I see that the Planning policy has ring fenced the location of the proposed Lidl development (ID 379 Proposal number SP12(2) that is currently called in by the Welsh government and we are awaiting a date when the inspector is holding his enquiry in to this. You will be aware that the Planning committee voted against the recommendation of the planning officer. when they made there decision, that is now being challenged as procedurally against a lot of Vale and Welsh Government policies.

My main concern is for the survival of the town of Llantwit Major and its small owner-managed shops, Post Office, chemists, charity shops, hairdressers, etc. And to some extent existing supermarkets. I am also concerned about maintaining green spaces and conservation areas as per the adopted Management Plan.

Building an ‘out of town’ supermarket will significantly and detrimentally affect footfall to the town centre — people who use the current town centre retail and hospitality opportunities simply will not visit as they will be parked away from them and will not return. The town will slowly die. Shops and other premises will be boarded up. Livelihoods will be lost.

Time-and-again we have seen many towns across Wales and the rest of the UK suffer. Simple desk-based research will reveal many.

Taking one town as an example — Chepstow. Tesco built a supermarket about 150 metres from Chepstow high street across a main road — not dissimilar to the situation in Llantwit Major / Llanmaes. Few visit Chepstow high street so the town itself is dying. Shops and other premises have closed, remaining empty for years — and at a time when retail outlets are increasingly under pressure from on-line shopping.

The council and planners must do everything it can to ensure that Llantwit Major remains a vibrant and varying environment for generations to come — providing employment and facilities for all to enjoy.

Building out-of-town will destroy the community of Llantwit Major for ever.

The plan requires a focus on small scale development everywhere combined with an appropriate increase in existing infrastructure.

This development is a major intrusion into the countryside. It merges Llantwit Major and Llanmaes in a way that is contradictory to the setting of the Green Wedge and the Llanmaes Conservation Area. It totally ignores environmental and traffic considerations. This ‘field by field’ development strategy is completely changing our towns, villages and countryside with reckless abandon at a time when we require food security and sustainable living.

I wish to oppose RLDP ID 379 Proposal Number SP12(2), on the grounds of the position and proposed access road to and from this Lidle development will be a major safety concern and danger both to the traffic through the village of Llanmaes and to the traffic on the Llantwit Major bypass B-4265. The current Llanmaes village traffic consists of mainly light vehicles and some HGV, whilst the B-4265 is increasingly HGV, supplying quarried materials to Aberthaw Cement works. Both roads are used extensively by cyclists particularly through the village since this is the recognised Vale cycleway to Ewenny. The single footpath through the village to the traffic light controlled crossings is more importantly the main route used by pedestrians both residents and visitors, including local school children going to and from the schools in Llantwit Major, plus many runners and walkers from the larger recreational areas. In addition there are stables and a riding school just before the exit of the village with the junction with the B-4265. I am of the opinion that as indicated on the Lidl proposal it will only be a matter of time before serious accidents, injuries and fatalities will occur.

Additionally I support Proposal Number ID 436 Number DNP2 (6), for the Conservation /Green Wedge to prevent the coalescence of Llanmaes and Llantwit Major and hence preserve the unique village amenity of the Llanmaes setting which is enjoyed by residents of both locations and the many walkers,runners and cyclists who daily frequent the village and adjoining countryside.

I would like to submit comments with regard to the consultation process on the Deposit (Draft) Plan for the RLDP.

Conservation/ Green Wedge. Site ID 436 Proposal Number DNP2(6)

All of the land between the village of Llanmaes and the Llantwit Major by-pass should be dedicated to a Green Wedge and thus exempted from any development. It is important to resist a coalescence between town and village. Any single development would undermine the principle of countryside protection and provide a precedent for further intrusions. The Llanmaes Conservation area should be protected. I understand that, at present, the site of the proposed retail development is unprotected, pending the outcome of the Inquiry. Granting permission for the store to be developed would undermine, render pointless the idea of coalescence-avoidance and countryside protection.

Retail - Land at Bridge House Farm Site ID 379 Proposal Number SP12(2)

The proposed Lidll development should be rejected for the following reasons:

It would introduce a coalescence of town and Village, an action that goes against present policy. The coalescing effect would be accentuated by the increased traffic, the increase in visitors and the negative effects such as littering that would accompany greater human presence.

It would be situated outside the RDLP's defined Strategic Growth Area.

It would mark a major intrusion into the countryside, visually and in terms of human movement.

It may be the case that, especially with prospect of 500 houses to be built near St Athan, that an additional supermarket might be necessary to meet the needs of the growing population. It doesn't make more sense to site the development in Green Wedge land, on a difficult corner, resulting in an inevitable increase in traffic, a loss of countryside and adding a visual plight to the local perspective.

While the owner of this land is obviously desperate to make a large profit, this should not be a reason or foundation for planning.
This site should be kept as a green wedge between Llantwit Major & Llanmaes

I have not been able to find this site in the candidate sites for information at to the proposal! It is also part of another allocation as a 'green wedge', which I am in total support of the proposed new area at Llantwit Major/Llanmaes LM1 much of this site is a low valley sloping down to Llanmaes brook which is a rich and diverse wildlife corridor proven during many surveys to contain Otters amongst many others. Any development in this area would cause a coalescence of the settlements.

I have not been able to find this site in the candidate sites for information at to the proposal! So assume the land owner is just desperate to make more money!! All I can say is it is also part of another allocation as a 'green wedge', which I am in total support of the proposed new area at Llantwit Major/Llanmaes LM1 much of this site is a low valley sloping down to Llanmaes brook which is a rich and diverse wildlife corridor proven during many surveys to contain Otters amongst many others. Any development in this area would cause a coalescence of the settlements, so would object to it being brought forward for housing or retail.

