through 2021 – as depicted by the green columns). It is considered that this level of delivery is unlikely to materialise, not least given prevailing market

circumstances, past rates of delivery on the ground, and also in light of levels achieved across Wales and the UK in general.

The published trajectory shows that the average level of completions from 2021 - 2025 has been approx. 400 - 500 units, however, the chart shows that from 2027 – 2028, completions are expected to rise to approx. 1,000 units per year. The expected delivery levels in the trajectory therefore show and assume a doubling in delivery rates and unit numbers (an increase of approx. 100% relative to past rates). There is no clear evidence as to how this level of completions can be achieved let alone guaranteed. This is the case in particular given that the forthcoming years (2025-2027) are expected to see performance (yield) drop significantly (delivery rates in 2025 – 2026 and 2026 – 2027). The chart shows only approx. 200 units being delivered over these years. It is therefore unclear how completion rates are expected to rise so quickly (from 200 in 2025-26 to 1000 in 2027-28), and by such a significant amount. The assumptions in the trajectory are wholly unrobust in our view.

It is also the case that the anticipated delivery of housing fails to be consistent within and across the Plan period. It is unclear as to why completions rates aren’t spread out more evenly throughout the Plan period - to ensure a robust and most realistic housing trajectory until 2036. By comparison to the marked increase in the rate of delivery between and over the period 2027 to 2031, there is then a marked fall-off or drop in delivery towards and by the end of the Plan period. Indeed, in the final year, the level of completions are expected to be lower than the period 2021-2025.

Accordingly, we consider that the housing trajectory, as proposed, is entirely manufactured and unreflective of the past completion rates, as well as the recent published completion rates provided by Welsh Government recently in August 2025. As set out in our previous representations, it has been evidenced that there has been a general decline in the number of new dwellings started and completed.

Description of Figure 1: ‘New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’
As identified in the graph above, in 2024-25, 4,631 new dwellings were completed, which represents 3% fewer than the previous year. This figure represented the second lowest number on record, with the lowest number recorded in 2021-22, a year heavily affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (in 2021-22, 4,616 new dwellings were completed) The New Housing Pipeline Report Quarter 3, 2025 Report (December 2025) published by the HBF evidenced that the number of residential units approved in the UK fell by 7% during the third quarter of 2025, extending the decline seen during the first half of the year. At 45,075, the number of units approved was 34% down on the third quarter of 2024 and the lowest quarterly total since 2012 Q2. At 146,798, the overall number of units approved during the first nine months of 2025 was 25% lower than a year ago.



HBF Graph Illustrating Residential Approvals (2006-2025)

The above graph clearly shows a pronounced downward trend in the number of residential planning approvals over the period, particuarly with a sharp decrease seen since 2020. Further, the HBF document ‘Increasing Housing Supply in Wales’ (4th September 2025) clearly shows that The Vale of Glamorgan has not met the housing delivery requirements in recent years in 2023 – 2024 – along with every other authority in Wales (except Newport). Accordingly, this further adds to the argument that historically The Vale (and most other authorities) have underprovided. This adds considerable uncertainty on the assumed transformation in yield and delivery as built into the trajectory.

Graph: Housing Delivery as a proportion of annual housing requirement in Wales per Authority

More recently, the Welsh Government has released its new estimates of housing need (Estimates of Additional Hosing Need: 2025-based – February 2026). The estimates show how many new homes need to be built over the next twenty years to address existing unmet need as well as newly arising need. The figures set out that around 8,700no. new homes a year are needed over the next Senedd term up to 2030 to meet new housing need. Additionally, there is an unmet need for 9,400 affordable homes.

Overall, this represents more than double 2024/25 levels of supply, where just 4,638 new homes were built.

HBF: Estimates of Housing Need

HBF: Actual Delivery vs Estimates of Need

The above graphs unequivocally evidence that historical rates of delivery of housing in Wales has remained low, and moreover, significant numbers of housing need to be allocated in order to meet the estimate of need. It is not

considered that the housing trajectory, in its current form, is robust to meet the housing need over the Plan period, given the uncertainties of the Key Sites, and the level of housing delivery that has been identified for the Plan.

Affordable Housing-Led Sites

HG4 - Rural Affordable Housing Led Sites

Policy HG4 of the Deposit Plan identifies four sites to be allocated as affordable housing-led sites, totalling approximately 122 dwellings within the plan period. Given the target levels of achieving 3,070 affordable dwellings over the course of the Plan period (up to 2036), it is not considered that this policy goes far enough to address the target and level of affordable housing need.


It is noted that the number of units identified for each site relate to the ‘total’ number of units delivered, as opposed to the affordable housing provision. Accordingly, it can be assumed that circa 50% of each allocation will comprise affordable units (given each site is affordable-led), which would equate to a total provision of circa 61no. units. The contribution from the affordable housing-led sites would only equate to 2% of the total need (3,070no. units). Even when coupled with the affordable housing provision from open market sites and 100% exception sites, the total delivery of affordable housing will still be nowhere near enough to meet the overall affordable housing need over the Plan period. Accordingly, it is considered that inadequate provision has been made for such sites – not least given that 3 of the 4 allocated affordable housing-led sites are located west of Cowbridge.

Insofar as to the sites chosen and allocated are concerned, it is clear from reviewing the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Candidate Site Assessment that the allocated sites HG4(1) – (4) were not considered acceptable due to being outside the strategic growth areas, and were considered to be unacceptable intrusions into the open countryside. After being resubmitted as affordable housing-led sites, the sites were allocated, some with a smaller area in order to accommodate less dwellings in total.

The sustainable credentials of the sites allocated is not disputed, and it is acknowledged that these minor rural settlements have the ability to accommodate further growth, in the form of affordable-led housing allocations. However, it is considered that Land South of A48, Bonvilston (Site ID: 435 / 3857) should also form an allocation as part of this policy, given its high sustainability credentials and its appropriate location to accommodate a suitable level of development. Please refer to the previous representations made to the Housing Trajectory Consultation (dated 17th October) for further, more detailed comments regarding the above sites.

The LHMA 2023 shows that there is a need for 77 affordable homes in the St Nicholas & Llancarfan housing market area (which Bonvilston is located within), and a need for 242 affordable homes in the Wenvoe housing market area. As such, there is an identified need for affordable housing in this area, something which the site could address through an allocation.

Securing further delivery of Affordable Units

As set out above, it can be assumed that the affordable housing-led allocated sites only provide 61no. affordable dwellings, which comprise 4no. allocated sites that are expected to deliver approximately between 20 – 50 dwellings (including both affordable and market housing). However, the RLDP sets a target of 3,070 affordable homes to be delivered in the Plan period. This means that affordable housing-led allocations make up less than 4% of the target provision and will only make provision for 2% of the targeted number. We would therefore object to the sites included

within Policy HG4 and would suggest that more sites should be allocated as part of the policy in order to secure delivery of a higher number of affordable housing units to meet the target.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the Key Sites will provide for a significant proportion of affordable housing, as set out above in these representations, there is serious concern regarding the deliverability of these sites, which would result in a significant gap of affordable housing delivered.

A greater number of affordable housing-led sites allocated would ensure there is sufficient contingency built into the Plan, to ensure that the overall affordable housing need is met over the Plan period. Failure to do so would result in affordable housing need being unmet, with demand continuing to outstrip supply.

Previous representations to the Preferred Strategy (dated 14th February 2024) provided comment on the sustainability scoring of Bonvilston and the proposed site. As outlined within these representations, it is considered that the site (ID 435 / 3857) represents a sustainable, deliverable and acceptable site. This proposed allocation is situated in proximity to Cowbridge, Culverhouse Cross and Cardiff, which comprise all key services. Given that the site is located within 4 miles of both Cowbridge and St Nicholas, the site is within a maximum 20-minute bus journey of the following key services:

• Cowbridge Comprehensive School;
• St Nicholas Primary School;
• Cowbridge Health Centre; and
• Cowbridge town centre for various Retail Services.

Accordingly, the settlement of Bonvilston represents an acceptable location to allocate an affordable housing-led site, given the access to existing services and facilities that would serve future residents of the site.

To conclude, the settlement, location and site are inherently suitable and deliverable, and will make a significant contribution to achieving and realising the housing and economic development needs of Bonvilston, support the surrounding settlements, and the Plan area as a whole. As such, the site should be considered further.

Comments on Specific Policies

HG5 - Affordable Housing Exception Sites

Given the unmet need and extant backlog of affordable housing, as identified within the LHMA (2023), it is noted that an Affordable Housing Exception Sites policy has been adopted in order to assist in the delivery of affordable housing. Policy HG5 sets out the specific criteria where proposals for 100% small scale affordable housing developments will be permitted outside settlement boundaries. The current policy wording for the Affordable Housing Site Exception Policy and the criteria listed out in the policy is generally supported.

That said, it is noted that a ‘cap’ of 10 dwellings (as referenced within supporting text Para 6.140) is set. This should be amended due to such a ‘cap’ limiting the flexibility of the policy, in particularly for sites coming forward as part of this policy in Minor Rural Settlements.

As such, we would suggest that supporting Para 6.140 should be amended in order to allow for further flexibility for sites in Minor Rural Settlements to come forward and to deliver affordable housing, given that the criteria set out in the policy would already protect and restrict the extent of any development as it stands. Therefore, the proposed amendments to Para 6.140 are outlined below in red:

6.140 “For the purposes of this policy, ‘small-scale’ will generally mean no more than around 10 dwellings on sites adjoining Minor Rural Settlements. In Primary Settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area, proposals for more than 10 dwellings may be acceptable where required to meet a specific need and where the number of dwellings is proportionate to the size of the settlement. In assessing the scale and extent of any proposed local needs housing, consideration should also be given to affordable housing already planned in the ward or nearby area, including sites

with existing planning permissions and those allocated in the RLDP. The size and type of affordable housing proposed should reflect the identified local need in the area.”

The above suggested wording would achieve a more flexible policy, which would allow for a variety of scaled applications to secure planning permission for solely 100% affordable housing across the Authority area. This greater flexibility would enable the policy to make a significant contribution towards meeting the affordable housing need – which, as set out earlier is in considerable need.

SECTION 3. Suitability of the site for development

The site promoter objects to the overall assessment of the site, in that it is not considered suitable for further development in the Plan. The promoted site has undergone extensive scrutiny and appraisal at a high level to ascertain the qualities of the site, in light of all identified material considerations which relate to the proposals.

The delivery of the site will yield much needed housing (including Affordable housing) and contribute to the overall supply in the new Plan period, whilst making effective use of a suitably located site for residential development.

Moreover, as set out in ‘Annex 2’ of our representations, the site has overcome the ‘constraints’ set out in the Candidate Site Assessment undertaken for the site, which demonstrates that the proposal is both acceptable and deliverable.

Deliverability of the Site

In summary, the site seeks to deliver the following key elements:

• In summary, the opportunity of the site seeks to deliver:
• Residential development comprising up to 25 dwellings, with at least 50% affordable housing in accordance with Policy SP2,
• Highways infrastructure within the site;
• Upgraded access to the site;
• Strong legible pedestrian and cycle connections throughout the site and with the existing settlement;
• Green Infrastructure; and
• Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the site promoters:

• Object to the distribution of growth proposed for the Plan area, with a more balanced and equitable distribution of housing sites required in order to meet the identified housing need;
• Object to the level of growth identified for the Plan period;
• Object to the housing trajectory that underpins the delivery of housing within the Plan period – which is considered to be unrealistic and unrobust, leading to serious uncertainty regarding the “soundness” of the Plan;
• Object to the over-reliance on Key Sites and Rolled Forward Sites in making up the Plan’s housing land supply;
• Object to the scale and timing of delivery of sites in / around St Athan – all of which are predicated on railway station provision which will not be realised in the Plan period;
• Object to the under-provision of sites under Policy HG4 – Rural Affordable Housing-Led sites, not least given their extremely limited contribution to the targeted need for affordable housing;
• Object to the current wording of the HG5 Policy ‘Affordable Housing Exception Sites’ which requires greater flexibility to play an important role in delivery much-needed affordable homes across the Authority; and
• Object the Council’s assessment that the site is not considered suitable for development.

The site and proposals are consistent with the RLDP strategy, other Vale of Glamorgan strategies, and the requirements of Planning Policy Wales and Future Wales. It will make a significant contribution to the Vale’s identified housing requirement in the RLDP period and will provide for a wide range of uses that will support the wider community whilst embodying principles relating to placemaking and the well-being of future generations.

The site has no fundamental constraints and has the ability to deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits for the benefit of future residents and the existing local community. The site is demonstrated to be viable, being able to deliver policy-compliant levels of affordable housing and given its location within a strong market area, will benefit from high delivery rates.

ANNEX 2
SECTION 4. A summary of the suitability of the site for development including a Response to the Candidate Site Assessment

This section of the overall representations to the Deposit Plan is to respond to, and address, the Council’s assessment of the site.

While the issues the Council have raised in their assessment of the site have been addressed and discussed within the representations made at the Preferred Strategy stage of the Plan, a similar ‘scoring’ exercise has been undertaken as part of the evidence base for the Deposit Plan. As such, it is still pertinent to consider and respond to the Council’s assessment of the site as part of these representations

The Detailed Site Assessment for Land South of the A48, Bonvilston (Site ID: 3857) sets out that the position of the site at the Deposit Stage is as follows:

“Notwithstanding the amendment from a market led to an affordable housing led scheme (original CS 435), the other reasons why the site was previously discounted still remain.
The development would have an adverse impact on the character and setting of the Bonvilston Conservation Area. Development of the site would require major highway mitigation works to enable safe vehicular access on to the A48.
The Predictive ALC Maps indicates that site is Grade 2 Best and Most Versatile Land. Development of the site would lead to the loss of BMV land. BMV land should only be developed if there is an overriding need for the development and either previously developed land or land is lower agricultural grades is unavailable. There is housing land available within the ward of St Nicholas and Llancarfan that can support the delivery of affordable housing.”
Conservation Area
In terms of the assertion that “The development would have an adverse impact on the character and setting of the Bonvilston Conservation Area, this is strongly disputed.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the site lies within the Bonvilston Conservation Area, the conclusion that it would be adversely affected is not considered to be accurate. Firstly, the site as it currently stands, consists of an open field. This does not match the conservation area which is characterised primarily by residential dwellings of varying densities, and as such, it is considered that development of the site with sensitively designed buildings would enhance as opposed to harming its surroundings.

Secondly, the large residential development to the north of the site, ‘Land at Sycamore Cross’ ref. 2015/00960/FUL encroaches on the Bonvilston Conservation area but was deemed acceptable by the LPA. Although not all of the site is within the Conservation Area, it’s encroachment and presence adjoining and surrounding a large proportion of the area is considerable and was deemed acceptable by Officers in 2017. Given this, a development at the Land South of the A48 should be deemed acceptable, as it follows the same principles albeit at a much smaller scale.

Highways
As for the statement that “Development of the site would require major highway mitigation works to enable safe vehicular access on to the A48”, this is also strongly disputed.

The site is located immediately adjacent to the adopted highway where it is proposed to upgrade and enhance the existing gated access point. Due to the existing access point, it is not considered that ‘major’ highway mitigation works would be needed, rather this would be enhanced and improved as part of the proposed development. Furthermore, given the nature of the road, with long views extending in both directions, it is anticipated that appropriate visibility

splays could be achieved to enable safe access and egress. As such, it is considered that the site would achieve appropriate highway access within the need for “major” highway mitigation works.

Agricultural Land Classification
The Detailed Site Assessment also sets out that “The Predictive ALC Maps indicates that site is Grade 2 Best and Most Versatile Land. Development of the site would lead to the loss of BMV land. BMV land should only be developed if there is an overriding need for the development and either previously developed land or land is lower agricultural grades is unavailable.” This is strongly disputed.

