All the sites too much traffic no room in school or doctors

I'm objecting to all the site, as too much traffic it's awful as it is now, it will be impossible to move on the roads. Schools full, Doctors full, Roads already in a mess. A big NO

A plan should have Partnership working with Health, Transport for Wales, Bus Companies at it's core rather than just saying it isn't our responsibility.

There are far too many sites/houses being proposed. Without ensuring road network, medical services, transport, schools are improved it is a recipe for disaster and gridlock

Remove any allocated sites outside of key or primary service settlements

Ks3 KS4 and KS5 and in primary settlements which does not fit with the previous statement ps that they will be focused on key settlement or primary service settlemnts.

Review of the overall allocation of houses, for actual need, location and infrastructure should be made. The train station at St Athan even if delivered will not stop cars as the time to Cardiff on train is too long! Green space and peoples wellbeing must be considered on any designs and planning! Planning is the process of thinking regarding the activities required to achieve a desired goal. Planning is based on foresight, the fundamental capacity for mental time travel. Some researchers regard the evolution of forethought - the capacity to think ahead! Not just fill up a green field with houses today - think for tomorrow! I do not see this forethought in the development plan.

I believe this LDP is unsound as it appears to have just placed major developments of houses were land was put forward without and sustainable forward thinking 'plan'. In particular St Athan is going to be significantly impacted, the growth in this Vale 'Village' means it is already larger than Cowbridge Town, without the transport links and facilities. There is no guarantee people will choose to live and work close by if jobs did materialise. Therefore the impact of 2 + cars per additional house should be considered at Barry as well as the close by junctions.

The proposed locations do not align with the stated policy. The locations need to be either reconsidered with more importance placed on access to infrastructure, facilities and public transport or ideally the infrastructure and public transport in the Vale needs to be considerably improved before further development and major population growth occurs.

The proposed locations of the vast majority of new developments do not align with reducing the need to travel. Many locations are served by inadequete infrastructure and public transport links. Many of the proposed locations are not served by sufficient access to a major supermarket, healthcare facility or school. Likewise public transport is not adequate already in the locations proposed. One train per hour, one bus per hour, 100 parking spaces or less at train stations will not provide the opportunity for people to switch to transport modes other than private vehicles.

Prior to any housing developments being approved the council should ensure public transport is sufficient in advance of planned population growth. Train frequencies outside of Barry need to increase substantially. Likewise bus frequencies need to increase substantially and bus routes need to be expanded. Parking at train stations also needs to be expanded. At present even if I wanted to travel into Cardiff from my home in Barry by public transport for example it is impractical and this is why the service is under utilised. Public transport improvements need to come before new development and population growth and show a sustained reliable period of operation with excess capacity before developments are approved.

The locations proposed are not well served by rail or bus services. One train per hour in the case of locations outside Barry, approx 100 parking spaces or less at train stations and one bus or none per hour in many locations are not adequate to persuade people to change their main mode of transport from private vehicles.

The sites proposed for many new developments such as North West Barry are badly planned. New sites should be proposed closer to existing healthcare facilities and in areas liable to cause less reliance on private vehicles and associated decreases in air quality. New healthcare capacity should be provided well in advance of new developments entering the LDP.

The healthcare facilities in many areas of the Vale are already limited with unacceptable travel distances required to facilities and unacceptable wait times. Increased road congestion from new developments in badly situated sites will also increase air quality problems leading to further declines in resident health.

Allocate areas along road margins for development in preference to enlarging towns.

Deveopment of countryside along main road margins is preferable to making towns even larger.

These representations are prepared on behalf of National Grid Electricity Distribution Plc (NGED)
(formerly Western Power Distribution Plc), in response to the Vale of Glamorgan Local Development
Plan Deposit Draft, which is subject to public consultation.
Introduction
NGED owns and is responsible for electrical distribution apparatus within the area subject to this Local
Plan and is the licensed network operator with statutory duties and powers including compulsory
purchase powers.
In preparing development plans, local planning authorities (LPA) have a duty to safeguard the
operation of National Grid’s infrastructure to enable NGED to supply electricity in the most efficient
and cost-effective manner. In the majority of cases this will involve retention of the existing
infrastructure in situ, including overhead power lines and pylons.
Towards Net Zero
The Government is committed to achieve net zero by 2050. The shift towards electricity to heat our
homes and power our cars is critical to achieving this goal and the National Grid is playing a crucial
role in meeting this commitment by increasing capacity to meet the growing demand for electricity.
Our network investment planning process is the strategic approach we are taking to investing in our
network, ensuring that it can meet future demand in the right place, at the right time while ensuring
good value for money for customers.

To ensure that we can provide the network you need from us, your projects need to be included in
our Distribution Future Energy Scenarios (DFES). We use this information to predict the future
requirements on our network and decide when and where to invest in the network. This ensures that
our strategic network planning provides sufficient network capacity as the country transitions to net
zero.
We ask Local Authorities about their future plans, including information in your Local Plan annually
(normally in May - July). This will inform our future forecasts down to Electricity Supply Area level
ensuring we can connect new developments in 5 years and beyond.
NGED strongly recommends that local planning authorities feed into the DFES process on an annual
basis, to ensure they have your most current growth plans and ambitions.

The DFES informs planning of the network beyond 3 to 5 years into the future (post 2030). If you have
a development that needs a connection sooner, please contact NGED as soon as possible to have a
discussion with them about securing a connection. A ‘connections surgery’ can be arranged to discuss
any developments you would like to connect.
NGED cannot guarantee capacity until a formal connection offer has been requested, issued and
accepted.

132kV Overhead Lines
Where diversion and/or undergrounding of overhead lines is deemed necessary to enable the
development of a proposed allocation, lower voltage lines (up to 33kV) supported by wooden poles
can normally be undergrounded or diverted without significant concern. However, where land
allocations affect lines supported by steel lattice towers, particularly 132kV, the LPA are advised to
engage with NGED at the earliest opportunity in the plan-making process to confirm:
a) whether the lines can be accommodated within the development site; or
b) the viability and feasibility of diverting and/or undergrounding overhead lines.
This includes, where relevant, ensuring the agreement of third party landowners to the provision of
new infrastructure on their land and subsequent agreement between the LPA and NGED to
appropriate wording within the allocation policy.
In allocating land affected by high voltage power lines, the LPA should take into account the additional
costs involved in their diversion and/or undergrounding, the need for additional new infrastructure
and its visual impact, including larger terminal towers at either end of an undergrounded line, and the
potential impact on timescales for delivery of the development.

LPAs should also be aware that where high voltage electricity lines are undergrounded National Grid
is unable to support any development which could affect the operation of or obstruct the line,
including buildings, tree planting, public highway or attenuation features. A 10m wide corridor of
open ground is required above the undergrounded cables. Accordingly, the retention of overhead
lines in situ provides greater opportunities to deliver an efficient and effective masterplan, with the
potential to deliver a range of uses beneath the lines including green infrastructure, public highway,
drainage features and some biodiversity net gain measures.
NGED cannot be held accountable for the absence of a planned solution for a proposed diversion route
or undergrounding of an overhead power line or any subsequent reduction in the allocation site’s
development capacity, where the LPA and/or developer/landowner has not agreed proposals with
NGED prior to the adoption of the Local Plan.
Planning for reinforcement
Reinforcement planning is crucial for future growth. As NGED's Network Development Plans identify
the need for new substations and other assets to meet future electricity demands, LPAs should
collaborate with NGED on suitable locations. Land for these substations should be safeguarded
through the Local Plan, with substation delivery timescales factoring into the LPA's housing trajectory.
NGED cannot comment on network capacity for developments beyond five years. To ensure future
capacity, LPAs must engage in the Distributed Future Energy Scenarios (DFES) process and review
Network Development Plans to confirm their projected growth is included in NGED's plans.
Summary
NGED does not object to the allocation of land upon which its infrastructure is present, however, in
the context of the Government’s commitment to reach Net Zero by 2050 and the role which National
Grid has to play in delivering significant new infrastructure to meet existing and future energy
demands, all reasonable efforts should be made by LPAs and developers to safeguard to retain the
existing grid infrastructure and the associated embodied carbon.
In preparing Local Plans, LPAs should take the following steps:
1. Ensure your LPA is responding annually to our Distribution Future Energy Scenario
questionnaire that is sent out via Regen.
2. For developments that require a connection to the distribution network within the next 5
years, contact NGED as early as possible to arrange a Connections Surgery. The surgery will
help you understand the timescales and costs associated with delivering the planned
development. .
3. Where land is allocated, priority should be given to retention of high voltage overhead lines
wherever possible, with design principles included within the allocation policy to safeguard
the retained lines and incorporate sensitively into the development, whilst achieving high
standards of design and an efficient use of land.
4. Where necessary, early engagement with NGED to establish whether its infrastructure can be
accommodated within the development or whether diversion/undergrounding is feasible;
5. Where diversion/undergrounding is required, ongoing dialogue with NGED to agree a
potential route prior to adoption of the Local Plan, as outlined above.
6. For strategic allocations and sites significantly affected by overhead lines (e.g. with 5 or more
pylons on site), NGED recommends early masterplanning and the preparation of
Supplementary Planning Documents to demonstrate site capacity and establish principles for
the retention/diversion or undergrounding of overhead lines and safeguarding of land to
accommodate new sub-stations, where necessary, with the agreement of NGED.
NGED has no site specific comments on the proposed allocations within the Deposit Draft Plan.
I trust this is useful in the preparation of the Local Plan. Should Officers have any queries regarding
the above, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Housing — land to the south of Millands Farm etc.
HG1(5), HG2(21) and HG2(3)

I am silent on this proposal

We therefore request that Land at Primrose Hill (Candidate Site ID: 455) is allocated for housing development in Policy HG1. The site is located in one of the most sustainable settlements in the settlement hierarchy, Cowbridge, which is also at the top of the retail, commercial and service centre hierarchy in Policy SP11. Cowbridge has a serious lack of allocated land for housing development and major land bank sites in the RLDP as drafted.

In order for Cowbridge to match its status in the hierarchies of Policy SP2 and SP11, the RLDP needs to include Land at Primrose Hill for allocation would deliver up to 220 homes during the RLDP period. Land at Primrose Hill is within easy reach of the town centre and in close proximity to excellent commercial, educational, community and recreational facilities and services. The site is well positioned to be accessed via the local highway network, which links to both Cardiff, Penarth and Bridgend via regular bus services from bus stops adjacent to the site.

The Service Centre Settlement of Cowbridge comprises a sustainable self-contained settlement with regards to access to services such as primary and secondary schools, shops including supermarkets, medical services at the GP surgery and pharmacy, sports activities including a leisure centre, a library and places of worship. Cowbridge has excellent connections to the A48 with regular bus services providing access to Cardiff, Porthcawl and Llantwit Major.

The Service Centre Settlements are the middle-tier in Policy SP2 and as well as Cowbridge, include Llantwit Major and Penarth. The Key Settlement of Barry being the top-tier and the Primary Settlements of Rhoose, St Athan, Sully, Llandough (Penarth) and Dinas Powys being categorised as the lower-tier, below Cowbridge.

Policy HG1 sets out the housing allocations to meet the identified housing requirement set out in Policy SP6. HG1 allocates sites for a total of 3,398 dwellings across Key Sites and Housing Allocations. Of the 3,398 units:

• Key Settlement (tier 1) = 686 (20.2%)

• Service Centres (tier 2) = 340 (10%)

• Primary Settlements (tier 3) = 2,372 (69.8%)

It is clear that the allocations in Policy HG1 do not reflect the proposed settlement hierarchy with an under representation of allocations in the second tier Service Centre Settlements. There are only two allocations in Service Centre Settlements: HG1(5) at Llantwit Major for 235 units and HG1(6) at Cowbridge for 105 units.

A review by settlement further highlights the under provision of allocations and major land bank sites at Cowbridge compared to other higher order settlements:

Tier 1 Barry – 686

Tier 2 Cowbridge – 105
Llantwit Major – 475
Penarth – 576

Tier 3 Rhoose – 859
St Athan – 1,263
Sully – 175
Llandough – 133
Dinas Powys – 250

It is evident that there are fewer allocations made to Cowbridge than any other higher order settlement and significantly less than many of the tier 3 settlements. A review of the Housing Land Supply document BP9A highlights that there is only planning permission for 203 dwellings in Cowbridge that were not started as of April 2025. The case cannot be made that there is an existing unimplemented land bank to meet the needs of this settlement.

Furthermore, Paragraph 3.5 of the Local Housing Market Assessment (2023) sets out that “The 2021 LHMA indicated that the existing backlog of need is most acute from people on the housing waiting list within Barry, Penarth/Llandough, Llantwit Major, Cowbridge, Dinas Powys, Rhoose, Wenvoe and St Athan although there are a significant number of people on the waiting list across all areas of the Vale.”

Having only one allocation, and no major land bank sites at Cowbridge does not reflect the importance of Cowbridge as a Service Centre Settlement. The failure to make significant new allocations in this Tier 2 settlement undermines the ability of this important settlement to meet its housing needs including affordable needs.

Policy HG1 apportions only 105 dwellings (or only 1.3% of the housing requirement as set out in Policy SP1) to one of only three second tier settlements. Thus, the number of units allocated to Cowbridge does not align with the Settlement Hierarchy presented in Policy SP2. As explained in our representations to Policy SP1 and SP6 above, a more ambitious housing requirement is needed in the VoG.

It is therefore evident that in order for the RLDP to meet the third test of soundness (Will the Plan deliver?), Cowbridge needs additional housing allocations to ensure that housing is delivered at a scale commensurate to the settlement hierarchy in Policy SP2 and to achieve the RLDP Growth Strategy which commits to housing growth that accords with the Vale’s position within the Cardiff Capital Region.

Land at Primrose Hill (with a capacity of up to 220 dwellings) is available, with limited physical and environmental constraints, to assist with the much-needed increased delivery of housing at Cowbridge during this RLDP period.

Housing - Land to the South of Millands Farm [Site ID 352 Proposal Number HG1 (5)], Land between the Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road [Site A Proposal Number H2 (2)] and Land between the Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road [Site B Proposal Number H2 (3)]
Although the proposed sites for housing will not fall within the Llanmaes boundary, I must make comment on my serious concerns regarding the apparent lack of provision of infrastructure for these developments. Where is the new Health Centre, additional Primary and Secondary schools (extending St Athan Primary would not be adequate for children from potentially 600 households), Sport and Leisure facilities? These essential, basic requirements cannot be met by existing, already stretched services in Llantwit Major alone

I oppose the Vale of Glamorgan Council Replacement Local Redevelopment Plan (RLDP), in particular the Weycock Cross, Barry development for the following reasons:

1. The consultation form and accompanying literature/reports is excessively lengthy, making it difficult for many individuals, especially those with health challenges and older adults, to engage effectively. This renders the consultation process inequitable.
2. While I agree that personal details of those commenting should be shared with relevant Council members, these should not be made public, I question the legality of this. The current policy discourages participation due to fears of backlash, undermining fairness.
3. Neither I nor several other residents were informed about the public consultation event at Barry Memo Arts Centre on Monday, 2nd February, which is unfair.
4. The term "unit" is undefined in the documents. Does it refer to an entire block of flats/apartments or a single flat within a block? Clarification is needed on the number of units/blocks and flats/apartments per block planned for the Weycock Cross, Barry and other sites.
5. The RLDP specifies a minimum of 30% affordable housing for the proposed Weycock Cross, Barry site which is substantial. However, the maximum percentage is not stated. What is the proposed maximum amount?
6. How much of the affordable housing will be acquired by the council or private entities and converted into social housing?
7. Regarding social housing occupancy - with VOG Council being a "county of sanctuary" and the Government's "Operation Scatter" initiative, how many individuals with illegal or uncertain immigration status or with indefinite leave to remain, will reside in Weycock Cross, Barry? This could significantly impact the area's culture.
8. How many Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMOs) will be established at Weycock Cross, Barry? What is the maximum number of occupants per HMO? This also relates back to point 7.
9. Traffic congestion is already a significant issue around Weycock Cross, Barry. Additional housing developments at Weycock Cross, Barry and surrounding areas (e.g. Rhoose, Llantwit Major, St Athan, etc.) will exacerbate this, increasing air pollution and affecting access to Cardiff Airport and access for emergency services.
10. Flooding is a serious concern. Areas like Porthkerry Park and the Millwood already experience significant flooding, which development at Weycock Cross would worsen, to potentially catastrophic levels.
11. Illegal sewage dumping is likely to increase with new developments, compounding environmental and health issues.
12. The loss of green spaces and wildlife habitats is troubling, especially given the ongoing ash dieback affecting Porthkerry Park and surrounding areas. Traffic has also resulted in otter fatalities.
13. According to the Council's report, there are insufficient primary school places to accommodate new housing developments.
14. Health and well-being facilities, such as GP surgeries, are inadequate to support additional residents, as noted in the Council's report.
15. Public transport is insufficient. The nearest train station, Barry, is a considerable distance away and requires an uphill walk. Bus services are infrequent, making car travel necessary. Walking to and from the town center is impractical.
16. Concerns exist regarding the use of Persimmon for this development, given past issues with fire regulation compliance at the White Farm, Barry development and legal action required to enforce infrastructure commitments at both the White Farm and the Barry Waterfront developments. What guarantees will the Council put in place to ensure this won't be repeated?

I write regarding the ongoing consultation relating to the Deposit Plan. I make these representations in my capacity as Leader of the Council's Conservative Group. Please take this correspondence as our Group's response to the consultation.

Our Group does not consider any of the key sites designated within the Plan to be suitable. The respective ward members for St Athan, Rhoose, Illtyd and Dinas Powys have articulated detailed reasons for this previously. I too, as ward member for Llandough, have raised concerns regarding the impacts developing the Cardiff Road site would have on road safety issues at the Merrie Harrier junction.

Our Group has been approached by residents from across the Vale of Glamorgan expressing deep concerns regarding the consultation process. Many have found the consultation portal difficult to navigate, and relevant information hard to locate. Given the time required to read all the relevant documents prior to crafting a response, residents do not feel the six-week consultation process is sufficient. As a Group, we agree. For this reason, at Full Council on Monday, I requested extension to the consultation period. It is regrettable this was not granted.

As such, it is the view of our Group that the consultation is flawed. We therefore believe that it must be carried out again.

Thank you for taking the time to consider our representations.

- Essential that viability information is provided for all Candidate Sites
- We do not find this reuirement has been met for All sites
- 3.44 PPW sets out the policy …housing delivery in the development plan process. A key element of this is ensuring financial viability is assessed at the candidate site stage. The site promoter (LPA, land owner and/or developer) must carry out an initial site viability assessment and provide evidence that sites can be delivered. As required by national policy, all candidate sites are subject to a viability assessment.

- Strategic Growth Area: Focuses on settlements with good transport links to reduce car dependency.

You say this but Rhoose to St Athan fail it
- Rhoose: Key site for 339 homes north of the railway and employment development, including land east of Cardiff Airport (16.3 ha) and south of Port Road (44.75 ha).
- St Athan & Llantwit Major: Targeted for residential development, including 235 units near Eglwys Brewis Road and 105 units at St Athan Road., Clive Rd 51, Church Farm 500, west of St Athan 600
-
- Can’t be called “good transport” without the railway – more frequent than hourly and with stations at Eglwys Brewis and St Athan. The 304 bus taking over an hour to Cardiff isn’t “good”. road transport is caught in snarl-ups at Weycock Cross and Culverhouse Cross.
- Single access key sites and others over 100 homes are not deliverable

I am writing to object to the Vale of Glamorgan Council's Replacement Local Development Plan.

I strongly feel that all the key sites stipulated are unsuitable and inappropriate. The entire strategy behind the deposit plan is flawed and the process needs to begin again.

I also express deep concern that the public have been unable to easily access material owing to the ways it has been published. The average person has not been able to adequately consider all of the information within the consultation period. As such the public need more time to produce their consultation responses and at the very least, the consultation period must be extended.

1. Section of Plan to which this Representation Relates
- Sustainable Growth Strategy
- Key Housing Sites:
KS4 - Land at Church Farm, St. Athan (532 dwellings) KS5 - Land to the West of St. Athan (600 dwellings)
- Housing Allocations: HG1(7)
Former Stadium Site, adjacent to Burley Place (80 dwellings)
HG1(8) - Clive Road, St. Athan (51 dwellings)
- Transport Policy (TR)
- Community Infrastructure Policy (CI)
- Policy SP13 - Infrastructure Provision
- Green Infrastructure Policies

2. Summary of Representation
This representation raises concerns regarding:
1. The scale of housing growth in St. Athan.
2. The absence of guaranteed sustainable transport infrastructure.
3. Insufficient retail and community infrastructure provision, particularly within the ward of Flemingston.
4. The allocation of the Clive Road site (HG1(8)), which currently functions as a de facto village green.
5. The cumulative infrastructure impact of candidate and legacy site allocations.
The representation seeks modifications to ensure the Plan is infrastructure-led, deliverable, and compliant with national planning policy and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

3. Scale of Housing Growth in St. Athan
The RLDP allocates:
- KS4 - 532 dwellings
- KS5 - 600 dwellings
- HG1(7) - 80 dwellings
- HG1(8) - 51 dwellings
This equates to 1,263 dwellings in St. Athan.
This represents a very significant expansion of the settlement and must be assessed against:
- Existing infrastructure capacity
- Transport provision
- Education and healthcare availability
- Retail and service provision
At present, St. Athan does not have a rail station and relies heavily on private car travel.
The Plan must demonstrate clearly that this level of growth is proportionate and deliverable.

4. Transport Infrastructure and Deliverability
The RLDP safeguards land for a "transport interchange" at St. Athan. However:
- There is no confirmed rail station.
- There is no confirmed funding package.
- There is no defined delivery programme.
- There are no binding occupation triggers linking housing delivery to transport delivery.

Previous references in planning documents referred to a railway station. The revised terminology of "transport interchange" reflects uncertainty.

Under Future Wales - The National Plan 2040, growth within the South East National Growth Area should align with sustainable transport infrastructure. Without guaranteed rail provision, development risks being car-dependent and inconsistent with decarbonisation objectives.

This raises concerns under the soundness test: Will the plan deliver?

5. Retail and Local Service Provision - Flemingston Ward

The Deposit RLDP does not allocate new retail units or local service provision within the ward of Flemingston.
Given the scale of proposed housing growth across St. Athan and its surrounding areas, there is:

- No corresponding neighbourhood retail allocation.
- No clear commitment to small-scale convenience retail within walking distance of new development.
- No spatial recognition of Flemingston's service deficit.

This is inconsistent with Planning Policy Wales placemaking principles, which require:

- Mixed-use neighbourhoods.
- Walkable access to daily services.
- Reduced reliance on private vehicles.

Without provision of much-needed retail units within Flemingston ward, residents will remain dependent on car travel for everyday needs.
Modification is therefore sought to require neighbourhood retail and service provision proportionate to housing growth.

6. Clive Road Site (HG1(8)) - Community Function

The Clive Road site (HG1(8), 51 dwellings) currently functions as a de facto village green.
Although not formally designated, it is:
- Used informally for recreation.
- A visual open space within the settlement.
- A valued community amenity.
Its allocation for housing would result in:
- Loss of accessible informal open space.
- Erosion of community character.
- Reduction in green infrastructure connectivity.
The Plan should:
- Reassess the allocation in light of its community use; or
- Require equivalent or superior replacement open space within immediate proximity prior to development.
This matter engages Policy on Open Space and Green Infrastructure and must be considered in accordance with the prevention and long-term principles of the Well- being Act.

7. Candidate and Legacy Sites - Cumulative Impact Several allocations in St. Athan arise from:
- The Candidate Site process.
- Rolled-forward legacy allocations.
Individually, smaller sites may appear acceptable. However, cumulatively they produce substantial growth in a settlement with constrained infrastructure.
The Plan must demonstrate:
- Why these sites were preferred over alternatives.
- That lower growth options were robustly assessed.
- That greenfield loss is justified and mitigated.

8. Infrastructure and Phasing Concerns
Policy SP13 refers to securing infrastructure through planning obligations. However, reliance on financial contributions alone does not ensure timely delivery.

There is insufficient clarity regarding:
- Education capacity expansion.
- Primary healthcare provision.
- Highway mitigation triggers.
- Public transport enhancement sequencing.

Infrastructure must be delivered ahead of, or in tandem with, housing occupation - not retrospectively.

9. Compliance with the Five Ways of Working

Long-Term: Irreversible greenfield expansion without secured sustainable transport risks embedding long-term car dependency.
Prevention: Without infrastructure-first sequencing, congestion and service strain are foreseeable.
Integration: Housing growth appears to run ahead of confirmed transport and retail provision.
Collaboration: The Plan should demonstrate binding commitments from transport and infrastructure partners.
Involvement: Community concerns regarding scale and open space loss must be properly addressed.

10. Modifications Sought

To ensure soundness and compliance with national policy, the following modifications are requested:

1. Phasing Policy for KS4 and KS5
Introduce clear occupation thresholds tied to delivery of:
- Transport interchange infrastructure.
- Highway mitigation.Education capacity.
- Healthcare provision.

2. Retail Provision Requirement
Require neighbourhood retail and service provision within the ward of Flemingston proportionate to allocated and previous housing growth.

3. Clive Road Site Review (HG1(8))
Either:
- Remove the allocation; or
- Require replacement open space of equal or greater quality delivered prior to development.

4. Strengthened Infrastructure-First Wording
Amend Policy SP13 to make infrastructure delivery a pre-condition, not solely a contribution mechanism.

5. Monitoring Framework Enhancement Include specific indicators for:
- Sustainable transport modal share.
- Retail provision delivery.
- Open space replacement.
- Infrastructure phasing compliance.

11. Conclusion

St. Athan has a role within the wider Cardiff Capital Region and the South East National Growth Area. However, the current scale of housing allocation is not sufficiently matched by guaranteed infrastructure, retail provision, or community space protection.

Without modification, the Plan risks:
- Car-dependent growth,
- Loss of valued open space,
- Insufficient local retail provision,
- Pressure on community infrastructure.
This representation therefore seeks amendments to ensure that growth in St. Athan and Flemingston is proportionate, infrastructure-led, environmentally responsible, and compliant with Welsh planning policy.

It is recommended that the Key Site schedules include minimum on-site provision standards and delivery
phasing obligations to ensure that both sport infrastructure and recreational space provision keep pace with the additional demand generated by future population
growth.

The overall contribution to health and wellbeing of the Deposit RLDP is positive and there are opportunities to develop further detail through the supplementary planning
guidance (SPG) proposed. We are keen to ensure that these SPG’s are progressed within the short-term and that Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (CAVUHB) are
involved in the development of some of these. The content and application of the SPG’s will be fundamental to the effectiveness of several of the policies identified in the
deposit plan. These must be supported by effective processes and relationships that ensure the intentions for positive contributions to health and wellbeing are delivered.

The Deposit RLDP provides a strong framework for placemaking, climate action, and healthy communities. Opportunities exist to further embed healthy and sustainable food systems as essential spatial infrastructure rather than solely as community
amenity or retail management issues. Strengthening policy wording in areas such as placemaking, rural diversification, employment land, green infrastructure, and community infrastructure would better align the Deposit Plan with the Well-being of Future Generations Act, Planning Policy Wales Placemaking agenda, and emerging Welsh food system strategies. This is particularly relevant as the Future Generations Commissioner named his first priority area in office being food, and the Welsh Government has recently published its Community Food Strategy. The Future Generations Office also recently produced guidance for local authorities including several planning-related recommendations.


The following comments are provided in the order they appear in the document:

Spatial strategy: SP1 - Sustainable growth: While the plan addresses overall growth distribution, it does not consider how development affects local food resilience, including the protection of agricultural land, peri-urban growing spaces, or local supply chains. There is no strategic reference to food as a component of sustainable, resilient
communities. The vision and strategic objectives currently contain no mention of ‘food’ or ‘farming’.

Request to add reference (Spatial strategy or Strategic objectives section) to supporting resilient and sustainable local food systems in spatial strategy principles, including protection of productive land and support for local supply chains. Suggested wording includes: “The Local Development Plan will support resilient and sustainable
local food systems by safeguarding productive agricultural land, promoting peri-urban food growing opportunities, and facilitating local food supply chains as an integral part
of sustainable growth.”

SP4 Placemaking: Placemaking principles are clear and it is encouraging that prioritising the determinants of health and wellbeing during the design process are included as one of the principles. The placemaking statement forming part of the Design and Access statement is welcome to ensure any proposal aligns with the principles. The placemaking SPG will be key to consolidate guidance on physical activity, transport, climate resilience, mental wellbeing, access to food and food production, and inclusive design. Whilst this section focuses on design quality, density, and public spaces it does not explicitly incorporate food production or edible landscaping. Opportunities for multifunctional green spaces that produce food are missed, which could support local
diets, biodiversity, and community engagement. Suggestion to include wording to support multi-functional green infrastructure consistent with placemaking principles:

“Development proposals, where appropriate, should incorporate productive landscapes, edible landscaping, rooftop or community growing spaces, and other
opportunities for local food production as part of multifunctional green infrastructure.”

SP5 Creating Healthy and Inclusive Places and Spaces: CAVUHB support the statement that 'Developers are required to undertake a screening assessment of their
proposal at the pre-application stage to identify the potential health impacts of their development'. CAVUHB agrees with the criteria set out in the table and would like to see examples/further guidance of 'other' developments where there is likely to be a significant impact on health and wellbeing. HIA should also consider the cumulative
impact across multiple smaller developments in the same area, and whether they trigger thresholds collectively.

6.54 We suggest adding the word 'abilities' to the sentence '...enabling people of all ages, backgrounds and abilities to live in an environment that will support them to live
full, productive and prosperous lives.'

6.60 We welcome the requirement for new developments to conduct screening at the pre-application stage using the Council's Health and Wellbeing checklist and the rapid
HIA. We are keen that CAVUHB are involved in the development of the Healthy Placemaking SPG to consider how submitted HIAs will be assessed by the Council to
ensure Developers submit a quality HIA and implement the conclusions.

6.61 Amendment to organisation titles to: Cardiff and Vale University Health Board and Wales Health Impact Assessment Support Unit (Public Health Wales).

6.62 Wales Health Impact Assessment Support Unit has recently released guidance on HIA - see https://phwwhocc.co.uk/whiasu/ for more information and toolkits to ensure most up to date is in use.

6.63 Suggestion to amend the paragraph to include reference to 'access' to services, for example 'A further role of the RLDP is to support the access to and delivery of community, health and social care and wellbeing services within the community..'.

6.65 Suggestion to change wording from 'encouraged' to 'expected' for example:
Developers are expected to engage with the Health Board at pre-application stage to enable due consideration of healthcare infrastructure requirements.' The requirement
for HIA will assist with this expectation.

Key housing sites (HG1 KS1 onwards): The Key Site requirements reference “enhancements to leisure, sport and recreation spaces”. Without quantified standards or phasing triggers, however, these requirements may be difficult to enforce consistently at the planning application stage. Clear policy hooks or supporting standards prior to submission would strengthen implementation. It is recommended that the Key Site schedules include minimum on-site provision standards and delivery
phasing obligations to ensure that both sport infrastructure and recreational space provision keep pace with the additional demand generated by future population
growth.

SP11 Retail, commercial and service centre hierarchy and RCS1 Resilient retail, commercial and service centres: This policy focuses on hierarchy and vitality of retail
centres but fails to actively support the resilience of local retail, through measures which support local food markets, small-scale fresh food retailers, or local producer
supply chains. This limits opportunities for strengthening local food economies.
It is important that the need for convenience food retail space within Barry, Penarth and Llantwit Major, recognised in SP11, is matched with this rational for ‘local affordable food’ outlined in SP5.

Consider adding: “The Council will support local food markets, cooperative food retail, and initiatives that strengthen local producer supply chains within town and service centres, in line with the Town Centres First approach.”

RCS3 - hot food takeaways: CAVUHB commends the recognition that the clustering of unhealthy food outlets is a significant health issue and supports the proposals to
consider controls on takeaway proliferation (RCS3). This will support the creation of healthy environments, a commitment within the Cardiff and Vale Good Food and
Movement Framework endorsed by RPB. Health and inclusion policies mention general wellbeing but do not specifically address access to healthy food, food deserts, or distribution of retail providing fresh/local food, especially in new or expanding residential areas.

Proposal to include criteria for equitable access to healthy food and community food infrastructure in development proposals, such as: “Major developments should demonstrate equitable access to healthy food outlets, community growing facilities, or other community food
infrastructure within walking distance of new residential areas.” This addresses diet related health inequalities, encourages healthier communities and aligns with HIA
guidance.

EMP6 Rural diversification: The plan frames food production predominantly as a community activity rather than recognising its commercial, economic, and supply
chain potential. This limits opportunities for climate-resilient rural economies in a county with such a rural character as the Vale. Policy supports general rural business diversification but does not explicitly enable
agro-ecological practices, local food processing, CSA (community-supported agriculture), or other sustainable farming models.

Proposal that the plan should explicitly support sustainable, commercially viable local food enterprises as legitimate rural employment uses - to include the following wording: “Rural diversification proposals that support agro-ecological farming, sustainable local food production,
community-supported agriculture, and short supply chain enterprises will be supported where compatible with landscape and environmental considerations.”

SP10 Sustainable transport: We support these policies, and suggest the plan is explicit that all new active travel infrastructure should meet the statutory Active Travel
Act guidance (Link: ttps://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2022
01/active-travel-act-guidance.pdf) and also that infrastructure should be built to a specification to ensure resilience as extreme weather events increase, preventing
flooding and making use more comfortable during hot weather (such as shading from trees). We note the absence of reference to people living with disabilities and suggest adding 'wheeling' as well as walking and cycling.

SP13 Community infrastructure and planning obligations:

We want to take this opportunity to highlight the challenges that population growth places on healthcare
services. The projected level of population growth identified within the RLDP will have an impact on the CAVUHB's community healthcare facilities and infrastructure. Please refer to the information provided as part of the background evidence paper titled 'BP37
Primary, Community and Intermediate Health Care 'for more detail on the CAVUHB response which identifies there is limited scope for the current infrastructure within
existing GP premises to absorb the LDP growth. CAVUHB recognises the need to prioritise the expansion of the existing estate (where feasible) or support new
developments to take forward its strategic objectives.

Open space and recreation (CI1 and CI2): The evidence base supporting the sport and recreation elements of Policies CI1 and CI2 could be strengthened. At present
there does not appear to be a full Open Space Assessment setting locally-derived standards, nor a Playing Pitch Strategy nor Indoor Sport Facility Assessment. The Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Sports and Physical Activity Facilities audit report is
currently underway (with completion anticipated in May 2026), which should make a useful contribution to the evidence base once available.

Community Facilities: this policy focusses on schools, healthcare and social infrastructure, but does not include food-related community facilities such as kitchens, food hubs or education centres. Proposal to include the following information: “Community facilities should include, where appropriate, community kitchens, food hubs, educational facilities for food skills, and other infrastructure that enhances local food resilience and social cohesion.”
There is no reference to the expectation that local communities are consulted in relation to the development of community facilities. We would like to see a
requirement for community engagement and that such developments are based on a detailed understanding of existing community strengths, assets, needs and
challenges. This might be achieved as part of the HIA which includes stakeholder engagement.

SP14 Employment Growth: Employment land allocations focus on general industrial and office uses, with no explicit support for food hubs, processing, or logistics facilities
that would enable local food supply chains. Again, in an agricultural county such as the Vale, and given Wales’ push for local supply resilience, this is a major opportunity gap. Consider including the following wording:

“Employment land allocations should consider the needs of food processing, distribution, and logistics facilities that support local and regional food supply chains.” This supports local supply chain development, reduces food miles and provides local employment opportunities, Welsh Government evidence highlights the importance of food processing in local supply resilience.

SP19 Green infrastructure: this policy emphasises the biodiversity, climate adaptation and recreation, but does not explicitly recognise productive landscapes or
urban agriculture as part of the multifunctional green infrastructure.

Suggested wording: “Green infrastructure networks should recognise and integrate food productive landscapes, urban agriculture, and community growing spaces as multifunctional components contributing to biodiversity, climate adaptation, and wellbeing.”

SP16 Climate change: this policy addresses migration and adaptation but omits food systems. It also does not recognise the emissions reductions from local food
production, short supply chains or sustainable farming practices.
Consider including the following wording: “Development proposals should encourage short supply chains, low-carbon farming methods, and local food production where feasible, in order to support climate change mitigation and adaptation objectives.”

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

Thank you for consulting Natural Resources Wales (NRW) on the Vale of Glamorgan Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) Deposit Plan, which we received on 28 January 2026.
We have reviewed the deposit plan and published documents and have recommendations on matters relating to coherence and consistency. We advise these are addressed prior to submission of the RLDP.
1. Summary
We welcome that the Vale of Glamorgan Council has declared a ‘nature emergency’ and in 2021 committed to a target of no net loss of biodiversity in the Vale of Glamorgan. The deposit plan takes this a step further through its vision, objectives and policies in seeking
the achievement of net biodiversity benefit. We also welcome the recognition within the deposit plan and supporting documents that additional growth within the Vale has the potential to lead to negative effects on nationally and locally designated biodiversity. We
appreciate that the deposit plan’s policies seek to mitigate against these potential adverse effects with detailed wording and requirements.
However, we consider that the deposit plan would benefit from more specific mention of designated conservation sites especially where these are related to specific allocations and their associated policies. We note this issue was raised within the Integrated Sustainability Assessment (ISA) (see Section 2 below) however we do not see this recommendation properly reflected within the deposit plan itself. We consider this is a gap that should be addressed to ensure clarity within the policy requirements for any future planning applications.
General Approach to Designated Sites
In line with our role in development planning and our consultation remit, we advise that where new development may occur within or be likely to affect statutory designated sites including Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Nature Reserves (NNR) and Marine Conservation Zones (MCZ) this could be more clearly identified as a key consideration especially with respect to site allocations (housing and employment). We consider that the issue of avoiding or mitigating potential impacts and utilising opportunities for supporting and enhancing these sites (as noted by para 6.401 of the deposit plan) could have more substantial recognition across the deposit plan and its supporting documents. This would improve the clarity of approach.
We have furthermore noted that Policy SP20 (Biodiversity and Ecosystem Resilience) currently excludes specific mention of designated sites (although it does refer to protected species and habitats) and we suggest that this is addressed – our comments on SP20 are set out in Section 3 of this letter.
By across the plan, we mean there is scope to include mention of relevant statutorily designated sites within the constraints text for the sites listed in Appendix B of document BP44 Infrastructure Delivery Plan (perhaps summarising in line with the approach taken to the Historic Environment Record) and within document BP32A Green Infrastructure Assessment of Key Sites, evidence which can then be reflected as appropriate in Key Sites Policies (HG1 KS1 to KS5) to inform their master planning. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisals already undertaken for Key Sites (Key Site Supporting Information) would appear to hold relevant information in this respect.
We note that document BP32A has a useful general paragraph on biodiversity assets at paras 3.7-3.8 linked to the evidence collated in the Green Infrastructure Assessment (GIA). In short, where designated sites are identified in proximity to allocated sites it would be
helpful to make clear reference to them in a consistent manner. This would bring the deposit plan more fully into alignment with the ISA findings. For any employment sites
within proximity of designated sites, we consider that the employment background paper BP12A could potentially be updated to similar effect.
With reference to omissions on this matter, we refer you to our comments on sites set out in Section 4 of this letter, including sites KS1, HG1 (1), SP14 1. and SP14 4.
Overall, we consider that the recognition of designated sites appears somewhat inconsistent in the deposit plan, although we recognise that much of this is done by the
Green Infrastructure Strategy (GIS) which incorporates the GIA.
It may be that Policy SP20 (please see our suggested amendments in Section 3 of this letter) together with addressing the meaning of “areas of high ecological value” will also go some way towards resolving the points we raise.
Master Planning
We welcome the illustrative master plans included in the deposit plan but would caveat that at the detailed stages schemes must be able to adapt, where necessary, to site
specific environmental constraints (including protected sites, species and habitats), for example in response to updated ecological appraisals or detailed species surveys.
Designs need to be flexible enough to ensure compliance with the stepwise approach (avoid, minimise, mitigate) in achieving Net Biodiversity Benefit (NBB) and improving the resilience of ecosystems as required by Planning Policy Wales, edition 12 (PPW12) and Policy 9 of Future Wales, the National Plan. We note the plan has good reference to this within Policy SP20 and supporting paragraph 6.405, thus enabling thorough consideration
at the project/planning application level and in master planning.
Please see our detailed site-specific comments in Section 4 in order to consider where our comments may lead to adjustments in master plans. For example, the species protection issues we highlight with regard to KS3 at Readers Way, Rhoose.
Strategic Opportunity at Bro Tathan
In addition to the above points, we advise that the Bro Tathan area of the Vale includes a number of different allocations and is already known as an important ecological area for great crested newts (GCN) and dormice, in particular. Given the commitments already
made under previous planning applications at the site and the necessary requirement for future biodiversity provisions, we advise a more strategic overview of the area should be considered and either set out within the deposit plan or secured within an updated GIS.
This will ensure that development in the area:
• does not cause detriment to the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of protected species;
• results in green spaces and infrastructure that is meaningfully spatially connected and sufficient in size.
Overall, we consider piecemeal development of the St Athan area will not lead to effective conservation delivery and will make the planning process less efficient at project level.
Areas of High Ecological Value
As previously noted within our preferred strategy response (Ref: CAS-244275-Q4F4, dated: 14th February 2024), the deposit plan continues to make reference to avoiding
areas of ‘High Ecological Value’ (criterion 1 of SP20). We have not been able to establish where these areas are or how their ecological value is being determined. We consider this issue needs to be clarified and ideally a definition provided.
2. Integrated Sustainability Assessment (ISA)
With regards to Section 9.9 of the ISA, we agree that additional growth in the Vale has the potential to lead to negative effects on nationally and locally designated biodiversity. The ISA concludes that the housing-specific policies set out within the deposit plan work well to
mitigate the potential adverse effects, through design stipulations and policy inclusions.
The ISA then goes on to recommend that Key Site policies are updated, where appropriate, to reference specific designated sites which they are in proximity to, in
order to help establish appropriate protection and/or enhancement measures.
We agree with these recommendations and would go further in advising that all allocations and their associated policies should reference specific designated sites relevant to that site. For instance, we would advise Barry Woodlands SSSI and Walters Farm SSSI is identified in relation to Key Site 1 – Land at North West of Barry, and Barry Woodlands SSSI should also be identified for Housing Allocation HG1 (1) Land to the West of
Pencoedtre Lane. Please refer to our site-specific comments in Section 4 below.

3. Plan and Policy Wording
Strategic Policies
Strategic Policy SP19 – Green Infrastructure
We welcome that the GIS and GIA has informed the master planning of the Key Site allocations (6.395). To ensure this approach is carried forward for other development proposals, we consider there should be a stronger “policy hook” within Policy SP19 to link the content and evidence of the GI work to the policy and its influence on decision-making. Without this we consider there may be a risk of a policy gap/mismatch when determining planning applications.
This could be resolved by a new criterion such as:
“the provision of green infrastructure must have regard to any adopted or emerging guidance including the Green Infrastructure Strategy/Green Infrastructure Assessment
(and the Assets listed therein), and Green Infrastructure (Action) Plan for the Vale.”
To strengthen Policy SP19 we also recommend an addition to the wording of criterion 2 to read:
“Protect and enhance connectivity between existing green infrastructure assets and be planned wherever possible to positively support areas of high ecological value”.
We furthermore note that criterion 3 of SP19 refers to achieving net benefit for biodiversity whilst the policy overall seeks to provide, protect and enhance high quality multi-functional green infrastructure. We have previously commented that multi-functional green spaces may not always be compatible with biodiversity. It should be recognised that multifunctional uses of space can be to the detriment of the natural environment and so must be carefully considered. We recommend that paragraph 6.397 wording is updated to reflect this potential conflict so that NBB required by PPW (and as promoted by para 6.396 together with Policy SP20) is able to be prioritised and not compromised.
This point could also be raised under Policy SP4 Placemaking – at para 6.32. It should not be assumed that multifunctional spaces will also be delivering for nature in every situation and in some cases separate provision of spaces to meet biodiversity goals will be essential.
Paragraph 6.401 is welcomed regarding the opportunities that exist for the protection, maintenance and further enhancement of green infrastructure assets.
Strategic Policy 20 (SP20) – Biodiversity and Ecosystem Resilience
We welcome the inclusion of SP20 which recognises the importance of natural assets and aims to protect these. We have made comments regarding the term “high ecological value” in our Summary section at the start of this letter.
We also note that whilst reference is made to sites and areas of European, national and local importance (para. 6.402), this is not distinctly carried through within SP20 or within a specific detailed policy in the deposit plan. We advise that a more detailed policy for the Natural Environment (similar to DNP4 for the Historic Environment) could be included within the deposit plan and this should include reference to the protection of statutorily designated sites. Alternatively, SP20 itself could be updated to include reference to these in a similar manner to the approach taken to non-statutory designated sites provided by criterion 5 of SP20. We consider this would strengthen the deposit plan’s alignment to
section 6.4.3 of PPW12. This issue is also reflected in our feedback to the ISA as set out in Section 2.
By adding a detailed policy for the wider protection of the natural environment, there is scope to ensure a clearer message within the deposit plan regarding the need for natural resources (including land, air, water and soils) in the Vale to be protected for themselves and the essential ecosystem services they deliver. This is opposed to merely preventing pollution (deposit plan Policy DNP5). Taking such an approach would enable an
opportunity to add the consideration of Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (SMNR) into the plan policy framework rather than confining this to the deposit plan context (para 2.11) and the policy context of the GIS (page 53).
We note that Policy CC4: Renewable, Low and Zero Carbon Energy Generation is more distinct in seeking to safeguard a range of assets (including nature conservation interests and soil conservation interests) and we consider a similar policy approach may be useful
for all development proposals. We also suggest that the placemaking strategic policy (Policy SP4) could be altered in order to highlight the Natural Environment alongside its
current reference to the Historic Environment. We note that placemaking principles (Figure 11 - Identity) includes the need for development to respond to natural physical attributes of the site. This is an issue is linked to our site-specific comments (Section 4 below) where we cite, for example, the need to buffer woodlands, hedgerows and watercourses and preserve linear corridors.
Ensuring an SMNR approach will impact positively on the ground to safeguard and improve ecological networks and protect and enhance ecosystems, essential to meeting
the nature emergency. Topics we draw your attention to include river restoration where, in particular, the removal/remediation of physical modifications can make a significant impact upon water quality. The GIS provides scope to capture various projects and wider initiatives, including those based on catchment scale improvements and we welcome the opportunity to be continually involved in this work. We note and welcome the recognition of
nature-based solutions within Policies SP16, SP19 and SP20 and in detailed Policy CC6.
With regards to natural assets and water resources, we consider that specific reference to water quality is lacking within the strategic and/or detailed policies. Whilst we note that water quality is mentioned within criterion 9 of Policy SP16, we consider the deposit plan should include more direct reference to the Water Framework Directive. We consider there is an opportunity for SP20 to be updated to ensure developments protect water quality and quantity. Alternatively, as mentioned above, this could fit within a detailed policy for the protection of the natural environment.
As a minor point, please note that the South Central Area Statement is not hyphenated (para 2.10 and 2.11). Please note also that, referring to paragraph 6.404 and 6.405, the
requirements for developments to demonstrate NBB is based on PPW12, rather than The Environment (Wales) Act 2016.