I object strongly to this proposal even though I understand it has now been called in by the Welsh Government. This 'urban creep' from Llantwit Major to Llanmaes should not be allowed due to the impact on the rural village and the Llanmaes Conservation Area. There would be significant disruption both during the build phase and once a store is operational. I do not believe that a significant number of shoppers would be walking to store as was alledged during the planning application. As far as I aaware no questions were put forward to the developers as to the percentage of shoppers that walk to a store in a similar existing location. The size of the car park would appear to suppot the theory that the majority of shoppers would drive. This additional vehicle activity coming off the Llantwit Major bypass and through Llanmaes itself would be detrimental to the Llanames Conservation area. This site is outside of the current LDP strategic growth area; the proposal is oncongruent with the green wedge proposed and it would represent a major intrusion into the countryside.

Site ID 436 Proposal Number DNP2(6).
I support the proposal that the land between the village of Llanmaes and the Llantwit Major bypass be designated as a Green Wedge and protected from development. This will avoid degradation of the countryside and help to preserve the village character of Llanmaes and its Conservation Area.

Site ID379 Proposal Number SP12(2)
I strongly oppose the proposal for a Lidl store on this site. The proposal is incongruous with the Green Wedge, would cause significant traffic congestion in the area. It would intrude on the countryside and also be detrimental to the Llanmaes Conservation Area.

I object because it does not fit in with the green wedge, it does not fit in a rural setting which is also a conservation area and it is outside the designated Strategic Growth area. There are far better options for the store within the RLDP without again starting to merge Llantwit Major and Llanmaes. It is even more anomalous given that with the new boundary changes Llanmaes is aligned with 3 other small rural villages and not the large town of Llantwit Major.

Retail - Land at Bridge Farm House site ID 379 Proposal Number SP12(2)

This proposed development, currently subject to a 'Call In' by the Welsh government is at clashing odds with the village and rural community setting of Llanmaes. The large store and supporting structures and developments would be significant intrusions into the countryside and would result in the physical and visual coalescence of a small rural village with the town of Llantwit Major. It represents a significant intrusion into the countryside, is at odds with the proposal of a green wedge to protect the rural setting of the village and would be clearly detrimental to the Llanmaes Conservation Area. It is outside the RLDP's Strategic Growth Area.

Retail - Land at Bridge House Farm Site ID 379 Proposal Number SP12(2)
In 2022 LIDL submitted a planning application for a supermarket on a parcel of land which had in the past been part of Bridge House Farm. The farmhiuse itself had stood vacant for a number of years until it was recently purchased and is being restored as a family home.
The application attracted a great dea of concern and objetions based on the fact that this development would result in both visual and physical coalescence between Llanmaes and Llantwit Major. Its entrance would be directly off the main access lane to Llanmaes, close to the main road junction,managed by traffic lights and pedestrian crossing.
The planners at the Vale of Glamorgan recommended refusal of this application based on the the fact that the site was outside the RLDP's defined strategic growth area and other associated concerns. However at the planning meeting, a small number of Councillors argued in favour of the development , based on the need for ' cheap food', and as such the application was approved. Since this meeting , the application has been referred to PEDW, and their initial assessment that an appeal should be heard, the application has been escalated to a full enquiry at great expense to all parties. This ' cheap food 'option not quite such a special offer after all.
In order to overcome the sitution that this overturning of the planners' recommendation has created, a simple remedy would be for the Welsh Government to offer an alternative site to LIDL . The nearby Northen Access road which was built at considerable cost to the taxpayer for commercial and residential development has easy access, pedestrian and cycle way, together with Bus stops with shelters , though no current bus route. A Win / Win solution.

Flood Alleviation
The need for a flood alleviation scheme for Llanmaes is acknowledged on several occasions in the Deposit Plan , thugh unfortunately there are no specific proposals. Having lived in Llanmaes for 7 years, I have whitnessed regular flooding from surface water over the wetter months when the village stream and drains are unable to cope with the volume of water. This water then overwhelms the sewage system in the village resulting in raw sewage flooding a number of homes as well as the village playing field . This flooding also results in road flooding in at least 3 places around the village lanes. This has become an annual occurance, and despite intervention from Welsh Water , the situation has not been resolved. A Welsh Government grant for an alleviation scheme has to date not been implimented and this scheme needs to be revived for the safety of the village residents.
I trust the comments I have made above will be considered with the seriousness they deserve. Our rural communities deserve to be maintained for the wellbeing not only of the residents, but the environment as a whole. Llanmaes enjoys an abundnace of wildlife which needs to be preserved . Seing a pheasant aongside a woodpigeon crossing the road restores one's faith in our surroundings. Alongside the acres of wheat and corn ,they need those green field sites as do we.

Hi
The land between the Village of Llanmaes and the Llantwit Major Bypass should be designated as Green Wedge , us villages don’t won’t Llantwit Major joining our village .
Protects the conservation area as previously mentioned by CADW .
and should restrict building work of any description as this should remain Greenfields for the beauty on views of our countryside and Historical Church .

I attended the consultation at CF61 about the RLDP and was advised to write to you with my comments.

I was pleased to see that in the RLDP that the fields adjacent to the LLantwit Major Bypass (site ID 436 Proposal number DN2(6) is designated as a Green wedge That application was made by our Community council and I fully support this proposal. the reasons they gave and I agree with this , are that protection of the open country side, protects against the coalescence of the town and our rural village, and protects the setting of the conservation area.