A review of the Agricultural Land Classification Predictive Map indicates that the site lies primarily within ‘Grade 2: Very good quality agricultural land’ but no Grade 1 land is present. Further assessment and tests to establish the quality would therefore be undertaken in due course to confirm the quality of the land. However, it is not considered that it would be suitable to farm in any event given the location immediately adjoining existing residential development and the fact that it is within private ownership. Overall, given that the site is relatively small with a gross area of 0.88 hectares, it is not considered that its development would result in a detrimental or significant loss of agricultural land – not least given that site is not capable of beneficial agricultural production due to its limited size.

Housing / Housing Land
Further to the above, it is also set out that “There is housing land available within the ward of St Nicholas and Llancarfan that can support the delivery of affordable housing”, however, this is not considered to be entirely accurate.

The LHMA 2023 shows that there is a need for 77 affordable homes in the St Nicholas & Llancarfan housing market area and a need for 242 affordable homes in the Wenvoe housing market area. This need has not been met through the allocations of sites within the RLDP, nor has it been met through outstanding commitments.

As outlined in Annex 1, it can be assumed that the affordable housing-led allocated sites will only provide for 61no. affordable dwellings within the Rural Vale, comprising 4no. sites that are expected to deliver approximately 20 – 50 dwellings (including both affordable and market housing). However, the RLDP sets a target of 3,070 affordable homes to be delivered in the Plan period. This means that affordable housing-led allocations make up less than 4% of the target provision and will only make provision for 2% of the targeted number. Therefore, more sites should be allocated in order to secure the delivery of a higher number of affordable housing units to meet the target.

As set out within Annex 1, it is acknowledged that the Key Sites will provide for a significant proportion of affordable housing, however, there is serious concern regarding the deliverability of these sites, which would result in a significant gap in the total affordable housing that is delivered. Therefore, allocating a greater number of affordable housing-led sites would ensure there is sufficient contingency built into the Plan, to ensure that the overall affordable housing need is met over the Plan period. Failure to do so would result in the both the overall affordable housing need, and the need for the St Nicholas & Llancarfan housing market area, being unmet, with demand continuing to outstrip supply.

The LHMA 2023 sets out the existing stock and planned supply of affordable housing over the next 5 years (up until 2028). This assessment found that the housing market area of St Nicholas & Llancarfan has a committed supply of 4no. one beds, 11no. two beds, and 3no. three beds, with 2 no. three beds as expected re-lets. The assessment also identifies a committed supply of 39no. units for intermediate housing.

The LHMA also sets out the existing stock and planned supply for Wenvoe, identifying the committed supply of social rent homes to be 12no. one beds, 11no. two beds, and 5no. three beds, with 7no. one beds and 8no. two beds as expected re-lets. There is no committed supply for intermediate housing in Wenvoe.

It should be noted that the development of ‘Land East of Nicholas’ (Campbell Court and Cae Newydd), has now been completed, and as such, can not form part of the housing land available. The latest Pre-Application Response for the site subject to these representations (Land South of the A48, Bonvilston) accounted for the development of the site in

St Nicholas, stating that “even after the developments at St Nicholas and Culverhouse Cross, there was the need in the Wenvoe ward for 1 Bed 71, 2 Bed 49, 3 Bed 29, 4 Bed 7, 5 Bed 5, Total 161".

It should also be noted that there are existing commitments within the Bonvilston area (‘Land to the east of Bonvilston’), however, the deliverability of the existing commitment is seriously questioned. Application Ref. 2015/00960/FUL was approved in July 2017, with the Housing Land Supply and Housing Trajectory Report (December 2025) confirming that of the total 120 units permitted, only 40 had completed by 1st April 2025, with the remaining 80 units not started by this same date. Of the 80 units not started, 25 units are affordable homes.

It is well known that phase 1 of the development at ‘Land to the east of Bonvilston’ has faced difficulties which has led to the development remaining incomplete. This does of course put into question the overall deliverability of the site, and raises concerns about the units that were, and still are, required within the Bonvilston area.

The allocation of the site promoted herein would not only help in the short term in meeting the overall affordable housing target for the Plan, but would also assist in meeting the unmet needs of affordable housing within Bonvilston – not least given the serious concern regarding the deliverability of the committed supply of housing within the St Nicholas & Llancarfan housing market area.

For the reasons set out above, and in light of the information provided within the LHMA 2023 and the Housing Land Supply and Housing Trajectory Report (December 2025), it is evident that there is considerable need for affordable housing within Bonvilston, and accordingly, the housing market areas of St Nicholas & Llancarfan, and Wenvoe. There have not been any sites allocated to assist within meeting the local need, and more sites should be allocated in order to secure delivery of a higher number of affordable housing units to meet the overall target of the Plan.

The contention that “There is housing land available within the ward of St Nicholas and Llancarfan that can support the delivery of affordable housing” is therefore strongly disputed – not least given that there is a clear and evident need to allocate more affordable housing-led sites in order to meet the target set out in the Plan.

Interim Summary

In summary, it is considered that the site subject to these representations would not have an adverse impact on the character and setting of the Bonvilston Conservation Area, nor would major highway mitigation works be required to enable safe vehicular access on to the A48. Moreover, it is considered that the site’s classification as BMV Agricultural Land does not pose a fundamental constraint to development – as the site represents a relatively small parcel with a gross area of 0.88 hectares, which is not capable of beneficial agricultural production due to its limited size.

There is also a considerable need for the affordable housing in Bonvilston and the housing market area of St Nicholas & Llancarfan. The site promoted herein would assist in meeting these local needs and should be allocated accordingly.

Candidate Site Assessment

The Detailed Site Assessment undertaken by the LPA includes a summary and assessment of the ‘scoring’ system used at the Preferred Strategy stage. A comparison between the site assessments undertaken at both the Preferred Strategy stage and Deposit Plan stage is provided overleaf for reference.



Site Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage Site Assessment at Deposit Plan Stage

As demonstrated above, there has only been one change to the scoring attributed to the site, this being a change from ‘red’ to ‘amber’ for ‘Developer Interest’. Detailed submissions were made on the previous assessment undertaken by the Council at Preferred Strategy stage, and as such, should be read in conjunction with these representations accordingly (see Appendix B).

Whilst detailed submissions were made on the previous assessment, it is considered pertinent for the scoring of the key criteria’s to be addressed as part of these representations. As such, these have also been discussed below.
Developer Interest

As set out above, the Detailed Site Assessment for ‘Developer Interest’ has changed from ‘red’ to ‘amber’. The assessment methodology for this section of the assessment has been extracted below for reference.


As set out above, ‘amber’ refers to there being no development interest identified at this stage, however, there is evidence to indicate that the site is being actively promoted by the owners.

The representations made to the Preferred Strategy (Appendix B) sets out that whilst the site does not yet have an agreement with a developer to take on the land, it is considered that this would be achieved should the site be allocated, and planning permission granted. Newydd Housing association have been engaged previously and had agreed to take the site forward as a 100% affordable scheme, albeit is also considered that they could take on the affordable units as part of a mixed tenure scheme.

In addition to Newydd, the site promoter has also received an offer from a private social housing provider who would be prepared to support the site as a mixed tenure scheme.

This position has not changed since the Preferred Strategy stage, and is considered that there is continued developer interest for the site. This is not considered to change at any point – not least given the discussions held between the owners of the site in questions and developers of interest.

Environmental and Physical Constraints

As set out at the Pre-Application Stage. the site underwent a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal in September 2022 which identified that whilst some precautionary measures were recommended in terms of protecting priority habitats and reptiles, the site is not fundamentally constrained from development on ecological terms. Given this, it is considered that further ecological surveys would be undertaken at the planning stage to inform any development proposals and ensure the safeguarding of the natural environment.

Access to Key Services (Retail, Primary Schools, and Health Services) and to Services and Facilities

As set out within the representations made to the Preferred Strategy, the site is located within a maximum of a 20-minute bus journey to a version of every key service listed, due to the proximity of the site to settlements such as Cowbridge, Culverhouse Cross and St Nicholas. Due to the availability of frequent bus services, and active travel links, these key services are readily available to access for any residents within Bonvilston without the need to travel by car.

To reiterate, the site ‘Land South of the A48, Bonvilston’ is situated in proximity to Cowbridge, Culverhouse Cross and Cardiff, which comprise all key services. Concluding this allocation as ‘unsustainable’ in regard to ‘availability of local facilities in and around settlements’ is not accurate. Given that the site is located within 4 miles of both Cowbridge and St Nicholas, the site is within a maximum 20-minute bus journey of the following key services:

• Cowbridge Comprehensive School;
• St Nicholas Primary School;
• Cowbridge Health Centre; and
• Cowbridge town centre for various Retail Services.

It should also be noted that Bonvilston contains a number of facilities within a short and level walking distance of the site, including the village shop and Café, as well as the Red Lion Public House.

Given the accessibility of the site to other settlements, and the fact that these are made accessible by bus and active travel routes, it is considered that the site should be concluded as sustainable in regard to access to key services.

Summary and Conclusion

As evidenced above, and within the representations made to the Preferred Strategy (Appendix B), there are no fundamental constraints at, or associated with the site, that would preclude the site coming forward for development in the RLDP period.

To conclude, the settlement, location, and site, are inherently suitable and deliverable, and will make a significant contribution to achieving and realising the housing and economic development needs of the Vale of Glamorgan.

Summary of These Representations

In short, and to summarise the case made and set out, these representations seek to object to the Housing Trajectory published as part of the consultation on the Draft Housing Trajectory For Housing Stakeholder Group (October 2025) which underpins the Plan and the delivery / realisation of its underlying strategy.

Detailed submissions and objections are raised below in respect to the trajectory information published regarding the soundness and robustness of this information (and it’s consultation), which we do not consider are adequate, robust, or sound to deliver the Plans aims and objectives.

Preface

This Submission sets out the detailed case in support of these representations. The representations are structured as follows:

1. Procedural Consultation Matters;
2. Timing Assumptions underpinning the Trajectory;
3. Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions;;
4. Status & Standing of Sites included in the Trajectory;
5. Key Sites;
6. St Athan Train Station;
7. Geographic distribution of the ‘new’ sites / provision;
8. Detailed comments in respect to ‘new’ sites;
9. Conclusions Procedural Consultation Matters
Firstly, we do not consider that the consultation on the Housing Trajectory information has been procedurally undertaken appropriately or suitably.

Only 14 days have been afforded to parties to make representations on the information provided. This is despite new sites being introduced (at this late stage) i.e. Land South of Clive Road (identified in Table 4), as well as a number of affordable housing led housing sites being introduced (i.e. those outlined in Table 5). This does not provide an adequate process or timescale for objectors to scrutinise the published content, and to make comments on sites which have been presented for the first time at a late stage in the process.

As part of these representations, we will be making brief comment on the sites which have not been previously consulted upon, namely:
Other Housing Allocations
• Land south of Clive Road, St Athan;

Affordable Housing Led Sites
• Land at Heol Fain, Wick;
• Land west of Maendy Road, Aberthin;
• Land Noth of West Winds Business Park, Fferm Goch; and
• Land to the East of Colwinston.

It is considered necessary to comment on these sites, given that they form an important and critical part of the housing trajectory, and by association in the Council and Plan reaching their targets. Moreover, these sites have not been consulted on previously. Accordingly we consider it necessary to pass comment on these in order to ensure that the consultation is fair and robust.

As well as limited time given to comment on the information contained within the Housing Trajectory, the LPA have failed to set up a Housing Stakeholder group to agree and discuss the trajectory information and data – with the cover email to the consultation (dated 3rd October 2025) stating “it is considered that it would be the best use of stakeholder time to conduct this engagement via email, particularly as many of the forecasts have been developed in consultation with site promoters including developers and their agents”.

We submit that the stakeholder consultation has not been a transparent nor robust consultation process, given that the Development Plans Manual states at Para 5.66 “A housing trajectory must be prepared to support the Deposit Plan. In order to generate a housing trajectory and associated phasing tables it will be necessary for LPAs to engage with stakeholders through a Housing Stakeholder Group. This will ensure that the timing and phasing of sites is robust and based on up to date information”. Given that this has not taken place, we would raise fundamental concerns that the consultation of the trajectory has not adequately taken place as per the relevant guidance. Afterall, the guidance stresses that a Group should be formed as a necessity. Accordingly, there has not been an adequate process and opportunity to review and comment on the information published, including in respect to the other sites have been introduced at this late stage.

Timing Assumptions underpinning the Trajectory

The assumed and factored in timescales of the various stages of bringing forward sites i.e. the pre-application stage, the planning application process, and the discharge of condition process outlined in the trajectory are considered to be fundamentally inaccurate, and result in a distorted position of the delivery of housing sites over the RLDP Plan period. The assumptions are far too ambitious, and without evidence / are not comparable with the timescales being incurred in processing such stages at the Development Management stage(s).

Specifically, we raise objection to the following timescales which are considered to be extremely ambitious and unrealistic:

• “Time period of pre-application discussions/PAC consultation” = 4 months
• “Time between submission of planning application and determination” = 6 months
• “Time taken from planning consent to the discharge of relevant conditions to enable site construction” = 4 months

In our experience, having submitted a significant number of major and other applications for housing and other forms of development in the last 1-2 years to the Council (and elsewhere in Wales and England), it is extremely unlikely that major applications can be submitted, and planning permissions granted, within the timeframes assumed by the trajectory. A wide range of stakeholders are also involved in the determination of major planning applications, which often adds to the delays associated with the determination of such applications. We would therefore consider that a time period of “6 months” given to all major applications in the housing trajectory is not feasible, and distorts the trajectory timescales for the remaining Plan period.

The assumptions in the trajectory are also solely based on expected timescales for the processing of formal submissions made to the Council, and do not factor in the timescales associated with, and needed for, the preparation of the material for submission (i.e. pre-application enquiry submissions / planning application / discharge of condition details etc). When factored in these will elongate the timescales for bringing forward schemes considerably.

Moreover, it is common practice for larger housing sites and major applications to have a range of pre-commencement conditions attached to a permission once granted. Again, we would raise concerns with the timescales indicated in the trajectory related to this part of the planning process. It is highly unusual and questionable that any technical work required by these conditions (usually relating to drainage and highways matters) would be instructed, completed and submitted within 2 months, and for these to then be signed off / approved in a further 2 months. There are also other technical matters and necessary approvals falling outside of, and over and above, the planning system, such as SAB, s.106, s.38 and s.278 agreements, timescales for which have not been accounted for – and all of which are rarely completed within “4 months” as indicated.

It is therefore highly doubtful that the timescales legislated for in the trajectory for the various stages pre-construction are achievable – with no information about these proposed timescales outlined within the supporting text of the Housing Trajectory. We would therefore raise considerable concerns and objections to these as they stand without full evidence to fully show how these have been calculated, and without there being considerable (and necessary) adjustment to the timescales indicated and factored in.

We would therefore object to the timescales indicated in the ‘Timing and Phasing of Sites’ table, given that the delivery start dates will be pushed back further into the Plan period. Accordingly, and as a result, the Plan is at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated, at least as swiftly as is set out in the trajectory.

Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions

We would also raise considerable doubt over the proposed delivery of the sites identified in the Housing Trajectory - which we do not consider are robust or reasonable.

The development trajectory bar chart set out in the consultation material (extracted below) anticipates and legislates for a number of critical events and circumstances – all of which are considered to be unrobust and unsound.

Extract of Housing Trajectory Graph (annotated by GJP – red dotted line)

Firstly, a large ‘spike’ (material increase) in housing delivery is factored in to take place in 2027 – 2028. This is a marked and pronounced step change in the rate of delivery, and envisages / relies on a significantly higher rate of delivery than previous years in The Vale of Glamorgan (2021 through 2025 - as depicted by the green columns). This is considered extremely unlikely to materialise, not least given prevailing market circumstances, past rates of delivery on the ground, and also in light of levels achieved across Wales and the UK in general.

