1) The transport has increased substantially in the village due to the 64 houses on Heol Cae Pwll. Also the school places have increased substantially since the school was rebuilt. During the period of dropping off school children and their collection. The large numbers of cars parked both by the school, village hall and on the roads on Heol Cae Pwll means that it is very dangerous for children and parents only extra houses on Heol Cae Pwll will increase the dangers.
2) The other matter is that building on a green field site (farming land) does not make sense given the brownfield site available.
3) The exit from the village to the A40 is also becoming difficult due to the extra traffic in the area.

SiteID 4069 land East of COLWINSTON

1 Unjustified redrawing of the settlement boundary site 4069

2 inclusion for affordable housing being unsustainable and unviable

3 no pavements in village for pedestrians, no public transport, no mains gas ,sparse mobile coverage, loss of arable pasture, overdevelopment
Of heritage village

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.

We are objecting to the inclusion of site ID 4069 East of Colwinston as a Candidate Site for Housing in the RLDP on the following grounds:

1 Highways
Much of the village of Colwinston particularly in the Conservation Area, has no pavements and the extra use of cars from the site would affect safe walking, cycling and riding through the village.

2 Transport
The village has no regular direct links to public transport and consequently the site is unsuitable for affordable housing.

I am writing to object to the inclusion of Site ID 4069 – Land to the East of Colwinston within the Replacement Local Development Plan, this particular site is not suitable for the following reasons.
The site lies outside the existing settlement boundary of Colwinston.
Development would represent unplanned expansion into open countryside, contrary to LDP policies on settlement form and rural protection.
The scale and location are inconsistent with the village’s classification and its ability to accommodate growth.
The land forms part of the open rural setting that defines the character of Colwinston.
Colwinston’s road network is narrow, winding, and not designed for increased traffic volumes.
Colwinston has no public transport therefore there will be an increase in pollution, additional vehicles will make the already busier lanes more dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.
Further development in Colwinston will increase pressure on the utilities and drainage, the surrounding fields are already prone to being waterlogged.
The fields have already seen a decline in the natural wildlife, they are habitats for hares, field mice, bats and birds of prey.
Affordable housing should be located where residents have access to employment, transport, shops, and services. Colwinston cannot offer any of these.
Colwinston has already absorbed recent development and further growth would exceed what the village can sustainably support.

Remove site.

I am objecting to the inclusion of grounds Site ID 4069 Land East of Colwinston on the grounds that:-

The site does not meet transport sustainability objectives of Planning Policy WALES.

The site is not served by public transport and will be car and delivery van dependant. Access to the Site will be via narrow rural lanes with visibility problems and issues for two vehicles passing. The two access points onto the A48 primary route connecting Cardiff with Bridgend have previously been identified as unsafe for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists The site is over one mile from the bus stops on the nearest public transport route on the A48 which does not have a controlled pedestrian crossing.

The proposed development should ensure that pedestrian routes provide a safe pedestrian environment and encourages safe cycling. There are no safe walking and cycling routes through the village and the connecting lanes to/from the A48. There are no continuous pavements and therefore no safe walking and cycling routes to the primary school, the village church, the village centre and public house, and to the bus stops on the A48.

The Site does not embody the sustainability principles for rural locations as set out in the Planning Policy Wales which requires the provision of safe and convenient cycle and pedestrian routes and a public transport link for residential development sites. The inclusion of this site fails to meet the sustainability objectives and should not be approved for inclusion in the final LDP.

Grounds For Objection

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.

Specific Objections

1. Redrawing of the Boundary Settlement to include site 4069
Colwinston village, including the proposed site is part of a rural conservation area. Extending the boundary will fundamentally alter the settlement area and is contrary to the statutory duty to preserve or enhance conservation sites. The proposal does not contain specific justification for its inclusion and is not supported by the impact assessment.

2. Heritage and landscape impact
The Village of Colwinston is listed as a County Treasure, further new development would have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the village, creates an imbalance between heritage buildings, a new development and would be country to conservation area policy.
3. Integrated Site Appraisal
The integrated site impact assessment does not support the inclusion of this site, which would contravene almost all of the stated sustainability objectives within the LDP itself

4. Lack of Consultation.
There has been a lack of direct consultation with village. Residents reliance on a digital approach will have excluded many people in the local community from participating and raising concerns.

5. Inconsistency Of Site Assessment over Time
The site has been considered on a number of previous occasions by the local authority and judged as unsuitable. A change in position is not supported by the adverse impact assessment and is contrary to the local authorities on policies


6. Flood risk
There are well-known draining of flooding issues in and around the proposed site. In addition to sewerage system capacity and connectivity issues with the Cowbridge waste water treatment works. Building on this land would significantly increase the risk of flooding affecting not only newbuilds, but property is currently in existence.

7. Highways
Colwinston village is not supported by a direct bus service, or active travel routes. Entry and egress to the village is through poorly maintained, country lanes. The recent new development and primary school development has brought significant traffic, travel and parking issues which would be magnified by further building. The increased traffic would compromise safety of residents, walkers and cyclists.

8. Lack of Supporting Evidence
The proposed development is not supported in evidence by a settlement-based housing need. In light of recent developments in the village, the overall growth is not proportionate to the scale of a historic village, is damaging to each conservation status and will detract from community cohesion.

I am writing to strongly oppose the inclusion of Candidate Site 4069 Land to the East of Colwinston in the RDLP 2021 to 2036. My reasons are:
1. Transport:
Infrastructure of roads is insufficient for anticipated amount of traffic. Current school traffic problems will be exasperated.
No public transport or active travel to support people commuting to work. Residents are compelled to rely on cars for daily activities.
2. Lack of evidence showing demand for housing in Colwinston.
3. Location:
Location is difficult to access and only via Heol Cae Pwll. It is landlocked so this site would be very disruptive and dangerous. Building contractors would require alternative access routes to this field. Also it would limit access to farming land making agricultural opportunities difficult.
4. Protection of countryside
This greenfield land should be protected and alternative brownfield sites need to be utilised like Llandow airfield. Using the site will have a detrimental permanent negative impact on the conservation area and the village’s historic rural location. Other Colwinston sites have been rejected due to the incursion into the countryside yet this site is adjacent to the same piece of countryside referred to in reference to these sites. So similarly this site needs to be excluded.
4. Redrawing of settlement
The Boundary Settlement border inaccurately outlines the village settlement and has been moved to suit the proposed development using what was previously defined as countryside. This is without justification and is unacceptable.
5. Overdevelopment
Development on this site would result in overdevelopment of a small village with poor infrastructure, connectivity and extremely limited services and facilities, especially in light of the recent increase in houses in Heol Cae Pwll (64). 25 more houses would result in the village increasing in size by about 50% since 2016, changing the village setting completely. The area of land proposed does not form part of the natural flow/layout of the village.