Detailed Policies

Infrastructure
Whilst we note that the infrastructure requirements (such as sewerage capacity) have been investigated for certain key sites within the deposit plan, we consider there could be scope for a detailed policy to cover infrastructure requirements for all development.

Policy DNP7
We welcome Policy DNP7 of the deposit plan, which recognises the importance of preserving the natural darkness of the night sky and minimising light pollution, which we consider to be important in limiting adverse impacts upon local biodiversity and ecological
connectivity.

Policy DPN8
Please refer to comments made with regards to this policy under Section 6: Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA).

Policy HG5 - Affordable Housing Exception Sites
We advise that, particularly given these sites are permissible outside of settlements and could be in countryside locations, criterion 6 should be amended to:
“There is no loss of land with significant recreational, amenity, agricultural, ecological or natural heritage value”.

EMP1 – Employment Regeneration Opportunity Areas
We note that the Former Aberthaw Power Station has been identified as an employment regeneration opportunity area. There are otter and water vole records on the site and we are aware of GCN records within the local area. We would advise against the inclusion of
the Aberthaw Nature Reserve within the allocation and advise that any application on the site would need to be supported by up-to-date ecological survey information and
appropriate conservation measures. Given the nature of the site, future applications will also need to be supported by appropriate land contamination investigations.

CC3 – Renewable Energy Local Search Areas
This policy identifies several sites where the potential for wind and solar development are the greatest (known as ‘search areas’). There are significant search areas located between Llantrithyd and St Hilary; no ecological information has been provided for these search areas, however given the records for GCN, water vole and otter local to these areas, it is likely that provision in the form of suitable habitats will need to be made for these species.
This could be substantial in scale, however without further ecological information we cannot advise further at this time. Notwithstanding, given the scale of the search area in this location and the likely ecological impacts, we advise that this area would benefit from spatial planning of biodiversity provision, at a greater than individual site scale.

Paragraph 2.81 – The Vale Nature Recovery Action Plan
We note reference to ‘6 broad habitat types’ including Woodland, Freshwater, Grassland, Coastal, Agriculture and Urban. We suggest this is amended to ‘6 broad ecosystems’ to reflect correct terminology and the State of Natural Resources Report 2025.

4. Strategic Sites
Overview
We previously provided detailed comments on the RLDP’s Strategic Sites, as set out in our response ref: CAS-234819-C1V3, dated 4th October 2023, which we refer you to. We welcome the additional information provided and note the inclusion of Green Infrastructure
Strategies for each of the Key Sites. However, we note that these do not include reference to protected species specifically and as a result we are unable to confirm that the provision for each site is appropriate. We observe that the road infrastructure for many of these sites severs woodlands and other substantial linear corridors. We advise that such sites are designed to minimise fragmentation in the landscape and advise that the road layouts and consequent severance is re-visited.

KS4 and KS5 are located within the vicinity of St Athan. This area is important for (and we are aware of) multiple records of GCN and dormice. Some of the area is already secured as compensation for impacts on these species associated with previous developments. We advise that the wider St Athan area is subject to spatial planning of biodiversity provision at a greater than individual site scale (as we have referenced in the Section 1 of this letter), in order to determine that:
• It does not cause detriment to the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of both GCN and dormice (strategic conservation plans should be established for both species);
• To ensure that green spaces and infrastructure are meaningfully spatially connected and sufficient in size;
We consider piecemeal development of these areas will not lead to effective conservation delivery and will cause the delivery of these sites to be less effective during the planning process.

Spatial Planning of Biodiversity
A masterplan or spatial biodiversity or GI plan should demonstrate the retention, provision and enhancement of essential areas for protected species. It should ensure that individual site-based habitat provisions are not designed in isolation but considered in association with nearby sites to demonstrate how habitat connectivity and resilience will be provided both across the site and to the wider landscape. Note that functional separation of public
open space and areas for biodiversity compensation may be required. Suitable buffers will need to be applied to any woodland and retained or created habitats on site. A sensitive lighting strategy will also likely be required for these sites. This point was raised previously during our review of the strategic candidate sites (ref: CAS-234819-C1V3, dated 4th October 2023).

Updated Surveys and Appropriate Buffer Zones
Further to the above comments, we welcome reference within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan for the requirement for updated ecological surveys and appropriate buffer zones to watercourses and retained habitat features for KS1 and KS2. Given the various ecological
constraints for each key site, we consider this advice should be included for each of the key sites.

Site Specific Comments
KS1 – Land at North West Barry
Protected Species – Dormice and bats are present on site. We advise that the masterplan is informed by surveys to ensure that biodiversity interests are maintained and enhanced. The site may require some areas to be retained an/or provision for habitats to support them. Dark areas and/or bespoke lighting scheme may also be required at project stage.
Protected Sites – The site is located in close proximity to Walters Farm and Barry Woodlands SSSI. As raised in our previous responses (CAS-234819-C1V3, dated: 4th
October 2023 and CAS-276923-N7H6, dated 17th April 2025), we have some concerns with the potential for increased and inappropriate use of the protected sites through recreational activities. We welcome that requirements have been detailed within HG1 KS1
under Green Infrastructure, Recreation Spaces and Biodiversity, which includes reference to emerging guidance for Suitable Alternate Natural Greenspace (SANG).

KS2 – North of Dinas Powys, off Cardiff Road
Protected Species – We note the supporting Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) (13th September 2022) which identifies potential for this site to support GCN, dormouse and bats. In the absence of species specific surveys, we are unable to advise whether the housing number aspirations for the site are realistic. We advise the scheme is designed to minimise severance of ecological corridors.

KS3 – Land at Readers Way
Protected Species – GCN are known to be present on this site (Readers Way Pond). The current masterplan indicates that the pond will be surrounded by built development and therefore built upon much of the terrestrial habitat which supports this pond. It is essential
that the masterplan provides a wide corridor from this pond to the wider countryside, other than via the closely managed grassland at Cardiff Airport. Any masterplan should make provision for this and any loss of habitat should be compensated for.

KS4 – Land at Church Farm
Protected Species - There are records of dormouse and GCN in the wider area. However, the supporting PEA indicates no direct impacts on the latter of the species. There appears to be extensive green space proposed in the illustrative masterplan, which we support.

KS5 – Land to the West of St Athan
Protected Species - The St Athan area is important area for GCN and dormouse. We would generally concur with the lower risk assessed for these species in association with this site. However, this is a substantial site and this and other sites in the St Athan area would benefit from spatial planning of biodiversity provision at a greater scale as reaffirmed elsewhere in this response.

5. Housing And Employment Allocations
Housing Allocations

HG1 (1) Land to the West of Pencoedtre Lane
Protected Sites: The site is within close proximity (200m) to Barry Woodlands Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and there is a risk from increased recreational use as a result of residential development, which could lead to impacts on the SSSI. Green space design must consider any emerging guidance for SANG to reduce recreational pressure on adjacent sites of biodiversity importance.
HG1 (2) Land at the Mole
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination.
Marine: An adjacent watercourse forms a hydrological link to the Severn Estuary European Marine Site (EMS). A HRA at project level will therefore be required.

HG1 (3) Land at Hayes Lane
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination.

HG1 (4) Land at Neptune Road
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination.
Marine: An adjacent watercourse forms a hydrological link to the Severn Estuary EMS. A HRA at project level will therefore be required.

HG1 (5) Land between the Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road (Site C - Central Parcel)
Flood Risk: The site is located partially within Flood Zone 2 and 3 for Rivers, with the southern area of the site located within Flood Zone 3. We refer you to Sections 10.20 and 10.21 of TAN 15, which state that highly vulnerable development in Zone 3 should be avoided. Notwithstanding, we acknowledge that at masterplanning stage, there is scope to locate residential development away from areas of flood risk. We also welcome that
Appendix B of your Infrastructure Delivery Plan notes the requirement for an FCA at project level for this site.
Watercourse: Boverton Brook (Main River) runs through the site and any development will need to ensure no adverse impacts to the watercourse with appropriate buffers and design considerations.

HG1 (6) Land adjoining St Athan Road
Land Contamination: The site is located over a principal aquifer. Any development would need to consider the hydrological setting of the site and vulnerability of pollution.

Rural Affordable Housing Led Sites
HG4 (1) Land to the East of Colwinston
Land Contamination: The site is located over a principal aquifer. Any development would need to consider the hydrological setting of the site and vulnerability of pollution.

Major Employment Allocations
SP14 (1) Land east of Cardiff Airport, Rhoose
Protected Species and Protected Sites: The site is within close proximity (360m) of Barry Woodlands SSSI and there also appears to be significant potential for the site to support dormouse, GCN, otter and water vole. There are large areas of semi-natural habitats associated with this site including woodland, mature hedgerow and watercourses. These should be retained and significantly buffered from development. Connectivity between the
site and the wider environment should also be maintained. It is therefore currently not possible to advise whether the full aspirations of the site could be fulfilled.
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination.

SP14 (2) Land south of Port Road (Model Farm), Rhoose
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination.

SP14 (3) Bro Tathan Aerospace and Business Park
Protected Species: The site is located within an important area for GCN and dormice. As mentioned, this area would benefit from spatial planning of biodiversity provision at a
greater scale to better inform allocation.
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination.

SP14 (4) Land to the South of Junction 34 of the M4, Hensol
Protected Sites: The site is located directly adjacent to Ely Valley SSSI. Given the biodiversity interest at the site, previous applications at the site include planning
commitments to conserve and enhance grasslands habitats on the site. These commitments have not yet materialised and the requirement for these provisions should be noted within the LDP.
Flood Risk: The site is located partially within Flood Zone 3 for Sea. We advise that an FCA will be required at project level to determine any flood risk implications at the site.

Local Employment Allocations
SP14 (5) Atlantic Trading Estate, Barry
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination. The site is located over a principal aquifer. Any development would need to consider the hydrological setting of the site and vulnerability of pollution.
Marine: An adjacent watercourse forms a hydrological link to the Severn Estuary EMS. A HRA at project level will therefore be required.

SP14 (6) Windmill Park, Hayes Road, Barry
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination. The site is located over a principal aquifer. Any development would need to consider the hydrological setting of the site and vulnerability of pollution.
Flood Risk: The site is located partially within Flood Zone 3 for Sea. We advise that an FCA will be required at project level to determine any flood risk implications at the site.
Marine: An adjacent watercourse forms a hydrological link to the Severn Estuary EMS. A HRA at project level will therefore be required.

SP14 (7) Vale Business Park, Llandow
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination.

SP14 (8) Land at Llandow Trading Estate
Land Contamination: Given previous land use at site, a Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required at planning application stage to determine risk of land contamination.

6. Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)
Marine and Coastal Physical Processes
Coastal Squeeze
We note that coastal squeeze has been screened in and taken through to Appropriate Assessment where a conclusion of no adverse effect was reached. The justification for this is that it “is unlikely that the Vale of Glamorgan RLDP will allocate many developments on
greenfield sites adjoining the estuary”.
We also note that Policy CC6 specifically relates to Coastal Defences and Shoreline Management, with reference to the Shoreline Management Plans. We recommend the use of NRW’s Assessment of Coastal Squeeze at the project level for anyone proposing to
undertake works to coastal structures.

Loss of Functionally Linked Habitat
As part of the Preferred Strategy consultation, we advised that consideration was given to potential impacts on migratory fish features of the Severn Estuary EMS. In particular, we referenced the River Ely and its tributaries providing supporting habitat for essential life cycle processes of some or all the diadromous fish species.
Within the deposit plan HRA, it is noted that likely significant effects to the migratory fish features of the Severn Estuary EMS has been ruled out, as none of the sites allocated in the RLDP lie in close proximity to the River Ely and connected watercourses. We therefore
agree with this conclusion.
In relation to bird features, Table 8 of the Appropriate Assessment identifies many key sites and allocations with high to medium potential for functional linkage to the Severn Estuary EMS. We note that loss of functionally linked habitat has been screened in and taken through to Appropriate Assessment where a conclusion of no adverse effect was reached. The justification for this is the inclusion of ‘Policy DNP8 – Severn Estuary Recreational
Pressure’ within the deposit plan.

Policy DNP8
We advise that clarification is needed in relation to this policy, as while we welcome the supporting text regarding functionally linked land outlined in paragraph 6.76 of the HRA, the policy is mainly focused on recreational pressure and is titled as such. We also note a discrepancy between the policy wording in paragraph 6.76 and Policy DNP8 in the deposit plan itself.

Visual and Noise Disturbance (During Construction)
Within the deposit plan HRA, visual and noise disturbance has been screened in and taken through to Appropriate Assessment where a conclusion of no adverse effect was reached. The justification for this is through the inclusion of recommendations outlined in 6.83 of the HRA to the supporting text of Policy SP20, which we welcome.
We also welcome the recommendation in relation to potential functionally linked land as outlined in paragraph 6.84 of the HRA.

Recreational Pressure
Within the deposit plan HRA, recreational pressure has been screened in and taken through to Appropriate Assessment where a conclusion of no adverse effect was reached. Again, the justification for this is the inclusion of ‘Policy DNP8 – Severn Estuary Recreational Pressure’ within the deposit plan, which as above, we advise needs
clarification.
We note that no visitor data has been collected from access points within the Vale of Glamorgan, but we welcome reference to the visitor surveys undertaken by
Monmouthshire and Torfaen, as well as the 2022 visitor survey commissioned by Stroud District Council.
We note that paragraph 6.25 of the HRA states that “three Key Sites and several other housing allocations lie within the 12.6km core recreational catchment that has been
deemed most appropriate for the Severn Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar”. However, we also note that Table 6 in the HRA only includes two Key Sites requiring mitigation, with KS3 being omitted. We advise that clarification is needed at the project level as to whether developments are situated within the 12.6km catchment area.

7. Strategic Flood Consequence Assessment (SFCA)
We have reviewed the submitted SFCA and agree with the scope of the assessment made.
We note there is currently an upper catchment Natural Flood Management (NFM) / Nature Based Solutions (NbS) project on the Cadoxton to reduce flood risk to Dinas Powys, Any updated SCFA should have regard to NFM schemes being progressed in their area and
proposals should be clearly outlined in the Development Plan (in accordance with TAN 15 2025).

8. Green Infrastructure Strategy (GIS)
We understand that the published GIS has not been updated to reflect the latest stage of the deposit plan and refers only to the preferred strategy stage (para 2.2.3). We previously provided advice on the Green Infrastructure Assessment (GIA) (re: CAS-252087-F0H1, dated 14th May 2024) which is included within the GIS. We refer you to these comments, noting that the GIS will be kept under continual review (para 1.2.5).

ANNEX 1
Preface

This Annex sets out the detailed case in support of these representations, and by association the case for allocation of the site.

The representations are structured into the following sections:

1. Response to the Deposit Plan;
2. Comments on specific policies; and
3. A summary of the suitability of the site for development.

SECTION 1. Response to the Deposit Plan

Distribution of Growth

We object to the distribution of growth within the Deposit Plan. Specifically, we object to the strategy that underpins the Deposit Plan, which seeks to introduce the proposed ‘Strategic Growth Area’ which is expected to contain the majority of housing growth in the Vale over the Plan period, or rather the over-reliance on this defined area, and the associated absence of growth in other parts of the Plan area.

As outlined in our previous representations, the allocation of housing and the location of strategic growth neglects the Rural Vale, and in our view, overprovides in the Strategic Growth Area. For example, with limited housing stock and average house sales at over £500,000 over the last 12 months, there is a clear and established need for new homes in the Ystradowen area, particularly at an affordable level. This is reinforced by the Local Housing Market Assessment that identified a need for over 1,114 new affordable homes per annum over the next five years throughout the county, and 196 units per annum thereafter (average of 502 units per annum over 15 years). Further to this, it is widely known that the rural Vale comprises the majority of the county’s ageing population, which, as a demographic, has and will continue to grow rapidly over the Plan period. This is evident in the ‘Population Change’ chart below – which is taken from the Deposit Plan:
VofG Deposit Plan: Figure 4 Population Change 2011 to 2021

It is clearly the case that younger populations are migrating to other Authorities, where access to housing is typically cheaper and more affordable, whilst more older populations are significantly migrating into the Authority. This trend will result in an extremely unbalanced demographic, given that the working-age population have sought housing elsewhere.

Without a suitable supply of affordable housing delivered over the Plan period, this trend will only worsen. Accordingly, it is not considered that the RLDP takes into account the lack of supply of affordable homes within the rural Vale, as well as increased housing to support the growing ageing population within these areas.

Para 3.19 of the Deposit Plan clearly outlines that affordable housing is required in the short term, in order to meet pressing needs. Specifically, it outlines the following: “There is significant pressure on temporary accommodation in the Vale, for a variety of reasons including increased homelessness presentations… The need for sufficient permanent affordable housing to assist in moving people out of temporary accommodation is critical and the planning system has a vital role in assisting in new affordable housing delivery.”
Accordingly, the distribution of growth within the Authority must be proportionate, to ensure that populations / areas are not left behind where they must seek access to housing elsewhere.

The RLDP Sustainable Growth Strategy sets out 6 objectives. Objective 4 states: “Allowing for small scale affordable housing led development in settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area at a scale proportionate to the size of settlement.” (Page 66)
Para 5.25 states “Therefore, a key part of the strategy is to allow for affordable housing led developments within sustainable primary and minor rural settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area, at a scale that is appropriate to the size of the community it is serving. An ‘affordable housing led’ scheme is one where a minimum of 50% of the dwellings would need to be affordable, although this could increase to a maximum of 100% if the site is brought forward by a social landlord”.

In terms of the definition / explanation of what the affordable housing-led development sites are seeking to achieve, paragraph 6.132 of the Deposit Plan outlines the following:

“Accordingly, to ensure that new developments respond to the high demand for smaller properties, as identified in the LHMA, priority will be given to affordable homes that are small to medium-sized, typically comprising one to three bedrooms. Representations received from the local community through the RLDP process also highlighted a desire for new housing developments to offer opportunities for accessing smaller market homes. This is particularly relevant in the rural Vale, where housing choices are more limited. Providing smaller, more affordable market homes may assist first-time buyers and enable older residents to downsize to more manageable properties within their local area. Affordable housing-led sites will therefore need to demonstrate that an appropriate range of both affordable and market dwellings has been provided.”

Despite the acknowledgement within this strategic objective, we do not consider that the RLDP goes far enough to meet this objective, nor are its provisions and allocations adequate.

It is considered that this objective is undermined by the allocations set out by the RLDP (not least the absence of allocations in the rural Vale). Notwithstanding the Vision’s clear acknowledgement of the benefit of the growth of the rural Vale, these areas have not been supported through the plan due to the lack of growth which has been attributed to these areas in terms of further housing, employment and sustainable transport. All growth options have been selected on the basis of being in either a Key Settlement, Service Centre Settlement or Primary Settlement, all of which are already sustainable areas served by rail. As a result, it is not clear how this objective can be achieved, without the allocation of further sites within the Minor Rural Settlements, such as Ystradowen. The Vale is characteristically ‘rural’, and as such, there needs to be a stronger emphasis on supporting and delivering new development in order to bolster the rural economy. This includes enabling opportunities to provide employment and business premises within / near to rural settlements, as well as focusing housing growth in these areas to reduce travel time, and promote the use of sustainable transport.

It is considered that the current Strategy does not provide adequately for all residents across the Vale, only those within the Strategic Growth Area. The underlying Vision and Objectives set out in the emerging Plan are accordingly wholly un-provided for by the detail of the Plan. This brings into question the “soundness” of the Plan.

The Strategic Growth Area does not take into account the important role and proximity of Bridgend to the West and/or the Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant to the north (as defined in the RCTCBC LDP). The Minor Rural Settlements to the west are more likely to be supported by job opportunities and employment in Bridgend than further east in Barry or Cardiff. Similarly, those in the north align with, and function in association with, the Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant to the north. These settlements are served by existing bus services that provide sustainable modes of travel to key employment locations in and around Bridgend. This is acknowledged in Paragraph 3.3 of the Strategy which states “The greatest number of residents who travel outside of the Vale for work purposes travel to Cardiff followed by Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taf, whilst a smaller proportion commute into the Vale from these neighbouring authorities”. The Demographic Evidence (Feb 2023) estimates the Vale as being a net importer of workers from RCT and Caerphilly (Para 3.6) - as shown in Figure 10 in the Preferred Strategy.

The current Strategy does not support any improvement of sustainable travel or further investment in settlements linked more closely to these areas - given that Growth has been apportioned in only the Key Service Centre and Primary Settlements. It is considered that this will fail to support and facilitate the current (and any future) employment coming into the Vale, nor will it support any employment which is located outside of the Vale to the West and North. The Growth Option is too heavily reliant on access to railway stations as the key and sole sustainable transport method, whereas access to bus services should also be appropriately assessed and focused on in terms of promoting sustainable development. It is unreasonable to devise a strategy that hinges on directing growth to areas that are accessible to railway facilities, where it is recognised in the Plan that the Vale is inherently rural. The delivery and soundness of the Plan is therefore questioned and we continue to object to the spatial growth strategy as set out in the Deposit Plan.

Housing Supply

RLDP Allocations - Key Sites

As set out in representations made throughout the Plan preparation process, we consider that the Plan is too reliant on the delivery of ‘key sites’ to meet the housing need over the Plan period. Specifically, the Plan makes provision for 2,278 units in these Key Sites, which equates to circa 65% of RLDP allocations in the housing supply. The 5 key sites that are allocated in the Deposit Plan are as follows:

• Land at North West Barry – 376no. units;
• North of Dinas Powys – 250no. units;
• Land at Readers Way, Rhoose – 520no. units;
• Land at Church Farm, St Athan – 532no. units; and
• Land to the West of St Athan – 600no. units.

We object to the current housing supply to allocate 2,278no. (65%) of units across strategic sites, as this makes for a risky and unrobust strategy for delivering housing, and in turn, meeting the identified housing need over the Plan period.

As stated in previous representations, there is concern that the proposed timing and phasing of the proposed Key Sites is unrealistic and unrobust, and in turn, undermines the soundness of the Plan, given the heavy reliance on Key Sites delivering new homes across the Plan period. Whilst it is not disputed that the sites would have gone through rigorous assessment to inform their proposed allocation, the timescales for securing planning permission (with all associated conditions discharged) is considered to be unachievable. This is particularly the case for the following timescales that are set out in the Housing Trajectory that underpin the Plan:

• “Time period of pre-application discussions/PAC consultation” – 4 months
• “Time between submission of planning application and determination” – 6 months
• “Time taken from planning consent to the discharge of relevant conditions to enable site construction” – 4 months

It is considered that the above timescales are fundamentally unrobust, and result in a distorted position of housing sites over the RLDP Plan period. It is not considered that these reflect or are informed by the timescales that are currently being incurred for planning applications submitted for major housing sites across Wales. It is rather the case that such applications would typically be determined 1-2 years following submission, given that there are a wide range of stakeholders involved in the determination of major planning applications – which often adds to the delays associated with the determination of such applications.

It is equally the case that the assumptions in the trajectory are solely based on expected timescales for processing formal submissions made to the Council, and do not factor in the timescales associated with, and needed for, the preparation of the material for submission.

It is assumed that these timescales have not considered that such major developments can be subject to the need to undertaking and submitting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which adds another layer to the determination of any planning application – given the additional considerations that form part of this process. As such, any site subject to EIA would very likely result in further delays extending beyond the timescales set out in the trajectory. Equally, as set out above, the preparation of an application subject to an EIA requires even more detail and assessment, which only further adds to the preparation stage (which has not been factored into as part of the trajectory). Accordingly, it is not considered that the trajectory contains any contingency if any site is required to undertake EIA as part of their application.

For the reasons stated above, it is unlikely that the sites will yield in full, particularly those sites which are expected to deliver housing right up to the final year of the Plan period (‘Land at Readers Way’ and ‘Land to the West of St Athan’). These sites do not allow for any ‘slippage’ should any delays arise through the development management process (which for the reasons set out above, will very likely be the case), and as such, a gap in housing delivery will be brought about as a result of these sites not yielding in full.

Given the proposed ambitious timescales set out for the delivery of the Key Sites, it is considered the housing trajectory is unrobust, and in turn, undermines the soundness of the Plan as a result. A change in strategy should be pursued whereby a greater proportion of small to medium sites are allocated for housing in the Plan period, which are more likely to fully yield given that such sites are subject to less assessment and consideration compared to strategic sites. This would make for a more robust strategy, where a greater number of small to medium sites can deliver housing in the short and medium term of the Plan period, whereas the strategic sites represent a more longer-term strategy to deliver housing – which would then spill into the next Plan period.

Accordingly, we object to the Deposit Plan in its current form, where there is an overreliance on housing need to be met through the delivery of the Key Sites, which we consider to be unrobust, and undermine the integrity and soundness of the Plan. The current strategy of the Plan is at significant risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated, as least as swifty as identified in the housing trajectory. Should no change be made to the Plan to address the above issues, then it is extremely likely that the Plan would ‘fail’ in meeting the identified housing need.

Windfall Sites

It is noted that the RLDP is made up of the following:

• Existing land supply (3,838 units)
• Windfall sites (1,303 units)
• Allocated sites (3,521 units)

Para 6.69 states that “Analysis of historical delivery of housing indicates that on average small windfall sites (sites of less than 10 dwellings) have provided some 53 dwelling completions per year, and large windfall sites (10 dwellings or greater) contributed on average 80 dwellings per year. Overall, it is projected that windfall sites could contribute a further 1,303 dwellings over the remainder of the plan”.

As set out in our previous representations to the Housing Trajectory, we would object to the expected numbers of completions expected during the Plan period, given that there are a number of issues with delivering housing in Wales and given past completions rates for The Vale of Glamorgan – which is discussed in greater detail later in this submission. Again, this results in the Plan being at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated – including any windfall sites.

St Athan Train Station

The RLDP Sustainable Growth Strategy comprises six key elements, of which the following is set out in respect to the allocation of new housing growth in the Authority:

“3. Focusing development at locations that are well served by existing and proposed rail stations as part of the South Wales Metro and in areas with good bus links.”

The strategy outlines that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken in 2022, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. Accordingly, in line with the spatial strategy adopted for the RLDP (i.e. focus development around sustainable transport nodes), St Athan was identified as a ‘Strategic Opportunity Area’ to accommodate strategic growth – through the proposed allocation of two key sites : ‘Land at Church Farm’ and ‘Land West of St Athan’. These sites have been identified to deliver 532no. and 600no. units respectively in the Plan period. These are separate to, and are in addition to, the 51no. units that have now been attributed to the site ‘Land South of Clive Road’ and 80no. units attributed to ‘Former Stadium Site, adjacent to Burley Place’ in St Athan. Accordingly, in total, the Housing Trajectory makes a provision for a total of 1,263no. homes to be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period.

It is now the case, however, that the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales – as confirmed in the ‘Today, Tomorrow, Together: A vision for rail across Wales and Borders’ (February 2026) recently published by Transport For Wales. This paper acknowledges that a new railway station at St Athan would represent a longer term opportunity, and therefore, will not be delivered in the short term / within the Plan period of the emerging Plan. Equally the Council have not provided any evidence to contradict this, and therefore, it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period. This brings about significant questions regarding the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

The strategy to allocate new housing growth is predicated on focusing residential development around sustainable transport nodes, and given that St Athan will be without any railway station in the Plan period, it is not considered that the sites align with the strategy of the RLDP. Accordingly, the wider Housing Trajectory is considered to be unsound, given that a total of 1,263no. homes (36% of the Plan’s new housing allocations) are expected to be delivered in St Athan within the Plan period.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision. Given this, to add further sites for housing in this location over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites - given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

In terms of the expected delivery of the Key Sites in St Athan, it is noted that the trajectory identifies that for the majority of the Plan period, both sites will be delivering 80no. dwellings per annum on each site (equating to 160no units in total). Whilst these are two separate sites, we seriously question the realistic prospects of the significant number of homes being built simultaneously on two sites in proximity to one another – given the considerable logistical issues that would be brought about.

Accordingly, it remains that there are serious questions regarding the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations at St Athan, which do not accord with the strategy adopted for the RLDP – to focus housing growth on settlements that are supported by railway stations. Moreover, the scale of development proposed at St Athan is also not considered to be proportionate, with a significant number of homes delivered in a location not served by a railway station.

Rolled forward LDP Sites

The proposed land supply within the housing trajectory includes provision for ‘rolled forward’ LDP sites, which contribute to the total of ‘Proposed Additional Housing Allocations’ forming part of the housing supply. Specifically, a total of 1,242no. units have been identified as additional housing allocations, of which 959no. are expected to be delivered on the rolled forward LDP sites. As such, these sites are to provide for a significant proportion of additional housing in the Plan period (specifically circa 77%).

The Development Plans Manual (DPM) sets out that allocations rolled forward from a previous plan will require careful justification for inclusion in a revised plan. The DPM outlines that “there will need to be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate sites can be delivered and justify being included again. Clear evidence will be required that such sites can be delivered.” The below table included in the consultation document provides a breakdown of the rolled forward LDP sites, and in particular, sets out the status of each site:
Table 6: Existing LDP allocations to be carried forward

The above table evidences that the current LDP has under delivered in regard to its targeted unit number of the Plan period, given that these sites did not yield any housing over the current Plan period. This is further exacerbated by the Land Bank sites that have also not delivered any housing across the existing LDP period, amounting to 1,860no units. Accordingly, when considering the non-delivery of both rolled forward LDP sites and Land Bank sites, this amounts to an approximate shortfall of 2,189 homes being delivered, or 33% of the total housing supply identified for the current LDP (8,525no. dwellings).

It is therefore considered that, as a minimum, the units carried over from the LDP (without planning permission) should be a surplus to the housing supply proposed for the RLDP, as opposed to being relied on to deliver the housing need over the Plan period. This is particularly the case for the two sites (Land to the west of Pencoedtre Lane, and Land between Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road) which do not currently have any active planning application submitted for their development. These sites total an amount of 370no. units to be delivered in the Plan period, which represents more than a third of the additional housing allocations to make up the housing supply.

As such, it is considered that the unmet need deriving from the existing LDP is still present – indeed it has grown, and will continue to do so, not least when considered in conjunction with the projected population growth over the coming years to 2036, and the aspirations for growth in the Plan’s strategy.

Accordingly, in order to secure the targeted level of housing, a greater level of provision for new allocations should be applied in order to meet the housing requirement. This would bring about better certainty that the housing requirement is met by the housing supply over the Plan period, not least given that the current Plan failed in this respect. Without a re-apportioning of the housing supply, it is considered that the Plan would heavily rely on the contingency (i.e. rolled forward LDP sites) coming forward in the Plan period, yet there is uncertainty that these will yield in full over the new Plan period. This raises issues of ’soundness’, and risks rendering the Plan unrobust.

Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions

As set out in our previous representations to the Housing Trajectory consultation, we have considerable concerns in relation to the proposed delivery of the sites identified in the trajectory – which we do not consider are robust or reasonable.

Appendix 1 of the Deposit Plan sets out the development trajectory bar chart – which illustrates the proposed delivery of housing, on a per annum basis, over the Plan period.
Extract of Housing Trajectory (annotated by GJP - red dotted line)

It is our view that the trajectory makes for an unrealistic and unrobust delivery rate of housing, which does not reflect the pattern of housing completions in the Vale of Glamorgan. We therefore have concerns regarding the soundness of the trajectory, not least that there remain significant uncertainties as to the delivery of the Key Sites (as discussed earlier in these representations).

Firstly, the graph / trajectory illustrates a large ‘spike’ in terms of housing delivery in the year 2027-28, which is considered to be a marked and pronounced step change in the rate of delivery. This envisages / relies on a significantly higher rate of delivery than previous years in the Vale of Glamorgan (2021 through 2021 – as depicted by the green columns). It is considered that this level of delivery is unlikely to materialise, not least given prevailing market circumstances, past rates of delivery on the ground, and also in light of levels achieved across Wales and the UK in general.

The published trajectory shows that the average level of completions from 2021 - 2025 has been approx. 400 - 500 units, however, the chart shows that from 2027 – 2028, completions are expected to rise to approx. 1,000 units per year. The expected delivery levels in the trajectory therefore show and assume a doubling in delivery rates and unit numbers (an increase of approx. 100% relative to past rates). There is no clear evidence as to how this level of completions can be achieved let alone guaranteed. This is the case in particular given that the forthcoming years (2025-2027) are expected to see performance (yield) drop significantly (delivery rates in 2025 – 2026 and 2026 – 2027). The chart shows only approx. 200 units being delivered over these years. It is therefore unclear how completion rates are expected to rise so quickly (from 200 in 2025-26 to 1000 in 2027-28), and by such a significant amount. The assumptions in the trajectory are wholly unrobust in our view.

It is also the case that the anticipated delivery of housing fails to be consistent within and across the Plan period. It is unclear as to why completions rates aren’t spread out more evenly throughout the Plan period - to ensure a robust and most realistic housing trajectory until 2036. By comparison to the marked increase in the rate of delivery between and over the period 2027 to 2031, there is then a marked fall-off or drop in delivery towards and by the end of the Plan period. Indeed, in the final year, the level of completions are expected to be lower than the period 2021-2025.

Accordingly, we consider that the housing trajectory, as proposed, is entirely manufactured and unreflective of the past completion rates, as well as the recent published completion rates provided by Welsh Government recently in August 2025. As set out in our previous representations, it has been evidenced that there has been a general decline in the number of new dwellings started and completed.
Description of Figure 1: ‘New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’
As identified in the graph above, in 2024-25, 4,631 new dwellings were completed, which represents 3% fewer than the previous year. This figure represented the second lowest number on record, with the lowest number recorded in 2021-22, a year heavily affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (in 2021-22, 4,616 new dwellings were completed) The New Housing Pipeline Report Quarter 3, 2025 Report (December 2025) published by the HBF evidenced that the number of residential units approved in the UK fell by 7% during the third quarter of 2025, extending the decline seen during the first half of the year. At 45,075, the number of units approved was 34% down on the third quarter of 2024 and the lowest quarterly total since 2012 Q2. At 146,798, the overall number of units approved during the first nine months of 2025 was 25% lower than a year ago.
HBF Graph Illustrating Residential Approvals (2006-2025)

The above graph clearly shows a pronounced downward trend in the number of residential planning approvals over the period, particuarly with a sharp decrease seen since 2020. Further, the HBF document ‘Increasing Housing Supply in Wales’ (4th September 2025) clearly shows that The Vale of Glamorgan has not met the housing delivery requirements in recent years in 2023 – 2024 – along with every other authority in Wales (except Newport). Accordingly, this further adds to the argument that historically The Vale (and most other authorities) have underprovided. This adds considerable uncertainty on the assumed transformation in yield and delivery as built into the trajectory.
Graph: Housing Delivery as a proportion of annual housing requirement in Wales per Authority

More recently, the Welsh Government has released its new estimates of housing need (Estimates of Additional Hosing Need: 2025-based – February 2026). The estimates show how many new homes need to be built over the next twenty years to address existing unmet need as well as newly arising need. The figures set out that around 8,700no. new homes a year are needed over the next Senedd term up to 2030 to meet new housing need. Additionally, there is an unmet need for 9,400 affordable homes.

Overall, this represents more than double 2024/25 levels of supply, where just 4,638 new homes were built.

HBF: Estimates of Housing Need

HBF: Actual Delivery vs Estimates of Need

The above graphs unequivocally evidence that historical rates of delivery of housing in Wales has remained low, and moreover, significant numbers of housing need to be allocated in order to meet the estimate of need. It is not considered that the housing trajectory, in its current form, is robust to meet the housing need over the Plan period, given the uncertainties of the Key Sites, and the level of housing delivery that has been identified for the Plan.

Affordable Housing-Led Sites

HG4 - Rural Affordable Housing Led Sites

Policy HG4 of the Deposit Plan identifies four sites to be allocated as affordable housing-led sites, totalling approximately 122 dwellings within the plan period. Given the target levels of achieving 3,070 affordable dwellings over the course of the Plan period (up to 2036), it is not considered that this policy goes far enough to address the target and level of affordable housing need.
It is noted that the number of units identified for each site relate to the ‘total’ number of units delivered, as opposed to the affordable housing provision. Accordingly, it can be assumed that circa 50% of each allocation will comprise affordable units (given each site is affordable-led), which would equate to a total provision of circa 61no. units. The contribution from the affordable housing-led sites would only equate to 2% of the total need (3,070no. units). Even when coupled with the affordable housing provision from open market sites and 100% exception sites, the total delivery of affordable housing will still be nowhere near enough to meet the overall affordable housing need over the Plan period. Accordingly, it is considered that inadequate provision has been made for such sites.

Insofar as to the sites chosen and allocated are concerned, it is clear from reviewing the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Candidate Site Assessment that the allocated sites HG4(1) – (4) were not considered acceptable due to being outside the strategic growth areas, and were considered to be unacceptable intrusions into the open countryside. After being resubmitted as affordable housing-led sites, the sites were allocated, some with a smaller area in order to accommodate less dwellings in total.

The sustainable credentials of the sites allocated is not disputed, and it is acknowledged that these minor rural settlements have the ability to accommodate further growth, in the form of affordable-led housing allocations. However, it is considered that Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 430 / 4060) should also form an allocation as part of this policy, given its high sustainability credentials and its appropriate location to accommodate a suitable level of development. Please refer to the previous representations made to the Housing Trajectory Consultation (dated 17th October) and Annex 2 for further, more detailed comments regarding the above sites.

The LHMA 2023 shows that there is a need for 230 affordable homes in the Cowbridge housing market area / ward - which Ystradowen is located within. As such, there is an identified need for affordable housing in this area, something which the site could address through an allocation – see Annex 2.

Securing further delivery of Affordable Units

As set out above, the affordable housing-led allocated sites only provide 122no. affordable dwellings, which comprise 4no. allocated sites that are expected to deliver approximately between 20 – 50 dwellings. However, the RLDP sets a target of 3,070 affordable homes to be delivered in the Plan period. This means that affordable housing-led allocations make up less than 4% of the target provision and will only make provision for 2% of the targeted number. We would therefore object to the sites included within Policy HG4 and would suggest that more sites should be allocated as part of the policy in order to secure delivery of a higher number of affordable housing units to mere the target.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the Key Sites will provide for a significant proportion of affordable housing, as set out above in these representations, there is serious concern regarding the deliverability of these sites, which would result in a significant gap of affordable housing delivered.

A greater number of affordable housing-led sites allocated would ensure there is sufficient contingency built into the Plan, to ensure that the overall affordable housing need is met over the Plan period. Failure to do so would result in affordable housing need being unmet, with demand continuing to outstrip supply.

Previous representations to the Preferred Strategy (dated 14th February 2024) provided comment on the sustainability scoring of Ystradowen and the proposed site. As outlined within these representations, it is considered that the site (ID 430) represents a sustainable, deliverable and acceptable site. The site is located within 2.7 miles Cowbridge and
2.8 miles of Pontyclun. Due to the availability of frequent bus services, and active travel links, key services are readily available to access for any residents within Ystradowen without the need to travel by car. The site is within a maximum 9- and 14-minute bus journey (respectively) of the following key services:

• Cowbridge and ‘Y Pant’ Comprehensive Schools;
• Cowbridge Health Centre and Old School Surgery; and
• Cowbridge Town Centre, and Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant (Strategic Growth Area), for various Retail Services.

Accordingly, the settlement of Ystradowen represents an acceptable location to allocate an affordable housing-led site, given the access to existing services and facilities that would serve future residents of the site.

To conclude, the settlement, location and site are inherently suitable and deliverable, and will make a significant contribution to achieving and realising the housing and economic development needs of Ystradowen, support the surrounding settlements, and the Plan area as a whole. As such, the site should be considered further.

Comments on Specific Policies

HG5 - Affordable Housing Exception Sites

Given the unmet need and extant backlog of affordable housing, as identified within the LHMA (2023), it is noted that an Affordable Housing Exception Sites policy has been adopted in order to assist in the delivery of affordable housing. Policy HG5 sets out the specific criteria where proposals for 100% small scale affordable housing developments will be permitted outside settlement boundaries. The current policy wording for the Affordable Housing Site Exception Policy and the criteria listed out in the policy is generally supported.

That said, it is noted that a ‘cap’ of 10 dwellings (as referenced within supporting text Para 6.140) is set. This should be amended due to such a ‘cap’ limiting the flexibility of the policy, in particularly for sites coming forward as part of this policy in Minor Rural Settlements.
As such, we would suggest that supporting Para 6.140 should be amended in order to allow for further flexibility for sites in Minor Rural Settlements to come forward and to deliver affordable housing, given that the criteria set out in the policy would already protect and restrict the extent of any development as it stands. Therefore, the proposed amendments to Para 6.140 are outlined below in red:

6.140 “For the purposes of this policy, ‘small-scale’ will generally mean no more than around 10 dwellings on sites adjoining Minor Rural Settlements. In Primary Settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area, proposals for more than 10 dwellings may be acceptable where required to meet a specific need and where the number of dwellings is proportionate to the size of the settlement. In assessing the scale and extent of any proposed local needs housing, consideration should also be given to affordable housing already planned in the ward or nearby area, including sites with existing planning permissions and those allocated in the RLDP. The size and type of affordable housing proposed should reflect the identified local need in the area.”
The above suggested wording would achieve a more flexible policy, which would allow for a variety of scaled applications to secure planning permission for solely 100% affordable housing across the Authority area. This greater flexibility would enable the policy to make a significant contribution towards meeting the affordable housing need – which, as set out earlier is in considerable need.
SECTION 3. Suitability of the site for development

The site promoter objects to the overall assessment of the site, in that it is not considered suitable for further development in the Plan. The promoted site has undergone extensive scrutiny and appraisal at a high level to ascertain the qualities of the site, in light of all identified material considerations which relate to the proposals.

The delivery of the site will yield much needed housing (including Affordable housing) and contribute to the overall supply in the new Plan period, whilst making effective use of a suitably located site for residential development.

Moreover, as set out in ‘Annex 2’ of our representations, the site has overcome the ‘constraints’ set out in the Candidate Site Assessment undertaken for the site, which demonstrates that the proposal is both acceptable and deliverable.

Deliverability of the Site

In summary, the site seeks to deliver the following key elements:

• Provision of circa 67 new-build residential dwellings (including 50% affordable housing provision);
• A mix of house-types and tenures across the site to cater for a variety of needs;
• Creation of a new primary access into the site;
• Connection to pedestrian links within the wider area;
• Public open space; and
• Green Infrastructure; and
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the site promoters:

• Object to the distribution of growth proposed for the Plan area, with a more balanced and equitable distribution of housing sites required in order to meet the identified housing need;
• Object to the level of growth identified for the Plan period;
• Object to the housing trajectory that underpins the delivery of housing within the Plan period – which is considered to be unrealistic and unrobust, leading to serious uncertainty regarding the “soundness” of the Plan;
• Object to the over-reliance on Key Sites and Rolled Forward Sites in making up the Plan’s housing land supply;
• Object to the scale and timing of delivery of sites in / around St Athan – all of which are predicated on railway station provision which will not be realised in the Plan period;
• Object to the under-provision of sites under Policy HG4 – Rural Affordable Housing-Led sites, not least given their extremely limited contribution to the targeted need for affordable housing;
• Object to the current wording of the HG5 Policy ‘Affordable Housing Exception Sites’ which requires greater flexibility to play an important role in delivery much-needed affordable homes across the Authority; and
• Object the Council’s assessment that the site is not considered suitable for development.

The site and proposals are consistent with the RLDP strategy, other Vale of Glamorgan strategies, and the requirements of Planning Policy Wales and Future Wales. It will make a significant contribution to the Vale’s identified housing requirement in the RLDP period and will provide for a wide range of uses that will support the wider community whilst embodying principles relating to placemaking and the well-being of future generations.

The site has no fundamental constraints and has the ability to deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits for the benefit of future residents and the existing local community. The site is demonstrated to be viable, being able to deliver policy-compliant levels of affordable housing and given its location within a strong market area, will benefit from high delivery rates.

ANNEX 2
SECTION 4. A summary of the suitability of the site for development including a Response to the Candidate Site Assessment

Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)

This section of the overall representations to the Deposit Plan is to respond to, and address, the Council’s assessment of the site. The ‘Candidate Sites Assessment Deposit Plan Stage v2’ for ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ sets out that the position of the site at the Deposit Stage is as follows:

“Amendment of proposed use from housing to affordable housing led. Previous site reference 430. The original assessment concluded that whilst the site was adjoining the existing LDP settlement boundary this is by virtue of an existing adopted plan LDP allocation this is currently under review. Notwithstanding this the site would represent unacceptable intrusion in to the open countryside.
The LDP site in question has subsequently been granted planning permission for housing. This site will serve the future needs of residents in the area and it is not considered that additional land should be allocated in this location.”

In terms of the first paragraph, the assessment/conclusion implies and suggests that ‘Land at Ystradowen’ (4060)’ does not adjoin the existing LDP settlement boundary as the allocated site (‘Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen’) has not been built out – “by virtue of an existing adopted plan LDP allocation this is currently under review”. Detailed representations have been made and submitted previously at the Housing Trajectory (see Appendix B& C) that outlines that this is fundamentally incorrect. This is not repeated in full here, with just the main points re-iterated.

First and foremost, ‘Land at Ystradowen (4060)’ directly adjoins the existing LDP settlement boundary. Secondly, there has been a significant change in the position and circumstances. The allocated site (‘Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen’) is currently being “built out”, with work commencing on site (see photographic evidence in Appendix C)
- post the implementation of the planning permission ref. 2023/00948/FUL (post approval on 9th December 2024). Accordingly, the site no longer adjoins “the existing LDP settlement boundary … by virtue of an existing adopted plan LDP allocation … currently under review”. Given this, the ‘Land at Ystradowen’ site boundary therefore directly adjoins/is adjoining the LDP settlement boundary and the site promoted herein.

With regards to the second paragraph, the assessment/conclusion outlines that “The LDP site … will serve the future needs of residents in the area and it is not considered that additional land should be allocated in this location”. The arguments and case presented in Appendix B & C. There is a clear overreliance on ‘rolled forward’ sites / existing allocated sites. A total of 1,242no. units have been identified as additional housing allocations, of which 959no. are expected to be delivered on the rolled forward LDP sites. As such, these sites are to provide for a significant proportion of additional housing in the Plan period (specifically circa 77%). We believe that a greater level of growth is achievable and should be considered. Not least as there is an approximate shortfall of 2,189 homes being delivered, or 33% of the total housing supply identified for the current LDP (8,525no. dwellings). As such, it is considered that the unmet need deriving from the existing LDP is still present – indeed it has grown, and will continue to do so, not least when considered in conjunction with the projected population growth over the coming years to 2036, and the aspirations for growth in the Plan’s strategy. Accordingly, in order to secure the targeted level of housing, a greater level of provision for new allocations should be applied in order to meet the housing requirement. The provision of housing should be adjusted to rebalance the provision to include new allocations in lieu of rolled forward LDP sites in the housing supply. The “future needs of residents in the area” will therefore not be met/served by just this site, and it is considered that additional land should be allocated in this location.

Furthermore, to reinforce, illustrate, and evidence the point in specific reference to the site the subject to this representation (located in Ystradowen), reference is made to application ref. 2013/00856/OUT – ‘Land off Badgers Brook Rise, Ystradowen’. The Final Report of the application states that “Ystradowen is considered a sustainable settlement for further housing development” – i.e. “additional land should be allocated in this location”.