The published trajectory shows that the average level of completions in The Vale of Glamorgan from 2021 - 2025 has been approx. 400 - 500 units. However, the chart shows that from 2027 – 2028, completions are expected to rise to approx. 1,000 units per year. The expected delivery levels in the trajectory therefore show and assume a doubling in delivery rates and unit numbers (an increase of approx. 100%relative to past rates). There is no clear evidence as to how this level of completions can be achieved let alone guaranteed. This is the case in particular given that the forthcoming years (2025-2027) are expected to see performance (yield) drop significantly (delivery rates in 2025 – 2026 and 2026 – 2027). The chart shows only approx. 200 units being delivered over these years. It is therefore unclear how completion rates are expected to rise so quickly (from 200 in 2025-26 to 1000 in 2027-28), and by such a significant amount. The assumptions in the trajectory are wholly unrobust in our view.

The anticipated delivery of housing also fails to be consistent within and across the Plan period. It is unclear as to why completions rates aren’t spread out more evenly throughout the Plan period - to ensure a robust and most realistic housing trajectory until 2036. By comparison to the marked increase in the rate of delivery between and over the

period 2027 to 2031, there is then a marked fall-off or drop in delivery towards and by the end of the Plan period. Indeed, in the final year, the level of completions are expected to be lower than the period 2021-2015.

To summarise, we consider the defined position to be wholly manufactured and unreflective of the past completion rates, as well as the recently published completion rates provided by Welsh Government recently in August 2025. In the Welsh Government Statistics Document ‘’New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’, information on the number of new dwellings started is provided, where building has commenced and those completed for April 2024 to March 2025. Figure 1 provides a graph showing starts in the last 10 years, and it is clear that there has been a general decline in the number of new dwellings started and completed.

Description of Figure 1:.‘New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’
In 2024-25, 4,631 new dwellings were completed, 3% fewer than in the previous year. This was the second lowest number on record, with the lowest number recorded in 2021-22, a year heavily affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (in 2021-22, 4,616 new dwellings were completed). The New Housing Pipeline Report Quarter 2, 2025 Report (September, 2025) published by the HBF evidenced that the number of residential units approved in the UK fell by 6% during the second quarter of 2025, continuing the decline of approval during the first three months of the year. Wales saw one of the largest declines in the UK in approvals with a decline of 29%.

Further, the HBF document ‘Increasing Housing Supply in Wales’ (4th September 2025) clearly shows that The Vale of Glamorgan has not met the housing delivery requirements in recent years in 2023 – 2024 – along with every other authority in Wales (except Newport). Accordingly, this further adds to the argument that historically The Vale (and most other authorities) have underprovided. This adds considerable uncertainty on the assumed transformation in yield and delivery as built into the trajectory.



Graph: Housing Delivery as a proportion of annual housing requirement in Wales per Authority

The Home Building Sector Skills Plan (Aug 2025) published by the HBF also identified the following issues with the workforce to bring forward built development in Wales:

• “A shortfall in numbers entering roles from the education system;
• An ageing workforce: 25% of the home building workforce is aged over 50, meaning the sector is facing an impending retirement cliff edge;
• Challenges attracting a wider talent pipeline into the sector;
• A lack of understanding of critical future skills needed, and direction from the Future Homes Standard; and
• Output within the sector fluctuating with demand and economic pressures, leading to additional pressures in recruitment and training”.

It is not considered that in the next 1-2 years that any of these issues can or will be substantially corrected – at least sufficiently so to allow for, and enable, the planned delivery rates of new housing completions to be as high as < > 1,000 homes in one year (and for four consecutive years at that).

We would therefore object to the proposed numbers of completion expected during the Plan period, given that there are a number of issues with delivering housing in Wales and given past completions rates for The Vale of Glamorgan. Again, this results in the Plan being at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated.

Status & Standing of Sites included in the Trajectory

The proposed land supply within the housing trajectory includes provision for ‘rolled forward’ LDP sites, which contribute to the total of ‘Proposed Additional Housing Allocations’ forming part of the housing supply. Specifically, a total of 1,242no. units have been identified as additional housing allocations, of which 959no. are expected to be delivered on the rolled forward LDP sites. As such, these sites are to provide for a significant proportion of additional housing in the Plan period (specifically circa 77%).

The Development Plans Manual (DPM) sets out that allocations rolled forward from a previous plan will require careful justification for inclusion in a revised plan. The DPM outlines that “there will need to be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate sites can be delivered and justify being included again. Clear evidence will be required that such sites can be delivered.” The below table included in the consultation document provides a breakdown of the rolled forward LDP sites, and in particular, sets out the status of each site:




The above table evidences that the current LDP has under delivered in regard to its targeted unit number of the Plan period, given that these sites did not yield any housing over the current plan period. This is further exacerbated by the Land Bank sites that have also not delivered any housing across the existing LDP period, amounting to 1,860no units. Accordingly, when considering the non-delivery of both rolled forward LDP sites and Land Bank sites, this amounts to an approximate shortfall of 2,189 homes being delivered, or 33% of the total housing supply identified for the current LDP (8,525no. dwellings).

It is therefore considered that, as a minimum, the units carried over from the LDP (without planning permission) should be a surplus to the housing supply proposed for the RLDP, as opposed to being relied on to deliver the housing need over the Plan period. This is particularly the case for the two sites (Land to the west of Pencoedtre Lane, and Land between Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road) which do not currently have any active planning application submitted for their development. These sites total an amount of 370no. units to be delivered in the Plan period, which represents more than a third of the additional housing allocations to make up the housing supply.

As such, it is considered that the unmet need deriving from the existing LDP is still present – indeed it has grown, and will continue to do so, not least when considered in conjunction with the projected population growth over the coming years to 2036, and the aspirations for growth in the Plan’s strategy.

Accordingly, in order to secure the targeted level of housing, a greater level of provision for new allocations should be applied in order to meet the housing requirement. This would bring about better certainty that the housing requirement is met by the housing supply over the Plan period, not least given that the current Plan failed in this respect. Without a re-apportioning of the housing supply, it is considered that the Plan would heavily rely on the contingency (i.e. rolled forward LDP sites) coming forward in the Plan period, yet there is uncertainty that these will yield in full over the new Plan period. This raises issues of ‘’soundness’’, and risks rendering the Plan unrobust.

On this basis, we would object to the Plan if the provision of housing is not adjusted to rebalance the provision to include new allocations in lieu of rolled forward LDP sites in the housing supply.

Key Sites

As set out in previous representations at Preferred Strategy stage, it is considered that the housing supply relies heavily on the delivery of the ‘key sites’ to deliver housing (and meet need) over the Plan period. The total number of housing units attributed to key sites amounts to 2,278, which equates to over 25% of the total provision in the Plan period.

As detailed above, we consider there to be concerns regarding the proposed ‘Timing and Phasing of Sites’ table included in the Housing Trajectory which we consider are not reflective or accurate and will therefore have the effect of delivery start dates being much later into the Plan period than anticipated. The result of this will be that the Plan will be at risk of not delivery the level of housing expected and needed. Moreover, the Housing Trajectory Graph presents an overly ambitious level of housing completions over the Plan period - which the Council consider will be markedly higher than the average levels experienced in the last five years. Again, for the reasons set out above, we consider that these rates of expected completions to have no evidence supporting them, and to be unachievable and unsound.

Insofar as to the removal of the previously proposed site ‘Land at North East Barry’, this site was expected to deliver 900no. units in the Plan period. Following its omission from the housing supply, other sites have been identified, which comprises the inclusion of a new key site (Land at North West Barry), 3no. non-strategic sites, and also affordable housing-led allocations. In terms of the quantum of development attributed to these new sites, this amounts to 659no. dwellings. This is some 250 units less than the 900no. homes that was previously attributed to ‘Land at North East Barry’. Whilst it is appreciated that the number of homes forming part of the existing supply (completions, units with planning permission etc.) have increased since Preferred Strategy stage, there will be a net loss in market housing provision and delivery.

This position is made worse and compounded as a result of accounting for the affordable-led sites in making up the housing supply.

As set out within the Preferred Strategy, these sites are expected to deliver at least 51% affordable housing. These units are not open market units, and will not / cannot contribute to the supply of such housing. These units will contribute to the provision of affordable housing, and will go some way to meeting the acute need for such housing (albeit will not eradicate / address in full the well known and accepted considerable requirement). Accordingly it is considered that these sites should be in addition to the housing supply, as opposed to forming part of the provision. In turn, there would need to be an increase in allocations for non-strategic sites, to ensure that there is sufficient market housing delivery over the Plan period.

Were such changes to be made and introduced, this would achieve and assist realise a more robust and sound housing supply, which will ensure that the identified housing need is met / addressed over the Plan period. Without these changes it is considered that the housing supply is not sufficient, and inevitably, housing need will not be met within the Plan.

St Athan Train Station

As set out in the Preferred Strategy (para A3.29), the strategy seeks to focus development around key sustainable transport nodes. The strategy outlined that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. Accordingly, in line with the spatial strategy adopted for the RLDP (i.e. focus development around sustainable transport nodes), St Athan was identified as a ‘Strategic Opportunity Area’ to accommodate strategic growth – through the proposed allocation of two key sites : ‘Land at Church Farm’ and ‘Land West of St Athan’. These sites have been identified to deliver 532no. and 600no. units respectively in the Plan period. These are separate to, and are in addition to, the 51no. units that have now been attributed to the site ‘Land South of Clive Road’ in St Athan. Accordingly, in total, the Housing Trajectory makes a provision for a total of 1,183no. homes to be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period.

It is now the case that, subsequent to the publication of the Preferred Strategy, the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales. The focus in the first phase of such improvements across the region is towards improving connectivity in east Cardiff, Newport, and Magor. Accordingly,

it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period, which significantly questions the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

The strategy to allocate new housing growth is predicated on focusing residential development around sustainable transport nodes, and given that St Athan will be without any railway station in the Plan period, it is not considered that these sites align with the strategy of the RLDP. Accordingly, the wider Housing Trajectory is considered to be unsound, given that a total of 1,183no. homes are expected to be delivered in St Athan within the Plan period.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision. Given this, to add a further site for housing in this location over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites - given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

We therefore consider the Trajectory to be both unrobust and unsound, and therefore, we object to the Trajectory in its current form accordingly.

Geographic distribution of the ‘new’ sites / provision

As a general and overarching comment in respect to the additional sites now included within the Plan, and forming part of the trajectory, (and a matter expanded upon when critiquing each of these sites in the next section to this submission), it is clear and evident that these additional sites have been positioned to settlements that have already, and recently, been attributed significant growth in the preceding Plan and plan period.

Significant allocations (which have also contributed to significant levels of affordable housing) have been realised and built out in locations (such as Wick and Colwinston). Notwithstanding this, two of the additional sites are now proposed for these recently expanded settlements. Given that the purpose of the affordable housing led allocations is to meet unmet affordable housing need, it is questioned why such new allocations are attributed to settlements that have already seen open market and affordable housing provision, as compared to other comparable settlements that have not received any growth whatsoever over a considerable period of time.

It is considered accordingly that the geographic positioning of these allocations is at odds with their underlying purpose - to meet unmet affordable housing need in communities that have seen no provision

Detailed Comments in respect to ‘new’ sites

Other Housing Allocations

Land south of Clive Road, St Athan

A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below for ease:


As set out at the outset of these representations, and whilst we note the findings of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage (i.e. Suitable for further consideration), we do not consider that the consultation on this site has been undertaken procedurally appropriately or suitably. We therefore consider the consultation on this site is “unrobust” and “unsound”.

As set out previously, the strategy seeks to focus development around key sustainable transport nodes. The strategy outlined that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. It is now the case that, subsequent to the publication of the Preferred Strategy, the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales, where the focus is towards improving connectivity in east Cardiff, Newport, and Magor. Accordingly, it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period, which significantly questions the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision. Given this, to add a further site for housing over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites – given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

Affordable Housing Led Allocations Land at Heol Fain, Wick
A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below for ease:

Candidate Site Stage 2 Assessment (Site Ref. 404)

The findings of the Candidate Site Assessment for this site are noted. We are assuming the reason this site is proposed to be allocated is a product of the site promoters/developers heading the findings stated below, and changing the form of development to be in accord with this:

“A market housing led scheme would not be acceptable, but the site could be reconsidered as a small scale affordable housing led development subject to need and viability at a maximum of 50 dwellings. In accordance with the Settlement Appraisal Review, it is considered that Wick could potentially accommodate limited affordable housing led growth.”

Whilst no clear deficiency exists in respect to the site, it is known that Wick has been subject to significant growth and expansion in recent years – not least by virtue of significant housing allocations in the settlement as part of previous plans.

To evidence this, 35% of the 124 units approved on the ‘Rectory Field, St Brides Road’ site (i.e. circa 43 units as per site allocation ref. MG(47) and PP ref. 2014/01424/FUL) were approved as Affordable Housing units. This makes a substantial provision of such Affordable Housing units (and housing generally) in the settlement in recent years.

Other similarly sized and comparable settlements and locations have not by contrast been subject to any growth for some considerable time, and accordingly would warrant and benefit from provision as part of this new replacement plan.

Notwithstanding the location of such provision, and as set out in detail at the outset of these representations, National Planning Policy advocates the high and acute need for affordable housing, whilst recent analysis evidences that there is a housing emergency. These circumstances - coupled with the shortcomings identified and set out earlier in these submissions in respect to the adequacy of provision within the plan (rolled forward sites / inadequate provision etc) – means that notwithstanding any potential allocation at Wick, further provision ought to be made in comparable (previously unprovided for) locations, such as Ogmore By Sea.

Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin

‘Land West of Maendy Road’ has been registered as an Affordable Housing Led Allocation candidate site for the RLDP, however as far as we know from our review, there is no assessment and critique of this site. This site has not been included in the ‘Candidate Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage’ (October 2023). As such, with an absence of publicly available information, it is not clear how the Council has judged this site against the criteria. This raises questions accordingly in respect to the “soundness” of a site which forms part of the intended housing land supply, and by association the trajectory. Without this, and without being consulted on (as others have been prior to this) we question whether this allocation is “sound” (i.e. its allocation is considered to be “unsound”).

Land North of West Winds Business Park, Fferm Goch

The below sets out the candidate site stage two assessment of ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’:

Candidate Site Stage 2 Assessment (Site Ref. 398)

As can be seen above the site was not considered suitable for further consideration with the site scoring negatively (red) in a number of key factors. These include the following:

• Access to Retail;
• Access to Health Services;
• Sustainable Transport- Public Transport;
• Access/ Proximity to services and facilities conclusion;
• Climate Change; and
• Health and Wellbeing.

Given the fact the site scores red in ‘Sustainable Transport – Public Transport’, this shows the site is not served by public transport connections within 800m, as outlined in the key below:


Additionally, Policy SP7 (Sustainable Transport) of the Vale of Glamorgan Preferred Strategy states “New development must support an enhanced transport network that increases the proportion of journeys being undertaken by sustainable travel modes”. Additionally Objective 8 (Promoting Active and Sustainable Travel Choices) states “new development is directed to locations that are or can be accessible by a choice of modes of transport, including walking, cycling, and public transport.”

It is well known residents of affordable housing are statistically less likely to own private vehicles, making access to reliable and frequent public transport essential for ensuring equitable mobility. The provision of public transport infrastructure in close proximity to such developments is therefore a critical component in supporting access to employment, education, healthcare, and other key services, while also promoting sustainable travel patterns and social inclusion.

The site also scores red in Access/Proximity to services, showing the site is greater than 1200m away from key services, as seen in the key below:


In respect of the above, Preferred Strategy 6.40 states the need “To ensure that new development takes place in locations that have the best access to a wide range of services, facilities, and employment opportunities, whilst minimising the need to travel, the distribution of growth is guided by the following settlement hierarchy”. To further highlight the importance of both sustainable transport and proximity to services, the preferred strategy also states the need to “Facilitate the development of adaptable, accessible, well-connected communities that have a strong sense of identity, offer a sustainable range of services and facilities and are equipped with adequate infrastructure”. In addition, Promoting Active and Sustainable Travel Choices outlines to “Promote and encourage the use of sustainable methods of travel, particularly active modes of transport, whilst simultaneously reducing the need to travel”.

In light of the above, this site does not align with the aims and targets set out in the Preferred Strategy as it fails to meet several key development goals set out. It should therefore not be considered suitable to be allocated for future developments. Its inclusion is therefore unsound.