Formal Objection to the Inclusion of Site 4069 within the Settlement Boundary :
Land to the East of Colwinston
I wish to register a formal objection to the proposed inclusion of Site 4069 within the
settlement boundary. The proposal raises significant concerns in relation to heritage
protection, sustainability, infrastructure capacity, transport accessibility and the overall
scale of development within the historic settlement of Colwinston. The proposal
appears inconsistent with the objectives of the Local Development Plan (LDP) and the
principles of sustainable development.
1. Redrawing of the Settlement Boundary
The site currently forms part of the rural setting of the Conservation Area and
contributes to the open countryside that defines the existing settlement edge.
Extending the settlement boundary to incorporate Site 4069 would materially alter the
established settlement envelope and erode the historic transition between the village
and surrounding countryside. This conflicts with the statutory duty to preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The proposal lacks clear, site-specific justification and is not supported by the
accompanying impact assessment. Notably, the site was previously rejected during
earlier stages of the plan preparation process on the basis that development would
represent an “unacceptable intrusion into the open countryside.” No clear evidence has
been presented to demonstrate why that conclusion no longer applies.
2. Heritage and Landscape Impact
Colwinston is recognised as a County Treasure and its historic character forms an
important component of the local heritage landscape. Development on this site would
have an adverse impact on the character, setting and wider landscape context of the
Conservation Area and would therefore conflict with relevant heritage protection
principles.
The open fields forming Site 4069 contribute to important views into and out of the
village and form part of the agricultural landscape that defines the historic setting of the
settlement. Development in this location would fundamentally alter the relationship
between the village and its surrounding countryside.
3. Integrated Site Appraisal
The inclusion of this site is not supported by the findings of the Integrated Sustainability
Appraisal (ISA). The ISA undertaken for the Deposit Plan concludes that development of
Site 4069 would result in 82% negative impacts across the 17 sustainability objectives,
including 29% major negative effects and 35% minor negative effects, with a further
18% assessed as uncertain. Only two objectives were identified as having minor
positive effects.
This demonstrates that the site performs poorly against the Council’s own sustainability
framework and raises serious concerns regarding its suitability for allocation.
4. Inadequate Community Consultation
The consultation process has relied predominantly on digital engagement. This
approach is likely to have excluded sections of the local community who may not have
reliable access to digital platforms, thereby limiting meaningful public participation in
the planning process.
5. Disproportionate Scale of Development
When considered alongside recent development within the village, the proposed level
of growth would represent a disproportionate expansion of the settlement.
Prior to the development at Heol Cae Pwll, Colwinston contained approximately 155
dwellings. The addition of 64 homes at Heol Cae Pwll, together with the proposed 25
dwellings on Site 4069, would represent an approximate 57% increase in the size of the
village since 2016.
Such expansion would fundamentally alter the scale and character of this historic rural
settlement and risks undermining its conservation status and community cohesion. The
proposal does not appear to be supported by robust evidence demonstrating a clear
settlement-based housing need.
6. Inconsistent Site Assessment
The Local Authority has previously assessed this site as unsuitable for development on
several occasions. The current proposal therefore represents a significant departure
from earlier assessments. Given that the site continues to present adverse impacts and
conflicts with relevant planning policies, the rationale for this change in position
remains unclear and insufficiently justified.
7. Flood Risk and Drainage Constraints
There are known drainage and flooding issues affecting both the site and the
surrounding area. In addition, there are concerns regarding sewerage capacity and
connectivity with the Cowbridge Wastewater Treatment Works.
The Integrated Sustainability Appraisal identifies that the site intersects with
Groundwater Source Protection Zones and highlights potential risks associated with
development on greenfield land in relation to surface water flooding. These constraints
raise legitimate concerns regarding the suitability of the site for development and its
resilience to future climate conditions.
8. Highways and Traffic Impact
Recent residential development and the construction of the new primary school have
already increased traffic movements within the village. This has affected traffic flow,
parking availability and the safety of walking and cycling routes.
Access to and from the village via the A48 is already constrained, with junctions at
Twmpath and Crack Hill presenting visibility and safety concerns on a high-speed road.
Any additional traffic associated with further development would intensify existing
pressures on the local road network.
9. Site Access and Construction Traffic
The proposed access arrangements raise significant safety concerns. Construction
activity associated with the development would generate substantial volumes of plant,
machinery and contractor traffic, which would be inappropriate within a small village
setting.
Access through an existing residential estate would introduce additional risks for
pedestrians, school children, walkers and animals, creating unacceptable safety
hazards for residents.
10. Lack of Sustainable Transport and Local Services
The village has extremely limited public transport provision. The nearest bus stop is
approximately a 30-minute walk from the site along roads that lack pavements and have
poor lighting, making pedestrian access unsafe and impractical, particularly during
winter months.
The site also lies in a location that would extend development outward toward the A48
rather than consolidating the existing settlement pattern. This cannot reasonably be
described as infill or rounding-off development and instead represents a form of “rural
crawl” toward the A48. Access to services from this location would require crossing or
travelling alongside the A48, a three-lane road with a 60mph speed limit, which
presents clear safety concerns and reinforces reliance on private car travel.
In addition, the village lacks essential services such as a GP surgery and larger retail
facilities, meaning future residents would be heavily dependent on private vehicles. This
runs contrary to the principles of sustainable development and the objective of
reducing car dependency.
11. Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
The site comprises predominantly greenfield land identified as Best and Most Versatile
(BMV) agricultural land, including Grades 2 and 3a. National planning policy requires
that such land be protected and only released for development where there is an
overriding need and no reasonable alternatives.
No evidence has been presented to demonstrate such a need. The site is also identified
as lying within a mineral safeguarding area, raising further questions regarding the
appropriateness of residential allocation.
Planning Policy Context
The proposal appears inconsistent with the principles of sustainable development set
out in Planning Policy Wales, which requires development to be located in sustainable
locations with appropriate access to services, infrastructure and public transport.
It also conflicts with the placemaking and rural development principles within Future
Wales: The National Plan 2040. Furthermore, potential harm to the Conservation Area is
contrary to the heritage protection principles set out in Technical Advice Note 24: The
Historic Environment.
In accordance with national planning policy and the requirements of the Local
Development Plan process, site allocations must be supported by robust evidence,
demonstrate clear sustainability credentials and represent the most appropriate option
when reasonable alternatives have been considered.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the inclusion of Site 4069 within the settlement
boundary cannot be considered justified, sustainable or consistent with the objectives
of the Local Development Plan. The proposal would harm the character and setting of
the Conservation Area, place additional strain on local infrastructure and introduce
safety and accessibility concerns that have not been adequately addressed.
It is therefore respectfully requested that Site 4069 is not allocated for development and
remains outside the defined settlement boundary. In the absence of clear evidence
demonstrating that the site represents the most appropriate and sustainable option, its
allocation risks undermining the overall soundness of the Replacement Local
Development Plan and may require further scrutiny during the independent examination
process.