While the issues the Council have raised in their assessment of the site have been addressed and discussed within the representations made at the Preferred Strategy stage of the Plan (see Appendix B), a similar ‘scoring’ exercise has been undertaken as part evidence base for the Deposit Plan. As such, it is still pertinent to consider and respond to the Council’s assessment of the site as part of these representations. A comparison between the site assessments undertaken at both the Preferred Strategy stage and Deposit Plan stage can be seen below for reference:
BP18 Candidate Ste Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage
As demonstrated above, there has been a positive change to the scoring attributed to the site (‘Land at Ystradowen’). The change is a positive change to the ‘Infrastructure Availability’ section changing from: ‘Grey’ (no score) to ‘Amber’. Infrastructure Availability is outlined as: “Existing or proposed services would be suitable subject to local improvements without impacting on development viability and/or delivery timescales” (see below):
The explanation for the scoring provided by the Vale sets out that “Sites will be assessed against the availability of water connections to the site, in addition to the method of foul sewage disposal from the site. Consultation shall be undertaken with DCWW to determine whether there is sufficient capacity to the wastewater treatments works, and how it links into DCWW’s Capital Investment Programme.
Where consultation indicates limited capacity, or the site is located away from a viable connection this may impact on the deliverability/viability of a site should this require significant connection costs or upgrades. Consequently, the Council shall require site proposers to undertake detailed site viability assessment to determine the impact that additional cost shall have on development cost and deliverability timescales.”

As set out above, this is a positive change. This is most likely derived from the allocated site (‘Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen’) currently being “built out”, with work commencing on site that would facilitate and improve the ‘Infrastructure Availability’. This re-iterates the point made previously re the incorrect assessment reached, and the ever changing position of this site – which will only improve given the neighbouring allocated site (‘Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen’) being “built out”.

Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)

There are material similarities between ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ and the site the subject of these representations. It is therefore considered pertinent to assess and compare the suitability of ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin’. Not least as ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ is for a “small-scale affordable housing led development in a minor rural settlement”, within “the ward of Cowbridge”.

The site ‘Land West of Maendy Road (Site ID: 2299)’ has been registered as an Affordable Housing Led Allocation candidate site for the RLDP, however from our review of the evidence base submitted as part of the Housing Trajectory consultation, there was no assessment and critique of this site at this stage. This raises questions regarding the “soundness” of this site, given it appears this sites acceptability and inclusion was pre-determined.

The site (‘Land West of Maendy Road’) has since had a detailed assessment and critique published, however concerns still remain regarding the “soundness” of the site which forms part of the intended housing land supply. The ‘Stage 2 Detailed Site Assessment’ summary undertaken for ‘Land West of Maendy Road’ has been extracted below:

“The site is proposed for a small-scale affordable housing led development in a minor rural settlement, which would accord in principle with the strategy. Aberthin itself has limited services and facilities, but is within reasonable walking distance of primary and secondary school provision with the wider range of services and facilities in Cowbridge just over 2000m away. The settlement is also served by public transport, although this is relatively infrequent.
The 2023 LHMA indicated that the ward of Cowbridge has a need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years and this site could make an important contribution in meeting that.”

As mentioned previously, there are material similarities between ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ and ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ (the subject of these representations). Firstly ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ is also for a “small-scale affordable housing led development”, that is “in a minor rural settlement” (Ystradowen). Accordingly, it should follow that as ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ “would accord in principle with the strategy”, ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ would also “accord in principle with the strategy”.

Furthermore, there is no material difference between the following assessment of Aberthin and Ystradowen:

“Aberthin itself has limited services and facilities, but is within reasonable walking distance of primary and secondary school provision with the wider range of services and facilities in Cowbridge just over 2000m away. The settlement is also served by public transport, although this is relatively infrequent.”

There is no material difference between ‘Land West of Maendy Road’ and ‘Land at Ystradowen’ in sustainability terms.

As set out in our representations to the Preferred Strategy, we reviewed the key services in proximity to the site. The following services were identified as part of that review:

• In terms of public transport, there are two bus stops located approximately 0.2 miles (4-minute walk) from the site (‘Land West of Maendy Road’), with the 321 providing services between Llantwit Major and Talbot Green;

• In terms of public transport, there are two bus stops located approximately 400m (7-minute walk) from the site (‘Ty Mawr Close’), with the ‘321 Nat Group Service’ providing services between Llantwit Major and Talbot Green. The 321 service is the same bus service that serves ‘Land West of Maendy Road’ / Aberthin;

• The site is also located 0.2 miles (4-minute walk) from The Farmers Arms Pub and 0.2 miles (4-minute walk) from The Hare and Hounds Inn; and

• The site is located 0.2 miles (5-minute walk) from Aberthin Village Hall.

Given the above, “The settlement (Ystradowen) is also served by public transport”.
Furthermore, Ystradowen is located only 2.7 miles from Cowbridge (9-minute bus journey). The “primary and secondary school provision with the wider range of services and facilities in Cowbridge” mentioned in relation to Aberthin are therefore also in close proximity to Ystradowen.

Given the above, any candidate site at ’Land at Ystradowen’ (the subject of these representations – Site ID: 430 / 4060) is no less sustainable than the site at Aberthin (Site ID: 2299).

Not least as the following additional key services are located within Ystradowen and therefore in close proximity to the promoted site:

• The site is also located 300m (3-minute walk) and 600m (10-minute walk) from Sports Pitches/Playing Fields such as ‘Ystradowen Children’s Park’, and the 3/4G Sports Pitch at ‘Ystradowen Petanque Club’; and
• Furthermore, the site is located 480m (7-minute walk) from the ‘Murco – Tudor Garage’ which can provide basic goods to meet day-today needs such as bread, butter, milk etc.

Furthermore it is important to note that the above scoring criteria is very limiting, and does not take into account the important role and proximity of settlements in a wider context. For example, it does not take into account the important role and proximity of the Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area (as defined in the RCTCBC LDP) of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant which is 2.8 miles to the north (14-minute bus journey). Ystradowen would also naturally align, and function, in association with this Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area (of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant) – see Appendix B for full details.

In addition, as set out within the representations made in relation to the House Trajectory (Appendix C), the following extracts have been taken from the Officer’s Reports associated with the applications for the site that directly adjoins the western boundary of the promoted site 430 - ‘Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen’ (Housing Allocation 48). An aerial view extract is outlined below to give spatial context:
As set out above, it is important to note that the Final Report of application ref. 2013/00856/OUT states that “Ystradowen is considered a sustainable settlement for further housing development”, due to “the sustainable nature of the settlement”. Furthermore, the Final Report of app ref. 2023/00948/FUL states:

• “Notwithstanding this, the site is located in close proximity to local services and there is a bus stop located nearby. Whilst the comments relating to the reliance and frequency of the bus services have been considered, there still remains a bus service in the area”; and
• “Firstly, as aforementioned, many neighbouring comments refer to the site as unsustainable and have commented on the suitability of public transport and cycle routes etc. This has been addressed above.”

The above clearly evidences that the location has previously been endorsed as, and is currently still found to be, sustainable.

Accordingly, it can be considered therefore that if the proposed allocated site ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ is considered sustainable and by association suitable to be an Affordable Housing Led Allocation, ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 430 / 4060)’ is equally suitable to be an Affordable Housing Led Allocation.

The second section/paragraph of the assessment states:

“The 2023 LHMA indicated that the ward of Cowbridge has a need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years and this site could make an important contribution in meeting that.”
‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ is also located within “the ward of Cowbridge”. As per the above and outlined by the Authority, there is “a need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years”. It is clear therefore that there is a need for additional affordable units in this ward, and this site would therefore also help to alleviate this need.

This position is a direct contradiction of course of the assessment/conclusion for ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ which stated “it is not considered that additional land should be allocated in this location”. It is clear from the above however that “additional land should be allocated in this location” to satisfy this “need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years” – which ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ can do. This is not least the case given the detailed arguments, case and representations presented and evidenced previously above and in Appendix B & C.
To briefly reiterate there is a clear overreliance on ‘rolled forward’ sites / existing allocated sites which has resulted in the unmet need deriving from the existing LDP being still present. A greater level of provision for new allocations should therefore be applied in order to meet the housing requirement. The provision of housing should be adjusted to rebalance the provision to include new allocations in lieu of rolled forward LDP sites in the housing supply, so these can “make an important contribution in meeting” the “need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years” in “the ward of Cowbridge” – which ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ can do.

As set out within the representations made in relation to the housing trajectory (see Appendix C), a further key consideration to note and one which does differentiate between the relative merits of the ‘Land at Maendy Road, Aberthin’ and ‘Land at Ystradowen’ is that the LDP Proposals Map demonstrates that ‘Land West of Maendy Road’ is within a Special Landscape Area - see below:
Vale of Glamorgan Proposals Map (Land West of Maendy Road outlined in red
Under Policy MG17 ‘Special Landscape Areas’ it is considered that development in SLA could pose an “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area”. Accordingly, this development and proposed allocation could therefore cause “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area”.

‘Land at Ystradowen’ by contrast does not sit within a SLA (see below). This site would therefore not pose any potential concern in this respect as it would ultimately not cause any “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area”.
Vale of Glamorgan Proposals Map (Land at Ystradowen in red)
It is noted that the detailed assessment scores the site ‘amber’ in respect to Special Landscape Area (refer to / see later section for full details), with the assessment methodology setting out that “the site is located within a Special Landscape Area/The Glamorgan Heritage Coast and the development may result in little or no change in character and little or no significant effect on landscape character and visual amenity.”
A detailed assessment of the impact upon the SLA in respect to the development of ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin’ should therefore be, and will need to be, undertaken as part of any planning application. If it is found that the site causes “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area”, this will lead to this proposed allocation being at risk of not being delivered. This will be as a result of its impacts and acceptability at the planning application stage that the landscape and visual impact of development of the site is unacceptable. As such, these proposed affordable units are at a potential considerable risk of being lost and not satisfying the “need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years” in “the ward of Cowbridge” – which ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ can do as it is not located in an SLA.

In addition the draft housing trajectory set out that “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”. There is a clear possibility therefore that this proposed allocation is not delivered (as it is located in a SLA), and so a “small scale affordable housing led development” which is needed to “respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities” is not provided for. This is clearly an issue. Given however ‘Land at Ystradowen’ does not sit within a SLA – and so not pose any potential concern or cause any “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area” – the allocation of this site would be more suitable and “safer” - as there would be no concerns over this proposed allocation being removed and/or not being delivered in this respect (as it is not located in a SLA). This would ensure that affordable units, where “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”, are provided for, and the need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years” in “the ward of Cowbridge” would be satisfied.

As mentioned previously, a detailed assessment and critique has now been undertaken of ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ as part evidence base for the Deposit Plan using the similar ‘scoring’ exercise. As such, it is again pertinent to consider and respond to the Council’s ‘scoring’ exercise assessment of the site ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ as part of these representations.

The ‘Summary of Assessment of New Candidate Sites’ table can be seen overleaf for reference:
BP18A Candidate Site Assessment at Deposit Plan Stage
A comparison between the site assessments undertaken for both ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ (on the left), and ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ (on the right) has been undertaken, and can be seen below for reference:

Having undertaken a review of the scoring for both ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ and ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’, it is clear that ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ scores higher/more positively (i.e. green) than ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’:

• ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’: 17/33 criteria are scored green = 52%

• ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’: 12/34 criteria are scored green = 36%

It is clear therefore given the above that ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ is a better site, and should be allocated accordingly.

One key example to note is how the criterion ‘Access to Services and Facilities’ has been scored. For ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ this has been scored green, yet for ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’, this has been scored red. Given this, this corroborates the position outlined previously above that, if the proposed allocated site ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ is considered sustainable and by association suitable to be an Affordable Housing Led Allocation, ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 430 / 4060)’ is equally as sustainable – in fact considered more suitable (given its higher scoring in this respect).

Furthermore, we question the “soundness” of the assessment of ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’, given that 7/34 (21%) of the criteria do not appears to have not been assessed – i.e. 7/34 (21%) of the criteria are scored grey. This raises questions regarding the “soundness” of this site, given it appears this sites acceptability and inclusion was pre-determined.

It is clear therefore that if ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’ has been deemed acceptable for allocation, yet ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ scores higher/more positively (i.e. green) than this site, ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ should also be deemed acceptable and be allocated. Not least as the site is “proposed for a small-scale affordable housing led development in a minor rural settlement … would accord in principle with the strategy”, and “could make an important contribution in meeting “a “need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years” in “the ward of Cowbridge”.

Summary and Conclusion

To re-iterate, and to summarise the case made and set out, these representations seek to object to the Deposit Plan published as part of the consultation.

In terms of SECTION 4, and a response to the Candidate Site Assessment at Deposit Plan Stage, the following key points have been made:

• The Council’s ‘Stage 2 Detailed Site Assessment’ justification for ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ is fundamentally incorrect;

• Given the material positive similarities between ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ and ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’, which has been deemed acceptable and allocated, ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ should also be deemed acceptable and allocated accordingly;

• ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ would help to alleviate and satisfy “a need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years” within “the ward of Cowbridge”; and
• ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ scores higher/more positively (i.e. green) than ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin (Site ID: 2299)’, and so should also be deemed acceptable and be allocated;

Ultimately, ‘Land at Ystradowen (Site ID: 4060)’ is “proposed for a small-scale affordable housing led development in a minor rural settlement”, and as such “would accord in principle with the strategy”. It would therefore “make an important contribution in meeting“ the “need for 230 additional affordable units over the next 15 years” in “the ward of Cowbridge”.

We would therefore object the Council’s assessment that the site is not considered suitable for development.

Summary of These Representations

In short, and to summarise the case made and set out, these representations seek to object to the Housing Trajectory published as part of the consultation on the Draft Housing Trajectory For Housing Stakeholder Group (October 2025) which underpins the Plan and the delivery / realisation of its underlying strategy.

Detailed submissions and objections are raised below in respect to the trajectory information published regarding the soundness and robustness of this information (and it’s consultation), which we do not consider are adequate, robust, or sound to deliver the Plans aims and objectives.

Preface

This Submission sets out the detailed case in support of these representations. The representations are structured as follows:

1. Procedural Consultation Matters;
2. Timing Assumptions underpinning the Trajectory;
3. Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions;;
4. Status & Standing of Sites included in the Trajectory;
5. Key Sites;
6. St Athan Train Station;
7. Geographic distribution of the ‘new’ sites / provision;
8. Detailed comments in respect to ‘new’ sites;
9. Credentials of this site subject to this submission; and
10. Conclusions Procedural Consultation Matters
Firstly, we do not consider that the consultation on the Housing Trajectory information has been procedurally undertaken appropriately or suitably.

Only 14 days have been afforded to parties to make representations on the information provided. This is despite new sites being introduced (at this late stage) i.e. Land South of Clive Road (identified in Table 4), as well as a number of affordable housing-led housing sites being introduced (i.e. those outlined in Table 5). This does not provide an adequate process or timescale for objectors to scrutinise the published content, and to make comments on sites which have been presented for the first time at a late stage in the process.

As part of these representations, we will be making brief comment on the sites which have not been previously consulted upon, namely:
Other Housing Allocations
• Land south of Clive Road, St Athan;

Affordable Housing Led Sites
• Land at Heol Fain, Wick;
• Land west of Maendy Road, Aberthin;
• Land Noth of West Winds Business Park, Fferm Goch; and
• Land to the east of Coliwinston, Colwinston.

It is considered necessary to comment on these sites, given that they form an important and critical part of the housing trajectory, and by association in the Council and Plan reaching their targets. Moreover, these sites have not been consulted on previously. Accordingly we consider it necessary to pass comment on these in order to ensure that the consultation is fair and robust.

As well as limited time given to comment on the information contained within the Housing Trajectory, the LPA have failed to set up a Housing Stakeholder group to agree and discuss the trajectory information and data – with the cover email to the consultation (dated 3rd October 2025) stating “it is considered that it would be the best use of stakeholder time to conduct this engagement via email, particularly as many of the forecasts have been developed in consultation with site promoters including developers and their agents”.

We submit that the stakeholder consultation has not been a transparent nor robust consultation process, given that the Development Plans Manual states at Para 5.66 “A housing trajectory must be prepared to support the Deposit Plan. In order to generate a housing trajectory and associated phasing tables it will be necessary for LPAs to engage with stakeholders through a Housing Stakeholder Group. This will ensure that the timing and phasing of sites is robust and based on up to date information”. Given that this has not taken place, we would raise fundamental concerns that the consultation of the trajectory has not adequately taken place as per the relevant guidance. Afterall, the guidance stresses that a Group should be formed as a necessity. Accordingly, there has not been an adequate process and opportunity to review and comment on the information published, including in respect to the other sites have been introduced at this late stage.

Timing Assumptions underpinning the Trajectory

The assumed and factored in timescales of the various stages of bringing forward sites i.e. the pre-application stage, the planning application process, and the discharge of condition process outlined in the trajectory are considered to be fundamentally inaccurate, and result in a distorted position of the delivery of housing sites over the RLDP Plan period. The assumptions are far too ambitious, and without evidence / are not comparable with the timescales being incurred in processing such stages at the Development Management stage(s).

Specifically, we raise objection to the following timescales which are considered to be extremely ambitious and unrealistic:

• “Time period of pre-application discussions/PAC consultation” = 4 months
• “Time between submission of planning application and determination” = 6 months
• “Time taken from planning consent to the discharge of relevant conditions to enable site construction” = 4 months

In our experience, having submitted a significant number of major and other applications for housing and other forms of development in the last 1-2 years to the Council (and elsewhere in Wales and England), it is extremely unlikely that major applications can be submitted, and planning permissions granted, within the timeframes assumed by the trajectory. A wide range of stakeholders are also involved in the determination of major planning applications, which often adds to the delays associated with the determination of such applications. We would therefore consider that a time period of “6 months” given to all major applications in the housing trajectory is not feasible, and distorts the trajectory timescales for the remaining Plan period.

The assumptions in the trajectory are also solely based on expected timescales for the processing of formal submissions made to the Council, and do not factor in the timescales associated with, and needed for, the preparation of the material for submission (i.e. pre-application enquiry submissions / planning application / discharge of condition details etc). When factored in these will elongate the timescales for bringing forward schemes considerably.

Moreover, it is common practice for larger housing sites and major applications to have a range of pre-commencement conditions attached to a permission once granted. Again, we would raise concerns with the timescales indicated in the trajectory related to this part of the planning process. It is highly unusual and questionable that any technical work required by these conditions (usually relating to drainage and highways matters) would be instructed, completed and submitted within 2 months, and for these to then be signed off / approved in a further 2 months. There are also other technical matters and necessary approvals falling outside of, and over and above, the planning system, such as SAB, s.106, s.38 and s.278 agreements, timescales for which have not been accounted for – and all of which are rarely completed within “4 months” as indicated.

It is therefore highly doubtful that the timescales legislated for in the trajectory for the various stages pre-construction are achievable – with no information about these proposed timescales outlined within the supporting text of the Housing Trajectory. We would therefore raise considerable concerns and objections to these as they stand without full evidence to fully show how these have been calculated, and without there being considerable (and necessary) adjustment to the timescales indicated and factored in.

We would therefore object to the timescales indicted in the ‘Timing and Phasing of Sites’ table, given that the delivery start dates will be pushed back further into the Plan period. Accordingly, and as a result, the Plan is at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated, at least as swiftly as is set out in the trajectory.

Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions

We would also raise considerable doubt over the proposed delivery of the sites identified in the Housing Trajectory - which we do not consider are robust or reasonable.

The development trajectory bar chart set out in the consultation material (extracted below) anticipates and legislates for a number of critical events and circumstances – all of which are considered to be unrobust and unsound.
Extract of Housing Trajectory Graph (annotated by GJP – red dotted line)

Firstly, a large ‘spike’ (material increase) in housing delivery is factored in to take place in 2027 – 2028. This is a marked and pronounced step change in the rate of delivery, and envisages / relies on a significantly higher rate of delivery than previous years in The Vale of Glamorgan (2021 through 2025 - as depicted by the green columns). This is considered extremely unlikely to materialise, not least given prevailing market circumstances, past rates of delivery on the ground, and also in light of levels achieved across Wales and the UK in general.

The published trajectory shows that the average level of completions in The Vale of Glamorgan from 2021 - 2025 has been approx. 400 - 500 units. However, the chart shows that from 2027 – 2028, completions are expected to rise to approx. 1,000 units per year. The expected delivery levels in the trajectory therefore show and assume a doubling in delivery rates and unit numbers (an increase of approx. 100%relative to past rates). There is no clear evidence as to how this level of completions can be achieved let alone guaranteed. This is the case in particular given that the forthcoming years (2025-2027) are expected to see performance (yield) drop significantly (delivery rates in 2025 – 2026 and 2026 – 2027). The chart shows only approx. 200 units being delivered over these years. It is therefore unclear how completion rates are expected to rise so quickly (from 200 in 2025-26 to 1000 in 2027-28), and by such a significant amount. The assumptions in the trajectory are wholly unrobust in our view.
The anticipated delivery of housing also fails to be consistent within and across the Plan period. It is unclear as to why completions rates aren’t spread out more evenly throughout the Plan period - to ensure a robust and most realistic housing trajectory until 2036. By comparison to the marked increase in the rate of delivery between and over the period 2027 to 2031, there is then a marked fall-off or drop in delivery towards and by the end of the Plan period. Indeed, in the final year, the level of completions are expected to be lower than the period 2021-2015.

To summarise, we consider the defined position to be wholly manufactured and unreflective of the past completion rates, as well as the recently published completion rates provided by Welsh Government recently in August 2025. In the Welsh Government Statistics Document ‘’New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’, information on the number of new dwellings started is provided, where building has commenced and those completed for April 2024 to March 2025. Figure 1 provides a graph showing starts in the last 10 years, and it is clear that there has been a general decline in the number of new dwellings started and completed.
Description of Figure 1:.‘New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’
In 2024-25, 4,631 new dwellings were completed, 3% fewer than in the previous year. This was the second lowest number on record, with the lowest number recorded in 2021-22, a year heavily affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (in 2021-22, 4,616 new dwellings were completed). The New Housing Pipeline Report Quarter 2, 2025 Report (September, 2025) published by the HBF evidenced that the number of residential units approved in the UK fell by 6% during the second quarter of 2025, continuing the decline of approval during the first three months of the year. Wales saw one of the largest declines in the UK in approvals with a decline of 29%.

Further, the HBF document ‘Increasing Housing Supply in Wales’ (4th September 2025) clearly shows that The Vale of Glamorgan has not met the housing delivery requirements in recent years in 2023 – 2024 – along with every other authority in Wales (except Newport). Accordingly, this further adds to the argument that historically The Vale (and most other authorities) have underprovided. This adds considerable uncertainty on the assumed transformation in yield and delivery as built into the trajectory.
Graph: Housing Delivery as a proportion of annual housing requirement in Wales per Authority

The Home Building Sector Skills Plan (Aug 2025) published by the HBF also identified the following issues with the workforce to bring forward built development in Wales:

• “A shortfall in numbers entering roles from the education system;
• An ageing workforce: 25% of the home building workforce is aged over 50, meaning the sector is facing an impending retirement cliff edge;
• Challenges attracting a wider talent pipeline into the sector;
• A lack of understanding of critical future skills needed, and direction from the Future Homes Standard; and
• Output within the sector fluctuating with demand and economic pressures, leading to additional pressures in recruitment and training”.

It is not considered that in the next 1-2 years that any of these issues can or will be substantially corrected – at least sufficiently so to allow for, and enable, the planned delivery rates of new housing completions to be as high as < > 1,000 homes in one year (and for four consecutive years at that).

We would therefore object to the proposed numbers of completion expected during the Plan period, given that there are a number of issues with delivering housing in Wales and given past completions rates for The Vale of Glamorgan. Again, this results in the Plan being at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated.

Status & Standing of Sites included in the Trajectory

The proposed land supply within the housing trajectory includes provision for ‘rolled forward’ LDP sites, which contribute to the total of ‘Proposed Additional Housing Allocations’ forming part of the housing supply. Specifically, a total of 1,242no. units have been identified as additional housing allocations, of which 959no. are expected to be delivered on the rolled forward LDP sites. As such, these sites are to provide for a significant proportion of additional housing in the Plan period (specifically circa 77%).

The Development Plans Manual (DPM) sets out that allocations rolled forward from a previous plan will require careful justification for inclusion in a revised plan. The DPM outlines that “there will need to be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate sites can be delivered and justify being included again. Clear evidence will be required that such sites can be delivered.” The below table included in the consultation document provides a breakdown of the rolled forward LDP sites, and in particular, sets out the status of each site:
Table 6: Existing LDP allocations to be carried forward
The above table evidences that the current LDP has under delivered in regard to its targeted unit number of the Plan period, given that these sites did not yield any housing over the current plan period. This is further exacerbated by the Land Bank sites that have also not delivered any housing across the existing LDP period, amounting to 1,860no units. Accordingly, when considering the non-delivery of both rolled forward LDP sites and Land Bank sites, this amounts to an approximate shortfall of 2,189 homes being delivered, or 33% of the total housing supply identified for the current LDP (8,525no. dwellings).

It is therefore considered that, as a minimum, the units carried over from the LDP (without planning permission) should be a surplus to the housing supply proposed for the RLDP, as opposed to being relied on to deliver the housing need over the Plan period. This is particularly the case for the two sites (Land to the west of Pencoedtre Lane, and Land between Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road) which do not currently have any active planning application submitted for their development. These sites total an amount of 370no. units to be delivered in the Plan period, which represents more than a third of the additional housing allocations to make up the housing supply.

As such, it is considered that the unmet need deriving from the existing LDP is still present – indeed it has grown, and will continue to do so, not least when considered in conjunction with the projected population growth over the coming years to 2036, and the aspirations for growth in the Plan’s strategy.

Accordingly, in order to secure the targeted level of housing, a greater level of provision for new allocations should be applied in order to meet the housing requirement. This would bring about better certainty that the housing requirement is met by the housing supply over the Plan period, not least given that the current Plan failed in this respect. Without a re-apportioning of the housing supply, it is considered that the Plan would heavily rely on the contingency (i.e. rolled forward LDP sites) coming forward in the Plan period, yet there is uncertainty that these will yield in full over the new Plan period. This raises issues of ‘’soundness’’, and risks rendering the Plan unrobust.

On this basis, we would object to the Plan if the provision of housing is not adjusted to rebalance the provision to include new allocations in lieu of rolled forward LDP sites in the housing supply.
Key Sites

As set out in previous representations at Preferred Strategy stage, it is considered that the housing supply relies heavily on the delivery of the ‘key sites’ to deliver housing (and meet need) over the Plan period. The total number of housing units attributed to key sites amounts to 2,278, which equates to over 25% of the total provision in the Plan period.

As detailed above, we consider there to be concerns regarding the proposed ‘Timing and Phasing of Sites’ table included in the Housing Trajectory which we consider are not reflective or accurate and will therefore have the effect of delivery start dates being much later into the Plan period than anticipated. The result of this will be that the Plan will be at risk of not delivery the level of housing expected and needed. Moreover, the Housing Trajectory Graph presents an overly ambitious level of housing completions over the Plan period - which the Council consider will be markedly higher than the average levels experienced in the last five years. Again, for the reasons set out above, we consider that these rates of expected completions to have no evidence supporting them, and to be unachievable and unsound.

Insofar as to the removal of the previously proposed site ‘Land at North East Barry’, this site was expected to deliver 900no. units in the Plan period. Following its omission from the housing supply, other sites have been identified, which comprises the inclusion of a new key site (Land at North West Barry), 3no. non-strategic sites, and also affordable housing-led allocations. In terms of the quantum of development attributed to these new sites, this amounts to 659no. dwellings. This is some 250 units less than the 900no. homes that was previously attributed to ‘Land at North East Barry’. Whilst it is appreciated that the number of homes forming part of the existing supply (completions, units with planning permission etc.) have increased since Preferred Strategy stage, there will be a net loss in market housing provision and delivery.

This position is made worse and compounded as a result of accounting for the affordable-led sites in making up the housing supply.

As set out within the Preferred Strategy, these sites are expected to deliver at least 51% affordable housing. These units are not open market units, and will not / cannot contribute to the supply of such housing. These units will contribute to the provision of affordable housing, and will go some way to meeting the acute need for such housing (albeit will not eradicate / address in full the well known and accepted considerable requirement). Accordingly it is considered that these sites should be in addition to the housing supply, as opposed to forming part of the provision. In turn, there would need to be an increase in allocations for non-strategic sites, to ensure that there is sufficient market housing delivery over the Plan period.

Were such changes to be made and introduced, this would achieve and assist realise a more robust and sound housing supply, which will ensure that the identified housing need is met / addressed over the Plan period. Without these changes it is considered that the housing supply is not sufficient, and inevitably, housing need will not be met within the Plan.

St Athan Train Station

As set out in the Preferred Strategy (para A3.29), the strategy seeks to focus development around key sustainable transport nodes. The strategy outlined that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. Accordingly, in line with the spatial strategy adopted for the RLDP (i.e. focus development around sustainable transport nodes), St Athan was identified as a ‘Strategic Opportunity Area’ to accommodate strategic growth – through the proposed allocation of two key sites : ‘Land at Church Farm’ and ‘Land West of St Athan’. These sites have been identified to deliver 532no. and 600no. units respectively in the Plan period. These are separate to, and are in addition to, the 51no. units that have now been attributed to the site ‘Land South of Clive Road’ in St Athan. Accordingly, in total, the Housing Trajectory makes a provision for a total of 1,183no. homes to be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period.

It is now the case that, subsequent to the publication of the Preferred Strategy, the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales. The focus in the first phase of such improvements across the region is towards improving connectivity in east Cardiff, Newport, and Magor. Accordingly, it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period, which significantly questions the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

The strategy to allocate new housing growth is predicated on focusing residential development around sustainable transport nodes, and given that St Athan will be without any railway station in the Plan period, it is not considered that these sites align with the strategy of the RLDP. Accordingly, the wider Housing Trajectory is considered to be unsound, given that a total of 1,183no. homes are expected to be delivered in St Athan within the Plan period.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision. Given this, to add a further site for housing in this location over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites - given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

We therefore consider the Trajectory to be both unrobust and unsound, and therefore, we object to the Trajectory in its current form accordingly.

Geographic distribution of the ‘new’ sites / provision

As a general and overarching comment in respect to the additional sites now included within the Plan, and forming part of the trajectory, (and a matter expanded upon when critiquing each of these sites in the next section to this submission), it is clear and evident that these additional sites have been positioned to settlements that have already, and recently, been attributed significant growth in the preceding Plan and plan period.

Significant allocations (which have also contributed to significant levels of affordable housing) have been realised and built out in locations such as Wick and Colwinston). Notwithstanding this, two of the additional sites are now proposed for these recently expanded settlements. Given that the purpose of the affordable housing led allocations is to meet unmet affordable housing need, it is questioned why such new allocations are attributed to settlements that have already seen open market and affordable housing provision, as compared to other comparable settlements that have not received any growth whatsoever over a considerable period of time.

It is considered accordingly that the geographic positioning of these allocations is at odds with their underlying purpose - to meet unmet affordable housing need in communities that have seen no provision.
Detailed Comments in respect to ‘new’ sites

Other Housing Allocations

Land south of Clive Road, St Athan

A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below for ease:
As set out at the outset of these representations, and whilst we note the findings of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage (i.e. Suitable for further consideration), we do not consider that the consultation on this site has been undertaken procedurally appropriately or suitably. We therefore consider the consultation on this site is “unrobust” and “unsound”.
As set out previously, the strategy seeks to focus development around key sustainable transport nodes. The strategy outlined that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. It is now the case that, subsequent to the publication of the Preferred Strategy, the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales, where the focus is towards improving connectivity in east Cardiff, Newport, and Magor. Accordingly, it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period, which significantly questions the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision, and as such, to add a further site for housing over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites – given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

Affordable Housing Led Allocations

Land at Heol Fain, Wick
A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below for ease:
Candidate Site Stage 2 Assessment (Site Ref. 404)
The findings of the Candidate Site Assessment for this site are noted. We are assuming the reason this site is proposed to be allocated is a product of the site promoters/developers heading the findings stated below, and changing the form of development to be in accord with this:
“A market housing led scheme would not be acceptable, but the site could be reconsidered as a small scale affordable housing led development subject to need and viability at a maximum of 50 dwellings. In accordance with the Settlement Appraisal Review, it is considered that Wick could potentially accommodate limited affordable housing led growth.”

Whilst no clearly evident deficiency exists in respect to the site, it is known that Wick has been subject to significant growth and expansion in recent years – not least by virtue of significant housing allocations in the settlement as part of previous plans.

To evidence this, 35% of the 124 units approved on the ‘Rectory Field, St Brides Road’ site (i.e. circa 43 units as per site allocation ref. MG(47) and PP ref. 2014/01424/FUL) were approved as Affordable Housing units. This makes a substantial provision of such Affordable Housing units (and housing generally) in the settlement in recent years.

Other similarly sized and comparable settlements and locations have not by contrast been subject to any growth for some considerable time, and accordingly would warrant and benefit from provision as part of this new replacement plan.

Notwithstanding the location of such provision, and as set out in detail at the outset of these representations, National Planning Policy advocates the high and acute need for affordable housing, whilst recent analysis evidences that there is a housing emergency. These circumstances - coupled with the shortcomings identified and set out earlier in these submissions in respect to the adequacy of provision within the plan (rolled forward sites / inadequate provision etc) – means that notwithstanding any potential allocation at Wick, further provision ought to be made in comparable (previously unprovided for) locations, such as Ystradowen.
Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin

‘Land West of Maendy Road’ has been registered as an Affordable Housing Led Allocation candidate site for the RLDP, however as far as we know from our review, there is no assessment and critique of this site. This site has not been included in the ‘Candidate Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage’ (October 2023). As such, with an absence of publicly available information, it is not clear how the Council has judged this site against the criteria. This raises questions accordingly in respect to the “soundness” of a site which forms part of the intended housing land supply, and by association the trajectory. Without this, and without being consulted on (as others have been prior to this) we question whether this allocation is “sound” (i.e. its allocation is considered to be “unsound”).

Despite the absence of site-specific assessment criteria, as the RLDP preferred strategy states a key objective guiding site selection is that the Plan will “provide for vital and vibrant rural communities whilst protecting the countryside through the delivery of growth in sustainable locations related to the settlement hierarchy alongside the provision of supporting infrastructure” (Objective 7 ‘Fostering Diverse Vibrant and Connected Communities’), it is reasonable to assume that the Council considers ‘Land West of Maendy Road’ to be a ‘sustainable’ location.

Given this, we have reviewed the key services in proximity to the site. The following services were identified:

• In terms of public transport, there are two bus stops located approximately 0.2 miles (4-minute walk) from the site (‘Land West of Maendy Road’), with the 321 providing services between Llantwit Major and Talbot Green.

• The site is also located 0.2 miles (4-minute walk) from The Farmers Arms Pub and 0.2 miles (4-minute walk) from The Hare and Hounds Inn.

• The site is located 0.2 miles (5-minute walk) from Aberthin Village Hall.

Aberthin is in close proximity (1.2 miles/14-minute walk) to the key settlement of Cowbridge - which is identified as a sustainable location, and is ranked 4th place for services and facilities within the Vale of Glamorgan. The following key services are found in Cowbridge, and are therefore in close proximity to ‘Land West of Maendy Road’:

• Cowbridge Comprehensive Schools;
• Cowbridge Health Centre; and
• Cowbridge Town Centre for various Retail Services.

Considering this, there is no material difference between ‘Land West of Maendy Road’ and ‘Land at Ystradowen’ in sustainability terms. Given that Ystradowen is located only 2.7 miles from Cowbridge (9- minute bus journey), the candidate site at ’Land at Ystradowen’ is no less sustainable than the site at Aberthin. The following key services are within Ystradowen and therefore in close proximity to the promoted site:

• In terms of public transport, there are two bus stops located approximately 400m (7-minute walk) from the site (‘Ty Mawr Close’), with the ‘321 Nat Group Service’ providing services between Llantwit Major and Talbot Green. The 321 service is the same bus service that serves ‘Land West of Maendy Road’ / Aberthin.
• The site is also located 300m (3-minute walk) and 600m (10-minute walk) from Sports Pitches/Playing Fields such as ‘Ystradowen Children’s Park’, and the 3/4G Sports Pitch at ‘Ystradowen Petanque Club’.

• Furthermore, the site is located 480m (7-minute walk) from the ‘Murco – Tudor Garage’ which can provide basic goods to meet day-today needs such as bread, butter, milk etc.

Accordingly, it can be considered therefore that if the proposed allocated site ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin’ is considered sustainable and by association suitable to be an Affordable Housing Led Allocation, ‘Land at Ystradowen’ is equally suitable to be an Affordable Housing Led Allocation.
Furthermore, to reinforce the above position and to illustrate and evidence the site’s sustainability, the following has been taken from the Officer’s Reports associated with the applications for the site that directly adjoins the western boundary of the promoted site 430 - ‘Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen’ (Housing Allocation 48). An aerial view extract is outlined below to give spatial context:
Reference is made in the Final Report of app ref. 2013/00856/OUT which states that “Ystradowen is considered a sustainable settlement for further housing development”, due to “the sustainable nature of the settlement”.

Furthermore, the Final Report of app ref. 2023/00948/FUL states:

• “Notwithstanding this, the site is located in close proximity to local services and there is a bus stop located nearby. Whilst the comments relating to the reliance and frequency of the bus services have been considered, there still remains a bus service in the area.”
• “Firstly, as aforementioned, many neighbouring comments refer to the site as unsustainable and have commented on the suitability of public transport and cycle routes etc. This has been addressed above.”

The above clearly evidences that the location has previously been endorsed as, and is currently still found to be, sustainable.

A further key consideration to note and one which does differentiate between the relative merits of the ‘Land at Maendy Road, Aberthin’ and ‘Land at Ystradowen’ is that the LDP Proposals Map demonstrates that ‘Land West of Maendy Road’ is within a Special Landscape Area - see overleaf:
Vale of Glamorgan Proposals Map (Land West of Maendy Road outlined in red)
Under Policy MG17 ‘Special Landscape Areas’ it is considered that development in SLA could pose an “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area”. Accordingly, this development and proposed allocation could therefore cause “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area”.

‘Land at Ystradowen’ by contrast does not sit within a SLA (see below). This site would therefore not pose any potential concern in this respect as it would ultimately not cause any “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area”.
Vale of Glamorgan Proposals Map (Land at Ystradowen in red)

This is a significant factor to consider. ‘Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin’ causing “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area” will lead to this proposed allocation being at risk of not being delivered by virtue of detailed assessments of its impacts and acceptability at planning application stage holding that the landscape and visual impact of development of the site is unacceptable. As such 25 affordable units will be lost from the proposed affordable 122 units, and ultimately being lost from the overall housing land supply. As stated in the draft housing trajectory “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”. There is a clear possibility therefore that this proposed allocation is not delivered (as it is located in a SLA), and so a “small scale affordable housing led development” which is needed to “respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities” is not provided for. This is clearly an issue. Given however ‘Land at Ystradowen’ does not sit within a SLA – and so not pose any potential concern or cause any “unacceptable harm to the important landscape of the area” – the allocation of this site would be more suitable and “safer” - as therefore would be no concerns over this proposed allocation being removed and/or not being delivered in this respect (as it is not located in a SLA). This would ensure that affordable units, where “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”, are provided for. As such the proposed housing trajectory would be maintained.
Land North of West Winds Business Park, Fferm Goch

The below sets out the candidate site stage two assessment of ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’:

Candidate Site Stage 2 Assessment (Site Ref. 398)
As can be seen above, the site was not considered suitable for further consideration, with the site scoring negatively (red) in respect to a number of key factors. These include the following:

• Access to Retail;
• Access to Health Services;
• Sustainable Transport- Public Transport;
• Access/ Proximity to services and facilities conclusion;
• Climate Change; and
• Health and Wellbeing.

Given the fact the site scores red in ‘Sustainable Transport – Public Transport’, this shows the site is not served by public transport connections within 800m, as outlined in the key below:
Additionally, Policy SP7 (Sustainable Transport) of the Vale of Glamorgan Preferred Strategy states “New development must support an enhanced transport network that increases the proportion of journeys being undertaken by sustainable travel modes”. Additionally Objective 8 (Promoting Active and Sustainable Travel Choices) states “new development is directed to locations that are or can be accessible by a choice of modes of transport, including walking, cycling, and public transport.”

It is well known that residents of affordable housing are statistically less likely to own private vehicles, making access to reliable and frequent public transport essential for ensuring equitable mobility. The provision of public transport infrastructure in close proximity to such developments is therefore a critical component in supporting access to employment, education, healthcare, and other key services, while also promoting sustainable travel patterns and social inclusion.

The site also scores red in respect to Access/Proximity to services, showing the site is greater than 1200m away from key services, as seen in the key below:
In respect of the above, Preferred Strategy 6.40 states the need “To ensure that new development takes place in locations that have the best access to a wide range of services, facilities, and employment opportunities, whilst minimising the need to travel, the distribution of growth is guided by the following settlement hierarchy”. To further highlight the importance of both sustainable transport and proximity to services, the preferred strategy also states the need to “Facilitate the development of adaptable, accessible, well-connected communities that have a strong sense of identity, offer a sustainable range of services and facilities and are equipped with adequate infrastructure”. In addition, Promoting Active and Sustainable Travel Choices outlines to “Promote and encourage the use of sustainable methods of travel, particularly active modes of transport, whilst simultaneously reducing the need to travel”.

In light of the above, this site does not align with the aims and targets set out in the Preferred Strategy, as it fails to meet several key development goals set out. It should therefore not be considered suitable to be allocated for future developments. Its inclusion is therefore unsound.

Should this view be concurred with, 22 affordable units will be lost from the proposed affordable 122 units, and ultimately will be lost from the overall housing land supply. As stated in the draft housing trajectory “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”. There is a clear possibility therefore that this proposed allocation is removed and/or not delivered as its inclusion is unsound as it does not align with the aims and targets set out in the Preferred Strategy - as it fails to meet several key development goals set out. A “small scale affordable housing led development” which is needed to “respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities” will therefore not be provided for. This is clearly an issue.

When comparing this with ‘Land at Ystradowen’, the following is set out:

Access to Services and Facilities

This criterion has been assessed firstly on the location of the site proposal in terms of whether it is located within, adjacent to, or outside a settlement, and secondly the ease of pedestrian and cycle access to key services listed below.
With reference to the above:

• In terms of public transport, there are two bus stops located approximately 400m (7-minute walk) from the site (‘Ty Mawr Close’), with the ‘321 Nat Group Service’ providing services between Llantwit Major and Talbot Green.

• The site is also located 300m (3-minute walk) and 600m (10-minute walk) from Sports Pitches/Playing Fields such as ‘Ystradowen Children’s Park’, and the 3/4G Sports Pitch at ‘Ystradowen Petanque Club’.

• Furthermore, the site is located 480m (7-minute walk) from the ‘Murco – Tudor Garage’ which can provide basic goods to meet day-today needs such as bread, butter, milk etc.

These services and facilities are therefore well within the best category (i.e. categorised/scored as ‘green’) - within 800m of site (10-minute walk). Accordingly, the site therefore has good access to services and facilities.

Furthermore, the settlement of Ystradowen has been ranked highly in the VoG Sustainable Settlements Appraisal, scoring a total of 14 points according to the distance to key services and facilities available. This places Ystradowen 26th out of a total of 87 settlements. As a result, this would be deemed a suitable area to accommodate growth.

As stated above the key settlement of Cowbridge is located in close proximity being only 2.7 miles to the south and a 9- minute bus journey. Cowbridge is identified as a sustainable location, and is ranked 4th place for services and facilities within the Vale of Glamorgan. The following key services are found in Cowbridge, and are therefore in close proximity to ‘Land West of Maendy Road’:

• Cowbridge Comprehensive Schools;
• Cowbridge Health Centre; and
• Cowbridge Town Centre for various Retail Services.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the above criteria does not take into account the important role and proximity of the Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area (as defined in the RCTCBC LDP) of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant which is 2.8 miles to the north (14-minute bus journey). Ystradowen would also naturally align, and function, in association with this Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area (of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant). These areas comprise for example the following key services:

• Cowbridge and ‘Y Pant’ Comprehensive Schools;
• Cowbridge Health Centre and Old School Surgery; and
• Cowbridge Town Centre, and Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant (Strategic Growth Area), for various Retail Services.

Given the above, ‘Land at Ystradowen’ does/should align with the aims and targets set out in the Preferred Strategy as it meets several of the key development goals set out. Its inclusion should therefore, in our view, be considered “sound” and therefore suitable to be allocated for future developments. The site should properly and appropriately be allocated in lieu of ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’ – the inclusion of which is “unsound”. ‘Land at Ystradowen’ would therefore ensure that affordable units, where “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”, are provided for. As such the proposed housing trajectory would be maintained.
Land to the East of Colwinston, Colwinston

A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below:

As outlined above, the site was rejected and considered not suitable for further consideration. In fact, and unlike ‘Land at Heol Fain, Wick’ and ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’ it was stated that this site “could not be considered as a suitable affordable housing led development site”. Despite this, this site is identified to be allocated as an Affordable Housing Led Allocation. As such, the inclusion of this site is “unsound”.

It is known that Colwinston has been subject to significant housing allocations in the settlement as part of previous plans. To evidence this, 25% of the 64 units (i.e. 16 units) were approved on the site allocation ref. MG2(41) and PP ref. 2014/00242/FUL. This makes a substantial provision of such Affordable Housing units (and housing generally) in the settlement in recent years.
Other similarly sized and comparable settlements and locations have not by contrast been subject to any growth for some considerable time, and accordingly would warrant and benefit from provision as part of this new replacement plan.

Notwithstanding the location of such provision, and as set out in detail at the outset of these representations, National Planning Policy advocates the high and acute need for affordable housing, whilst recent analysis evidences that there is a housing emergency. These circumstances - coupled with the shortcomings identified and set out earlier in these submissions in respect to the adequacy of provision within the plan (rolled forward sites / inadequate provision etc) – means that notwithstanding any potential allocation at Colwinston, further provision ought to be made in comparable (previously unprovided for) locations, such as Ystradowen.
Credentials of this site subject to this submission

There has been a significant change in the position and circumstances since the promoted site herein was assessed at Candidate Site Stage and the Assessment undertaken. The Stage 2 Assessment of the site concluded the following: ‘Whilst adjoining the existing LDP settlement boundary this is by virtue of an existing adopted plan LDP allocation this is currently under review. Notwithstanding this the site would represent unacceptable intrusion in to the open countryside.’
The assessment/conclusion implies that as this site (‘Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen’) has not been built out and is “currently under review”, it suggests that ‘Land at Ystradowen’ (430) does not adjoin the existing LDP settlement boundary. Given recent developments however associated with the implementation of the planning permission ref. 2023/00948/FUL (post approval on 9th December 2024) and the site being currently being “built out” and work commencing on site, the site no longer adjoins “the existing LDP settlement boundary … by virtue of an existing adopted plan LDP allocation … currently under review”. Accordingly, and given this, the ‘Land at Ystradowen’ site boundary therefore directly adjoins/is adjoining the LDP settlement boundary and the site promoted herein.
The following specific photo evidences ‘Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen’ (Housing Allocation 48) is being built out the western boundary of the promoted Site ID 430. This therefore clearly highlights that the site’s boundary is representing the existing settlement limit in the existing development plan. Accordingly, the ‘Land at Ystradowen’ site boundary therefore directly adjoins/is adjoining the existing LDP settlement boundary.
Summary of These Representations

To re-iterate, and to summarise the case made and set out, these representations seek to object to the Housing Trajectory published as part of the consultation on the Draft Housing Trajectory For Housing Stakeholder Group (October 2025) which underpins the Plan and the delivery / realisation of its underlying strategy.

