The field should not be considered. There is no safe access to that site from the estate and no main road goes through it

I strongly object to the proposed development. The site currently provides an open field and uninterrupted sea view from my home, which would be permanently lost, causing significant harm to residential amenity and local character. The development would result in severe overlooking and loss of privacy, particularly due to the proximity of social housing. The value of my property will go down and I will lose equity on a property I have owned for 8 years.

It is particularly concerning that Wick continues to be targeted while other areas within the Vale of Glamorgan, which are demonstrably more suitable for development and where impacts on existing residents would be significantly less, remain largely untouched. A fair and sustainable planning strategy should distribute affordable housing more evenly across the county rather than relying repeatedly on the same communities.

The proposed scale of development at Heol Fain is out of proportion to the size of Wick and would result in a level of growth that is neither organic nor reflective of the village’s existing form. Such an approach undermines the principles of balanced growth and placemaking set out in planning policy.

My objection concerns the disproportionate and repeated targeting of Wick for affordable housing provision, and the cumulative impact this is having on the character, identity, and sustainability of the village.

Wick has already made a significant and demonstrable contribution to the Vale of Glamorgan’s affordable housing supply on two recent occasions. The St James Gardens development and the Wales & West Housing site both delivered substantial affordable housing provision within a relatively small village. The current proposal would represent the third major affordable housing development imposed on Wick in a short period of time.

Do not allow additional housing to be built.. there have been circa 130 new properties built in Wick over the last ten years which has already seen the village increase by over 50% in a short space of time..

The small village of Wick in the Vale Of Glamorgan has seen exponential growth over recently years with the development of St James Gardens development circa 110 plus properties, and a newly built and yet to be released housing development on St Brides Road circa 17 properties.
Yet another development would see increased traffic together with it's related issues, disruption on the existing estate during planning and building activities.

The village currently has 385 (approx) existing properties, up from 255 ten years ago.
An additional 50 properties would see this increase to 435 properties a very sharo increase in a short time.
Surely the village has taken it's quota of new housing for the foreseeable future already? Are there any constraints on the % increase of a population in a village / ward over a set period defined in the LDP?

This is in danger of not only causing major disruption, but traffic issues and killing the village.

For such a large increase in housing for a small village, sufficient extra investments in local services are required.

- increased schooling capacity
- Local NHS GP
- Local NHS Dentist
- Small sports or community centre

The local village services cannot effectively support 50 more houses.

The roads and increased traffic for 50 properties in a small localised area would create significant traffic for what is a low volume road to bridgend.

To plan in a different area

Wick has just had an affordable housing site built.
This area proposed should stay as it is and not cram more social houses on it.

Planning to build far too much affordable housing. Village is not equipped for any.

It's adding more properties to a village that does not have the necessary infrastructure to have it in place. There is one small shop and one small primary school and has had rapid expansion over the last 10 years. A big new estate only recently finished, another affordable housing estate just finished and now plans for another. It will be far too congested and ruin the village.

I do not believe any changes to the plan can reduce the risk of RTA's and Risk to Children

I would like to object as I do not feel there is adequate access, this will lead to increased traffic on an already congested estate where children are very active.
The increase in traffic will create a much higher risk to accident of children and pedestrians
There has also been a high level of additional building in the last 12 month
The village is in danger of losing its identity and becoming a housing estate

I really don’t think there should be further significant expansion to the village.

Myself, family who live with me and friends we have made nearby all feel that the village is already starting to lose its identity. It has such lovely character which is at threat of being lost. I’d also argue that the local amenities would be attached as a result of so many more homes being added to the area. There has already been significant expansion to the village in recent years which locals have taken well in fairness, but you’re at risk of pushing them too far with this latest proposal.

There would need to be a compete infrastructure plan with agreement it would not impact current residents.

Concerns over impact on a small village and site access impacting surrounding infrastructure

I wish to object to the further development of 50 houses to the St James Village new estate (2016) in Wick, Cowbridge, Vale of Glamorgan.

As part of the Local Development plan, 250 houses were constructed on the current site adjoining the edge of this small village. A further 17 affordable houses are shortly to be completed on the north side of St Brides Rd, Wick.

My objections are based on the following observations:-

1) Impact upon the Environment.

The proposed site is currently very close to existing buildings and is currently used for recreational purposes such as Dog Walking. It is protected on two sides with hedges and on the other two sides by houses with an interrupted view of the land leading to the heritage coast and the sea.

According to the UKRadon web site, the area is regarded as having Elevated Radon Potential. Unless effectively managed during construction, this could be detrimental to other residents who might suffer from lung conditions such as COPD.

2) Impact upon traffic and transportation.

Currently, the estate roads are owned privately and not maintained by the local authority. The impact on these roads with heavy building plant could be severe and the small entrance to the site will cause access and egress problems both during and after the building phase.

3) Impact upon the character and appearance of the area.

The small village of Wick has already undergone major changes with the addition of 250 plus new houses and can be justly proud of shouldering its own share of Governmental house development policies. To add further development on top of this in the local development plan would further impact upon the character of the village and appearance of the area. This could also open the eyes of future developers as to extending the village a lot further into the future.

4) Impact upon Neighbouring properties and Privacy.

Some properties of the current estate will be overshadowed and overlooked by new properties with a possible loss of light. There will be a need to advocate for the protection of resident’s rights and ensure a fair balance between new developments and existing properties.

5) Impact upon local amenities and services.

An extra strain will be placed on infrastructure, schools and health care facilities in the locality. These are already under pressure with the village school including other villages and St Athan’s RAF base children in its catchment area; a heavily subscribed GP service in Llantwit Major and other public services such as Power, Drainage, Water, etc..

In conclusion, St James Estate was developed to meet the need of extra affordable housing in the small village of Wick. In doing so, the property company also purchased an extra field in the hope of profiting from its development at a later date. It would seem that the residents of the estate have, in the main, endeavoured to support the village in its activities and been mostly accepted by members of the village itself.This may not be the case as the village is expanded much further.

With the advent of a smaller development of affordable housing on the north side of Wick road, the Village has recently increased its commitment to the local development plan.

Although appreciating the Government and Local Authorities’ needs to meet housing targets, I strongly feel that any further developments in Wick at this time, will have an adverse effect on the character and people of the village.
St James Estate was developed to meet the need of extra affordable housing in the small village of Wick. In doing so, the property company also purchased an extra field in the hope of profiting from its development at a later date. It would seem that the residents of the estate have, in the main, endeavoured to support the village in its activities and been mostly accepted by members of the village itself.This may not be the case as the village is expanded much further.

With the advent of a smaller development of affordable housing on the north side of Wick road, the Village has recently increased its commitment to the local development plan.

Although appreciating the Government and Local Authorities’ needs to meet housing targets, I strongly feel that any further developments in Wick at this time, will have an adverse effect on the character and people of the village.

Objection is based on a number of concerns.
Environmental impacts - Increased flood risk from building on grassland which currently provides natural drainage and run off for rainwater. Current wastewater treatment facility is not scaled to cope with an expansion of housing on the proposed scale.
There is a detrimental impact of noise and light pollution arising from close proximity to existing properties, along with a reduction in natural light levels to existing properties resulting from elevation and proximity of proposed new builds.
Road infrastructure & access - there is no existing vehicular access to the proposed sites and the increase in potential traffic due to the rural location would inevitably lead to higher traffic volumes in the village and additional road noise and vehicle emissions.

