The impact on the village for the sake of a small number of affordable houses seems unreasonable. Especially the use of greenfield. There are brownfield sites slightly further afield near Llandow, rather than further destroying green areas.

The village has already seen significant disruption with the creation of Heol Cae Pwll, which has impacted on traffic within the village, especially in relation to the school. As well as the increase in traffic, water services and water displacement, and internet are also struggling to cope. Not to mention the impact on house prices which currently have views over greenfield.

Combination of reasons, single track roads in and out of the village are already busy without addition of 25 houses. The green belt around the village is incredibly important as hugely part of the charm, the more houses are built the quicker this will be lost. The green belt is also under re wilding which is very important for the environment. Please seriously consider the impact this will have on the community.

Delete HG4(1), Land to the East of Colwinston.

Regarding HG4(1), Land to the East of Colwinston, I object to this site. All these homes will require 1-2 cars each because there is very little public transport available. The roads around Colwinston school are already very congested at school drop off and school pick up times and the extra traffic from another 25 homes would be the last straw. The lanes around Colwinston are already busy and have not been upgraded in living memory - neither are they well maintained and resurfaced any more. This proposal is also at direct odds with the RLDP Vision and in particular Objective 1 ("reduces the need to travel by car") and Objective 8 ("promoting active and sustainable travel choices").

The infrastructure is not sufficient to serve additional housing. Plus this would take up valuable farming and agricultural space

The village lacks severe infrastructure to accommodate this type of development

I have 2 issues with the inclusion of this land: 1. Access to this land appears to only be accessible through Heol Cae Pwll. The roads within this development remain unadopted and residents contribute towards its maintenance. Any building works vehicles and new properties would impact the road condition and adversely affect financial contributions.
2. During school start/finish the traffic flow through adjoining lanes and estate roads are troublesome and additional housing would worsen the situation.

Other land parcels and candidate sites that were unsuccessful in this rldp phase in The Village ,should be reconsidered as clearly this allocation, land to the east of Colwinston, inclusion criteria is very debatable and thus unsound.

HG4 (1) No DVM shown in this consultation phase.

This parcel allocation for minimum 50% affordable means 50% market led housing ,the settlement boundary expansion and it's criteria contray to planning in the open countryside and will not supply the current 100% affordable housing needs as VoGCC data suggests.

This Allocation will not fulfill the VoGCC active travel plans requirements.

This allocation under ALC Wales Predictive map clearly shows mainly 3a classification and thus Best and Most Versatile (BMV) status inaccurate, and incorrect compared to other Candidate sites in The Village that are ALC sub 3b grades and more suitable

Parcel 4069 site would have a substantial impact and intrusion into the open Countryside, being detrimental and with increased contribution to climate change .

Only 50 % Affordable led housing promoted.

NO DVM supplied.

NO Active travel supported.

No Retail supported.

No health care supported

Loss of SUBSTANTIAL BVM under ALC Wales Classification and other more appropriate sites in the area promoted available.

Adverse effects on visual amenities and substantial change in landscape character.

Varst Increase Traffic on existing Redrow Development access location being already dangerous as adjacent Primary School drop off/collection points daily, data and historic Village Petition indicated.

I dont think the location should be allowed to increase the clear daily hazards next to a busy primary school it is dangerous enough at drop off and pick up times. The road infrasture within the village struggles now with the volume of traffic at peak times. I believe the plan needs to look at location best suited for peoples busy lives where road access and public transport are paramount.A prime example for social housing is the land to the east of the B4270 opposite Claire garden village in Cowbridge. It has a bus stop and major road running next to it without increasing hazards. The other problem is allowing the developers to get away without building all the social housing they have to under planning law with the promise they will build them else where. The newish estate in colwinston should have had twice as many social / affordable houses as per the plans but the developers were allowed to get around this. If it wasnt thought necessary to force them to build them then im not sure why we need them now.