Detailed submissions and objections are raised above in respect to the trajectory information published regarding the soundness and robustness of this information (and it’s consultation), which we do not consider are adequate, robust, or sound to deliver the Plans aims and objectives.

Introduction
These representations are provided on behalf of Barratt Redrow in respect of the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s consultation on the Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) Deposit Plan and Candidate Site Register. They should be read in conjunction with the enclosed completed Comments Forms.
Barratt Redrow are promoting land at St Nicholas (Site ID 486) for a residential-led development of up to 140 modern, energy efficient homes, 40% of which are currently proposed to be affordable.
Barratt Redrow is generally supportive of the Council’s work in preparing the RLDP. The preparation of an up-to-date development plan for the Vale is plainly important and the Council is to be supported in progressing the RLDP through to Deposit stage. The principle of a plan-led strategy, rooted in settlement evidence, affordable housing need and sustainable transport objectives, is endorsed. That is particularly important in the current plan-led Welsh planning context.
That said, in its current form the Deposit RLDP is not sufficiently ambitious and, in our view, requires a number of important changes in order to ensure soundness. The key concerns relate to the overall housing requirement, the level of flexibility built into the strategy, the degree of reliance placed on key sites, windfalls and rolled forward supply, the unduly restrictive approach taken to sustainable settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area and the introduction of onerous policies that when considered together could impact deliverability. Those issues are especially relevant to St Nicholas, which the Council’s own evidence identifies as one of the better performing Minor Rural Settlements and one which has an established role in supporting a sustainable rural community.
The Council’s own evidence base supports a stronger role for St Nicholas than the Deposit Plan currently allows. It demonstrates that proportionate growth in settlements such as St Nicholas is not a departure from the Council’s established strategy; it is consistent with it. The Deposit RLDP should be amended so that it better reflects both national policy and the Council’s own evidence, and in particular so that sustainable and deliverable opportunities such as St Nicholas are able to make an appropriate contribution to meeting the Vale’s housing needs.
The remainder of these representations address the specific policies of the Deposit Plan.
Deposit Plan Plan Period Position: Object
Based on the Development Plans Manual, when a plan is adopted, there should be at least 10 years of the plan period remaining.
On the Council’s current timetable, adoption is only anticipated for August/September 2027, and those post-Deposit stages are expressly identified in the Delivery Agreement as indicative, because they depend on external factors including the number of representations received and the examination process. The Deposit Plan runs only to 2036. That means that, even if the Council hits its best-case programme and adopts in September 2027, the Plan would have only about 8 years and 3 months left to run. That is already below the DPM expectation of at least 10 years remaining at adoption. Any slippage would make that position worse.
Based on the current timetable, an end date of 2038 (with associated increase in housing requirement) would therefore ensure a sound plan.
Policy SP1 – Sustainable Growth Strategy Position: Comment / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the broad objective of pursuing a sustainable growth strategy and agrees that growth should be directed towards the most sustainable locations. The emphasis on public transport connectivity, access to services and the need to align housing growth with wider regional aspirations is supported in principle. The Deposit Plan’s summary of Future Wales correctly notes that the Vale lies within the Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys National Growth Area and that Local Development Plans should recognise this area as the focus for strategic economic and housing growth, services and facilities, and transport infrastructure. The Plan also correctly highlights Future Wales’ wider outcomes, including vibrant rural places with access to homes, jobs and services.
Our concern is that the strategy as drafted is not sufficiently nuanced and, in practice, it places too much weight on the Strategic Growth Areas and not enough weight on sustainable settlements outside it. In doing so, it risks overlooking villages which perform well against the Council’s own settlement evidence and which can accommodate proportionate growth in a highly sustainable way. St Nicholas is a clear example of that. The earlier Barratt David Wilson Homes representations made this point and it remains equally relevant now: the strategy should not be read as favouring rail-served locations to the exclusion of settlements with strong bus accessibility and established local services.
This is important because the Council’s own evidence does not justify such a narrow interpretation of sustainable transport. The BP5 methodology was adapted specifically to better appreciate the role and function of settlements in the Vale, including their relationship to key services and facilities. In other words, the Council has already recognised in its evidence base that sustainability in the Vale cannot sensibly be reduced to rail access alone.
St Nicholas benefits from strong bus connectivity and a strategic relationship to Cardiff and other settlements. Supporting population growth in proximity to regular bus services can itself help reinforce the viability of those routes. Para 3.45 of PPW states the following in respect of relationships beyond the Council’s administrative area:
“The evidence to identify suitable areas and sites for development should not be confined by local authority boundaries. It should reflect realities like housing markets, travel to work areas, retail catchments and the nature of activity or development itself.” (emphasis added)
Cardiff is by far the greatest attractor in terms of commuting destination, as shown in the below Census data for the Vale of Glamorgan:
St Nicholas is 16 minutes from Cardiff via bus. Not all people will want to live in towns (as recognised by the Council in their response to the draft NDF). The Spatial Option is depicted on Page 28 of the Spatial Options Background Paper (June 2023). This fails to show St Nicholas as a settlement with frequent bus connectivity despite it being served by excellent bus service provision.
Future Wales supports development which aligns with the South East Wales Metro which includes bus infrastructure and services as well as the rail network. The Deposit Plan’s focus on settlements with railway stations ignores settlements with bus service provision such as St Nicholas where travel via bus is an attractive, sustainable and convenient option for residents. For example, the travel time on bus to Cardiff from St Nicholas is 15 minutes, whereas the travel time from Rhoose to Cardiff via train is over double the time at 36 minutes.
Settlements such as St Nicholas will require additional growth over the coming years in order to contribute to their vibrancy and support existing services and facilities such as the local school and bus service. That remains a legitimate and important planning point. Future Wales, as summarised in the Deposit Plan, requires local authorities to maximise opportunities arising from public transport investment and to plan for growth that supports sustainable connectivity more generally, not simply around rail stations.
There is therefore a soundness issue here. The Council’s own evidence and national policy context support a strategy that captures sustainable bus-connected settlements as well as rail-served settlements. St Nicholas should be expressly recognised as one of those locations. If the Council is seeking to direct development to places “best served by public transport connectivity and [which] offer a good range of services and facilities”, then it should ensure that this is applied consistently to settlements such as St Nicholas rather than in a way that, in practice, privileges only a narrow subset of locations.
For that reason, Policy SP1 should be amended to make clearer that sustainable settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area, where there is good bus connectivity, local facilities and a clear functional relationship with wider employment and service centres, are capable of accommodating proportionate growth. That change would make the strategy more aligned with the evidence base and would support a more robust and resilient pattern of housing delivery.
Policy SP2 – Settlement Hierarchy Position: Object
Barratt Redrow objects to Policy SP2 in its current form.
The Council’s own evidence shows that St Nicholas performs strongly as a Minor Rural Settlement. It scored 39 points and ranked 5th out of 21 Minor Rural Settlements within the Settlement Appraisal Background Paper. It is one of the few settlements in this tier with a school in the village and that its strategic position and public transport accessibility lend support to it being treated as a sustainable settlement capable of accommodating further growth.
That broader conclusion is reinforced by the Deposit Plan itself. Paragraph 6.16 expressly identifies St Nicholas as one of the smaller rural settlements which contains a primary school serving a wider catchment area. The Plan goes on to recognise that, due to the functional links between rural settlements, it is essential to ensure that existing services and facilities are safeguarded, supported or enhanced where appropriate. Those are helpful and important acknowledgements.
However, notwithstanding that evidence, the policy framework remains highly restrictive. The Deposit Plan states that, in Minor Rural Settlements, general market housing will be limited to infill and conversion opportunities within the settlement boundary, whilst any more meaningful growth outside the Strategic Growth Area is essentially restricted to small scale affordable housing-led schemes with a minimum 50% affordable housing requirement. In our view that is too blunt an approach and is not justified by the evidence.
The reason this matters is because the Council’s own historic and current evidence points in the opposite direction. BP5 explains that the adopted LDP provided for moderate growth in Minor Rural Settlements to help meet local housing need and support existing local services. The adopted LDP Written Statement similarly states that minor rural settlements such as St Nicholas play an important role in underpinning sustainable rural communities and that there is a need for some moderate growth in these settlements. The earlier strategy therefore recognised that such locations could accommodate growth without undermining their character or function. The successful development of by Redrow of Cae Newydd, St Nicholas provides an example of how new residential development can successfully integrate into a Minor Rural Settlement.
In our view the current Deposit strategy has moved too far away from that balanced position. The Plan now acknowledges the sustainability credentials of St Nicholas but does not allow those credentials to translate into an appropriate development role. That disconnect between the evidence and the policy response is one of the main reasons why the Plan, as drafted, is not sound.
Accordingly, Policy SP2 should be amended. At the very least, it should be recast so that settlements such as St Nicholas are not treated as locations where only very limited growth can occur. A more proportionate and evidence-led approach would be to allow moderate mixed-tenure growth in the more sustainable Minor Rural Settlements, where this is supported by site-specific evidence and good placemaking. That would better reflect both the Council’s own settlement appraisal and the adopted LDP approach that preceded it. As drafted, the Plan expects a great deal from a very limited rural supply offer. It seeks to secure a minimum 50% affordable housing provision on qualifying sites, requires the mix of homes to respond to latest evidence, including specialist and older persons’ needs, and recognises the need for both affordable and market housing to support mixed communities in rural areas. The Plan also acknowledges the functional role of Minor Rural Settlements such as St Nicholas and the importance of supporting local services within them. In our view, those objectives are unlikely to be achieved through the very limited number of affordable housing-led allocations currently proposed. Additional sites in the more sustainable Minor Rural Settlements are therefore required if the Plan is to deliver what it seeks in a realistic, deliverable and sustainable manner.
Policy SP6 – Housing Requirement Position: Object
Barratt Redrow objects to Policy SP6.
Whilst we support the Council’s intention to plan positively for housing growth through an up-to-date RLDP, the proposed housing requirement of 7,890 dwellings is not considered sufficiently ambitious and, in our view, is no longer justified by the most up-to-date evidence. The Deposit Plan identifies a requirement of 7,890 dwellings, equating to 526 dwellings per annum, with provision for 8,660 homes once the 10% flexibility allowance is applied. That requirement remains rooted in the RLDP’s dwelling-led scenario, which the LHMA explains was derived from average completions over a 10-year period. In our view, that is too conservative an approach in present circumstances.
PPW and the Development Plans Manual is clear on this point. PPW sets out the following requirements for local authorities when setting a housing requirement at paragraph 4.2.6:
“The latest Welsh Government local authority level Household Projections for Wales, alongside the latest Local Housing Market Assessment (LHMA) and the Well-being plan for a plan area, will form a fundamental part of the evidence base for development plans. These should be considered together with other key evidence in relation to issues such as what the plan is seeking to achieve, links between homes and jobs, the need for affordable housing, Welsh language considerations and the deliverability of the plan, in order to identify an appropriate strategy for the delivery of housing in the plan area. Appropriate consideration must also begiven to the wider social, economic, environmental and cultural factors in a plan area in order to ensure the creation of sustainable places and cohesive communities.”
The Deposit Plan housing requirement is based on past delivery rates and does not take account of the above policy requirements. Whilst past build rates can be used as a benchmark for comparison, it is not appropriate for this to be used to set the future growth of the Authority Area. The Development Plans Manual states the following in this respect:
“5.55 Extrapolating forward past take-up rates for both jobs and homes over various time periods gives a factual representation of what has been delivered in the past. This approach can provide a useful benchmark against which to compare future employment and household growth, assuming previous conditions remained constant. However, this may have been constrained by contextual influences applicable at a previous point in time, for example global economic markets, or have led to undesirable outcomes which should not be repeated, such as a mismatch between the number of homes and jobs.
5.56 It will be important to understand the relationship between the past and the future direction of the plan, including such contextual circumstances. If there are/were limitations that hindered the ability to deliver growth previously, then until mechanisms are in place to address such matters this could have a bearing on future growth levels. Understanding the context within which delivery was/can be achieved will be important, particularly when considering a housing trajectory as this could influence the speed and increase delivery rates, or conversely result in a delivery cap until such matters are resolved.
5.57 Just relying on past build rates as the sole evidence base to quantify future employment and housing land requirements is not sufficient on its own. Additional evidence will be required to identify the scale of new jobs and homes necessary and the related land requirement.”
Contextual factors that mean utilising past build rates in setting future housing growth is inappropriate include:
• Utilising past build rates incorporates recession-based trends. This includes supressed build rates following the 2008 recession and more recently, reduced housing completions as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and the current cost of living crisis;
• Does not actively seek to address the area’s ageing demographic;
• Does not reflect or take account of the Vale of Glamorgan’s position within a Growth Area within Future Wales;
• Does not seek to leverage any of the investment into the region through the CCR City Deal;
• Conflicts with the Deposit Plan’s ambition in terms of Homes For All and the Economy – in that there has been no recent job growth in the Vale of Glamorgan delivered under the current LDP and there is a shortage of housing and affordable housing. Applying the same build rate over the RLDP plan period would compound these issues; and
• During the period considered, many people were prevented from forming new households due to a lack of mortgage finance, lower employment levels and reduced rates of housing completions. There is a considerable body of evidence to show that household formation will return to long term trends if housing is made available. Research by the former National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU)4 found that cohorts who are less able to access home ownership earlier in their housing career due to “boom” or “recession” factors impacting on affordability are nevertheless able to “catch-up” later on – 80% of the gap at the age of 30 is “caught-up” by the age of 40. This finding supports the resumption of long-term household formation trends.
In short, just relying on past build rates as the sole evidence base to quantify future housing land requirements is not sufficient on its own, and that additional evidence is required to identify the scale of new homes necessary, with alternative scenarios considered rather than simply extrapolating previous delivery trends. That is directly relevant here. A housing requirement derived too closely from historic completion rates risks baking in past under-delivery rather than planning positively for future need.
That concern is reinforced by the updated Welsh Government evidence published after the RLDP’s preferred growth scenario was formulated. The latest 2025-based estimates of additional housing need identify newly arising need in Wales of between 7,800 and 9,300 additional homes per annum over the first five years, with a central estimate of around 8,700 homes per annum, alongside a separate estimate of existing unmet need of 9,400 homes. Whilst those are national figures and do not automatically translate into a single local housing target, they plainly point towards a materially higher level of need than has previously been assumed and strengthen the case for local planning authorities, particularly in growth areas, to revisit conservative housing requirements.
The updated 2022-based household projections point in the same direction. Welsh Government’s latest figures show that the number of households in Wales is projected to increase by 7.2% between mid-2022 and mid-2032, and that the Vale of Glamorgan is projected to experience one of the largest percentage increases in Wales, at 11.7%. The same release notes that the Vale is also amongst the authorities expected to experience some of the strongest private household population growth. In short, the latest demographic evidence does not support a low-growth or “business as usual” response for the Vale. It points the other way.
This sits uncomfortably with the Council’s own housing evidence. The Deposit Plan records that the Vale has the highest affordability ratio in Wales and a significant need for affordable homes. It further records that the LHMA identifies affordable housing need averaging 461 dwellings per annum over 15 years using the principal projections, rising to 502 dwellings per annum under the RLDP projection figures. The Deposit Plan also acknowledges that only a proportion of new households will require affordable housing because others will meet their needs through the market. That is important, because it underlines the need for both affordable and open market housing, and therefore for a higher overall housing requirement than the Plan currently proposes.
The Deposit Plan principally seeks to address issues of affordability through a blanket 50% affordable housing requirement on sites other than the Key Sites. Whilst we fully support the Council in looking to address issues of affordability, we consider that an increase in the housing requirement and subsequent increase in housing supply (both open market and affordable) should be pursued.
There is a broader strategic point as well. The Vale sits within the wider Cardiff housing market and the Deposit Plan itself recognises the strong migration relationship with Cardiff and the role that strategic collaboration should play in considering housing growth. Against that background, and having regard to the updated Welsh Government evidence, the present requirement of 7,890 dwellings does not appear sufficiently ambitious for a National Growth Area authority with strong migration inflows, severe affordability pressures and one of the highest projected household growth rates in Wales. In our view, the Plan should test a higher housing requirement through examination.
A higher growth rate, such as the PG-5Y scenario or higher should be adopted to better align housing and job growth and redress socio economic trends. The likelihood of this of level of growth occurring is even greater in the context of the ambition and funding available to support the City Deal. However, in seeking to deliver the economic vision for the area, it is important to ensure that economic growth is not constrained by a lack of land (for either housing or employment).
Whilst this is higher than past build rates, it should be noted that build rates are closely related to the availability of deliverable sites; therefore, the allocation of sufficient housing land in the RLDP would go a long way to increasing delivery. Current delivery rates have been supressed by wider socio economic trends and reliance within the existing LDP on large strategic sites (i.e. Barry Waterfront). Basing the RLDP Growth Option on past delivery would therefore result in an increase in the number of suppressed households. There is no rationale or justification to set future housing need by reference solely to past delivery rates.
The key point for soundness is therefore a simple one. The Development Plans Manual requires a housing requirement to be grounded in a broad evidence base and not simply in past completion trends. The latest demographic and housing need evidence now available points towards stronger growth pressure than that reflected in Policy SP6. In those circumstances, retaining the current requirement without revisiting it would not, in our view, be consistent with the Development Plans Manual or with a genuinely evidence-led plan-making exercise.
The Council’s own evidence supports the use of a 4% household-to-dwelling conversion factor. The LHMA states that the RLDP preferred growth scenario assumes growth of 7,586 households, which equates to 7,890 dwellings once vacancy rates are applied, effectively applying a 4% uplift in practice. That approach is also consistent with the adopted Vale of Glamorgan LDP, which expressly applied a
1.04 household-to-dwelling conversion ratio in deriving part of its housing requirement. In those circumstances, and absent any robust local evidence justifying a different factor, it is entirely appropriate to apply the Development Plans Manual baseline uplift of 4% to any updated household-led requirement. On that basis, a requirement of 9,623 households would convert to 10,008 dwellings, which is around 26.8% above the 7,890 dwellings currently sought under Policy SP6 and further underlines that the Deposit RLDP is not sufficiently ambitious in housing terms.Accordingly, Policy SP6 should be amended to provide for a higher housing requirement. The precise figure is ultimately a matter for examination, but the current requirement is too low, too closely tied to past build rates, and insufficiently responsive to updated Welsh Government projections and housing need evidence. A higher requirement would also require a broader and more resilient supply portfolio, which in turn strengthens the case for additional deliverable sites in sustainable settlements such as St Nicholas.
Policy SP6 – Flexibility, housing land supply and trajectory Position: Object
Barratt Redrow also objects to the level of flexibility embedded within Policy SP6 and raises concern regarding the resilience of the housing land supply and the robustness of the housing trajectory.
The Development Plans Manual is clear that housing supply is the housing requirement plus a flexibility allowance. It further states that it will be extremely rare for all sites identified in a plan to come forward within the timescales anticipated, and that a development plan will not be effective if it cannot accommodate changing circumstances. For that reason, a flexibility allowance must be embedded into the plan. Whilst the Manual says that 10% may be a starting point, it also makes clear that the level of flexibility is for each authority to determine based on local issues and that any chosen level must be robustly evidenced.
In our view, a 10% flexibility allowance is not sufficient in the context of this Plan. The Deposit Plan’s housing provision of 8,660 dwellings is made up of 3,837 dwellings from the existing land supply, 3,520 dwellings on allocated sites and 1,303 dwellings from windfalls. The Council’s housing land supply paper then shows that the allocation component itself includes 959 dwellings on rolled-forward LDP sites, 2,278 dwellings on key housing allocations, 122 dwellings on affordable housing-led sites and 161 dwellings on other allocations. That is a relatively exposed and finely balanced supply portfolio.
The resilience issue is due to a substantial element of the supply depends on a relatively small number of key sites, a significant rolled-forward component, and a large windfall assumption. The Development Plans Manual states that rolled-forward allocations require careful justification, that there must be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate such sites can be delivered and justify being included again, and that clear evidence will be required that those sites can be delivered. That is a demanding test, as it should be. In our view, the Plan’s reliance on rolled-forward sites and key sites means that a modest flexibility allowance of 10% does not provide a sufficient margin of safety.
The housing trajectory also warrants closer scrutiny. The Development Plans Manual describes the housing trajectory as the key mechanism for demonstrating how all sites will be delivered in the identified timescales throughout the whole plan period. It states that lead-in times for larger sites, inter-relationships between sites, constraints, infrastructure timing and assumptions for both large and small windfalls must all be taken into account. It also requires trajectories to provide a steady flow of sites through the plan period and not to be unduly loaded towards the end of the period.
Against that benchmark, there is a legitimate question over whether the RLDP trajectory is sufficiently robust. The Council’s own housing land supply paper records stakeholder concerns that the trajectory shows a significant step change in delivery above previous rates, that there is too great a reliance on key sites, and that the assumed timescales for pre-application work, application determination and discharge of conditions are too short. The consultation summary specifically records concern that delivery rises from around 400 to 500 dwellings per annum in the early monitored years to around 1,000 dwellings per annum by 2027/28, and that this represents a marked and pronounced step change. Those are not peripheral issues; they go directly to the credibility and resilience of the trajectory.
The same background paper also confirms that over 25% of the Plan’s total provision is attributed to key sites. Again, that does not make the Plan unsound in itself, but it does mean the trajectory and flexibility allowance need to be particularly robust. In our view, the current Plan does not yet demonstrate that level of resilience. The delivery assumptions may prove achievable, but the point for examination is that they require close scrutiny and should not simply be accepted at face value, particularly when the Development Plans Manual emphasises realism, flexibility and steady delivery through the full plan period.
There is also a concern about the windfall component. The Council’s evidence assumes delivery of 1,303 dwellings from large and small windfall developments over the lifetime of the plan. The Development Plans Manual accepts that windfalls can form part of supply, but it also requires the assumptions behind them to be evidenced and scrutinised. Here, the windfall figure is material, not marginal. That is another reason why the resilience of the identified allocation portfolio matters so much. Where a plan is relying on rolled-forward sites, key sites and substantial windfalls all at once, there is a stronger case for a higher flexibility allowance and for a broader pool of deliverable sites.
In our view, the sounder approach would be to increase the flexibility allowance from 10% to 15% and broaden the supply base through the inclusion of additional sustainable and deliverable sites. That would better reflect the Development Plans Manual’s requirement for plans to remain effective in the face of delay and changing circumstances, and it would reduce the risk of the RLDP becoming over-dependent on a narrow set of sites and optimistic delivery assumptions. It would also be entirely consistent with wider Welsh plan-making practice, where flexibility allowances above 10% have been accepted where local circumstances justify it. By way of example, Flintshire’s adopted LDP applies a flexibility allowance of over 13%, while Bridgend’s recently adopted RLDP provides for a 14% flexibility allowance following examination. Against that background, and having regard to the Vale RLDP’s reliance on key sites, rolled-forward allocations, a substantial windfall component and a stepped housing trajectory, a 15% allowance is justified here as a proportionate and robust response to the particular delivery risks of this Plan.This point also links directly back to St Nicholas. If the Plan is to be made sound, it should not rely so heavily on a small number of large, longer-lead sites and on a substantial windfall allowance. It should include a broader range of deliverable sites capable of contributing earlier and more reliably to the housing trajectory. A sustainable, mixed-tenure site at St Nicholas would assist in precisely that respect by diversifying the supply portfolio and improving resilience.
Policy SP7 – Affordable Housing Provision Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the objective of delivering affordable housing and agrees that this is one of the key issues the RLDP must address. Policy SP7 is therefore supported in principle. However, the policy should be read in conjunction with a more ambitious overall housing strategy, because affordable housing delivery cannot sensibly be divorced from the wider question of total supply.
The Deposit Plan is clear that the delivery of affordable housing is a key objective of the RLDP and that the strength of the Vale’s housing market has resulted in many local people experiencing difficulties in purchasing suitable housing on the open market. Barratt Redrow supports that objective in principle. The policy also correctly identifies that a mix of affordable housing will be required, with reference to the LHMA, and that this should include a range of tenures, types and sizes of homes. That said, the wording of Policy SP7 lacks sufficient clarity. In particular, the reference to the affordable housing mix being “informed” by the LHMA is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the LHMA is intended to provide a broad evidence base and starting point for negotiation, or whether the Council expects schemes to replicate that mix as a fixed requirement. In our view, the policy should be clarified so that the LHMA is expressly treated as a guiding framework rather than a prescriptive formula, with the final tenure mix, type and size of affordable provision being determined having regard to site-specific circumstances, up-to-date evidence, viability and deliverability.The LHMA is highly relevant here. It explains that affordable need is no longer confined to traditional social rented housing and that current economic conditions have squeezed many households out of both home ownership and the private rented sector, creating additional need for intermediate rent and low-cost home ownership products. It also notes that an ongoing supply of new build properties remains important to the operation of assisted home ownership products in the Vale.
That evidence is important because it confirms there is a need for both affordable and open market housing. The market sector is not separate from the affordable housing challenge; it is part of how that challenge is addressed. The LHMA also makes clear that only a proportion of new households will require affordable housing because others will meet their needs through the market. This is another reason why the overall housing requirement matters so much.
There is also a more local point relevant to St Nicholas. The LHMA identifies St Nicholas & Llancarfan as a distinct housing market area and shows need arising there across tenures. It is therefore not correct to approach St Nicholas on the basis that only one tenure or one product type is needed. The evidence points to a requirement for a broader mix.
The Deposit Plan itself supports that conclusion. It acknowledges that, in meeting Policy SP7, a range of affordable tenures, types and sizes of homes will be required. It also records that the Council will seek to secure an appropriate level and mix of affordable housing in all proposed residential developments.
In our view, the main issue with Policy SP7 is therefore not its objective, but the fact that the rest of the strategy is not sufficiently ambitious to support it. The Plan cannot identify very substantial affordable need and then pursue a relatively low overall housing requirement combined with a narrow rural growth model. A sound approach would be to increase the overall housing provision and broaden the pool of sustainable and deliverable mixed-tenure sites so that affordable housing delivery through the planning system can be maximised. St Nicholas should form part of that response.
Policy SP8 – Affordable Housing Requirements Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the principle that residential development should contribute towards affordable housing need. However, there are concerns about how Policy SP8 interacts with the rest of the strategy, especially outside the Strategic Growth Area.
The Deposit Plan confirms that, within Primary and Minor Rural Settlements, new development will generally be required to provide 40% affordable housing. It also confirms that outside delineated settlement boundaries proposals for additional housing will be strictly controlled and limited to affordable housing exception sites or housing in support of rural enterprises. The Plan then layers on the separate affordable housing-led model under Policy HG4, where a minimum of 50% affordable housing is required.
In principle, Barratt Redrow has no issue with seeking ambitious affordable housing delivery where supported by viability evidence. The concern is that the overall strategy becomes too rigid when SP8 is read alongside SP2, SP3, HG4 and other potentially onerous policy requirements, including Policy CC1. In practice, this risks leaving sustainable settlements such as St Nicholas with very little scope to contribute to general housing delivery unless schemes meet a highly demanding affordable-led model. That is not a balanced or flexible way to plan for rural communities. It also gives rise to a lack of clarity between Policies SP7 and SP8 which should be addressed. Policy SP7 states that the mix of affordable housing to be delivered over the plan period will be “informed” by the LHMA, waiting list data and the Older Persons Housing Strategy, but it is unclear whether that is intended simply as a starting point for negotiation or whether the Council expects the identified mix to be applied more prescriptively. By contrast, Policy SP8 expressly provides greater flexibility: it states that affordable housing will be negotiated on a site-by-site basis having regard to evidenced viability, that the exact mix of affordable housing will be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the Council’s latest needs evidence, and that where proven economic circumstances affect delivery the Council may negotiate the level, type, tenure and nature of provision. In our view, those two policies should be aligned. That would better reflect Planning Policy Wales, which requires planning authorities to develop evidence-based market and affordable housing policies, but also makes clear that affordable housing targets and policy expectations must take account of deliverability and viability considerations. In that context, Policy SP7 should be clarified so that the LHMA and related evidence are expressly treated as guiding the starting point for discussions on mix, rather than imposing a fixed outcome irrespective of site-specific circumstances, technical constraints, abnormal costs or viability. That is especially important given the Deposit Plan’s blanket affordable housing percentages across the Vale and the cumulative effect of other policy requirements, which may affect the deliverability of particular allocations and should therefore be capable of being addressed on a site-by-site basis.The Deposit Plan recognises that an appropriate mix of affordable housing will be required, and that in the rural Vale there is a desire for smaller market homes as well as affordable homes. It also accepts that affordable housing delivery may be lower than anticipated because of viability constraints and that, where proven economic circumstances affect delivery, the Council may negotiate the level, type, tenure and nature of provision. This should feed through into a more flexible strategy overall. In particular, the Plan should not be read or applied in a way that suppresses the delivery of mixed-tenure schemes in sustainable rural settlements where those schemes can contribute both market and affordable housing and support local services. That is especially so given the evidence in the LHMA that a range of tenures is required and that intermediate and low-cost home ownership products are an increasingly important part of the housing response.
8. Policy HG1 / Housing Allocations and overall supply portfolio Position: Comment / Object in part
Barratt Redrow does not object in principle to the Council allocating key sites and other strategic locations. However, there remains a significant concern that the Plan is overly reliant on a relatively narrow supply portfolio.
The Deposit Plan confirms that the allocation component of supply comprises 2,278 dwellings on key sites, 959 dwellings on rolled forward sites, 161 dwellings on new housing allocations and 122 dwellings on affordable housing-led sites. It also confirms that 1,303 dwellings are expected from windfalls. That means a large proportion of the Plan’s supply is tied up either in a small number of large sites, historic carry-over, or a substantial assumption about unallocated windfall delivery.
Our earlier Preferred Strategy reps raised exactly this issue and those points should all be carried forward. In particular:
• the Plan is overly reliant on a small number of key sites;
• medium-sized sites in sustainable locations can provide resilience to the housing trajectory;
• windfalls account for a significant proportion of the supply and provide less certainty over geographical distribution and delivery; and
• rolled forward allocations require careful justification if they are to be relied upon as part of the plan’s effective provision.
The Deposit Plan’s own figures support that concern. It states that only a small proportion of development is likely to take place outside of the Strategic Growth Area, with some of this reflecting permissions granted under the adopted strategy. It also shows that the total housing provision attributable to Minor Rural Settlements and Primary Settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area is only 390 dwellings. In our view that is too low, particularly given the evidence that some of those settlements perform relatively well and can help diversify the supply portfolio.
Based on the revised RLDP Delivery Agreement, should there be no further slippage the RLDP will be adopted in September 2027 with there being some 7 years before the end of the plan period (of 2034) post-adoption. There may of course be some slippage in the adoption of the RLDP. We therefore would query whether the quantum of homes proposed on the larger Key Sites can realistically be delivered within the plan period.
The following conclusions of Lichfield’s Start to Finish (2nd Edition, Feb 2020) research are relevant in this respect:
• From the date at which an outline application is validated, the average figures can be 5.0-8.4 years for the first home to be delivered.
• If a scheme of more than 500 dwellings has an outline permission, then on average it delivers its first home in circa 3 years.
• The average build out rate of sites between 500-999 dwellings is 68 homes per annum and 107 homes per annum for sites between 1,000 and 1,499 dwellings.
All of the Key Sites have no outline application having been submitted. Given the revocation of TAN 1 and Welsh Government’s emphasis on a plan led system, the very earliest that the Key Sites could have outline permission in place would be post-adoption of the plan limiting its housing land supply contribution within the early years of the plan period. Allowing for an appropriate amount of time to secure necessary permissions, consents and infrastructure delivery, the Key Sites’ contribution to housing supply within the plan period would fall significantly below the quantum currently assumed in the Preferred Strategy. In that context, it is all the more important that sustainable and deliverable medium-sized sites are included in the Plan where appropriate. Again, St Nicholas is an obvious example.
In short, the issue is not that key sites should not exist. It is that the current portfolio is not broad enough and not resilient enough. The Plan should be strengthened through the inclusion of additional medium-sized, sustainable allocations capable of delivery within the plan period.
Policy HG4 – Rural Affordable Housing Led Sites Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the principle of identifying rural affordable housing-led sites. It is entirely appropriate that the RLDP seeks to respond to local housing need in rural communities and to secure affordable provision in settlements where opportunities may otherwise be more limited.
However, Policy HG4 also illustrates the broader weakness in the Plan’s current rural strategy. The Deposit Plan allocates four affordable housing-led sites at Colwinston, Aberthin, Wick and Fferm Goch, totalling 122 dwellings. It also requires applicants to demonstrate how both the market and affordable housing on those sites will meet local housing needs in terms of tenure, type and size, so that a range of housing is delivered to meet different groups in the community. The supporting text then expressly notes that Planning Policy Wales requires a sufficient number of sites suitable for the full range of housing types, and that in the rural Vale there is demand for smaller market homes as well as affordable homes.
Those are important statements and, in our view, they assist the case being made here. They show that the Council itself accepts that rural settlements need a range and choice of homes, not just affordable housing in isolation. They also show that some open market housing in rural locations is not only acceptable, but in fact part of how mixed communities and affordable delivery are achieved.
The problem is that the strategy remains too narrow in how it applies that logic. The Plan effectively says that outside the Strategic Growth Area, growth should generally be confined to affordable-led schemes with a minimum 50% affordable requirement, and anything below that will not be supported. In our view that is too rigid and may well suppress otherwise sustainable and beneficial development, particularly where sites are capable of delivering a strong policy-compliant affordable contribution but not necessarily the precise affordable-led model the Council has chosen.
We continue to raise concerns that a blanket 50% affordable requirement could create deliverability issues, including reliance on complex developer/RSL arrangements and a level of uncertainty around funding and market conditions. Without repeating every operational point, the central planning concern remains valid: the strategy should not be so rigid that it prevents settlements from growing and adapting in a sustainable way. This is especially the case given the ever more challenging delivery context set by increasingly onerous policy requirements.
St Nicholas is relevant here because it demonstrates the missed opportunity in the current approach. The village is expressly identified by the Council as one of the smaller rural settlements with a primary school serving a wider catchment area. It performs well in the settlement appraisal and is the sort of place where a sensitive mixed-tenure allocation could help support local services, provide both market and affordable housing, and diversify the Plan’s supply. In our view, the omission of St Nicholas from the rural housing strategy is not justified by the evidence currently before the Council.
Policy CC1 – Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development Position: Object
Barratt Redrow supports the wider objective of improving the energy performance of new homes and reducing carbon emissions from development. However, Policy CC1 in its current form gives rise to a number of concerns regarding consistency with national standards, deliverability, viability and practical implementation. The Deposit Plan is explicit that Policy CC1 is intended to require new dwellings to exceed current Building Regulations standards. Welsh Government’s own sustainable buildings guidance confirms that Building Regulations set mandatory standards for the design and construction of buildings, including environmental performance. In our view, that raises a legitimate question as to whether an additional local policy layer of this kind is necessary or proportionate, particularly where it risks inconsistency across local planning authorities and may duplicate, or move ahead of, the national regulatory framework.
There is also a need for greater precision in the policy wording itself. As drafted, Policy CC1 requires development to provide on-site renewable electricity generation equivalent to at least the annual energy consumption of the development, assessed through an energy performance model. The supporting text explains that the relevant metric is Energy Use Intensity, which measures all energy consumed by the building. If the policy approach is to be progressed, the policy should make clear that compliance relates only to regulated energy use, consistent with Building Regulations methodology. Developers can influence the performance of the building fabric and regulated building services, but they cannot control future occupant behaviour, appliance use, plug loads or other forms of unregulated energy demand. Without that clarification, there is a risk that the policy extends beyond matters that can reasonably and consistently be secured through the planning process.
A further issue is that the policy should expressly allow its requirements to fall away, or be treated as satisfied, where national Building Regulations subsequently catch up with or exceed the standards sought under Policy CC1, or where the national regime adopts a different but equivalent methodology. Without such a safeguard, there is a real risk that the RLDP imposes outdated or duplicative requirements later in the plan period, which would not only create unnecessary complexity but could also compromise the delivery of much-needed housing. That concern is heightened by the cumulative policy burden elsewhere in the Plan, including affordable housing, open space, placemaking, green infrastructure and other low carbon requirements. In our view, the Council should therefore demonstrate, through its viability work, that the housing allocations in Policy HG1 are capable of absorbing the cumulative costs of Policy CC1 alongside the wider requirements of the RLDP.
Clarification is also required in relation to the fallback Project Zero Fund contribution. The Deposit Plan states that where it is not technically feasible to provide a policy-compliant level of renewable energy on site, the residual energy is to be offset through an appropriate contribution to the Council’s Project Zero Fund “as far as economic viability allows”, with further detail to be provided in SPG. In our view, that is presently too uncertain. The policy should make clear how any such contribution will be calculated, what assumptions will be used, what evidence will be required, and how viability will be taken into account. These are all matters which go directly to deliverability and should not be left entirely to post-adoption guidance.
In summary, Building Regulations 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. If a local approach is to be taken, as a minimum, Policy CC1 should be amended so that: (i) it applies only to regulated energy use; (ii) its requirements fall away, or are deemed satisfied, where Building Regulations subsequently meet or exceed them or adopt an alternative national methodology; and (iii) the policy and supporting text provide a clearer framework for viability, Project Zero contributions and practical implementation.
Policy CI1 – Open Space Provision
Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the objective of ensuring that new development makes appropriate provision for open space and recreation. That is entirely consistent with good placemaking and with national policy support for healthy, inclusive and green environments. However, Policy CI1 as drafted is overly prescriptive and, in our view, requires amendment to provide greater flexibility and to better reflect local context and design-led principles.
The main concern is the way in which the policy translates the Fields in Trust benchmarks into a rigid per-dwelling requirement of 62.2 sq m per dwelling. The Deposit Plan itself recognises, at paragraph 6.233, that on-site provision should be design led rather than standards led, and that the type of provision should respond to local context and identified local need having regard to the Open Space Background Paper. That is an important and sensible acknowledgement. In our view, however, the policy wording pulls in the opposite direction by setting out what reads in practice as a uniform quantitative requirement. Fields in Trust guidance is ordinarily framed around population and typologies, to be applied strategically and flexibly, rather than as a blanket per-dwelling metric irrespective of scheme context, form and composition. A rigid application of the standard risks disproportionate land take, unnecessary design constraints and, ultimately, pressure on viability and delivery.
There is also concern regarding the separate requirement for an Open Space Strategy for all housing and commercial developments meeting the thresholds. In many cases, the provision of open space within a development will already be addressed through the Design and Access Statement, Green Infrastructure Statement and the overall layout and placemaking rationale of the scheme. We would therefore question whether a standalone Open Space Strategy is necessary in every case. In our view, the policy should be amended so that open space can be addressed through the principal design and green infrastructure material submitted with the application, unless there is a particular site-specific reason why a separate strategy is required. That would avoid unnecessary duplication without weakening the quality of assessment.
Change sought: amend Policy CI1 and supporting text to make clear that the benchmark standards are to be applied flexibly and strategically, having regard to site context, typology and local need, and that open space provision may be addressed through the Design and Access Statement and/or Green Infrastructure material rather than requiring a standalone Open Space Strategy in every case.
Policy SP4 – Placemaking
Position: Support in principle / Comment
Barratt Redrow supports Policy SP4 in principle. The emphasis on placemaking is fully consistent with Planning Policy Wales and with the Deposit Plan’s wider design-led approach to development. The policy framework rightly seeks to ensure that major development is shaped by the placemaking principles from the outset.
That said, the wording of the policy should better reflect the position already set out in the supporting text. Paragraph 6.34 of the Deposit Plan makes clear that the required Placemaking Statement should form part of the Design and Access Statement for most major planning applications. That is helpful and sensible. In our view, the policy itself should say the same thing expressly, so that there is no suggestion that applicants are expected to prepare a separate freestanding document in addition to the DAS.
Suggested wording amendment:
“Major development proposals must be supported by a Placemaking Statement, to be incorporated within the Design and Access Statement where one is required, demonstrating clearly how the proposal accords with the placemaking principles of the Plan.”
That amendment would improve clarity, avoid duplication and align the policy wording with paragraph
6.34 of the supporting text.
Policy SP5 – Creating Healthy and Inclusive Places and Spaces Position: Support in principle / Comment in part
Barratt Redrow supports the objective of creating healthy and inclusive places and spaces and agrees that health and well-being are legitimate and important planning considerations. The wider thrust of Policy SP5 is consistent with PPW’s placemaking agenda and with the Deposit Plan’s recognition that the built environment can have a significant influence on health outcomes.
However, there is a need to ensure that the assessment requirements under Policy SP5 are proportionate and do not create unnecessary cost and duplication. The policy requires all qualifying major development to undertake screening at pre-application stage and, for significant developments, a rapid Health Impact Assessment. The supporting text explains that a rapid HIA may involve literature review, stakeholder engagement and wider evidence gathering. In our view, whilst that may be appropriate for larger or more complex schemes, the policy should recognise more clearly that the health implications of development will often already be addressed through the Design and Access Statement, Placemaking Statement, Green Infrastructure material, Transport Assessment and related application documents. There is a risk that the current wording adds a further procedural burden, with associated cost implications, without always adding materially new value.
We therefore consider that the policy should be applied proportionately, with the checklist and any rapid HIA focused on developments where there is a realistic prospect of significant or complex health implications, rather than as a routine additional requirement in every qualifying case. The policy would also benefit from clarification that the conclusions of the screening/HIA can be incorporated into the main design and supporting statements submitted with the application, rather than requiring standalone reporting unless specifically justified by the scale or sensitivity of the proposal.
Change sought: amend Policy SP5 and/or its supporting text to confirm that health assessment requirements will be applied proportionately, and that the outcomes of the checklist or rapid HIA may be integrated within other application documents, including the Design and Access Statement, Placemaking Statement and Green Infrastructure material, unless a standalone report is specifically justified.
Policy CC2 – Presumption Against Demolition Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the broad objective of encouraging the repair, refurbishment, re-use and re-purposing of existing buildings where that represents the most sustainable outcome. The policy’s underlying intent, to avoid unnecessary loss of embodied carbon and encourage circular economy principles, is understood.
Nevertheless, Policy CC2 as drafted is overly onerous and risks giving rise to unintended consequences for deliverability. The policy establishes a strong presumption against demolition and requires extensive justification through either a Demolition Statement or an Energy Report / Whole Life Carbon Assessment. Whilst that may be appropriate in certain cases, a blanket presumption of this kind risks frustrating otherwise sustainable redevelopment proposals, including proposals involving poor quality farm buildings, obsolete structures, and buildings that are not well suited to modern standards of layout, accessibility, thermal performance or efficient land use. In some cases, insisting on retention or retrofit may not represent the most sustainable outcome overall.
There is also a tension with the wider objective of making the most effective and efficient use of land. Some buildings may be technically capable of retention, but only at disproportionate cost, with compromised design outcomes or reduced site efficiency. On previously developed or rural redevelopment sites alike, that could affect development timescales, viability and ultimately the ability to bring forward policy-compliant schemes. The policy does contain some flexibility through criteria 3 and 4, which recognise that a lower net carbon solution may in some circumstances arise from demolition and redevelopment. However, in our view, the overall wording still leans too heavily towards a presumption against demolition rather than a balanced assessment of the most sustainable whole-life outcome in each case.
The policy would therefore benefit from a more balanced formulation which supports retention and reuse where appropriate, but does not create a disproportionate barrier to demolition where redevelopment would deliver a better placemaking, operational carbon, viability or land-use outcome. That is particularly important in relation to sites containing redundant agricultural or rural buildings, and sites where retrofit would be impractical, inefficient or environmentally sub-optimal.
Change sought: amend Policy CC2 so that it supports the retention and re-use of existing buildings where feasible and sustainable, but allows demolition where this would deliver a more effective overall development outcome having regard to whole-life carbon, operational performance, design quality, viability, land efficiency and deliverability.
Land at St Nicholas / omission from the Deposit Plan Position: Object to omission
Barratt Redrow objects to the omission of land at St Nicholas from the Deposit Plan.
The case for St Nicholas is, in our view, strong and is rooted in the Council’s own evidence base. As already noted, the settlement performs strongly in the BP5 appraisal, the adopted LDP and current review both identify the role of minor rural settlements in supporting sustainable communities, and both the adopted LDP and the current Deposit Plan recognise the specific significance of St Nicholas as a village with a primary school serving a wider catchment area.
Deposit Plan Conclusion
Overall, Barratt Redrow is supportive of the Council’s continued work in preparing the RLDP and supports the objective of putting in place a robust, plan-led framework for growth in the Vale of Glamorgan. However, the Plan in its current form is not sufficiently ambitious and requires modification in order to be sound.
In particular:
• The Plan Period is too short. An extended plan period (and associated increase in housing requirement) is required to provide for at least ten years post adoption;
• the housing requirement under Policy SP6 is too low and is too closely tied to past build rates;
• the 10% flexibility allowance is not sufficient given the structure and risk profile of the supply;
• the Plan relies too heavily on key sites, rolled forward sites and windfalls;
• the strategy for settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area is too restrictive and does not properly reflect the evidence on bus-connected, serviceable and functionally linked settlements; and
• the omission of St Nicholas is not justified by the Council’s own evidence base.
The evidence before the Council supports a stronger role for St Nicholas. The adopted LDP and current BP5 review both recognise the role of Minor Rural Settlements in supporting sustainable rural communities and providing for moderate growth. The Deposit Plan itself acknowledges St Nicholas’ role as a settlement with a primary school serving a wider catchment area. The LHMA demonstrates that there is a need for a range of housing products and tenures, and the Deposit Plan itself accepts that rural areas require both affordable and market housing to meet local needs.
For those reasons, Barratt Redrow seeks amendments to Policies SP1, SP2, SP6, SP7, SP8 and HG4, together with a more flexible and resilient housing strategy overall, and the inclusion of land at St Nicholas as an appropriate and deliverable source of mixed-tenure housing growth within the RLDP period.
Candidate Site Register - Site ID 486
Land to the south of the A48 at St Nicholas (Site ID 486) is being promoted by Barratt Redrow for a residential-led development.
Stage 2 Candidate Site Assessment
The Council’s Stage 2 Candidate Site Assessment states:
“The development would have an adverse impact on the character and setting of the St Nicholas Conservation Area and would also be considered to represent an unacceptable intrusion in to the open countryside. Predictive Agricultural Land Classification Map indicates that the site is Grade 3a agricultural land loss of this land would be contrary to national policy.”
The key issues raised are all capable of being overcome as part of the ongoing promotion of the site, as set out below:
Impact upon Character and Setting of the St Nicholas Conservation Area
Wessex Archaeology have prepared a Heritage Appraisal in support of the site’s development. This concludes that future development within the site would unlikely cause harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets if the development is in keeping with the surrounding built character.
The impact upon the character and setting of the St Nicholas Conservation Area is considered acceptable and the site is considered to be the best option to accommodate the growth of St Nicholas in a sensitive manner, particularly with regard to the following:
• The Site is located outside of the Conservation Area whereas other fields outside the settlement boundary (e.g. to the south of The Manor House) are within the Conservation Area;
• The Conservation Area covers the majority of St Nicholas and most options for the village’s growth would be within its setting;
• PPW Para. 6.5.22 advises that proposals should be tested against a Conservation Area Appraisal where they are available. The St Nicholas Conservation Area Appraisal does not identify any features or important characteristics on the candidate site; and
• The proposals for the site are being developed so that they are sensitively designed, in keeping with the surrounding built character and retain important landscape features and views beyond the site.
Countryside Impacts
The Urbanists have undertaken a Landscape and Visual Appraisal in support of the site’s development. It concludes that the site could be developed without causing unacceptable visual impacts on key receptors, the landscape character and types within the proposed site and its surrounds, with the inclusion of appropriate green infrastructure enhancement and mitigation.
The emerging proposals have been underpinned by existing landscape features, with green infrastructure areas and landscape edges proposed within and around the site. New parkland and amenity spaces, footpaths along with a network of sustainable drainage features are incorporated with tree planting proposed throughout. It is accordingly considered that the proposals will sit well within the receiving landscape with limited impacts beyond its immediate setting.
Agricultural Land Quality
Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6 notes that agricultural land within Grades 1, 2, and 3a are considered to be the “most flexible, productive and efficient land in terms of output”. Paragraph 3.59 of PPW sets out the search sequence when considering allocating land within LDPs stating that poorer quality agricultural land should be considered ahead of higher quality land. Accordingly, whilst the site comprises Grade 3a agricultural land quality based on the currently available survey data, it comprises the poorest quality of other options for growth around St Nicholas. There is an overriding need for housing growth as part of the preparation of the RLDP and the allocation of the site would accord with the search sequence set out in PPW.
As the proposals for the site develop further, there is scope to include allotments/community growing areas and open space areas allowing much of the very good quality soils to be retained. The soils that are retained on site in the open spaces and gardens will still be able to provide various ecosystem functions, particularly in the support of biodiversity, and water and carbon storage.
Appendix 2 – Summary of Assessment
We comment on the Council’s Summary of Assessment as follows:
• Developer Interest: should be amended from red to green. The site is under single positive control by Barratt Redrow who have a track record of successfully developing residential-led sites within the Vale of Glamorgan.
• Historic Environment: should be amended from red to green. The site and proposal’s potential impact upon the historic environment is outlined within the candidate site submission and earlier within these representations as being acceptable.
• Special Landscape Area and Glamorgan Heritage Coast Designations: should be amended from red to green. The Urbanists have undertaken a Landscape and Visual Appraisal in support of the site’s development. It concludes that the site could be developed without causing unacceptable visual impacts on these designations.
• Environmental & Physical Constraints Conclusions: should be amended from red to green. The site is not subject to any environmental or physical constraints which cannot be accommodated through the sensitive design approach adopted by Barrat Redrow.
• Access/proximity to services and facilities conclusions: should be amended from amber to green. The Transport Appraisal which formed part of the candidate site submission evidences the site’s accessibility and proximity to services and facilities.
• Connectivity and Capacity: should be amended from red to green. The candidate site submission demonstrates the site’s capacity for the quantum of development proposed and its connectivity to the settlement and other key locations in the Vale of Glamorgan via sustainable transport modes.
• Climate Change: should be amended from red to green. The site is in a sustainable location, with a number of local facilities including a bus stop, a school, health and wellbeing facilities all within a short walk from the site as well as the retail facilities situated within acceptable cycling distances site and highly accessible by public transport. Overall, the accessible location of the development will mean that there is a reduced need for private car journeys, in turn reducing overall pollution. The development will be supported by a Travel Plan in favour of sustainable modes of travel. Moreover, the dwellings will be built to Part L 2025 which means the new homes will produce reduced levels of CO2.
• Placemaking Character and Place: should be amended from red to green. The proposals comply with the National Sustainable Placemaking Outcomes, as set out within the Appraisal which formed part of the candidate site submission.
• Suitable for Further Consideration: should be amended from red to green for the reasons set out below and within the candidate site submission.
Suitability for Allocation and Key Benefits
For the sake of brevity, we do not intend to repeat the considerable and detailed content of the Candidate Site Submission here. The previously submitted information however contained substantial information to support the allocation of the site as well as a detailed sustainability and connectivity appraisal undertaken in accordance with PPW.
In summary, the submission demonstrated that the site is suitable for allocation within the Council’s RLDP and its inclusion would help contribute to the overall soundness of the emerging Plan. The proposed site fully accords with National Sustainable Placemaking Outcomes and Sustainable Transport Hierarchy set out in PPW and the site is considered to be deliverable and viable.
The proposed development of the site would deliver the following key benefits:
• Delivering a range and choice of housing (including a proportion of affordable housing) in a sustainable location on a deliverable site which can contribute towards the resilience of the RLDP’s housing trajectory and the effectiveness of the Plan;
• The proposals would support the vibrancy of St Nicholas with the site being closely related to the settlement and capable of integrating effectively with the settlement to the benefit of existing and proposed residents;
• The provision of multi-functional open space – including amenity space for residents, play spaces, potential for local growing spaces, nature walks, sustainable drainage and wildlife habitats to achieve biodiversity enhancements;
• Encouraging and supporting active travel with cleaner, greener travel choices and reduced out commuting being located close to public transport provision;
• Good quality open spaces with significant biodiversity benefits (delivering a biodiversity enhancement), surface water resilience and efficient energy, water and communications infrastructure;
• Economic benefits – including that the proposed development is expected to:
o Support the employment of 434 people;
o Create circa £1,687,420 in additional tax, including £158,124 in council tax revenue for the Vale of Glamorgan Council.
It is accordingly concluded that allocation of the site would contribute to the soundness of the RLDP and would accord with the well-being goals specified in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.
Barratt Redrow, Highlight Planning and the project team are keen to work collaboratively with the Council and other parties to demonstrate the suitability of the land for development and its identification as an allocation in the RLDP.
I trust the above representations assist in the Council’s preparation of the RLDP. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss the above matters with the Council if that would be helpful. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Include additional allocations.