Representation – Policy HG4 (3) Land at Heol Fain, Wick

I object to the allocation of Land at Heol Fain (HG4 (3)) on the grounds that vehicular access via Heol Fain would be unsafe, unsustainable, and would require unacceptable alteration of a rural lane.

Heol Fain is a narrow rural road with no pavements, continuous hedgerows on both sides, and effective single-vehicle running width in places. It is not built to adoptable residential standards and cannot safely accommodate traffic associated with approximately 50 dwellings, including peak hour flows, service vehicles, refuse collection and emergency access.

To make Heol Fain compliant would require significant widening, removal of established hedgerows, land acquisition from adjoining private fields, and the introduction of urban infrastructure such as footways and lighting. This would fundamentally change the rural character of the lane and conflict with Planning Policy Wales principles requiring development to respect local character and landscape setting.

There are currently no pedestrian facilities on Heol Fain. Future residents would be required to walk within the carriageway alongside vehicle movements unless extensive engineering works were undertaken. This conflicts with sustainable transport principles and the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013.

The Deposit Plan does not demonstrate that safe, policy-compliant access can be achieved without substantial off-site highway works that would materially alter the character of Heol Fain. In the absence of clear evidence that access can be delivered safely and without unacceptable environmental harm, the allocation is not sound.

I request that the allocation be removed unless it can be clearly demonstrated that safe and compliant access can be achieved without widening or urbanising Heol Fain, or that the Plan be amended to confirm that vehicular access will not be taken via Heol Fain.

thanks

I would suggest you re-look at the land and access road maybe visit Wick. This end of Wick is heavily populated so maybe look at a different area maybe near the school. Also look at your policy for allocating properties in Wick as I understood you need to have a connection with Wick, I notice properties are advertised on Homes for you therefore going to a wider audience proving there is no need for affordable properties in this area.

At a consultation meeting in Llantwit Major it was confirmed that the access road to the new development would be via St James Rd. I would like to point out that this is private land as roads have not been adopted by VCC. Therefore you cannot proceed with the proposed development. Also two years ago this land was deemed unsuitable for building properties so what has changed? Wick is a rural village which has doubled in size in the past eight years with 64 affordable houses already built which is a substantial amount for size of Wick.

I feel that an alternative site should be found that does not require the loss of green agricultural space.
Brownfield sites should be considered as an alternative. Consideration should also be given to other rural locations that have not been subjected to such a high expansion percentage.

1. This site was removed from previous development by VoG responding to residents concerns.
2. 141 homes have been built in Wick in the last 10 years increasing the site of a rural village by 70%. An additional 50 homes will effectively double the size of the village with no additional infrastructure provided.
3. The affordable housing provision has been also met as in the same period 43% of homes have been affordable whereas an additional 50 homes would increase this to 58%.
4. There is no access route to the site as St. James residents own the roads.

A different location needs to be found, one with safer and easier access than through narrow residential roads. A smaller number of dwellings that would not overwhelm current infrastructure and village community atmosphere.

Access to site issues: roads are unadopted by council and Welsh water. Who would be responsible for any damage? There will be parking issues for residents while work is ongoing. Proposed plans for 50 dwellings is too big, Wick will have doubled in size in around 10 years, how will infrastructure cope? Site has very poor drainage and a pumping station in situ, would also mean loss of greens space used by estate children, dog walkers etc. I believe site has already been rejected twice for development which strongly suggests its unsuitability.

I would suggest you do not move forward with the proposal

As a resident of the St James development in Wick, I have serious concerns regarding the impact this proposal will have on our community. Our estate, which already serves approximately 120 homes, has only a single access and exit point. Introducing a further 50 properties will inevitably lead to a significant increase in traffic volume, placing additional pressure on an access route that is already heavily relied upon. This raises concerns not only about congestion, but also about safety for residents, pedestrians, and children living on the estate.

Having lived here for nine years, one of the most valued aspects of this community has been the surrounding open fields and sense of space. These green boundaries contribute greatly to residents’ quality of life and wellbeing. The addition of 50 new houses would fundamentally change the character of the area, creating a feeling of being enclosed and overdeveloped, and eroding the open aspect that originally made this a desirable place to live.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the planning authority to reconsider this proposal and take into full account the impact on existing residents, infrastructure, and the character of the area.

⸻

The site conflicts with national planning policy and the RLDP’s spatial strategy, promoting unsustainable and disproportionate growth that would harm Wick’s rural character and setting. Development should prioritise brownfield or well‑located sites near existing urban areas with suitable infrastructure. This proposal would damage Green Wedges and Green Infrastructure and represents unnecessary countryside development. It extends the settlement into open countryside, eroding its form and rural approach. Wick lacks the services, transport and infrastructure to support such growth, and local roads are constrained. The site would also create significant landscape and visual harm. It therefore fails key RLDP soundness tests.

The plan is not suitable at all. It come with a myriad of problems for developer, impact on nearby residents and pressure on fragile infrastructure.

Oppose developmen; area originally declared as not suitable for building by Vale Council.. (Now proposed. Why?) area subject to flooding; site access not available through private road used by children. Already high number of affordable homes in area. Poor public transport. Few employment opportunities

The proposed inclusion of land in Wick for development is not sufficiently justified by local evidence. While the VOG has a recognised need for additional housing, no Wick specific housing needs assessment has been presented to demonstrate that development of this scale is proportionate to the villages size, character and infrastructure capacity. Affordable housing need does not automatically justify this oversized development of Wick. Wicks status as a minor rural settlement, countryside protection and creeping village expansion have to be considered. It should be more suited to towns and strategic growth areas. Existing drainage and sewage infrastructure is limited.

Privately Owned:
St James Gardens is privately owned and is managed by a management company (First Port) on their behalf – Vale Council absolved their responsibilities for the common areas – roads, pavements, street lighting, green spaces and playgrounds. Nothing in St James Gardens has been adopted by Vale Council.
All residents pay collectively for the upkeep of all of the above (in additional to full council tax) and become a member of the management company on purchase of their property.
Vale Council have no right to permit access to this development for construction traffic to build new houses, OR to permit use of these roads for continued through traffic to any new houses.
Overdevelopment
St James Gardens - 124 homes built nearly 10 years ago, including 44 affordable homes, taking homes total to 325 (previously 201 homes in Wick).
17 new affordable homes built last year - outside the settlement area and in green open countryside (total homes in Wick now 342), with 61 affordable homes in total.
If 50 new additional homes built, Wick will have doubled in size over this short time to 392 homes.
Candidate site 404 in RLDP this site was already deemed “not suitable for further consideration, not suitable for small scale affordable housing led development or not suitable for a market let scheme” by Vale Council.
Alternative not considered
Site 355 of a similar size to site 404, was not considered suitable despite it being accessible from a main adopted road and virtually opposite the site for the new affordable housing mentioned above. It cannot be argued that putting it in green open countryside is not permitted, as this has already happened on the 17 home site mentioned above. If the site is too large, just restrict the permission to the required size (as was done when St James Gardens built originally).
The reason the Vale Council have given for removing the site on St Brides Road was “Heol Fain better reflects the existing pattern of development” – this is totally subjective and in fact takes no account that this site can be accessed easily by an adopted highway (which Heol Fain cannot).
Local Lettings Policy (LLP)
Vale Council website states “Properties with an LLP are allocated in a DIFFERENT way to properties available for bids through the Homes4U scheme. Applicants in the first instance are prioritised in line with the specific LLP. Applicants with the strongest connections to the community are given the highest priority. Applicants within the highest priority band are then prioritised in line with the Homes4U Policy.
In the unlikely event that there are insufficient applicants who fall within Priority 1, 2 or 3, then lettings sales can be extended to Homes4U for applicants who live or work anywhere in the Vale area.
However, St James Gardens Properties and those in the new development Clos y Stabl, have virtually all been advertised on Homes4U for bidding, proving there is no “local need” for properties for local people, otherwise why are they being advertised openly?
Examples:
Advert for 2 properties St James Gardens: 2 bed house and 1 bed flat appeared 29/1/26
Advert for 15 properties Clos y Stabl: 3 x 1 bed bungalows, 2 x 1 bed ground floor flats, 4 x 2 bed houses and 6 x 3 bed houses appeared 27/11/25
Advert for 1 property St James Gardens: 2 bed house appeared 12/06/25
Advert for 1 property St James Gardens: 3 bed house appeared 20/02/25
19 properties advertised for bidding on Homes4U does not show a need for local affordable housing in this rural location, which has virtually no local amenities and extremely poor public transport links. We understand the local school, which has been recently enlarged to cope with current demand, have not been consulted directly on this issue either.
The RDLP states HG4 – Rural Affordable Housing Led Sites - The following sites are allocated as affordable housing led sites where there will be a requirement for the provision of a minimum 50% affordable housing to meet the affordable housing needs of the local community.
It also says: In all cases, affordable housing units on rural affordable housing-led sites will be subject to a local lettings policy to ensure that they are available to residents with a local connection at both initial and subsequent occupations. THE DEMAND HAS CLEARLY ALREADY BEEN MET in Wick as all available for rent are being advertised openly on Homes4U.
Vale Council documents continue to state there needs to be “local need” as all the above properties have been advertised for open bids on Homes4U, the LLP clearly hasn’t been used and so the current affordable housing provision is already more than needed for this local community.

