1.1. Savills is instructed by Hallam Land (‘Hallam’) to respond to the consultation on the Deposit version of the Replacement Local Development Plan (‘RLDP’) by the Vale of Glamorgan Council (‘VoG’).
1.2. Hallam is the strategic land arm of Henry Boot PLC and is one of the UK’s most well established and successful land promoters. Hallam operates throughout England, Scotland and Wales from 7 regional offices working with landowners, developers, local authorities, communities and other parties to bring forward development opportunities. Hallam has been in operation since 1990, specialising in obtaining planning permission and delivering development larger schemes including new communities and urban extensions.
Background to Representations
1.3. The Preferred Strategy was published in November 2023. The Preferred Strategy identified “Land West of St Athan” and “Land South of the B4265, St Athan” (Site IDs 456 and 457) as one of five Key Sites in the Preferred Strategy. Both of these sites are under the control of Hallam and were submitted as part of the Call for Sites. A site-specific illustrative masterplan and policy wording were provided under Policy SP4 KS5 (Land to the West of St Athan).
1.4. Hallam submitted representations on the consultation on the Preferred Strategy. These representations were very much supportive of the identification of “Land to the West of St Athan” as a Key Site and the approach that was taken more generally taken in the Preferred Strategy.
Approach to Responding to Consultation
1.5. The VoG has published the Deposit version of the RLDP. The Deposit is the first version of the RLDP to include emerging allocations, and detailed development management policies, as well as a Proposals Map. It is accompanied by a substantial evidence base which includes various supporting technical documentation submitted as part of the promotion of the allocated sites.
1.6. Building upon the Preferred Strategy, the Deposit RLDP proposes to allocate Land to the West of St Athan as a Key Site. The site is identified under Policy HG1 KS5 (Land to the West of St Athan) as key mixed-use site with capacity for 600 new homes alongside new community and commercial facilities.
1.7. Hallam’s representation to this consultation broadly splits into three separate sections:
• It offers general support for the housing requirement, growth strategy and settlement hierarchy. This is covered in Chapter 2 of this Statement;
• It wholly supports the approach of allocating Land to the West of St Athan as part of the Deposit RLDP whilst also providing detailed commentary on the specific wording of Policy HG1 KS5 (Land to the West of St Athan). This is covered in Chapter 3 of this Statement; and
• It provides commentary on a range of development management policies. This is covered in Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 of this Statement.
1.8. As well as this Statement, Savills has provided commentary on these specific policies under the VoG’s consultation website.

Policy SP1 (Sustainable Growth Strategy), Policy SP2 (Settlement Hierarchy), and Policy SP6 (Housing Requirement)
2.1. Together, these policies have the effect of:
• Setting the housing requirement to be delivered over the RLDP plan period of 7,890 homes with a flexibility allowance applied on top so that provision is made for a total of 8,660 homes. This is the same housing requirement to that included in the Preferred Strategy which was found by Welsh Government to be in conformity with Future Wales (Policies SP1 and SP6);
• Identifying the extent of the Strategic Growth Area as the primary focus of new housing growth. Concentrations of new housing are focussed in those locations served by existing transport routes and where there are opportunities to enhance sustainable transport connectivity. St Athan is a specifically named settlement within the Strategic Growth Area (Policy SP1); and
• Identifying St Athan as a Primary Settlement in the third tier of the settlement hierarchy. This is the same tier of the settlement hierarchy as St Athan is in the adopted LDP (Policy SP2).
2.2. Hallam are generally supportive of the aims of these three policies.
2.3. They recognise that the housing requirement has been subject to extensive scrutiny and been found to be appropriate by Welsh Government in response to the Preferred Strategy. In that sense, there is nothing further for Hallam Land to comment upon here other than to note that it should reasonably be seen as the minimum number of homes that the RLDP should be aiming to deliver, particularly following the publication of the 2022-based household projections between Welsh Government’s comments on the Preferred strategy and the publication of the Preferred Strategy.
2.4. The strategy – of focussing new housing in those locations served by existing transport routes and where there are opportunities to enhance sustainable transport connectivity – is wholly supported. St Athan is clearly already a sustainable location for growth and its sustainability and connectivity have clear potential to enhance alongside further development. The delivery of growth in St Athan is therefore considered to firmly align with the RLDP’s strategy.