Should this view be concurred with, 22 affordable units will be lost from the proposed affordable 122 units, and ultimately will be lost from the overall housing land supply. As stated in the draft housing trajectory “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”. There is a clear possibility therefore that this proposed allocation is removed and/or not delivered as its inclusion is unsound as it does not align with the aims and targets set out in the Preferred Strategy - as it fails to meet several key development goals set out. A “small scale

affordable housing led development” which is needed to “respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities” will therefore not be provided for. This is clearly an issue.

Land to the East of Colwinston, Colwinston

A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below:


As outlined above the site was rejected and considered not suitable for further consideration. In fact, and unlike ‘Land at Heol Fain, Wick’ and ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’ it was stated that this site “could not be considered as a suitable affordable housing led development site”. Despite this, this site has been outlined as an Affordable Housing Led Allocation. As such, the inclusion of this site is “unsound”.

It is known that Colwinston has been subject to significant housing allocations in the settlement as part of previous plans. To evidence this, 25% of the 64 units (i.e. 16 units) were approved on the site allocation ref. MG2(41) and PP ref.

2014/00242/FUL. This makes a substantial provision of such Affordable Housing units (and housing generally) in the settlement in recent years.

Other similarly sized and comparable settlements and locations have not by contrast been subject to any growth for some considerable time, and accordingly would warrant and benefit from provision as part of this new replacement plan.

Notwithstanding the location of such provision, and as set out in detail at the outset of these representations, National Planning Policy advocates the high and acute need for affordable housing, whilst recent analysis evidences that there is a housing emergency. These circumstances - coupled with the shortcomings identified and set out earlier in these submissions in respect to the adequacy of provision within the plan (rolled forward sites / inadequate provision etc) – means that notwithstanding any potential allocation at Colwinston, further provision ought to be made in comparable (previously unprovided for) locations, such as Land South of A48, Bonvilston.

Summary of These Representations

To re-iterate, and to summarise the case made and set out, these representations seek to object to the Housing Trajectory published as part of the consultation on the Draft Housing Trajectory For Housing Stakeholder Group (October 2025) which underpins the Plan and the delivery / realisation of its underlying strategy.

Detailed submissions and objections are raised above in respect to the trajectory information published regarding the soundness and robustness of this information (and it’s consultation), which we do not consider are adequate, robust, or sound to deliver the Plans aims and objectives.

ANNEX 1
Preface

This Annex sets out the detailed case in support of these representations, and by association the case for allocation of the site.

The representations are structured into the following sections:

1. Response to the Deposit Plan;
2. Comments on specific policies; and
3. A summary of the suitability of the site for development.

SECTION 1. Response to the Deposit Plan

Distribution of Growth

We object to the distribution of growth within the Deposit Plan. Specifically, we object to the strategy that underpins the Deposit Plan, which seeks to introduce the proposed ‘Strategic Growth Area’ which is expected to contain the majority of housing growth in the Vale over the Plan period, or rather the over-reliance on this defined area, and the associated absence of growth in other parts of the Plan area.

As outlined in our previous representations, the allocation of housing and the location of strategic growth neglects the Rural Vale, and in our view, overprovides in the Strategic Growth Area. For example, with limited housing stock and average house sales at over £500,000 over the last 12 months, there is a clear and established need for new homes in the Ogmore By Sea area, particularly at an affordable level. This is reinforced by the Local Housing Market Assessment that identified a need for over 1,114 new affordable homes per annum over the next five years throughout the county, and 196 units per annum thereafter (average of 502 units per annum over 15 years). Further to this, it is widely known that the rural Vale comprises the majority of the county’s ageing population, which, as a demographic, has and will continue to grow rapidly over the Plan period. This is evident in the ‘Population Change’ chart below – which is taken from the Deposit Plan:

VofG Deposit Plan: Figure 4 Population Change 2011 to 2021

It is clearly the case that younger populations are migrating to other Authorities, where access to housing is typically cheaper and more affordable, whilst more older populations are significantly migrating into the Authority. This trend will result in an extremely unbalanced demographic, given that the working-age population have sought housing elsewhere.

Without a suitable supply of affordable housing delivered over the Plan period, this trend will only worsen. Accordingly, it is not considered that the RLDP takes into account the lack of supply of affordable homes within the rural Vale, as well as increased housing to support the growing ageing population within these areas.

Para 3.19 of the Deposit Plan clearly outlines that affordable housing is required in the short term, in order to meet pressing needs. Specifically, it outlines the following: “There is significant pressure on temporary accommodation in the Vale, for a variety of reasons including increased homelessness presentations… The need for sufficient permanent affordable housing to assist in moving people out of temporary accommodation is critical and the planning system has a vital role in assisting in new affordable housing delivery.”
Accordingly, the distribution of growth within the Authority must be proportionate, to ensure that populations / areas are not left behind where they must seek access to housing elsewhere.

The RLDP Sustainable Growth Strategy sets out 6 objectives. Objective 4 states: “Allowing for small scale affordable housing led development in settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area at a scale proportionate to the size of settlement.” (Page 66)
Para 5.25 states “Therefore, a key part of the strategy is to allow for affordable housing led developments within sustainable primary and minor rural settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area, at a scale that is appropriate to the size of the community it is serving. An ‘affordable housing led’ scheme is one where a minimum of 50% of the dwellings would need to be affordable, although this could increase to a maximum of 100% if the site is brought forward by a social landlord”.

In terms of the definition / explanation of what the affordable housing-led development sites are seeking to achieve, paragraph 6.132 of the Deposit Plan outlines the following:

“Accordingly, to ensure that new developments respond to the high demand for smaller properties, as identified in the LHMA, priority will be given to affordable homes that are small to medium-sized, typically comprising one to three bedrooms. Representations received from the local community through the RLDP process also highlighted a desire for new housing developments to offer opportunities for accessing smaller market homes. This is particularly relevant in the rural Vale, where housing choices are more limited. Providing smaller, more affordable market homes may assist first-time buyers and enable older residents to downsize to more manageable properties within their local area. Affordable housing-led sites will therefore need to demonstrate that an appropriate range of both affordable and market dwellings has been provided.”

Despite the acknowledgement within this strategic objective, we do not consider that the RLDP goes far enough to meet this objective, nor are its provisions and allocations adequate.

It is considered that this objective is undermined by the allocations set out by the RLDP (not least the absence of allocations in the rural Vale). Notwithstanding the Vision’s clear acknowledgement of the benefit of the growth of the rural Vale, these areas have not been supported through the plan due to the lack of growth which has been attributed to these areas in terms of further housing, employment and sustainable transport. All growth options have been selected on the basis of being in either Key Settlement, Service Centre settlement or Primary Settlements, all of which are already sustainable areas served by rail. As a result, it is not clear how this objective can be achieved, without the allocation of further sites within the Minor Rural Settlements, such as Ogmore By Sea. The Vale is characteristically ‘rural’, and as such, there needs to be a stronger emphasis on supporting and delivering new development in order to bolster the rural economy. This includes enabling opportunities to provide employment and business premises within
/ near to rural settlements, as well as focusing housing growth in these areas to reduce travel time, and use of sustainable transport.

It is considered that the current Strategy does not provide adequately for all residents across the Vale, only those within the Strategic Growth Area. The underlying Vision and Objectives set out in the emerging Plan are accordingly wholly un-provided for by the detail of the Plan. This brings into question the “soundness” of the Plan.

The Strategic Growth Area does not take into account the important role and proximity of Bridgend to the West and/or the Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant to the north (as defined in the RCTCBC LDP). The Minor Rural Settlements to the west are more likely to be supported by job opportunities and employment in Bridgend than further east in Barry or Cardiff. Similarly, those in the north align with, and function in association with, the Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant to the north. These settlements are served by existing bus services that provide sustainable modes of travel to key employment locations in and around Bridgend. This is acknowledged in Paragraph 3.3 of the Strategy which states “The greatest number of residents who travel outside of the Vale for work purposes travel to Cardiff followed by Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taf, whilst a smaller proportion commute into the Vale from these neighbouring authorities”. The Demographic Evidence (Feb 2023) estimates the Vale as being a net importer of workers from RCT and Caerphilly (Para 3.6) - as shown in Figure 10 in the Preferred Strategy.

The current Strategy does not support any improvement of sustainable travel or further investment in settlements linked more closely to these areas - given that Growth has been apportioned in only the Key Service Centre and Primary Settlements. It is considered that this will fail to support and facilitate the current (and any future) employment coming into the Vale, nor will it support any employment which is located outside of the Vale to the West and North. The Growth Option is too heavily reliant on access to railway stations as the key and sole sustainable transport method, whereas access to bus services should also be appropriately assessed and focused on in terms of promoting sustainable development. It is unreasonable to devise a strategy that hinges on directing growth to areas that are accessible to railway facilities, where it is recognised in the Plan that the Vale is inherently rural. The delivery and soundness of the Plan is therefore questioned and we continue to object to the spatial growth strategy as set out in the Deposit Plan.

Housing Supply

RLDP Allocations - Key Sites

As set out in representations made throughout the Plan preparation process, we consider that the Plan is too reliant on the delivery of ‘key sites’ to meet the housing need over the Plan period. Specifically, the Plan makes provision for 2,278 units in these Key Sites, which equates to circa 65% of RLDP allocations in the housing supply. The 5 key sites that are allocated in the Deposit Plan are as follows:

• Land at North West Barry – 376no. units;
• North of Dinas Powys – 250no. units;
• Land at Readers Way, Rhoose – 520no. units;
• Land at Church Farm, St Athan – 532no. units; and
• Land to the West of St Athan – 600no. units.

We object to the current housing supply to allocate 2,278no. (65%) of units across strategic sites, as this makes for a risky and unrobust strategy for delivering housing, and in turn, meeting the identified housing need over the Plan period.

As stated in previous representations, there is concern that the proposed timing and phasing of the proposed Key Sites is unrealistic and unrobust, and in turn, undermines the soundness of the Plan, given the heavy reliance on Key Sites delivering new homes across the Plan period. Whilst it is not disputed that the sites would have gone through rigorous assessment to inform their proposed allocation, the timescales for securing planning permission (with all associated conditions discharged) is considered to be unachievable. This is particularly the case for the following timescales that are set out in the Housing Trajectory that underpin the Plan:

• “Time period of pre-application discussions/PAC consultation” – 4 months

• “Time between submission of planning application and determination” – 6 months
• “Time taken from planning consent to the discharge of relevant conditions to enable site construction” – 4 months

It is considered that the above timescales are fundamentally unrobust, and result in a distorted position of housing sites over the RLDP Plan period. It is not considered that these reflect or are informed by the timescales that are currently being incurred for planning applications submitted for major housing sites across Wales. It is rather the case that such applications would typically be determined 1-2 years following submission, given that there are a wide range of stakeholders involved in the determination of major planning applications – which often adds to the delays associated with the determination of such applications.

It is equally the case that the assumptions in the trajectory are solely based on expected timescales for processing formal submissions made to the Council, and do not factor in the timescales associated with, and needed for, the preparation of the material for submission.

It is assumed that these timescales have not considered that such major developments can be subject to the need to undertaking and submitting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which adds another layer to the determination of any planning application – given the additional considerations that form part of this process. As such, any site subject to EIA would very likely result in further delays extending beyond the timescales set out in the trajectory. Equally, as set out above, the preparation of an application subject to an EIA requires even more detail and assessment, which only further adds to the preparation stage (which has not been factored into as part of the trajectory). Accordingly, it is not considered that the trajectory contains any contingency if any site is required to undertake EIA as part of their application.

For the reasons stated above, it is unlikely that the sites will yield in full, particularly those sites which are expected to deliver housing right up to the final year of the Plan period (‘Land at Readers Way’ and ‘Land to the West of St Athan’). These sites do not allow for any ‘slippage’ should any delays arise through the development management process (which for the reasons set out above, will very likely be the case), and as such, a gap in housing delivery will be brought about as a result of these sites not yielding in full.

Given the proposed ambitious timescales set out for the delivery of the Key Sites, it is considered the housing trajectory is unrobust, and in turn, undermines the soundness of the Plan as a result. A change in strategy should be pursued whereby a greater proportion of small to medium sites are allocated for housing in the Plan period, which are more likely to fully yield given that such sites are subject to less assessment and consideration compared to strategic sites. This would make for a more robust strategy, where a greater number of small to medium sites can deliver housing in the short and medium term of the Plan period, whereas the strategic sites represent a more longer-term strategy to deliver housing – which would then spill into the next Plan period.

Accordingly, we object to the Deposit Plan in its current form, where there is an overreliance on housing need to be met through the delivery of the Key Sites, which we consider to be unrobust, and undermine the integrity and soundness of the Plan. The current strategy of the Plan is at significant risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated, as least as swifty as identified in the housing trajectory. Should no change be made to the Plan to address the above issues, then it is extremely likely that the Plan would ‘fail’ in meeting the identified housing need.

Windfall Sites

It is noted that the RLDP is made up of the following:

• Existing land supply (3,838 units)
• Windfall sites (1,303 units)
• Allocated sites (3,521 units)

Para 6.69 states that “Analysis of historical delivery of housing indicates that on average small windfall sites (sites of less than 10 dwellings) have provided some 53 dwelling completions per year, and large windfall sites (10 dwellings or greater) contributed on average 80 dwellings per year. Overall, it is projected that windfall sites could contribute a further 1,303 dwellings over the remainder of the plan”.

As set out in our previous representations to the Housing Trajectory, we would object to the expected numbers of completions expected during the Plan period, given that there are a number of issues with delivering housing in Wales and given past completions rates for The Vale of Glamorgan – which is discussed in greater detail later in this submission. Again, this results in the Plan being at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated – including any windfall sites.

St Athan Train Station

The RLDP Sustainable Growth Strategy comprises six key elements, of which the following is set out in respect to the allocation of new housing growth in the Authority:

“3. Focusing development at locations that are well served by existing and proposed rail stations as part of the South Wales Metro and in areas with good bus links.”

The strategy outlines that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken in 2022, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. Accordingly, in line with the spatial strategy adopted for the RLDP (i.e. focus development around sustainable transport nodes), St Athan was identified as a ‘Strategic Opportunity Area’ to accommodate strategic growth – through the proposed allocation of two key sites : ‘Land at Church Farm’ and ‘Land West of St Athan’. These sites have been identified to deliver 532no. and 600no. units respectively in the Plan period. These are separate to, and are in addition to, the 51no. units that have now been attributed to the site ‘Land South of Clive Road’ and 80no. units attributed to ‘Former Stadium Site, adjacent to Burley Place’ in St Athan. Accordingly, in total, the Housing Trajectory makes a provision for a total of 1,263no. homes to be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period.

It is now the case, however, that the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales – as confirmed in the ‘Today, Tomorrow, Together: A vision for rail across Wales and Borders’ (February 2026) recently published by Transport For Wales. This paper acknowledges that a new railway station at St Athan would represent a longer term opportunity, and therefore, will not be delivered in the short term / within the Plan period of the emerging Plan. Equally the Council have not provided any evidence to contradict this, and therefore, it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period. This brings about significant questions regarding the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

The strategy to allocate new housing growth is predicated on focusing residential development around sustainable transport nodes, and given that St Athan will be without any railway station in the Plan period, it is not considered that the sites align with the strategy of the RLDP. Accordingly, the wider Housing Trajectory is considered to be unsound, given that a total of 1,263no. homes (36% of the Plan’s new housing allocations) are expected to be delivered in St Athan within the Plan period.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision. Given this, to add further sites for housing in this location over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites - given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

In terms of the expected delivery of the Key Sites in St Athan, it is noted that the trajectory identifies that for the majority of the Plan period, both sites will be delivering 80no. dwellings per annum on each site (equating to 160no units in total). Whilst these are two separate sites, we seriously question the realistic prospects of the significant number of

homes being built simultaneously on two sites in proximity to one another – given the considerable logistical issues that would be brought about.