The allocation should therefore be removed from the Replacement Local Development Plan unless robust evidence is provided demonstrating that the development is proportionate, deliverable, and consistent with the Plan’s strategic framework.

I formally object to HG4(3)/Site ID 404 /Site ID 2814, the allocation of 50 dwellings at Land at Heol Fain, Wick, within the Replacement Local Development Plan 2021–2036. While the need for affordable housing is acknowledged, development must be proportionate to settlement scale, supported by infrastructure, and consistent with national sustainability policy. In this case, the Plan does not demonstrate that these tests are met.

Wick is a small rural village with a population of approximately 927 at the 2021 Census. In recent years it has already experienced substantial residential growth with 124-dwelling estate completed in 2019 and a further 17 affordable homes have recently been built on the edge of the village, significantly increasing the size of the settlement within a short period and a material increase in housing stock in a settlement of fewer than 1,000 residents. However, there has been no corresponding expansion in local infrastructure or services. The village continues to rely on a single primary school, a small shop/post office and one remaining public house. There is no secondary school or GP surgery within the village, and limited employment opportunities. As a result, residents must rely heavily on nearby towns such as Bridgend, Llantwit Major and Cowbridge for many everyday services and employment opportunities. Continued housing growth risks reinforcing patterns of car-dependent travel. National planning policy emphasises the importance of sustainable placemaking and locating development where communities can access daily needs in a sustainable manner. The Plan does not clearly demonstrate how the proposed scale of growth in Wick supports these objectives.

Against this context, the proposed allocation of a further 50 dwellings represents continued expansion without clear evidence that the settlement can sustainably absorb additional growth. The Deposit Plan does not provide a settlement growth analysis demonstrating why this scale of additional housing is proportionate to Wick’s size, service base, and infrastructure capacity. Without such analysis, it is not possible to conclude that the allocation reflects balanced or sustainable development, or that it is justified when considered against the alternatives available to the Plan. National planning policy requires development plans to direct growth to the most sustainable locations and ensure that development in smaller settlements remains proportionate.

The Candidate Site Summary identifies the site as Red for Climate Change and Red for Access to Health Services, with several infrastructure categories rated Amber. A Red climate rating indicates that the site performs poorly against sustainability and decarbonisation objectives. However, the Deposit Plan does not explain the basis for this rating, or quantify the likely transport or carbon impacts, and thus does not identify mitigation sufficient to demonstrate alignment with national policy. Under Planning Policy Wales Edition 11 and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, development plans must support decarbonisation, reduce reliance on private car travel, and locate growth in the most sustainable locations. In the absence of clear evidence explaining how a Red-rated site contributes to these objectives, the allocation lacks sufficient justification.

Similarly, the Red rating for Access to Health Services reflects the site’s limited proximity to essential healthcare facilities. The Plan does not provide evidence of confirmed GP capacity, agreement from the relevant Health Board, or secured mitigation measures. Given the recent and proposed cumulative growth in Wick, the absence of such evidence raises concerns about the ability of local services to accommodate further population growth.

Infrastructure capacity more generally is also identified as requiring mitigation through several Amber ratings in the assessment. Amber indicates that constraints exist and are not fully resolved. For an allocation to be sound, the Plan must demonstrate reasonable certainty that necessary infrastructure can be delivered within the Plan period. While the Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies the types of studies typically required at planning application stage, it does not provide clear evidence that constraints affecting this specific site have been fully assessed or resolved.

The site also lies outside the strategic growth area. The RLDP Candidate Site Stage 2 Assessment Register (November 2023) notes that only small-scale affordable housing could potentially be considered “subject to need and viability”, and that market housing would not be acceptable. Inclusion of the site as a formal allocation therefore appears speculative and conditional, with no clear evidence demonstrating affordable housing need or delivery viability. Premature allocation risks undermining the Plan’s strategic approach.

There may also be drainage considerations requiring further assessment. The field proposed for development lies slightly lower than surrounding housing and is bounded by a lane and sewage pumping station at the lowest point. Parts of the field appear to contain reeds or similar vegetation, which may indicate naturally wet ground conditions. While this observation is not based on formal hydrological analysis, it suggests the land may already contribute to local surface water drainage. The 2011–2026 Deposit Plan previously required investigation of sustainable drainage and soakaway suitability for the adjacent development that has since been constructed on two sides of the field. Development of the remaining land could therefore affect drainage arrangements serving existing properties. In the absence of detailed evidence demonstrating that drainage issues can be satisfactorily addressed, deliverability remains uncertain.

The allocation would also represent further greenfield expansion of the settlement. Incremental outward development alters the character and form of a rural village. The field has long been informally used by local residents for dog walking and quiet recreation. Although privately owned, this informal use contributes to local amenity and its loss would be noticeable for nearby residents. Whilst the site appears within the settlement boundary, the boundary itself has been specifically moved to accommodate the site under the associated Settlement Boundary Review. This approach risks creating a circular justification whereby the site is brought within the settlement boundary specifically to accommodate the proposed allocation, which may then appear more acceptable because it lies within the settlement boundary. It also risks predetermining the suitability of the site through the boundary review process rather than assessing the allocation on its planning merits.

This objection therefore relates not only to the characteristics of the site itself but to the cumulative impact of continued housing growth in Wick without corresponding improvements to infrastructure or services. The Plan does not demonstrate that allocating 50 additional dwellings in a village that has already experienced significant recent growth is proportionate, sustainable, or consistent with national climate and placemaking objectives.

For these reasons, HG4(3)/Site ID 404 /Site ID 2814 is not justified by the available evidence. The Plan does not demonstrate that the scale of development is proportionate to the role and capacity of the settlement, that infrastructure constraints can be satisfactorily addressed, or that allocation of an out-of-strategy site is appropriate.