2.5. The continued positioning of St Athan as a Primary Settlement in the third tier of the settlement hierarchy is considered appropriate though clearly the delivery of two Key Sites within St Athan as part of the RLDP has the potential to further elevate its position in the future. This is reflected in Table 10 of Background Paper 5 Settlement Appraisal Review where St Athan is given one of the higher scores of the Primary settlements.

Policy HG1 KS5 (Land to the West of St Athan)
3.1. Policy HG1 (Housing Allocations) identifies those sites that are to be allocated to meet the housing requirement of 7,890 homes that is set out in Policy SP1 (Sustainable Growth Strategy) and Policy SP6 (Housing Requirement) of the RLDP. As well as the existing landbank and an allowance for windfalls, Policy HG1 notes that this requirement will be met through a mix of Key Sites, conventional housing allocations, housing-led regeneration opportunities, and rural affordable housing led sites.
3.2. There is a standalone separate policy for each of the five Key Sites that are identified in Policy HG1 (Housing Allocations). Each separate Key Site policy identifies what the site is proposed to be allocated for before providing setting out expectations of how each Key Site should come forward – both in terms of land uses that should be delivered and constraints and opportunities needing to be responded to – that are framed under a series of sub-headings. A masterplan sits alongside each Key Site policy whilst a package of supporting documentation for each Key Site submitted by the site promoter is also made available as part of the consultation on the Deposit RLDP.
3.3. The relevant policy for Land to the West of St Athan is Policy HG1 KS5.
3.4. As a starting point, Hallam wholeheartedly support the allocation of Land to the West of St Athan as a Key Site within the RLDP. Hallam made a comprehensive submission as part of the Call for Sites stage and since then have worked proactively with the VoG and other stakeholders to demonstrate that the site is suitable, deliverable, and viable. It’s identification as a Key Site in the Deposit RLDP represents extensive and thorough assessment – its proposed allocated is therefore considered to be sound and firmly evidence based.
3.5. So that the policy functions as effectively as possible, Hallam has a small number of comments and included at Appendix A is a re-worded version of Policy HG1 KS5 which incorporates those changes with text suggested to be removed crossed through and text to be added shown underlined.
3.6. These proposed adjustments are considered in turn below and are structured around the sub-headings that are contained within the policy wording itself.
Site Capacity and Housing Trajectory
3.7. Extensive environmental and technical work has been undertaken by Hallam to support the promotion of the site and the development of a masterplan (and site capacity) that responds to the site’s constraints and opportunities.
3.8. That said, Hallam is not a housebuilder and once an outline planning application has progressed, Hallam will identify a development partner (which could be a single or multiple housebuilders / housing associations). Clearly different housebuilders have different house types and differing approaches to density.
3.9. In addition, whilst a lot of technical and environmental work has been undertaken to date, clearly further technical work would be submitted at planning application stage which would further validate the site’s capacity.
3.10. Legislative and guidance changes also have the potential to impact a site capacity. Whilst the masterplanning process has been prepared to be SAB compliant, the impact of the introduction of the requirement to secure SAB approval has had an impact on site capacity and it follows that a further, and as yet unknown, legislative or guidance change could have a similar impact.
3.11. This is not to suggest that there isn’t a high degree of confidence that the site can deliver roughly 600 homes, rather that Hallam suggest that the word ‘approximately’ is added to the policy wording to reflect the potential for a degree of deviation (which could be upwards or downwards).
3.12. Background Paper 9A Housing Land Supply and Housing Trajectory sets out the anticipated annual delivery rates for housing over the RLDP. With regards to the ability of the site to deliver the number of homes it is allocated for in the RLDP plan period, the housing trajectory for the site reflects that the first completion date was pushed back from 2027/2028 to 2028/2029 since the consultation on the Preferred Strategy. This means that the whole site continues to be shown as being delivered within the RLDP plan period.
3.13. Hallam support and agree with the approach set out in the Draft Housing Trajectory and see it to be realistic and achievable based on their experience and subject to usual caveats around the condition of the market, RLDP progression, and swift determination of a planning application.
Affordable Housing
3.14. At present, Policy HG1 KS5 (like all of the standalone policies for the other four Key Sites), states that the site should provide a minimum of 210 affordable housing units. This figure is derived from 35% of the number of homes that the site is allocated for (600 homes).