Formal Objection to the Inclusion of Site 4069 within the Settlement Boundary :
Land to the East of Colwinston
I wish to register a formal objection to the proposed inclusion of Site 4069 within the
settlement boundary. The proposal raises significant concerns in relation to heritage
protection, sustainability, infrastructure capacity, transport accessibility and the overall
scale of development within the historic settlement of Colwinston. The proposal
appears inconsistent with the objectives of the Local Development Plan (LDP) and the
principles of sustainable development.
1. Redrawing of the Settlement Boundary
The site currently forms part of the rural setting of the Conservation Area and
contributes to the open countryside that defines the existing settlement edge.
Extending the settlement boundary to incorporate Site 4069 would materially alter the
established settlement envelope and erode the historic transition between the village
and surrounding countryside. This conflicts with the statutory duty to preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The proposal lacks clear, site-specific justification and is not supported by the
accompanying impact assessment. Notably, the site was previously rejected during
earlier stages of the plan preparation process on the basis that development would
represent an “unacceptable intrusion into the open countryside.” No clear evidence has
been presented to demonstrate why that conclusion no longer applies.
2. Heritage and Landscape Impact
Colwinston is recognised as a County Treasure and its historic character forms an
important component of the local heritage landscape. Development on this site would
have an adverse impact on the character, setting and wider landscape context of the
Conservation Area and would therefore conflict with relevant heritage protection
principles.
The open fields forming Site 4069 contribute to important views into and out of the
village and form part of the agricultural landscape that defines the historic setting of the
settlement. Development in this location would fundamentally alter the relationship
between the village and its surrounding countryside.
3. Integrated Site Appraisal
The inclusion of this site is not supported by the findings of the Integrated Sustainability
Appraisal (ISA). The ISA undertaken for the Deposit Plan concludes that development of
Site 4069 would result in 82% negative impacts across the 17 sustainability objectives,
including 29% major negative effects and 35% minor negative effects, with a further
18% assessed as uncertain. Only two objectives were identified as having minor
positive effects.
This demonstrates that the site performs poorly against the Council’s own sustainability
framework and raises serious concerns regarding its suitability for allocation.
4. Inadequate Community Consultation
The consultation process has relied predominantly on digital engagement. This
approach is likely to have excluded sections of the local community who may not have
reliable access to digital platforms, thereby limiting meaningful public participation in
the planning process.
5. Disproportionate Scale of Development
When considered alongside recent development within the village, the proposed level
of growth would represent a disproportionate expansion of the settlement.
Prior to the development at Heol Cae Pwll, Colwinston contained approximately 155
dwellings. The addition of 64 homes at Heol Cae Pwll, together with the proposed 25
dwellings on Site 4069, would represent an approximate 57% increase in the size of the
village since 2016.
Such expansion would fundamentally alter the scale and character of this historic rural
settlement and risks undermining its conservation status and community cohesion. The
proposal does not appear to be supported by robust evidence demonstrating a clear
settlement-based housing need.
6. Inconsistent Site Assessment
The Local Authority has previously assessed this site as unsuitable for development on
several occasions. The current proposal therefore represents a significant departure
from earlier assessments. Given that the site continues to present adverse impacts and
conflicts with relevant planning policies, the rationale for this change in position
remains unclear and insufficiently justified.
7. Flood Risk and Drainage Constraints
There are known drainage and flooding issues affecting both the site and the
surrounding area. In addition, there are concerns regarding sewerage capacity and
connectivity with the Cowbridge Wastewater Treatment Works.
The Integrated Sustainability Appraisal identifies that the site intersects with
Groundwater Source Protection Zones and highlights potential risks associated with
development on greenfield land in relation to surface water flooding. These constraints
raise legitimate concerns regarding the suitability of the site for development and its
resilience to future climate conditions.
8. Highways and Traffic Impact
Recent residential development and the construction of the new primary school have
already increased traffic movements within the village. This has affected traffic flow,
parking availability and the safety of walking and cycling routes.
Access to and from the village via the A48 is already constrained, with junctions at
Twmpath and Crack Hill presenting visibility and safety concerns on a high-speed road.
Any additional traffic associated with further development would intensify existing
pressures on the local road network.
9. Site Access and Construction Traffic
The proposed access arrangements raise significant safety concerns. Construction
activity associated with the development would generate substantial volumes of plant,
machinery and contractor traffic, which would be inappropriate within a small village
setting.
Access through an existing residential estate would introduce additional risks for
pedestrians, school children, walkers and animals, creating unacceptable safety
hazards for residents.
10. Lack of Sustainable Transport and Local Services
The village has extremely limited public transport provision. The nearest bus stop is
approximately a 30-minute walk from the site along roads that lack pavements and have
poor lighting, making pedestrian access unsafe and impractical, particularly during
winter months.
The site also lies in a location that would extend development outward toward the A48
rather than consolidating the existing settlement pattern. This cannot reasonably be
described as infill or rounding-off development and instead represents a form of “rural
crawl” toward the A48. Access to services from this location would require crossing or
travelling alongside the A48, a three-lane road with a 60mph speed limit, which
presents clear safety concerns and reinforces reliance on private car travel.
In addition, the village lacks essential services such as a GP surgery and larger retail
facilities, meaning future residents would be heavily dependent on private vehicles. This
runs contrary to the principles of sustainable development and the objective of
reducing car dependency.
11. Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
The site comprises predominantly greenfield land identified as Best and Most Versatile
(BMV) agricultural land, including Grades 2 and 3a. National planning policy requires
that such land be protected and only released for development where there is an
overriding need and no reasonable alternatives.
No evidence has been presented to demonstrate such a need. The site is also identified
as lying within a mineral safeguarding area, raising further questions regarding the
appropriateness of residential allocation.
Planning Policy Context
The proposal appears inconsistent with the principles of sustainable development set
out in Planning Policy Wales, which requires development to be located in sustainable
locations with appropriate access to services, infrastructure and public transport.
It also conflicts with the placemaking and rural development principles within Future
Wales: The National Plan 2040. Furthermore, potential harm to the Conservation Area is
contrary to the heritage protection principles set out in Technical Advice Note 24: The
Historic Environment.
In accordance with national planning policy and the requirements of the Local
Development Plan process, site allocations must be supported by robust evidence,
demonstrate clear sustainability credentials and represent the most appropriate option
when reasonable alternatives have been considered.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the inclusion of Site 4069 within the settlement
boundary cannot be considered justified, sustainable or consistent with the objectives
of the Local Development Plan. The proposal would harm the character and setting of
the Conservation Area, place additional strain on local infrastructure and introduce
safety and accessibility concerns that have not been adequately addressed.
It is therefore respectfully requested that Site 4069 is not allocated for development and
remains outside the defined settlement boundary. In the absence of clear evidence
demonstrating that the site represents the most appropriate and sustainable option, its
allocation risks undermining the overall soundness of the Replacement Local
Development Plan and may require further scrutiny during the independent examination
process.

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.

Where are the pathways promised?

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.

Site ID 4069 Land East of Colwinston

1. 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.

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.

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 conservation status and community cohesion. It is not supported by evidence of settlement based housing need.

6. Inconsistency Of Site Assessment over Time
This site has been judged as unsuitable several previous occasions by the Local Authority. This change in decision is not supported by the continued adverse impact assessment and non compliance with its own and national policies.

7. 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.

8. 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. The any improvements to village roads would have unacceptable character changing impacts.

9. 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

I am objecting to the inclusion of Site ID 4069 (Land East of Colwinston) for the following reasons:

1. The village has expanded considerably in recent years with the Heol Cae Pwll development of 64 houses. Before this there were roughly 155 houses in the village. Another 25 houses would represent an increase of over 57% in housing in recent years. Colwinston is an historic rural settlement with a heritage built on it's size and pattern of linear development. There is little evidence that there is a need for extra modern housing in Colwinston with nearly 10% of the current development at Heol Cae Pwll currently on the market with some of these being on the market since last summer. There is a strong community spirit and this and it's character are in danger of being lost if the village continues to increase in size. Part of Colwinston is in a Conversation Area and further expansion is in contradiction to 'The County Treasures Report' which acknowledged that any expansion to the eastern boundary would have a detrimental impact on the village's character and adversely affect the village and its Conservation Area .