This is relation to HG4(1) The plan location is poorly thought out. This is a small village which only resently had 65 additional houses nearly doubling the population. That entrance is directly next to the primary school entrance on a road in the village that isnt wide enough for two cars in places. This new proposal will add an additional 35-50 cars to the 70-100 that already use entrance. The village location means if you dont drive or aren't fit you cant get out of the village the nearest bus is a 15-20 min walk back to the main road

Na

There are already a number of houses in Colwinston, specifically on Heol Cae Pwll which are on the market and have been for a long time. Adding even more houses will reduce the chances of selling and places even more pressure on the village. The building site will be right next to a school, bringing in trucks and lorries along rural roads posing a risk to children.

We recommend that the Inspector reexamine the change to the settlement boundary and delete this allocation.

Policy BP46 Settlement Boundary Review
Page 35
Change reference 1
Type of change 2A
Inclusion of rldp allocation
Land to The East of Colwinston

No justification to extend Boundary
Intrusion into open Countryside
ALC wales predictive map significant loss of BMV agricultural land
Other more suitable candidate sites available and policies state where there is other parcels at lower grades they should be allocated first
On a flood plain
Will not reduce the effects of climate change
Will not support retail
Does not support Active Travel Wales 2013 Act
Only 50% affordable led proposal
No DVM
No promotion by a recognised RSL
Impact on Visual Amenities
Intrusion into open Countryside

We therefore recommend The Inspector to re examine this change and delete this allocation.

I object to the inclusion of this site from the Candidate List for the RLDP 2021 to 2036. It is good agricultural land, development would be an incursion into the open countryside, and access through the village would be problematic. Colwinston has no key services, facilities, or public transport.

CANDIDATE SITE 4069: Land to the East of Colwinston: I am writing to express my strong objection to Candidate Site 4069 being included in the RLDP 2021 to 2036 - the only Colwinston site carried forward into the Deposit Plan stage. My reasons are:
ROAD SAFETY: Colwinston has no public transport, terrible roads for walking, cycling and driving, and residents rely on cars for day-to-day life as the village has no key services and facilities. Bustops on the A48 are inaccessible as the road is too dangerous to cross. More houses will result in significantly more cars in a village that already has dangerous traffic levels especially during school times. Most pupils and staff live outside the village and travel by car, so congestion, parking and turning has worsened since Heol Cae Pwll; more new houses would add to this problem as the only access would be via Heol Cae Pwll next to the school. Highway safety is a major concern - having only one entrance in an already problematic area is unsafe.

OVERDEVELOPMENT: Colwinston has already experienced a significant increase in housing (64 homes) and having even more houses (25) would be disproportionate to the size of the village and would cause a large area of dense population uncharacteristic of Colwinston. I also question why the Settlement Boundary has been changed by subtracting from the countryside.

ENTRANCE: The only entrance to the site outside 19, 20, 21 Heol Cae Pwll is frequently used by local children for playing, chalking, riding scooters and bikes as it is one of the very few flat places for children to play safely like this outdoors. One entrance is not enough, and this cul-de-sac is unsuitable with no pavements. It is also crosses a public footpath that runs long the hedgerow of this site; children and adults enjoy the walks, looking at wildlife and views, and gathering blackberries, watching the sheep/lambsand harvesting machine. It is a popular spot for villagers and tourists. The nearby Conservation Area and historic buildings are visible from the footpath and across the fields.

LOSS OF GREENFIELD: Using this greenfield site will be a loss of good agricultural land and farming opportunities, but it needs protecting now and future generations. The land is also near a known flood risk area, and more housing will increase surface water problems from the increasing levels of rainfall. Alternative brownfield sites should be used for housing development instead - like Llandow’s airfield. I fail to see how this site has been judged to be suitable when the Green Infrastructure analysis clearly shows it will have more major and minor negative effects than positive ones. The assessments of the other 4 Colwinston sites and this site 4069 have many errors. Also the reasons for rejecting them should also be applied to site 4069. It needs to be noted that Colwinston already has a supply of affordable homes in comparison to other nearby minor rural locations that have provided none. It is clear that demand for affordable housing is in Strategic Growth Areas where there are many more facilities/services and employment opportunities than in Colwinston like other rural villages.
DAMAGE TO HISTORIC RURAL SETTING: Importantly, using this site will have a huge negagtive impact on the village’s historic character and rural setting. The views to and from the very nearby Conservation Area require protection. Colwinston has important wildlife habitats intermingled with notable historic buildings and monuments listed in the County Treasures. The Vale should safeguard the village’s uniqueness and heritage for now and future generations.