Introduction
These representations are provided on behalf of Barratt Redrow in respect of the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s consultation on the Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) Deposit Plan and Candidate Site Register. They should be read in conjunction with the enclosed completed Comments Forms.
Barratt Redrow are promoting land at St Nicholas (Site ID 486) for a residential-led development of up to 140 modern, energy efficient homes, 40% of which are currently proposed to be affordable.
Barratt Redrow is generally supportive of the Council’s work in preparing the RLDP. The preparation of an up-to-date development plan for the Vale is plainly important and the Council is to be supported in progressing the RLDP through to Deposit stage. The principle of a plan-led strategy, rooted in settlement evidence, affordable housing need and sustainable transport objectives, is endorsed. That is particularly important in the current plan-led Welsh planning context.
That said, in its current form the Deposit RLDP is not sufficiently ambitious and, in our view, requires a number of important changes in order to ensure soundness. The key concerns relate to the overall housing requirement, the level of flexibility built into the strategy, the degree of reliance placed on key sites, windfalls and rolled forward supply, the unduly restrictive approach taken to sustainable settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area and the introduction of onerous policies that when considered together could impact deliverability. Those issues are especially relevant to St Nicholas, which the Council’s own evidence identifies as one of the better performing Minor Rural Settlements and one which has an established role in supporting a sustainable rural community.
The Council’s own evidence base supports a stronger role for St Nicholas than the Deposit Plan currently allows. It demonstrates that proportionate growth in settlements such as St Nicholas is not a departure from the Council’s established strategy; it is consistent with it. The Deposit RLDP should be amended so that it better reflects both national policy and the Council’s own evidence, and in particular so that sustainable and deliverable opportunities such as St Nicholas are able to make an appropriate contribution to meeting the Vale’s housing needs.
The remainder of these representations address the specific policies of the Deposit Plan.
Deposit Plan Plan Period Position: Object
Based on the Development Plans Manual, when a plan is adopted, there should be at least 10 years of the plan period remaining.
On the Council’s current timetable, adoption is only anticipated for August/September 2027, and those post-Deposit stages are expressly identified in the Delivery Agreement as indicative, because they depend on external factors including the number of representations received and the examination process. The Deposit Plan runs only to 2036. That means that, even if the Council hits its best-case programme and adopts in September 2027, the Plan would have only about 8 years and 3 months left to run. That is already below the DPM expectation of at least 10 years remaining at adoption. Any slippage would make that position worse.
Based on the current timetable, an end date of 2038 (with associated increase in housing requirement) would therefore ensure a sound plan.
Policy SP1 – Sustainable Growth Strategy Position: Comment / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the broad objective of pursuing a sustainable growth strategy and agrees that growth should be directed towards the most sustainable locations. The emphasis on public transport connectivity, access to services and the need to align housing growth with wider regional aspirations is supported in principle. The Deposit Plan’s summary of Future Wales correctly notes that the Vale lies within the Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys National Growth Area and that Local Development Plans should recognise this area as the focus for strategic economic and housing growth, services and facilities, and transport infrastructure. The Plan also correctly highlights Future Wales’ wider outcomes, including vibrant rural places with access to homes, jobs and services.
Our concern is that the strategy as drafted is not sufficiently nuanced and, in practice, it places too much weight on the Strategic Growth Areas and not enough weight on sustainable settlements outside it. In doing so, it risks overlooking villages which perform well against the Council’s own settlement evidence and which can accommodate proportionate growth in a highly sustainable way. St Nicholas is a clear example of that. The earlier Barratt David Wilson Homes representations made this point and it remains equally relevant now: the strategy should not be read as favouring rail-served locations to the exclusion of settlements with strong bus accessibility and established local services.
This is important because the Council’s own evidence does not justify such a narrow interpretation of sustainable transport. The BP5 methodology was adapted specifically to better appreciate the role and function of settlements in the Vale, including their relationship to key services and facilities. In other words, the Council has already recognised in its evidence base that sustainability in the Vale cannot sensibly be reduced to rail access alone.
St Nicholas benefits from strong bus connectivity and a strategic relationship to Cardiff and other settlements. Supporting population growth in proximity to regular bus services can itself help reinforce the viability of those routes. Para 3.45 of PPW states the following in respect of relationships beyond the Council’s administrative area:
“The evidence to identify suitable areas and sites for development should not be confined by local authority boundaries. It should reflect realities like housing markets, travel to work areas, retail catchments and the nature of activity or development itself.” (emphasis added)
Cardiff is by far the greatest attractor in terms of commuting destination, as shown in the below Census data for the Vale of Glamorgan:
St Nicholas is 16 minutes from Cardiff via bus. Not all people will want to live in towns (as recognised by the Council in their response to the draft NDF). The Spatial Option is depicted on Page 28 of the Spatial Options Background Paper (June 2023). This fails to show St Nicholas as a settlement with frequent bus connectivity despite it being served by excellent bus service provision.
Future Wales supports development which aligns with the South East Wales Metro which includes bus infrastructure and services as well as the rail network. The Deposit Plan’s focus on settlements with railway stations ignores settlements with bus service provision such as St Nicholas where travel via bus is an attractive, sustainable and convenient option for residents. For example, the travel time on bus to Cardiff from St Nicholas is 15 minutes, whereas the travel time from Rhoose to Cardiff via train is over double the time at 36 minutes.
Settlements such as St Nicholas will require additional growth over the coming years in order to contribute to their vibrancy and support existing services and facilities such as the local school and bus service. That remains a legitimate and important planning point. Future Wales, as summarised in the Deposit Plan, requires local authorities to maximise opportunities arising from public transport investment and to plan for growth that supports sustainable connectivity more generally, not simply around rail stations.
There is therefore a soundness issue here. The Council’s own evidence and national policy context support a strategy that captures sustainable bus-connected settlements as well as rail-served settlements. St Nicholas should be expressly recognised as one of those locations. If the Council is seeking to direct development to places “best served by public transport connectivity and [which] offer a good range of services and facilities”, then it should ensure that this is applied consistently to settlements such as St Nicholas rather than in a way that, in practice, privileges only a narrow subset of locations.
For that reason, Policy SP1 should be amended to make clearer that sustainable settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area, where there is good bus connectivity, local facilities and a clear functional relationship with wider employment and service centres, are capable of accommodating proportionate growth. That change would make the strategy more aligned with the evidence base and would support a more robust and resilient pattern of housing delivery.
Policy SP2 – Settlement Hierarchy Position: Object
Barratt Redrow objects to Policy SP2 in its current form.
The Council’s own evidence shows that St Nicholas performs strongly as a Minor Rural Settlement. It scored 39 points and ranked 5th out of 21 Minor Rural Settlements within the Settlement Appraisal Background Paper. It is one of the few settlements in this tier with a school in the village and that its strategic position and public transport accessibility lend support to it being treated as a sustainable settlement capable of accommodating further growth.
That broader conclusion is reinforced by the Deposit Plan itself. Paragraph 6.16 expressly identifies St Nicholas as one of the smaller rural settlements which contains a primary school serving a wider catchment area. The Plan goes on to recognise that, due to the functional links between rural settlements, it is essential to ensure that existing services and facilities are safeguarded, supported or enhanced where appropriate. Those are helpful and important acknowledgements.
However, notwithstanding that evidence, the policy framework remains highly restrictive. The Deposit Plan states that, in Minor Rural Settlements, general market housing will be limited to infill and conversion opportunities within the settlement boundary, whilst any more meaningful growth outside the Strategic Growth Area is essentially restricted to small scale affordable housing-led schemes with a minimum 50% affordable housing requirement. In our view that is too blunt an approach and is not justified by the evidence.
The reason this matters is because the Council’s own historic and current evidence points in the opposite direction. BP5 explains that the adopted LDP provided for moderate growth in Minor Rural Settlements to help meet local housing need and support existing local services. The adopted LDP Written Statement similarly states that minor rural settlements such as St Nicholas play an important role in underpinning sustainable rural communities and that there is a need for some moderate growth in these settlements. The earlier strategy therefore recognised that such locations could accommodate growth without undermining their character or function. The successful development of by Redrow of Cae Newydd, St Nicholas provides an example of how new residential development can successfully integrate into a Minor Rural Settlement.
In our view the current Deposit strategy has moved too far away from that balanced position. The Plan now acknowledges the sustainability credentials of St Nicholas but does not allow those credentials to translate into an appropriate development role. That disconnect between the evidence and the policy response is one of the main reasons why the Plan, as drafted, is not sound.
Accordingly, Policy SP2 should be amended. At the very least, it should be recast so that settlements such as St Nicholas are not treated as locations where only very limited growth can occur. A more proportionate and evidence-led approach would be to allow moderate mixed-tenure growth in the more sustainable Minor Rural Settlements, where this is supported by site-specific evidence and good placemaking. That would better reflect both the Council’s own settlement appraisal and the adopted LDP approach that preceded it. As drafted, the Plan expects a great deal from a very limited rural supply offer. It seeks to secure a minimum 50% affordable housing provision on qualifying sites, requires the mix of homes to respond to latest evidence, including specialist and older persons’ needs, and recognises the need for both affordable and market housing to support mixed communities in rural areas. The Plan also acknowledges the functional role of Minor Rural Settlements such as St Nicholas and the importance of supporting local services within them. In our view, those objectives are unlikely to be achieved through the very limited number of affordable housing-led allocations currently proposed. Additional sites in the more sustainable Minor Rural Settlements are therefore required if the Plan is to deliver what it seeks in a realistic, deliverable and sustainable manner.
Policy SP6 – Housing Requirement Position: Object
Barratt Redrow objects to Policy SP6.
Whilst we support the Council’s intention to plan positively for housing growth through an up-to-date RLDP, the proposed housing requirement of 7,890 dwellings is not considered sufficiently ambitious and, in our view, is no longer justified by the most up-to-date evidence. The Deposit Plan identifies a requirement of 7,890 dwellings, equating to 526 dwellings per annum, with provision for 8,660 homes once the 10% flexibility allowance is applied. That requirement remains rooted in the RLDP’s dwelling-led scenario, which the LHMA explains was derived from average completions over a 10-year period. In our view, that is too conservative an approach in present circumstances.
PPW and the Development Plans Manual is clear on this point. PPW sets out the following requirements for local authorities when setting a housing requirement at paragraph 4.2.6:
“The latest Welsh Government local authority level Household Projections for Wales, alongside the latest Local Housing Market Assessment (LHMA) and the Well-being plan for a plan area, will form a fundamental part of the evidence base for development plans. These should be considered together with other key evidence in relation to issues such as what the plan is seeking to achieve, links between homes and jobs, the need for affordable housing, Welsh language considerations and the deliverability of the plan, in order to identify an appropriate strategy for the delivery of housing in the plan area. Appropriate consideration must also begiven to the wider social, economic, environmental and cultural factors in a plan area in order to ensure the creation of sustainable places and cohesive communities.”
The Deposit Plan housing requirement is based on past delivery rates and does not take account of the above policy requirements. Whilst past build rates can be used as a benchmark for comparison, it is not appropriate for this to be used to set the future growth of the Authority Area. The Development Plans Manual states the following in this respect:
“5.55 Extrapolating forward past take-up rates for both jobs and homes over various time periods gives a factual representation of what has been delivered in the past. This approach can provide a useful benchmark against which to compare future employment and household growth, assuming previous conditions remained constant. However, this may have been constrained by contextual influences applicable at a previous point in time, for example global economic markets, or have led to undesirable outcomes which should not be repeated, such as a mismatch between the number of homes and jobs.
5.56 It will be important to understand the relationship between the past and the future direction of the plan, including such contextual circumstances. If there are/were limitations that hindered the ability to deliver growth previously, then until mechanisms are in place to address such matters this could have a bearing on future growth levels. Understanding the context within which delivery was/can be achieved will be important, particularly when considering a housing trajectory as this could influence the speed and increase delivery rates, or conversely result in a delivery cap until such matters are resolved.
5.57 Just relying on past build rates as the sole evidence base to quantify future employment and housing land requirements is not sufficient on its own. Additional evidence will be required to identify the scale of new jobs and homes necessary and the related land requirement.”
Contextual factors that mean utilising past build rates in setting future housing growth is inappropriate include:
• Utilising past build rates incorporates recession-based trends. This includes supressed build rates following the 2008 recession and more recently, reduced housing completions as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and the current cost of living crisis;
• Does not actively seek to address the area’s ageing demographic;
• Does not reflect or take account of the Vale of Glamorgan’s position within a Growth Area within Future Wales;
• Does not seek to leverage any of the investment into the region through the CCR City Deal;
• Conflicts with the Deposit Plan’s ambition in terms of Homes For All and the Economy – in that there has been no recent job growth in the Vale of Glamorgan delivered under the current LDP and there is a shortage of housing and affordable housing. Applying the same build rate over the RLDP plan period would compound these issues; and
• During the period considered, many people were prevented from forming new households due to a lack of mortgage finance, lower employment levels and reduced rates of housing completions. There is a considerable body of evidence to show that household formation will return to long term trends if housing is made available. Research by the former National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU)4 found that cohorts who are less able to access home ownership earlier in their housing career due to “boom” or “recession” factors impacting on affordability are nevertheless able to “catch-up” later on – 80% of the gap at the age of 30 is “caught-up” by the age of 40. This finding supports the resumption of long-term household formation trends.
In short, just relying on past build rates as the sole evidence base to quantify future housing land requirements is not sufficient on its own, and that additional evidence is required to identify the scale of new homes necessary, with alternative scenarios considered rather than simply extrapolating previous delivery trends. That is directly relevant here. A housing requirement derived too closely from historic completion rates risks baking in past under-delivery rather than planning positively for future need.
That concern is reinforced by the updated Welsh Government evidence published after the RLDP’s preferred growth scenario was formulated. The latest 2025-based estimates of additional housing need identify newly arising need in Wales of between 7,800 and 9,300 additional homes per annum over the first five years, with a central estimate of around 8,700 homes per annum, alongside a separate estimate of existing unmet need of 9,400 homes. Whilst those are national figures and do not automatically translate into a single local housing target, they plainly point towards a materially higher level of need than has previously been assumed and strengthen the case for local planning authorities, particularly in growth areas, to revisit conservative housing requirements.
The updated 2022-based household projections point in the same direction. Welsh Government’s latest figures show that the number of households in Wales is projected to increase by 7.2% between mid-2022 and mid-2032, and that the Vale of Glamorgan is projected to experience one of the largest percentage increases in Wales, at 11.7%. The same release notes that the Vale is also amongst the authorities expected to experience some of the strongest private household population growth. In short, the latest demographic evidence does not support a low-growth or “business as usual” response for the Vale. It points the other way.
This sits uncomfortably with the Council’s own housing evidence. The Deposit Plan records that the Vale has the highest affordability ratio in Wales and a significant need for affordable homes. It further records that the LHMA identifies affordable housing need averaging 461 dwellings per annum over 15 years using the principal projections, rising to 502 dwellings per annum under the RLDP projection figures. The Deposit Plan also acknowledges that only a proportion of new households will require affordable housing because others will meet their needs through the market. That is important, because it underlines the need for both affordable and open market housing, and therefore for a higher overall housing requirement than the Plan currently proposes.
The Deposit Plan principally seeks to address issues of affordability through a blanket 50% affordable housing requirement on sites other than the Key Sites. Whilst we fully support the Council in looking to address issues of affordability, we consider that an increase in the housing requirement and subsequent increase in housing supply (both open market and affordable) should be pursued.
There is a broader strategic point as well. The Vale sits within the wider Cardiff housing market and the Deposit Plan itself recognises the strong migration relationship with Cardiff and the role that strategic collaboration should play in considering housing growth. Against that background, and having regard to the updated Welsh Government evidence, the present requirement of 7,890 dwellings does not appear sufficiently ambitious for a National Growth Area authority with strong migration inflows, severe affordability pressures and one of the highest projected household growth rates in Wales. In our view, the Plan should test a higher housing requirement through examination.
A higher growth rate, such as the PG-5Y scenario or higher should be adopted to better align housing and job growth and redress socio economic trends. The likelihood of this of level of growth occurring is even greater in the context of the ambition and funding available to support the City Deal. However, in seeking to deliver the economic vision for the area, it is important to ensure that economic growth is not constrained by a lack of land (for either housing or employment).
Whilst this is higher than past build rates, it should be noted that build rates are closely related to the availability of deliverable sites; therefore, the allocation of sufficient housing land in the RLDP would go a long way to increasing delivery. Current delivery rates have been supressed by wider socio economic trends and reliance within the existing LDP on large strategic sites (i.e. Barry Waterfront). Basing the RLDP Growth Option on past delivery would therefore result in an increase in the number of suppressed households. There is no rationale or justification to set future housing need by reference solely to past delivery rates.
The key point for soundness is therefore a simple one. The Development Plans Manual requires a housing requirement to be grounded in a broad evidence base and not simply in past completion trends. The latest demographic and housing need evidence now available points towards stronger growth pressure than that reflected in Policy SP6. In those circumstances, retaining the current requirement without revisiting it would not, in our view, be consistent with the Development Plans Manual or with a genuinely evidence-led plan-making exercise.
The Council’s own evidence supports the use of a 4% household-to-dwelling conversion factor. The LHMA states that the RLDP preferred growth scenario assumes growth of 7,586 households, which equates to 7,890 dwellings once vacancy rates are applied, effectively applying a 4% uplift in practice. That approach is also consistent with the adopted Vale of Glamorgan LDP, which expressly applied a
1.04 household-to-dwelling conversion ratio in deriving part of its housing requirement. In those circumstances, and absent any robust local evidence justifying a different factor, it is entirely appropriate to apply the Development Plans Manual baseline uplift of 4% to any updated household-led requirement. On that basis, a requirement of 9,623 households would convert to 10,008 dwellings, which is around 26.8% above the 7,890 dwellings currently sought under Policy SP6 and further underlines that the Deposit RLDP is not sufficiently ambitious in housing terms.Accordingly, Policy SP6 should be amended to provide for a higher housing requirement. The precise figure is ultimately a matter for examination, but the current requirement is too low, too closely tied to past build rates, and insufficiently responsive to updated Welsh Government projections and housing need evidence. A higher requirement would also require a broader and more resilient supply portfolio, which in turn strengthens the case for additional deliverable sites in sustainable settlements such as St Nicholas.
Policy SP6 – Flexibility, housing land supply and trajectory Position: Object
Barratt Redrow also objects to the level of flexibility embedded within Policy SP6 and raises concern regarding the resilience of the housing land supply and the robustness of the housing trajectory.
The Development Plans Manual is clear that housing supply is the housing requirement plus a flexibility allowance. It further states that it will be extremely rare for all sites identified in a plan to come forward within the timescales anticipated, and that a development plan will not be effective if it cannot accommodate changing circumstances. For that reason, a flexibility allowance must be embedded into the plan. Whilst the Manual says that 10% may be a starting point, it also makes clear that the level of flexibility is for each authority to determine based on local issues and that any chosen level must be robustly evidenced.
In our view, a 10% flexibility allowance is not sufficient in the context of this Plan. The Deposit Plan’s housing provision of 8,660 dwellings is made up of 3,837 dwellings from the existing land supply, 3,520 dwellings on allocated sites and 1,303 dwellings from windfalls. The Council’s housing land supply paper then shows that the allocation component itself includes 959 dwellings on rolled-forward LDP sites, 2,278 dwellings on key housing allocations, 122 dwellings on affordable housing-led sites and 161 dwellings on other allocations. That is a relatively exposed and finely balanced supply portfolio.
The resilience issue is due to a substantial element of the supply depends on a relatively small number of key sites, a significant rolled-forward component, and a large windfall assumption. The Development Plans Manual states that rolled-forward allocations require careful justification, that there must be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate such sites can be delivered and justify being included again, and that clear evidence will be required that those sites can be delivered. That is a demanding test, as it should be. In our view, the Plan’s reliance on rolled-forward sites and key sites means that a modest flexibility allowance of 10% does not provide a sufficient margin of safety.
The housing trajectory also warrants closer scrutiny. The Development Plans Manual describes the housing trajectory as the key mechanism for demonstrating how all sites will be delivered in the identified timescales throughout the whole plan period. It states that lead-in times for larger sites, inter-relationships between sites, constraints, infrastructure timing and assumptions for both large and small windfalls must all be taken into account. It also requires trajectories to provide a steady flow of sites through the plan period and not to be unduly loaded towards the end of the period.
Against that benchmark, there is a legitimate question over whether the RLDP trajectory is sufficiently robust. The Council’s own housing land supply paper records stakeholder concerns that the trajectory shows a significant step change in delivery above previous rates, that there is too great a reliance on key sites, and that the assumed timescales for pre-application work, application determination and discharge of conditions are too short. The consultation summary specifically records concern that delivery rises from around 400 to 500 dwellings per annum in the early monitored years to around 1,000 dwellings per annum by 2027/28, and that this represents a marked and pronounced step change. Those are not peripheral issues; they go directly to the credibility and resilience of the trajectory.
The same background paper also confirms that over 25% of the Plan’s total provision is attributed to key sites. Again, that does not make the Plan unsound in itself, but it does mean the trajectory and flexibility allowance need to be particularly robust. In our view, the current Plan does not yet demonstrate that level of resilience. The delivery assumptions may prove achievable, but the point for examination is that they require close scrutiny and should not simply be accepted at face value, particularly when the Development Plans Manual emphasises realism, flexibility and steady delivery through the full plan period.
There is also a concern about the windfall component. The Council’s evidence assumes delivery of 1,303 dwellings from large and small windfall developments over the lifetime of the plan. The Development Plans Manual accepts that windfalls can form part of supply, but it also requires the assumptions behind them to be evidenced and scrutinised. Here, the windfall figure is material, not marginal. That is another reason why the resilience of the identified allocation portfolio matters so much. Where a plan is relying on rolled-forward sites, key sites and substantial windfalls all at once, there is a stronger case for a higher flexibility allowance and for a broader pool of deliverable sites.
In our view, the sounder approach would be to increase the flexibility allowance from 10% to 15% and broaden the supply base through the inclusion of additional sustainable and deliverable sites. That would better reflect the Development Plans Manual’s requirement for plans to remain effective in the face of delay and changing circumstances, and it would reduce the risk of the RLDP becoming over-dependent on a narrow set of sites and optimistic delivery assumptions. It would also be entirely consistent with wider Welsh plan-making practice, where flexibility allowances above 10% have been accepted where local circumstances justify it. By way of example, Flintshire’s adopted LDP applies a flexibility allowance of over 13%, while Bridgend’s recently adopted RLDP provides for a 14% flexibility allowance following examination. Against that background, and having regard to the Vale RLDP’s reliance on key sites, rolled-forward allocations, a substantial windfall component and a stepped housing trajectory, a 15% allowance is justified here as a proportionate and robust response to the particular delivery risks of this Plan.This point also links directly back to St Nicholas. If the Plan is to be made sound, it should not rely so heavily on a small number of large, longer-lead sites and on a substantial windfall allowance. It should include a broader range of deliverable sites capable of contributing earlier and more reliably to the housing trajectory. A sustainable, mixed-tenure site at St Nicholas would assist in precisely that respect by diversifying the supply portfolio and improving resilience.
Policy SP7 – Affordable Housing Provision Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the objective of delivering affordable housing and agrees that this is one of the key issues the RLDP must address. Policy SP7 is therefore supported in principle. However, the policy should be read in conjunction with a more ambitious overall housing strategy, because affordable housing delivery cannot sensibly be divorced from the wider question of total supply.
The Deposit Plan is clear that the delivery of affordable housing is a key objective of the RLDP and that the strength of the Vale’s housing market has resulted in many local people experiencing difficulties in purchasing suitable housing on the open market. Barratt Redrow supports that objective in principle. The policy also correctly identifies that a mix of affordable housing will be required, with reference to the LHMA, and that this should include a range of tenures, types and sizes of homes. That said, the wording of Policy SP7 lacks sufficient clarity. In particular, the reference to the affordable housing mix being “informed” by the LHMA is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the LHMA is intended to provide a broad evidence base and starting point for negotiation, or whether the Council expects schemes to replicate that mix as a fixed requirement. In our view, the policy should be clarified so that the LHMA is expressly treated as a guiding framework rather than a prescriptive formula, with the final tenure mix, type and size of affordable provision being determined having regard to site-specific circumstances, up-to-date evidence, viability and deliverability.The LHMA is highly relevant here. It explains that affordable need is no longer confined to traditional social rented housing and that current economic conditions have squeezed many households out of both home ownership and the private rented sector, creating additional need for intermediate rent and low-cost home ownership products. It also notes that an ongoing supply of new build properties remains important to the operation of assisted home ownership products in the Vale.
That evidence is important because it confirms there is a need for both affordable and open market housing. The market sector is not separate from the affordable housing challenge; it is part of how that challenge is addressed. The LHMA also makes clear that only a proportion of new households will require affordable housing because others will meet their needs through the market. This is another reason why the overall housing requirement matters so much.
There is also a more local point relevant to St Nicholas. The LHMA identifies St Nicholas & Llancarfan as a distinct housing market area and shows need arising there across tenures. It is therefore not correct to approach St Nicholas on the basis that only one tenure or one product type is needed. The evidence points to a requirement for a broader mix.
The Deposit Plan itself supports that conclusion. It acknowledges that, in meeting Policy SP7, a range of affordable tenures, types and sizes of homes will be required. It also records that the Council will seek to secure an appropriate level and mix of affordable housing in all proposed residential developments.
In our view, the main issue with Policy SP7 is therefore not its objective, but the fact that the rest of the strategy is not sufficiently ambitious to support it. The Plan cannot identify very substantial affordable need and then pursue a relatively low overall housing requirement combined with a narrow rural growth model. A sound approach would be to increase the overall housing provision and broaden the pool of sustainable and deliverable mixed-tenure sites so that affordable housing delivery through the planning system can be maximised. St Nicholas should form part of that response.
Policy SP8 – Affordable Housing Requirements Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the principle that residential development should contribute towards affordable housing need. However, there are concerns about how Policy SP8 interacts with the rest of the strategy, especially outside the Strategic Growth Area.
The Deposit Plan confirms that, within Primary and Minor Rural Settlements, new development will generally be required to provide 40% affordable housing. It also confirms that outside delineated settlement boundaries proposals for additional housing will be strictly controlled and limited to affordable housing exception sites or housing in support of rural enterprises. The Plan then layers on the separate affordable housing-led model under Policy HG4, where a minimum of 50% affordable housing is required.
In principle, Barratt Redrow has no issue with seeking ambitious affordable housing delivery where supported by viability evidence. The concern is that the overall strategy becomes too rigid when SP8 is read alongside SP2, SP3, HG4 and other potentially onerous policy requirements, including Policy CC1. In practice, this risks leaving sustainable settlements such as St Nicholas with very little scope to contribute to general housing delivery unless schemes meet a highly demanding affordable-led model. That is not a balanced or flexible way to plan for rural communities. It also gives rise to a lack of clarity between Policies SP7 and SP8 which should be addressed. Policy SP7 states that the mix of affordable housing to be delivered over the plan period will be “informed” by the LHMA, waiting list data and the Older Persons Housing Strategy, but it is unclear whether that is intended simply as a starting point for negotiation or whether the Council expects the identified mix to be applied more prescriptively. By contrast, Policy SP8 expressly provides greater flexibility: it states that affordable housing will be negotiated on a site-by-site basis having regard to evidenced viability, that the exact mix of affordable housing will be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the Council’s latest needs evidence, and that where proven economic circumstances affect delivery the Council may negotiate the level, type, tenure and nature of provision. In our view, those two policies should be aligned. That would better reflect Planning Policy Wales, which requires planning authorities to develop evidence-based market and affordable housing policies, but also makes clear that affordable housing targets and policy expectations must take account of deliverability and viability considerations. In that context, Policy SP7 should be clarified so that the LHMA and related evidence are expressly treated as guiding the starting point for discussions on mix, rather than imposing a fixed outcome irrespective of site-specific circumstances, technical constraints, abnormal costs or viability. That is especially important given the Deposit Plan’s blanket affordable housing percentages across the Vale and the cumulative effect of other policy requirements, which may affect the deliverability of particular allocations and should therefore be capable of being addressed on a site-by-site basis.The Deposit Plan recognises that an appropriate mix of affordable housing will be required, and that in the rural Vale there is a desire for smaller market homes as well as affordable homes. It also accepts that affordable housing delivery may be lower than anticipated because of viability constraints and that, where proven economic circumstances affect delivery, the Council may negotiate the level, type, tenure and nature of provision. This should feed through into a more flexible strategy overall. In particular, the Plan should not be read or applied in a way that suppresses the delivery of mixed-tenure schemes in sustainable rural settlements where those schemes can contribute both market and affordable housing and support local services. That is especially so given the evidence in the LHMA that a range of tenures is required and that intermediate and low-cost home ownership products are an increasingly important part of the housing response.
8. Policy HG1 / Housing Allocations and overall supply portfolio Position: Comment / Object in part
Barratt Redrow does not object in principle to the Council allocating key sites and other strategic locations. However, there remains a significant concern that the Plan is overly reliant on a relatively narrow supply portfolio.
The Deposit Plan confirms that the allocation component of supply comprises 2,278 dwellings on key sites, 959 dwellings on rolled forward sites, 161 dwellings on new housing allocations and 122 dwellings on affordable housing-led sites. It also confirms that 1,303 dwellings are expected from windfalls. That means a large proportion of the Plan’s supply is tied up either in a small number of large sites, historic carry-over, or a substantial assumption about unallocated windfall delivery.
Our earlier Preferred Strategy reps raised exactly this issue and those points should all be carried forward. In particular:
• the Plan is overly reliant on a small number of key sites;
• medium-sized sites in sustainable locations can provide resilience to the housing trajectory;
• windfalls account for a significant proportion of the supply and provide less certainty over geographical distribution and delivery; and
• rolled forward allocations require careful justification if they are to be relied upon as part of the plan’s effective provision.
The Deposit Plan’s own figures support that concern. It states that only a small proportion of development is likely to take place outside of the Strategic Growth Area, with some of this reflecting permissions granted under the adopted strategy. It also shows that the total housing provision attributable to Minor Rural Settlements and Primary Settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area is only 390 dwellings. In our view that is too low, particularly given the evidence that some of those settlements perform relatively well and can help diversify the supply portfolio.
Based on the revised RLDP Delivery Agreement, should there be no further slippage the RLDP will be adopted in September 2027 with there being some 7 years before the end of the plan period (of 2034) post-adoption. There may of course be some slippage in the adoption of the RLDP. We therefore would query whether the quantum of homes proposed on the larger Key Sites can realistically be delivered within the plan period.
The following conclusions of Lichfield’s Start to Finish (2nd Edition, Feb 2020) research are relevant in this respect:
• From the date at which an outline application is validated, the average figures can be 5.0-8.4 years for the first home to be delivered.
• If a scheme of more than 500 dwellings has an outline permission, then on average it delivers its first home in circa 3 years.
• The average build out rate of sites between 500-999 dwellings is 68 homes per annum and 107 homes per annum for sites between 1,000 and 1,499 dwellings.
All of the Key Sites have no outline application having been submitted. Given the revocation of TAN 1 and Welsh Government’s emphasis on a plan led system, the very earliest that the Key Sites could have outline permission in place would be post-adoption of the plan limiting its housing land supply contribution within the early years of the plan period. Allowing for an appropriate amount of time to secure necessary permissions, consents and infrastructure delivery, the Key Sites’ contribution to housing supply within the plan period would fall significantly below the quantum currently assumed in the Preferred Strategy. In that context, it is all the more important that sustainable and deliverable medium-sized sites are included in the Plan where appropriate. Again, St Nicholas is an obvious example.
In short, the issue is not that key sites should not exist. It is that the current portfolio is not broad enough and not resilient enough. The Plan should be strengthened through the inclusion of additional medium-sized, sustainable allocations capable of delivery within the plan period.
Policy HG4 – Rural Affordable Housing Led Sites Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the principle of identifying rural affordable housing-led sites. It is entirely appropriate that the RLDP seeks to respond to local housing need in rural communities and to secure affordable provision in settlements where opportunities may otherwise be more limited.
However, Policy HG4 also illustrates the broader weakness in the Plan’s current rural strategy. The Deposit Plan allocates four affordable housing-led sites at Colwinston, Aberthin, Wick and Fferm Goch, totalling 122 dwellings. It also requires applicants to demonstrate how both the market and affordable housing on those sites will meet local housing needs in terms of tenure, type and size, so that a range of housing is delivered to meet different groups in the community. The supporting text then expressly notes that Planning Policy Wales requires a sufficient number of sites suitable for the full range of housing types, and that in the rural Vale there is demand for smaller market homes as well as affordable homes.
Those are important statements and, in our view, they assist the case being made here. They show that the Council itself accepts that rural settlements need a range and choice of homes, not just affordable housing in isolation. They also show that some open market housing in rural locations is not only acceptable, but in fact part of how mixed communities and affordable delivery are achieved.
The problem is that the strategy remains too narrow in how it applies that logic. The Plan effectively says that outside the Strategic Growth Area, growth should generally be confined to affordable-led schemes with a minimum 50% affordable requirement, and anything below that will not be supported. In our view that is too rigid and may well suppress otherwise sustainable and beneficial development, particularly where sites are capable of delivering a strong policy-compliant affordable contribution but not necessarily the precise affordable-led model the Council has chosen.
We continue to raise concerns that a blanket 50% affordable requirement could create deliverability issues, including reliance on complex developer/RSL arrangements and a level of uncertainty around funding and market conditions. Without repeating every operational point, the central planning concern remains valid: the strategy should not be so rigid that it prevents settlements from growing and adapting in a sustainable way. This is especially the case given the ever more challenging delivery context set by increasingly onerous policy requirements.
St Nicholas is relevant here because it demonstrates the missed opportunity in the current approach. The village is expressly identified by the Council as one of the smaller rural settlements with a primary school serving a wider catchment area. It performs well in the settlement appraisal and is the sort of place where a sensitive mixed-tenure allocation could help support local services, provide both market and affordable housing, and diversify the Plan’s supply. In our view, the omission of St Nicholas from the rural housing strategy is not justified by the evidence currently before the Council.
Policy CC1 – Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development Position: Object
Barratt Redrow supports the wider objective of improving the energy performance of new homes and reducing carbon emissions from development. However, Policy CC1 in its current form gives rise to a number of concerns regarding consistency with national standards, deliverability, viability and practical implementation. The Deposit Plan is explicit that Policy CC1 is intended to require new dwellings to exceed current Building Regulations standards. Welsh Government’s own sustainable buildings guidance confirms that Building Regulations set mandatory standards for the design and construction of buildings, including environmental performance. In our view, that raises a legitimate question as to whether an additional local policy layer of this kind is necessary or proportionate, particularly where it risks inconsistency across local planning authorities and may duplicate, or move ahead of, the national regulatory framework.
There is also a need for greater precision in the policy wording itself. As drafted, Policy CC1 requires development to provide on-site renewable electricity generation equivalent to at least the annual energy consumption of the development, assessed through an energy performance model. The supporting text explains that the relevant metric is Energy Use Intensity, which measures all energy consumed by the building. If the policy approach is to be progressed, the policy should make clear that compliance relates only to regulated energy use, consistent with Building Regulations methodology. Developers can influence the performance of the building fabric and regulated building services, but they cannot control future occupant behaviour, appliance use, plug loads or other forms of unregulated energy demand. Without that clarification, there is a risk that the policy extends beyond matters that can reasonably and consistently be secured through the planning process.
A further issue is that the policy should expressly allow its requirements to fall away, or be treated as satisfied, where national Building Regulations subsequently catch up with or exceed the standards sought under Policy CC1, or where the national regime adopts a different but equivalent methodology. Without such a safeguard, there is a real risk that the RLDP imposes outdated or duplicative requirements later in the plan period, which would not only create unnecessary complexity but could also compromise the delivery of much-needed housing. That concern is heightened by the cumulative policy burden elsewhere in the Plan, including affordable housing, open space, placemaking, green infrastructure and other low carbon requirements. In our view, the Council should therefore demonstrate, through its viability work, that the housing allocations in Policy HG1 are capable of absorbing the cumulative costs of Policy CC1 alongside the wider requirements of the RLDP.
Clarification is also required in relation to the fallback Project Zero Fund contribution. The Deposit Plan states that where it is not technically feasible to provide a policy-compliant level of renewable energy on site, the residual energy is to be offset through an appropriate contribution to the Council’s Project Zero Fund “as far as economic viability allows”, with further detail to be provided in SPG. In our view, that is presently too uncertain. The policy should make clear how any such contribution will be calculated, what assumptions will be used, what evidence will be required, and how viability will be taken into account. These are all matters which go directly to deliverability and should not be left entirely to post-adoption guidance.
In summary, Building Regulations 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. If a local approach is to be taken, as a minimum, Policy CC1 should be amended so that: (i) it applies only to regulated energy use; (ii) its requirements fall away, or are deemed satisfied, where Building Regulations subsequently meet or exceed them or adopt an alternative national methodology; and (iii) the policy and supporting text provide a clearer framework for viability, Project Zero contributions and practical implementation.
Policy CI1 – Open Space Provision
Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the objective of ensuring that new development makes appropriate provision for open space and recreation. That is entirely consistent with good placemaking and with national policy support for healthy, inclusive and green environments. However, Policy CI1 as drafted is overly prescriptive and, in our view, requires amendment to provide greater flexibility and to better reflect local context and design-led principles.
The main concern is the way in which the policy translates the Fields in Trust benchmarks into a rigid per-dwelling requirement of 62.2 sq m per dwelling. The Deposit Plan itself recognises, at paragraph 6.233, that on-site provision should be design led rather than standards led, and that the type of provision should respond to local context and identified local need having regard to the Open Space Background Paper. That is an important and sensible acknowledgement. In our view, however, the policy wording pulls in the opposite direction by setting out what reads in practice as a uniform quantitative requirement. Fields in Trust guidance is ordinarily framed around population and typologies, to be applied strategically and flexibly, rather than as a blanket per-dwelling metric irrespective of scheme context, form and composition. A rigid application of the standard risks disproportionate land take, unnecessary design constraints and, ultimately, pressure on viability and delivery.
There is also concern regarding the separate requirement for an Open Space Strategy for all housing and commercial developments meeting the thresholds. In many cases, the provision of open space within a development will already be addressed through the Design and Access Statement, Green Infrastructure Statement and the overall layout and placemaking rationale of the scheme. We would therefore question whether a standalone Open Space Strategy is necessary in every case. In our view, the policy should be amended so that open space can be addressed through the principal design and green infrastructure material submitted with the application, unless there is a particular site-specific reason why a separate strategy is required. That would avoid unnecessary duplication without weakening the quality of assessment.
Change sought: amend Policy CI1 and supporting text to make clear that the benchmark standards are to be applied flexibly and strategically, having regard to site context, typology and local need, and that open space provision may be addressed through the Design and Access Statement and/or Green Infrastructure material rather than requiring a standalone Open Space Strategy in every case.
Policy SP4 – Placemaking
Position: Support in principle / Comment
Barratt Redrow supports Policy SP4 in principle. The emphasis on placemaking is fully consistent with Planning Policy Wales and with the Deposit Plan’s wider design-led approach to development. The policy framework rightly seeks to ensure that major development is shaped by the placemaking principles from the outset.
That said, the wording of the policy should better reflect the position already set out in the supporting text. Paragraph 6.34 of the Deposit Plan makes clear that the required Placemaking Statement should form part of the Design and Access Statement for most major planning applications. That is helpful and sensible. In our view, the policy itself should say the same thing expressly, so that there is no suggestion that applicants are expected to prepare a separate freestanding document in addition to the DAS.
Suggested wording amendment:
“Major development proposals must be supported by a Placemaking Statement, to be incorporated within the Design and Access Statement where one is required, demonstrating clearly how the proposal accords with the placemaking principles of the Plan.”
That amendment would improve clarity, avoid duplication and align the policy wording with paragraph
6.34 of the supporting text.
Policy SP5 – Creating Healthy and Inclusive Places and Spaces Position: Support in principle / Comment in part
Barratt Redrow supports the objective of creating healthy and inclusive places and spaces and agrees that health and well-being are legitimate and important planning considerations. The wider thrust of Policy SP5 is consistent with PPW’s placemaking agenda and with the Deposit Plan’s recognition that the built environment can have a significant influence on health outcomes.
However, there is a need to ensure that the assessment requirements under Policy SP5 are proportionate and do not create unnecessary cost and duplication. The policy requires all qualifying major development to undertake screening at pre-application stage and, for significant developments, a rapid Health Impact Assessment. The supporting text explains that a rapid HIA may involve literature review, stakeholder engagement and wider evidence gathering. In our view, whilst that may be appropriate for larger or more complex schemes, the policy should recognise more clearly that the health implications of development will often already be addressed through the Design and Access Statement, Placemaking Statement, Green Infrastructure material, Transport Assessment and related application documents. There is a risk that the current wording adds a further procedural burden, with associated cost implications, without always adding materially new value.
We therefore consider that the policy should be applied proportionately, with the checklist and any rapid HIA focused on developments where there is a realistic prospect of significant or complex health implications, rather than as a routine additional requirement in every qualifying case. The policy would also benefit from clarification that the conclusions of the screening/HIA can be incorporated into the main design and supporting statements submitted with the application, rather than requiring standalone reporting unless specifically justified by the scale or sensitivity of the proposal.
Change sought: amend Policy SP5 and/or its supporting text to confirm that health assessment requirements will be applied proportionately, and that the outcomes of the checklist or rapid HIA may be integrated within other application documents, including the Design and Access Statement, Placemaking Statement and Green Infrastructure material, unless a standalone report is specifically justified.
Policy CC2 – Presumption Against Demolition Position: Support in principle / Object in part
Barratt Redrow supports the broad objective of encouraging the repair, refurbishment, re-use and re-purposing of existing buildings where that represents the most sustainable outcome. The policy’s underlying intent, to avoid unnecessary loss of embodied carbon and encourage circular economy principles, is understood.
Nevertheless, Policy CC2 as drafted is overly onerous and risks giving rise to unintended consequences for deliverability. The policy establishes a strong presumption against demolition and requires extensive justification through either a Demolition Statement or an Energy Report / Whole Life Carbon Assessment. Whilst that may be appropriate in certain cases, a blanket presumption of this kind risks frustrating otherwise sustainable redevelopment proposals, including proposals involving poor quality farm buildings, obsolete structures, and buildings that are not well suited to modern standards of layout, accessibility, thermal performance or efficient land use. In some cases, insisting on retention or retrofit may not represent the most sustainable outcome overall.
There is also a tension with the wider objective of making the most effective and efficient use of land. Some buildings may be technically capable of retention, but only at disproportionate cost, with compromised design outcomes or reduced site efficiency. On previously developed or rural redevelopment sites alike, that could affect development timescales, viability and ultimately the ability to bring forward policy-compliant schemes. The policy does contain some flexibility through criteria 3 and 4, which recognise that a lower net carbon solution may in some circumstances arise from demolition and redevelopment. However, in our view, the overall wording still leans too heavily towards a presumption against demolition rather than a balanced assessment of the most sustainable whole-life outcome in each case.
The policy would therefore benefit from a more balanced formulation which supports retention and reuse where appropriate, but does not create a disproportionate barrier to demolition where redevelopment would deliver a better placemaking, operational carbon, viability or land-use outcome. That is particularly important in relation to sites containing redundant agricultural or rural buildings, and sites where retrofit would be impractical, inefficient or environmentally sub-optimal.
Change sought: amend Policy CC2 so that it supports the retention and re-use of existing buildings where feasible and sustainable, but allows demolition where this would deliver a more effective overall development outcome having regard to whole-life carbon, operational performance, design quality, viability, land efficiency and deliverability.
Land at St Nicholas / omission from the Deposit Plan Position: Object to omission
Barratt Redrow objects to the omission of land at St Nicholas from the Deposit Plan.
The case for St Nicholas is, in our view, strong and is rooted in the Council’s own evidence base. As already noted, the settlement performs strongly in the BP5 appraisal, the adopted LDP and current review both identify the role of minor rural settlements in supporting sustainable communities, and both the adopted LDP and the current Deposit Plan recognise the specific significance of St Nicholas as a village with a primary school serving a wider catchment area.
Deposit Plan Conclusion
Overall, Barratt Redrow is supportive of the Council’s continued work in preparing the RLDP and supports the objective of putting in place a robust, plan-led framework for growth in the Vale of Glamorgan. However, the Plan in its current form is not sufficiently ambitious and requires modification in order to be sound.
In particular:
• The Plan Period is too short. An extended plan period (and associated increase in housing requirement) is required to provide for at least ten years post adoption;
• the housing requirement under Policy SP6 is too low and is too closely tied to past build rates;
• the 10% flexibility allowance is not sufficient given the structure and risk profile of the supply;
• the Plan relies too heavily on key sites, rolled forward sites and windfalls;
• the strategy for settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area is too restrictive and does not properly reflect the evidence on bus-connected, serviceable and functionally linked settlements; and
• the omission of St Nicholas is not justified by the Council’s own evidence base.
The evidence before the Council supports a stronger role for St Nicholas. The adopted LDP and current BP5 review both recognise the role of Minor Rural Settlements in supporting sustainable rural communities and providing for moderate growth. The Deposit Plan itself acknowledges St Nicholas’ role as a settlement with a primary school serving a wider catchment area. The LHMA demonstrates that there is a need for a range of housing products and tenures, and the Deposit Plan itself accepts that rural areas require both affordable and market housing to meet local needs.
For those reasons, Barratt Redrow seeks amendments to Policies SP1, SP2, SP6, SP7, SP8 and HG4, together with a more flexible and resilient housing strategy overall, and the inclusion of land at St Nicholas as an appropriate and deliverable source of mixed-tenure housing growth within the RLDP period.
Candidate Site Register - Site ID 486
Land to the south of the A48 at St Nicholas (Site ID 486) is being promoted by Barratt Redrow for a residential-led development.
Stage 2 Candidate Site Assessment
The Council’s Stage 2 Candidate Site Assessment states:
“The development would have an adverse impact on the character and setting of the St Nicholas Conservation Area and would also be considered to represent an unacceptable intrusion in to the open countryside. Predictive Agricultural Land Classification Map indicates that the site is Grade 3a agricultural land loss of this land would be contrary to national policy.”
The key issues raised are all capable of being overcome as part of the ongoing promotion of the site, as set out below:
Impact upon Character and Setting of the St Nicholas Conservation Area
Wessex Archaeology have prepared a Heritage Appraisal in support of the site’s development. This concludes that future development within the site would unlikely cause harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets if the development is in keeping with the surrounding built character.
The impact upon the character and setting of the St Nicholas Conservation Area is considered acceptable and the site is considered to be the best option to accommodate the growth of St Nicholas in a sensitive manner, particularly with regard to the following:
• The Site is located outside of the Conservation Area whereas other fields outside the settlement boundary (e.g. to the south of The Manor House) are within the Conservation Area;
• The Conservation Area covers the majority of St Nicholas and most options for the village’s growth would be within its setting;
• PPW Para. 6.5.22 advises that proposals should be tested against a Conservation Area Appraisal where they are available. The St Nicholas Conservation Area Appraisal does not identify any features or important characteristics on the candidate site; and
• The proposals for the site are being developed so that they are sensitively designed, in keeping with the surrounding built character and retain important landscape features and views beyond the site.
Countryside Impacts
The Urbanists have undertaken a Landscape and Visual Appraisal in support of the site’s development. It concludes that the site could be developed without causing unacceptable visual impacts on key receptors, the landscape character and types within the proposed site and its surrounds, with the inclusion of appropriate green infrastructure enhancement and mitigation.
The emerging proposals have been underpinned by existing landscape features, with green infrastructure areas and landscape edges proposed within and around the site. New parkland and amenity spaces, footpaths along with a network of sustainable drainage features are incorporated with tree planting proposed throughout. It is accordingly considered that the proposals will sit well within the receiving landscape with limited impacts beyond its immediate setting.
Agricultural Land Quality
Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6 notes that agricultural land within Grades 1, 2, and 3a are considered to be the “most flexible, productive and efficient land in terms of output”. Paragraph 3.59 of PPW sets out the search sequence when considering allocating land within LDPs stating that poorer quality agricultural land should be considered ahead of higher quality land. Accordingly, whilst the site comprises Grade 3a agricultural land quality based on the currently available survey data, it comprises the poorest quality of other options for growth around St Nicholas. There is an overriding need for housing growth as part of the preparation of the RLDP and the allocation of the site would accord with the search sequence set out in PPW.
As the proposals for the site develop further, there is scope to include allotments/community growing areas and open space areas allowing much of the very good quality soils to be retained. The soils that are retained on site in the open spaces and gardens will still be able to provide various ecosystem functions, particularly in the support of biodiversity, and water and carbon storage.
Appendix 2 – Summary of Assessment
We comment on the Council’s Summary of Assessment as follows:
• Developer Interest: should be amended from red to green. The site is under single positive control by Barratt Redrow who have a track record of successfully developing residential-led sites within the Vale of Glamorgan.
• Historic Environment: should be amended from red to green. The site and proposal’s potential impact upon the historic environment is outlined within the candidate site submission and earlier within these representations as being acceptable.
• Special Landscape Area and Glamorgan Heritage Coast Designations: should be amended from red to green. The Urbanists have undertaken a Landscape and Visual Appraisal in support of the site’s development. It concludes that the site could be developed without causing unacceptable visual impacts on these designations.
• Environmental & Physical Constraints Conclusions: should be amended from red to green. The site is not subject to any environmental or physical constraints which cannot be accommodated through the sensitive design approach adopted by Barrat Redrow.
• Access/proximity to services and facilities conclusions: should be amended from amber to green. The Transport Appraisal which formed part of the candidate site submission evidences the site’s accessibility and proximity to services and facilities.
• Connectivity and Capacity: should be amended from red to green. The candidate site submission demonstrates the site’s capacity for the quantum of development proposed and its connectivity to the settlement and other key locations in the Vale of Glamorgan via sustainable transport modes.
• Climate Change: should be amended from red to green. The site is in a sustainable location, with a number of local facilities including a bus stop, a school, health and wellbeing facilities all within a short walk from the site as well as the retail facilities situated within acceptable cycling distances site and highly accessible by public transport. Overall, the accessible location of the development will mean that there is a reduced need for private car journeys, in turn reducing overall pollution. The development will be supported by a Travel Plan in favour of sustainable modes of travel. Moreover, the dwellings will be built to Part L 2025 which means the new homes will produce reduced levels of CO2.
• Placemaking Character and Place: should be amended from red to green. The proposals comply with the National Sustainable Placemaking Outcomes, as set out within the Appraisal which formed part of the candidate site submission.
• Suitable for Further Consideration: should be amended from red to green for the reasons set out below and within the candidate site submission.
Suitability for Allocation and Key Benefits
For the sake of brevity, we do not intend to repeat the considerable and detailed content of the Candidate Site Submission here. The previously submitted information however contained substantial information to support the allocation of the site as well as a detailed sustainability and connectivity appraisal undertaken in accordance with PPW.
In summary, the submission demonstrated that the site is suitable for allocation within the Council’s RLDP and its inclusion would help contribute to the overall soundness of the emerging Plan. The proposed site fully accords with National Sustainable Placemaking Outcomes and Sustainable Transport Hierarchy set out in PPW and the site is considered to be deliverable and viable.
The proposed development of the site would deliver the following key benefits:
• Delivering a range and choice of housing (including a proportion of affordable housing) in a sustainable location on a deliverable site which can contribute towards the resilience of the RLDP’s housing trajectory and the effectiveness of the Plan;
• The proposals would support the vibrancy of St Nicholas with the site being closely related to the settlement and capable of integrating effectively with the settlement to the benefit of existing and proposed residents;
• The provision of multi-functional open space – including amenity space for residents, play spaces, potential for local growing spaces, nature walks, sustainable drainage and wildlife habitats to achieve biodiversity enhancements;
• Encouraging and supporting active travel with cleaner, greener travel choices and reduced out commuting being located close to public transport provision;
• Good quality open spaces with significant biodiversity benefits (delivering a biodiversity enhancement), surface water resilience and efficient energy, water and communications infrastructure;
• Economic benefits – including that the proposed development is expected to:
o Support the employment of 434 people;
o Create circa £1,687,420 in additional tax, including £158,124 in council tax revenue for the Vale of Glamorgan Council.
It is accordingly concluded that allocation of the site would contribute to the soundness of the RLDP and would accord with the well-being goals specified in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.
Barratt Redrow, Highlight Planning and the project team are keen to work collaboratively with the Council and other parties to demonstrate the suitability of the land for development and its identification as an allocation in the RLDP.
I trust the above representations assist in the Council’s preparation of the RLDP. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss the above matters with the Council if that would be helpful. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Amend table.