Accordingly, it remains that there are serious questions regarding the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations at St Athan, which do not accord with the strategy adopted for the RLDP – to focus housing growth on settlements that are supported by railway stations. Moreover, the scale of development proposed at St Athan is also not considered to be proportionate, with a significant number of homes delivered in a location not served by a railway station.

Rolled forward LDP Sites

The proposed land supply within the housing trajectory includes provision for ‘rolled forward’ LDP sites, which contribute to the total of ‘Proposed Additional Housing Allocations’ forming part of the housing supply. Specifically, a total of 1,242no. units have been identified as additional housing allocations, of which 959no. are expected to be delivered on the rolled forward LDP sites. As such, these sites are to provide for a significant proportion of additional housing in the Plan period (specifically circa 77%).

The Development Plans Manual (DPM) sets out that allocations rolled forward from a previous plan will require careful justification for inclusion in a revised plan. The DPM outlines that “there will need to be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate sites can be delivered and justify being included again. Clear evidence will be required that such sites can be delivered.” The below table included in the consultation document provides a breakdown of the rolled forward LDP sites, and in particular, sets out the status of each site:


The above table evidences that the current LDP has under delivered in regard to its targeted unit number of the Plan period, given that these sites did not yield any housing over the current Plan period. This is further exacerbated by the Land Bank sites that have also not delivered any housing across the existing LDP period, amounting to 1,860no units. Accordingly, when considering the non-delivery of both rolled forward LDP sites and Land Bank sites, this amounts to an approximate shortfall of 2,189 homes being delivered, or 33% of the total housing supply identified for the current LDP (8,525no. dwellings).

It is therefore considered that, as a minimum, the units carried over from the LDP (without planning permission) should be a surplus to the housing supply proposed for the RLDP, as opposed to being relied on to deliver the housing need over the Plan period. This is particularly the case for the two sites (Land to the west of Pencoedtre Lane, and Land between Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road) which do not currently have any active planning application

submitted for their development. These sites total an amount of 370no. units to be delivered in the Plan period, which represents more than a third of the additional housing allocations to make up the housing supply.

As such, it is considered that the unmet need deriving from the existing LDP is still present – indeed it has grown, and will continue to do so, not least when considered in conjunction with the projected population growth over the coming years to 2036, and the aspirations for growth in the Plan’s strategy.

Accordingly, in order to secure the targeted level of housing, a greater level of provision for new allocations should be applied in order to meet the housing requirement. This would bring about better certainty that the housing requirement is met by the housing supply over the Plan period, not least given that the current Plan failed in this respect. Without a re-apportioning of the housing supply, it is considered that the Plan would heavily rely on the contingency (i.e. rolled forward LDP sites) coming forward in the Plan period, yet there is uncertainty that these will yield in full over the new Plan period. This raises issues of ’soundness’, and risks rendering the Plan unrobust.

Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions

As set out in our previous representations to the Housing Trajectory consultation, we have considerable concerns in relation to the proposed delivery of the sites identified in the trajectory – which we do not consider are robust or reasonable.

Appendix 1 of the Deposit Plan sets out the development trajectory bar chart – which illustrates the proposed delivery of housing, on a per annum basis, over the Plan period.

Extract of Housing Trajectory Graph (annotated by GJP – red dotted line)
It is our view that the trajectory makes for an unrealistic and unrobust delivery rate of housing, which does not reflect the pattern of housing completions in the Vale of Glamorgan. We therefore have concerns regarding the soundness of the trajectory, not least that there remain significant uncertainties as to the delivery of the Key Sites (as discussed earlier in these representations).

Firstly, the graph / trajectory illustrates a large ‘spike’ in terms of housing delivery in the year 2027-28, which is considered to be a marked and pronounced step change in the rate of delivery. This envisages / relies on a significantly higher rate of delivery than previous years in the Vale of Glamorgan (2021 through 2021 – as depicted by the green columns). It is considered that this level of delivery is unlikely to materialise, not least given prevailing market

circumstances, past rates of delivery on the ground, and also in light of levels achieved across Wales and the UK in general.

The published trajectory shows that the average level of completions from 2021 - 2025 has been approx. 400 - 500 units, however, the chart shows that from 2027 – 2028, completions are expected to rise to approx. 1,000 units per year. The expected delivery levels in the trajectory therefore show and assume a doubling in delivery rates and unit numbers (an increase of approx. 100% relative to past rates). There is no clear evidence as to how this level of completions can be achieved let alone guaranteed. This is the case in particular given that the forthcoming years (2025-2027) are expected to see performance (yield) drop significantly (delivery rates in 2025 – 2026 and 2026 – 2027). The chart shows only approx. 200 units being delivered over these years. It is therefore unclear how completion rates are expected to rise so quickly (from 200 in 2025-26 to 1000 in 2027-28), and by such a significant amount. The assumptions in the trajectory are wholly unrobust in our view.

It is also the case that the anticipated delivery of housing fails to be consistent within and across the Plan period. It is unclear as to why completions rates aren’t spread out more evenly throughout the Plan period - to ensure a robust and most realistic housing trajectory until 2036. By comparison to the marked increase in the rate of delivery between and over the period 2027 to 2031, there is then a marked fall-off or drop in delivery towards and by the end of the Plan period. Indeed, in the final year, the level of completions are expected to be lower than the period 2021-2025.

Accordingly, we consider that the housing trajectory, as proposed, is entirely manufactured and unreflective of the past completion rates, as well as the recent published completion rates provided by Welsh Government recently in August 2025. As set out in our previous representations, it has been evidenced that there has been a general decline in the number of new dwellings started and completed.

Description of Figure 1: ‘New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’
As identified in the graph above, in 2024-25, 4,631 new dwellings were completed, which represents 3% fewer than the previous year. This figure represented the second lowest number on record, with the lowest number recorded in 2021-22, a year heavily affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (in 2021-22, 4,616 new dwellings were completed) The New Housing Pipeline Report Quarter 3, 2025 Report (December 2025) published by the HBF evidenced that the number of residential units approved in the UK fell by 7% during the third quarter of 2025, extending the decline seen during the first half of the year. At 45,075, the number of units approved was 34% down on the third quarter of 2024 and the lowest quarterly total since 2012 Q2. At 146,798, the overall number of units approved during the first nine months of 2025 was 25% lower than a year ago.



HBF Graph Illustrating Residential Approvals (2006-2025)

The above graph clearly shows a pronounced downward trend in the number of residential planning approvals over the period, particuarly with a sharp decrease seen since 2020. Further, the HBF document ‘Increasing Housing Supply in Wales’ (4th September 2025) clearly shows that The Vale of Glamorgan has not met the housing delivery requirements in recent years in 2023 – 2024 – along with every other authority in Wales (except Newport). Accordingly, this further adds to the argument that historically The Vale (and most other authorities) have underprovided. This adds considerable uncertainty on the assumed transformation in yield and delivery as built into the trajectory.

Graph: Housing Delivery as a proportion of annual housing requirement in Wales per Authority

More recently, the Welsh Government has released its new estimates of housing need (Estimates of Additional Hosing Need: 2025-based – February 2026). The estimates show how many new homes need to be built over the next twenty years to address existing unmet need as well as newly arising need. The figures set out that around 8,700no. new homes a year are needed over the next Senedd term up to 2030 to meet new housing need. Additionally, there is an unmet need for 9,400 affordable homes.

Overall, this represents more than double 2024/25 levels of supply, where just 4,638 new homes were built.

HBF: Estimates of Housing Need

HBF: Actual Delivery vs Estimates of Need

The above graphs unequivocally evidence that historical rates of delivery of housing in Wales has remained low, and moreover, significant numbers of housing need to be allocated in order to meet the estimate of need. It is not

considered that the housing trajectory, in its current form, is robust to meet the housing need over the Plan period, given the uncertainties of the Key Sites, and the level of housing delivery that has been identified for the Plan.

Affordable Housing-Led Sites

HG4 - Rural Affordable Housing Led Sites

Policy HG4 of the Deposit Plan identifies four sites to be allocated as affordable housing-led sites, totalling approximately 122 dwellings within the plan period. Given the target levels of achieving 3,070 affordable dwellings over the course of the Plan period (up to 2036), it is not considered that this policy goes far enough to address the target and level of affordable housing need.


It is noted that the number of units identified for each site relate to the ‘total’ number of units delivered, as opposed to the affordable housing provision. Accordingly, it can be assumed that circa 50% of each allocation will comprise affordable units (given each site is affordable-led), which would equate to a total provision of circa 61no. units. The contribution from the affordable housing-led sites would only equate to 2% of the total need (3,070no. units). Even when coupled with the affordable housing provision from open market sites and 100% exception sites, the total delivery of affordable housing will still be nowhere near enough to meet the overall affordable housing need over the Plan period. Accordingly, it is considered that inadequate provision has been made for such sites.

Insofar as to the sites chosen and allocated are concerned, it is clear from reviewing the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Candidate Site Assessment that the allocated sites HG4(1) – (4) were not considered acceptable due to being outside the strategic growth areas, and were considered to be unacceptable intrusions into the open countryside. After being resubmitted as affordable housing-led sites, the sites were allocated, some with a smaller area in order to accommodate less dwellings in total.

The sustainable credentials of the sites allocated is not disputed, and it is acknowledged that these minor rural settlements have the ability to accommodate further growth, in the form of affordable-led housing allocations. However, it is considered that the should also form an allocation as part of this policy, given its high sustainability credentials and its appropriate location to accommodate a suitable level of development. Please refer to the previous representations made to the Housing Trajectory Consultation (dated 17th October) for further, more detailed comments regarding the above sites.

The LHMA 2023 shows that there is a need for 124 affordable homes in the St Brides Major local housing market area (which Ogmore is located within). As such, there is an identified need for affordable housing in this area, something which the site could address through an allocation.

It is questionable whether Wick has the capacity to accommodate 50 new dwellings, given the sustainability and rural nature of the area. As a result, it is suggested that the number of homes allocated in Wick is reduced and that a further allocation in St Brides Major is secured, in order to facilitate supporting the delivery of affordable housing through the housing market area, rather than in one minor rural settlement. The sustainability of Ogmore has been assessed, both by the Council through the Sustainability Appraisal and again, through our assessment of the site.

Securing further delivery of Affordable Units

As set out above, the affordable housing-led allocated sites only provide 122no. affordable dwellings, which comprise 4no. allocated sites that are expected to deliver approximately between 20 – 50 dwellings. However, the RLDP sets a

target of 3,070 affordable homes to be delivered in the Plan period. This means that affordable housing-led allocations make up less than 4 % of the target provision and will only make provision for 2% of the targeted number. We would therefore object to the sites included within Policy HG4 and would suggest that more sites should be allocated as part of the policy in order to secure delivery of a higher number of affordable housing units to mere the target.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the Key Sites will provide for a significant proportion of affordable housing, as set out above in these representations, there is serious concern regarding the deliverability of these sites, which would result in a significant gap of affordable housing delivered.

A greater number of affordable housing-led sites allocated would ensure there is sufficient contingency built into the Plan, to ensure that the overall affordable housing need is met over the Plan period. Failure to do so would result in affordable housing need being unmet, with demand continuing to outstrip supply.

Previous representations to the Preferred Strategy (dated 14th February 2024) provided comment on the sustainability scoring of Ogmore and the proposed site. As outlined within these representations, it is considered that the site (ID xxx) represents a sustainable, deliverable and acceptable site. The site is within a maximum of a 22- minute bus journey to a every key service listed, due to the proximity of the site to settlements such as Bridgend. Due to the availability of frequent bus services, and active travel links, these key services are readily available to access for any residents within Ogmore By Sea without the need to travel by car. The site is located within 5 miles of Bridgend, and within a maximum 22-minute bus journey of the following services:

• St Brides Primary School;
• Brynteg Comprehensive School;
• Bridgend College;
• Riversdale Surgery; and
• Bridgend town centre for various Retail Services

Moreover, Ogmore has benefitted from the recent development of the Ogmore By Sea Village Hall, which provides space for community activities and events to take place. The hall also includes a coffee shop (Welsh Coffee Company), which only adds further to the daily services provision available within the settlement. Access to the hall and coffee shop is directly provided for pedestrians from the Main Road, which allows for direct access from the site.

Accordingly, the settlement of Ogmore represents an acceptable location to allocate an affordable housing-led site, given the access to existing services and facilities that would serve future residents of the site.

It is acknowledged that the site also lies within the Glamorgan Heritage Coast and this point is addressed further below.

To conclude, the settlement, location and site are inherently suitable and deliverable, and will make a significant contribution to achieving and realising the housing and economic development needs of Ogmore By Sea, support the surrounding settlements, and the Plan area as a whole. As such, the site should be considered further.

Comments on Specific Policies

HG5 - Affordable Housing Exception Sites

Given the unmet need and extant backlog of affordable housing, as identified within the LHMA (2023), it is noted that an Affordable Housing Exception Sites policy has been adopted in order to assist in the delivery of affordable housing. Policy HG5 sets out the specific criteria where proposals for 100% small scale affordable housing developments will be permitted outside settlement boundaries. The current policy wording for the Affordable Housing Site Exception Policy and the criteria listed out in the policy is generally supported.

That said, it is noted that a ‘cap’ of 10 dwellings (as referenced within supporting text Para 6.140) is set. This should be amended due to such a ‘cap’ limiting the flexibility of the policy, in particularly for sites coming forward as part of this policy in Minor Rural Settlements.

As such, we would suggest that supporting Para 6.140 should be amended in order to allow for further flexibility for sites in Minor Rural Settlements to come forward and to deliver affordable housing, given that the criteria set out in the policy would already protect and restrict the extent of any development as it stands. Therefore, the proposed amendments to Para 6.140 are outlined below in red:

6.140 “For the purposes of this policy, ‘small-scale’ will generally mean no more than around 10 dwellings on sites adjoining Minor Rural Settlements. In Primary Settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area, proposals for more than 10 dwellings may be acceptable where required to meet a specific need and where the number of dwellings is proportionate to the size of the settlement. In assessing the scale and extent of any proposed local needs housing, consideration should also be given to affordable housing already planned in the ward or nearby area, including sites with existing planning permissions and those allocated in the RLDP. The size and type of affordable housing proposed should reflect the identified local need in the area.”

The above suggested wording would achieve a more flexible policy, which would allow for a variety of scaled applications to secure planning permission for solely 100% affordable housing across the Authority area. This greater flexibility would enable the policy to make a significant contribution towards meeting the affordable housing need – which, as set out earlier is in considerable need.

Policy DNP3 – Glamorgan Heritage Coast

Given that the site is located in the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, it is noted that the following policy is of relevance to any future development on the site. Criteria 4 of Policy DNP3 states:

“The special environmental qualities of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast will be conserved and enhanced. New development will be restricted to:
4. Other appropriate and sustainable development that accords with National Policy.”
It is also noted that supporting Para 6.422 “In seeking to protect the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, the Council acknowledges that there are some built up areas within the boundary, including the Minor Rural Settlement of Ogmore. In addition, the Vale of Glamorgan rail line crosses part of the Heritage Coast designation in the location where a new station at St Athan is proposed. Whilst being mindful of the need to protect the special qualities of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, the Council accepts that development within these areas is appropriate, subject to relevant policies of the Plan”(GJP emphasis).

We would offer general support for this policy, and consider this to provide flexibility which allows for certain forms of development. However, we would suggest that the policy wording should be amended to reflect that ‘housing’ should be supported in the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, providing that the policy exceptions are met. Therefore, the following amendment is proposed as part of the policy should be changed to include “small scale housing” or something similar. The proposed amendments to Policy DNP3 are outlined below in red:

“The special environmental qualities of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast will be conserved and enhanced. New development will be restricted to:
4. Other appropriate and sustainable development, including small-scale housing proposals that accords with National Policy.”

Again, this would ensure that suitable housing developments can be delivered in the Plan period, to meet the housing needs of the Vale of Glamorgan – particularly in respect of affordable housing.

SECTION 3. Suitability of the site for development

The site promoter objects to the overall assessment of the site, in that it is not considered suitable for further development in the Plan. The promoted site has undergone extensive scrutiny and appraisal at a high level to ascertain the qualities of the site, in light of all identified material considerations which relate to the proposals.