Delete Site ID 4069 Land East of Colwinston.

I am objecting to the inclusion of grounds Site ID 4069 Land East of Colwinston for the following reasons. Highways: increased levels of car use from the previous housing and primary school development has already adversely affected traffic flows, parking, safe walking and cycling throughout the whole village. The two A48 junctions do not meet current planning requirements. Any improvements to village roads would have unacceptable character changing impacts. Flood risk: There are known drainage and flooding issues in and around this site together with sewerage system capacity connectivity issues with the Cowbridge Wastewater Treatment Works. Overdevelopment: Taken together with recent developments in the village the proposed growth of the settlement is not proportionate to the scale of the historic village and is damaging to its conservation status and community cohesion. It is not supported by evidence of settlement based housing need. Public transport and sustainable travel: This site does not meet transport sustainability objectives. Colwinston lacks direct links to public transport (Greenlinks is an inadequate alternative) and increased traffic from development and the school already compromises safety for walking and cycling.

Currently the road system leading into the village and particularly to the area of the proposed site is inadequate for the traffic at present to to increase that traffic would just increase the danger to walkers , cyclists and the villagers in general. During school hours there is insufficient parking for parents which again adds to the traffic issue, adding more houses to the village will make this situation much worse.

I am objecting to the inclusion of the above proposal on two principal grounds. These are:

1. The unjustified redrawing of the settlement boundary to include candidate site 4069

2. inclusion of this site for affordable housing, being unsustainable and unviable and likely to cause significant irreversible damage to village heritage status.

The inclusion of this site fails to reflect your current planning policies and LDP objectives. It fails on the majority of Impact Sustainability objectives and should not be approved for inclusion in the final LDP. The absence of an bus service in the village together with highways that do not meet basic safety standards has not been taken into account. No research has been undertaken by yourselves into the vehicular implications of such a development to the existing houses and the increased danger to the public that would arise from this.

Yours faithfully

The inclusion of this site fails to reflect planning policies and LDP objectives. It fails on the majority of Impact Sustainability objectives and should not be approved.

I am objecting to the inclusion on grounds Site ID 4069 Land east of Colwinston on two principal grounds. These are:

1. The unjustified redrawing of the settlement boundary to include candidate site 4069.

2. inclusion of this site for affordable housing, being unsustainable and unviable and likely to cause irreversible damage to village heritage status,

proposed site 4069 Colwinston

Over developments Taken together with recent developments in the village the proposed growth of the settlement is not proportionate to the scale of the historic village and is damaging to its conservation status and community cohesion. It is not supported by evidence of settlement based housing need.

The transport infrastructure is inadequate for any further developments. The lanes are narrow with high hedges Access on lanes for walking and cycling are already very challenging and dangerous, any 2

future developments are only going create a more hazardous environment. The assess on to A48 at 2 points from the village are horrendous at best of times and further developments can add to the problem.

The site has already been submitted and rejected owing to its unsuitablity by the local authority and I see no reason that the same conditions should not apply.

Objection to inclusion of 4069 - Land East of Colwinston for the following reasons:

1. Redrawing of the Boundary Settlement to include site 4069
The site is part of the rural setting of the Conservation Area. Extending the current boundary fundamentally alters the settlement envelope and conflicts with the statutory duty to preserve or enhance. The proposal lacks sufficient specific justification and is not supported by the present evidence.