3.15. Worded at present, a strict interpretation of this policy could be that 210 affordable units must be provided onsite regardless of the total number of homes that are proposed. For example, it could be interpreted as requiring a fixed number of affordable homes of 210 homes, even if the total number of homes that are proposed on the site is fewer than the 600 homes that the site is allocated for or, conversely, that only 210 homes should be delivered as affordable if more than 600 homes were to be delivered and the RLDP allocation exceeded.
3.16. Hallam recognise that this is not what the policy wording is seeking to achieve (and their viability work for the site is based on the site delivering 600 homes of which 35% are affordable) but suggest that its wording could be clarified by removing reference to a specific number of affordable homes for the site to deliver in favour of just the affordable housing percentage being noted in the policy.
3.17. Hallam also suggest that the requirement for affordable housing units to not be in clusters of more than 10 homes is removed and that the approach is for this to be considered on a site by site and case by case basis and with recognition that Policy HG5 (Affordable Housing Exception Sites) which can provide a framework for 100% affordable sites of more than 10 homes to be delivered. As an example, and in the case of Land to the West of St Athan, the “Land South of the B4265, St Athan” (Site ID 457) portion of the site is likely better suited to a mixed-use development alongside the future St Athan Railway Sation. This portion of the site is probably better suited to a flatted form of development (either above non-residential uses or as a block) which tend to be delivered as 100% affordable housing developments rather than comprising a mix of private and affordable housing.
Sustainable Transport and Highways
3.18. This part of the policy sets out expectations relating to sustainable transport and highways and there are a number of matters which Hallam wish to comment on.
3.19. As a starting point, Hallam support the delivery of St Athan Railway Station and therefore commits to its safeguarding. Likewise, Hallam recognise the potential suitability for the “Land Between the Railway Line and B4265, St Athan” (Site ID 458) site to accommodate a Welsh-Medium Secondary School and can also therefore commit to safeguarding land for the delivery of a pedestrian and cycle bridge over the railway line. Specific comments on Policy TR1 (Transport Proposals) and Policy CI3 (New Community Facilities) are made elsewhere in this Statement.
3.20. With regards to the Sustainable Transport and Highways section of Policy HG1 KS5, Hallam’s overall position is that a careful balance needs to be reached between the policy wording being explicit as to what highway works must be delivered and reserving consideration of this until planning application stage where the exact site capacity is better understood and a full Transport Assessment submitted.
3.21. At present, Hallam’s view is that the policy wording is overly explicit and suggest that it could be qualified through the addition of the following text before listing the offsite highways improvements:
‘Subject to the Strategic Transport Assessment and site-specific Transport Assessment submitted at planning application stage’.
3.22. Turning to the specific offsite highways measures that are listed within the policy wording, Hallam have four comments.
3.23. Firstly, it is suggested that the delivery of an active travel link along the B4265 between the site entrance and the Gileston Road junction should be secured via a financial contribution that is pooled with KS4 Church Farm. This reflects that the delivery of this link not only links Hallam’s site to other services in St Athan but also linking KS4 Church Farm to the services that are proposed and uses for which land is safeguarded within Hallam’s site. Clearly this is also to the benefit of existing residents of St Athan. This would reflect the approach that is proposed to be taking for the pooling of Section 106 monies for the delivery of an active travel route between St Athan and Llantwit Major.
3.24. Secondly, Hallam flag the need for the RLDP to be sufficiently flexible with regards to the delivery of an active travel link between St Athan and Llantwit Major. Ultimately, the purpose of delivering this active travel route would be to provide a connection from St Athan to Llantwit Major Railway Station and the delivery of a Railway Station in St Athan would remove the necessity of delivering this active travel connection. Hallam’s suggested amendments to the policy wording seeks to reflect this.
3.25. Thirdly, Hallam have been consistent in highlighting that, whilst there is an aspiration to deliver an improved pedestrian link along Llantwit Road, a combination of the road width and the extent of third party ownerships make delivering a continuous link very challenging with a pragmatic approach instead needing to take place that recognises the ability to deliver betterments but acknowledges that delivering a continuous link is unlikely to be possible. Hallam has suggested additional wording to clarify this.