I see that the Planning policy has ring fenced the location of the proposed Lidl development (ID 379 Proposal number SP12(2) that is currently called in by the Welsh government . You will be aware that the Planning committee voted against the recommendation of the planning officer. when they made there decision, that is now being challenged as procedurally against a lot of Vale and Welsh Government policies. Looking forward to this site being included in the green wedge when this ridicules decision is over turned

I note with interest that several fields to the north east of Llanmaes have been designated as potential solar farm sites. These very fields are partially responsible for the flooding risk in Llanmaes. I suspect that solar farms would not help this problem.

The deferred flood alleviation scheme for Llanmaes affected our land in Siginstone lane. The RLDP mentions this scheme several times but no response has been forth coming. The village floods and for many many years The council and the Welsh government have put in funding in 2023, the Welsh government allocated £3,090,855 and in 24/25 £16,000 to solve this. Nothing has yet happened, indeed in the RLDP it is mentioned extensively that the village floods but we cannot see what specific directions have been made to resolve this problem. I urge the Vale council to liaise with the Welsh government about bringing this forward and mention in the deposit plan.
I appreciate that the costs of the plan increased substantially with the fuel costs of the Ukraine war and probable is increasing again. however parts of the plan , reprofiling the road and channeling flood water away from housing could have made a difference without the extensive earth works in fields referred too above. If my suggestion of extensive tree planting in above fields instead of bunds and channels had been implemented the risks may already be reduced.

DNP2(6)
SP12(2)
HG1(5)
HG2(2)
HG2(3)
Application 2025/01139/FUL

I have contacted the planning department previously on 13/1/2026
to ask for the highways traffic analysis on Picketston Lane CF624QP,
to date l have had no response.
With the above applications all having large traffic implications I feel that Picketston Lane being a single car lane come under review.
A traffic survey was not included in the application for the Aston Martin factory and subsequently the lane is subject to large amounts of traffic and regular lorries (lost )looking for industrial units and factories.
The Development Plan for the above will all generate a large amount of traffic of all types.
Please note that Picketston Lane has no footpath and has garden gates opening onto the highway and field/animal access along with driveways and also a national speed limit of 60MPH.
Please advise on the action to be taken.
Yours faithfully

Retail - Land at Bridge House Farm Site ID 379 Proposal Number SP12(2)
In 2022 LIDL submitted a planning application for a supermarket on a parcel of land which had in the past been part of Bridge House Farm. The farmhouse itself had stood vacant for a number of years until it was recently purchased and is being restored as a family home.
The application attracted a great deal of concern and objections based on the fact that this development would result in both visual and physical coalescence between Llanmaes and Llantwit Major. Its entrance would be directly off the main access lane to Llanmaes, close to the main road junction, managed by traffic lights and pedestrian crossing.
The planners at the Vale of Glamorgan recommended refusal of this application based on the the fact that the site was outside the RLDP's defined strategic growth area and other associated concerns. Some councillors chose to ignore the professional assessment of the VoG planning dept. and, without presenting reasoned argument, voted to approve the application.
The application has been referred to PEDW and will be subject to a full enquiry.
The enquiry will surely offer an opportunity to consider locations other the Bridge House Farm site. For example, there is land that borders the Northern Access Road. With the infrastructure for active travel, an existing roundabout for traffic management and closeness to the growing St Athan community this would seem to be a significantly more suitable location for a new retail development.

Retail - Land at Bridge Farm (Site ID379 Proposal Number SP12 (2)]
This Called In planning application by Lidl, having previously been rejected by VOG Planning Officers, should not have been approved and should be excluded from the RLDP. This site is outside the RDLP’s Strategic Growth Area, it will blatantly result in the coalescence of town and village and will form a wholly inappropriate intrusion into the Green Wedge and surrounding countryside.
It may be worth noting that time has moved on since this retail site was proposed. The RLDP highlights, as indicated below, the need for such an outlet not in the strikingly appropriate entrance to Llanmaes but in the Strategic Growth Area in which St Athan and Eglwys Brewis sit. This would better serve the requirements of the burgeoning population in this area

2. Retail - Land at Bridge House Farm Proposal Number SP12(2)
Llanmaes Community Council objects to this designation noting that it as a tentative designation pending a decision on a Called In Planning Application). Amongst the reasons for this objection include the resulting visual and physical coalescence of the Town of Llantwit Major and Village of Llanmaes. This site is also unsuitable for a large development on this scale as it is situated outside the RLDP’s defined Strategic Growth Area. The proposed supermarket will be highly incongruous within the setting of the proposed Green Wedge although we understand the reasons for this tentative allocation pending a decision to accept or refuse the Called In Planning Application. Finally, the large store and supporting structures would be major and significant intrusions into the countryside and would be clearly detrimental to the Llanmaes Conservation Area as detailed and specified in its adopted Management Plan.

Retail - Land at Bridge House Farm Site ID379 Proposal Number SP12(2).
I oppose this proposal for the following reasons:-
This site undermines the whole purpose of creating a green wedge as proposed in proposal number DNP2(6) and discussed above.
The proposal would result in coalescence between the town of Llantwit Major and the village of Llanmaes.
A supermarket building and the supporting infrastructure would be a significant negative impact on the Countryside.
Within the Conservation Management Plan it is stated ‘ Having designated the Conservation Area, the local authority has a statutory duty to ensure that the
character of the area be preserved or enhanced’ it further states under General Character and Plan Form ‘ There is a close relationship between buildings and surrounding countryside, with open fields providing a foil to the built
environment. The village is visible in its landscape setting from the by-pass. Intervening fields to the north of the by-pass form an important element of separation from modern housing estates located on the edge of Llantwit Major’

The proposal of a supermarket would be detrimental to a village and the infrastructure could not cope with increased traffic and heavy goods vehicles delivering to the supermarket.