2. I have serious concerns about existing road access to the village and the lack of public transport. Road improvements which were needed after the completion of Heol Cae Pwll have not been undertaken and access to and from the village from the A48 remains an issue with roads that are single lane in many places and are particularly congested during school start and end times. The speed of traffic on the A48 and visibility at junctions remain a concern for both access to and from the village for pedestrians, cyclists and car users. The lack of public transport means that in effect all villagers need a car; another 25 households could potentially add 50 cars to the daily traffic through the village which will exasperate existing concerns and cause further damage to roads which are already badly in need of repair. The only 'regular' bus service is from the A48 and requires villagers to walk an unrealistic distance along country lanes with no pavements and then to cross the three lane A48 on either their outward or return journey. This can not be deemed a safe route for pedestrians.

3. Everyday services are non existent or limited. There are no health services within the village and whilst there is a small cafe selling a few items there is no shop to meet daily needs. There is no mobile signal in some areas of the village and internet connectivity can be 'patchy' at times.
Concerns regarding flood risk in the village and around this site are well documented and there are also issues with low water pressure and sewerage system capacity. All these issues need an improved and costly infrastructure if they are to be remedied.

4. Four candidate sites in Colwinston were rejected for inclusion in the RLDP. The reasons given for this apply equally to site 4069; major highway constraints, limited services and facilities, over 1km to nearest bus stop along lanes with no footpaths and development on edge of existing settlement. There appears to be a significant contradiction here and in fact site 4069 was rejected at The Preferred Strategy Phase 2A in October 2023.

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 insustainable 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.

Furthermore, 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.

The digital approach adopted in this consultation is likely to have excluded and alienated many people in the local community from being able to participate.

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.

This site has been judged as unsuitable several previous occasions by the Local Authority.

This change in decision is not supported by the continued adverse impact assessment and non compliance with its own and national policies.

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.

During times of heavy rainfall the flood risk management system installed at the recent development at Heol Cae Pwll struggles to cope with run off from the adjacent fields and the culverts are often blocked and poorly maintained. This puts existing housing at risk and adding more homes would only make the problem worse.

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. Thus any
improvements to village roads would have unacceptable character changing impacts.

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. The complete lack of public transport links makes it completely non-sensical to build affordable houses at this site and would isolate the very people meant to be homed there.

I am objecting to the inclusion of Site ID 4069 (Land East of Colwinston) for the following reasons:

1. 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. Colwinston is an historic rural settlement with a heritage built on the pattern of linear development. There is little evidence that there is a need for extra modern housing in Colwinston with nearly 10% of the current development at Heol Cae Pwll currently on the market (and some of these have being on the market since last summer). There is a strong community spirit - this and it's character are in danger of being lost if the village continues to increase in size. Taken together with recent developments in the village, the proposed growth is also 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.

2. 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. There are serious concerns about existing road access to the village and the lack of any public transport. Road improvements were needed after the completion of Heol Cae Pwll but these have not been undertaken and access to and from the village from the A48 remains an issue with single lane roads which are particularly congested during school start and end times. The speed of traffic on the A48 and visibility at junctions remain a safety hazard for both access to and from the village for pedestrians, cyclists and car users. The lack of public transport means all villagers need a car; another 25 households could potentially add 50 cars to the daily traffic through the village which will increase traffic and cause further damage to roads which are already badly in need of repair. The only 'regular' bus service is from the A48 and requires villagers to walk a long distance along country lanes with no pavements and then to cross the three lane A48. This is not a safe route for pedestrians.

3. There is a lack of services: There is no mobile signal in most areas of the village and internet connectivity can be intermittent. There is no mains gas and delivery of oil and LPG often causes traffic issues. Concerns regarding flood risks in the village are well documented and the loss of another Green field site will mean less drainage. There are sewerage system capacity connectivity issues with the Cowbridge Wastewater Treatment Works. Low water pressure is also an issue. These issues need an improved and costly services infrastructure if they are to be remedied. Whilst there is a small cafe selling a few items there is no shop to meet daily needs.

4. Four candidate sites in Colwinston were rejected for inclusion in the RLDP. The reasons given for this apply equally to site 4069; major highway constraints, limited services and facilities, over 1km to nearest bus stop along lanes with no footpaths and development on edge of existing settlement. There appears to be a significant contradiction here and in fact site 4069 was rejected at The Preferred Strategy Phase 2A in October 2023.

5. 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.

I am objecting to the inclusion of grounds Site ID 4069 Land East of Colwinston.

I have listed my reasons below. I would also like to add that living near the field and observing the frequent flooding causes huge concern. Also with 7 houses in Heol Cae Pwll currently for sale on rightmove, that have been there for some time, raises the question of why more houses are needed in the village.

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 is not supported by the impact assessment.

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 conservation status and community cohesion. It is not supported by evidence of settlement based housing need.

6. Inconsistency Of Site Assessment over Time This site has been judged as unsuitable several previous occasions by the Local Authority. This change in decision is not supported by the continued adverse impact assessment and non compliance with its own and national policies.

7. 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.

8. 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. The Any improvements to village roads would have unacceptable character changing impacts.

9. 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.

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.

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 is not supported by the impact assessment.

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 conservation status and community cohesion. It is not supported by evidence of settlement based housing need.

6. Inconsistency Of Site Assessment over Time This site has been judged as unsuitable several previous occasions by the Local Authority. This change in decision is not supported by the continued adverse impact assessment and non compliance with its own and national policies.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

Dear responsible officer,
I am objecting to the inclusion of grounds Site ID 4069 Land East of Colwinston for the following reasons:

1. The land just below the proposed development is already subject to flooding and this development would add to the run off whilst removing land that can currently absorb water during periods of sustained rainfall. Building here will increase the risk of flooding to other houses. Flooding has been an issue in the Village and remains of concern to current homeowners. Evidence suggests that concern around flooding can impact negatively on people's health. Has a health impact assessment been undertaken? Furthermore, I believe that there have already been capacity issues with the local sewerage system.

2. This will negatively impact nature. The fields are designated farming/agricultural land. Farming land is vital for sustainable food. Brown field sites would surely be more appropriate for re-development, rather than developing current countryside. In addition to farming livestock (sheep are currently grazing on that site) there are woodpeckers living nearby (probably in the older trees located in the adjacent field), hedgehogs and bats are frequently seen, and Kites hunt on the fields, especially after harvest. The site is part of the rural setting of the Conservation Area. Extending the current boundary fundamentally alters the settlement envelope and, as outlined above, this also conflicts with the statutory duty to preserve or enhance. The proposal also lacks the required sufficient specific justification (see 3 below).

3. There is no public transport infrastructure, meaning that all house owners will be required to use cars, potentially increasing small village traffic by around an additional 50 cars (assuming 2 per house). There are already traffic bottlenecks at school drop off and pick up. The roads out of this development would exit via Heol Cae Pwll into the existing bottleneck area. Furthermore, the planning for affordable housing is counter intuitive given the lack of public transport infrastructure and the realistic need for car ownership to access shops etc. This has been previously noted when families without cars are housed in rural villages, they seek alternative housing because they simply cannot access shops or services. Therefore, this is likely to result in overdevelopment and its negative impacts on current villagers, without realistic prospect of providing true affordable housing to those in need. A number of houses are currently for sale in Heol Cae Pwll, with some having been on the market for many months. In other words this development seems to be at odds with the evidence of housing need, and also at odds with the evidence of housing demand.

4. It is at odds with government policy to increase active sustainable transport. Noting that walking along the A-48 towards Bridgend or Cowbridge is dangerous as there are no pavements, and there are no cycle paths until nearer to Bridgend (I'm assuming that the nearest cycle path is actually in Bridgend LA region rather than the Vale of Glam). 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.