3.26. Fourthly, Hallam highlight that the designing of a loop road within the site to facilitate access by a bus may be superfluous and represent an over-engineered solution given the potential for the St Athan Transport Interchange that land is safeguarded for under Policy TR1 (Transport Proposals) is envisaged to accommodate infrastructure to accommodate a bus connection. On that basis, it is suggested that the following clause is added to the policy wording to reflect that bus connectivity to the site may be delivered not via an internal bus loop:
‘Subject to progress on the St Athan Transport Interchange as land is safeguarded for under Policy TR1 (Transport Proposals)’
Community Infrastructure
3.27. There are three points which Hallam wish to make in connection to this element of Policy HG1 KS5.
3.28. Firstly, Hallam suggest that the wording of the part of the policy relating to financial contributions to fund the delivery of additional school places needs to be adjusted. At present this part of the policy is worded as if there is an automatic requirement to provide Section 106 monies for school places where Circular 13/97 is clear that a contribution should only be sought where the schools do not have current projected capacity to accommodate the new children from the development. Hallam’s proposed adjustments seek to ensure that this part of the policy reflects this though note that Background Paper 43 Education forecasts a need for a financial contribution to be made for additional school places at all English and Welsh primary and secondary schools that the site is within the catchment of.
3.29. Secondly, Hallam note that Table 10 of Background Paper 34 Community Facilities identifies an existing over-provision of community space within the St Athan Ward of 778sqm and a surplus of 531sqm of community floorspace at 2036 when the level of housing to be allocated in the Deposit RLDP is delivered. It is understood that this is on the basis of no community floorspace being delivered as part of Hallam’s proposals or as part of the KS4 Church Farm site. Hallam suggest that the wording of this element of the policy needs to reflect that community floorspace should only be required to be provided in the case of a local shortage in provision. Aligned to this, Hallam also suggest that the reference to specifically providing a ‘community building’ is adjusted to instead make reference to ‘community space’. This reflects that the community space element of scheme, if indeed it is actually required, could be a part of a larger mixed-use building (probably in the Mixed-Use / Community area) rather than as a standalone building.
3.30. Thirdly, Hallam note the error in the wording of the sixth bullet point under the ‘Sustainable Transport and Highways’ heading where reference is made to the safeguarding of land on the southern side of the railway line as being identified in Policy CI3(2) where-as it should be Policy CI3(6). This is a minor amendment that should be made to ensure consistency.
Green Infrastructure, Recreation Spaces, and Biodiversity
3.31. The masterplan prepared by PAD Design and submitted by Hallam shows the site delivering a mix of public open space and green infrastructure including the provision of allotments, a Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play, a Local Equipped Area of Play, and a sports pitch. This is welcomed in Background Paper 32A Green Infrastructure Assessment of Key Sites which, at Paragraph 5.55 recognises that a ‘ground up’ approach has been taken in the masterplanning approach.
3.32. This is shown indicatively to illustrate the composition of public open space and green infrastructure that the site could provide alongside the other elements of built development that the site is allocated and the masterplan makes provision for.
3.33. Whilst, Hallam recognise the need to provide public open space, the starting point for this should be the Fields In Trust Standards and Hallam therefore suggest an approach where the policy wording is not specific about what forms this should take.

Policy TR1 (Transport Proposals)
4.1. This policy identifies three active travel routes and two public transport schemes that the Deposit RLDP safeguards land for, as well as three highway improvement schemes that are identified as being required to mitigate the impact of development. Two of these are in St Athan – one being the St Athan Transport Interchange for which land is safeguarded for and the second being the Gileston Road Junction which is identified as a required highway improvement. Both are considered in turn below.
St Athan Transport Interchange
4.2. Hallam support the safeguarding of land for the St Athan Transport Interchange and see that its delivery would be to the benefit of the Key Site itself but also more broadly to St Athan and western parts of the VoG.
4.3. It is clear from discussions with Transport for Wales that there is a strong business case for the delivery of a railway station and that the creation of “critical mass” through residential development around it has a key role in driving its delivery, as does the nationally significant economic role that the Bro Tathan Enterprise Zone has and the Aberthaw Green Energy Park will have. The proximity of St Athan to both of these hubs clearly contributes to its fundamental sustainability and suitability for growth whilst the further development of a critical mass of housing and employment generating uses will further support linkages between them and strengthen the business case for a new railway station at St Athan. This is reflected in TFW’s ‘Today, Tomorrow, Together: A Vision for Rail Across Wales and the Borders’ which confirms that the delivery of St Athan Railway Station remains in TFW’s pipeline which has been endorsed by the Westminster Government.