The proposed amendment to the settlement boundary at Wick to include land at Heol Fain (paragraph 4.19) appears to be primarily justified on the basis of incorporating the RLDP housing allocation itself, rather than reflecting the logical extent of the existing settlement. The Settlement Boundary Review states that the boundary change is to facilitate the RLDP allocation at this location. This approach risks creating a circular justification whereby the site is brought within the settlement boundary specifically to accommodate the proposed allocation, which may then appear more acceptable because it lies within the settlement boundary. Settlement boundaries are intended to reflect the established built form and defensible limits of settlements, separating urban areas from the open countryside. Extending the boundary primarily to accommodate a proposed development site therefore risks undermining the purpose of the boundary and may give a misleading impression that the site forms part of the natural settlement envelope. This approach risks predetermining the suitability of the site through the boundary review process rather than assessing the allocation on its planning merits.

The allocation should therefore be reconsidered and removed from the Plan unless robust evidence can be provided showing that the aforementioned issues can be satisfactorily resolved.

I wish to object to HG4(3)/Site ID 404 /Site ID 2814, which proposes allocating land at Heol Fain, Wick for approximately 50 dwellings within the Replacement Local Development Plan 2021–2036.

My primary concern is that the allocation appears inconsistent with the Plan’s overall spatial strategy. The site lies outside the strategic growth area, and the Council’s own Candidate Site Stage 2 Assessment Register (November 2023) indicates that market-led housing would not be acceptable in this location. The same assessment states that development might only be reconsidered as small-scale affordable housing subject to evidence of need and viability. Allocating the site within the Plan therefore appears premature when this evidence has not been clearly demonstrated.

Development plans must be supported by a robust evidence base demonstrating that site allocations are appropriate, deliverable and consistent with the strategy of the Plan. In this case, it is not clear that such evidence has been provided. For an allocation to be considered sound, it should be clearly justified, supported by evidence and capable of being delivered without unacceptable environmental or infrastructure impacts.

The Council’s Candidate Site Summary identifies the site as Red for Climate Change and Red for Access to Health Services, with several infrastructure criteria rated Amber. These ratings suggest significant sustainability concerns. However, the Deposit Plan documentation does not appear to clearly explain the basis for these ratings or demonstrate how the impacts identified would be mitigated.

National planning policy in Wales places strong emphasis on decarbonisation, sustainable placemaking and reducing reliance on private car travel. Where a site is identified as performing poorly against climate objectives, it would normally be expected that clear evidence and mitigation measures are provided to justify its allocation. In this case, that justification is not evident within the published documentation. Access to healthcare services is also identified as a significant constraint. The Red rating for Access to Health Services reflects the limited proximity of the village to healthcare facilities. While travel to services may be necessary in rural areas, additional housing growth should still be supported by evidence that local healthcare provision has the capacity to accommodate it. The Deposit Plan does not appear to include confirmation of GP capacity, agreement from the relevant Health Board, or identified mitigation measures.

Infrastructure capacity more generally remains uncertain. Several aspects of the site assessment are rated Amber, indicating unresolved constraints. While it is recognised that some detailed matters are addressed at planning application stage, allocating land within the Local Development Plan should normally be supported by reasonable certainty that the necessary infrastructure can be delivered during the Plan period.

From a local perspective, it is also important to consider the scale of development already experienced within Wick in recent years. The village had a population of approximately 927 at the 2021 Census. A development of around 124 dwellings was completed in 2019, representing a significant expansion for a settlement of this size. A further 17 affordable homes have also recently been delivered nearby. These developments together represent a substantial increase in housing within a relatively short period.

Despite this growth, local services remain limited. Wick contains a single primary school, a small shop/post office and one remaining public house. There is no secondary school or GP surgery within the village, and many residents rely on nearby towns such as Bridgend, Llantwit Major and Cowbridge for employment, healthcare and everyday services. Continued expansion risks increasing reliance on private car travel and may not align with the sustainability objectives set out in national planning policy.

There may also be drainage considerations associated with the site. The field lies at a slightly lower elevation than surrounding housing and is bounded by a lane and a sewage pumping station at its lowest point. Parts of the land appear to contain reeds or similar vegetation, which may indicate naturally wet conditions. While this is based on my own observations and not supported by a formal assessment, it suggests the site may already form part of the local surface water drainage pattern. It is also relevant that the adjacent housing development approved under the previous Local Development Plan included a requirement to investigate the potential for sustainable drainage systems and the suitability of soakaways for surface water disposal. Development of the remaining portion of the field could potentially affect those drainage assumptions. In the absence of detailed drainage evidence within the Plan documentation, it is difficult to be confident that development could proceed without creating flood risk or surface water issues for neighbouring properties.

The allocation would also result in the loss of undeveloped greenfield land on the edge of the village. Continued outward expansion can gradually change the character and form of a rural settlement. The Plan does not appear to provide clear evidence demonstrating how development on this edge of Wick would integrate with the existing settlement pattern while maintaining its rural character. Although the field is privately owned and not formally designated as public open space, it has for years been used informally by residents for activities such as dog walking. This informal use provides a valued local amenity and contributes to the character of the surrounding area.

Overall, my concern is not solely about the characteristics of this individual site, but about the cumulative effect of continued housing growth in a small rural settlement with limited infrastructure. Wick has already expanded significantly in recent years, and the Plan does not clearly demonstrate that an additional allocation of 50 dwellings is proportionate to the size and service capacity of the village.

For these reasons, I do not consider that HG4(3)/Site ID 404 /Site ID 2814 is sufficiently justified by the evidence presented. The Plan does not clearly demonstrate that infrastructure constraints, healthcare access, drainage considerations or sustainability concerns have been adequately addressed.

The proposed amendment to the settlement boundary at Wick to include land at Heol Fain (paragraph 4.19) appears to be primarily justified on the basis of incorporating the RLDP housing allocation itself, rather than reflecting the logical extent of the existing settlement. The Settlement Boundary Review states that the boundary change is to facilitate the RLDP allocation at this location. This approach risks creating a circular justification whereby the site is brought within the settlement boundary specifically to accommodate the proposed allocation, which may then appear more acceptable because it lies within the settlement boundary. Settlement boundaries are intended to reflect the established built form and defensible limits of settlements, separating urban areas from the open countryside. Extending the boundary primarily to accommodate a proposed development site therefore risks undermining the purpose of the boundary and may give a misleading impression that the site forms part of the natural settlement envelope. This approach risks predetermining the suitability of the site through the boundary review process rather than assessing the allocation on its planning merits.

This proposed development will not be in the best interest of the Wick community. To gain access to the site, either they will need to cross private land on Wick Garden Estate, or go via Heol Fein, which is a very narrow lane, which will need to be widened for heavy commercial vehicles to gain access. Our street has access to the field site, and is currently used as a playground for children that live on our street. This is a serious safety issue, due to vehicles travelling over 20mph on the estate. The roads will need to be improved, width wise at Heol Fain, before they start any kind of development to facilitate access to the field. Having looked at the current sewage, water, electricity, wi fi infrastructure of our village, this is a totally an unrealistic proposal. I am asking that as a resident to ensure this plan is investigated.
At this point in time the road conditions on the estate would not be able to cope / sustain, with the weight of heavy vehicles, because of the present construction of the physical roads, would be insufficient to be used long term for heavy road traffic

Wick Community Council submits this representation regarding the Deposit Replacement Local Development Plan (2021–2036), specifically the proposed allocation of land east of Heol Fain. Community consultation (129 responses) indicates significant concern about further housing growth, infrastructure capacity, and the suitability of this site. While residents are generally opposed to large-scale development, there is some openness to smaller-scale schemes of fewer than 20 homes. Key concerns include drainage, traffic, school capacity, environmental impacts, and potential access through St James Gardens. The survey also highlighted support for affordable housing where it prioritises applicants with local connections. The Council requests clarification of the evidence supporting the allocation and its proportionality within the settlement strategy.