I understand that the Draft Plan for the RLDP is now open for consultation. I would be grateful if my comments below would be included please.

Site ID 436 — Proposal Number DNP2(6)
Conservation / Green Wedge
I support the proposal for a green wedge conservation area protecting it from development.

Site ID 379 — Proposal Number SP12(2)
Retail — land at Bridge House Farm
My main concern is for the survival of the town of Llantwit Major and its small owner-managed shops, Post Office, chemists, charity shops, hairdressers, etc. And to some extent existing supermarkets. I am also concerned about maintaining green spaces and conservation areas as per the adopted Management Plan.
Building an ‘out of town’ supermarket will significantly and detrimentally affect footfall to the town centre — people who use the current town centre retail and hospitality opportunities simply will not visit as they will be parked away from them and will not return. The town will slowly die. Shops and other premises will be boarded up. Livelihoods will be lost.
Time-and-again we have seen many towns across Wales and the rest of the UK suffer. Simple desk-based research will reveal many.
Taking one town as an example — Chepstow. Tesco built a supermarket about 150 metres from Chepstow high street across a main road — not dissimilar to the situation in Llantwit Major / Llanmaes. Few now visit Chepstow high street so the town itself is dying. Shops and other premises have closed, remaining empty for years — and at a time when retail outlets are increasingly under pressure from on-line shopping.
The council and planners must do everything it can to ensure that Llantwit Major remains a vibrant and varying environment for generations to come — providing employment and facilities for all to enjoy.
Building out-of-town will destroy the community of Llantwit Major for ever.
Housing — land to the south of Millands Farm etc.

HG1(5), HG2(21) and HG2(3)
I am silent on this proposal

Vale of Glamorgan Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) 2022-2037
Thank you for consulting Welsh Water on the Vale of Glamorgan Deposit LDP, we appreciate and welcome the opportunity to engage in the Local Development Plan process.
Settlement boundaries
SSC1 – development within settlement boundaries
We welcome the requirement for new development to make efficient use of land and benefit from existing infrastructure provision or, where necessary, make provision for new infrastructure without any unacceptable effect on the natural environment (10).
Housing delivery
HG1 - housing allocations
A. Key sites (Policy HG1 KS1-5)
Our representation on the above sites are included in appendix 1.
B. Housing allocations (HG1 (1) to HG1 (9))
Our representation on the above sites are included in appendix 1.
C. Major landbank sites (HG2 (1) to HG2 (5))
These sites are existing commitments and Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has made representations on the planning applications submitted for these sites.
D. Housing led redevelopment opportunity (HG3 (1))
Our representation on the above site is included in appendix 1.
E. Rural affordable housing led sites (HG4 (1) to HG4(4))
Our representations on the above sites are included in appendix 1.
Our representations on the proposed allocated sites are included in appendix 1. Where planning applications have already been submitted and are pending a decision, we have made representations during the planning application consultation process regarding the capability of our infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development. If capacity does not exist within our infrastructure to accommodate the demands arising from a development site, the planning authority can make planning permission conditional upon there being adequate infrastructure available to cater for the development. A developer has a right to connect to our sewerage networks provided that a development site benefits from planning permission and there are no overriding planning conditions attached to the permission that controls the location or timing of that physical connection.
Gypsy and traveller accommodation (GT)
SP9 - gypsy and traveller site provision
Our representation on the site allocation is included in appendix 1.
Retail, commercial and service centres (RCS)
SP12 - retail floorspace provision
Our representations on the site allocations are included in appendix 2.
Community infrastructure (CI)
SP13 - community infrastructure and planning obligations
We support the provisions within the policy that the Council will secure new and improved community infrastructure where appropriate and within a timely manner, and the specific reference to utilities infrastructure. Where existing water and sewerage infrastructure requires reinforcement to serve a development it must be provided as part of the development to mitigate any adverse impacts. In circumstances where the development generates the need for infrastructure improvements that are not programmed for delivery by infrastructure providers then it must be funded by the development. Therefore, it is important for developers to engage early with relevant infrastructure providers, including the statutory sewerage and water undertaker. We welcome that the policy states that improved infrastructure must be undertaken in a timely manner. The delivery of reinforcements to the sewerage and water networks can controlled either through planning condition or a commercial agreement between the developer and Welsh Water.
Adequate potable water supply and drainage infrastructure is key to ensuring new development sites are sustainable, viable and deliverable. Hydraulic modelling assessments (HMA) may be required to determine an adequate point of connection to the water network and/or public sewers, and developers would be strongly recommended to fund investigations at pre-planning stage. Once commissioned and completed the HMA would identify suitable connection points and/or the necessary reinforcement works required to accommodate the development (for example upsizing sewers/water mains, additional storage tanks etc). In certain circumstances surface water removal could be an alternative option for allocations where foul sewer HMAs are being requested, and we would welcome early engagement with the site developer.
The reinforcements required to the network would be established by the HMA and costings would be provided at detailed design stage. The developer would need to fund a scheme by way of the requisition provisions of the Water Industry Act or via a legal/commercial agreement with Welsh Water.
Community facilities
CI3 – new community facilities
Our representations on the site allocations are included in appendix 2.
CI5 - cemetery and crematorium provision
Our representation on the site allocation is included in appendix 2.
Productive and enterprising places
SP14 - employment growth
Our representations on the site allocations are included in appendix 2.
We support sustainable economic development, however the LPA and potential developers should be aware that the obligations of a water and sewerage undertaker only extend to the ‘domestic’ supply part of an employment development (sinks, toilets, kitchen facilities etc). We are not obliged to provide potable water for use in any industrial process. Where an employment development results in higher demands of water supply and/or trade effluent discharge consent, under Section 118 of the Water Industry Act 1991, we recommend and welcome early consultation with developers. The capability of our infrastructure to service future employment allocations will be assessed when the potential demands arising from the developments are known.
EMP1 - employment regeneration opportunity areas
Our representations on the site allocations are included in appendix 2.
Climate change and transition towards net zero (CC)
SP16 - climate change mitigation and adaptation
We are supportive of this policy as the protection of water resources are key in ensuring we maintain a safe, healthy and reliable water supply. Incorporating water efficiency measures into developments will help minimise adverse impacts on localised and wider water supply networks including the quality of water resources.
We are also pleased that the policy includes particular emphasis on the importance of sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS), in conjunction with Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The tackling of surface water at source is a vital component of sustainable development and will mitigate against overloaded sewers which can ultimately lead to flooding. Disposing of surface water in a sustainable manner by ensuring that it does not communicate with the public sewerage network, including rainwater harvesting systems, protects the environment and assists in ensuring that there is sufficient capacity in the public sewerage network for foul-only flows from development sites.
SP19 – Green Infrastructure
In conjunction with SAB applications, under Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, we welcome provision within this policy to integrate green infrastructure with sustainable drainage systems.
Environmental protection
DNP5 – environmental protection
We welcome provisions within the policy to protect the natural environment from unacceptable impact from pollution of land, surface water, ground water and the air as well as flooding risks.
We hope that the above will assist you as you continue to progress the LDP. If you require any further information, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 917 2652 or forward.plans@dwrcymru.com.