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.

ANNEX 1
Preface

This Annex sets out the detailed case in support of these representations, and by association the case for allocation of the site.

The representations are structured into the following sections:

1. Response to the Deposit Plan;
2. Comments on specific policies; and
3. A summary of the suitability of the site for development.

SECTION 1. Response to the Deposit Plan

Distribution of Growth

We object to the distribution of growth within the Deposit Plan. Specifically, we object to the strategy that underpins the Deposit Plan, which seeks to introduce the proposed ‘Strategic Growth Area’ which is expected to contain the majority of housing growth in the Vale over the Plan period, or rather the over-reliance on this defined area, and the associated absence of growth in other parts of the Plan area.

As outlined in our previous representations, the allocation of housing and the location of strategic growth neglects the Rural Vale, and in our view, overprovides in the Strategic Growth Area. For example, with limited housing stock and average house sales at over £800,000 over the last 12 months, there is a clear and established need for new homes in the Bonvilston area, particularly at an affordable level. This is reinforced by the Local Housing Market Assessment that identified a need for over 1,114 new affordable homes per annum over the next five years throughout the county, and 196 units per annum thereafter (average of 502 units per annum over 15 years). Further to this, it is widely known that the rural Vale comprises the majority of the county’s ageing population, which, as a demographic, has and will continue to grow rapidly over the Plan period. This is evident in the ‘Population Change’ chart below – which is taken from the Deposit Plan:

VofG Deposit Plan: Figure 4 Population Change 2011 to 2021

It is clearly the case that younger populations are migrating to other Authorities, where access to housing is typically cheaper and more affordable, whilst more older populations are significantly migrating into the Authority. This trend will result in an extremely unbalanced demographic, given that the working-age population have sought housing elsewhere.

Without a suitable supply of affordable housing delivered over the Plan period, this trend will only worsen. Accordingly, it is not considered that the RLDP takes into account the lack of supply of affordable homes within the rural Vale, as well as increased housing to support the growing ageing population within these areas.

Para 3.19 of the Deposit Plan clearly outlines that affordable housing is required in the short term, in order to meet pressing needs. Specifically, it outlines the following: “There is significant pressure on temporary accommodation in the Vale, for a variety of reasons including increased homelessness presentations… The need for sufficient permanent affordable housing to assist in moving people out of temporary accommodation is critical and the planning system has a vital role in assisting in new affordable housing delivery.”
Accordingly, the distribution of growth within the Authority must be proportionate, to ensure that populations / areas are not left behind where they must seek access to housing elsewhere.

The RLDP Sustainable Growth Strategy sets out 6 objectives. Objective 4 states: “Allowing for small scale affordable housing led development in settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area at a scale proportionate to the size of settlement.” (Page 66)
Para 5.25 states “Therefore, a key part of the strategy is to allow for affordable housing led developments within sustainable primary and minor rural settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area, at a scale that is appropriate to the size of the community it is serving. An ‘affordable housing led’ scheme is one where a minimum of 50% of the dwellings would need to be affordable, although this could increase to a maximum of 100% if the site is brought forward by a social landlord”.

In terms of the definition / explanation of what the affordable housing-led development sites are seeking to achieve, paragraph 6.132 of the Deposit Plan outlines the following:

“Accordingly, to ensure that new developments respond to the high demand for smaller properties, as identified in the LHMA, priority will be given to affordable homes that are small to medium-sized, typically comprising one to three bedrooms. Representations received from the local community through the RLDP process also highlighted a desire for new housing developments to offer opportunities for accessing smaller market homes. This is particularly relevant in the rural Vale, where housing choices are more limited. Providing smaller, more affordable market homes may assist first-time buyers and enable older residents to downsize to more manageable properties within their local area. Affordable housing-led sites will therefore need to demonstrate that an appropriate range of both affordable and market dwellings has been provided.”

Despite the acknowledgement within this strategic objective, we do not consider that the RLDP goes far enough to meet this objective, nor are its provisions and allocations adequate.

It is considered that this objective is undermined by the allocations set out by the RLDP (not least the absence of allocations in the rural Vale). Notwithstanding the Vision’s clear acknowledgement of the benefit of the growth of the rural Vale, these areas have not been supported through the plan due to the lack of growth which has been attributed to these areas in terms of further housing, employment and sustainable transport. All growth options have been selected on the basis of being in either a Key Settlement, Service Centre Settlement or Primary Settlement, all of which are already sustainable areas served by rail. As a result, it is not clear how this objective can be achieved, without the allocation of further sites within the Minor Rural Settlements, such as Bonvilston. The Vale is characteristically ‘rural’, and as such, there needs to be a stronger emphasis on supporting and delivering new development in order to bolster the rural economy. This includes enabling opportunities to provide employment and business premises within / near to rural settlements, as well as focusing housing growth in these areas to reduce travel time, and promote the use of sustainable transport.

It is considered that the current Strategy does not provide adequately for all residents across the Vale, only those within the Strategic Growth Area. The underlying Vision and Objectives set out in the emerging Plan are accordingly wholly un-provided for by the detail of the Plan. This brings into question the “soundness” of the Plan.

The Strategic Growth Area does not take into account the important role and proximity of Bridgend to the West and/or the Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant to the north (as defined in the RCTCBC LDP). The Minor Rural Settlements to the west are more likely to be supported by job opportunities and employment in Bridgend than further east in Barry or Cardiff. Similarly, those in the north align with, and function in association with, the Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant to the north. These settlements are served by existing bus services that provide sustainable modes of travel to key employment locations in and around Bridgend. This is acknowledged in Paragraph 3.3 of the Strategy which states “The greatest number of residents who travel outside of the Vale for work purposes travel to Cardiff followed by Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taf, whilst a smaller proportion commute into the Vale from these neighbouring authorities”. The Demographic Evidence (Feb 2023) estimates the Vale as being a net importer of workers from RCT and Caerphilly (Para 3.6) - as shown in Figure 10 in the Preferred Strategy.

The current Strategy does not support any improvement of sustainable travel or further investment in settlements linked more closely to these areas - given that Growth has been apportioned in only the Key Service Centre and Primary Settlements. It is considered that this will fail to support and facilitate the current (and any future) employment coming into the Vale, nor will it support any employment which is located outside of the Vale to the West and North. The Growth Option is too heavily reliant on access to railway stations as the key and sole sustainable transport method, whereas access to bus services should also be appropriately assessed and focused on in terms of promoting sustainable development. It is unreasonable to devise a strategy that hinges on directing growth to areas that are accessible to railway facilities, where it is recognised in the Plan that the Vale is inherently rural. The delivery and soundness of the Plan is therefore questioned and we continue to object to the spatial growth strategy as set out in the Deposit Plan.

Housing Supply

RLDP Allocations - Key Sites

As set out in representations made throughout the Plan preparation process, we consider that the Plan is too reliant on the delivery of ‘key sites’ to meet the housing need over the Plan period. Specifically, the Plan makes provision for 2,278 units in these Key Sites, which equates to circa 65% of RLDP allocations in the housing supply. The 5 key sites that are allocated in the Deposit Plan are as follows:

• Land at North West Barry – 376no. units;
• North of Dinas Powys – 250no. units;
• Land at Readers Way, Rhoose – 520no. units;
• Land at Church Farm, St Athan – 532no. units; and
• Land to the West of St Athan – 600no. units.

We object to the current housing supply to allocate 2,278no. (65%) of units across strategic sites, as this makes for a risky and unrobust strategy for delivering housing, and in turn, meeting the identified housing need over the Plan period.

As stated in previous representations, there is concern that the proposed timing and phasing of the proposed Key Sites is unrealistic and unrobust, and in turn, undermines the soundness of the Plan, given the heavy reliance on Key Sites delivering new homes across the Plan period. Whilst it is not disputed that the sites would have gone through rigorous assessment to inform their proposed allocation, the timescales for securing planning permission (with all associated conditions discharged) is considered to be unachievable. This is particularly the case for the following timescales that are set out in the Housing Trajectory that underpin the Plan:

• “Time period of pre-application discussions/PAC consultation” – 4 months

• “Time between submission of planning application and determination” – 6 months
• “Time taken from planning consent to the discharge of relevant conditions to enable site construction” – 4 months

It is considered that the above timescales are fundamentally unrobust, and result in a distorted position of housing sites over the RLDP Plan period. It is not considered that these reflect or are informed by the timescales that are currently being incurred for planning applications submitted for major housing sites across Wales. It is rather the case that such applications would typically be determined 1-2 years following submission, given that there are a wide range of stakeholders involved in the determination of major planning applications – which often adds to the delays associated with the determination of such applications.

It is equally the case that the assumptions in the trajectory are solely based on expected timescales for processing formal submissions made to the Council, and do not factor in the timescales associated with, and needed for, the preparation of the material for submission.

It is assumed that these timescales have not considered that such major developments can be subject to the need to undertaking and submitting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which adds another layer to the determination of any planning application – given the additional considerations that form part of this process. As such, any site subject to EIA would very likely result in further delays extending beyond the timescales set out in the trajectory. Equally, as set out above, the preparation of an application subject to an EIA requires even more detail and assessment, which only further adds to the preparation stage (which has not been factored into as part of the trajectory). Accordingly, it is not considered that the trajectory contains any contingency if any site is required to undertake EIA as part of their application.

For the reasons stated above, it is unlikely that the sites will yield in full, particularly those sites which are expected to deliver housing right up to the final year of the Plan period (‘Land at Readers Way’ and ‘Land to the West of St Athan’). These sites do not allow for any ‘slippage’ should any delays arise through the development management process (which for the reasons set out above, will very likely be the case), and as such, a gap in housing delivery will be brought about as a result of these sites not yielding in full.

Given the proposed ambitious timescales set out for the delivery of the Key Sites, it is considered the housing trajectory is unrobust, and in turn, undermines the soundness of the Plan as a result. A change in strategy should be pursued whereby a greater proportion of small to medium sites are allocated for housing in the Plan period, which are more likely to fully yield given that such sites are subject to less assessment and consideration compared to strategic sites. This would make for a more robust strategy, where a greater number of small to medium sites can deliver housing in the short and medium term of the Plan period, whereas the strategic sites represent a more longer-term strategy to deliver housing – which would then spill into the next Plan period.

Accordingly, we object to the Deposit Plan in its current form, where there is an overreliance on housing need to be met through the delivery of the Key Sites, which we consider to be unrobust, and undermine the integrity and soundness of the Plan. The current strategy of the Plan is at significant risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated, as least as swifty as identified in the housing trajectory. Should no change be made to the Plan to address the above issues, then it is extremely likely that the Plan would ‘fail’ in meeting the identified housing need.

Windfall Sites

It is noted that the RLDP is made up of the following:

• Existing land supply (3,838 units)
• Windfall sites (1,303 units)
• Allocated sites (3,521 units)

Para 6.69 states that “Analysis of historical delivery of housing indicates that on average small windfall sites (sites of less than 10 dwellings) have provided some 53 dwelling completions per year, and large windfall sites (10 dwellings or greater) contributed on average 80 dwellings per year. Overall, it is projected that windfall sites could contribute a further 1,303 dwellings over the remainder of the plan”.

As set out in our previous representations to the Housing Trajectory, we would object to the expected numbers of completions expected during the Plan period, given that there are a number of issues with delivering housing in Wales and given past completions rates for The Vale of Glamorgan – which is discussed in greater detail later in this submission. Again, this results in the Plan being at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated – including any windfall sites.

St Athan Train Station

The RLDP Sustainable Growth Strategy comprises six key elements, of which the following is set out in respect to the allocation of new housing growth in the Authority:

“3. Focusing development at locations that are well served by existing and proposed rail stations as part of the South Wales Metro and in areas with good bus links.”

The strategy outlines that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken in 2022, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. Accordingly, in line with the spatial strategy adopted for the RLDP (i.e. focus development around sustainable transport nodes), St Athan was identified as a ‘Strategic Opportunity Area’ to accommodate strategic growth – through the proposed allocation of two key sites : ‘Land at Church Farm’ and ‘Land West of St Athan’. These sites have been identified to deliver 532no. and 600no. units respectively in the Plan period. These are separate to, and are in addition to, the 51no. units that have now been attributed to the site ‘Land South of Clive Road’ and 80no. units attributed to ‘Former Stadium Site, adjacent to Burley Place’ in St Athan. Accordingly, in total, the Housing Trajectory makes a provision for a total of 1,263no. homes to be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period.

It is now the case, however, that the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales – as confirmed in the ‘Today, Tomorrow, Together: A vision for rail across Wales and Borders’ (February 2026) recently published by Transport For Wales. This paper acknowledges that a new railway station at St Athan would represent a longer term opportunity, and therefore, will not be delivered in the short term / within the Plan period of the emerging Plan. Equally the Council have not provided any evidence to contradict this, and therefore, it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period. This brings about significant questions regarding the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

The strategy to allocate new housing growth is predicated on focusing residential development around sustainable transport nodes, and given that St Athan will be without any railway station in the Plan period, it is not considered that the sites align with the strategy of the RLDP. Accordingly, the wider Housing Trajectory is considered to be unsound, given that a total of 1,263no. homes (36% of the Plan’s new housing allocations) are expected to be delivered in St Athan within the Plan period.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision. Given this, to add further sites for housing in this location over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites - given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

In terms of the expected delivery of the Key Sites in St Athan, it is noted that the trajectory identifies that for the majority of the Plan period, both sites will be delivering 80no. dwellings per annum on each site (equating to 160no units in total). Whilst these are two separate sites, we seriously question the realistic prospects of the significant number of

homes being built simultaneously on two sites in proximity to one another – given the considerable logistical issues that would be brought about.

Accordingly, it remains that there are serious questions regarding the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations at St Athan, which do not accord with the strategy adopted for the RLDP – to focus housing growth on settlements that are supported by railway stations. Moreover, the scale of development proposed at St Athan is also not considered to be proportionate, with a significant number of homes delivered in a location not served by a railway station.

Rolled forward LDP Sites

The proposed land supply within the housing trajectory includes provision for ‘rolled forward’ LDP sites, which contribute to the total of ‘Proposed Additional Housing Allocations’ forming part of the housing supply. Specifically, a total of 1,242no. units have been identified as additional housing allocations, of which 959no. are expected to be delivered on the rolled forward LDP sites. As such, these sites are to provide for a significant proportion of additional housing in the Plan period (specifically circa 77%).

The Development Plans Manual (DPM) sets out that allocations rolled forward from a previous plan will require careful justification for inclusion in a revised plan. The DPM outlines that “there will need to be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate sites can be delivered and justify being included again. Clear evidence will be required that such sites can be delivered.” The below table included in the consultation document provides a breakdown of the rolled forward LDP sites, and in particular, sets out the status of each site:


The above table evidences that the current LDP has under delivered in regard to its targeted unit number of the Plan period, given that these sites did not yield any housing over the current Plan period. This is further exacerbated by the Land Bank sites that have also not delivered any housing across the existing LDP period, amounting to 1,860no units. Accordingly, when considering the non-delivery of both rolled forward LDP sites and Land Bank sites, this amounts to an approximate shortfall of 2,189 homes being delivered, or 33% of the total housing supply identified for the current LDP (8,525no. dwellings).

It is therefore considered that, as a minimum, the units carried over from the LDP (without planning permission) should be a surplus to the housing supply proposed for the RLDP, as opposed to being relied on to deliver the housing need over the Plan period. This is particularly the case for the two sites (Land to the west of Pencoedtre Lane, and Land between Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road) which do not currently have any active planning application

submitted for their development. These sites total an amount of 370no. units to be delivered in the Plan period, which represents more than a third of the additional housing allocations to make up the housing supply.

As such, it is considered that the unmet need deriving from the existing LDP is still present – indeed it has grown, and will continue to do so, not least when considered in conjunction with the projected population growth over the coming years to 2036, and the aspirations for growth in the Plan’s strategy.

Accordingly, in order to secure the targeted level of housing, a greater level of provision for new allocations should be applied in order to meet the housing requirement. This would bring about better certainty that the housing requirement is met by the housing supply over the Plan period, not least given that the current Plan failed in this respect. Without a re-apportioning of the housing supply, it is considered that the Plan would heavily rely on the contingency (i.e. rolled forward LDP sites) coming forward in the Plan period, yet there is uncertainty that these will yield in full over the new Plan period. This raises issues of ’soundness’, and risks rendering the Plan unrobust.

Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions

As set out in our previous representations to the Housing Trajectory consultation, we have considerable concerns in relation to the proposed delivery of the sites identified in the trajectory – which we do not consider are robust or reasonable.

Appendix 1 of the Deposit Plan sets out the development trajectory bar chart – which illustrates the proposed delivery of housing, on a per annum basis, over the Plan period.

Extract of Housing Trajectory Graph (annotated by GJP – red dotted line)
It is our view that the trajectory makes for an unrealistic and unrobust delivery rate of housing, which does not reflect the pattern of housing completions in the Vale of Glamorgan. We therefore have concerns regarding the soundness of the trajectory, not least that there remain significant uncertainties as to the delivery of the Key Sites (as discussed earlier in these representations).

Firstly, the graph / trajectory illustrates a large ‘spike’ in terms of housing delivery in the year 2027-28, which is considered to be a marked and pronounced step change in the rate of delivery. This envisages / relies on a significantly higher rate of delivery than previous years in the Vale of Glamorgan (2021 through 2021 – as depicted by the green columns). It is considered that this level of delivery is unlikely to materialise, not least given prevailing market

circumstances, past rates of delivery on the ground, and also in light of levels achieved across Wales and the UK in general.

The published trajectory shows that the average level of completions from 2021 - 2025 has been approx. 400 - 500 units, however, the chart shows that from 2027 – 2028, completions are expected to rise to approx. 1,000 units per year. The expected delivery levels in the trajectory therefore show and assume a doubling in delivery rates and unit numbers (an increase of approx. 100% relative to past rates). There is no clear evidence as to how this level of completions can be achieved let alone guaranteed. This is the case in particular given that the forthcoming years (2025-2027) are expected to see performance (yield) drop significantly (delivery rates in 2025 – 2026 and 2026 – 2027). The chart shows only approx. 200 units being delivered over these years. It is therefore unclear how completion rates are expected to rise so quickly (from 200 in 2025-26 to 1000 in 2027-28), and by such a significant amount. The assumptions in the trajectory are wholly unrobust in our view.

It is also the case that the anticipated delivery of housing fails to be consistent within and across the Plan period. It is unclear as to why completions rates aren’t spread out more evenly throughout the Plan period - to ensure a robust and most realistic housing trajectory until 2036. By comparison to the marked increase in the rate of delivery between and over the period 2027 to 2031, there is then a marked fall-off or drop in delivery towards and by the end of the Plan period. Indeed, in the final year, the level of completions are expected to be lower than the period 2021-2025.

Accordingly, we consider that the housing trajectory, as proposed, is entirely manufactured and unreflective of the past completion rates, as well as the recent published completion rates provided by Welsh Government recently in August 2025. As set out in our previous representations, it has been evidenced that there has been a general decline in the number of new dwellings started and completed.

Description of Figure 1: ‘New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’
As identified in the graph above, in 2024-25, 4,631 new dwellings were completed, which represents 3% fewer than the previous year. This figure represented the second lowest number on record, with the lowest number recorded in 2021-22, a year heavily affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (in 2021-22, 4,616 new dwellings were completed) The New Housing Pipeline Report Quarter 3, 2025 Report (December 2025) published by the HBF evidenced that the number of residential units approved in the UK fell by 7% during the third quarter of 2025, extending the decline seen during the first half of the year. At 45,075, the number of units approved was 34% down on the third quarter of 2024 and the lowest quarterly total since 2012 Q2. At 146,798, the overall number of units approved during the first nine months of 2025 was 25% lower than a year ago.



HBF Graph Illustrating Residential Approvals (2006-2025)

The above graph clearly shows a pronounced downward trend in the number of residential planning approvals over the period, particuarly with a sharp decrease seen since 2020. Further, the HBF document ‘Increasing Housing Supply in Wales’ (4th September 2025) clearly shows that The Vale of Glamorgan has not met the housing delivery requirements in recent years in 2023 – 2024 – along with every other authority in Wales (except Newport). Accordingly, this further adds to the argument that historically The Vale (and most other authorities) have underprovided. This adds considerable uncertainty on the assumed transformation in yield and delivery as built into the trajectory.

Graph: Housing Delivery as a proportion of annual housing requirement in Wales per Authority

More recently, the Welsh Government has released its new estimates of housing need (Estimates of Additional Hosing Need: 2025-based – February 2026). The estimates show how many new homes need to be built over the next twenty years to address existing unmet need as well as newly arising need. The figures set out that around 8,700no. new homes a year are needed over the next Senedd term up to 2030 to meet new housing need. Additionally, there is an unmet need for 9,400 affordable homes.

Overall, this represents more than double 2024/25 levels of supply, where just 4,638 new homes were built.

HBF: Estimates of Housing Need

HBF: Actual Delivery vs Estimates of Need

The above graphs unequivocally evidence that historical rates of delivery of housing in Wales has remained low, and moreover, significant numbers of housing need to be allocated in order to meet the estimate of need. It is not

considered that the housing trajectory, in its current form, is robust to meet the housing need over the Plan period, given the uncertainties of the Key Sites, and the level of housing delivery that has been identified for the Plan.

Affordable Housing-Led Sites

HG4 - Rural Affordable Housing Led Sites

Policy HG4 of the Deposit Plan identifies four sites to be allocated as affordable housing-led sites, totalling approximately 122 dwellings within the plan period. Given the target levels of achieving 3,070 affordable dwellings over the course of the Plan period (up to 2036), it is not considered that this policy goes far enough to address the target and level of affordable housing need.


It is noted that the number of units identified for each site relate to the ‘total’ number of units delivered, as opposed to the affordable housing provision. Accordingly, it can be assumed that circa 50% of each allocation will comprise affordable units (given each site is affordable-led), which would equate to a total provision of circa 61no. units. The contribution from the affordable housing-led sites would only equate to 2% of the total need (3,070no. units). Even when coupled with the affordable housing provision from open market sites and 100% exception sites, the total delivery of affordable housing will still be nowhere near enough to meet the overall affordable housing need over the Plan period. Accordingly, it is considered that inadequate provision has been made for such sites – not least given that 3 of the 4 allocated affordable housing-led sites are located west of Cowbridge.

Insofar as to the sites chosen and allocated are concerned, it is clear from reviewing the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Candidate Site Assessment that the allocated sites HG4(1) – (4) were not considered acceptable due to being outside the strategic growth areas, and were considered to be unacceptable intrusions into the open countryside. After being resubmitted as affordable housing-led sites, the sites were allocated, some with a smaller area in order to accommodate less dwellings in total.

The sustainable credentials of the sites allocated is not disputed, and it is acknowledged that these minor rural settlements have the ability to accommodate further growth, in the form of affordable-led housing allocations. However, it is considered that Land South of A48, Bonvilston (Site ID: 435 / 3857) should also form an allocation as part of this policy, given its high sustainability credentials and its appropriate location to accommodate a suitable level of development. Please refer to the previous representations made to the Housing Trajectory Consultation (dated 17th October) for further, more detailed comments regarding the above sites.

The LHMA 2023 shows that there is a need for 77 affordable homes in the St Nicholas & Llancarfan housing market area (which Bonvilston is located within), and a need for 242 affordable homes in the Wenvoe housing market area. As such, there is an identified need for affordable housing in this area, something which the site could address through an allocation.

Securing further delivery of Affordable Units

As set out above, it can be assumed that the affordable housing-led allocated sites only provide 61no. affordable dwellings, which comprise 4no. allocated sites that are expected to deliver approximately between 20 – 50 dwellings (including both affordable and market housing). However, the RLDP sets a target of 3,070 affordable homes to be delivered in the Plan period. This means that affordable housing-led allocations make up less than 4% of the target provision and will only make provision for 2% of the targeted number. We would therefore object to the sites included

within Policy HG4 and would suggest that more sites should be allocated as part of the policy in order to secure delivery of a higher number of affordable housing units to meet the target.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the Key Sites will provide for a significant proportion of affordable housing, as set out above in these representations, there is serious concern regarding the deliverability of these sites, which would result in a significant gap of affordable housing delivered.

A greater number of affordable housing-led sites allocated would ensure there is sufficient contingency built into the Plan, to ensure that the overall affordable housing need is met over the Plan period. Failure to do so would result in affordable housing need being unmet, with demand continuing to outstrip supply.

Previous representations to the Preferred Strategy (dated 14th February 2024) provided comment on the sustainability scoring of Bonvilston and the proposed site. As outlined within these representations, it is considered that the site (ID 435 / 3857) represents a sustainable, deliverable and acceptable site. This proposed allocation is situated in proximity to Cowbridge, Culverhouse Cross and Cardiff, which comprise all key services. Given that the site is located within 4 miles of both Cowbridge and St Nicholas, the site is within a maximum 20-minute bus journey of the following key services:

• Cowbridge Comprehensive School;
• St Nicholas Primary School;
• Cowbridge Health Centre; and
• Cowbridge town centre for various Retail Services.

Accordingly, the settlement of Bonvilston represents an acceptable location to allocate an affordable housing-led site, given the access to existing services and facilities that would serve future residents of the site.

To conclude, the settlement, location and site are inherently suitable and deliverable, and will make a significant contribution to achieving and realising the housing and economic development needs of Bonvilston, support the surrounding settlements, and the Plan area as a whole. As such, the site should be considered further.

Comments on Specific Policies

HG5 - Affordable Housing Exception Sites

Given the unmet need and extant backlog of affordable housing, as identified within the LHMA (2023), it is noted that an Affordable Housing Exception Sites policy has been adopted in order to assist in the delivery of affordable housing. Policy HG5 sets out the specific criteria where proposals for 100% small scale affordable housing developments will be permitted outside settlement boundaries. The current policy wording for the Affordable Housing Site Exception Policy and the criteria listed out in the policy is generally supported.

That said, it is noted that a ‘cap’ of 10 dwellings (as referenced within supporting text Para 6.140) is set. This should be amended due to such a ‘cap’ limiting the flexibility of the policy, in particularly for sites coming forward as part of this policy in Minor Rural Settlements.

As such, we would suggest that supporting Para 6.140 should be amended in order to allow for further flexibility for sites in Minor Rural Settlements to come forward and to deliver affordable housing, given that the criteria set out in the policy would already protect and restrict the extent of any development as it stands. Therefore, the proposed amendments to Para 6.140 are outlined below in red:

6.140 “For the purposes of this policy, ‘small-scale’ will generally mean no more than around 10 dwellings on sites adjoining Minor Rural Settlements. In Primary Settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area, proposals for more than 10 dwellings may be acceptable where required to meet a specific need and where the number of dwellings is proportionate to the size of the settlement. In assessing the scale and extent of any proposed local needs housing, consideration should also be given to affordable housing already planned in the ward or nearby area, including sites

with existing planning permissions and those allocated in the RLDP. The size and type of affordable housing proposed should reflect the identified local need in the area.”

The above suggested wording would achieve a more flexible policy, which would allow for a variety of scaled applications to secure planning permission for solely 100% affordable housing across the Authority area. This greater flexibility would enable the policy to make a significant contribution towards meeting the affordable housing need – which, as set out earlier is in considerable need.

SECTION 3. Suitability of the site for development

The site promoter objects to the overall assessment of the site, in that it is not considered suitable for further development in the Plan. The promoted site has undergone extensive scrutiny and appraisal at a high level to ascertain the qualities of the site, in light of all identified material considerations which relate to the proposals.

The delivery of the site will yield much needed housing (including Affordable housing) and contribute to the overall supply in the new Plan period, whilst making effective use of a suitably located site for residential development.

Moreover, as set out in ‘Annex 2’ of our representations, the site has overcome the ‘constraints’ set out in the Candidate Site Assessment undertaken for the site, which demonstrates that the proposal is both acceptable and deliverable.

Deliverability of the Site

In summary, the site seeks to deliver the following key elements:

• In summary, the opportunity of the site seeks to deliver:
• Residential development comprising up to 25 dwellings, with at least 50% affordable housing in accordance with Policy SP2,
• Highways infrastructure within the site;
• Upgraded access to the site;
• Strong legible pedestrian and cycle connections throughout the site and with the existing settlement;
• Green Infrastructure; and
• Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the site promoters:

• Object to the distribution of growth proposed for the Plan area, with a more balanced and equitable distribution of housing sites required in order to meet the identified housing need;
• Object to the level of growth identified for the Plan period;
• Object to the housing trajectory that underpins the delivery of housing within the Plan period – which is considered to be unrealistic and unrobust, leading to serious uncertainty regarding the “soundness” of the Plan;
• Object to the over-reliance on Key Sites and Rolled Forward Sites in making up the Plan’s housing land supply;
• Object to the scale and timing of delivery of sites in / around St Athan – all of which are predicated on railway station provision which will not be realised in the Plan period;
• Object to the under-provision of sites under Policy HG4 – Rural Affordable Housing-Led sites, not least given their extremely limited contribution to the targeted need for affordable housing;
• Object to the current wording of the HG5 Policy ‘Affordable Housing Exception Sites’ which requires greater flexibility to play an important role in delivery much-needed affordable homes across the Authority; and
• Object the Council’s assessment that the site is not considered suitable for development.

The site and proposals are consistent with the RLDP strategy, other Vale of Glamorgan strategies, and the requirements of Planning Policy Wales and Future Wales. It will make a significant contribution to the Vale’s identified housing requirement in the RLDP period and will provide for a wide range of uses that will support the wider community whilst embodying principles relating to placemaking and the well-being of future generations.

The site has no fundamental constraints and has the ability to deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits for the benefit of future residents and the existing local community. The site is demonstrated to be viable, being able to deliver policy-compliant levels of affordable housing and given its location within a strong market area, will benefit from high delivery rates.

ANNEX 2
SECTION 4. A summary of the suitability of the site for development including a Response to the Candidate Site Assessment

This section of the overall representations to the Deposit Plan is to respond to, and address, the Council’s assessment of the site.

While the issues the Council have raised in their assessment of the site have been addressed and discussed within the representations made at the Preferred Strategy stage of the Plan, a similar ‘scoring’ exercise has been undertaken as part of the evidence base for the Deposit Plan. As such, it is still pertinent to consider and respond to the Council’s assessment of the site as part of these representations

The Detailed Site Assessment for Land South of the A48, Bonvilston (Site ID: 3857) sets out that the position of the site at the Deposit Stage is as follows:

“Notwithstanding the amendment from a market led to an affordable housing led scheme (original CS 435), the other reasons why the site was previously discounted still remain.
The development would have an adverse impact on the character and setting of the Bonvilston Conservation Area. Development of the site would require major highway mitigation works to enable safe vehicular access on to the A48.
The Predictive ALC Maps indicates that site is Grade 2 Best and Most Versatile Land. Development of the site would lead to the loss of BMV land. BMV land should only be developed if there is an overriding need for the development and either previously developed land or land is lower agricultural grades is unavailable. There is housing land available within the ward of St Nicholas and Llancarfan that can support the delivery of affordable housing.”
Conservation Area
In terms of the assertion that “The development would have an adverse impact on the character and setting of the Bonvilston Conservation Area, this is strongly disputed.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the site lies within the Bonvilston Conservation Area, the conclusion that it would be adversely affected is not considered to be accurate. Firstly, the site as it currently stands, consists of an open field. This does not match the conservation area which is characterised primarily by residential dwellings of varying densities, and as such, it is considered that development of the site with sensitively designed buildings would enhance as opposed to harming its surroundings.

Secondly, the large residential development to the north of the site, ‘Land at Sycamore Cross’ ref. 2015/00960/FUL encroaches on the Bonvilston Conservation area but was deemed acceptable by the LPA. Although not all of the site is within the Conservation Area, it’s encroachment and presence adjoining and surrounding a large proportion of the area is considerable and was deemed acceptable by Officers in 2017. Given this, a development at the Land South of the A48 should be deemed acceptable, as it follows the same principles albeit at a much smaller scale.

Highways
As for the statement that “Development of the site would require major highway mitigation works to enable safe vehicular access on to the A48”, this is also strongly disputed.

The site is located immediately adjacent to the adopted highway where it is proposed to upgrade and enhance the existing gated access point. Due to the existing access point, it is not considered that ‘major’ highway mitigation works would be needed, rather this would be enhanced and improved as part of the proposed development. Furthermore, given the nature of the road, with long views extending in both directions, it is anticipated that appropriate visibility

splays could be achieved to enable safe access and egress. As such, it is considered that the site would achieve appropriate highway access within the need for “major” highway mitigation works.

Agricultural Land Classification
The Detailed Site Assessment also sets out that “The Predictive ALC Maps indicates that site is Grade 2 Best and Most Versatile Land. Development of the site would lead to the loss of BMV land. BMV land should only be developed if there is an overriding need for the development and either previously developed land or land is lower agricultural grades is unavailable.” This is strongly disputed.

A review of the Agricultural Land Classification Predictive Map indicates that the site lies primarily within ‘Grade 2: Very good quality agricultural land’ but no Grade 1 land is present. Further assessment and tests to establish the quality would therefore be undertaken in due course to confirm the quality of the land. However, it is not considered that it would be suitable to farm in any event given the location immediately adjoining existing residential development and the fact that it is within private ownership. Overall, given that the site is relatively small with a gross area of 0.88 hectares, it is not considered that its development would result in a detrimental or significant loss of agricultural land – not least given that site is not capable of beneficial agricultural production due to its limited size.

Housing / Housing Land
Further to the above, it is also set out that “There is housing land available within the ward of St Nicholas and Llancarfan that can support the delivery of affordable housing”, however, this is not considered to be entirely accurate.

The LHMA 2023 shows that there is a need for 77 affordable homes in the St Nicholas & Llancarfan housing market area and a need for 242 affordable homes in the Wenvoe housing market area. This need has not been met through the allocations of sites within the RLDP, nor has it been met through outstanding commitments.

As outlined in Annex 1, it can be assumed that the affordable housing-led allocated sites will only provide for 61no. affordable dwellings within the Rural Vale, comprising 4no. sites that are expected to deliver approximately 20 – 50 dwellings (including both affordable and market housing). However, the RLDP sets a target of 3,070 affordable homes to be delivered in the Plan period. This means that affordable housing-led allocations make up less than 4% of the target provision and will only make provision for 2% of the targeted number. Therefore, more sites should be allocated in order to secure the delivery of a higher number of affordable housing units to meet the target.

As set out within Annex 1, it is acknowledged that the Key Sites will provide for a significant proportion of affordable housing, however, there is serious concern regarding the deliverability of these sites, which would result in a significant gap in the total affordable housing that is delivered. Therefore, allocating a greater number of affordable housing-led sites would ensure there is sufficient contingency built into the Plan, to ensure that the overall affordable housing need is met over the Plan period. Failure to do so would result in the both the overall affordable housing need, and the need for the St Nicholas & Llancarfan housing market area, being unmet, with demand continuing to outstrip supply.

The LHMA 2023 sets out the existing stock and planned supply of affordable housing over the next 5 years (up until 2028). This assessment found that the housing market area of St Nicholas & Llancarfan has a committed supply of 4no. one beds, 11no. two beds, and 3no. three beds, with 2 no. three beds as expected re-lets. The assessment also identifies a committed supply of 39no. units for intermediate housing.

The LHMA also sets out the existing stock and planned supply for Wenvoe, identifying the committed supply of social rent homes to be 12no. one beds, 11no. two beds, and 5no. three beds, with 7no. one beds and 8no. two beds as expected re-lets. There is no committed supply for intermediate housing in Wenvoe.

It should be noted that the development of ‘Land East of Nicholas’ (Campbell Court and Cae Newydd), has now been completed, and as such, can not form part of the housing land available. The latest Pre-Application Response for the site subject to these representations (Land South of the A48, Bonvilston) accounted for the development of the site in

St Nicholas, stating that “even after the developments at St Nicholas and Culverhouse Cross, there was the need in the Wenvoe ward for 1 Bed 71, 2 Bed 49, 3 Bed 29, 4 Bed 7, 5 Bed 5, Total 161".

It should also be noted that there are existing commitments within the Bonvilston area (‘Land to the east of Bonvilston’), however, the deliverability of the existing commitment is seriously questioned. Application Ref. 2015/00960/FUL was approved in July 2017, with the Housing Land Supply and Housing Trajectory Report (December 2025) confirming that of the total 120 units permitted, only 40 had completed by 1st April 2025, with the remaining 80 units not started by this same date. Of the 80 units not started, 25 units are affordable homes.

It is well known that phase 1 of the development at ‘Land to the east of Bonvilston’ has faced difficulties which has led to the development remaining incomplete. This does of course put into question the overall deliverability of the site, and raises concerns about the units that were, and still are, required within the Bonvilston area.