Summary
The proposal should be rejected because it will exacerbate risks to the Heol Fain roadway, neighbouring land, and damage the environment. The site may not offer long term geological stability for the 50 houses, with subsidence most likely, and only time and magnitude in dispute. Subsidence is already present in the field adjacent to Heol Fain opposite and adjacent to the proposed site.
In the mid 1950s, the then owners of the whole site, the 50 dwelling proposal for the RLDP and 124 dwelling 2014/01424/FUL, sought planning permission to build a number of domestic houses on the site. Glamorgan County Council (GCC) sought advice from the Ministry for Welsh Affairs and a survey was undertaken. GCC turned down the application quoting advice that the site should never be used for domestic houses, due to geological reasons2.
In periods of high rainfall, excess surface water simply flooded Heol Fain, which is a small public road at the side of the site, and ran off into the road ditch and gulley in the field to the west, running towards the coast.
In July 2015 Barratt plc started development on the site with permission for 124 dwellings. They constructed an installation to dispose of the surface rainwater, away from their development site. The drainage installation is centrally placed to the west side of this site which is this proposal for a further 50 dwellings, adjacent to Heol Fain.
Since installation of the drain, Heol Fain no longer floods. A sink hole currently approx. 40’(12m) diameter and 3’6‖ (1.2m) deep, first appeared in the field to the west of Heol Fain, adjacent to roadway, opposite the site drain Barratt had installed. It is increasing in size and depth each year.
Currently there is no threat to any dwelling as none are located near the underground cavity.
Barratt were informed of the matter in 2023 and advised to contact the VoGCC in respect of the possible risk to Heol Fain as a result of their drain installation and the collapse of the ground in the field. Their legal department were sent emails and hard copy by recorded delivery. Their legal dept, have made no response to any of this correspondence, failing to even acknowledge receipt.
A geological survey of Sep 2015 based on drilling bore holes to a depth of 105’ (30m) on behalf of Barratt showed that most of the site was impervious to rainwater and stated ― the test results across most of the site suggest there is typically limited or no potential for infiltration‖
1.

Drainage of surface water was achieved via a drain close to Heol Fain. At the site of the subsequent drain installation, the bore hole test report states the result ―Unable to induce a head of water ….due to rapid infiltration rate (1,000 litres used).” 1 The testers had attempted to fill the drilled test hole with water and then measure how far the level dropped over a given

period of time. Instead, at this location, despite pumping 1,000 Litres in very quickly, the hole would not fill. They had drilled through into an underground cavity of an unknown size.
Rainwater is acidic and erodes limestone. A clay-mud layer near the surface generally prevents/greatly restricts rainwater permeating to the bedrock. The water stays on the surface and floods the land. The area is all limestone.
No scientifically reliable measurements have been undertaken of the rate of increase of the sink hole. These will commence on a regular basis this year.
The proposal to build 50 houses would generate an increase in surface water to be disposed of via the drain. This will increase the underground erosion problem
The NPPF via SuDS requires that all drainage plans supporting new developments do not exacerbate existing drainage problems.
The risk of an underground cavity, to both the Heol Fain road and the site of the proposed build, around the drain installation, is clear but the scope is not known.
As long as rainwater is allowed to enter the underground cavity, that cavity will increase in size and the risk will continue to grow.
With the risk clear and environmental damage already occurring, this proposal should be struck from the Deposit Plan.
Geological surveys should be undertaken to quantify the problems and risks.


Ref 1 Integral Geotechnique 7 Sep2015 11601/2/AF/15 for Barratt Homes Supplementary Bore Hole testing Land off Heol Fain, Wick
Ref 2 Advised by Mr D James, The Grange, Trepit Road Wick, whose father was Chairman of the Wick Community Council at that time. The landowners who made the application were The Dunraven Estate.


1.0 Introduction
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 addresses risks from sinkholes and land instability primarily under the context of sustainable development, ensuring that new developments are safe and do not cause harm to neighbouring properties. A requirement is made that drainage plans do not exacerbate existing problems—including subsidence, ground instability, or sinkholes implementing Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).
I own the field in Heol Fain directly opposite where the plan proposes that 50 dwellings be constructed. I am obviously biased and, when the sink hole first appeared and was smaller, I knew all my complaints would be discounted and ignored because of that bias. That is why I informed Barratt, invited them to inspect it and asked that they contact the VoGC. They have not inspected it.
I will now try and write not as the owner, but will write through the eyes of a young person with a young person’s view of the scientific concepts. The purpose will become clear as the reader progresses and, I hope will dispel the natural criticism of bias.
I am not a farmer with many hundreds of acres for whom this is a trivial inconvenience. The field that is being destroyed is just one of two small four acre fields alongside each other which I own, a few hundred yards from my home in Trepit Road, which joins Heol Fain. I purchased the two fields in 1999. I own no other land. It was meant to be the retirement joy for my wife and myself.
The proposed dwellings are to be built around the existing drainage point for surface water from the existing estate constructed from July 2015 on. The surface water flows from this unit, under the road and under the field headed towards the coast some 2km distant. It is relatively high c. 90m above sea level so there is a good loss of height to enable passage of water to the sea.
2.0 Sink hole first appears
In 2023 I first noticed a sink hole in the field close to the hedge, opposite the drainage point. Since that time it has become wider and deeper. It is currently around 40’ in diameter and around 3’6‖ in depth, There was a single deepest point but in recent days, as I have been writing this, it has been very wet and another deep point has started to develop.
In 2023 I formally informed the developer of the site Barratt plc of the situation. I have copied officers within the LDP planning office with some of the correspondence.
To date Barratt have not engaged substantively with the matter in any way. Their Head Office have ignored all correspondence I have sent to them, including recorded delivery hard copy letters. There has been no acknowledgement. I wrote to them warning of the risk to Heol Fain and advised that they should contact the Vale of Glamorgan Council. They have not done that.
3.0 Nature of the problem
I write not about the sink hole and Barratt’s refusal to engage. Undoubtedly there will be a long drawn out legal affair with Barratt attempting to deny and shift blame onto their drainage