2. Heritage and landscape impact
The village of Colwinston is identified as a County Treasure. Development would have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the Conservation Area contrary to policy.

3. Integrated Site Appraisal
Inclusion of this site is not supported by the Integrated Site Impact Assessment, contravening almost all of the stated Sustainability Objectives within the LDP itself.

4. Inadequate Consultation with Residents
The digital approach adopted in this consultation is likely to have excluded many people in the local community from participating and responding.

5. Overdevelopment
Taken together with recent developments in the village, the proposed growth of the settlement is not proportionate to the scale of the historic village and is damaging to its character and sense of community cohesion. It is not supported by evidence of settlement‑based housing needs.

6. Inconsistency of Site Assessment over Time
This site has been judged as unsuitable on several previous occasions by the Local Authority. No change in decision is justified due to the absence of new evidence and assessment criteria. This change in decision is inconsistent with the Cowbridge Wastewater Treatment sewerage system capacity and connectivity issues.

7. Flood risk
There are known drainage and flooding issues in and around this site, together with sewerage system capacity and connectivity issues with the Cowbridge Wastewater Treatment Works.

8.Highways
Use of the site, combined with previous housing and primary school development, has already adversely affected traffic flows, parking, and pedestrian safety. The site is accessed via three A48 junctions that do not meet current planning requirements. Any development would require major infrastructure planning and funding.

9. Public transport and sustainable travel
The site does not meet the sustainability objectives. Colwinston lacks direct links to public transport (Greenlinks is an inadequate alternative), and increased traffic from development and the school already compromises safety for walking and cycling

Objection to inclusion of 4069 - Land East of Colwinston for the following reasons:

1. Redrawing of the Boundary Settlement to include site 4069
The site is part of the rural setting of the Conservation Area. Extending the current boundary fundamentally alters the settlement envelope and conflicts with the statutory duty to preserve or enhance. The proposal lacks sufficient specific justification and is not supported by the present evidence.

2. Heritage and landscape impact
The village of Colwinston is identified as a County Treasure. Development would have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the Conservation Area contrary to policy.

3. Integrated Site Appraisal
Inclusion of this site is not supported by the Integrated Site Impact Assessment, contravening almost all of the stated Sustainability Objectives within the LDP itself.

4. Inadequate Consultation with Residents
The digital approach adopted in this consultation is likely to have excluded many people in the local community from participating and responding.

5. Overdevelopment
Taken together with recent developments in the village, the proposed growth of the settlement is not proportionate to the scale of the historic village and is damaging to its character and sense of community cohesion. It is not supported by evidence of settlement‑based housing needs.

6. Inconsistency of Site Assessment over Time
This site has been judged as unsuitable on several previous occasions by the Local Authority. No change in decision is justified due to the absence of new evidence and assessment criteria. This change in decision is inconsistent with the Cowbridge Wastewater Treatment sewerage system capacity and connectivity issues.

7. Flood risk
There are known drainage and flooding issues in and around this site, together with sewerage system capacity and connectivity issues with the Cowbridge Wastewater Treatment Works.

8.Highways
Use of the site, combined with previous housing and primary school development, has already adversely affected traffic flows, parking, and pedestrian safety. The site is accessed via three A48 junctions that do not meet current planning requirements. Any development would require major infrastructure planning and funding.

9. Public transport and sustainable travel
The site does not meet the sustainability objectives. Colwinston lacks direct links to public transport (Greenlinks is an inadequate alternative), and increased traffic from development and the school already compromises safety for walking and cycling

My objections are based on: (site. ID 4069 Land east of Colwinston) potential overdevelopment - Concerns over the new recent developments in total being proportionate to the scale of the historic village and Considerations for Community cohesion.

Access by vehicles to the village. Increased traffic during and after development adversely affecting traffic flow, Safe walking, parking and cycling .

A48 Junctions need to be changed to allow for Safer driving Conditions with increased traffic .