5. The digital approach adopted in this consultation is likely to have excluded many people in the local community from participating and responding, thus providing an inadequate consultation. Indeed, completion of pdf forms and subsequently hunting down the correct e-mail address to return the form was a laborious process. I was unable to access the online form method.

6. Previous site assessments had deemed this site unsuitable for development following impact assessment. The change in decision now appears illogical. This further undermines the principle that the site development is consistent with evidence of housing need.

Yours sincerely,

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 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.

These were the comments made, by the Vale of Glamorgan Council, on the RLDP Stage 2 Candidate Site Register in 2023, concluding that site 4069 to be unsuitable for further consideration:
"The site would represent unacceptable intrusion in to the open countryside.
The site is located within a minor rural settlement, and the scale of the
proposal would be greater than that supported by the preferred growth
strategy of the Replacement LDP. The site is also at a scale that could not
be considered as a suitable affordable housing led development site"

It begs the question:- what has changed??

My additional comments to backup my objection are:

o Major highways constraints. Access to the village is via a single file road. Due mainly to the development to include an additional 65 dwellings in recent years, leaving or returning home has become a major challenge (especially for my wife who is not a particularly confident driver) due to multiple vehicles (usually large) needing to use the single file road down through the village. This is particularly bad at the beginning and end of the school day. It is incomprehensible to consider the impact of another 30-40 vehicles toing and frowing through the village adding to the congestion!
This issue is further impacted by the fact that there is no regular public transport, which is key if the proposed development includes a significant number of affordable homes!

o Flooding risk - there are historic local drainage and flooding issues. The additional load on the drainage and sewage systems, local and at the Cowbridge waste water treatment works, could cause major problems of flooding and worse.

o Lack of infrastructure to sustain an enlarged population which will require more road congestion, less safe walking or cycling around the village and the general environmental impact of an increased population in such a small rural community.

am objecting to the inclusion of grounds Site ID 4069 Land East of Colwinston due to the following points;

1. The development of Site 4069 would represent a significant and disproportionate expansion of Colwinston. Prior to the Heol Cae Pwll development, the village contained approximately 155 homes. The addition of 64 dwellings at Heol Cae Pwll (including 35% affordable housing) has already increased the housing stock substantially. The construction of a further 25 dwellings at Site 4069 would bring the total increase in housing since 2016 to approximately 57%. Such cumulative growth is excessive for a small rural village and would fundamentally alter the character and scale of Colwinston. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable increase in the size and density of the settlement, contrary to its historic form and setting. Colwinston's character as a compact historic village would be eroded, replacing it with the form of a significantly enlarged, commuter-style settlement. This would harm the village's conservation setting, rural heritage, and distinct identity.

2. The special character of Colwinston is intrinsically linked to its small scale, rural isolation and the clarity of its long-established settlement boundary. Altering this boundary risks exposing the village to incremental and cumulative development pressures that would fundamentally erode its rural character.

The RLDP proposes that the Settlement Boundary for Colwinston be redrawn to incorporate Candidate Site 4069 (Land to the East of Colwinston). However, the proposal appears to lack sufficient evidence, detailed analysis, or settlement-specific justification. There has also been no clear or targeted consultation explaining the rationale for altering what has historically been a well-defined and established boundary.
I do not understand why the settlement boundary for Colwinston has been amended or why the previous reasons for rejecting Site 4069 no longer apply?

The proposed amendment to the settlement boundary appears unjustified and risks setting a precedent for further incremental expansion that would undermine the rural character and spatial integrity of Colwinston.

3. Historically, the village has experienced drainage problems in which sewerage overflows
have combined with surface water runoff during periods of heavy rainfall. Development of
Site 4069 would result in the loss of agricultural land that currently provides important natural
drainage and water-absorption capacity for the wider area.
Development on greenfield land could exacerbate surface water flooding, which would be
contrary to the principles set out in Welsh planning guidance.
The Local Development Plan (2011–2026) also acknowledged a historic record of localised
surface water flooding within this area, and these problems remain unresolved.
4. Increased levels of car use resulting from the previous housing and primary school
development have already adversely affected traffic flows, parking, and the safety of walking
and cycling throughout the village. I believe that any further increase in traffic associated
with further development will intensify risks and could endanger lives.
5. Colwinston is a highly car-dependent village. Contrary to the principles of the
Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP), there are no safe footways, cycle routes, or
reliable bus services along the A48 or within the village that enable residents to travel
sustainably. Therefore any future development should not be considered within Colwinston
village as it is not possible for residents to realistically walk, cycle or use public transport to
access employment, schools or services.
Visibility splays on both entrances and exits onto the A48 at Twmpath and Crack Hill are
poor and do not meet appropriate safety standards for a road subject to a 60mph speed
limit. Also the road surfaces within the village lanes remain substandard and there are many
obscured bends and narrow sections which make them hazardous for vehicles, pedestrians,
and cyclists.

Colwinston: Major safety concern-traffic congestion around school. since the original planning consent was given to Redrow to build 64 houses at Heol Cae Pwll, circumstances have significantly changed. At that time the school was attended by pupils from the village and local surroundings. However in 2020, the school was replaced and considerably enlarged. As there is no public transport to the village, there has been a significant increase in the number of children brought to school by car from the extended catchment area. As a result of the 64 new homes on Heol Cae Pwll (many with two or more cars because of the lack of public transport) and the need for many more parents to deliver their children to school by car, there has to been a dramatic increase in the volume of traffic through the village and country lanes leading to it, particularly those leading to and from the A48, which is also the only pedestrian route to public transport. The traffic congestion at the junction of the school and Heol Cae Pwll is already a major safety concern which should not be added to. Any additional housing will inevitably lead to additional cars and delivery traffic as all new residents will require their own transport. At peak times, when children are being dropped off/collected from school, congestion by the school and at the entrance to Heol Cae Pwll is already a very serious safety concern. Despite the best effects of both drivers and pedestrians, the parking problems significantly impact on visibility, and safety in seriously compromised as a result. With so many young children and adults in a highly congested area, with a large number of cars, an accident is always sadly, a possibility. It is strongly recommended that these much changed circumstances are considered before any further moves to increase the housing at Heol Cae Pwll are approved. It is strongly recommended that these safety concerns and risks are not added to by having additions homes built at Heol Cae Pwll, thereby increasing the volume of cars and delivery vans having to gain access through this already highly congested bottleneck at peak school traffic times. A full traffic survey should be undertaken and a proper risk assessments of the issues raised in this response completed before the planning for additional houses at Heol Cae Pwll proceeds any further. The existing dangerous situation should not be exacerbated further.

The site is not allocated for development and
remains outside the defined settlement boundary.