consultants or the Local Authority, even myself, or perhaps God, acting as he wants. I understand they will attempt to use time, expense and all manner of corporate obfuscation to avoid being held responsible for the damage the drain they designed and constructed is causing. This is not about that, which is a related but totally separate event.
Here we just need to look at simple facts rather than any hard argued opinions about the geology or legal/procedural issues that will reflect any liability. There is a NPPF which is quite clear in its guidance that existing drainage problems must not be worsened. We have a problem which, whilst currently clear in its nature, its scope is undefined. We have clear science and clear geology and I will show using the most simple, Year 7 school science the outcome that is both inevitable and unstoppable. Whether the damage will be a) limited to the field, b) the field plus the road or c) the field plus the road and part of the site on which it is proposed to build 50 houses is unknown at the current time.
Beyond simple problems of drainage there exists undefined but real doubt about the suitability of the site – is it stable, will it be safe?
Supporting the idea that the site is not suitable for building is also the historic account of Mr James of the Grange Trepit Road that in the 1950s a development of this same site was turned down by Glamorgan County Council due to reasons of geology which I referenced in the summary. His father was Chairman of the Local Wick Council at the time and he recalls his father explaining it to him.
4.0 Scientific explanation of what is going on.
What is definitely understood is the sequence of events, but not their scope.
I will explain using Year 7 science. The basics elements of the events are so settled that the sequence I will describe is that which a child could understand and, therefore, only a charlatan could suggest an alternate. We do not need to have ―our expert‖ v ―your expert‖, or wait for another report by another body or any other obfuscating argument, it is all basic.
My expertise is in mass component manufacturing and design. Employment in this field drew me to this part of South Wales 45 years ago but job opportunities in that field are long defunct. I love living in the Vale and so stayed. An acquaintance suggested there was a shortage of Science teachers and I became Head of Science at Cowbridge Comprehensive School after being Head of Science at Maesteg. Thus whilst not a geologist, I have expert knowledge on what Year 7 pupils, the first secondary year, are taught, the basic framework around which all other science they will learn, is hung. Here I will use that to describe our problem and the process.
Pupils are taught about atoms and molecules. They understand molecules are an assembly of atoms and that what type and how they are joined changes their properties. Hydrogen is a gas, they do the pop test to prove its presence. Oxygen is another gas, the candle extinguishes in the closed container when all the oxygen is burnt. However oxygen and hydrogen combine in one molecule to form water – a liquid. By electrolysis we break water back into two separate gases and we prove their type by doing the tests for each gas. They then learn about solids

liquids and gases and that some solids can dissolve in liquid, such as sugar or salt. They then do an experiment to evaporate off the liquid and recover salt as a solid. Year 7 pupils understand the solid was held in solution in the liquid.
They learn that salt cannot be dissolved indefinitely, even though it can’t be seen in the water. When saturated, the water will hold no more salt. Salt will readily dissolve into water that currently has no salt in it.
They then learn about another property of substances, acids and alkalis. The very first test they do to exhibit an acid is to put drops of acid onto limestone. Each pair in the class have a chip of limestone and a small bottle of acid and they observe the effect of acid on the hard
limestone rock. They watch the rock ―disappear‖ They observe some bubbles and then understand that the products are carbon dioxide (gas) a salt, calcium carbonate, and water. They know, without being told, from the science they learnt days earlier, that the salt readily dissolves into the water as previously there was no solute present. The chip of hard limestone rock ―disappears‖ during the lesson.
They understand that reactions do not go on forever. When a reaction runs out of one of the reactants it slows and then stops. If you put a little acid on the limestone it only reacts for a short time and then stops. You would need more acid to make it continue.
After an introduction to acids and alkalis they are then introduced to the PH scale using a range of fluids found in most homes, washing up liquid, vinegar, toilet cleaner, fruit juice, milk, and rainwater are always used, amongst others. Every single child in the UK in their first year at secondary school learns that rainwater is acidic. This always generates conversation back to the limestone chip/acid experiment a few days before and then, for the schemes of work used for all the children for whom I was responsible for educating, they were shown multiple pictures of statues and buildings that had suffered decay due to the effect of acid rain on the rock.
Every Year 7 child knows rainwater is mildly acidic and limestone reacts with it. Nothing can stop this reaction and under no natural circumstances can it be reversed. More water, more chemical reaction. The only way limestone will not suffer significant chemical erosion is if only tiny amounts of rainwater come into contact with the limestone, contact is restricted. Keep it dry in a jar on the shelf and the limestone does not react at all.
A fact all adults in Glamorgan concerned with building industry and construction should be aware of is that the Heritage Coast, like the Jurassic Coast in Dorset, is formed from Blue Lias of the Jurassic period, a geological time period made famous by the series of movies. Blue Lias, as every western Vale householder who has dug below the topsoil of his garden for a fence post footing or washing line footing knows, is layer after layer of limestone separated by thin layers of clay-mudstone and shale. Dig even a modest hole and one has a small pile of limestone, And when it rains, the hole fills up to the bottom of the topsoil level and does not drain away, the hole has a muddy impermeable clay, a bit like the clay they line canals with, it does not let the water out, so the bottom of the hole stays damp for weeks, even if it does not rain again. That is the experience of every householder along the Heritage coast. So again that

is not something for fine lawyers and geologists to argue about it is basic science every single Year 7 pupil in Wales can understand.
St James’ Church in Wick is full of limestone spoil from the graves. A 12 year old child would tell us that if they put rainwater on it, there would be a chemical reaction, if that child put more rainwater on it there would be a greater reaction. Seal it with something that stops
the rainwater getting to it and it lasts…..millions of years, from the time the dinosaurs roamed the Earth. They know it as fact because so many have walked the Heritage Coast and collected fossils from the age of dinosaurs. Keep the rainwater off limestone and it lasts. Mudstone clay protects the underlying limestone. It does a good job of it around Wick which is why it is so high.
Those that would deny we have a very serious problem at Heol Fain would have to deny simple settled science that every child has been taught in their first year at secondary school and proven with simple experiment.
The geology is not in dispute, the science is not in dispute.
5.0 Drilling of test boreholes on the site
Now for our next set of facts we must thank Barratt plc contracting Integral Geotechnique to conduct a series of drillings and experiments. The report is available on Vale of Glamorgan Website. I sent a copy of the report to the LDP office with my correspondence. It runs to 138 pages. That might appear intimidating so I will explain it so that our Year 7 pupils would understand it.
Across the original site they drilled 16 bore holes with a drilling machine that pulled all the waste material out so there was a clear deep hole. Each hole was drilled in four stages, to different depths, 8m (27 feet), then 16m (53 feet), 24m (78 feet) and finally 32m (105 feet).
For each of the 16 holes, after each stage of the drilling, they removed the drill and filled the empty hole up with water very quickly from a very big container, with a powerful pump. They then measured how the water level went down over time. This is a standard test, with the process published by the Building Research Establishment. There is nothing unusual about what they did, apart from, perhaps, the depth to which they were drilling. The aim was to find an area on the site for a sustainable water drain.
Page 4 is attached. It shows the results for all the holes. Also attached is Figure 1, their site plan. They are respectively pages 11 and 12 of this submission.
Children, understanding about dinosaur footprints and fossils being preserved in a limestone rock that they know will react with rainwater, will have a clear expectation that there is unlikely to be much drainage through the rock because it is somehow sealed with a special mud called clay. The results support their understanding.
Hole B9 – ―Unable to calculate an infiltration rate due to negligible fall in water level.‖ The same note is recorded for hole B7. That is clear enough, the water does not drain away, even if one were to drill down over 105’ deep where the water pressure would cause a sub-sea diver