Better public transport facilities in the village to assist the above - bus service in village

Q1: Site ID 4069 East of Colwinston

The redrawing of the Village Settlement Boundary by the Vale of Glamorgan Council in order to include this site in the LDP proposals without due consultation is undemocratic and legally questionable.

Further development will cause major change and irreversible damage to the village heritage status.

There is a lack of village and local facilities to support additional houses.

The village lacks any form of public transport with the nearest public bus stop being situated circa one mile away on the A48 accessed by having to walk country lanes that lack pavements and risk the danger of having to use the lanes frequented by vehicles entering and leaving the village. Crossing the A48 for buses travelling east is highly dangerous.

An additional 25 house development will increase the car traffic within the village by a minimum of 50 car journeys daily.

Currently the village lanes are incapable of coping with the existing traffic flow.

Vehicle entry and exit via the A48 is highly dangerous and can only be more dangerous if additional vehicles are introduced as a result of further development.

The proposed site removes prime agricultural land from being used in food production at a time when the VOGC should be supporting the farming industry in the area.

For all the above reasons the inclusion of this proposed site in the LDP would further damage a beautiful rural village and be further evidence that our local council has little regard to the well being of the rural Vale and its residents.

Q2: No impact

Grounds For Objection to Land East of Colwinston

1. The redrawing of the settlement boundary to include candidate site 4069 is unjustified and unsupported by evidence.
2. The location of the site is unviable, unsustainable, and will inevitably cause significant and repairable damage to the village, its heritage status and residents.

Colwinston village and the proposed site are both part of a conservation area. Further development in the village, in addition to that already undertaken, will significantly degrade its status, have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the village and result in a total imbalance between heritage buildings and new developments.

The proposal does not contain justification for its inclusion in the LDP, has been deemed as being unsuitable on past occasions, is not supported by the impact assessment and is country the majority of stated sustainability objectives within the councils LDP.

The recent overdevelopment of the village has led to significant traffic issues in the area which will only increase with further development. The village does not benefit from a public transport link, does not have an active travel route entry and access to, and from the village is via poorly maintained country roads, which can ill afford increased permanent levels of vehicle usage.

The site proposed has significant drainage and flood issues. Development in this area will not only risk new builds but put existing residents at risk of significant damage from flood water and drainage overspill.

The proposed development is not supported by a settlement-based housing need. If the development goes ahead, the overall growth in the village will be totally out of proportion to the scale of the village itself and will damage its status as a historic village, county treasure and conservation area.

There has been a total lack of open consultation between the VOG and local residents, which is disappointing based on past recent experience. Significant numbers of residents are elderly and the reliance by the local authority on electronic consultation will prevent many from raising their concerns and objectives.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed development.

Grounds For Objection to Land East of Colwinston

1. The redrawing of the settlement boundary to include candidate site 4069 is unjustified and unsupported by evidence.
2. The location of the site is unviable, unsustainable, and will inevitably cause significant and repairable damage to the village, its heritage status and residents.

Colwinston village and the proposed site are both part of a conservation area. Further development in the village, in addition to that already undertaken, will significantly degrade its status, have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the village and result in a total imbalance between heritage buildings and new developments.

The proposal does not contain justification for its inclusion in the LDP, has been deemed as being unsuitable on past occasions, is not supported by the impact assessment and is country the majority of stated sustainability objectives within the councils LDP.

The recent overdevelopment of the village has led to significant traffic issues in the area which will only increase with further development. The village does not benefit from a public transport link, does not have an active travel route entry and access to, and from the village is via poorly maintained country roads, which can ill afford increased permanent levels of vehicle usage.

The site proposed has significant drainage and flood issues. Development in this area will not only risk new builds but put existing residents at risk of significant damage from flood water and drainage overspill.

The proposed development is not supported by a settlement-based housing need. If the development goes ahead, the overall growth in the village will be totally out of proportion to the scale of the village itself and will damage its status as a historic village, county treasure and conservation area.

