I saw your recent L.D.P for my village attached to a lamppost. I wondered why you didn't use your official Notice Board at the Bus stop.

Having looked at the L PD I wondered about the following points from the notice.

1. There was no bypass showing on the plan. Have you abandoned this? As you are aware our close was built only because of the Bypass proposal. 2. You do not outline the entry and exit for traffic serving these dwellings. 3. You ignore the Right of Way, are you altering this again? 4. I note you outline25 Dwellings, are these Flats, Houses, what? 5. You note that my house is called Mabsant, this is because in earlier times the field was used by the village for their celebrations. It would be good to include a small village green against your plan. 6. It seems strange to me to outline 25 dwellings on such a large area, or have you more plans in mind? 7. Have you notified the Village Hall Committee of your plans. 8. Have you notified the Village Hall re your meeting of the L D P in Cowbridge Town Hall, why not a meeting in our Village Hall where you would be able to answer our concerns?

Finally, I for one have no access to modern technology hence my letter. I believe you should develop the field as we need affordable housing in the village.

I saw your recent L.D.P for my village attached to a lamppost. I wondered why you didn't use your official Notice Board at the Bus stop.

Having looked at the L PD I wondered about the following points from the notice.

1. There was no bypass showing on the plan. Have you abandoned this? As you are aware our close was built only because of the Bypass proposal. 2. You do not outline the entry and exit for traffic serving these dwellings. 3. You ignore the Right of Way, are you altering this again? 4. I note you outline25 Dwellings, are these Flats, Houses, what? 5. You note that my house is called Mabsant, this is because in earlier times the field was used by the village for their celebrations. It would be good to include a small village green against your plan. 6. It seems strange to me to outline 25 dwellings on such a large area, or have you more plans in mind? 7. Have you notified the Village Hall Committee of your plans. 8. Have you notified the Village Hall re your meeting of the L D P in Cowbridge Town Hall, why not a meeting in our Village Hall where you would be able to answer our concerns?

Finally, I for one have no access to modern technology hence my letter. I believe you should develop the field as we need affordable housing in the village.

On behalf Triangle Property Holdings (The proposer), I write to confirm that we support the application of Land west of Maendy Road, Aberthin under Policy HG4(2).

Reconsider the proposed development.

I am writing to formally object to the planning proposal for the construction of 25 new houses in the field adjacent to my homes in Maes Lloi, Aberthin-referred to "Land West of Maendy Rd." The following points are the grounds for my objections.

1. Planning grounds for objection.
The land has previously been rejected for development. In the previously LDP it was considered unrelated to the settlements of Aberthin and would constitute sporadic development in the countryside. This was a clear spatial judgement based on location. This site remains outside the established settlement boundary. Nothing has changed in the physical relationship between the land and the village. Allocation under Policy HG4 does not alter this fundamentally reality.
2. The RLDP directs growth to strategic and sustainable locations. Aberthin is classified as a Minor Rural Settlements not a sustainable growth location. The RLDP states that a development should be focused on the Strategic Growth Area and Service Centres.
3. Cowbridge is already delivering substantial planned growth. Cowbridge, a designated service centre, has hundreds of homes either under construction or allocated. Infrastructure, services and sustainable transport are concentrated there-not in Aberthin. The Clair Gardens development alone will deliver 405 homes, including 133 affordable units and 57 first-time buyer properties. Given this scale of delivery, greenfield expansion outside the Aberthin boundary is unnecessary.
4. The proposal represents disproportionate growth. Adding 25 dwellings would increase the size of Aberthin by approximately 15% in a single development. This is not a minor infill, it is a clear and outward expansion. Policy HG4 requires development in rural settlements to be small-scale and proportionate.
5. Significant highway safely concerns. The road through Aberthin (linking Cowbridge and Ysfadowen) is already heavily trafficked including a high volume of HGVs with poor adherence to the 20mph speed limit. The proposed access point would sit less than 20 metres north of the last house in the village. This stretch of road has a history of incidents due to: a sharp bend over a bridge, two public houses with 3 car parks, three side road junctions, multiple private driveways directly onto the main road. Introducing another junction would exacerbate existing safety risks. 6. Flood Risks and infrastructure concerns.
Parts of the site fall within flood zone 2 and 3 requiring a full Flood Consequence Assessment. Access is constrained and no specific, sustainable transport measures have been identified. There is no clear infrastructure strategy to support the development. This site has been included in the Vale of Glamorgan Council's Replacement Plan and as residents we have only recently become aware of this proposal-although the plan has been in preparation for over 2 years. This is a much valued green space, widely used by villagers and forms part of the walking route between Aberthin and Cowbridge.
I wish to ensure that development in the Vale of Glamorgan follows the principles of sustainability, proportionally and sound planning judgement. I believe the proposed development behind Maes Lloi does not meet these criteria. Given my concerns I urge the planning committee to reconsider the proposed development. Thank you for your attention on this matter.