Appendix 1 – HG1 Housing Allocations, SP9 Gypsy & Traveller Site
Our representations on site allocations are provided in the table below. The following caveats are applicable to all sites:
• In accordance with the Water Industry Act 1991, Welsh Water retains rights of access to its assets at all times. Where there are sewers and/or water mains crossing sites then protection measures in respect of these assets will be required, usually in the form of an easement width or in some instances a diversion.
• Where insufficient hydraulic capacity exists within the public sewerage network or water supply network to accommodate/serve a development site, hydraulic modelling assessments (HMA) may be required, and developers would be strongly recommended to fund investigations during pre-planning stages. The findings of the HMA will identify the extent of any reinforcement required to accommodate the development, which can be procured via the requisition provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991 (as amended). If the sewerage network system in the locality is currently at capacity, there may be an opportunity to overcome our concerns by delivering a surface water removal scheme. This approach would ensure that there is no net increase in volume of flows communicating with the public sewer network, and therefore no further detriment to the public sewer network downstream of the development.
• In some instances, off-site water mains or public sewers may be required to connect to a suitable point on the existing networks at the developers’ cost. We may seek to control points of connection to the public sewerage network via appropriate planning conditions. Where assets need to be laid over private land, developers will need to comply with the requisition provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991.
• If there is limited or no capacity available at a Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW), developers may need to fund a Developer Impact Assessment (DIA) to identify required reinforcement works. In these instances, a commercial agreement would be required between the developer and Welsh Water to deliver the necessary reinforcement works.
• Where capacity is currently available in the water supply network to accommodate development, we reserve the right to reassess our position at the time of the formal application for the provision of new water mains under Section 41 and Section 51 of the Water Industry Act (1991) to ensure there is sufficient capacity available to serve the development without causing detriment to existing customers’ supply as demands upon our water systems change continually.
• Please note the below comments are subject to change as the LDP progresses and/or as planning applications are submitted.

See tables in attachment for site specific comments.

Appendix 2 - Employment sites & other uses
Capacity comments for employment allocations can only be provided once the type of development and occupier/end-user of a site is known. Once requirements are confirmed, usually through the planning application process, further assessments will be undertaken. High-level comments are provided in the table below regarding any watermains/sewers crossing the proposed allocations, and the WwTW catchment that the sites are located within.
The following provisions are applicable to all allocated employment sites:
• the obligations of a water and sewerage undertaker extend to ‘domestic’ supplies only. We are not obliged to provide potable water for use in any industrial process. Where an employment allocation results in higher demands of water supply and/or trade effluent discharges we recommend and welcome early consultation with Welsh Water.
• The individual plots available for development can represent a substantial area of land for which the potential demands upon our assets are unknown at present. It is essential that we understand these demands to allow us to assess the impact on our assets. It may be necessary for water and/or sewerage hydraulic modelling assessments (HMAs) to be undertaken at the developer’s expense to establish where the proposed development could connect to the existing networks, and to identify any required infrastructure reinforcement works. Water mains and/or sewerage infrastructure required for any potential development site can be acquired through the requisition provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991 (as amended).
• In accordance with the Water Industry Act 1991, Welsh Water retains rights of access to its assets at all times. Where there are water mains and/or sewers crossing sites then protection measures in respect of these assets will be required, usually in the form of an easement width or in some instances a diversion of the asset.
• Where there is limited or no capacity at a WwTW, dependant on the scale and pace of development, developers may need to fund a Developer Impact Assessment (DIA) to identify required reinforcement works. In these instances, a commercial agreement would be required between the developer and Welsh Water to deliver the necessary reinforcements.
• If any development site gives rise to a new discharge (or alters an existing discharge) of trade effluent, directly or indirectly to the public sewerage system, then a Discharge Consent under Section 118 of the Water Industry Act 1991 is required from Welsh Water. Please note that the issuing of a discharge consent is independent of the planning process and a consent may be refused despite planning permission being granted.