4.4. The location that is identified on the Proposals Map is Transport for Wales’ preferred location within the site and has been incorporated into the masterplanning approach which seeks to create a node around it by incorporating a bus interchange and a mix of uses.
4.5. At present, the Proposals Map identifies the location of the Railway Station using a red star which is positioned on the railway line itself but without the required land take not spatially being defined.
4.6. Whilst Hallam recognise that the exact land take required will need to be refined further through discussion with TFW, it may be the case that the mixed-use element on this portion of the site comes forward before the Railway Station.
4.7. The early delivery of these elements should be welcomed as clearly the mixed-use element both enhances the range of services and facilities in St Athan but also would mean that the Railway Station is integrated upon delivery.
4.8. On that basis, it is imperative that the safeguarding of land for the Transport Interchange is limited only to that land required to deliver the Transport Interchange and is done in such a way such the safeguarding does not sterilise non-transport related development from this portion of the site until the Railway Station has been delivered.
Gileston Road Junction, St Athan
4.9. Paragraphs 6.199 and 6.200 relate to the expectation that vehicle trips as a result of RLDP allocations in St Athan are anticipated to trigger the need to upgrade the Gileston Road Junction to a signal-controlled arrangement. This is informed by the conclusions of Table 3 of the Strategic Transport Assessment which forecasts that the junction will be operating above capacity during both the weekday AM and PM peak by the RLDP’s end point.
4.10. Hallam note that Technical Note 08 of the Strategic Transport Assessment identifies that the improvements to the Gileston Road Junction are to be delivered by VoG and funded through financial contributions from seven sites that the RLDP proposes to allocate.
4.11. Improvements to this junction are to be funded by a number of sites; however it is unclear whether (and if so, when) forward funding will be secured by the Council and clearly there cannot be a situation where none of the sites can deliver homes until strategic highways works are funded / completed. We therefore seek further clarification over the phasing of these works and note that early delivery of homes ahead of strategic highway improvements is likely to be important for deliverability of each strategic site.
4.12. To respond to Hallam’s above comments, one approach could be for references to highway improvement works to be entirely removed from this policy or, if they are to remain, that qualifying text is added to note that the need for and format of any improvements will be subject to detailed consideration at planning application stage and that such contributions must be justified in planning terms, particularly where (in the case of Pen Y Turnpike Road and Waycock Cross for Land to the West of St Athan), the distance from a site and the junction to be improved is significant and therefore thee number of vehicle trips that would be generated modest.
4.13. This aligns with Hallam’s suggested approach to the specific wording of Policy HG1 KS5.

Policy CI1 (Open Space Provision)
5.1. This policy consists of four parts which, combined, dictate how open space should be provided. These parts of the policy set expectations for the level of public open space that should be provided for, confirm that provisions for open space should also be made for commercial uses, notes that it is expected that open space will be provided onsite, and requires that an open space strategy is submitted as part of applications where open space is required to be provided.
5.2. Hallam note that Policy CI1 (Open Space Provision) of the Deposit RLDP, when compared with Policy MD3 (Provision of Open Space) of the adopted LDP, proposes an increase in public open space provision from a total of 2.4ha / 1000 people to 2.75ha / 1000 people.
5.3. Hallam is not clear as to what has driven the increased level of public open space that Policy CI1 (Open Space Provision) identifies as being required and would welcome clarification on this matter.

Policy CI3 (New Community Facilities)
6.1. As well as allocating land for five new or improved education developments, this policy safeguards ‘Land South of the Railway Line, St Athan’ for the delivery of a Welsh-medium secondary school.
6.2. This policy is clearly of interest to Hallam because Paragraph 6.250 places a requirement for the safeguarding of land on the northern side of the railway line on their Land to the West of St Athan Key Site for a footbridge to land on.
6.3. With the policy wording being intentionally light-touch, Paragraph 6.250 of the Deposit RLDP provides greater detail about the safeguarding of this land (and other paragraphs in the Deposit RLDP relate to other community facilities that Policy CI3 covers). It effectively does two things.