The delivery of the site will yield much needed housing (including Affordable housing) and contribute to the overall supply in the new Plan period, whilst making effective use of a suitably located site for residential development.

Moreover, as set out in ‘Annex 2’ of our representations, the site has overcome the ‘constraints’ set out in the Candidate Site Assessment undertaken for the site, which demonstrates that the proposal is both acceptable and deliverable.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the site promoters:

• Object to the distribution of growth proposed for the Plan area, with a more balanced and equitable distribution of housing sites required in order to meet the identified housing need;
• Object to the level of growth identified for the Plan period;
• Object to the housing trajectory that underpins the delivery of housing within the Plan period – which is considered to be unrealistic and unrobust, leading to serious uncertainty regarding the “soundness” of the Plan;
• Object to the over-reliance on Key Sites and Rolled Forward Sites in making up the Plan’s housing land supply;
• Object to the scale and timing of delivery of sites in / around St Athan – all of which are predicated on railway station provision which will not be realised in the Plan period;
• Object to the under-provision of sites under Policy HG4 – Rural Affordable Housing-Led sites, not least given their extremely limited contribution to the targeted need for affordable housing;
• Object to Policy DNP3 – Glamorgan Heritage Coast, given the lack of recognition for the potential for small-scale housing proposals;
• Object to the current wording of the HG5 Policy ‘Affordable Housing Exception Sites’ which requires greater flexibility to play an important role in delivery much-needed affordable homes across the Authority; and
• Object the Council’s assessment that the site is not considered suitable for development.

The site and proposals are consistent with the RLDP strategy, other Vale of Glamorgan strategies, and the requirements of Planning Policy Wales and Future Wales. It will make a significant contribution to the Vale’s identified housing requirement in the RLDP period and will provide for a wide range of uses that will support the wider community whilst embodying principles relating to placemaking and the well-being of future generations.

The site has no fundamental constraints and has the ability to deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits for the benefit of future residents and the existing local community. The site is demonstrated to be viable, being able to deliver policy-compliant levels of affordable housing and given its location within a strong market area, will benefit from high delivery rates.

ANNEX 2
SECTION 4. A summary of the suitability of the site for development including a Response to the Candidate Site Assessment

This section of the overall representations to the Deposit Plan is to respond to, and address, the Council’s assessment of the site.

While the issues the Council have raised in their assessment of the site have been addressed and discussed within the representations made at the Preferred Strategy stage of the Plan, a similar ‘scoring’ exercise has been undertaken as part of the evidence base for the Deposit Plan. As such, it is still pertinent to consider and respond to the Council’s assessment of the site as part of these representations

The Detailed Site Assessment for Land at Hazelwood, Ogmore By Sea (Site ID: 3855) sets out that the position of the site at the Deposit Stage is as follows:

“The original site as ruled out as the development would represent unacceptable intrusion in to the open countryside. Whilst the site has now been identified for an affordable housing led development, the original reason for ruling it out still remains.”
In terms of the assertion that “the development would represent an unacceptable intrusion into to the open countryside”, this is strongly disputed, in that the development of the site would represent a natural rounding off of the existing settlement boundary. An extract of the site relative to the settlement boundary is provided below, which clearly shows that the development of the site would not extend beyond the existing settlement pattern that exists in Ogmore.

Site Outlined in Red and Settlement Shaded in Blue
As clearly demonstrated in the above mapping, the site would extend no further eastwards than the existing housing area to the south of the site. Equally, the site would not be extending any further north than the existing settlement pattern in Ogmore. This position is further supported by the wider aerial view of the site provided overleaf:



Wider Aerial View of Site Outlined in Red and Settlement Shaded in Blue

In summary, it is considered that the proposed allocation of the site represents a logical rounding off of the existing settlement, as depicted in the mapping provided above – where the site follows the existing envelope of the settlement. The site does not extend any further eastwards than the established built form located immediately to the south; indeed, it sits comfortably within the same development line.

As such, it cannot be considered that the site represents an ‘intrusion’ into the countryside, as the site would be visually and functionally related to the settlement. It therefore follows that the site would be read as part of the settlement, and not the wider rural landscape.

Candidate Site Assessment

The Detailed Site Assessment undertaken by the LPA includes a summary and assessment of the ‘scoring’ system used at the Preferred Strategy stage. A comparison between the site assessments undertaken at both the Preferred Strategy stage and Deposit Plan stage is provided overleaf for reference.



Site Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage Site Assessment at Deposit Plan Stage
As demonstrated above, there are no changes to the scoring attributed to the site. Detailed submissions were made on the previous assessment undertaken by the Council at Preferred Strategy stage, and as such, should be read in conjunction with this submission (see Appendix A).

Sustainability

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the site represents a more sustainable location than what was previously assessed at Preferred Strategy stage, in light of the Ogmore by Sea Hall development. The Hall acts as a community facility, whereby the space is available for hire by local community groups such as birthday parties, weddings, group meetings, and other such similar uses. Moreover, a café (Welsh Coffee Co) is located within the premises which sells both food and drink.

The hall and café are within walking distance to and from the site, where new access facilities have been implemented from Main Road directly to the building, to allow access for pedestrians and cyclists. This is illustrated in the image below:

Walking and Cycling Facilities

The Tusker Rock pub and post office are also located along Main Road, all of which are within walking distance to the site.

Accordingly, the site is well served by new amenities (i.e. community hall) that comprehensively improves the sustainability of the site / settlement, and in turn, improves the sustainability credentials of the site promotion. It therefore follows that the site represents an acceptable location for residential development, and the site should be looked upon favourably accordingly.

It is also the case, as set out in previous representations, that the site is within a maximum 22-minuted bus journey of the following services and facilities:

• St Brides Primary School;
• Brynteg Comprehensive School;
• Bridgend College;
• Riversdale Surgery; and
• Bridgend town centre.

As such, key services and facilities can be access by sustainable travel over and above the existing level of provision available in Ogmore By Sea (as discussed above).

Accordingly, the relevant ‘red’ scorings in the Council’s assessment should be updated to reflect the site’s suitability and sustainability to accommodate the proposed residential development of the site.

Glamorgan Heritage Coast

Insofar as to the position regarding the site’s location within the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, detailed submissions are made not only in the Preferred Strategy representations, but also in Annex 1 of this submission. In short, given the pressing need for such development (particuarly affordable housing) to come forward in the Plan period to meet ever-increasing needs, development of this nature should be considered more favourably – not least that, as outlined in this Annex, the site would not extend any further that the existing settlement boundary.

Accordingly, the site would be perceived to form part of the settlement of Ogmore By Sea, and not the wider landscape, and therefore, would not have any detrimental impact on the Heritage Coast in any respect. The scoring should be amended accordingly to reflect this position.

Climate Change

As outlined in previous representations, the development will incorporate climate change measures, such as EV charging points, PV panels, as well as adopting sustainable materials for construction whilst maximising the potential for the dwellings to be energy efficient. Accordingly, the development will be built to high sustainable standards, and therefore, the scoring of the site should be amended as a result.

Summary and Conclusion

It has been evidenced above that there are no fundamental constraints at, or associated with the site, that would preclude the site coming forward for development in the RLDP period.

To conclude, the settlement, location and site are inherently suitable and deliverable, and will make a significant contribution to achieving and realising the housing and economic development needs of the Vale of Glamorgan.

Summary of These Representations

In short, and to summarise the case made and set out, these representations seek to object to the Housing Trajectory published as part of the consultation on the Draft Housing Trajectory For Housing Stakeholder Group (October 2025) which underpins the Plan and the delivery / realisation of its underlying strategy.

Detailed submissions and objections are raised below in respect to the trajectory information published regarding the soundness and robustness of this information (and it’s consultation), which we do not consider are adequate, robust, or sound to deliver the Plans aims and objectives.

Preface

This Submission sets out the detailed case in support of these representations. The representations are structured as follows:

1. Procedural Consultation Matters;
2. Timing Assumptions underpinning the Trajectory;
3. Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions;;
4. Status & Standing of Sites included in the Trajectory;
5. Key Sites;
6. St Athan Train Station;
7. Geographic distribution of the ‘new’ sites / provision;
8. Detailed comments in respect to ‘new’ sites;
9. Conclusions Procedural Consultation Matters
Firstly, we do not consider that the consultation on the Housing Trajectory information has been procedurally undertaken appropriately or suitably.

Only 14 days have been afforded to parties to make representations on the information provided. This is despite new sites being introduced (at this late stage) i.e. Land South of Clive Road (identified in Table 4), as well as a number of affordable housing led housing sites being introduced (i.e. those outlined in Table 5). This does not provide an adequate process or timescale for objectors to scrutinise the published content, and to make comments on sites which have been presented for the first time at a late stage in the process.

As part of these representations, we will be making brief comment on the sites which have not been previously consulted upon, namely:
Other Housing Allocations
• Land south of Clive Road, St Athan;

Affordable Housing Led Sites
• Land at Heol Fain, Wick;
• Land west of Maendy Road, Aberthin;
• Land Noth of West Winds Business Park, Fferm Goch; and
• Land to the East of Colwinston;

It is considered necessary to comment on these sites, given that they form an important and critical part of the housing trajectory, and by association in the Council and Plan reaching their targets. Moreover, these sites have not been consulted on previously. Accordingly we consider it necessary to pass comment on these in order to ensure that the consultation is fair and robust.

As well as limited time given to comment on the information contained within the Housing Trajectory, the LPA have failed to set up a Housing Stakeholder group to agree and discuss the trajectory information and data – with the cover email to the consultation (dated 3rd October 2025) stating “it is considered that it would be the best use of stakeholder time to conduct this engagement via email, particularly as many of the forecasts have been developed in consultation with site promoters including developers and their agents”.

We submit that the stakeholder consultation has not been a transparent nor robust consultation process, given that the Development Plans Manual states at Para 5.66 “A housing trajectory must be prepared to support the Deposit Plan. In order to generate a housing trajectory and associated phasing tables it will be necessary for LPAs to engage with stakeholders through a Housing Stakeholder Group. This will ensure that the timing and phasing of sites is robust and based on up to date information”. Given that this has not taken place, we would raise fundamental concerns that the consultation of the trajectory has not adequately taken place as per the relevant guidance. Afterall, the guidance stresses that a Group should be formed as a necessity. Accordingly, there has not been an adequate process and opportunity to review and comment on the information published, including in respect to the other sites have been introduced at this late stage.

Timing Assumptions underpinning the Trajectory

The assumed and factored in timescales of the various stages of bringing forward sites i.e. the pre-application stage, the planning application process, and the discharge of condition process outlined in the trajectory are considered to be fundamentally inaccurate, and result in a distorted position of the delivery of housing sites over the RLDP Plan period. The assumptions are far too ambitious, and without evidence / are not comparable with the timescales being incurred in processing such stages at the Development Management stage(s).

Specifically, we raise objection to the following timescales which are considered to be extremely ambitious and unrealistic:

• “Time period of pre-application discussions/PAC consultation” = 4 months
• “Time between submission of planning application and determination” = 6 months
• “Time taken from planning consent to the discharge of relevant conditions to enable site construction” = 4 months

In our experience, having submitted a significant number of major and other applications for housing and other forms of development in the last 1-2 years to the Council (and elsewhere in Wales and England), it is extremely unlikely that major applications can be submitted, and planning permissions granted, within the timeframes assumed by the trajectory. A wide range of stakeholders are also involved in the determination of major planning applications, which often adds to the delays associated with the determination of such applications. We would therefore consider that a time period of “6 months” given to all major applications in the housing trajectory is not feasible, and distorts the trajectory timescales for the remaining Plan period.

The assumptions in the trajectory are also solely based on expected timescales for the processing of formal submissions made to the Council, and do not factor in the timescales associated with, and needed for, the preparation of the material for submission (i.e. pre-application enquiry submissions / planning application / discharge of condition details etc). When factored in these will elongate the timescales for bringing forward schemes considerably.

Moreover, it is common practice for larger housing sites and major applications to have a range of pre-commencement conditions attached to a permission once granted. Again, we would raise concerns with the timescales indicated in the trajectory related to this part of the planning process. It is highly unusual and questionable that any technical work required by these conditions (usually relating to drainage and highways matters) would be instructed, completed and submitted within 2 months, and for these to then be signed off / approved in a further 2 months. There are also other technical matters and necessary approvals falling outside of, and over and above, the planning system, such as SAB, s.106, s.38 and s.278 agreements, timescales for which have not been accounted for – and all of which are rarely completed within “4 months” as indicated.

It is therefore highly doubtful that the timescales legislated for in the trajectory for the various stages pre-construction are achievable – with no information about these proposed timescales outlined within the supporting text of the Housing Trajectory. We would therefore raise considerable concerns and objections to these as they stand without full evidence to fully show how these have been calculated, and without there being considerable (and necessary) adjustment to the timescales indicated and factored in.

We would therefore object to the timescales indicated in the ‘Timing and Phasing of Sites’ table, given that the delivery start dates will be pushed back further into the Plan period. Accordingly, and as a result, the Plan is at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated, at least as swiftly as is set out in the trajectory.

Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions

We would also raise considerable doubt over the proposed delivery of the sites identified in the Housing Trajectory - which we do not consider are robust or reasonable.

The development trajectory bar chart set out in the consultation material (extracted below) anticipates and legislates for a number of critical events and circumstances – all of which are considered to be unrobust and unsound.

Extract of Housing Trajectory Graph (annotated by GJP – red dotted line)

Firstly, a large ‘spike’ (material increase) in housing delivery is factored in to take place in 2027 – 2028. This is a marked and pronounced step change in the rate of delivery, and envisages / relies on a significantly higher rate of delivery than previous years in The Vale of Glamorgan (2021 through 2025 - as depicted by the green columns). This is considered extremely unlikely to materialise, not least given prevailing market circumstances, past rates of delivery on the ground, and also in light of levels achieved across Wales and the UK in general.

The published trajectory shows that the average level of completions in The Vale of Glamorgan from 2021 - 2025 has been approx. 400 - 500 units. However, the chart shows that from 2027 – 2028, completions are expected to rise to approx. 1,000 units per year. The expected delivery levels in the trajectory therefore show and assume a doubling in delivery rates and unit numbers (an increase of approx. 100%relative to past rates). There is no clear evidence as to how this level of completions can be achieved let alone guaranteed. This is the case in particular given that the forthcoming years (2025-2027) are expected to see performance (yield) drop significantly (delivery rates in 2025 – 2026 and 2026 – 2027). The chart shows only approx. 200 units being delivered over these years. It is therefore unclear how completion rates are expected to rise so quickly (from 200 in 2025-26 to 1000 in 2027-28), and by such a significant amount. The assumptions in the trajectory are wholly unrobust in our view.

The anticipated delivery of housing also fails to be consistent within and across the Plan period. It is unclear as to why completions rates aren’t spread out more evenly throughout the Plan period - to ensure a robust and most realistic housing trajectory until 2036. By comparison to the marked increase in the rate of delivery between and over the

period 2027 to 2031, there is then a marked fall-off or drop in delivery towards and by the end of the Plan period. Indeed, in the final year, the level of completions are expected to be lower than the period 2021-2015.

To summarise, we consider the defined position to be wholly manufactured and unreflective of the past completion rates, as well as the recently published completion rates provided by Welsh Government recently in August 2025. In the Welsh Government Statistics Document ‘’New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’, information on the number of new dwellings started is provided, where building has commenced and those completed for April 2024 to March 2025. Figure 1 provides a graph showing starts in the last 10 years, and it is clear that there has been a general decline in the number of new dwellings started and completed.

Description of Figure 1:.‘New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’
In 2024-25, 4,631 new dwellings were completed, 3% fewer than in the previous year. This was the second lowest number on record, with the lowest number recorded in 2021-22, a year heavily affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (in 2021-22, 4,616 new dwellings were completed). The New Housing Pipeline Report Quarter 2, 2025 Report (September, 2025) published by the HBF evidenced that the number of residential units approved in the UK fell by 6% during the second quarter of 2025, continuing the decline of approval during the first three months of the year. Wales saw one of the largest declines in the UK in approvals with a decline of 29%.