See tables in attachments for site specific comments

Draft RCS2 sets out three criteria for new A1, A2 or A3 uses on new sites or existing retail areas which are as follows:
1. “It can be demonstrated that there is an additional need for the proposal which cannot be provided within an existing retail, commercial and service centre; and
2. The proposal would not either individually or cumulatively with other recent or proposed consented developments have an unacceptable impact on the trade, turnover, vitality and viability of the retail, commercial and service centres.
3. The proposal would serve local needs in a neighbourhood or rural village.”
We consider the policy should read as follows:
“1 It can be demonstrated that there is an additional need for the proposal which, when applying the sequential approach to locating development as outlined in national guidance, it has been demonstrated that the site is sequentially preferable; and
2 The proposal would not either individually or cumulatively with other recent or proposed consented developments have an unacceptable impact on the trade, turnover, vitality and viability of the retail, commercial and service centres.
3 Proposals serving only local needs should be of a scale and type which does not undermine the vibrancy, attractiveness and viability of neighbourhood centres.”

The settlement boundary, defined by Policy SP2, excludes allocation site SP12 ‘Land at Bridge House Farm, Llanmaes, Llantwit Major’ which is for a retail foodstore. Instead, the draft allocation abuts, but lies outside, the settlement boundary as currently drawn. Although draft Policy SP3 states that “Areas outside settlement boundaries that are not allocated or protected for a specific use will be defined as countryside we consider the settlement boundary must be extended at this location to include the allocation. Its exclusion is illogical and would fail to reflect the ‘on the ground’ position when this allocation is delivered. Moreover, its exclusion could confuse and may constrain any future minor development changes at the site (e.g. those needed to meet operational needs the subject of any planning application).
The draft proposals map shows the allocation as a dot which does not cover the full extent of the allocation. See below:
See plan in attachment
By not including the extent of the site/allocation within the defined settlement boundary, the draft plan fails to recognise the allocation will form an important part of the settlement, the delivery of which is crucial to meeting identified needs. Accordingly, we believe this fails Test 2 (Is the plan appropriate?), and it may fail Test 3 (Will the plan deliver) as its exclusion from the boundary may unduly impact the future site operation.

Lidl Great Britain Ltd objects to draft policy SP11 (Retail, commercial and service centre hierarchy) as worded as it fails to meet Test 2 (Is the plan appropriate?). Draft Policy SP11 sets out the proposed retail hierarchy (See extract below), but it does not accord with the settlement hierarchy as set out in draft Policy SP2 and it is not justified.
The adopted LDP Settlement Hierarchy lists:
Key Settlement: Barry
Service Centre Settlements: Cowbridge, Llantwit Major and Penarth
The adopted LDP Retail hierarchy lists:
Town centres: Barry
District centres: Barry (high street/broad street), Cowbridge, Llantwit Major, Penarth
Draft SP2 of the Deposit Plan identifies Cowbridge, Llantwit Major and Penarth as Service Centre Settlements in the Settlement Hierarchy.
However, draft SP11 lists a retail hierarchy as follows:
Town Centres – Barry (Holton Rd), Penarth, Cowbridge
District Centres – Barry (High Street), Llantwit Major
It is unexplained and unjustified that the SP11 retail hierarchy upgrades Cowbridge to Town Centre status, while Llantwit Major and Barry High Street remain District Centres.
The Deposit Plan includes two retail allocations, neither are intended to directly serve Penarth or Cowbridge. Cowbridge is not a focus for growth. It is therefore unjustified that Llantwit Major, which is served by a train station, is a settlement roughly twice the size of Cowbridge (by population) and is a manifestly more sustainable location and more appropriate focus for growth, is proposed to rank below Cowbridge in the retail hierarchy. Barry, Penarth and Llantwit Major should rank as Town Centres as the most sustainable locations for growth.
Penarth is an accessible settlement and an appropriate focus for growth. Indeed, the Council’s BP13 (Retail and Commercial Leisure Study (June 2023)) recommends a medium to large supermarket to serve Penarth (Zone 5) but the Deposit Plan is absent of any food retail allocation for Penarth/Llandough. In addition to Llantwit Major and St Athan (Deposit Policy SP12) Penarth should be a focus for additional convenience provision over the plan period.