6.4. Firstly, it notes that the delivery of this school will require active travel improvements including the safeguarding of land for a pedestrian and cyclist footbridge over the railway line.
6.5. Secondly, it is clear that the safeguarding of this land is in response to a forecast increase in demand for Welsh-medium secondary school places across the whole of the VoG as a result of expanded capacity at Welsh-medium primary schools across the VoG. On this basis, it follows that this location has been selected as a preferred location because of its ability to serve the wider sub-region.
6.6. Hallam recognise that this site could be a suitable location for a Welsh Medium Secondary School and, as a principle, is agreeable to the safeguarding of land for the footbridge landing on the northern side of the railway line.
6.7. Paragraph 6.250 of the Deposit RLDP is clear that the delivery of a Welsh-Medium secondary school is in response to a regional / sub-regional demand rather than a local need as a result generated either by the development of Land West of St Athan or other emerging allocations within St Athan and it cannot be the case that Hallam are expected to make disproportionate contributions to either the delivery of the school or required active travel improvements just because they have control of the site or that it is next to the Key Site.

Policy CC1 (Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development)
7.1. The effect of this policy is to require new build development to achieve net-zero operational emissions. This is to be achieved through the following of the Energy Hierarchy for Planning with Policy CC1 (Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development) before the policy wording sets out space heating and energy use intensity standards to be met from RLDP adoption through to 2030 and then from 2030 onwards, and setting a requirement for on-site renewable electricity generation to have an output equivalent to annual energy consumption. The policy notes that this may not be technically feasible and, in these cases, requires that development maximises onsite renewable generation and / or connects or proposes to connect to a heat network and / or contributes to offsetting.
7.2. As a starting point, Hallam share the concerns expressed by the wider development industry that setting requirements above and beyond building regulations (the 2025 Future homes Standard) can present challenges. Building regulations are there as a mechanism to set fixed requirements that any development must achieve and the effect of introducing requirements to go beyond this will result in an uneven framework for housebuilders, significantly adding cost and reducing certainty.
7.3. The justification for using planning policy to set requirements exceeding building regulations is set out in Section 7 of Background Paper 33A Net Zero Buildings and throughout Background Paper 33 Net Zero Buildings Feasibility Study and Cost Assessment and centres on the fact that there is a precedent for such policies in both adopted and emerging policies.
7.4. There are two points to be made by Hallam here:
7.5. Firstly, a Written Ministerial Statement by then Housing and Planning Minister Lee Rowley made clear that it was not for Local Plans to set local energy efficiency standards that go beyond the requirements of building regulations with Inspectors to take this position at Local Plan examination stage that such an approach would not be sound. This Written Ministerial Statement was subject to an unsuccessful judicial review.
7.6. Clearly this is the position of the Westminster Government rather than the Welsh Government but the point is that it is wrong to suggest that there is a clear approach emerging in England for Local Plans to incorporate such policies when the Written Ministerial Statement warns Local Plans against setting energy efficiency targets that are stricter than building regulations. Where there are existing Local Plans in England that take this approach, they do not align with the Westminster Government’s position and there will be no Local Plans emerging including such policies.
7.7. Turning to a Wales context, whilst it may be the case that other local planning authorities are considering or looking into the use of such policies, it is worth noting that the two South East Wales local planning authorities which have adopted RLDPs (Bridgend and Merthyr Tydfil) do not include such policies and therefore that can be no confidence that the incorporation of such a policy approach will be found to be sound at Examination stage.
7.8. Secondly, Hallam have concerns with the approach that has been taken with regards to viability.
7.9. From Hallam’s review, a figure for achieving the requirements of Policy CC1 (Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development) is based on an analysis of three separate house type typologies as presented in Figure 4 of Background Paper 33A Net Zero Buildings. Background Paper 33A Net Zero Buildings is dated November 2025 but Background Paper 33 Net Zero Buildings Feasibility Study and Cost Assessment is from January 2024.
7.10. As a starting point, the figures for achieving this upgrade have been used by Hallam in the undertaking of the Development Viability Model with the development of the site found to continue to be viable with these incorporated. This is important as it demonstrates that, whilst Hallam do not believe such a policy approach should be taken, the development of the site at the time of the completion of the Development Viability Model for the site is viable whilst meeting the requirements of Policy CC1 (Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development).