to get the bends, pressure three times atmospheric pressure, enough to crush a steel can (pupils would have done an experiment using about half atmospheric pressure to crush a steel can, when doing the atoms and molecules section; educational suppliers sell a special steel can for exactly that demonstration that is done with every class, every year.) Those pupils would understand that at 105’ there is an enormous pressure and still water was not draining out of the hole.
Now for most of the rest, the results are written in a scientific notation, a form not used in common language. I will explain. Let us take B5 as a sort of median (middle of the pack) example with a column of 105’ of water where the pressure is over three times atmospheric pressure the rate of water infiltration into the rock is “1.7 x 10-5m/s”
That is 0.000017m /s or if we think of a finger nail being about 1mm thick then this is a drop in water level 0.017 of a finger nail or about 1/20th of the thickness of a finger nail each second. So in 20 seconds the water level in a hole 105’ deep would have fallen by the thickness of a finger nail and in a whole minute it would have fallen, provided we watched it very, very, carefully, by the thickness of three finger nails.
Every Year 7 pupil would understand that was totally in line with what they expected, water could not escape into the rock sealed with clay mud and even when forced at great pressure the amount leaking is so small they would not be able to see it.
Those are the results for most levels of most holes and the report concurs ― the test results across most of the site suggest there is typically limited or no potential for infiltration‖.
The report advises Barratt in terms our pupils and adults living in the area would understand “The lack of infiltration potential at these locations is likely to be due to the high clay content of the residual soils and weather mudstone beds within the upper layer of the bedrock and is compounded by the …nature of the underlying limestone …” Nothing not in line with our Year 7 scientific understanding.
The fine technical report by Integral Geotechnique and our Year 7 science are in total agreement .
6.0 Why build a drain in the first place?
Let us pause there. If Barratt could not offer a sustainable drainage system then either they would not be allowed to construct on the site because adequate drainage could not be provided or, they would have had to lay in pipes and pumps to get the water to somewhere else where it could be discharged or drained away, a natural stream or to a waste water processing plant.
That would cause significant extra site development cost to Barratt
7.0 Bore hole test results alongside Heol Fain
Now let us move to hole B1 and holes B 12, 13, 14 & 15, those alongside Heol Fain opposite to where the sink hole has appeared on the other side of the road. I have outlines their markers with a red box on the site plan on page 12 of this document.

When B1 was drilled the results at 23’ and 53’were like those in the rest of the field. Then the report states this “A cavity with loss of flush was recorded in B1 between depth of 21.5 and
22.1m” So at around 72’ below the surface the report states they drilled into a “cavity”, a big underground hole, such that when they pumped the 1,000 litres of water into it, equivalent in size to to 1,000 one litre containers of juice, very quickly, it all just went into the hole and no level of water was observed in the hole, it had just all gone. We have no idea how big the hole is without information from further geological surveys.
B1 is of no interest to us as it is well away from the proposed site and Heol Fain, and, Barratt plc have already built some houses on top of it. Those houses are sold with a 10 year warranty. Barratt plc did not inform the Vale of Glamorgan Council about the problem of the sink hole when I sent them a recorded delivery letter. They did not even acknowledge my letter. Very soon all those houses they built above the underground cavity B1 drilled into, will be out of warranty. All of these things are facts.
Let us now move to the 4 holes drilled in the proposed site for the 50 houses of the RLDP,
those close by Heol Fain and near to where the 40’ wide sink hole appeared in the field on the other side of the road. B14 is like most of the other holes and there is little drainage. B12 states that at 16m, 53’ they were “unable to induce a head above 14.8m”. This means they could not fill up the hole with water even though they used 1,0000 litres, it drained away so quickly they could not measure the rate. Like B1 that means there is a very big hole under the ground and they have just drilled into it. B15 is virtually identical. At B13 the very big hole
under the ground is deeper at around 105’ down.
B12, 13, 14 & 15 are close together. The report describes the hole into which 1,000 litres of water would flow too quickly to measure its movement in, as “localised open fractures in the form of joint sets, fissures, cavities or bedding fractures present with the limestone bedrock…” and then recommends to Barratt, ―..the results demonstrate that in general where open clean
discontinuities “closely spaced” high angle or sub vertical bedding are encountered, the potential for soil infiltration is increased” The report does not suggest a site drainage system is installed over it and therefore does not discuss the consequences of doing so.
The facts that followed are that Barratt constructed the drainage for the surface water, the rain water from the site, to be moved offsite, via the underground cavity discovered via those drillings.
Barratt will have submitted calculations to the Planning Department for drainage. The formal approval 2014/01424/FUL stated “4. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, full engineering
details of the new…..surface water drainage ….shall be submitted ….before commencement of development.‖ Well I am not quite sure how that works out because the tests were reported in September 2015 and building work had started in July, but we can ignore that apart from to imagine the urgent need by September to find somewhere, anywhere to dispose of all that rainwater, the waste surface water. It had to go off site a location needed to be found.
So there will exist calculations for the annual volume of rain water to be removed from the site.

Acidic rainwater is going to be pumped into a large hole around 50 to 80’ under the ground alongside Heol Fain. Vast quantities of acidic rainwater are going to be pumped in every month of every year – into limestone. And every Year 7 pupil in the country knows that acid causes a reaction with limestone to form a salt in solution in water. Rainwater is a weak acid but there is an awful lot of it now going in one location. Rainwater that would have fallen on a huge area and simply flooded Heol Fain, is now passing through a smallish area of limestone. The acid may be weak but there is a never ending huge amount of reactant which will react with a similarly huge amount of limestone.
The rest of the science requires only the basics. The surface at Heol Fain is 90m above sea level, the sea is about 2km distant. At 78’ or 24m down it is still 65m above sea level, that water with all that dissolved product in it, the calcium carbonate salt, that was previously limestone, will simply flow downhill to the cliff face and pour out over it. In fact follow the mild valley down parallel to Trepit Road, and across the fields and at the iron stairs onto the beach there is both a stream that appears out of the ground at when it is around 15 m above sea level and the rock face all along the coast features areas where on the driest summer day it is still damp and perhaps oozing water. Well now those damp patches will have a great deal more water with salt solution in it, to ooze out.
Ask a Year 7 pupil that has followed this saga and they could clearly identify the sequence of consequential events. The hole that is underground will get bigger and bigger as the rainwater reacts with the limestone and the salt solution drains away to the sea. As the underground hole gets bigger so there will be risk of collapse of the surface into the cavity.
That is witnessed by the 40’ diameter sink hole that has appeared in the field. That collapse has first appeared in the field and the drilling and waste outlet are the other side of the road would suggest that already the cavity extends in some form, from the waste water processing unit, under the road and across into the field.
The Year 7 pupil would suggest the most likely progress would be that local collapse would be likely for both Heol Fain roadway and the ground around the waste water processing unit in future. Nothing can stop that happening.
8.0 Conclusion
The Year 7 pupil would warn of the dangers of building some new houses around such a location.
Those constructing the revised LDP have a duty via the NPPF to ensure the ground is stable and safe and that drainage plans do not exacerbate existing problems. Well we certainly have an existing problem that is not going to mend itself and adding even more acidic rain water is going to increase the rate of reaction of the limestone with the acid, so even more will become salt to be deposited in the sea.
How the problem might/might not be solved is irrelevant to the matter in hand. The issue is should 50 new houses be built on this site.