SP12 – RETAIL FLOORSPACE PROVISION
Lidl Great Britain Ltd firmly supports the allocation within draft Policy SP12 (Retail Floorspace Provision) for 1,251sqm of convenience floorspace at Land at Bridge House Farm, Llanmaes, Llantwit Major. This allocation is needed to ensure the plan is sound, by addressing unmet need at Llantwit Major which is a Service Centre and focus for growth. This should be made clear in the reasoned justification.
In respect to Penarth, Policy SP12, together with supporting paragraphs 6.208–6.210, do not, however, adequately reflect the findings of the Council’s Retail & Leisure Study (BP13). Policy SP12 should also plan positively for the identified convenience retail needs within Zone 5 (Penarth/ Llandough). BP13 confirms that Penarth District Centre is not served by a medium to larger supermarket (para. 9.2). The BP13 Study finds quantitative and qualitative capacity for a medium to larger supermarket by 2036 in Penarth (paras. 9.23, 12.24).
It finds overall quantitative convenience capacity of up to c.5,862sqm net floorspace (assuming deep discounter operators). In qualitative terms the following Centres have been identified in potential need for a medium to larger supermarket: Barry Holton Road town centre; Penarth district centre and Llantwit Major district centre. Quantitative and qualitative need is identified.
Despite the evidence of unmet need, the Deposit LDP Policy SP12 allocates only two sites for convenience retail totalling c. 3,109sqm net; one site at Llanwit Major and a second site at St Athan. This is below the overall (up to 4,282–5,862sqm net) requirement identified in BP13. The allocation of land at Llantwit Major aligns with the evidence base, has been thoroughly tested at application stage and this is fully supported.
Policy SP12 is silent on the need for additional floorspace at Penarth/Llandough (Zone 5) and as such does not reflect the evidence base findings and address identified need in Penarth, with a ‘residual’ quantitative capacity of c.1,173–2,753sqm net unmet/unallocated. We note Policy SP12 states that any additional convenience and comparison retail floorspace beyond that provided by the identified sites should be directed towards the town and district centres outlined in Policy SP11. However, this merely reflects national guidance in respect to directing growth to town/district centres (i.e. applying a sequential approach). The Policy should go further and seek to allocate the residual unmet need to Penarth/ Llandough. We note the BP13 is silent on additional need at St Athan.
Planning Policy Wales (PPW) 12 requires LPAs to identify the appropriate form, scale and location to meet retail needs (para. 4.3.8) and emphasises ensuring communities have access to adequate retail provision (para. 4.3.13). PPW therefore places a duty on LPAs to plan positively for evidenced retail needs. In respect to Penarth/Llandough Policy SP12 should seek to address this requirement.
Under PPW and TAN4, LPAs must apply the sequential test, directing new retail development to locations that are:
• In-centre,
• Edge-of-centre, and only then,
• Out-of-centre locations that are accessible and well-connected to the catchment.
Penarth Centre is physically constrained. In the absence of any in-centre or edge-of-centre sites capable of accommodating a medium/larger supermarket, the next sequentially preferable option is the most accessible, well-connected site within the same catchment, capable of meeting identified need and reducing expenditure leakage.
Policy SP12 should plan positively for needs in Zone 5 (Penarth/Llandough) and include provision for a medium to large convenience foodstore in Zone 5 in accordance with BP13.
Enclosed with this representation is a separate representation (Under 8. New site submission) promoting a site for food retail development to meet identified needs within the Zone 5 Penarth/Llandough catchment. The site is considered accessible and sequentially preferable to meeting identified needs in Penarth.
The policy should be clear that identified need should be delivered in accordance with the sequential approach as set out in national guidance. As set out in Policy SP12 any additional convenience and comparison retail floorspace beyond that provided by identified sites should be directed towards the town and district centres in accordance with the sequential approach. We support that the inclusion of retail floorspace as part of a mix of uses on allocated sites will also be supported.

POLICY DNP2 – GREEN WEDGES
Lidl objects to the inclusion of land at Penlan Road, Llandough (see Site Location Plan, drawing no. 3744 F420) within the Green Wedge designation under Policy DNP2. The site forms a distinct and enclosed parcel of land on the north-eastern edge of the designated Green Wedge, and its physical characteristics demonstrate that it does not serve the strategic purposes of the wider designation.
The northern and western boundaries are formed by Llandough Hospital, including the hospital access road and surface car parking, which clearly separate the site from the wider Green Wedge. The southern boundary is defined by residential properties along Corbett Road and the Merrier Harrier public house. The south-western and western boundaries are formed by further residential properties within Llandough. As such, built development extends beyond the site in multiple directions, meaning it does not contribute to the open land between settlements that Green Wedges are intended to protect.
The site is physically and visually contained with strong, defensible boundaries. Its close association with existing
built form means that it does not exhibit the level of openness required for Green Wedge designation under PPW or BP27. BP27 requires Green Wedge boundaries to include only land that must remain open in the long term. When assessed against the four-stage SE Wales Green Wedge methodology, the site performs weakly. In terms of
openness (Stage A), the site has low perceived openness as it is enclosed by development. Under development
pressure (Stage B), the influence of surrounding built form means the site is already urban in character. In relation
to Green Wedge purposes (Stage C), the site does not materially contribute to preventing coalescence, safeguarding open countryside, or protecting the setting of an urban area. The conclusion (Stage D) is therefore that the site’s inclusion within the Green Wedge is anomalous.
Recent decisions in the emerging RLDP, such as the allocation of HG1 KS2, demonstrate that selective Green Wedge boundary amendments are acceptable where supported by evidence. Not all areas within the current designation are equally sensitive, and the site represents one of the least sensitive parts.
The Council’s own evidence further supports the suitability of the land for development. The site does not lie within
the Special Landscape Area that covers much of the remaining Green Wedge, highlighting its lower landscape
sensitivity. The Candidate Site Assessment (BP18a examined the wider parcel (Site ID 400) for housing and concluded that it would form a natural extension to the Llandough settlement boundary. It noted that the land would represent an incursion only if less sensitive sites could not be delivered and discounted the site solely because housing need had been met elsewhere, not due to landscape or Green Wedge harm. This confirms the Council recognises the land is capable of development. The same land can therefore appropriately meet other evidenced needs, including retail provision.
In separate representations, Lidl is promoting land to the south of Llandough Hospital via ‘RDLP New site
submissions’. It is considered that the site can be developed in a low-impact, landscape-led and sensitively designed manner that respects its transitional position between the urban edge and the wider Green Wedge. A modest single storey medium sized foodstore delivers a built form that can sit comfortably below surrounding tree lines and hospital structures. A comprehensive landscape strategy, including reinforced boundary planting, native woodland edge enhancement, and carefully designed building can soften building edges, strengthen the site’s defensible boundaries, and integrate the scheme with its surroundings. The development would therefore appear as an infill of the existing urban area, rather than any intrusion into the open countryside, and can be designed to maintain the wider Green Wedge’s openness and character by delivering a strong defensible physical boundary which prevents any further development beyond the site.
As set out in separate representations the Council’s Retail and Leisure Study (BP13) identifies a clear quantitative
and qualitative need for a medium to larger supermarket within Zone 5, alongside notable levels of convenience
expenditure leakage to Zone 3 (Cardiff). The promoted site is well positioned to intercept this leakage, meet the
identified convenience floorspace requirement, and provide improved local convenience retail provision for
Llandough/Penarth. There is, therefore, a clear needs-based justification for release of this parcel of land from the Green Wedge designation.
The Green Wedge boundary should be amended at this location to remove the promoted site from Policy DNP2
(Green Wedge designation) and from the Proposals Map. In parallel, the settlement boundary defined by Policy SP2
should be realigned to include the promoted site, reflecting the site’s physical relationship with existing
development, its defensible boundaries, and its suitability to meet an evidenced strategic retail need.