There has been a total lack of open consultation between the VOG and local residents, which is disappointing based on past recent experience. Significant numbers of residents are elderly and the reliance by the local authority on electronic consultation will prevent many from raising their concerns and objectives.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed development.

Site Id 4069 East of Colwinston The site and proposal for 25 houses is not sustainable as the village would then have increased by 57% in 10 years. There is only a small farm shop. Too much traffic on narrow lanes. Entrance next to the school which is already very bus extra cars would increase the accident risk to school children. No public transport. Bus stop approx. 1 mile along busy lane with no footpath and impossible to cross busy A48 safely. Entry and exit to and from A48 is already hazardous I was involved and injured in a serious car accident at this junction 18 months ago. The site is outside the settlement boundary of the village. It is necessary for residents to use cars at all times and this development would result in a possible 50 extra car journeys using unsuitable narrow lanes on a daily basis. Pressure on utilities would be unsustainable. Other proposed sites in Colwinston were rejected for the above reasons, these apply to this site also. The proposed site is currently used for agriculture and is top quality agricultural land. Building more houses on agricultural land is not environmentally friendly and had a detrimental effect on the ability to produce home grown food for the nation. This site should not be added to the Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan.

Remove the site

I wish to object to the inclusion of site 4069 in the LDP (land East of Colwinston) on the following grounds:

1. there has been an unjustified redrawing of settlement boundary to include site 4069
2. the inclusion of the site for affordable housing is unsustainable and unviable and likely to cause significant irreversible damage to the village heritage status
3. it fails to reflect planning policies and LDP objectives
4, it fails on the majority of impact and sustainability objectives
5. it is damaging to the conservation status and community cohesion
6. there is a significant flood risk as despite the creation of an attenuation area in Heol Cae Pwll, site 4069 still floods during heavy rainfall
7. Heol Cae Pwll road adoption by the VOG council is delayed due to insufficient drainage system and issues with road traffic calming etc
8. there is no main gas in the area resulting in the reliance on oil and LPG which is not environmentally friendly
9. the village roads are not viable for the current number of vehicles using them - numerous potholes and large areas of flooding in poor weather, no passing areas or traffic calming measures, poor street lighting
10. the extra school traffic causes mayhem with poor parking and haphazard driving due to no parking available for parents - the extra 25 house would increase this problem and cause danger to the young children at the school - all extra traffic from these 25 houses would need to flow through an already congested and dangerous area
11. there is no public transport in the village
12. the two exits from the village are not sufficient for the current level of traffic - potholes, narrow areas with no passing points, no safe walking areas
13. to access the A48 by foot from the village to reach the bus stops - there are no pavements and the roads are not lit at night
14. there are no amenities such as shops in the village necessitating travel by personal cars or walking a dangerous route to the bus stop
15. there would be a detriment to the local wildlife at site 4069 - there are owls, foxes. nesting birds, birds of prey, hedgehogs, swifts, bats etc who regular use and live/nest in the area
16. there would be a fundamental change to the rural landscape and heritage of the Vale of Glamorgan should areas used for nature and farming become areas of residence
17. the houses will not be truly affordable as the land is expensive and difficult to build on due to the nature of the bedrock- local house prices are not in the affordable bracket

I strongly object to the inclusion of site 4069 for the reasons stated above

Remove it completely!! It does not follow any of VOGC rules which they have made!!!

increased level of car use already has a very bad effect on the village since previous development and the new school have been built. highways and planners have absolutely no idea on the negative impact these developments have had. Most of the roads, including the junctions onto the A48, are dangerous. Several accidents have already happened.
No public transport available. No consultation. Complete disregard of how the village should be preserved as a conservation area / County Treasure!! VOGC do not follow their own rules regarding planning.
These objections refer to Site ID 4069 East of Colwinston.