Formal Objection to the Inclusion of Site 4069 within the Settlement Boundary :
Land to the East of Colwinston
I wish to register a formal objection to the proposed inclusion of Site 4069 within the
settlement boundary. The proposal raises significant concerns in relation to heritage
protection, sustainability, infrastructure capacity, transport accessibility and the overall
scale of development within the historic settlement of Colwinston. The proposal
appears inconsistent with the objectives of the Local Development Plan (LDP) and the
principles of sustainable development.
1. Redrawing of the Settlement Boundary
The site currently forms part of the rural setting of the Conservation Area and
contributes to the open countryside that defines the existing settlement edge.
Extending the settlement boundary to incorporate Site 4069 would materially alter the
established settlement envelope and erode the historic transition between the village
and surrounding countryside. This conflicts with the statutory duty to preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The proposal lacks clear, site-specific justification and is not supported by the
accompanying impact assessment. Notably, the site was previously rejected during
earlier stages of the plan preparation process on the basis that development would
represent an “unacceptable intrusion into the open countryside.” No clear evidence has
been presented to demonstrate why that conclusion no longer applies.
2. Heritage and Landscape Impact
Colwinston is recognised as a County Treasure and its historic character forms an
important component of the local heritage landscape. Development on this site would
have an adverse impact on the character, setting and wider landscape context of the
Conservation Area and would therefore conflict with relevant heritage protection
principles.
The open fields forming Site 4069 contribute to important views into and out of the
village and form part of the agricultural landscape that defines the historic setting of the
settlement. Development in this location would fundamentally alter the relationship
between the village and its surrounding countryside.
3. Integrated Site Appraisal
The inclusion of this site is not supported by the findings of the Integrated Sustainability
Appraisal (ISA). The ISA undertaken for the Deposit Plan concludes that development of
Site 4069 would result in 82% negative impacts across the 17 sustainability objectives,
including 29% major negative effects and 35% minor negative effects, with a further
18% assessed as uncertain. Only two objectives were identified as having minor
positive effects.
This demonstrates that the site performs poorly against the Council’s own sustainability
framework and raises serious concerns regarding its suitability for allocation.
4. Inadequate Community Consultation
The consultation process has relied predominantly on digital engagement. This
approach is likely to have excluded sections of the local community who may not have
reliable access to digital platforms, thereby limiting meaningful public participation in
the planning process.
5. Disproportionate Scale of Development
When considered alongside recent development within the village, the proposed level
of growth would represent a disproportionate expansion of the settlement.
Prior to the development at Heol Cae Pwll, Colwinston contained approximately 155
dwellings. The addition of 64 homes at Heol Cae Pwll, together with the proposed 25
dwellings on Site 4069, would represent an approximate 57% increase in the size of the
village since 2016.
Such expansion would fundamentally alter the scale and character of this historic rural
settlement and risks undermining its conservation status and community cohesion. The
proposal does not appear to be supported by robust evidence demonstrating a clear
settlement-based housing need.
6. Inconsistent Site Assessment
The Local Authority has previously assessed this site as unsuitable for development on
several occasions. The current proposal therefore represents a significant departure
from earlier assessments. Given that the site continues to present adverse impacts and
conflicts with relevant planning policies, the rationale for this change in position
remains unclear and insufficiently justified.
7. Flood Risk and Drainage Constraints
There are known drainage and flooding issues affecting both the site and the
surrounding area. In addition, there are concerns regarding sewerage capacity and
connectivity with the Cowbridge Wastewater Treatment Works.
The Integrated Sustainability Appraisal identifies that the site intersects with
Groundwater Source Protection Zones and highlights potential risks associated with
development on greenfield land in relation to surface water flooding. These constraints
raise legitimate concerns regarding the suitability of the site for development and its
resilience to future climate conditions.
8. Highways and Traffic Impact
Recent residential development and the construction of the new primary school have
already increased traffic movements within the village. This has affected traffic flow,
parking availability and the safety of walking and cycling routes.
Access to and from the village via the A48 is already constrained, with junctions at
Twmpath and Crack Hill presenting visibility and safety concerns on a high-speed road.
Any additional traffic associated with further development would intensify existing
pressures on the local road network.
9. Site Access and Construction Traffic
The proposed access arrangements raise significant safety concerns. Construction
activity associated with the development would generate substantial volumes of plant,
machinery and contractor traffic, which would be inappropriate within a small village
setting.
Access through an existing residential estate would introduce additional risks for
pedestrians, school children, walkers and animals, creating unacceptable safety
hazards for residents.
10. Lack of Sustainable Transport and Local Services
The village has extremely limited public transport provision. The nearest bus stop is
approximately a 30-minute walk from the site along roads that lack pavements and have
poor lighting, making pedestrian access unsafe and impractical, particularly during
winter months.
The site also lies in a location that would extend development outward toward the A48
rather than consolidating the existing settlement pattern. This cannot reasonably be
described as infill or rounding-off development and instead represents a form of “rural
crawl” toward the A48. Access to services from this location would require crossing or
travelling alongside the A48, a three-lane road with a 60mph speed limit, which
presents clear safety concerns and reinforces reliance on private car travel.
In addition, the village lacks essential services such as a GP surgery and larger retail
facilities, meaning future residents would be heavily dependent on private vehicles. This
runs contrary to the principles of sustainable development and the objective of
reducing car dependency.
11. Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
The site comprises predominantly greenfield land identified as Best and Most Versatile
(BMV) agricultural land, including Grades 2 and 3a. National planning policy requires
that such land be protected and only released for development where there is an
overriding need and no reasonable alternatives.
No evidence has been presented to demonstrate such a need. The site is also identified
as lying within a mineral safeguarding area, raising further questions regarding the
appropriateness of residential allocation.
Planning Policy Context
The proposal appears inconsistent with the principles of sustainable development set
out in Planning Policy Wales, which requires development to be located in sustainable
locations with appropriate access to services, infrastructure and public transport.
It also conflicts with the placemaking and rural development principles within Future
Wales: The National Plan 2040. Furthermore, potential harm to the Conservation Area is
contrary to the heritage protection principles set out in Technical Advice Note 24: The
Historic Environment.
In accordance with national planning policy and the requirements of the Local
Development Plan process, site allocations must be supported by robust evidence,
demonstrate clear sustainability credentials and represent the most appropriate option
when reasonable alternatives have been considered.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the inclusion of Site 4069 within the settlement
boundary cannot be considered justified, sustainable or consistent with the objectives
of the Local Development Plan. The proposal would harm the character and setting of
the Conservation Area, place additional strain on local infrastructure and introduce
safety and accessibility concerns that have not been adequately addressed.
It is therefore respectfully requested that Site 4069 is not allocated for development and
remains outside the defined settlement boundary. In the absence of clear evidence
demonstrating that the site represents the most appropriate and sustainable option, its
allocation risks undermining the overall soundness of the Replacement Local
Development Plan and may require further scrutiny during the independent examination
process.

Based on the environmental evidence from the adjacent Heol Cae Pwll development this proposal is fundamentally flawed and will seriously exacerbate service, land drainage and Service issues in the area.

Site ID 4069 Land East of Colwinston
I strongly object to Candidate Site ID4069 – land East of Colwinston. This proposed site is not acceptable in this historic and conservation little village. Apart from the fact that there is no clear access to the site, the proposed development goes against the current overloaded housing in this Heritage village in the Rural Vale. Not only is there a drainage and flooding risk which was acerbated by the last recent housing over development next door to this proposed site. There would be a considerable increase in vehicle traffic (30 more houses, up to 50 more vehicles plus delivery and tradesmen conveyances). There are only a few pavements in the village, no buses, no shops and a mile walk along narrow lanes to the nearest highway (A48). No children cycling is permitted by the parents because it is too dangerous. Also, twice a day there are traffic problems outside the village school caused by non-village parents and their oversized vehicles. The Vale councilors just dump these developments in the Rural Vale with little regard to the welfare, safety and wellbeing of the current residents

1. The unjustified redrawing of the settlement boundary to include candidate site 4069 as it is an intrusion into scarce prime agricultural land.