I have written this, explaining each factor in basic terms a child could both understand and explain so that readers will comprehend, no ―expert‖ can write a report such that with a magic wand and some fine words, he/she might be able to make such basic facts of chemical science disappear.
A charlatan might deceive or deny, but those words would only find a home in the mind of those wilfully denying a reality clearly understood by a child.
I understand relocating the allocation of houses to another site will be a blow to the RLDP team and will be a headache they do not want. Let me advise. That headache is trivial by comparison to my wife and I watching a literal huge hole appear in our dream retirement project and rubbing salt in our wounds, we as the landowners are responsible for making the sink hole safe even from those who would trespass on our land. We must pay for and maintain a fence around the hole for the perpetuity. Now that headache has been thrown at us by a builder who months after he had started the build on the site was still casting around for a location, anywhere, where he might dispose of the rainwater from his site onto, or more correctly, under, an unsuspecting neighbour, rather than pay the costs of installing a pump system to dispose of it safely. That is a headache and thank you very much I would appreciate it not being made even worse.
9.0 Future events – site inspection
In the first instance you will want to come and inspect the sink hole to ensure Mr and Mrs Cooke are not making it all up.
I have not yet constructed the cast concrete measuring points for conducting accurate measurement for the rate of sinkage. I purchased a new cement mixer, hardcore, cement and theodolite, in 2024 but care for my 94 year old mother has deflected me from the work. I will now do it because circumstances have changed and I know you will need an accurate set of data to inform the decision.
I will cast some concrete measuring points in and around the hole and I will use my theodolite, to measure the depth as it changes over time. I have spoken to the local vicar, father Craig Vaughn, who lives in Heol Fain and he is willing to observe and measure with me and sign off as witness so that Barratt plc will have no ground for discounting my observations as
―unbelievable and entirely fabricated‖. As with my offer to Barratt, I will welcome your attendance to observe but will have no one on our land unaccompanied, so we need to arrange dates and times in advance. You have my contact details. I look forward to your engagement.
Perhaps the Survey Team from the Welsh Office who apparently, in the mid 1950s declared the site unsuitable for development and reported that to Glamorgan County Council, could foresee the drainage problems.

(Images attached)

I am writing to submit a formal objection to the proposed allocation of Site ID 404, which designates land adjacent to Heol Fain, Wick for the development of 50 dwellings within the Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP).

The proposed development would fundamentally alter the character of a rural settlement currently defined by agricultural land and open green spaces. The site lies within a green belt area, and its development at this scale is incompatible with the existing rural landscape. Expansion of this nature is more appropriately directed toward larger, better-connected settlements within the county.

Wick is not equipped to support further development of this scale. Key issues include:
- No medical facilities within the village; residents rely on nearby towns.
- Limited retail provision, with only one small shop serving the community.
- A single primary school, with no evidence that additional capacity has been assessed or planned for.

The proposal does not demonstrate how these deficiencies would be addressed, nor does it provide evidence of sustainable long-term service provision.

Transport sustainability is a central criterion of Welsh Government Planning Policy (Edition 12). This site fails to meet those requirements:
- Public transport is limited, with only one bus per hour and no direct service to Cowbridge, where the nearest GP surgeries are located.
- There is no rail travel.
- No active travel or safe pedestrian routes support movement for those without vehicles.
- Increased reliance on private cars contradicts both national policy and the Vale of Glamorgan’s sustainable growth objectives (RLDP – Nov 2023, p55, section 6.6).

The rural Vale relies on emergency services configured for a dispersed population:
- South Wales Police response teams are primarily based in Barry, the local station at Llantwit Major supports the local community policing function which is not 24/7.
- South Wales Fire and Rescue provision is via a retained station in Llantwit Major.
- Wales Ambulance Service operates across a wide rural area.

Additional housing will place further strain on these services without corresponding investment or planning evidence.

The Well-being of Future Generations Act requires public bodies to plan sustainably for social, cultural, environmental and economic well‑being. This proposal:
- Does not reduce rural isolation.
- Does not provide local employment opportunities.
- Does not meet evidenced local housing needs.
- Fails to protect and enhance the rural landscape.

Accordingly, it also conflicts with the Vale of Glamorgan Well-being Plan 2023–2028 and the principles of Placemaking Wales.

Two access routes have been referenced, both of which are unsuitable:
- St James Road – a privately maintained, unadopted road.
- Increased usage would place unfair maintenance costs on current residents.
- Heol Fain – a narrow, poor-quality single-lane road.
- Its western junction meets a 60mph unlit road, presenting significant safety hazards.

No evidence is provided that safe or sustainable access can be achieved.

The proposed field is currently used for surface water drainage from the nearby St James estate. Development risks:
- Reducing the land’s natural drainage function and the sustainable draining via the reed bed.
- Increasing surface water runoff into a small stream along Heol Fain that regularly exceeds its boundaries in wet weather.
- Creating wider environmental impacts that have not been addressed.

The field is also used informally for recreation—walking, dog walking, and exercise—which would be lost to the community.
The allocation is disproportionate to the size and capacity of the settlement and is not justified within the broader strategic framework of the RLDP.

I am writing to submit a formal objection to the proposed allocation of Site ID 2814, which designates land adjacent to Heol Fain, Wick for the development of dwellings within the Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP).

The proposed development would fundamentally alter the character of a rural settlement currently defined by agricultural land and open green spaces. The site lies within a green belt area, and its development at this scale is incompatible with the existing rural landscape. Expansion of this nature is more appropriately directed toward larger, better-connected settlements within the county.

Wick is not equipped to support further development of this scale. Key issues include:
- No medical facilities within the village; residents rely on nearby towns.
- Limited retail provision, with only one small shop serving the community.
- A single primary school, with no evidence that additional capacity has been assessed or planned for.

The proposal does not demonstrate how these deficiencies would be addressed, nor does it provide evidence of sustainable long-term service provision.

Transport sustainability is a central criterion of Welsh Government Planning Policy (Edition 12). This site fails to meet those requirements:
- Public transport is limited, with only one bus per hour and no direct service to Cowbridge, where the nearest GP surgeries are located.
- There is no rail travel.
- No active travel or safe pedestrian routes support movement for those without vehicles.
- Increased reliance on private cars contradicts both national policy and the Vale of Glamorgan’s sustainable growth objectives (RLDP – Nov 2023, p55, section 6.6).

The rural Vale relies on emergency services configured for a dispersed population:
- South Wales Police response teams are primarily based in Barry, the local station at Llantwit Major supports the local community policing function which is not 24/7.
- South Wales Fire and Rescue provision is via a retained station in Llantwit Major.
- Wales Ambulance Service operates across a wide rural area.

Additional housing will place further strain on these services without corresponding investment or planning evidence.

The Well-being of Future Generations Act requires public bodies to plan sustainably for social, cultural, environmental and economic well‑being. This proposal:
- Does not reduce rural isolation.
- Does not provide local employment opportunities.
- Does not meet evidenced local housing needs.
- Fails to protect and enhance the rural landscape.

Accordingly, it also conflicts with the Vale of Glamorgan Well-being Plan 2023–2028 and the principles of Placemaking Wales.

Two access routes have been referenced, both of which are unsuitable:
- St James Road – a privately maintained, unadopted road.
- Increased usage would place unfair maintenance costs on current residents.
- Heol Fain – a narrow, poor-quality single-lane road.
- Its western junction meets a 60mph unlit road, presenting significant safety hazards.

No evidence is provided that safe or sustainable access can be achieved.

The proposed field is currently used for surface water drainage from the nearby St James estate. Development risks:
- Reducing the land’s natural drainage function and the sustainable draining via the reed bed.
- Increasing surface water runoff into a small stream along Heol Fain that regularly exceeds its boundaries in wet weather.
- Creating wider environmental impacts that have not been addressed.

The field is also used informally for recreation—walking, dog walking, and exercise—which would be lost to the community.
The allocation is disproportionate to the size and capacity of the settlement and is not justified within the broader strategic framework of the RLDP.

Previous Affordable Housing in Wick has already been of great benefit to the Community, and more affordable housing is welcome. However, a development of 50 units overall is disproportionately large. It would mean that Wick has had a 95% increase since 2014.