The allocation of the site promoted herein would not only help in the short term in meeting the overall affordable housing target for the Plan, but would also assist in meeting the unmet needs of affordable housing within Bonvilston – not least given the serious concern regarding the deliverability of the committed supply of housing within the St Nicholas & Llancarfan housing market area.

For the reasons set out above, and in light of the information provided within the LHMA 2023 and the Housing Land Supply and Housing Trajectory Report (December 2025), it is evident that there is considerable need for affordable housing within Bonvilston, and accordingly, the housing market areas of St Nicholas & Llancarfan, and Wenvoe. There have not been any sites allocated to assist within meeting the local need, and more sites should be allocated in order to secure delivery of a higher number of affordable housing units to meet the overall target of the Plan.

The contention that “There is housing land available within the ward of St Nicholas and Llancarfan that can support the delivery of affordable housing” is therefore strongly disputed – not least given that there is a clear and evident need to allocate more affordable housing-led sites in order to meet the target set out in the Plan.

Interim Summary

In summary, it is considered that the site subject to these representations would not have an adverse impact on the character and setting of the Bonvilston Conservation Area, nor would major highway mitigation works be required to enable safe vehicular access on to the A48. Moreover, it is considered that the site’s classification as BMV Agricultural Land does not pose a fundamental constraint to development – as the site represents a relatively small parcel with a gross area of 0.88 hectares, which is not capable of beneficial agricultural production due to its limited size.

There is also a considerable need for the affordable housing in Bonvilston and the housing market area of St Nicholas & Llancarfan. The site promoted herein would assist in meeting these local needs and should be allocated accordingly.

Candidate Site Assessment

The Detailed Site Assessment undertaken by the LPA includes a summary and assessment of the ‘scoring’ system used at the Preferred Strategy stage. A comparison between the site assessments undertaken at both the Preferred Strategy stage and Deposit Plan stage is provided overleaf for reference.



Site Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage Site Assessment at Deposit Plan Stage

As demonstrated above, there has only been one change to the scoring attributed to the site, this being a change from ‘red’ to ‘amber’ for ‘Developer Interest’. Detailed submissions were made on the previous assessment undertaken by the Council at Preferred Strategy stage, and as such, should be read in conjunction with these representations accordingly (see Appendix B).

Whilst detailed submissions were made on the previous assessment, it is considered pertinent for the scoring of the key criteria’s to be addressed as part of these representations. As such, these have also been discussed below.
Developer Interest

As set out above, the Detailed Site Assessment for ‘Developer Interest’ has changed from ‘red’ to ‘amber’. The assessment methodology for this section of the assessment has been extracted below for reference.


As set out above, ‘amber’ refers to there being no development interest identified at this stage, however, there is evidence to indicate that the site is being actively promoted by the owners.

The representations made to the Preferred Strategy (Appendix B) sets out that whilst the site does not yet have an agreement with a developer to take on the land, it is considered that this would be achieved should the site be allocated, and planning permission granted. Newydd Housing association have been engaged previously and had agreed to take the site forward as a 100% affordable scheme, albeit is also considered that they could take on the affordable units as part of a mixed tenure scheme.

In addition to Newydd, the site promoter has also received an offer from a private social housing provider who would be prepared to support the site as a mixed tenure scheme.

This position has not changed since the Preferred Strategy stage, and is considered that there is continued developer interest for the site. This is not considered to change at any point – not least given the discussions held between the owners of the site in questions and developers of interest.

Environmental and Physical Constraints

As set out at the Pre-Application Stage. the site underwent a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal in September 2022 which identified that whilst some precautionary measures were recommended in terms of protecting priority habitats and reptiles, the site is not fundamentally constrained from development on ecological terms. Given this, it is considered that further ecological surveys would be undertaken at the planning stage to inform any development proposals and ensure the safeguarding of the natural environment.

Access to Key Services (Retail, Primary Schools, and Health Services) and to Services and Facilities

As set out within the representations made to the Preferred Strategy, the site is located within a maximum of a 20-minute bus journey to a version of every key service listed, due to the proximity of the site to settlements such as Cowbridge, Culverhouse Cross and St Nicholas. Due to the availability of frequent bus services, and active travel links, these key services are readily available to access for any residents within Bonvilston without the need to travel by car.

To reiterate, the site ‘Land South of the A48, Bonvilston’ is situated in proximity to Cowbridge, Culverhouse Cross and Cardiff, which comprise all key services. Concluding this allocation as ‘unsustainable’ in regard to ‘availability of local facilities in and around settlements’ is not accurate. Given that the site is located within 4 miles of both Cowbridge and St Nicholas, the site is within a maximum 20-minute bus journey of the following key services:

• Cowbridge Comprehensive School;
• St Nicholas Primary School;
• Cowbridge Health Centre; and
• Cowbridge town centre for various Retail Services.

It should also be noted that Bonvilston contains a number of facilities within a short and level walking distance of the site, including the village shop and Café, as well as the Red Lion Public House.

Given the accessibility of the site to other settlements, and the fact that these are made accessible by bus and active travel routes, it is considered that the site should be concluded as sustainable in regard to access to key services.

Summary and Conclusion

As evidenced above, and within the representations made to the Preferred Strategy (Appendix B), there are no fundamental constraints at, or associated with the site, that would preclude the site coming forward for development in the RLDP period.

To conclude, the settlement, location, and site, are inherently suitable and deliverable, and will make a significant contribution to achieving and realising the housing and economic development needs of the Vale of Glamorgan.

Summary of These Representations

In short, and to summarise the case made and set out, these representations seek to object to the Housing Trajectory published as part of the consultation on the Draft Housing Trajectory For Housing Stakeholder Group (October 2025) which underpins the Plan and the delivery / realisation of its underlying strategy.

Detailed submissions and objections are raised below in respect to the trajectory information published regarding the soundness and robustness of this information (and it’s consultation), which we do not consider are adequate, robust, or sound to deliver the Plans aims and objectives.

Preface

This Submission sets out the detailed case in support of these representations. The representations are structured as follows:

1. Procedural Consultation Matters;
2. Timing Assumptions underpinning the Trajectory;
3. Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions;;
4. Status & Standing of Sites included in the Trajectory;
5. Key Sites;
6. St Athan Train Station;
7. Geographic distribution of the ‘new’ sites / provision;
8. Detailed comments in respect to ‘new’ sites;
9. Conclusions Procedural Consultation Matters
Firstly, we do not consider that the consultation on the Housing Trajectory information has been procedurally undertaken appropriately or suitably.

Only 14 days have been afforded to parties to make representations on the information provided. This is despite new sites being introduced (at this late stage) i.e. Land South of Clive Road (identified in Table 4), as well as a number of affordable housing led housing sites being introduced (i.e. those outlined in Table 5). This does not provide an adequate process or timescale for objectors to scrutinise the published content, and to make comments on sites which have been presented for the first time at a late stage in the process.

As part of these representations, we will be making brief comment on the sites which have not been previously consulted upon, namely:
Other Housing Allocations
• Land south of Clive Road, St Athan;

Affordable Housing Led Sites
• Land at Heol Fain, Wick;
• Land west of Maendy Road, Aberthin;
• Land Noth of West Winds Business Park, Fferm Goch; and
• Land to the East of Colwinston.

It is considered necessary to comment on these sites, given that they form an important and critical part of the housing trajectory, and by association in the Council and Plan reaching their targets. Moreover, these sites have not been consulted on previously. Accordingly we consider it necessary to pass comment on these in order to ensure that the consultation is fair and robust.

As well as limited time given to comment on the information contained within the Housing Trajectory, the LPA have failed to set up a Housing Stakeholder group to agree and discuss the trajectory information and data – with the cover email to the consultation (dated 3rd October 2025) stating “it is considered that it would be the best use of stakeholder time to conduct this engagement via email, particularly as many of the forecasts have been developed in consultation with site promoters including developers and their agents”.

We submit that the stakeholder consultation has not been a transparent nor robust consultation process, given that the Development Plans Manual states at Para 5.66 “A housing trajectory must be prepared to support the Deposit Plan. In order to generate a housing trajectory and associated phasing tables it will be necessary for LPAs to engage with stakeholders through a Housing Stakeholder Group. This will ensure that the timing and phasing of sites is robust and based on up to date information”. Given that this has not taken place, we would raise fundamental concerns that the consultation of the trajectory has not adequately taken place as per the relevant guidance. Afterall, the guidance stresses that a Group should be formed as a necessity. Accordingly, there has not been an adequate process and opportunity to review and comment on the information published, including in respect to the other sites have been introduced at this late stage.

Timing Assumptions underpinning the Trajectory

The assumed and factored in timescales of the various stages of bringing forward sites i.e. the pre-application stage, the planning application process, and the discharge of condition process outlined in the trajectory are considered to be fundamentally inaccurate, and result in a distorted position of the delivery of housing sites over the RLDP Plan period. The assumptions are far too ambitious, and without evidence / are not comparable with the timescales being incurred in processing such stages at the Development Management stage(s).

Specifically, we raise objection to the following timescales which are considered to be extremely ambitious and unrealistic:

• “Time period of pre-application discussions/PAC consultation” = 4 months
• “Time between submission of planning application and determination” = 6 months
• “Time taken from planning consent to the discharge of relevant conditions to enable site construction” = 4 months

In our experience, having submitted a significant number of major and other applications for housing and other forms of development in the last 1-2 years to the Council (and elsewhere in Wales and England), it is extremely unlikely that major applications can be submitted, and planning permissions granted, within the timeframes assumed by the trajectory. A wide range of stakeholders are also involved in the determination of major planning applications, which often adds to the delays associated with the determination of such applications. We would therefore consider that a time period of “6 months” given to all major applications in the housing trajectory is not feasible, and distorts the trajectory timescales for the remaining Plan period.

The assumptions in the trajectory are also solely based on expected timescales for the processing of formal submissions made to the Council, and do not factor in the timescales associated with, and needed for, the preparation of the material for submission (i.e. pre-application enquiry submissions / planning application / discharge of condition details etc). When factored in these will elongate the timescales for bringing forward schemes considerably.

Moreover, it is common practice for larger housing sites and major applications to have a range of pre-commencement conditions attached to a permission once granted. Again, we would raise concerns with the timescales indicated in the trajectory related to this part of the planning process. It is highly unusual and questionable that any technical work required by these conditions (usually relating to drainage and highways matters) would be instructed, completed and submitted within 2 months, and for these to then be signed off / approved in a further 2 months. There are also other technical matters and necessary approvals falling outside of, and over and above, the planning system, such as SAB, s.106, s.38 and s.278 agreements, timescales for which have not been accounted for – and all of which are rarely completed within “4 months” as indicated.

It is therefore highly doubtful that the timescales legislated for in the trajectory for the various stages pre-construction are achievable – with no information about these proposed timescales outlined within the supporting text of the Housing Trajectory. We would therefore raise considerable concerns and objections to these as they stand without full evidence to fully show how these have been calculated, and without there being considerable (and necessary) adjustment to the timescales indicated and factored in.

We would therefore object to the timescales indicated in the ‘Timing and Phasing of Sites’ table, given that the delivery start dates will be pushed back further into the Plan period. Accordingly, and as a result, the Plan is at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated, at least as swiftly as is set out in the trajectory.

Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions

We would also raise considerable doubt over the proposed delivery of the sites identified in the Housing Trajectory - which we do not consider are robust or reasonable.

The development trajectory bar chart set out in the consultation material (extracted below) anticipates and legislates for a number of critical events and circumstances – all of which are considered to be unrobust and unsound.

Extract of Housing Trajectory Graph (annotated by GJP – red dotted line)

Firstly, a large ‘spike’ (material increase) in housing delivery is factored in to take place in 2027 – 2028. This is a marked and pronounced step change in the rate of delivery, and envisages / relies on a significantly higher rate of delivery than previous years in The Vale of Glamorgan (2021 through 2025 - as depicted by the green columns). This is considered extremely unlikely to materialise, not least given prevailing market circumstances, past rates of delivery on the ground, and also in light of levels achieved across Wales and the UK in general.

The published trajectory shows that the average level of completions in The Vale of Glamorgan from 2021 - 2025 has been approx. 400 - 500 units. However, the chart shows that from 2027 – 2028, completions are expected to rise to approx. 1,000 units per year. The expected delivery levels in the trajectory therefore show and assume a doubling in delivery rates and unit numbers (an increase of approx. 100%relative to past rates). There is no clear evidence as to how this level of completions can be achieved let alone guaranteed. This is the case in particular given that the forthcoming years (2025-2027) are expected to see performance (yield) drop significantly (delivery rates in 2025 – 2026 and 2026 – 2027). The chart shows only approx. 200 units being delivered over these years. It is therefore unclear how completion rates are expected to rise so quickly (from 200 in 2025-26 to 1000 in 2027-28), and by such a significant amount. The assumptions in the trajectory are wholly unrobust in our view.

The anticipated delivery of housing also fails to be consistent within and across the Plan period. It is unclear as to why completions rates aren’t spread out more evenly throughout the Plan period - to ensure a robust and most realistic housing trajectory until 2036. By comparison to the marked increase in the rate of delivery between and over the

period 2027 to 2031, there is then a marked fall-off or drop in delivery towards and by the end of the Plan period. Indeed, in the final year, the level of completions are expected to be lower than the period 2021-2015.

To summarise, we consider the defined position to be wholly manufactured and unreflective of the past completion rates, as well as the recently published completion rates provided by Welsh Government recently in August 2025. In the Welsh Government Statistics Document ‘’New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’, information on the number of new dwellings started is provided, where building has commenced and those completed for April 2024 to March 2025. Figure 1 provides a graph showing starts in the last 10 years, and it is clear that there has been a general decline in the number of new dwellings started and completed.

Description of Figure 1:.‘New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’
In 2024-25, 4,631 new dwellings were completed, 3% fewer than in the previous year. This was the second lowest number on record, with the lowest number recorded in 2021-22, a year heavily affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (in 2021-22, 4,616 new dwellings were completed). The New Housing Pipeline Report Quarter 2, 2025 Report (September, 2025) published by the HBF evidenced that the number of residential units approved in the UK fell by 6% during the second quarter of 2025, continuing the decline of approval during the first three months of the year. Wales saw one of the largest declines in the UK in approvals with a decline of 29%.

Further, the HBF document ‘Increasing Housing Supply in Wales’ (4th September 2025) clearly shows that The Vale of Glamorgan has not met the housing delivery requirements in recent years in 2023 – 2024 – along with every other authority in Wales (except Newport). Accordingly, this further adds to the argument that historically The Vale (and most other authorities) have underprovided. This adds considerable uncertainty on the assumed transformation in yield and delivery as built into the trajectory.



Graph: Housing Delivery as a proportion of annual housing requirement in Wales per Authority

The Home Building Sector Skills Plan (Aug 2025) published by the HBF also identified the following issues with the workforce to bring forward built development in Wales:

• “A shortfall in numbers entering roles from the education system;
• An ageing workforce: 25% of the home building workforce is aged over 50, meaning the sector is facing an impending retirement cliff edge;
• Challenges attracting a wider talent pipeline into the sector;
• A lack of understanding of critical future skills needed, and direction from the Future Homes Standard; and
• Output within the sector fluctuating with demand and economic pressures, leading to additional pressures in recruitment and training”.

It is not considered that in the next 1-2 years that any of these issues can or will be substantially corrected – at least sufficiently so to allow for, and enable, the planned delivery rates of new housing completions to be as high as < > 1,000 homes in one year (and for four consecutive years at that).

We would therefore object to the proposed numbers of completion expected during the Plan period, given that there are a number of issues with delivering housing in Wales and given past completions rates for The Vale of Glamorgan. Again, this results in the Plan being at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated.

Status & Standing of Sites included in the Trajectory

The proposed land supply within the housing trajectory includes provision for ‘rolled forward’ LDP sites, which contribute to the total of ‘Proposed Additional Housing Allocations’ forming part of the housing supply. Specifically, a total of 1,242no. units have been identified as additional housing allocations, of which 959no. are expected to be delivered on the rolled forward LDP sites. As such, these sites are to provide for a significant proportion of additional housing in the Plan period (specifically circa 77%).

The Development Plans Manual (DPM) sets out that allocations rolled forward from a previous plan will require careful justification for inclusion in a revised plan. The DPM outlines that “there will need to be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate sites can be delivered and justify being included again. Clear evidence will be required that such sites can be delivered.” The below table included in the consultation document provides a breakdown of the rolled forward LDP sites, and in particular, sets out the status of each site:




The above table evidences that the current LDP has under delivered in regard to its targeted unit number of the Plan period, given that these sites did not yield any housing over the current plan period. This is further exacerbated by the Land Bank sites that have also not delivered any housing across the existing LDP period, amounting to 1,860no units. Accordingly, when considering the non-delivery of both rolled forward LDP sites and Land Bank sites, this amounts to an approximate shortfall of 2,189 homes being delivered, or 33% of the total housing supply identified for the current LDP (8,525no. dwellings).

It is therefore considered that, as a minimum, the units carried over from the LDP (without planning permission) should be a surplus to the housing supply proposed for the RLDP, as opposed to being relied on to deliver the housing need over the Plan period. This is particularly the case for the two sites (Land to the west of Pencoedtre Lane, and Land between Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road) which do not currently have any active planning application submitted for their development. These sites total an amount of 370no. units to be delivered in the Plan period, which represents more than a third of the additional housing allocations to make up the housing supply.

As such, it is considered that the unmet need deriving from the existing LDP is still present – indeed it has grown, and will continue to do so, not least when considered in conjunction with the projected population growth over the coming years to 2036, and the aspirations for growth in the Plan’s strategy.

Accordingly, in order to secure the targeted level of housing, a greater level of provision for new allocations should be applied in order to meet the housing requirement. This would bring about better certainty that the housing requirement is met by the housing supply over the Plan period, not least given that the current Plan failed in this respect. Without a re-apportioning of the housing supply, it is considered that the Plan would heavily rely on the contingency (i.e. rolled forward LDP sites) coming forward in the Plan period, yet there is uncertainty that these will yield in full over the new Plan period. This raises issues of ‘’soundness’’, and risks rendering the Plan unrobust.

On this basis, we would object to the Plan if the provision of housing is not adjusted to rebalance the provision to include new allocations in lieu of rolled forward LDP sites in the housing supply.

Key Sites

As set out in previous representations at Preferred Strategy stage, it is considered that the housing supply relies heavily on the delivery of the ‘key sites’ to deliver housing (and meet need) over the Plan period. The total number of housing units attributed to key sites amounts to 2,278, which equates to over 25% of the total provision in the Plan period.

As detailed above, we consider there to be concerns regarding the proposed ‘Timing and Phasing of Sites’ table included in the Housing Trajectory which we consider are not reflective or accurate and will therefore have the effect of delivery start dates being much later into the Plan period than anticipated. The result of this will be that the Plan will be at risk of not delivery the level of housing expected and needed. Moreover, the Housing Trajectory Graph presents an overly ambitious level of housing completions over the Plan period - which the Council consider will be markedly higher than the average levels experienced in the last five years. Again, for the reasons set out above, we consider that these rates of expected completions to have no evidence supporting them, and to be unachievable and unsound.

Insofar as to the removal of the previously proposed site ‘Land at North East Barry’, this site was expected to deliver 900no. units in the Plan period. Following its omission from the housing supply, other sites have been identified, which comprises the inclusion of a new key site (Land at North West Barry), 3no. non-strategic sites, and also affordable housing-led allocations. In terms of the quantum of development attributed to these new sites, this amounts to 659no. dwellings. This is some 250 units less than the 900no. homes that was previously attributed to ‘Land at North East Barry’. Whilst it is appreciated that the number of homes forming part of the existing supply (completions, units with planning permission etc.) have increased since Preferred Strategy stage, there will be a net loss in market housing provision and delivery.

This position is made worse and compounded as a result of accounting for the affordable-led sites in making up the housing supply.

As set out within the Preferred Strategy, these sites are expected to deliver at least 51% affordable housing. These units are not open market units, and will not / cannot contribute to the supply of such housing. These units will contribute to the provision of affordable housing, and will go some way to meeting the acute need for such housing (albeit will not eradicate / address in full the well known and accepted considerable requirement). Accordingly it is considered that these sites should be in addition to the housing supply, as opposed to forming part of the provision. In turn, there would need to be an increase in allocations for non-strategic sites, to ensure that there is sufficient market housing delivery over the Plan period.

Were such changes to be made and introduced, this would achieve and assist realise a more robust and sound housing supply, which will ensure that the identified housing need is met / addressed over the Plan period. Without these changes it is considered that the housing supply is not sufficient, and inevitably, housing need will not be met within the Plan.

St Athan Train Station

As set out in the Preferred Strategy (para A3.29), the strategy seeks to focus development around key sustainable transport nodes. The strategy outlined that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. Accordingly, in line with the spatial strategy adopted for the RLDP (i.e. focus development around sustainable transport nodes), St Athan was identified as a ‘Strategic Opportunity Area’ to accommodate strategic growth – through the proposed allocation of two key sites : ‘Land at Church Farm’ and ‘Land West of St Athan’. These sites have been identified to deliver 532no. and 600no. units respectively in the Plan period. These are separate to, and are in addition to, the 51no. units that have now been attributed to the site ‘Land South of Clive Road’ in St Athan. Accordingly, in total, the Housing Trajectory makes a provision for a total of 1,183no. homes to be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period.

It is now the case that, subsequent to the publication of the Preferred Strategy, the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales. The focus in the first phase of such improvements across the region is towards improving connectivity in east Cardiff, Newport, and Magor. Accordingly,

it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period, which significantly questions the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

The strategy to allocate new housing growth is predicated on focusing residential development around sustainable transport nodes, and given that St Athan will be without any railway station in the Plan period, it is not considered that these sites align with the strategy of the RLDP. Accordingly, the wider Housing Trajectory is considered to be unsound, given that a total of 1,183no. homes are expected to be delivered in St Athan within the Plan period.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision. Given this, to add a further site for housing in this location over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites - given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

We therefore consider the Trajectory to be both unrobust and unsound, and therefore, we object to the Trajectory in its current form accordingly.

Geographic distribution of the ‘new’ sites / provision

As a general and overarching comment in respect to the additional sites now included within the Plan, and forming part of the trajectory, (and a matter expanded upon when critiquing each of these sites in the next section to this submission), it is clear and evident that these additional sites have been positioned to settlements that have already, and recently, been attributed significant growth in the preceding Plan and plan period.

Significant allocations (which have also contributed to significant levels of affordable housing) have been realised and built out in locations (such as Wick and Colwinston). Notwithstanding this, two of the additional sites are now proposed for these recently expanded settlements. Given that the purpose of the affordable housing led allocations is to meet unmet affordable housing need, it is questioned why such new allocations are attributed to settlements that have already seen open market and affordable housing provision, as compared to other comparable settlements that have not received any growth whatsoever over a considerable period of time.

It is considered accordingly that the geographic positioning of these allocations is at odds with their underlying purpose - to meet unmet affordable housing need in communities that have seen no provision

Detailed Comments in respect to ‘new’ sites

Other Housing Allocations

Land south of Clive Road, St Athan

A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below for ease:


As set out at the outset of these representations, and whilst we note the findings of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage (i.e. Suitable for further consideration), we do not consider that the consultation on this site has been undertaken procedurally appropriately or suitably. We therefore consider the consultation on this site is “unrobust” and “unsound”.

As set out previously, the strategy seeks to focus development around key sustainable transport nodes. The strategy outlined that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. It is now the case that, subsequent to the publication of the Preferred Strategy, the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales, where the focus is towards improving connectivity in east Cardiff, Newport, and Magor. Accordingly, it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period, which significantly questions the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision. Given this, to add a further site for housing over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites – given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

Affordable Housing Led Allocations Land at Heol Fain, Wick
A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below for ease:

Candidate Site Stage 2 Assessment (Site Ref. 404)

The findings of the Candidate Site Assessment for this site are noted. We are assuming the reason this site is proposed to be allocated is a product of the site promoters/developers heading the findings stated below, and changing the form of development to be in accord with this:

“A market housing led scheme would not be acceptable, but the site could be reconsidered as a small scale affordable housing led development subject to need and viability at a maximum of 50 dwellings. In accordance with the Settlement Appraisal Review, it is considered that Wick could potentially accommodate limited affordable housing led growth.”

Whilst no clear deficiency exists in respect to the site, it is known that Wick has been subject to significant growth and expansion in recent years – not least by virtue of significant housing allocations in the settlement as part of previous plans.

To evidence this, 35% of the 124 units approved on the ‘Rectory Field, St Brides Road’ site (i.e. circa 43 units as per site allocation ref. MG(47) and PP ref. 2014/01424/FUL) were approved as Affordable Housing units. This makes a substantial provision of such Affordable Housing units (and housing generally) in the settlement in recent years.

Other similarly sized and comparable settlements and locations have not by contrast been subject to any growth for some considerable time, and accordingly would warrant and benefit from provision as part of this new replacement plan.

Notwithstanding the location of such provision, and as set out in detail at the outset of these representations, National Planning Policy advocates the high and acute need for affordable housing, whilst recent analysis evidences that there is a housing emergency. These circumstances - coupled with the shortcomings identified and set out earlier in these submissions in respect to the adequacy of provision within the plan (rolled forward sites / inadequate provision etc) – means that notwithstanding any potential allocation at Wick, further provision ought to be made in comparable (previously unprovided for) locations, such as Ogmore By Sea.

Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin

‘Land West of Maendy Road’ has been registered as an Affordable Housing Led Allocation candidate site for the RLDP, however as far as we know from our review, there is no assessment and critique of this site. This site has not been included in the ‘Candidate Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage’ (October 2023). As such, with an absence of publicly available information, it is not clear how the Council has judged this site against the criteria. This raises questions accordingly in respect to the “soundness” of a site which forms part of the intended housing land supply, and by association the trajectory. Without this, and without being consulted on (as others have been prior to this) we question whether this allocation is “sound” (i.e. its allocation is considered to be “unsound”).

Land North of West Winds Business Park, Fferm Goch

The below sets out the candidate site stage two assessment of ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’:

Candidate Site Stage 2 Assessment (Site Ref. 398)

As can be seen above the site was not considered suitable for further consideration with the site scoring negatively (red) in a number of key factors. These include the following:

• Access to Retail;
• Access to Health Services;
• Sustainable Transport- Public Transport;
• Access/ Proximity to services and facilities conclusion;
• Climate Change; and
• Health and Wellbeing.

Given the fact the site scores red in ‘Sustainable Transport – Public Transport’, this shows the site is not served by public transport connections within 800m, as outlined in the key below:


Additionally, Policy SP7 (Sustainable Transport) of the Vale of Glamorgan Preferred Strategy states “New development must support an enhanced transport network that increases the proportion of journeys being undertaken by sustainable travel modes”. Additionally Objective 8 (Promoting Active and Sustainable Travel Choices) states “new development is directed to locations that are or can be accessible by a choice of modes of transport, including walking, cycling, and public transport.”

It is well known residents of affordable housing are statistically less likely to own private vehicles, making access to reliable and frequent public transport essential for ensuring equitable mobility. The provision of public transport infrastructure in close proximity to such developments is therefore a critical component in supporting access to employment, education, healthcare, and other key services, while also promoting sustainable travel patterns and social inclusion.

The site also scores red in Access/Proximity to services, showing the site is greater than 1200m away from key services, as seen in the key below:


In respect of the above, Preferred Strategy 6.40 states the need “To ensure that new development takes place in locations that have the best access to a wide range of services, facilities, and employment opportunities, whilst minimising the need to travel, the distribution of growth is guided by the following settlement hierarchy”. To further highlight the importance of both sustainable transport and proximity to services, the preferred strategy also states the need to “Facilitate the development of adaptable, accessible, well-connected communities that have a strong sense of identity, offer a sustainable range of services and facilities and are equipped with adequate infrastructure”. In addition, Promoting Active and Sustainable Travel Choices outlines to “Promote and encourage the use of sustainable methods of travel, particularly active modes of transport, whilst simultaneously reducing the need to travel”.

In light of the above, this site does not align with the aims and targets set out in the Preferred Strategy as it fails to meet several key development goals set out. It should therefore not be considered suitable to be allocated for future developments. Its inclusion is therefore unsound.

Should this view be concurred with, 22 affordable units will be lost from the proposed affordable 122 units, and ultimately will be lost from the overall housing land supply. As stated in the draft housing trajectory “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”. There is a clear possibility therefore that this proposed allocation is removed and/or not delivered as its inclusion is unsound as it does not align with the aims and targets set out in the Preferred Strategy - as it fails to meet several key development goals set out. A “small scale

affordable housing led development” which is needed to “respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities” will therefore not be provided for. This is clearly an issue.

Land to the East of Colwinston, Colwinston

A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below:


As outlined above the site was rejected and considered not suitable for further consideration. In fact, and unlike ‘Land at Heol Fain, Wick’ and ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’ it was stated that this site “could not be considered as a suitable affordable housing led development site”. Despite this, this site has been outlined as an Affordable Housing Led Allocation. As such, the inclusion of this site is “unsound”.

It is known that Colwinston has been subject to significant housing allocations in the settlement as part of previous plans. To evidence this, 25% of the 64 units (i.e. 16 units) were approved on the site allocation ref. MG2(41) and PP ref.

2014/00242/FUL. This makes a substantial provision of such Affordable Housing units (and housing generally) in the settlement in recent years.

Other similarly sized and comparable settlements and locations have not by contrast been subject to any growth for some considerable time, and accordingly would warrant and benefit from provision as part of this new replacement plan.

Notwithstanding the location of such provision, and as set out in detail at the outset of these representations, National Planning Policy advocates the high and acute need for affordable housing, whilst recent analysis evidences that there is a housing emergency. These circumstances - coupled with the shortcomings identified and set out earlier in these submissions in respect to the adequacy of provision within the plan (rolled forward sites / inadequate provision etc) – means that notwithstanding any potential allocation at Colwinston, further provision ought to be made in comparable (previously unprovided for) locations, such as Land South of A48, Bonvilston.

Summary of These Representations

To re-iterate, and to summarise the case made and set out, these representations seek to object to the Housing Trajectory published as part of the consultation on the Draft Housing Trajectory For Housing Stakeholder Group (October 2025) which underpins the Plan and the delivery / realisation of its underlying strategy.

Detailed submissions and objections are raised above in respect to the trajectory information published regarding the soundness and robustness of this information (and it’s consultation), which we do not consider are adequate, robust, or sound to deliver the Plans aims and objectives.

ANNEX 1
Preface

This Annex sets out the detailed case in support of these representations, and by association the case for allocation of the site.

The representations are structured into the following sections:

1. Response to the Deposit Plan;
2. Comments on specific policies; and
3. A summary of the suitability of the site for development.

SECTION 1. Response to the Deposit Plan

Distribution of Growth

We object to the distribution of growth within the Deposit Plan. Specifically, we object to the strategy that underpins the Deposit Plan, which seeks to introduce the proposed ‘Strategic Growth Area’ which is expected to contain the majority of housing growth in the Vale over the Plan period, or rather the over-reliance on this defined area, and the associated absence of growth in other parts of the Plan area.

As outlined in our previous representations, the allocation of housing and the location of strategic growth neglects the Rural Vale, and in our view, overprovides in the Strategic Growth Area. For example, with limited housing stock and average house sales at over £500,000 over the last 12 months, there is a clear and established need for new homes in the Ogmore By Sea area, particularly at an affordable level. This is reinforced by the Local Housing Market Assessment that identified a need for over 1,114 new affordable homes per annum over the next five years throughout the county, and 196 units per annum thereafter (average of 502 units per annum over 15 years). Further to this, it is widely known that the rural Vale comprises the majority of the county’s ageing population, which, as a demographic, has and will continue to grow rapidly over the Plan period. This is evident in the ‘Population Change’ chart below – which is taken from the Deposit Plan:

VofG Deposit Plan: Figure 4 Population Change 2011 to 2021

It is clearly the case that younger populations are migrating to other Authorities, where access to housing is typically cheaper and more affordable, whilst more older populations are significantly migrating into the Authority. This trend will result in an extremely unbalanced demographic, given that the working-age population have sought housing elsewhere.

Without a suitable supply of affordable housing delivered over the Plan period, this trend will only worsen. Accordingly, it is not considered that the RLDP takes into account the lack of supply of affordable homes within the rural Vale, as well as increased housing to support the growing ageing population within these areas.

Para 3.19 of the Deposit Plan clearly outlines that affordable housing is required in the short term, in order to meet pressing needs. Specifically, it outlines the following: “There is significant pressure on temporary accommodation in the Vale, for a variety of reasons including increased homelessness presentations… The need for sufficient permanent affordable housing to assist in moving people out of temporary accommodation is critical and the planning system has a vital role in assisting in new affordable housing delivery.”
Accordingly, the distribution of growth within the Authority must be proportionate, to ensure that populations / areas are not left behind where they must seek access to housing elsewhere.

The RLDP Sustainable Growth Strategy sets out 6 objectives. Objective 4 states: “Allowing for small scale affordable housing led development in settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area at a scale proportionate to the size of settlement.” (Page 66)
Para 5.25 states “Therefore, a key part of the strategy is to allow for affordable housing led developments within sustainable primary and minor rural settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area, at a scale that is appropriate to the size of the community it is serving. An ‘affordable housing led’ scheme is one where a minimum of 50% of the dwellings would need to be affordable, although this could increase to a maximum of 100% if the site is brought forward by a social landlord”.

In terms of the definition / explanation of what the affordable housing-led development sites are seeking to achieve, paragraph 6.132 of the Deposit Plan outlines the following:

“Accordingly, to ensure that new developments respond to the high demand for smaller properties, as identified in the LHMA, priority will be given to affordable homes that are small to medium-sized, typically comprising one to three bedrooms. Representations received from the local community through the RLDP process also highlighted a desire for new housing developments to offer opportunities for accessing smaller market homes. This is particularly relevant in the rural Vale, where housing choices are more limited. Providing smaller, more affordable market homes may assist first-time buyers and enable older residents to downsize to more manageable properties within their local area. Affordable housing-led sites will therefore need to demonstrate that an appropriate range of both affordable and market dwellings has been provided.”

Despite the acknowledgement within this strategic objective, we do not consider that the RLDP goes far enough to meet this objective, nor are its provisions and allocations adequate.

It is considered that this objective is undermined by the allocations set out by the RLDP (not least the absence of allocations in the rural Vale). Notwithstanding the Vision’s clear acknowledgement of the benefit of the growth of the rural Vale, these areas have not been supported through the plan due to the lack of growth which has been attributed to these areas in terms of further housing, employment and sustainable transport. All growth options have been selected on the basis of being in either Key Settlement, Service Centre settlement or Primary Settlements, all of which are already sustainable areas served by rail. As a result, it is not clear how this objective can be achieved, without the allocation of further sites within the Minor Rural Settlements, such as Ogmore By Sea. The Vale is characteristically ‘rural’, and as such, there needs to be a stronger emphasis on supporting and delivering new development in order to bolster the rural economy. This includes enabling opportunities to provide employment and business premises within
/ near to rural settlements, as well as focusing housing growth in these areas to reduce travel time, and use of sustainable transport.

It is considered that the current Strategy does not provide adequately for all residents across the Vale, only those within the Strategic Growth Area. The underlying Vision and Objectives set out in the emerging Plan are accordingly wholly un-provided for by the detail of the Plan. This brings into question the “soundness” of the Plan.

The Strategic Growth Area does not take into account the important role and proximity of Bridgend to the West and/or the Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant to the north (as defined in the RCTCBC LDP). The Minor Rural Settlements to the west are more likely to be supported by job opportunities and employment in Bridgend than further east in Barry or Cardiff. Similarly, those in the north align with, and function in association with, the Principal Settlement and Strategic Growth Area of Talbot Green / Pontyclun / Llantrisant to the north. These settlements are served by existing bus services that provide sustainable modes of travel to key employment locations in and around Bridgend. This is acknowledged in Paragraph 3.3 of the Strategy which states “The greatest number of residents who travel outside of the Vale for work purposes travel to Cardiff followed by Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taf, whilst a smaller proportion commute into the Vale from these neighbouring authorities”. The Demographic Evidence (Feb 2023) estimates the Vale as being a net importer of workers from RCT and Caerphilly (Para 3.6) - as shown in Figure 10 in the Preferred Strategy.

The current Strategy does not support any improvement of sustainable travel or further investment in settlements linked more closely to these areas - given that Growth has been apportioned in only the Key Service Centre and Primary Settlements. It is considered that this will fail to support and facilitate the current (and any future) employment coming into the Vale, nor will it support any employment which is located outside of the Vale to the West and North. The Growth Option is too heavily reliant on access to railway stations as the key and sole sustainable transport method, whereas access to bus services should also be appropriately assessed and focused on in terms of promoting sustainable development. It is unreasonable to devise a strategy that hinges on directing growth to areas that are accessible to railway facilities, where it is recognised in the Plan that the Vale is inherently rural. The delivery and soundness of the Plan is therefore questioned and we continue to object to the spatial growth strategy as set out in the Deposit Plan.

Housing Supply

RLDP Allocations - Key Sites

As set out in representations made throughout the Plan preparation process, we consider that the Plan is too reliant on the delivery of ‘key sites’ to meet the housing need over the Plan period. Specifically, the Plan makes provision for 2,278 units in these Key Sites, which equates to circa 65% of RLDP allocations in the housing supply. The 5 key sites that are allocated in the Deposit Plan are as follows:

• Land at North West Barry – 376no. units;
• North of Dinas Powys – 250no. units;
• Land at Readers Way, Rhoose – 520no. units;
• Land at Church Farm, St Athan – 532no. units; and
• Land to the West of St Athan – 600no. units.

We object to the current housing supply to allocate 2,278no. (65%) of units across strategic sites, as this makes for a risky and unrobust strategy for delivering housing, and in turn, meeting the identified housing need over the Plan period.

As stated in previous representations, there is concern that the proposed timing and phasing of the proposed Key Sites is unrealistic and unrobust, and in turn, undermines the soundness of the Plan, given the heavy reliance on Key Sites delivering new homes across the Plan period. Whilst it is not disputed that the sites would have gone through rigorous assessment to inform their proposed allocation, the timescales for securing planning permission (with all associated conditions discharged) is considered to be unachievable. This is particularly the case for the following timescales that are set out in the Housing Trajectory that underpin the Plan:

• “Time period of pre-application discussions/PAC consultation” – 4 months

• “Time between submission of planning application and determination” – 6 months
• “Time taken from planning consent to the discharge of relevant conditions to enable site construction” – 4 months

It is considered that the above timescales are fundamentally unrobust, and result in a distorted position of housing sites over the RLDP Plan period. It is not considered that these reflect or are informed by the timescales that are currently being incurred for planning applications submitted for major housing sites across Wales. It is rather the case that such applications would typically be determined 1-2 years following submission, given that there are a wide range of stakeholders involved in the determination of major planning applications – which often adds to the delays associated with the determination of such applications.

It is equally the case that the assumptions in the trajectory are solely based on expected timescales for processing formal submissions made to the Council, and do not factor in the timescales associated with, and needed for, the preparation of the material for submission.

It is assumed that these timescales have not considered that such major developments can be subject to the need to undertaking and submitting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which adds another layer to the determination of any planning application – given the additional considerations that form part of this process. As such, any site subject to EIA would very likely result in further delays extending beyond the timescales set out in the trajectory. Equally, as set out above, the preparation of an application subject to an EIA requires even more detail and assessment, which only further adds to the preparation stage (which has not been factored into as part of the trajectory). Accordingly, it is not considered that the trajectory contains any contingency if any site is required to undertake EIA as part of their application.

For the reasons stated above, it is unlikely that the sites will yield in full, particularly those sites which are expected to deliver housing right up to the final year of the Plan period (‘Land at Readers Way’ and ‘Land to the West of St Athan’). These sites do not allow for any ‘slippage’ should any delays arise through the development management process (which for the reasons set out above, will very likely be the case), and as such, a gap in housing delivery will be brought about as a result of these sites not yielding in full.

Given the proposed ambitious timescales set out for the delivery of the Key Sites, it is considered the housing trajectory is unrobust, and in turn, undermines the soundness of the Plan as a result. A change in strategy should be pursued whereby a greater proportion of small to medium sites are allocated for housing in the Plan period, which are more likely to fully yield given that such sites are subject to less assessment and consideration compared to strategic sites. This would make for a more robust strategy, where a greater number of small to medium sites can deliver housing in the short and medium term of the Plan period, whereas the strategic sites represent a more longer-term strategy to deliver housing – which would then spill into the next Plan period.

Accordingly, we object to the Deposit Plan in its current form, where there is an overreliance on housing need to be met through the delivery of the Key Sites, which we consider to be unrobust, and undermine the integrity and soundness of the Plan. The current strategy of the Plan is at significant risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated, as least as swifty as identified in the housing trajectory. Should no change be made to the Plan to address the above issues, then it is extremely likely that the Plan would ‘fail’ in meeting the identified housing need.

Windfall Sites

It is noted that the RLDP is made up of the following:

• Existing land supply (3,838 units)
• Windfall sites (1,303 units)
• Allocated sites (3,521 units)

Para 6.69 states that “Analysis of historical delivery of housing indicates that on average small windfall sites (sites of less than 10 dwellings) have provided some 53 dwelling completions per year, and large windfall sites (10 dwellings or greater) contributed on average 80 dwellings per year. Overall, it is projected that windfall sites could contribute a further 1,303 dwellings over the remainder of the plan”.

As set out in our previous representations to the Housing Trajectory, we would object to the expected numbers of completions expected during the Plan period, given that there are a number of issues with delivering housing in Wales and given past completions rates for The Vale of Glamorgan – which is discussed in greater detail later in this submission. Again, this results in the Plan being at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated – including any windfall sites.

St Athan Train Station

The RLDP Sustainable Growth Strategy comprises six key elements, of which the following is set out in respect to the allocation of new housing growth in the Authority:

“3. Focusing development at locations that are well served by existing and proposed rail stations as part of the South Wales Metro and in areas with good bus links.”

The strategy outlines that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken in 2022, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. Accordingly, in line with the spatial strategy adopted for the RLDP (i.e. focus development around sustainable transport nodes), St Athan was identified as a ‘Strategic Opportunity Area’ to accommodate strategic growth – through the proposed allocation of two key sites : ‘Land at Church Farm’ and ‘Land West of St Athan’. These sites have been identified to deliver 532no. and 600no. units respectively in the Plan period. These are separate to, and are in addition to, the 51no. units that have now been attributed to the site ‘Land South of Clive Road’ and 80no. units attributed to ‘Former Stadium Site, adjacent to Burley Place’ in St Athan. Accordingly, in total, the Housing Trajectory makes a provision for a total of 1,263no. homes to be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period.

It is now the case, however, that the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales – as confirmed in the ‘Today, Tomorrow, Together: A vision for rail across Wales and Borders’ (February 2026) recently published by Transport For Wales. This paper acknowledges that a new railway station at St Athan would represent a longer term opportunity, and therefore, will not be delivered in the short term / within the Plan period of the emerging Plan. Equally the Council have not provided any evidence to contradict this, and therefore, it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period. This brings about significant questions regarding the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

The strategy to allocate new housing growth is predicated on focusing residential development around sustainable transport nodes, and given that St Athan will be without any railway station in the Plan period, it is not considered that the sites align with the strategy of the RLDP. Accordingly, the wider Housing Trajectory is considered to be unsound, given that a total of 1,263no. homes (36% of the Plan’s new housing allocations) are expected to be delivered in St Athan within the Plan period.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision. Given this, to add further sites for housing in this location over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites - given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

In terms of the expected delivery of the Key Sites in St Athan, it is noted that the trajectory identifies that for the majority of the Plan period, both sites will be delivering 80no. dwellings per annum on each site (equating to 160no units in total). Whilst these are two separate sites, we seriously question the realistic prospects of the significant number of

homes being built simultaneously on two sites in proximity to one another – given the considerable logistical issues that would be brought about.

Accordingly, it remains that there are serious questions regarding the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations at St Athan, which do not accord with the strategy adopted for the RLDP – to focus housing growth on settlements that are supported by railway stations. Moreover, the scale of development proposed at St Athan is also not considered to be proportionate, with a significant number of homes delivered in a location not served by a railway station.

Rolled forward LDP Sites

The proposed land supply within the housing trajectory includes provision for ‘rolled forward’ LDP sites, which contribute to the total of ‘Proposed Additional Housing Allocations’ forming part of the housing supply. Specifically, a total of 1,242no. units have been identified as additional housing allocations, of which 959no. are expected to be delivered on the rolled forward LDP sites. As such, these sites are to provide for a significant proportion of additional housing in the Plan period (specifically circa 77%).

The Development Plans Manual (DPM) sets out that allocations rolled forward from a previous plan will require careful justification for inclusion in a revised plan. The DPM outlines that “there will need to be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate sites can be delivered and justify being included again. Clear evidence will be required that such sites can be delivered.” The below table included in the consultation document provides a breakdown of the rolled forward LDP sites, and in particular, sets out the status of each site:


The above table evidences that the current LDP has under delivered in regard to its targeted unit number of the Plan period, given that these sites did not yield any housing over the current Plan period. This is further exacerbated by the Land Bank sites that have also not delivered any housing across the existing LDP period, amounting to 1,860no units. Accordingly, when considering the non-delivery of both rolled forward LDP sites and Land Bank sites, this amounts to an approximate shortfall of 2,189 homes being delivered, or 33% of the total housing supply identified for the current LDP (8,525no. dwellings).

It is therefore considered that, as a minimum, the units carried over from the LDP (without planning permission) should be a surplus to the housing supply proposed for the RLDP, as opposed to being relied on to deliver the housing need over the Plan period. This is particularly the case for the two sites (Land to the west of Pencoedtre Lane, and Land between Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road) which do not currently have any active planning application

submitted for their development. These sites total an amount of 370no. units to be delivered in the Plan period, which represents more than a third of the additional housing allocations to make up the housing supply.

As such, it is considered that the unmet need deriving from the existing LDP is still present – indeed it has grown, and will continue to do so, not least when considered in conjunction with the projected population growth over the coming years to 2036, and the aspirations for growth in the Plan’s strategy.

Accordingly, in order to secure the targeted level of housing, a greater level of provision for new allocations should be applied in order to meet the housing requirement. This would bring about better certainty that the housing requirement is met by the housing supply over the Plan period, not least given that the current Plan failed in this respect. Without a re-apportioning of the housing supply, it is considered that the Plan would heavily rely on the contingency (i.e. rolled forward LDP sites) coming forward in the Plan period, yet there is uncertainty that these will yield in full over the new Plan period. This raises issues of ’soundness’, and risks rendering the Plan unrobust.

Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions

As set out in our previous representations to the Housing Trajectory consultation, we have considerable concerns in relation to the proposed delivery of the sites identified in the trajectory – which we do not consider are robust or reasonable.

Appendix 1 of the Deposit Plan sets out the development trajectory bar chart – which illustrates the proposed delivery of housing, on a per annum basis, over the Plan period.

Extract of Housing Trajectory Graph (annotated by GJP – red dotted line)
It is our view that the trajectory makes for an unrealistic and unrobust delivery rate of housing, which does not reflect the pattern of housing completions in the Vale of Glamorgan. We therefore have concerns regarding the soundness of the trajectory, not least that there remain significant uncertainties as to the delivery of the Key Sites (as discussed earlier in these representations).

Firstly, the graph / trajectory illustrates a large ‘spike’ in terms of housing delivery in the year 2027-28, which is considered to be a marked and pronounced step change in the rate of delivery. This envisages / relies on a significantly higher rate of delivery than previous years in the Vale of Glamorgan (2021 through 2021 – as depicted by the green columns). It is considered that this level of delivery is unlikely to materialise, not least given prevailing market

circumstances, past rates of delivery on the ground, and also in light of levels achieved across Wales and the UK in general.