Greenfield site - currently enjoyed by many, many villagers for walking dogs and children.
Issues with water / flood plain?
The main road is already difficult to negotiate , particularly for school children, and was made 20 before the national limit was changed because of issues. Another turning and increased traffic will make this so much worse.
Completely unrealistic proposals when new primary school opened that people walk to the primary school. As if a mother has a spare hour in the morning to walk a 4 year old to school (& back), probably baby and/or older child in tow

There are more than four hundred new houses being built at the top of Cowbridge, which must comprise the local area’s quota of new accommodation without adding to the rural Vale villages as well.
The development at the top of Aberthin village of 20 houses has - contrary to the assertion in planning documents that the inhabitants would travel to and from Cardiff and Bridgend by bicycle and train - resulted in markedly increased car traffic in and around the village. The promised ‘central play area’ consists of large boulders and a bench.

Aberthin is a Minor Rural Settlement.
The RLDP spatial strategy directs the majority of housing growth to sustainable locations, higher order settlements and service centres where employment, services, public transport and infrastructure are available. THAT IS NOT ABERTHIN.
Not being built within existing village boundaries.
25 houses would represent a 14% increase.
Insufficient capacity in Cowbridge Comprehensive School to accommodate RLDP forecasted 177 additional pupils (6 with Aberthin).
An additional side Road would increase existing traffic hazards through Aberthin.
The area specified is used by local dog walkers and walkers. It is a community pathway to Cowbridge.

This proposed development sits outside of Aberthin's natural boundaries on a greenfield site with no good road access; it's also on a flood plain - it doesn't take a genius to recognise that it is a totally unsuitable place for a housing development and it should never have made a proposed list in the first place. What a complete waste of tax payers time and money. The Vale should focus on brownfield sites and infill in existing towns and villages rather than build on virgin land.

The proposal for houses to be built on the land west of Maendy road should be dropped from the plan - it is patently obvious that this is a totally unsuitable location.

This is a totally unsuitable location for housing - it is outside of Aberthin's natural boundary, has no good road access, is on greenfield land and on a flood plain.

Aberthin is a minor rural settlement.
The RLDP spatial stategy directs the majority of housing growth to sustaneable locations, higher order settlements, and service centres where employment, servises, public transport and infrastructure are available. THAT IS NOT ABERTHIN.
Not being built within existing village boundaries.
25 houses would represent a 14% increase.
Insufficient capacity in Cowbridge Comprehensive School to accomodate RLDP forcasted 177 additional pupils (6 with Aberthin development).
An additional side road would increase existing traffic hazards through Aberthin.

The proposed development should be rejected on several planning grounds.

The proposed development should be rejected on several planning grounds. The site was previously dismissed in the Local Development Plan as sporadic countryside development unrelated to Aberthin and remains outside the settlement boundary. Aberthin is classified as a Minor Rural Settlement, where the RLDP directs only limited growth, prioritising Strategic Growth Areas and Service Centres. Nearby Cowbridge—a designated Service Centre—is already delivering significant housing, including the Clare Gardens scheme with 405 homes. Adding 25 dwellings in Aberthin would represent disproportionate expansion (around 15% growth) rather than small-scale development which raises serious highway safety concerns on an already heavily trafficked route.

I wish to object to this proposed development

An additional side road in Anerthin with poor visibility would be very dangerous
Aberthin is a minor rural settlement with poor employment and transport links and the proposed site is ootwith the village boundary
Deleterious affect on nature and biodiversity, rare orchids grow on the proposed site
New houses in Cowbridge ( Clare gardens) are not selling and building is not yet complete there, has been taking years longer than projected bringing into focus the need for similar houses so close to this site.
Insufficient capacity of local schools, GP surgery

No further requirements for houses
The plan has exceeded requirements
Houses at Darren Farm nearby have taken years and there has not been anticipated demand
The road for planned access will be dangerous turning with poor visibility onto a busy road
It is on a flood plain and is used recreationally

I strongly object to further development in this area. Rural vale has very few green spaces left and any development would be to the detriment of wildlife and the environment. Increased transport, particularly affecting Llanquian Road area which is a conservation area is undesirable.

This proposal appears to be over development in a rural area which is a flood plain. In addition, access is proposed on a busy road.
The village does not have the infrastructure to cope with additional housing and schools are already oversubscribed.

The allocation fails the key tests of soundness: it is not justified by the evidence, is not effective or deliverable due to unresolved environmental and infrastructure constraints, and is not consistent with national policy, including Planning Policy Wales (sustainable spatial strategy and protection of landscape) and Technical Advice Note 15 (flood risk)

Flood risk to the whole village
Lack of public transport
Roads are already dangerous and the council has failed to calm traffic doing ridiculous speeds through the village.
Impact on safety of pedestrians with increased traffic on an already busy commuter route.