2. inclusion of this site for affordable housing, is 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 proposed development will result in additional traffic as 25 houses will result in about 50 extra motor vehicles. This is because of the absence of a bus service for the village with the main road being over a mile from the proposed site. The existing highways in the village do not meet basic safety standards. I do not believe that this has been taken into account. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, 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

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.

other grounds for objection include :-

3. 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. 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.
5. Inconsistency Of Site Assessment over Time This site has been judged as unsuitable several previous occasions by the Local Authority. This change in decision is not supported by the continued adverse impact assessment and non compliance with its own and national policies.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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).

objection to Site ID 4069 Land East of Colwinston
The village of Colwinston is identified as a county treasure and more development of the village would have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the conservation area contrary to policy.

Formal Objection to the Inclusion of Site 4069 within the Settlement Boundary :
Land to the East of Colwinston
I wish to register a formal objection to the proposed inclusion of Site 4069 within the
settlement boundary. The proposal raises significant concerns in relation to heritage
protection, sustainability, infrastructure capacity, transport accessibility and the overall
scale of development within the historic settlement of Colwinston. The proposal
appears inconsistent with the objectives of the Local Development Plan (LDP) and the
principles of sustainable development.
1. Redrawing of the Settlement Boundary
The site currently forms part of the rural setting of the Conservation Area and
contributes to the open countryside that defines the existing settlement edge.
Extending the settlement boundary to incorporate Site 4069 would materially alter the
established settlement envelope and erode the historic transition between the village
and surrounding countryside. This conflicts with the statutory duty to preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The proposal lacks clear, site-specific justification and is not supported by the
accompanying impact assessment. Notably, the site was previously rejected during
earlier stages of the plan preparation process on the basis that development would
represent an “unacceptable intrusion into the open countryside.” No clear evidence has
been presented to demonstrate why that conclusion no longer applies.
2. Heritage and Landscape Impact
Colwinston is recognised as a County Treasure and its historic character forms an
important component of the local heritage landscape. Development on this site would
have an adverse impact on the character, setting and wider landscape context of the
Conservation Area and would therefore conflict with relevant heritage protection
principles.
The open fields forming Site 4069 contribute to important views into and out of the
village and form part of the agricultural landscape that defines the historic setting of the
settlement. Development in this location would fundamentally alter the relationship
between the village and its surrounding countryside.
3. Integrated Site Appraisal
The inclusion of this site is not supported by the findings of the Integrated Sustainability
Appraisal (ISA). The ISA undertaken for the Deposit Plan concludes that development of
Site 4069 would result in 82% negative impacts across the 17 sustainability objectives,
including 29% major negative effects and 35% minor negative effects, with a further
18% assessed as uncertain. Only two objectives were identified as having minor
positive effects.
This demonstrates that the site performs poorly against the Council’s own sustainability
framework and raises serious concerns regarding its suitability for allocation.
4. Inadequate Community Consultation
The consultation process has relied predominantly on digital engagement. This
approach is likely to have excluded sections of the local community who may not have
reliable access to digital platforms, thereby limiting meaningful public participation in
the planning process.
5. Disproportionate Scale of Development
When considered alongside recent development within the village, the proposed level
of growth would represent a disproportionate expansion of the settlement.
Prior to the development at Heol Cae Pwll, Colwinston contained approximately 155
dwellings. The addition of 64 homes at Heol Cae Pwll, together with the proposed 25
dwellings on Site 4069, would represent an approximate 57% increase in the size of the
village since 2016.
Such expansion would fundamentally alter the scale and character of this historic rural
settlement and risks undermining its conservation status and community cohesion. The
proposal does not appear to be supported by robust evidence demonstrating a clear
settlement-based housing need.
6. Inconsistent Site Assessment
The Local Authority has previously assessed this site as unsuitable for development on
several occasions. The current proposal therefore represents a significant departure
from earlier assessments. Given that the site continues to present adverse impacts and
conflicts with relevant planning policies, the rationale for this change in position
remains unclear and insufficiently justified.
7. Flood Risk and Drainage Constraints
There are known drainage and flooding issues affecting both the site and the
surrounding area. In addition, there are concerns regarding sewerage capacity and
connectivity with the Cowbridge Wastewater Treatment Works.
The Integrated Sustainability Appraisal identifies that the site intersects with
Groundwater Source Protection Zones and highlights potential risks associated with
development on greenfield land in relation to surface water flooding. These constraints
raise legitimate concerns regarding the suitability of the site for development and its
resilience to future climate conditions.
8. Highways and Traffic Impact
Recent residential development and the construction of the new primary school have
already increased traffic movements within the village. This has affected traffic flow,
parking availability and the safety of walking and cycling routes.
Access to and from the village via the A48 is already constrained, with junctions at
Twmpath and Crack Hill presenting visibility and safety concerns on a high-speed road.
Any additional traffic associated with further development would intensify existing
pressures on the local road network.
9. Site Access and Construction Traffic
The proposed access arrangements raise significant safety concerns. Construction
activity associated with the development would generate substantial volumes of plant,
machinery and contractor traffic, which would be inappropriate within a small village
setting.
Access through an existing residential estate would introduce additional risks for
pedestrians, school children, walkers and animals, creating unacceptable safety
hazards for residents.
10. Lack of Sustainable Transport and Local Services
The village has extremely limited public transport provision. The nearest bus stop is
approximately a 30-minute walk from the site along roads that lack pavements and have
poor lighting, making pedestrian access unsafe and impractical, particularly during
winter months.
The site also lies in a location that would extend development outward toward the A48
rather than consolidating the existing settlement pattern. This cannot reasonably be
described as infill or rounding-off development and instead represents a form of “rural
crawl” toward the A48. Access to services from this location would require crossing or
travelling alongside the A48, a three-lane road with a 60mph speed limit, which
presents clear safety concerns and reinforces reliance on private car travel.
In addition, the village lacks essential services such as a GP surgery and larger retail
facilities, meaning future residents would be heavily dependent on private vehicles. This
runs contrary to the principles of sustainable development and the objective of
reducing car dependency.
11. Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
The site comprises predominantly greenfield land identified as Best and Most Versatile
(BMV) agricultural land, including Grades 2 and 3a. National planning policy requires
that such land be protected and only released for development where there is an
overriding need and no reasonable alternatives.
No evidence has been presented to demonstrate such a need. The site is also identified
as lying within a mineral safeguarding area, raising further questions regarding the
appropriateness of residential allocation.
Planning Policy Context
The proposal appears inconsistent with the principles of sustainable development set
out in Planning Policy Wales, which requires development to be located in sustainable
locations with appropriate access to services, infrastructure and public transport.
It also conflicts with the placemaking and rural development principles within Future
Wales: The National Plan 2040. Furthermore, potential harm to the Conservation Area is
contrary to the heritage protection principles set out in Technical Advice Note 24: The
Historic Environment.
In accordance with national planning policy and the requirements of the Local
Development Plan process, site allocations must be supported by robust evidence,
demonstrate clear sustainability credentials and represent the most appropriate option
when reasonable alternatives have been considered.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the inclusion of Site 4069 within the settlement
boundary cannot be considered justified, sustainable or consistent with the objectives
of the Local Development Plan. The proposal would harm the character and setting of
the Conservation Area, place additional strain on local infrastructure and introduce
safety and accessibility concerns that have not been adequately addressed.
It is therefore respectfully requested that Site 4069 is not allocated for development and
remains outside the defined settlement boundary. In the absence of clear evidence
demonstrating that the site represents the most appropriate and sustainable option, its
allocation risks undermining the overall soundness of the Replacement Local
Development Plan and may require further scrutiny during the independent examination
process.