The published trajectory shows that the average level of completions from 2021 - 2025 has been approx. 400 - 500 units, however, the chart shows that from 2027 – 2028, completions are expected to rise to approx. 1,000 units per year. The expected delivery levels in the trajectory therefore show and assume a doubling in delivery rates and unit numbers (an increase of approx. 100% relative to past rates). There is no clear evidence as to how this level of completions can be achieved let alone guaranteed. This is the case in particular given that the forthcoming years (2025-2027) are expected to see performance (yield) drop significantly (delivery rates in 2025 – 2026 and 2026 – 2027). The chart shows only approx. 200 units being delivered over these years. It is therefore unclear how completion rates are expected to rise so quickly (from 200 in 2025-26 to 1000 in 2027-28), and by such a significant amount. The assumptions in the trajectory are wholly unrobust in our view.

It is also the case that the anticipated delivery of housing fails to be consistent within and across the Plan period. It is unclear as to why completions rates aren’t spread out more evenly throughout the Plan period - to ensure a robust and most realistic housing trajectory until 2036. By comparison to the marked increase in the rate of delivery between and over the period 2027 to 2031, there is then a marked fall-off or drop in delivery towards and by the end of the Plan period. Indeed, in the final year, the level of completions are expected to be lower than the period 2021-2025.

Accordingly, we consider that the housing trajectory, as proposed, is entirely manufactured and unreflective of the past completion rates, as well as the recent published completion rates provided by Welsh Government recently in August 2025. As set out in our previous representations, it has been evidenced that there has been a general decline in the number of new dwellings started and completed.

Description of Figure 1: ‘New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’
As identified in the graph above, in 2024-25, 4,631 new dwellings were completed, which represents 3% fewer than the previous year. This figure represented the second lowest number on record, with the lowest number recorded in 2021-22, a year heavily affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (in 2021-22, 4,616 new dwellings were completed) The New Housing Pipeline Report Quarter 3, 2025 Report (December 2025) published by the HBF evidenced that the number of residential units approved in the UK fell by 7% during the third quarter of 2025, extending the decline seen during the first half of the year. At 45,075, the number of units approved was 34% down on the third quarter of 2024 and the lowest quarterly total since 2012 Q2. At 146,798, the overall number of units approved during the first nine months of 2025 was 25% lower than a year ago.



HBF Graph Illustrating Residential Approvals (2006-2025)

The above graph clearly shows a pronounced downward trend in the number of residential planning approvals over the period, particuarly with a sharp decrease seen since 2020. Further, the HBF document ‘Increasing Housing Supply in Wales’ (4th September 2025) clearly shows that The Vale of Glamorgan has not met the housing delivery requirements in recent years in 2023 – 2024 – along with every other authority in Wales (except Newport). Accordingly, this further adds to the argument that historically The Vale (and most other authorities) have underprovided. This adds considerable uncertainty on the assumed transformation in yield and delivery as built into the trajectory.

Graph: Housing Delivery as a proportion of annual housing requirement in Wales per Authority

More recently, the Welsh Government has released its new estimates of housing need (Estimates of Additional Hosing Need: 2025-based – February 2026). The estimates show how many new homes need to be built over the next twenty years to address existing unmet need as well as newly arising need. The figures set out that around 8,700no. new homes a year are needed over the next Senedd term up to 2030 to meet new housing need. Additionally, there is an unmet need for 9,400 affordable homes.

Overall, this represents more than double 2024/25 levels of supply, where just 4,638 new homes were built.

HBF: Estimates of Housing Need

HBF: Actual Delivery vs Estimates of Need

The above graphs unequivocally evidence that historical rates of delivery of housing in Wales has remained low, and moreover, significant numbers of housing need to be allocated in order to meet the estimate of need. It is not

considered that the housing trajectory, in its current form, is robust to meet the housing need over the Plan period, given the uncertainties of the Key Sites, and the level of housing delivery that has been identified for the Plan.

Affordable Housing-Led Sites

HG4 - Rural Affordable Housing Led Sites

Policy HG4 of the Deposit Plan identifies four sites to be allocated as affordable housing-led sites, totalling approximately 122 dwellings within the plan period. Given the target levels of achieving 3,070 affordable dwellings over the course of the Plan period (up to 2036), it is not considered that this policy goes far enough to address the target and level of affordable housing need.


It is noted that the number of units identified for each site relate to the ‘total’ number of units delivered, as opposed to the affordable housing provision. Accordingly, it can be assumed that circa 50% of each allocation will comprise affordable units (given each site is affordable-led), which would equate to a total provision of circa 61no. units. The contribution from the affordable housing-led sites would only equate to 2% of the total need (3,070no. units). Even when coupled with the affordable housing provision from open market sites and 100% exception sites, the total delivery of affordable housing will still be nowhere near enough to meet the overall affordable housing need over the Plan period. Accordingly, it is considered that inadequate provision has been made for such sites.

Insofar as to the sites chosen and allocated are concerned, it is clear from reviewing the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Candidate Site Assessment that the allocated sites HG4(1) – (4) were not considered acceptable due to being outside the strategic growth areas, and were considered to be unacceptable intrusions into the open countryside. After being resubmitted as affordable housing-led sites, the sites were allocated, some with a smaller area in order to accommodate less dwellings in total.

The sustainable credentials of the sites allocated is not disputed, and it is acknowledged that these minor rural settlements have the ability to accommodate further growth, in the form of affordable-led housing allocations. However, it is considered that the should also form an allocation as part of this policy, given its high sustainability credentials and its appropriate location to accommodate a suitable level of development. Please refer to the previous representations made to the Housing Trajectory Consultation (dated 17th October) for further, more detailed comments regarding the above sites.

The LHMA 2023 shows that there is a need for 124 affordable homes in the St Brides Major local housing market area (which Ogmore is located within). As such, there is an identified need for affordable housing in this area, something which the site could address through an allocation.

It is questionable whether Wick has the capacity to accommodate 50 new dwellings, given the sustainability and rural nature of the area. As a result, it is suggested that the number of homes allocated in Wick is reduced and that a further allocation in St Brides Major is secured, in order to facilitate supporting the delivery of affordable housing through the housing market area, rather than in one minor rural settlement. The sustainability of Ogmore has been assessed, both by the Council through the Sustainability Appraisal and again, through our assessment of the site.

Securing further delivery of Affordable Units

As set out above, the affordable housing-led allocated sites only provide 122no. affordable dwellings, which comprise 4no. allocated sites that are expected to deliver approximately between 20 – 50 dwellings. However, the RLDP sets a

target of 3,070 affordable homes to be delivered in the Plan period. This means that affordable housing-led allocations make up less than 4 % of the target provision and will only make provision for 2% of the targeted number. We would therefore object to the sites included within Policy HG4 and would suggest that more sites should be allocated as part of the policy in order to secure delivery of a higher number of affordable housing units to mere the target.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the Key Sites will provide for a significant proportion of affordable housing, as set out above in these representations, there is serious concern regarding the deliverability of these sites, which would result in a significant gap of affordable housing delivered.

A greater number of affordable housing-led sites allocated would ensure there is sufficient contingency built into the Plan, to ensure that the overall affordable housing need is met over the Plan period. Failure to do so would result in affordable housing need being unmet, with demand continuing to outstrip supply.

Previous representations to the Preferred Strategy (dated 14th February 2024) provided comment on the sustainability scoring of Ogmore and the proposed site. As outlined within these representations, it is considered that the site (ID xxx) represents a sustainable, deliverable and acceptable site. The site is within a maximum of a 22- minute bus journey to a every key service listed, due to the proximity of the site to settlements such as Bridgend. Due to the availability of frequent bus services, and active travel links, these key services are readily available to access for any residents within Ogmore By Sea without the need to travel by car. The site is located within 5 miles of Bridgend, and within a maximum 22-minute bus journey of the following services:

• St Brides Primary School;
• Brynteg Comprehensive School;
• Bridgend College;
• Riversdale Surgery; and
• Bridgend town centre for various Retail Services

Moreover, Ogmore has benefitted from the recent development of the Ogmore By Sea Village Hall, which provides space for community activities and events to take place. The hall also includes a coffee shop (Welsh Coffee Company), which only adds further to the daily services provision available within the settlement. Access to the hall and coffee shop is directly provided for pedestrians from the Main Road, which allows for direct access from the site.

Accordingly, the settlement of Ogmore represents an acceptable location to allocate an affordable housing-led site, given the access to existing services and facilities that would serve future residents of the site.

It is acknowledged that the site also lies within the Glamorgan Heritage Coast and this point is addressed further below.

To conclude, the settlement, location and site are inherently suitable and deliverable, and will make a significant contribution to achieving and realising the housing and economic development needs of Ogmore By Sea, support the surrounding settlements, and the Plan area as a whole. As such, the site should be considered further.

Comments on Specific Policies

HG5 - Affordable Housing Exception Sites

Given the unmet need and extant backlog of affordable housing, as identified within the LHMA (2023), it is noted that an Affordable Housing Exception Sites policy has been adopted in order to assist in the delivery of affordable housing. Policy HG5 sets out the specific criteria where proposals for 100% small scale affordable housing developments will be permitted outside settlement boundaries. The current policy wording for the Affordable Housing Site Exception Policy and the criteria listed out in the policy is generally supported.

That said, it is noted that a ‘cap’ of 10 dwellings (as referenced within supporting text Para 6.140) is set. This should be amended due to such a ‘cap’ limiting the flexibility of the policy, in particularly for sites coming forward as part of this policy in Minor Rural Settlements.

As such, we would suggest that supporting Para 6.140 should be amended in order to allow for further flexibility for sites in Minor Rural Settlements to come forward and to deliver affordable housing, given that the criteria set out in the policy would already protect and restrict the extent of any development as it stands. Therefore, the proposed amendments to Para 6.140 are outlined below in red:

6.140 “For the purposes of this policy, ‘small-scale’ will generally mean no more than around 10 dwellings on sites adjoining Minor Rural Settlements. In Primary Settlements outside the Strategic Growth Area, proposals for more than 10 dwellings may be acceptable where required to meet a specific need and where the number of dwellings is proportionate to the size of the settlement. In assessing the scale and extent of any proposed local needs housing, consideration should also be given to affordable housing already planned in the ward or nearby area, including sites with existing planning permissions and those allocated in the RLDP. The size and type of affordable housing proposed should reflect the identified local need in the area.”

The above suggested wording would achieve a more flexible policy, which would allow for a variety of scaled applications to secure planning permission for solely 100% affordable housing across the Authority area. This greater flexibility would enable the policy to make a significant contribution towards meeting the affordable housing need – which, as set out earlier is in considerable need.

Policy DNP3 – Glamorgan Heritage Coast

Given that the site is located in the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, it is noted that the following policy is of relevance to any future development on the site. Criteria 4 of Policy DNP3 states:

“The special environmental qualities of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast will be conserved and enhanced. New development will be restricted to:
4. Other appropriate and sustainable development that accords with National Policy.”
It is also noted that supporting Para 6.422 “In seeking to protect the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, the Council acknowledges that there are some built up areas within the boundary, including the Minor Rural Settlement of Ogmore. In addition, the Vale of Glamorgan rail line crosses part of the Heritage Coast designation in the location where a new station at St Athan is proposed. Whilst being mindful of the need to protect the special qualities of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, the Council accepts that development within these areas is appropriate, subject to relevant policies of the Plan”(GJP emphasis).

We would offer general support for this policy, and consider this to provide flexibility which allows for certain forms of development. However, we would suggest that the policy wording should be amended to reflect that ‘housing’ should be supported in the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, providing that the policy exceptions are met. Therefore, the following amendment is proposed as part of the policy should be changed to include “small scale housing” or something similar. The proposed amendments to Policy DNP3 are outlined below in red:

“The special environmental qualities of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast will be conserved and enhanced. New development will be restricted to:
4. Other appropriate and sustainable development, including small-scale housing proposals that accords with National Policy.”

Again, this would ensure that suitable housing developments can be delivered in the Plan period, to meet the housing needs of the Vale of Glamorgan – particularly in respect of affordable housing.

SECTION 3. Suitability of the site for development

The site promoter objects to the overall assessment of the site, in that it is not considered suitable for further development in the Plan. The promoted site has undergone extensive scrutiny and appraisal at a high level to ascertain the qualities of the site, in light of all identified material considerations which relate to the proposals.

The delivery of the site will yield much needed housing (including Affordable housing) and contribute to the overall supply in the new Plan period, whilst making effective use of a suitably located site for residential development.

Moreover, as set out in ‘Annex 2’ of our representations, the site has overcome the ‘constraints’ set out in the Candidate Site Assessment undertaken for the site, which demonstrates that the proposal is both acceptable and deliverable.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the site promoters:

• Object to the distribution of growth proposed for the Plan area, with a more balanced and equitable distribution of housing sites required in order to meet the identified housing need;
• Object to the level of growth identified for the Plan period;
• Object to the housing trajectory that underpins the delivery of housing within the Plan period – which is considered to be unrealistic and unrobust, leading to serious uncertainty regarding the “soundness” of the Plan;
• Object to the over-reliance on Key Sites and Rolled Forward Sites in making up the Plan’s housing land supply;
• Object to the scale and timing of delivery of sites in / around St Athan – all of which are predicated on railway station provision which will not be realised in the Plan period;
• Object to the under-provision of sites under Policy HG4 – Rural Affordable Housing-Led sites, not least given their extremely limited contribution to the targeted need for affordable housing;
• Object to Policy DNP3 – Glamorgan Heritage Coast, given the lack of recognition for the potential for small-scale housing proposals;
• Object to the current wording of the HG5 Policy ‘Affordable Housing Exception Sites’ which requires greater flexibility to play an important role in delivery much-needed affordable homes across the Authority; and
• Object the Council’s assessment that the site is not considered suitable for development.

The site and proposals are consistent with the RLDP strategy, other Vale of Glamorgan strategies, and the requirements of Planning Policy Wales and Future Wales. It will make a significant contribution to the Vale’s identified housing requirement in the RLDP period and will provide for a wide range of uses that will support the wider community whilst embodying principles relating to placemaking and the well-being of future generations.

The site has no fundamental constraints and has the ability to deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits for the benefit of future residents and the existing local community. The site is demonstrated to be viable, being able to deliver policy-compliant levels of affordable housing and given its location within a strong market area, will benefit from high delivery rates.

ANNEX 2
SECTION 4. A summary of the suitability of the site for development including a Response to the Candidate Site Assessment

This section of the overall representations to the Deposit Plan is to respond to, and address, the Council’s assessment of the site.

While the issues the Council have raised in their assessment of the site have been addressed and discussed within the representations made at the Preferred Strategy stage of the Plan, a similar ‘scoring’ exercise has been undertaken as part of the evidence base for the Deposit Plan. As such, it is still pertinent to consider and respond to the Council’s assessment of the site as part of these representations

The Detailed Site Assessment for Land at Hazelwood, Ogmore By Sea (Site ID: 3855) sets out that the position of the site at the Deposit Stage is as follows:

“The original site as ruled out as the development would represent unacceptable intrusion in to the open countryside. Whilst the site has now been identified for an affordable housing led development, the original reason for ruling it out still remains.”
In terms of the assertion that “the development would represent an unacceptable intrusion into to the open countryside”, this is strongly disputed, in that the development of the site would represent a natural rounding off of the existing settlement boundary. An extract of the site relative to the settlement boundary is provided below, which clearly shows that the development of the site would not extend beyond the existing settlement pattern that exists in Ogmore.

Site Outlined in Red and Settlement Shaded in Blue
As clearly demonstrated in the above mapping, the site would extend no further eastwards than the existing housing area to the south of the site. Equally, the site would not be extending any further north than the existing settlement pattern in Ogmore. This position is further supported by the wider aerial view of the site provided overleaf:



Wider Aerial View of Site Outlined in Red and Settlement Shaded in Blue

In summary, it is considered that the proposed allocation of the site represents a logical rounding off of the existing settlement, as depicted in the mapping provided above – where the site follows the existing envelope of the settlement. The site does not extend any further eastwards than the established built form located immediately to the south; indeed, it sits comfortably within the same development line.

As such, it cannot be considered that the site represents an ‘intrusion’ into the countryside, as the site would be visually and functionally related to the settlement. It therefore follows that the site would be read as part of the settlement, and not the wider rural landscape.

Candidate Site Assessment

The Detailed Site Assessment undertaken by the LPA includes a summary and assessment of the ‘scoring’ system used at the Preferred Strategy stage. A comparison between the site assessments undertaken at both the Preferred Strategy stage and Deposit Plan stage is provided overleaf for reference.



Site Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage Site Assessment at Deposit Plan Stage
As demonstrated above, there are no changes to the scoring attributed to the site. Detailed submissions were made on the previous assessment undertaken by the Council at Preferred Strategy stage, and as such, should be read in conjunction with this submission (see Appendix A).

Sustainability

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the site represents a more sustainable location than what was previously assessed at Preferred Strategy stage, in light of the Ogmore by Sea Hall development. The Hall acts as a community facility, whereby the space is available for hire by local community groups such as birthday parties, weddings, group meetings, and other such similar uses. Moreover, a café (Welsh Coffee Co) is located within the premises which sells both food and drink.

The hall and café are within walking distance to and from the site, where new access facilities have been implemented from Main Road directly to the building, to allow access for pedestrians and cyclists. This is illustrated in the image below:

Walking and Cycling Facilities

The Tusker Rock pub and post office are also located along Main Road, all of which are within walking distance to the site.

Accordingly, the site is well served by new amenities (i.e. community hall) that comprehensively improves the sustainability of the site / settlement, and in turn, improves the sustainability credentials of the site promotion. It therefore follows that the site represents an acceptable location for residential development, and the site should be looked upon favourably accordingly.

It is also the case, as set out in previous representations, that the site is within a maximum 22-minuted bus journey of the following services and facilities:

• St Brides Primary School;
• Brynteg Comprehensive School;
• Bridgend College;
• Riversdale Surgery; and
• Bridgend town centre.

As such, key services and facilities can be access by sustainable travel over and above the existing level of provision available in Ogmore By Sea (as discussed above).

Accordingly, the relevant ‘red’ scorings in the Council’s assessment should be updated to reflect the site’s suitability and sustainability to accommodate the proposed residential development of the site.

Glamorgan Heritage Coast

Insofar as to the position regarding the site’s location within the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, detailed submissions are made not only in the Preferred Strategy representations, but also in Annex 1 of this submission. In short, given the pressing need for such development (particuarly affordable housing) to come forward in the Plan period to meet ever-increasing needs, development of this nature should be considered more favourably – not least that, as outlined in this Annex, the site would not extend any further that the existing settlement boundary.

Accordingly, the site would be perceived to form part of the settlement of Ogmore By Sea, and not the wider landscape, and therefore, would not have any detrimental impact on the Heritage Coast in any respect. The scoring should be amended accordingly to reflect this position.

Climate Change

As outlined in previous representations, the development will incorporate climate change measures, such as EV charging points, PV panels, as well as adopting sustainable materials for construction whilst maximising the potential for the dwellings to be energy efficient. Accordingly, the development will be built to high sustainable standards, and therefore, the scoring of the site should be amended as a result.

Summary and Conclusion

It has been evidenced above that there are no fundamental constraints at, or associated with the site, that would preclude the site coming forward for development in the RLDP period.

To conclude, the settlement, location and site are inherently suitable and deliverable, and will make a significant contribution to achieving and realising the housing and economic development needs of the Vale of Glamorgan.

Summary of These Representations

In short, and to summarise the case made and set out, these representations seek to object to the Housing Trajectory published as part of the consultation on the Draft Housing Trajectory For Housing Stakeholder Group (October 2025) which underpins the Plan and the delivery / realisation of its underlying strategy.

Detailed submissions and objections are raised below in respect to the trajectory information published regarding the soundness and robustness of this information (and it’s consultation), which we do not consider are adequate, robust, or sound to deliver the Plans aims and objectives.

Preface

This Submission sets out the detailed case in support of these representations. The representations are structured as follows:

1. Procedural Consultation Matters;
2. Timing Assumptions underpinning the Trajectory;
3. Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions;;
4. Status & Standing of Sites included in the Trajectory;
5. Key Sites;
6. St Athan Train Station;
7. Geographic distribution of the ‘new’ sites / provision;
8. Detailed comments in respect to ‘new’ sites;
9. Conclusions Procedural Consultation Matters
Firstly, we do not consider that the consultation on the Housing Trajectory information has been procedurally undertaken appropriately or suitably.

Only 14 days have been afforded to parties to make representations on the information provided. This is despite new sites being introduced (at this late stage) i.e. Land South of Clive Road (identified in Table 4), as well as a number of affordable housing led housing sites being introduced (i.e. those outlined in Table 5). This does not provide an adequate process or timescale for objectors to scrutinise the published content, and to make comments on sites which have been presented for the first time at a late stage in the process.

As part of these representations, we will be making brief comment on the sites which have not been previously consulted upon, namely:
Other Housing Allocations
• Land south of Clive Road, St Athan;

Affordable Housing Led Sites
• Land at Heol Fain, Wick;
• Land west of Maendy Road, Aberthin;
• Land Noth of West Winds Business Park, Fferm Goch; and
• Land to the East of Colwinston;

It is considered necessary to comment on these sites, given that they form an important and critical part of the housing trajectory, and by association in the Council and Plan reaching their targets. Moreover, these sites have not been consulted on previously. Accordingly we consider it necessary to pass comment on these in order to ensure that the consultation is fair and robust.

As well as limited time given to comment on the information contained within the Housing Trajectory, the LPA have failed to set up a Housing Stakeholder group to agree and discuss the trajectory information and data – with the cover email to the consultation (dated 3rd October 2025) stating “it is considered that it would be the best use of stakeholder time to conduct this engagement via email, particularly as many of the forecasts have been developed in consultation with site promoters including developers and their agents”.

We submit that the stakeholder consultation has not been a transparent nor robust consultation process, given that the Development Plans Manual states at Para 5.66 “A housing trajectory must be prepared to support the Deposit Plan. In order to generate a housing trajectory and associated phasing tables it will be necessary for LPAs to engage with stakeholders through a Housing Stakeholder Group. This will ensure that the timing and phasing of sites is robust and based on up to date information”. Given that this has not taken place, we would raise fundamental concerns that the consultation of the trajectory has not adequately taken place as per the relevant guidance. Afterall, the guidance stresses that a Group should be formed as a necessity. Accordingly, there has not been an adequate process and opportunity to review and comment on the information published, including in respect to the other sites have been introduced at this late stage.

Timing Assumptions underpinning the Trajectory

The assumed and factored in timescales of the various stages of bringing forward sites i.e. the pre-application stage, the planning application process, and the discharge of condition process outlined in the trajectory are considered to be fundamentally inaccurate, and result in a distorted position of the delivery of housing sites over the RLDP Plan period. The assumptions are far too ambitious, and without evidence / are not comparable with the timescales being incurred in processing such stages at the Development Management stage(s).

Specifically, we raise objection to the following timescales which are considered to be extremely ambitious and unrealistic:

• “Time period of pre-application discussions/PAC consultation” = 4 months
• “Time between submission of planning application and determination” = 6 months
• “Time taken from planning consent to the discharge of relevant conditions to enable site construction” = 4 months

In our experience, having submitted a significant number of major and other applications for housing and other forms of development in the last 1-2 years to the Council (and elsewhere in Wales and England), it is extremely unlikely that major applications can be submitted, and planning permissions granted, within the timeframes assumed by the trajectory. A wide range of stakeholders are also involved in the determination of major planning applications, which often adds to the delays associated with the determination of such applications. We would therefore consider that a time period of “6 months” given to all major applications in the housing trajectory is not feasible, and distorts the trajectory timescales for the remaining Plan period.

The assumptions in the trajectory are also solely based on expected timescales for the processing of formal submissions made to the Council, and do not factor in the timescales associated with, and needed for, the preparation of the material for submission (i.e. pre-application enquiry submissions / planning application / discharge of condition details etc). When factored in these will elongate the timescales for bringing forward schemes considerably.

Moreover, it is common practice for larger housing sites and major applications to have a range of pre-commencement conditions attached to a permission once granted. Again, we would raise concerns with the timescales indicated in the trajectory related to this part of the planning process. It is highly unusual and questionable that any technical work required by these conditions (usually relating to drainage and highways matters) would be instructed, completed and submitted within 2 months, and for these to then be signed off / approved in a further 2 months. There are also other technical matters and necessary approvals falling outside of, and over and above, the planning system, such as SAB, s.106, s.38 and s.278 agreements, timescales for which have not been accounted for – and all of which are rarely completed within “4 months” as indicated.

It is therefore highly doubtful that the timescales legislated for in the trajectory for the various stages pre-construction are achievable – with no information about these proposed timescales outlined within the supporting text of the Housing Trajectory. We would therefore raise considerable concerns and objections to these as they stand without full evidence to fully show how these have been calculated, and without there being considerable (and necessary) adjustment to the timescales indicated and factored in.

We would therefore object to the timescales indicated in the ‘Timing and Phasing of Sites’ table, given that the delivery start dates will be pushed back further into the Plan period. Accordingly, and as a result, the Plan is at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated, at least as swiftly as is set out in the trajectory.

Housing Delivery Rate Assumptions

We would also raise considerable doubt over the proposed delivery of the sites identified in the Housing Trajectory - which we do not consider are robust or reasonable.

The development trajectory bar chart set out in the consultation material (extracted below) anticipates and legislates for a number of critical events and circumstances – all of which are considered to be unrobust and unsound.

Extract of Housing Trajectory Graph (annotated by GJP – red dotted line)

Firstly, a large ‘spike’ (material increase) in housing delivery is factored in to take place in 2027 – 2028. This is a marked and pronounced step change in the rate of delivery, and envisages / relies on a significantly higher rate of delivery than previous years in The Vale of Glamorgan (2021 through 2025 - as depicted by the green columns). This is considered extremely unlikely to materialise, not least given prevailing market circumstances, past rates of delivery on the ground, and also in light of levels achieved across Wales and the UK in general.

The published trajectory shows that the average level of completions in The Vale of Glamorgan from 2021 - 2025 has been approx. 400 - 500 units. However, the chart shows that from 2027 – 2028, completions are expected to rise to approx. 1,000 units per year. The expected delivery levels in the trajectory therefore show and assume a doubling in delivery rates and unit numbers (an increase of approx. 100%relative to past rates). There is no clear evidence as to how this level of completions can be achieved let alone guaranteed. This is the case in particular given that the forthcoming years (2025-2027) are expected to see performance (yield) drop significantly (delivery rates in 2025 – 2026 and 2026 – 2027). The chart shows only approx. 200 units being delivered over these years. It is therefore unclear how completion rates are expected to rise so quickly (from 200 in 2025-26 to 1000 in 2027-28), and by such a significant amount. The assumptions in the trajectory are wholly unrobust in our view.

The anticipated delivery of housing also fails to be consistent within and across the Plan period. It is unclear as to why completions rates aren’t spread out more evenly throughout the Plan period - to ensure a robust and most realistic housing trajectory until 2036. By comparison to the marked increase in the rate of delivery between and over the

period 2027 to 2031, there is then a marked fall-off or drop in delivery towards and by the end of the Plan period. Indeed, in the final year, the level of completions are expected to be lower than the period 2021-2015.

To summarise, we consider the defined position to be wholly manufactured and unreflective of the past completion rates, as well as the recently published completion rates provided by Welsh Government recently in August 2025. In the Welsh Government Statistics Document ‘’New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’, information on the number of new dwellings started is provided, where building has commenced and those completed for April 2024 to March 2025. Figure 1 provides a graph showing starts in the last 10 years, and it is clear that there has been a general decline in the number of new dwellings started and completed.

Description of Figure 1:.‘New House Building: April 2024 to March 2025’
In 2024-25, 4,631 new dwellings were completed, 3% fewer than in the previous year. This was the second lowest number on record, with the lowest number recorded in 2021-22, a year heavily affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (in 2021-22, 4,616 new dwellings were completed). The New Housing Pipeline Report Quarter 2, 2025 Report (September, 2025) published by the HBF evidenced that the number of residential units approved in the UK fell by 6% during the second quarter of 2025, continuing the decline of approval during the first three months of the year. Wales saw one of the largest declines in the UK in approvals with a decline of 29%.

Further, the HBF document ‘Increasing Housing Supply in Wales’ (4th September 2025) clearly shows that The Vale of Glamorgan has not met the housing delivery requirements in recent years in 2023 – 2024 – along with every other authority in Wales (except Newport). Accordingly, this further adds to the argument that historically The Vale (and most other authorities) have underprovided. This adds considerable uncertainty on the assumed transformation in yield and delivery as built into the trajectory.


Graph: Housing Delivery as a proportion of annual housing requirement in Wales per Authority

The Home Building Sector Skills Plan (Aug 2025) published by the HBF also identified the following issues with the workforce to bring forward built development in Wales:

• “A shortfall in numbers entering roles from the education system;
• An ageing workforce: 25% of the home building workforce is aged over 50, meaning the sector is facing an impending retirement cliff edge;
• Challenges attracting a wider talent pipeline into the sector;
• A lack of understanding of critical future skills needed, and direction from the Future Homes Standard; and
• Output within the sector fluctuating with demand and economic pressures, leading to additional pressures in recruitment and training”.

It is not considered that in the next 1-2 years that any of these issues can or will be substantially corrected – at least sufficiently so to allow for, and enable, the planned delivery rates of new housing completions to be as high as < > 1,000 homes in one year (and for four consecutive years at that).

We would therefore object to the proposed numbers of completion expected during the Plan period, given that there are a number of issues with delivering housing in Wales and given past completions rates for The Vale of Glamorgan. Again, this results in the Plan being at risk of not delivering the level of housing expected based on the sites allocated.

Status & Standing of Sites included in the Trajectory

The proposed land supply within the housing trajectory includes provision for ‘rolled forward’ LDP sites, which contribute to the total of ‘Proposed Additional Housing Allocations’ forming part of the housing supply. Specifically, a total of 1,242no. units have been identified as additional housing allocations, of which 959no. are expected to be delivered on the rolled forward LDP sites. As such, these sites are to provide for a significant proportion of additional housing in the Plan period (specifically circa 77%).

The Development Plans Manual (DPM) sets out that allocations rolled forward from a previous plan will require careful justification for inclusion in a revised plan. The DPM outlines that “there will need to be a substantial change in circumstances to demonstrate sites can be delivered and justify being included again. Clear evidence will be required that such sites can be delivered.” The below table included in the consultation document provides a breakdown of the rolled forward LDP sites, and in particular, sets out the status of each site:




The above table evidences that the current LDP has under delivered in regard to its targeted unit number of the Plan period, given that these sites did not yield any housing over the current plan period. This is further exacerbated by the Land Bank sites that have also not delivered any housing across the existing LDP period, amounting to 1,860no units. Accordingly, when considering the non-delivery of both rolled forward LDP sites and Land Bank sites, this amounts to an approximate shortfall of 2,189 homes being delivered, or 33% of the total housing supply identified for the current LDP (8,525no. dwellings).

It is therefore considered that, as a minimum, the units carried over from the LDP (without planning permission) should be a surplus to the housing supply proposed for the RLDP, as opposed to being relied on to deliver the housing need over the Plan period. This is particularly the case for the two sites (Land to the west of Pencoedtre Lane, and Land between Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road) which do not currently have any active planning application submitted for their development. These sites total an amount of 370no. units to be delivered in the Plan period, which represents more than a third of the additional housing allocations to make up the housing supply.

As such, it is considered that the unmet need deriving from the existing LDP is still present – indeed it has grown, and will continue to do so, not least when considered in conjunction with the projected population growth over the coming years to 2036, and the aspirations for growth in the Plan’s strategy.

Accordingly, in order to secure the targeted level of housing, a greater level of provision for new allocations should be applied in order to meet the housing requirement. This would bring about better certainty that the housing requirement is met by the housing supply over the Plan period, not least given that the current Plan failed in this respect. Without a re-apportioning of the housing supply, it is considered that the Plan would heavily rely on the contingency (i.e. rolled forward LDP sites) coming forward in the Plan period, yet there is uncertainty that these will yield in full over the new Plan period. This raises issues of ‘’soundness’’, and risks rendering the Plan unrobust.

On this basis, we would object to the Plan if the provision of housing is not adjusted to rebalance the provision to include new allocations in lieu of rolled forward LDP sites in the housing supply.

Key Sites

As set out in previous representations at Preferred Strategy stage, it is considered that the housing supply relies heavily on the delivery of the ‘key sites’ to deliver housing (and meet need) over the Plan period. The total number of housing units attributed to key sites amounts to 2,278, which equates to over 25% of the total provision in the Plan period.

As detailed above, we consider there to be concerns regarding the proposed ‘Timing and Phasing of Sites’ table included in the Housing Trajectory which we consider are not reflective or accurate and will therefore have the effect of delivery start dates being much later into the Plan period than anticipated. The result of this will be that the Plan will be at risk of not delivery the level of housing expected and needed. Moreover, the Housing Trajectory Graph presents an overly ambitious level of housing completions over the Plan period - which the Council consider will be markedly higher than the average levels experienced in the last five years. Again, for the reasons set out above, we consider that these rates of expected completions to have no evidence supporting them, and to be unachievable and unsound.

Insofar as to the removal of the previously proposed site ‘Land at North East Barry’, this site was expected to deliver 900no. units in the Plan period. Following its omission from the housing supply, other sites have been identified, which comprises the inclusion of a new key site (Land at North West Barry), 3no. non-strategic sites, and also affordable housing-led allocations. In terms of the quantum of development attributed to these new sites, this amounts to 659no. dwellings. This is some 250 units less than the 900no. homes that was previously attributed to ‘Land at North East Barry’. Whilst it is appreciated that the number of homes forming part of the existing supply (completions, units with planning permission etc.) have increased since Preferred Strategy stage, there will be a net loss in market housing provision and delivery.

This position is made worse and compounded as a result of accounting for the affordable-led sites in making up the housing supply.

As set out within the Preferred Strategy, these sites are expected to deliver at least 51% affordable housing. These units are not open market units, and will not / cannot contribute to the supply of such housing. These units will contribute to the provision of affordable housing, and will go some way to meeting the acute need for such housing (albeit will not eradicate / address in full the well known and accepted considerable requirement). Accordingly it is considered that these sites should be in addition to the housing supply, as opposed to forming part of the provision. In turn, there would need to be an increase in allocations for non-strategic sites, to ensure that there is sufficient market housing delivery over the Plan period.

Were such changes to be made and introduced, this would achieve and assist realise a more robust and sound housing supply, which will ensure that the identified housing need is met / addressed over the Plan period. Without these changes it is considered that the housing supply is not sufficient, and inevitably, housing need will not be met within the Plan.

St Athan Train Station

As set out in the Preferred Strategy (para A3.29), the strategy seeks to focus development around key sustainable transport nodes. The strategy outlined that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. Accordingly, in line with the spatial strategy adopted for the RLDP (i.e. focus development around sustainable transport nodes), St Athan was identified as a ‘Strategic Opportunity Area’ to accommodate strategic growth – through the proposed allocation of two key sites : ‘Land at Church Farm’ and ‘Land West of St Athan’. These sites have been identified to deliver 532no. and 600no. units respectively in the Plan period. These are separate to, and are in addition to, the 51no. units that have now been attributed to the site ‘Land South of Clive Road’ in St Athan. Accordingly, in total, the Housing Trajectory makes a provision for a total of 1,183no. homes to be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period.

It is now the case that, subsequent to the publication of the Preferred Strategy, the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales. The focus in the first phase of such improvements across the region is towards improving connectivity in east Cardiff, Newport, and Magor. Accordingly,

it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period, which significantly questions the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

The strategy to allocate new housing growth is predicated on focusing residential development around sustainable transport nodes, and given that St Athan will be without any railway station in the Plan period, it is not considered that these sites align with the strategy of the RLDP. Accordingly, the wider Housing Trajectory is considered to be unsound, given that a total of 1,183no. homes are expected to be delivered in St Athan within the Plan period.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision. Given this, to add a further site for housing in this location over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites - given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

We therefore consider the Trajectory to be both unrobust and unsound, and therefore, we object to the Trajectory in its current form accordingly.

Geographic distribution of the ‘new’ sites / provision

As a general and overarching comment in respect to the additional sites now included within the Plan, and forming part of the trajectory, (and a matter expanded upon when critiquing each of these sites in the next section to this submission), it is clear and evident that these additional sites have been positioned to settlements that have already, and recently, been attributed significant growth in the preceding Plan and plan period.

Significant allocations (which have also contributed to significant levels of affordable housing) have been realised and built out in locations (such as Wick and Colwinston). Notwithstanding this, two of the additional sites are now proposed for these recently expanded settlements. Given that the purpose of the affordable housing led allocations is to meet unmet affordable housing need, it is questioned why such new allocations are attributed to settlements that have already seen open market and affordable housing provision, as compared to other comparable settlements that have not received any growth whatsoever over a considerable period of time.

It is considered accordingly that the geographic positioning of these allocations is at odds with their underlying purpose - to meet unmet affordable housing need in communities that have seen no provision

Detailed Comments in respect to ‘new’ sites

Other Housing Allocations

Land south of Clive Road, St Athan

A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below for ease:


As set out at the outset of these representations, and whilst we note the findings of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage (i.e. Suitable for further consideration), we do not consider that the consultation on this site has been undertaken procedurally appropriately or suitably. We therefore consider the consultation on this site is “unrobust” and “unsound”.

As set out previously, the strategy seeks to focus development around key sustainable transport nodes. The strategy outlined that a feasibility study for a station in St Athan had been undertaken, which identifies that a new station could be located in St Athan, subject to further investigation work. It is now the case that, subsequent to the publication of the Preferred Strategy, the proposed railway station at St Athan is not in the first phase of delivery for new stations in South Wales, where the focus is towards improving connectivity in east Cardiff, Newport, and Magor. Accordingly, it is very unlikely that any new train station will be delivered in St Athan over the Plan period, which significantly questions the suitability and acceptability of the proposed allocations set out above.

It is considered that there has been an overprovision for housing growth in St Athan generally, and this issue is now further exacerbated by the lack of any forthcoming rail provision. Given this, to add a further site for housing over and above the original provision is considered to be unsound. As set out above, the justification to allocate sites at St Athan has relied heavily on the railway station being delivered in the Plan period, and as such, there are serious questions marks associated with the acceptability of the proposed allocated sites – given their incompatibility with the core strategy of the RLDP.

Affordable Housing Led Allocations Land at Heol Fain, Wick
A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below for ease:

Candidate Site Stage 2 Assessment (Site Ref. 404)

The findings of the Candidate Site Assessment for this site are noted. We are assuming the reason this site is proposed to be allocated is a product of the site promoters/developers heading the findings stated below, and changing the form of development to be in accord with this:

“A market housing led scheme would not be acceptable, but the site could be reconsidered as a small scale affordable housing led development subject to need and viability at a maximum of 50 dwellings. In accordance with the Settlement Appraisal Review, it is considered that Wick could potentially accommodate limited affordable housing led growth.”

Whilst no clear deficiency exists in respect to the site, it is known that Wick has been subject to significant growth and expansion in recent years – not least by virtue of significant housing allocations in the settlement as part of previous plans.

To evidence this, 35% of the 124 units approved on the ‘Rectory Field, St Brides Road’ site (i.e. circa 43 units as per site allocation ref. MG(47) and PP ref. 2014/01424/FUL) were approved as Affordable Housing units. This makes a substantial provision of such Affordable Housing units (and housing generally) in the settlement in recent years.

Other similarly sized and comparable settlements and locations have not by contrast been subject to any growth for some considerable time, and accordingly would warrant and benefit from provision as part of this new replacement plan.

Notwithstanding the location of such provision, and as set out in detail at the outset of these representations, National Planning Policy advocates the high and acute need for affordable housing, whilst recent analysis evidences that there is a housing emergency. These circumstances - coupled with the shortcomings identified and set out earlier in these submissions in respect to the adequacy of provision within the plan (rolled forward sites / inadequate provision etc) – means that notwithstanding any potential allocation at Wick, further provision ought to be made in comparable (previously unprovided for) locations, such as Ogmore By Sea.

Land West of Maendy Road, Aberthin

‘Land West of Maendy Road’ has been registered as an Affordable Housing Led Allocation candidate site for the RLDP, however as far as we know from our review, there is no assessment and critique of this site. This site has not been included in the ‘Candidate Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage’ (October 2023). As such, with an absence of publicly available information, it is not clear how the Council has judged this site against the criteria. This raises questions accordingly in respect to the “soundness” of a site which forms part of the intended housing land supply, and by association the trajectory. Without this, and without being consulted on (as others have been prior to this) we question whether this allocation is “sound” (i.e. its allocation is considered to be “unsound”).

Land North of West Winds Business Park, Fferm Goch

The below sets out the candidate site stage two assessment of ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’:

Candidate Site Stage 2 Assessment (Site Ref. 398)

As can be seen above, the site was not considered suitable for further consideration, with the site scoring negatively (red) in respect to a number of key factors. These include the following:

• Access to Retail;
• Access to Health Services;
• Sustainable Transport- Public Transport;
• Access/ Proximity to services and facilities conclusion;
• Climate Change; and

• Health and Wellbeing.

Given the fact the site scores red in ‘Sustainable Transport – Public Transport’, this shows the site is not served by public transport connections within 800m, as outlined in the key below:


Additionally, Policy SP7 (Sustainable Transport) of the Vale of Glamorgan Preferred Strategy states “New development must support an enhanced transport network that increases the proportion of journeys being undertaken by sustainable travel modes”. Additionally Objective 8 (Promoting Active and Sustainable Travel Choices) states “new development is directed to locations that are or can be accessible by a choice of modes of transport, including walking, cycling, and public transport.”

It is well known that residents of affordable housing are statistically less likely to own private vehicles, making access to reliable and frequent public transport essential for ensuring equitable mobility. The provision of public transport infrastructure in close proximity to such developments is therefore a critical component in supporting access to employment, education, healthcare, and other key services, while also promoting sustainable travel patterns and social inclusion.

The site also scores red in respect to Access/Proximity to services, showing the site is greater than 1200m away from key services, as seen in the key below:


In respect of the above, Preferred Strategy 6.40 states the need “To ensure that new development takes place in locations that have the best access to a wide range of services, facilities, and employment opportunities, whilst minimising the need to travel, the distribution of growth is guided by the following settlement hierarchy”. To further highlight the importance of both sustainable transport and proximity to services, the preferred strategy also states the need to “Facilitate the development of adaptable, accessible, well-connected communities that have a strong sense of identity, offer a sustainable range of services and facilities and are equipped with adequate infrastructure”. In addition, Promoting Active and Sustainable Travel Choices outlines to “Promote and encourage the use of sustainable methods of travel, particularly active modes of transport, whilst simultaneously reducing the need to travel”.

In light of the above, this site does not align with the aims and targets set out in the Preferred Strategy, as it fails to meet several key development goals set out. It should therefore not be considered suitable to be allocated for future developments. Its inclusion is therefore unsound.

Should this view be concurred with, 22 affordable units will be lost from the proposed affordable 122 units, and ultimately will be lost from the overall housing land supply. As stated in the draft housing trajectory “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”. There is a clear possibility therefore that this proposed allocation is removed and/or not delivered as its inclusion is unsound as it does not align with the aims and targets set out in the Preferred Strategy - as it fails to meet several key development goals set out. A “small scale

affordable housing led development” which is needed to “respond to local affordable needs and help sustain services and facilities within these rural communities” will therefore not be provided for. This is clearly an issue.

When comparing this with ‘Land at Hazelwood, Ogmore By Sea, the following is set out:

Access to Services and Facilities

This criterion has been assessed firstly on the location of the site proposal in terms of whether it is located within, adjacent to, or outside a settlement, and secondly the ease of pedestrian and cycle access to key services listed below.



With reference to the above:

• In terms of public transport, there are two bus stops located approximately 200m (3-minute walk) from the site (‘Ogmore By Sea Post Office’), with the ‘303’ providing services between Llantwit Major and Bridgend.

• The site is located 200m (3-minute walk) from the ‘Ogmore By Sea Post Office’ which can provide basic goods to meet day-today needs such as bread, butter, milk etc.

• The site is also located 50m (1-minute walk) from a children’s park.

These services and facilities are therefore well within the best category (i.e. categorised/scored as ‘green’) - within 800m of site (10-minute walk). Accordingly, the site therefore has good access to services and facilities. This

Furthermore, the settlement of Ogmore By Sea has been ranked higher than Llangan (which the site ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’ is located within) in the VoG Sustainable Settlements Appraisal, and therefore, is considered to constitute a more sustainable location to accommodate residential growth. Most notably, Ogmore By Sea scores ‘13’ in respect to ‘Daily Facilities’ whereas Llangan only scores ‘3’, evidencing that residents in Ogmore have much better access to services within the locality as compared to Llangan.

Given the above, ‘Land at Hazelwood, Ogmore’ does/should align with the aims and targets set out in the Preferred Strategy as it meets several of the key development goals set out. Its inclusion should therefore, in our view, be considered “sound” and therefore suitable to be allocated for future developments. The site should properly and appropriately be allocated in lieu of ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’ – the inclusion of which is “unsound”. ‘Land at Hazelwood, Ogmore’ would therefore ensure that affordable units, where “there is a need for small scale affordable housing led development (minimum 50% affordable) to respond to local affordable needs and help

sustain services and facilities within these rural communities”, are provided for. As such the proposed housing trajectory would be maintained.

Land to the East of Colwinston, Colwinston

A summary of the Candidate Sites Assessment at Preferred Strategy Stage has been extracted below:


As outlined above, the site was rejected and considered not suitable for further consideration. In fact, and unlike ‘Land at Heol Fain, Wick’ and ‘Land to north and west of Westwinds Business Park’ it was stated that this site “could not be considered as a suitable affordable housing led development site”. Despite this, this site is identified to be allocated as an Affordable Housing Led Allocation. As such, the inclusion of this site is “unsound”.

It is known that Colwinston has been subject to significant housing allocations in the settlement as part of previous plans. To evidence this, 25% of the 64 units (i.e. 16 units) were approved on the site allocation ref. MG2(41) and PP ref.

2014/00242/FUL. This makes a substantial provision of such Affordable Housing units (and housing generally) in the settlement in recent years.

Other similarly sized and comparable settlements and locations have not by contrast been subject to any growth for some considerable time, and accordingly would warrant and benefit from provision as part of this new replacement plan.

Notwithstanding the location of such provision, and as set out in detail at the outset of these representations, National Planning Policy advocates the high and acute need for affordable housing, whilst recent analysis evidences that there is a housing emergency. These circumstances - coupled with the shortcomings identified and set out earlier in these submissions in respect to the adequacy of provision within the plan (rolled forward sites / inadequate provision etc) – means that notwithstanding any potential allocation at Colwinston, further provision ought to be made in comparable (previously unprovided for) locations, such as Ogmore By Sea.

Summary of These Representations

To re-iterate, and to summarise the case made and set out, these representations seek to object to the Housing Trajectory published as part of the consultation on the Draft Housing Trajectory For Housing Stakeholder Group (October 2025) which underpins the Plan and the delivery / realisation of its underlying strategy.

Detailed submissions and objections are raised above in respect to the trajectory information published regarding the soundness and robustness of this information (and it’s consultation), which we do not consider are adequate, robust, or sound to deliver the Plans aims and objectives.