Further, the HBF document ‘Increasing Housing Supply in Wales’ (4th September 2025) clearly shows that The Vale of Glamorgan has not met the housing delivery requirements in recent years in 2023 – 2024 – along with every other authority in Wales (except Newport). Accordingly, this further adds to the argument that historically The Vale (and most other authorities) have underprovided. This adds considerable uncertainty on the assumed transformation in yield and delivery as built into the trajectory.


Graph: Housing Delivery as a proportion of annual housing requirement in Wales per Authority

The Home Building Sector Skills Plan (Aug 2025) published by the HBF also identified the following issues with the workforce to bring forward built development in Wales:

• “A shortfall in numbers entering roles from the education system;
• An ageing workforce: 25% of the home building workforce is aged over 50, meaning the sector is facing an impending retirement cliff edge;
• Challenges attracting a wider talent pipeline into the sector;
• A lack of understanding of critical future skills needed, and direction from the Future Homes Standard; and
• Output within the sector fluctuating with demand and economic pressures, leading to additional pressures in recruitment and training”.

It is not considered that in the next 1-2 years that any of these issues can or will be substantially corrected – at least sufficiently so to allow for, and enable, the planned delivery rates of new housing completions to be as high as < > 1,000 homes in one year (and for four consecutive years at that).

We would therefore object to the proposed numbers of completion expected during the Plan period, given that there are a number of issues with delivering housing in Wales and given past completions rates for The Vale of Glamorgan. Again, this results in the Plan being at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated.

Status & Standing of Sites included in the Trajectory

The proposed land supply within the housing trajectory includes provision for ‘rolled forward’ LDP sites, which contribute to the total of ‘Proposed Additional Housing Allocations’ forming part of the housing supply. Specifically, a total of 1,242no. units have been identified as additional housing allocations, of which 959no. are expected to be delivered on the rolled forward LDP sites. As such, these sites are to provide for a significant proportion of additional housing in the Plan period (specifically circa 77%).

The Development Plans Manual (DPM) sets out that allocations rolled forward from a previous plan will require careful justification for inclusion in a revised plan. The DPM outlines that “there will need to be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate sites can be delivered and justify being included again. Clear evidence will be required that such sites can be delivered.” The below table included in the consultation document provides a breakdown of the rolled forward LDP sites, and in particular, sets out the status of each site:




The above table evidences that the current LDP has under delivered in regard to its targeted unit number of the Plan period, given that these sites did not yield any housing over the current plan period. This is further exacerbated by the Land Bank sites that have also not delivered any housing across the existing LDP period, amounting to 1,860no units. Accordingly, when considering the non-delivery of both rolled forward LDP sites and Land Bank sites, this amounts to an approximate shortfall of 2,189 homes being delivered, or 33% of the total housing supply identified for the current LDP (8,525no. dwellings).

It is therefore considered that, as a minimum, the units carried over from the LDP (without planning permission) should be a surplus to the housing supply proposed for the RLDP, as opposed to being relied on to deliver the housing need over the Plan period. This is particularly the case for the two sites (Land to the west of Pencoedtre Lane, and Land between Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road) which do not currently have any active planning application submitted for their development. These sites total an amount of 370no. units to be delivered in the Plan period, which represents more than a third of the additional housing allocations to make up the housing supply.

As such, it is considered that the unmet need deriving from the existing LDP is still present – indeed it has grown, and will continue to do so, not least when considered in conjunction with the projected population growth over the coming years to 2036, and the aspirations for growth in the Plan’s strategy.

Accordingly, in order to secure the targeted level of housing, a greater level of provision for new allocations should be applied in order to meet the housing requirement. This would bring about better certainty that the housing requirement is met by the housing supply over the Plan period, not least given that the current Plan failed in this respect. Without a re-apportioning of the housing supply, it is considered that the Plan would heavily rely on the contingency (i.e. rolled forward LDP sites) coming forward in the Plan period, yet there is uncertainty that these will yield in full over the new Plan period. This raises issues of ‘’soundness’’, and risks rendering the Plan unrobust.

On this basis, we would object to the Plan if the provision of housing is not adjusted to rebalance the provision to include new allocations in lieu of rolled forward LDP sites in the housing supply.

Key Sites

As set out in previous representations at Preferred Strategy stage, it is considered that the housing supply relies heavily on the delivery of the ‘key sites’ to deliver housing (and meet need) over the Plan period. The total number of housing units attributed to key sites amounts to 2,278, which equates to over 25% of the total provision in the Plan period.

As detailed above, we consider there to be concerns regarding the proposed ‘Timing and Phasing of Sites’ table included in the Housing Trajectory which we consider are not reflective or accurate and will therefore have the effect of delivery start dates being much later into the Plan period than anticipated. The result of this will be that the Plan will be at risk of not delivery the level of housing expected and needed. Moreover, the Housing Trajectory Graph presents an overly ambitious level of housing completions over the Plan period - which the Council consider will be markedly higher than the average levels experienced in the last five years. Again, for the reasons set out above, we consider that these rates of expected completions to have no evidence supporting them, and to be unachievable and unsound.

Insofar as to the removal of the previously proposed site ‘Land at North East Barry’, this site was expected to deliver 900no. units in the Plan period. Following its omission from the housing supply, other sites have been identified, which comprises the inclusion of a new key site (Land at North West Barry), 3no. non-strategic sites, and also affordable housing-led allocations. In terms of the quantum of development attributed to these new sites, this amounts to 659no. dwellings. This is some 250 units less than the 900no. homes that was previously attributed to ‘Land at North East Barry’. Whilst it is appreciated that the number of homes forming part of the existing supply (completions, units with planning permission etc.) have increased since Preferred Strategy stage, there will be a net loss in market housing provision and delivery.

This position is made worse and compounded as a result of accounting for the affordable-led sites in making up the housing supply.

As set out within the Preferred Strategy, these sites are expected to deliver at least 51% affordable housing. These units are not open market units, and will not / cannot contribute to the supply of such housing. These units will contribute to the provision of affordable housing, and will go some way to meeting the acute need for such housing (albeit will not eradicate / address in full the well known and accepted considerable requirement). Accordingly it is considered that these sites should be in addition to the housing supply, as opposed to forming part of the provision. In turn, there would need to be an increase in allocations for non-strategic sites, to ensure that there is sufficient market housing delivery over the Plan period.

Were such changes to be made and introduced, this would achieve and assist realise a more robust and sound housing supply, which will ensure that the identified housing need is met / addressed over the Plan period. Without these changes it is considered that the housing supply is not sufficient, and inevitably, housing need will not be met within the Plan.

St Athan Train Station

As set out in the Preferred Strategy (para A3.29), the strategy seeks to focus development around key sustainable transport nodes. The strategy outlined that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. Accordingly, in line with the spatial strategy adopted for the RLDP (i.e. focus development around sustainable transport nodes), St Athan was identified as a ‘Strategic Opportunity Area’ to accommodate strategic growth – through the proposed allocation of two key sites : ‘Land at Church Farm’ and ‘Land West of St Athan’. These sites have been identified to deliver 532no. and 600no. units respectively in the Plan period. These are separate to, and are in addition to, the 51no. units that have now been attributed to the site ‘Land South of Clive Road’ in St Athan. Accordingly, in total, the Housing Trajectory makes a provision for a total of 1,183no. homes to be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period.

It is now the case that, subsequent to the publication of the Preferred Strategy, the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales. The focus in the first phase of such improvements across the region is towards improving connectivity in east Cardiff, Newport, and Magor. Accordingly,

it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period, which significantly questions the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

The strategy to allocate new housing growth is predicated on focusing residential development around sustainable transport nodes, and given that St Athan will be without any railway station in the Plan period, it is not considered that these sites align with the strategy of the RLDP. Accordingly, the wider Housing Trajectory is considered to be unsound, given that a total of 1,183no. homes are expected to be delivered in St Athan within the Plan period.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision. Given this, to add a further site for housing in this location over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites - given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

We therefore consider the Trajectory to be both unrobust and unsound, and therefore, we object to the Trajectory in its current form accordingly.

Geographic distribution of the ‘new’ sites / provision

As a general and overarching comment in respect to the additional sites now included within the Plan, and forming part of the trajectory, (and a matter expanded upon when critiquing each of these sites in the next section to this submission), it is clear and evident that these additional sites have been positioned to settlements that have already, and recently, been attributed significant growth in the preceding Plan and plan period.

Significant allocations (which have also contributed to significant levels of affordable housing) have been realised and built out in locations (such as Wick and Colwinston). Notwithstanding this, two of the additional sites are now proposed for these recently expanded settlements. Given that the purpose of the affordable housing led allocations is to meet unmet affordable housing need, it is questioned why such new allocations are attributed to settlements that have already seen open market and affordable housing provision, as compared to other comparable settlements that have not received any growth whatsoever over a considerable period of time.

It is considered accordingly that the geographic positioning of these allocations is at odds with their underlying purpose - to meet unmet affordable housing need in communities that have seen no provision

Detailed Comments in respect to ‘new’ sites

Other Housing Allocations

Land south of Clive Road, St Athan

A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below for ease:


As set out at the outset of these representations, and whilst we note the findings of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage (i.e. Suitable for further consideration), we do not consider that the consultation on this site has been undertaken procedurally appropriately or suitably. We therefore consider the consultation on this site is “unrobust” and “unsound”.

As set out previously, the strategy seeks to focus development around key sustainable transport nodes. The strategy outlined that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. It is now the case that, subsequent to the publication of the Preferred Strategy, the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales, where the focus is towards improving connectivity in east Cardiff, Newport, and Magor. Accordingly, it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period, which significantly questions the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision. Given this, to add a further site for housing over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites – given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

Affordable Housing Led Allocations Land at Heol Fain, Wick
A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below for ease:

Candidate Site Stage 2 Assessment (Site Ref. 404)

The findings of the Candidate Site Assessment for this site are noted. We are assuming the reason this site is proposed to be allocated is a product of the site promoters/developers heading the findings stated below, and changing the form of development to be in accord with this:

“A market housing led scheme would not be acceptable, but the site could be reconsidered as a small scale affordable housing led development subject to need and viability at a maximum of 50 dwellings. In accordance with the Settlement Appraisal Review, it is considered that Wick could potentially accommodate limited affordable housing led growth.”

Whilst no clear deficiency exists in respect to the site, it is known that Wick has been subject to significant growth and expansion in recent years – not least by virtue of significant housing allocations in the settlement as part of previous plans.

To evidence this, 35% of the 124 units approved on the ‘Rectory Field, St Brides Road’ site (i.e. circa 43 units as per site allocation ref. MG(47) and PP ref. 2014/01424/FUL) were approved as Affordable Housing units. This makes a substantial provision of such Affordable Housing units (and housing generally) in the settlement in recent years.

Other similarly sized and comparable settlements and locations have not by contrast been subject to any growth for some considerable time, and accordingly would warrant and benefit from provision as part of this new replacement plan.

Notwithstanding the location of such provision, and as set out in detail at the outset of these representations, National Planning Policy advocates the high and acute need for affordable housing, whilst recent analysis evidences that there is a housing emergency. These circumstances - coupled with the shortcomings identified and set out earlier in these submissions in respect to the adequacy of provision within the plan (rolled forward sites / inadequate provision etc) – means that notwithstanding any potential allocation at Wick, further provision ought to be made in comparable (previously unprovided for) locations, such as Ogmore By Sea.

Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin

‘Land West of Maendy Road’ has been registered as an Affordable Housing Led Allocation candidate site for the RLDP, however as far as we know from our review, there is no assessment and critique of this site. This site has not been included in the ‘Candidate Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage’ (October 2023). As such, with an absence of publicly available information, it is not clear how the Council has judged this site against the criteria. This raises questions accordingly in respect to the “soundness” of a site which forms part of the intended housing land supply, and by association the trajectory. Without this, and without being consulted on (as others have been prior to this) we question whether this allocation is “sound” (i.e. its allocation is considered to be “unsound”).

Land North of West Winds Business Park, Fferm Goch

The below sets out the candidate site stage two assessment of ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’:

Candidate Site Stage 2 Assessment (Site Ref. 398)

As can be seen above, the site was not considered suitable for further consideration, with the site scoring negatively (red) in respect to a number of key factors. These include the following:

• Access to Retail;
• Access to Health Services;
• Sustainable Transport- Public Transport;
• Access/ Proximity to services and facilities conclusion;
• Climate Change; and

• Health and Wellbeing.

Given the fact the site scores red in ‘Sustainable Transport – Public Transport’, this shows the site is not served by public transport connections within 800m, as outlined in the key below:


Additionally, Policy SP7 (Sustainable Transport) of the Vale of Glamorgan Preferred Strategy states “New development must support an enhanced transport network that increases the proportion of journeys being undertaken by sustainable travel modes”. Additionally Objective 8 (Promoting Active and Sustainable Travel Choices) states “new development is directed to locations that are or can be accessible by a choice of modes of transport, including walking, cycling, and public transport.”

It is well known that residents of affordable housing are statistically less likely to own private vehicles, making access to reliable and frequent public transport essential for ensuring equitable mobility. The provision of public transport infrastructure in close proximity to such developments is therefore a critical component in supporting access to employment, education, healthcare, and other key services, while also promoting sustainable travel patterns and social inclusion.

The site also scores red in respect to Access/Proximity to services, showing the site is greater than 1200m away from key services, as seen in the key below:


In respect of the above, Preferred Strategy 6.40 states the need “To ensure that new development takes place in locations that have the best access to a wide range of services, facilities, and employment opportunities, whilst minimising the need to travel, the distribution of growth is guided by the following settlement hierarchy”. To further highlight the importance of both sustainable transport and proximity to services, the preferred strategy also states the need to “Facilitate the development of adaptable, accessible, well-connected communities that have a strong sense of identity, offer a sustainable range of services and facilities and are equipped with adequate infrastructure”. In addition, Promoting Active and Sustainable Travel Choices outlines to “Promote and encourage the use of sustainable methods of travel, particularly active modes of transport, whilst simultaneously reducing the need to travel”.

In light of the above, this site does not align with the aims and targets set out in the Preferred Strategy, as it fails to meet several key development goals set out. It should therefore not be considered suitable to be allocated for future developments. Its inclusion is therefore unsound.

Should this view be concurred with, 22 affordable units will be lost from the proposed affordable 122 units, and ultimately will be lost from the overall housing land supply. As stated in the draft housing trajectory “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”. There is a clear possibility therefore that this proposed allocation is removed and/or not delivered as its inclusion is unsound as it does not align with the aims and targets set out in the Preferred Strategy - as it fails to meet several key development goals set out. A “small scale

affordable housing led development” which is needed to “respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities” will therefore not be provided for. This is clearly an issue.

When comparing this with ‘Land at Hazelwood, Ogmore By Sea, the following is set out:

Access to Services and Facilities

This criterion has been assessed firstly on the location of the site proposal in terms of whether it is located within, adjacent to, or outside a settlement, and secondly the ease of pedestrian and cycle access to key services listed below.



With reference to the above:

• In terms of public transport, there are two bus stops located approximately 200m (3-minute walk) from the site (‘Ogmore By Sea Post Office’), with the ‘303’ providing services between Llantwit Major and Bridgend.

• The site is located 200m (3-minute walk) from the ‘Ogmore By Sea Post Office’ which can provide basic goods to meet day-today needs such as bread, butter, milk etc.

• The site is also located 50m (1-minute walk) from a children’s park.

These services and facilities are therefore well within the best category (i.e. categorised/scored as ‘green’) - within 800m of site (10-minute walk). Accordingly, the site therefore has good access to services and facilities. This

Furthermore, the settlement of Ogmore By Sea has been ranked higher than Llangan (which the site ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’ is located within) in the VoG Sustainable Settlements Appraisal, and therefore, is considered to constitute a more sustainable location to accommodate residential growth. Most notably, Ogmore By Sea scores ‘13’ in respect to ‘Daily Facilities’ whereas Llangan only scores ‘3’, evidencing that residents in Ogmore have much better access to services within the locality as compared to Llangan.