Lack of local amenities.

Destroying the the nature of the small village.

Environmental impact of added pollution, destroying the habitat of many animals, bees etc

Affects on local utility services, which are already poor.

Affects on the poor ancient drainage throughout the village, which already floods.

Major road disruption, additional pollution through the village.

This village cannot support additional housing projects.

No schools in the village, no local shops in the village, no Dr's in the local village.

This is a flood plain, and any building on these fields, will push the issue onto the main route in and out the site and also in to mois lol and nearby streets

I object to this housing development, this is not an appropriate site.

I strongly object to this development. Aberthin is a minor rural settlement; a 14% expansion contradicts the LDP spatial strategy, which directs growth toward sustainable, higher-order service centres with established infrastructure. Aberthin lacks the necessary employment, services, and public transport to support this scale.
Furthermore, local primary/secondary schools and GP surgeries lack the capacity to accommodate additional residents. Finally, the proposed access road increases traffic hazards on routes already difficult for pupils to cross safely. This development represents unsustainable growth that would detrimentally impact the village’s character, safety, and overstretched essential services.

Allowing development on this area will create a development gateway onto greenfield sites unsuitable for housing The land is a flood plain, building here will push water contained here into other areas. It will destroy habitats for indigenous creatures, pushing them into decline. It place further strain on current infrastructure, not suitable for the development which has previously been allowed.
The entry and exit point of the development is on a road already unsuitable for the volume of traffic which uses it. There is insufficient pavement to navigate around the Farmers arms pub. Putting people walking in danger, as traffic at peak times does not slow or take into account there may be people using the road.

I object to this planning application for a number of reasons. 1 being the amount of extra traffic that would be driving through the village. There are many school children crossing the road in Aberthin and there is no safe place, no zebra crossing. The added risk to the children alone is reasons for objection. Many villagers use the fields to walk their dogs or just enjoy walking there by themselves.

I am objecting as I consider the proposed site completely unsuitable. Apart from the fact it is on a flood plain, the road through Aberthin is well known for being hazardous to pedestrians, particularly the children who go to the comp. To build more houses here is only going to add to the danger of this stretch of road by increasing the flow of vehicles turning on and off into the development and seriously increasing the chance of a collision around the blind bend.

This representation objects the allocation of Site HG4(2) – Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site 2299). The proposal is unsound for 8 independent reasons, demonstrating inconsistencies with the RLDP strategy and multiple VoG policies. The supporting document submitted alongside this representation details evidence of these failures, including conflicts with sustainable development principles, settlement boundary policy, and the protection of greenfield land. This objection is reinforced by strong community opposition, evidenced by 100 signatures on the VoG petition opposing unsustainable expansion outside Aberthin’s defined settlement boundary.
Signed E-Petition - Oppose Unsustainable Greenfield Expansion Outside Aberthin’s Settlement Boundary | Participate Vale

Cowbridge with Llanblethian Town Council opposes this scheme.
Concerns are held regarding access to the site. The footpath is not wide enough. Exiting the site onto the sharp corner is dangerous. The number of houses proposed in the site is significant in relation to the size of Aberthin, totalling approximately a 10% increase. Aberthin is a Minor Rural Settlement, not a Strategic Growth Area. Policy HG4 requires development in rural settlements to be small-scale and proportionate. The proposals would result in outward expansion, not minor infill. There is concern that this site is partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3.

Questions brought to Cowbridge Town Council in February 2026, for response by the Vale of Glamorgan Council are:
1. What material change has occurred since the previous rejection that now makes this site related to the settlement?
2. How is a 10% single-step expansion proportionate for a Minor Rural Settlement?
3. Why is rural greenfield expansion required when Cowbridge is already delivering substantial growth as a Service Centre?
4. Where are the sustainable transport and infrastructure measures that align this site with the Plan’s spatial strategy?
5. How has the Council demonstrated that the site is genuinely deliverable while still providing the mandatory 50% affordable housing? An allocation does not automatically transform open countryside into settlement. It must be justified, proportionate, sustainable and deliverable, which has not been demonstrated with evidence.

Concern regarding the proposed development in our village. The site is green belt and is located adjacent to SSI nature fields. Local infrastructure does not appear to have the capacity to accommodate additional demand, as schools, GP services and parking are already oversubscribed. The proposal would also increase traffic on roads that are already under pressure, raising congestion and highway safety concerns. Development of this land would harm the character of the area and reduce the quality of life for existing residents.