7.11. Hallam’s concern is around the robustness of an approach that considers only three building typologies and does not carry out the exercise for a far broader range of house types that are deployed by all of the active housebuilders (both market and affordable) across Wales. This concern is particularly exacerbated by the fact that, as recognised at Paragraph 6.47 of Background Paper 42 Viability Assessment, takes the lowest estimate for the works required to achieve these policy expectations, Savills’ experience – both that of their development land team based in Wales and their environmental sustainability team based across England - is that in reality the cost associated with delivering these standards is in reality far higher and closer to the £15,000 or £20,000 per unit mark.
7.12. Taking the above together, not only is the approach proposed to be taken in Policy CC1 (Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development) out of line with the approach that is to be taken in England and the approach that has been taken in Wales, it is considered that there is insufficient certainty around the ability for these works to be delivered when they are required to be without harming viability.

Policy DNP3 (Glamorgan Heritage Coast)
8.1. This policy relates to the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, identifying a series of land uses that are permissible within the policy area before setting three tests that must be satisfied for development within the Glamorgan Heritage Coast to be permissible where there is an adverse environmental impact.
8.2. Hallam note that the ‘Land South of the B4265, St Athan’ portion of the land that they control is both proposed to be retained as part of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast (a continuation of the position taken in the adopted LDP) whilst also forming part of the Land to the West of St Athan Key Site where the masterplan at Figure 17 shows it as accommodating the potential new railway station and a mixed-use area (including car parking).
8.3. The relevant extract of the Proposals Map is replicated below:
8.4. The exact composition of the buildings proposed on this portion will require further refinement and will need to be driven by occupier requirements, but the masterplanning work undertaken by pad Design envisages that they could provide a mix of retail and food and drink uses most likely across some or all of the ground floor, alongside workshop, co-working or office incubator space at upper floor levels and perhaps at ground floor level. There could also be the potential for additional homes, likely in the form of apartments at upper floors, as part of a mix of uses. It is realistic therefore to anticipate that this portion of the site will accommodate buildings of up to three or four storeys with a high plot ratio to reflect the uses and supporting infrastructure that it is to accommodate.
8.5. Hallam’s position is that the continued inclusion of this parcel of land as part of the wider Glamorgan Heritage Coast is inappropriate for two reasons.
8.6. Firstly, and its most basic level, the approach of allocating the site for development whilst retaining a designation that inherently seeks to restrict the type, form, and quantum of development, is wholly contradictory.
8.7. Designation of this portion of the site as part of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast will mean, given that the uses that Figure 17 envisages as being delivered on the site are not those that the first part of Policy DNP3 (Glamorgan Heritage Coast) allows for, any application for development will need to demonstrate that there is a compelling need for the development, that the benefits outweigh the harm, and that appropriate mitigation measures are in place. This the potential to prejudice its development or, at very least, greatly impact how it is developed whilst requiring.
8.8. Secondly, it is difficult to see how this land warrants ongoing inclusion within the designated Glamorgan Heritage Coast. This is something that is considered in more detail in the Review of Landscape Character and Visual Amenity (December 2022) prepared by FPCR and submitted as part of the Call for Sites (and also available as part of the consultation on the Deposit RLDP as a piece of Key Site Supporting Information). Paragraph 5.13 of the FPCR document concludes on this piece of land that:
‘Through the fieldwork it is considered that the Site does not display any “special environmental qualities” identified by the Policy and plays no intrinsic role in the Policy designation, as it is effectively forms a rather ordinary grazing field. It is influenced by the urbanising elements of the adjacent B4265, the Railway Line, the Tarmac Cement works, and to some degree the built edge of St Athan. Furthermore, it is bound and contained by trees and woodland beside the railway line, which prevents wider intervisibility with the coastline.’
8.9. Taking the above together, Hallam suggest that the preparation of the RLDP provides the opportunity to define the extent of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast to respond to both the landscape value of certain sites but also the wider aspirations of the RLDP. If it is not within the gift of VoG to redefine the boundaries of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast through the RLDP then Hallam suggest that an additional element could be added to this policy to confirm that it does not apply to land which is allocated for development.

Appendix A - rewording of Policy HG1 KS5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SP7 - Affordable Housing Provision

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

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

Policy SP8 - Affordable Housing Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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