The Policy text should be changed as follows:
“Proposals involving the change of use at ground floor level uses from A1 retail use within Service Centres will permitted where the proposal would:…”
The Policy RCS1 (Resilient retail, commercial and service centres) supporting text adds new policy requirements which are not within the draft policy. Paragraph 6.214 states that:
“Changes of use class in Retail, Commercial and Service Centres must be justified by evidence that the property has been affected by a sustained period of long-term vacancy and that proactive marketing has been undertaken by a property agent for a minimum of 12 months in an effort to secure tenants. The marketing report should include:
• Details of the existing use or previous use if vacant;
• The length of time the unit has been vacant, if applicable;
• The type of use which the unit has been marketed for, what the marketing strategy involved and its duration;
• The amount of interest in the unit during the marketing period – this should detail the number of queries, the type of uses sought, and if known, the reason for not pursuing any initial enquiries.”
However, nowhere in the draft policy wording does it explicitly state to include 12 months of marketing activity. The draft supporting text reads as though this is a policy requirement, rather than supportive guidance. This is contrary to caselaw which confirms that supporting text cannot be used to expand the policy beyond its wording (R (Cherkley Campaign Ltd) v Mole Valley District Council). A proposal could meet the requirements of the criteria sets out in draft policy RCS1 without being marketed for a minimum of 12 months. If the Plan is adopted as currently set out, there is a risk of internal inconsistency between policy RSC1 and the supporting text. Accordingly, this would fail Test 2 (Is the plan appropriate?) as it is not coherent or consistent.
We also have concerns with criterion 5 which states to “Avoid an over-concentration of non-retail uses that would undermine the retail function of the centre”. This is because ‘over-concentration’ has not been defined within the draft policy. This contrasts with draft policy RCS3 which includes a definition of what an over-concentration of hot food takeaways would be. Without a definition of what an over-concentration of non-retail uses is, the draft policy will remain and lack clarity. Additionally, without a definition, the draft policy may fail Tests 2 and 3 as it is currently unclear (Test 2: Is the plan appropriate?) and cannot be effective (Test 3: Will the plan deliver?).

At present, we consider the Deposit Plan inadequately supports the Welsh language. Although the Welsh Language is included within Objective 6 (Embracing Culture and Heritage), the Deposit Plan does not contain a policy which seeks to promote the Welsh language, nor is the promotion of the Welsh language referenced in other Deposit Plan policies where this may be appropriate. Without a clear policy, applicants do not need to explicitly consider impact on the Welsh language so the role of the RLDP will be limited.
Local Development Plans should accord with national policy and guidance. For instance, the supporting text to Policy 1 of Future Wales states that “Key issues, including … the Welsh language, are core elements of policy 1 and are common threads underpinning all Future Wales policies.” However, we believe that the Welsh language is not currently underpinning the policies within the Deposit Plan.
Additionally, paragraph 3.25 of PPW states that “The Welsh language is part of the social and cultural fabric and its future well being will depend upon a wide range of factors, particularly education, demographic change, community activities and a sound economic base to maintain thriving sustainable communities and places. The land use planning system should take account of the conditions which are essential to the Welsh language and in so doing contribute to its, use and the Thriving Welsh Language well being goal.” Paragraph 3.29 goes on to suggest language impact assessments are required for “large developments not allocated in a development plan which are proposed in areas of particular sensitivity or importance for the language” with these areas defined in the LDP. In this instance, PPW sets out guidance for developers which is not present in the Deposit Plan.
The Vale of Glamorgan Council commissioned AECOM to produce the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) for the Replacement Local Development Plan (November 2025). Paragraph 9.5.9 recommends including a specific policy that supports and protects the Welsh language within the Deposit Plan. This contrasts with the Welsh Language (November 2025) Background paper, produced by the VoGC, which concludes that a specific Welsh Language policy is not warranted, albeit it does acknowledge the Plan’s statutory duty to consider the Welsh language and embed relevant provisions within broader thematic policies. However, this is currently lacking as the Deposit Plan does not reference the Welsh language within other policies. Although the Background Paper considers that the RLDP is “unlikely to adversely affect the existing patterns of Welsh language use within the Vale of Glamorgan”, the Plan should seek to promote the Welsh language.
Developers should be encouraged to promote the Welsh language where this may be reasonable and appropriate e.g. bilingual signage and announcements. Lidl actively promotes the Welsh language through their business. The Deposit Plan should be amended to strengthen the importance of the Welsh language, helping to meet Objective 6 over the RLDP period. Overall, without clear Welsh Language policy promotion, the Deposit Plan cannot positively impact the Welsh language. The Deposit Plan needs to go further.

This shows how the approval of the Lidl in Llanmaes contravenes your own principles and it is out of town A1 food store. I fully support this proposal and wish that the members of the planning committee were aware of their own policies before their made such an horrendous decision to approve the planning application.