Aberthin (Site 2299) within the Vale of Glamorgan Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP).
The allocation proposes approximately 25 dwellings as an affordable housing-led development
on greenfield agricultural land forming part of the countryside immediately west of Aberthin.
The allocation is unsound for several independent reasons.
First, the proposal conflicts with the Plan’s spatial strategy.
Aberthin is identified as a Minor Rural Settlement, where development is expected to be limited
in scale and primarily related to local needs. A development of approximately 25 dwellings
would represent around a 14% expansion of the settlement in a single phase, introducing
estate-scale growth into a small rural village with very limited services. This represents a
material step-change inconsistent with the role of such settlements within the hierarchy.
Second, the site is not necessary for delivery of the Plan’s housing strategy.
The RLDP identifies a housing requirement of 7,890 dwellings and housing provision of 8,660
dwellings, creating a surplus of 770 dwellings above the requirement. Removal of HG4(2)
Aberthin would still leave a surplus of 745 dwellings, and even removal of all HG4 rural
affordable-led sites would leave a surplus of 648 dwellings. The allocation is therefore not
required for the Plan to deliver its housing requirement.
Third, the RLDP evidence identifies affordable housing need at a ward level (Cowbridge) rather
than within Aberthin itself, and no evidence has been presented demonstrating a specific locally
arising need within the settlement.
Forth, the site makes only a negligible contribution to affordable housing delivery. The site is
expected to deliver approximately 13 affordable homes, representing only 0.42% of the Plan’s
projected affordable housing delivery of 3,070 homes. The Plan is therefore not materially
dependent on the site to deliver its affordable housing strategy.
Fifth, the site is heavily constrained by flood risk and drainage uncertainty.
Part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3, where highly vulnerable development on greenfield
land is not permitted under Technical Advice Note 15 (TAN15) unless the development is
essential to the Local Development Plan. Given the Plan’s housing surplus, and no identified
local need, the site cannot reasonably be considered essential.

The allocation is unsound for several independent reasons.
First, the proposal conflicts with the Plan’s spatial strategy.
Aberthin is identified as a Minor Rural Settlement, where development is expected to be limited
in scale and primarily related to local needs. A development of approximately 25 dwellings
would represent around a 14% expansion of the settlement in a single phase, introducing
estate-scale growth into a small rural village with very limited services. This represents a
material step-change inconsistent with the role of such settlements within the hierarchy.
Second, the site is not necessary for delivery of the Plan’s housing strategy.
The RLDP identifies a housing requirement of 7,890 dwellings and housing provision of 8,660
dwellings, creating a surplus of 770 dwellings above the requirement. Removal of HG4(2)
Aberthin would still leave a surplus of 745 dwellings, and even removal of all HG4 rural
affordable-led sites would leave a surplus of 648 dwellings. The allocation is therefore not
required for the Plan to deliver its housing requirement.
Third, the RLDP evidence identifies affordable housing need at a ward level (Cowbridge) rather
than within Aberthin itself, and no evidence has been presented demonstrating a specific locally
arising need within the settlement.
Forth, the site makes only a negligible contribution to affordable housing delivery. The site is
expected to deliver approximately 13 affordable homes, representing only 0.42% of the Plan’s
projected affordable housing delivery of 3,070 homes. The Plan is therefore not materially
dependent on the site to deliver its affordable housing strategy.
Fifth, the site is heavily constrained by flood risk and drainage uncertainty.
Part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3, where highly vulnerable development on greenfield
land is not permitted under Technical Advice Note 15 (TAN15) unless the development is
essential to the Local Development Plan. Given the Plan’s housing surplus, and no identified
local need, the site cannot reasonably be considered essential. In addition:
• no detailed hydraulic model exists for the Nant Aberthin watercourse,
• no Flood Consequence Assessment has been undertaken at allocation stage,
• groundwater susceptibility is classified as “Red – high – groundwater likely to be at or
near the surface”, with a recommendation for 12 months monitoring which has not
been undertaken,
• surface water mapping indicates intermediate flood risk across part of the site, and
historical flood data indicates flooding

As residents of Aberthin Village we object to the housing development -2299 land west of Maendy Road, Aberthin
This field is not within the existing village boundaries. 25 houses would represent a 14% increase. The traffic on the A4222 running through Aberthin is already a big issue for residents when trying to cross this very busy road even though there is a 20 mph speed limit which no one seems to adhere to. Aberthin is a minor rural settlement which does not seem to fit in with the RLDP strategy with regard to housing growth in sustainable locations.

The proposal raises several concerns. Part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3 and an area of high surface water flood risk, development could also worsen flooding in the village. Aberthin is not considered a sustainable location for growth, the site is unnecessary as other allocations already exceed housing requirements by 770 homes. New access onto Maendy Road would worsen existing highway safety issues. The scheme would increase village housing by about 14% from one site, and the land was previously refused as an unnecessary incursion into the countryside outside the village boundary.

Opposition to planning to greenfield site 2299