Given the above, ‘Land at Hazelwood, Ogmore’ does/should align with the aims and targets set out in the Preferred Strategy as it meets several of the key development goals set out. Its inclusion should therefore, in our view, be considered “sound” and therefore suitable to be allocated for future developments. The site should properly and appropriately be allocated in lieu of ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’ – the inclusion of which is “unsound”. ‘Land at Hazelwood, Ogmore’ would therefore ensure that affordable units, where “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help

sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”, are provided for. As such the proposed housing trajectory would be maintained.

Land to the East of Colwinston, Colwinston

A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below:


As outlined above, the site was rejected and considered not suitable for further consideration. In fact, and unlike ‘Land at Heol Fain, Wick’ and ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’ it was stated that this site “could not be considered as a suitable affordable housing led development site”. Despite this, this site is identified to be allocated as an Affordable Housing Led Allocation. As such, the inclusion of this site is “unsound”.

It is known that Colwinston has been subject to significant housing allocations in the settlement as part of previous plans. To evidence this, 25% of the 64 units (i.e. 16 units) were approved on the site allocation ref. MG2(41) and PP ref.

2014/00242/FUL. This makes a substantial provision of such Affordable Housing units (and housing generally) in the settlement in recent years.

Other similarly sized and comparable settlements and locations have not by contrast been subject to any growth for some considerable time, and accordingly would warrant and benefit from provision as part of this new replacement plan.

Notwithstanding the location of such provision, and as set out in detail at the outset of these representations, National Planning Policy advocates the high and acute need for affordable housing, whilst recent analysis evidences that there is a housing emergency. These circumstances - coupled with the shortcomings identified and set out earlier in these submissions in respect to the adequacy of provision within the plan (rolled forward sites / inadequate provision etc) – means that notwithstanding any potential allocation at Colwinston, further provision ought to be made in comparable (previously unprovided for) locations, such as Ogmore By Sea.

Summary of These Representations

To re-iterate, and to summarise the case made and set out, these representations seek to object to the Housing Trajectory published as part of the consultation on the Draft Housing Trajectory For Housing Stakeholder Group (October 2025) which underpins the Plan and the delivery / realisation of its underlying strategy.

Detailed submissions and objections are raised above in respect to the trajectory information published regarding the soundness and robustness of this information (and it’s consultation), which we do not consider are adequate, robust, or sound to deliver the Plans aims and objectives.

Strong support is expressed for the proposed allocation at Land north of Westwinds, Fferm Goch of rural affordable-led housing within the Vale of Glamorgan Draft Local Development Plan (LDP) under policy HG4(4).
As part of our comments to the above policy consideration must be attributed to viability on a site specific basis. Furthermore, questions are raised over whether sufficient affordable dwellings are proposed to 2036 in the Vale given current trends and forecasts.

The inclusion of the site within the settlement boundary is logical especially when viewed in the context of the linear settlement of Fferm Goch. In addition the site is further suited to development allocation as the northern and southern boundaries are built up and the main road runs along the eastern boundary. A flexible approach is encouraged with regard to the delivery of the dwellings in relation to a variety of factors and policy provisions including the housing needs across the Vale, the limit on numbers of rural affordable led sites in minor rural settlements, viability implications relating to obligations/carbon Zero and sustainability obligations and the potential to extend the allocation if the need for homes requires.

The 3 land owners remain committed to this development and local developers are waiting to deliver the allocation.

In summary the extension to the settlement boundary of Fferm Goch, to include the allocation HG4(4) is supported. The attached representation is made under the following policies:
• Policy SP1 – Sustainable Growth Strategy
• Policy SP2 – Settlement Hierarchy
• Policy PGD2 – Residential Development Densities
• Policy SP6 – Housing Requirement
• Policy SP7 – Affordable housing provision
• Policy SP8 – Affordable housing requirements
• Policy HG4 – Rural Affordable Housing Sites
• Policy SP13 – Community Infrastructure and planning obligations
• Policy CI1 – Open space provision
• Policy SP16 – Climate change mitigation and adaptation
• Policy DNP1 – Special landscape Areas

The test of soundness for a Local Development Plan (LDP) is a critical component of the planning process to ensure that the plan is prepared in accordance with legal and procedural
requirements. It involves demonstrating that the plan is 'sound' based on three tests set out by the Welsh Government in the Development Plans Manual (Edition 3). These tests have therefore been considered in our representation, the tests include:

• Test 1: Does the plan fit? (i.e. is it clear that the LDP is consistent with other plans?)
• Test 2: Is the plan appropriate? (i.e. is the plan appropriate for the area in the light of the evidence?)
• Test 3: Will the plan deliver (i.e. is it likely to be effective?)

SP1 – Sustainable Growth Strategy

The promotion of small scale affordable housing led development outside of the SGA, as proposed by SP1 is important as this provides essential affordable and market homes in the rural locations of the Vale as well as the SGA. Their provision is critical in meeting the area’s housing needs, particularly affordable dwellings and supporting rural community stability, and ensuring that all parts of the Vale remain a place where people of all incomes are able to live and thrive during the plan period to 2036 and beyond.

The essence of Policy SP1 is supported, however it is well documented that there is a backlog in delivery of affordable homes and the need for affordable housing in the Vale is exacerbated by the high prevalence of single person households plus households comprising couples with no children, The Vale also has one of the highest affordability pressures in Wales. As stated in the 2023 Local Housing Market Assessment (LHMA) for the Vale of Glamorgan , the median house price in the Vale is around 8 times the median household income, well above the affordability threshold of 4.5 to 5 times household income for borrowing purposes. Private rents have also risen sharply in the area, commonly placing them out of reach for many low-to-middle income households. All of the above place further pressure on the need to deliver affordable homes in the locality.

The LHMA identifies a need for 1,075 affordable homes per year over the next 5 years based on principal projections (or 1,114 based on the RLDP projections). As mentioned previously past delivery rates fall significantly short and therefore a backlog is present, however despite the reported backlog the RLDP only proposes 3,070 (205/annum) affordable dwellings over the plan period to 2036. Despite the growth strategy of policy SP1 and allocations made through the RLDP, the figure of proposed affordable dwelling numbers is concerning as it falls significantly short of the demand evidenced within the most recent evidence of LHMA of 2023.

The housing figures quoted in SP1 indicate 7,890 dwellings ( including the 3,070 affordable dwellings) to 2036, however these figures overall are inadequate over the plan period when considered against the 2022 WG household projections. The 2022-based household projections provide an indication of the future number of households, and their composition, based on population projections and assumptions about households from recent censuses. The vale of Glamorgan demonstrates an increase of almost 12% in the number of households between mid-2022 and mid-2032; note this is the highest percentage increase by Local authority in Wales and way above the average for Wales as a whole (that stands at around 7% increase). The concern is whether Policy SP1 goes far enough in providing for the scale of housing ( both open market, but particularly Affordable) development across the Vale.

Without targeted allocations outside of the SGA, as outlined in Policy SP1, the gap described above will continue to widen, forcing more residents to leave the area and weakening community cohesion.

SP2 – Settlement Hierarchy

Policy SP2 states a range of rural settlements are categorised as ‘Minor Rural Settlements’. Within the
RLDP the supporting text of Policy SP2 states:
‘several of the smaller rural settlements such as Colwinston, St Nicholas and Fferm Goch include primary schools that serve a wider catchment area, whilst others also provide small scale local employment opportunities, either within or near the settlements. Due to these functional links between rural settlements, it is essential to ensure that existing services and facilities are safeguarded, supported, or enhanced where appropriate’.(Paragraph 6.16)
Fferm Goch is categorised as a Minor rural settlement within the Settlement hierarchy and given its size and range of facilities/services this is supported. It is noted however that both Fferm Goch and Colwinston are identified as serving a wider catchment due to the provision of their primary schools. The allocation of HG4 site at Fferm Goch will further support and sustain the following:
• The Llangan primary school that sits in the southern portion of the settlement boundary.
• The existing employment site of WestWinds Business Park.
• The community hall (Llangan and St Mary Hill Village Hall) to the north of the settlement.
These existing services and facilities should be supported and sustained through the new housing allocation (HG4(4) in the immediate locality. This allocation supports the Vale’s own strategic objectives for

sustainable growth. Locating affordable-led developments in areas with existing infrastructure such as primary schools will reduce car dependency, lower carbon emissions, and contribute to the Council’s climate change commitments.

Considering the above, the limit on small scale rural affordable housing led developments (RAHLD) to 25 for these settlements is questioned and further flexibility recommended on a case by case basis. It is understood the limit on numbers was imposed due to the existing scale of the settlement in which the RAHLD are located, however those allocations will only likely deliver at 50% affordable and therefore only provide 12.5 ( or 13) affordable units as a maximum (note Fferm Goch would provide 11 affordable dwellings on current figures of 22 total dwellings). Given the concerns raised in response to Policy SP1 there remains an issue of whether the numbers proposed in the RLDP can meet the demonstrable need for affordable homes and if there is scope on a RAHLD to sensitively increase unit numbers without any material harm then the policy should be flexible to accommodate this.

Wick and Culverhouse Cross have been elevated to Primary Settlements outside the SGA; this is supported given the range of facilities and services provided in these settlements. It is also supported that these settlements are able to provide affordable led residential development of up to 50 dwellings ( delivering 25 affordable units). However the provision of an increased number of units in the Primary Non SGA settlements must not be at the expense of a wider number of smaller rural sites with the ability to sustain smaller communities across the Vale, especially given the shortfall in numbers as outlined above.

PGD2 – Residential Development Densities

The best use of finite land is set out in PPW and consistent with the setting of the densities as prescribed in policy PGD2. The policy is considered to meet the 3 tests of soundness.

The approach of policy PGD2 is also supported through the proposed density of the site North of Westwinds business park, Fferm Goch in HG4 (4). This allocation that proposes to provide a density of just over 30/ha within Fferm Goch, a minor rural settlement.

SP6 – Housing Requirement

Affordable housing forms an important part of the housing requirement figures of Policy SP6. Whilst the total 122 dwellings proposed under policy HG4 is a relatively small contribution to the overall figures it provides important spatial distribution of homes across the Vale within the rural area.

Given the concerns raised with regard to Policy SP1 there is fear that the affordable housing numbers will not be sufficient to meet need. The site north of Westwinds business park, Fferm Goch has the ability to expand to the south (as per the CS Ref 398) in order to accommodate additional dwellings (both market and affordable dwellings in order to sustain the viability of the site).

SP7 – Affordable Housing Provision

In accordance with Policy SP7 the allocated site HG4(4) at Fferm Goch provides a range of tenures, types and sizes in response to the LHMA, waiting list data and Older persons housing strategy in order to provide for 11 dwelling units and contributing toward the 3,070 affordable requirement to 2036. Changes in the household composition mean more single person and small homes are required, plus older person accommodation for those wishing to downsize and stay in the area.

Please see comments for Policy SP1 / Policy SP2 above regards concern over the proposed housing numbers and supply of affordable homes against demand - this therefore brings the Deliverability of the plan in to question (Test of Soundness 3).

SP8 – Affordable Housing Requirements

Policy SP8 is supported in so far as contributing much needed affordable housing development commensurate with the size of the settlement in which it sits. We are encourage to see reference to the provision of affordable housing to be negotiated on a site by site basis considering evidenced viability fo the development.

The affordable dwellings proposed foster stability in rural areas by allowing a range of households (from single person to growing families) to stay in their local area.

Policy SP8 states 40% affordable for those developments in primary and minor settlements outside of the SGA yet 50% requirement on affordable housing led allocations in minor rural settlements ( also outside of the SGA). This appears inconsistent and penalising those smaller rural sites that will already be more delicately balanced in viability terms by virtue of their limited size of 25 units. Further viability issues covered in other policies ( such as SP20, relating to biodiversity, Net Zero and sustainability credentials must (with the required evidence submitted and assessed by the council as stated in Policy SP8) be flexibly reviewed to ensure sites are viable and deliverable as recognised by the Council, there is a danger the stringent requirements, especially for smaller sites, could render those sites unviable in the current climate with rising build costs.

HG4 – Rural affordable housing led sites

The allocation of land north of West Winds Business Park under policy HG4(4) for rural affordable housing led development of 22 units is strongly supported. Then allocation will assist in delivering homes in the rural Vale and contribute to the important stability to the settlement of Fferm Goch to 2036.

The extension of the settlement limit including the site north of West Winds Business Park is supported. The site provides an obvious infill to the small break in the built up area to both the north and south of the site, with the main road running to the eastern boundary of the site.

The inclusion of the site within the settlement of Fferm Goch is logical and in harmony with the existing linear settlement.

The proposal supports the aims of the Local Development Plan and the Welsh Government’s commitment to increasing affordable housing supply. By providing for affordable led allocations the policy aligns with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 in aiming to promote a healthier, more equal, and cohesive community.

There is concern however surrounding the number of dwellings proposed and if the Plan seeks sufficient dwellings and affordable provision given the predicted need to 2036 shown in the LMHA.

SP13 – Community infrastructure and planning obligations

Policy SP13 demonstrates the importance of community infrastructure in sustaining both the residents well being and economic growth of an area. See also the response to Policy SP2 that refers to the allocation of housing in the rural areas specifically supporting those settlements with local primary school provision.

The viability of developments however must not be compromised in order to ensure delivery of the plan. To see in Policy SP13 that ‘development viability’ is recognised as a key factor in delivering community infrastructure under planning obligations, is supported. It is recommended that this recognition is replicated in other policies of the LDP in order that the third Test of soundness can be fully met; Deliverability – ensuring the plan is likely to be effective). See comments in relation to Policies SP8/CC1/SP16/CI1.

CI1 – Open Space Provision

Provision of open space in residential developments is supported. HG4(4) promotes open space within the draft allocation.

The viability of developments however must not be compromised in order to ensure delivery of the plan. The ‘development viability’ should recognised as a key factor in delivering open space ( see comments on SP13 / SP8 where evidenced viability is specifically referenced within those policies – this approach is supported.

SP16 - Climate change Mitigation and Adaptation

The provisions of SP16 are generally supported as practical measures to ensure important sustainable development is achieved.

CC1 – Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development

The provisions of Policy CC1 echo the WG targets for Net Zero by 2050.
Whilst some of the supporting text to policy CC1 references viability, the ultimate viability of developments however must not be compromised in order to ensure delivery of the plan. The technical feasibility of renewable energy regeneration is referenced in the above policy however the ‘development viability’ should also be included. See comments on SP13 / SP8 where evidenced viability is specifically referenced within those policies – this approach is supported.

SP19 – Green Infrastructure

Provision of Green Infrastructure in residential, and all developments is supported.

HG4(4) retains and enhances existing and will promote green infrastructure on the draft allocation.

The viability of developments however must not be compromised through green infrastructure provision - in order to ensure delivery of the plan. The ‘development viability’ should therefore be recognised as a key factor in delivering Green Infrastructure. See comments on SP13 / SP8 where evidenced viability is specifically referenced within those policies – this approach is supported.

SP20 – Biodiversity and Ecosystem resilience

The above Policy is in accordance with Chapter 6 PPW. The approach is supported and dovetails with SP19 above.

DNP1 – Special Landscape Areas

DNP1 identified Special Landscape Areas across the Vale.

Fferm Goch is one of the settlements that remains fully within and covered by the Upper and Lower Thaw Valley Special Landscape Area (SLA). It is noted that in such settlements, while there have been amendments to the identified settlement boundary ( inclusion of HG4 (4) rural affordable led housing allocation) this has not affected the SLA designation in these areas. (Background Paper 45; Paragraph 1.16 refers).

The location of the small allocated site HG4(4) is nestled within the settlement of Fferm Goch. It is built up on both the northern and southern boundaries, with the main road running along the eastern boundary. There is no unacceptable harm to the SLA of the Upper and Lower Thaw valley.

The allocation of the site for residential development does not give rise to unacceptable harm to the special qualities and characteristics of the SLA, based on LANDMAP information, continues to be preserved.