Remove allocation and reconsider alternative brownfield sites.

This site is adjacent to the earlier Heol Cae Pwll Development and St Davids Church in Wales rebuild. These projects as predicted exacerbated a wide range of existing local service issues from drainage, flooding, sewerage, access, gas, electricity and narrow and congested highways. Although mains gas was promised it and similarly a sophisticated underground Attenuation Tank, neither materialised. It was only after Senedd intervention that sewerage upgrades were implemented and serious potential Sewerage issues were for the time being averted. Nevertheless the area above the site from the A48 naturally drains via Heol Cae Pwll, Beech Park, Church Lane and The Vines. Flooding in the lower areas often closing the roads is however a still frequent occurrence. The lack of mains services along with attendant HGV's delivering Oil and Gas alongside heavy Farm Traffic makes the lanes very congested, even impossible at School drop off and collection times. This is only offset by the operation of a voluntary one way system at such times. Heol Cae Pwll represented a 42% increase in housing stock and against the background summarised above was always going to create problems. The standard of driving by out of area drivers also presents a very serious accident risk. Cutting corners and failing to give consideration to other users is also a major issue. All of which was predicted prior to the Heol Cae Development. As things stand it is a fact that we can no longer continually erode agricultural land at serious risk to the environment, food security and our climate. As such there should be a presumption against such rural developments and reconsideration given to for example the previous proposed Llandow Newedd brown field site.

I would like to raise my objection and concerns for the inclusion of the Site 4069 (also referred to as HG4 (1)) Land to the East of Colwinston for 25 Residential dwellings as part of the Deposit Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP). The site is unsuitable for the intended use due to access and safety concerns, is in conflict with the Vale's own sustainability policies, and will negative impact the environment and habitat surrounding the village. Specifically:

1. The existing LDP (2011-2026) shows the current settlement boundary for Colwinston running to the west of the proposed Site 4069. The RLDP proposed to shift this boundary to allow Site 4069; however, this change is neither justified nor is it supported by any obvious environmental, planning, or policy goals. Background Paper (BP18a) provides an assessment of the various Candidate Sites put forward and states that Site 4069 "would be an appropriate rounding off in respect of the settlement pattern in Colwinston". This conclusion seems arbitrary and flawed as the proposed change doesn't fill in/round off the existing boundaries in any way, nor does it follow the established pattern of development in the village. In fact, it is wholly out of character and in conflict with the existing arrangement and form of the village, and will expand the development footprint into the countryside without any connection to the surrounding village, with an associated impact on the environment. Expanding the settlement boundary as proposed would actually facilitate future 'rounding off of the boundary to the north and south and should therefore be rejected.

2. Similarly, as part of the Call for Candidate Sites for the RLPD in 2022, several sites located east of the Colwinston settlement boundary were assessed for their suitability for residential development (Site 409, Site 453, Site 474). Of these, Site 453 occupies the same location as Site 4069, albeit a larger area. Site 453 was rejected as suitable for housing as "the site would represent unacceptable intrusion in to the open countryside and is affected by major highways constraints." Although the Vale desperately needs affordable housing, this site remains unsuitable for exactly the same reasons due to its incursion into the open countryside and the existing major highways constraints that were cause for rejecting the site in the Candidate Site Assessment Register (November 2023).

3. Colwinston is defined in the RLDP as a Minor Rural Settlement, and has a limited number of local facilities, including a church, pub, and Church in Wales Primary School. However, the lack of any shops or public transportation in the village means that it is a car-dependent community for most services and is not a sustainable location for new development. Under Welsh Planning Policy new development should be located so that most people's needs are available within a 15-20 minute walk or bike, but this is certainly not the case in Colwinston. In the evidence base of the RDLP, the Settlement Appraisal Review (June 2023) (SAR) awards a score of '6' to Colwinston for having a regular bus service (note that Greenlinks are excluded from their analysis) - this is factually incorrect. The SAR defines that access to bus services "must be within 400m of the settlement being assessed in order to receive a score". The nearest bus stops to the village are located on the A48, approximately 1,000 m from Site 4069 and are only accessible via a narrow road with no footway or cycle provision. In addition, the eastbound bus stop is only accessible across a three lane section of busy road where the posted speed limit is 60mph and there is no crossing, making this a very dangerous stop to access. Correctly scoring Colwinston (with a score of 0) due to this lack of bus or cycle provision would significantly lower the villages sustainability score.

Furthermore, BP18a appears to give the site a green scoring for Sustainable Transport - Active Travel Access" (page 86) when there is no Active Travel (pedestrian or cycle) linking non-vehicular modes of movement in anyway proximate to the site. Therefore, providing a further 25 homes in a village with few services and no public transportation would create new housing that is car-dependent and therefore in conflict with current national planning policy and the RLDP. Specifically, Site 4069 would not promote new housing "in sustainable locations with good access to employment, public transport, community facilities and shops" (section 5.3), nor would it be consistent with the Placemaking and Active Travel policies of the RLDP (section 4.1) that aim to facilitate development of "safe, accessible, well-connected communities equipped with appropriate supporting infrastructure" and "promote the use of sustainable methods of travel".

4. Development of Site 4069 would also be detrimental to the safety of residents and visitors to the village due to the additional traffic placed on the narrow country roads that access the village. Although not at capacity from a volume point of view, the roads into Colwinston are all single-lane country lanes with passing places, and all significantly less than a normal 5m carriageway. With heavy school traffic especially at morning and afternoon pick up times, no footway and blind or poor visibility at many locations, the roads into the village are often dangerous and not safe places to walk (especially for children, as a recent accident would attest to). A new development would add more traffic to this already unsafe road system, especially considering the car-dependent nature of a village without public transportation or Active Travel connections, and therefore should be considered unsustainable and inappropriate.

5. Site 4069 can only be developed by access through a gateway onto Heol Cae Pwll, a road that has not been adopted locally by the Council due to failures of Redrow to complete all their Section 106 obligations. Notwithstanding that issue, Heol Cae Pwll is often effectively rendered a single lane road due to parents and staff of the school parking along the roadway. This forces cars leaving the development onto the wrong side of the road, where visibility is very poor, creating an un-safe traffic arrangement.Add to this the presence of young school children running across the same intersection, and the parking of cars on the verges along the main road, conflicts between cars and pedestrians are common, with a child recently having been hit at the school entrance. Adding a further 25 homes onto this road would seem to only add to these issues and create further unacceptable risk. This access arrangement would also be un-safe should construction go ahead with all materials and labour having to travel through the same bottleneck to access the site.

6. Site 4069 has an existing Public Right of Way (PRoW) that runs along the hedgerow to the west of the site, connecting the north and southern parts of the village. This route currently has a countryside character as it passes through fields along the existing hedgerows. Development of the site will change the character of this route significantly, or re-routing the PRoW would be much more circuitous than the existing pathway, neither of which seem appropriate for a pedestrian connection of this type. Ideally, any future development would retain the PRoW within a Green Infrastructure (GI) corridor that provides amenity space and public realm for residents, and habitat and dark corridors for bats consistent with the RLDP policies. However, such a provision would likely reduce the viability of any future development by reducing housing numbers and so seems unlikely to be provided. Therefore, if the site goes forward the Council should at a minimum require extensive GI corridors along the existing hedgerows through which the PRoW and pedestrian corridors should be retained.