We strongly object to allocating Site 4069 for housing and request its permanent removal from the preferred sites list. Our reasons for this are as follows:

Strain on limited local services and facilities
Colwinston lacks many everyday amenities (no shop, limited public transport, no mains gas). New residents would increase pressure on the already oversubscribed primary school, community hall, and any remaining local resources, potentially leading to longer wait times or reduced quality without corresponding investment.

Increased light, noise, and visual pollution
Introducing a new cluster of homes on open farmland would bring additional outdoor lighting, garden/vehicle noise, and domestic activity into a currently dark, quiet rural area. This could diminish the peaceful, dark-sky character valued in countryside villages.

Affecting wildlife (including protected species) and residents' quality of life
Site 4069 and its surrounding woodlands and meadows provide essential habitats for protected species, including bats and dormice, which rely on these areas for foraging and nesting.

The site lies near ancient woodland (part of the National Forest initiative) and open fields supporting farmland birds, hedgerows, and pollinators. Development could fragment habitats, disrupt wildlife movement, and reduce biodiversity — especially if hedgerows or trees are removed for access/visibility. Development on this site would disrupt these habitats, threatening local biodiversity and the survival of these species.

Community projects, including the Colwinston Old Ford Project and environmental initiatives supported by the Colwinston Community Council, have installed bat boxes in local woodlands and meadows to create habitats and monitor species. These efforts collaborate with the Vale of Glamorgan and Bridgend Bat Group, which records and tracks bat populations across the region. Development would undermine these ongoing conservation efforts.

Potential dilution of community cohesion
Rapid growth in small villages often shifts the demographic balance toward more commuter households less connected to local traditions, events, or volunteering. Colwinston's strong sense of identity (tied to its history as a "Thankful Village," ancient customs like Collyball, and Agatha Christie links) could weaken if newcomers outnumber long-term residents, reducing participation in village life.

Higher risk of surface water and groundwater issues beyond flooding
Beyond already known drainage problems, building on farmland removes natural absorption capacity. Compacted soils, new hard surfaces, and altered drainage could raise the water table locally, increase run-off into the village's underground watercourse/Brook, and exacerbate low water pressure or contamination risks in a groundwater-sensitive area. Adverse effects on local wildlife corridors and habitats as mentioned above.

Unsustainable infrastructure
The village already faces narrow lanes, school congestion/safety issues, no public transport, dangerous A48 access, chronic drainage/sewage/flooding problems, unreliable utilities, and low water pressure. Further homes would worsen all these without realistic mitigation. To date, road conditions are poor on entry to the village, this is only going to worsen with increased traffic.

Redrawing of the Boundary Settlement to include site 4069 The site is part of the rural setting of the Conservation Area. Extending the current boundary fundamentally alters the settlement envelope and conflicts with the statutory duty to preserve or enhance. The proposal lacks sufficient specific justification is not supported by the impact assessment.
Heritage and landscape impact The village of Colwinston is identified as a County Treasure. Development would have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the Conservation Area contrary to policy.
Integrated Site Appraisal Inclusion of this site is not supported by the Integrated Site Impact Assessment contravening almost all of the stated Sustainability Objectives within the LDP itself.

I am objecting to the inclusion of grounds Site ID 4069 Land East of Colwinston on two principal grounds. These are:

1. The unjustified redrawing of the settlement boundary to include candidate site 4069

2. inclusion of this site for affordable housing, being unsustainable and unviable and likely to cause significant irreversible damage to village heritage status. The inclusion of this site is it fails to reflect planning policies and LDP objectives. It fails on the majority of Impact Sustainability objectives and should not be approved for inclusion in the final LDP.

Basis of Objections I am objecting to the inclusion of grounds Site ID 4069 Land East of Colwinston on two principal grounds. These are:

1. The unjustified redrawing of the settlement boundary to include candidate site 4069

2. inclusion of this site for affordable housing, being unsustainable and unviable and likely to cause significant irreversible damage to village heritage status. The inclusion of this site is it fails to reflect planning policies and LDP objectives. It fails on the majority of Impact Sustainability objectives and should not be approved for inclusion in the final LDP.