Previous assessment ruled it unsuitable for further development due to negative impact of on the setting of the Schedule Ancient Monument and potential significant loss of protected trees.
Neither factor has changed so there is not rationale to reverse this previous decision.

Land South of Llantwit Major Road, Cowbridge should not be allocated for housing because of its special historical setting for the Cear Dynaf iron age hill fort immediately above it.

I am objecting to this site's inclusion in the RLDP. The use of these fields has been for centuries agricultural. The fields adjoin Llanblethian Hill (locally known as Mount Ida). Llanblethian Hill is significant as it is a site of historical importance. Houses should be built on brownfield sites not green fields. The Clare Garden Village development still has unbuilt and unsold houses.
Cowbridge doesn't have the infrastructure to cope with the existing houses and will not cope with more, eg appointments with doctors and dentists, car parking, schools.

This is an area of outstanding natural beauty protected by CADW as it houses an old fortress. This land should never be considered for development- the estate Clare Garden Village us more than enough together with a WELSH school (to he built in the very near future)

CADW will be involved to protect at all costs. This land should never be built on

Potential development of this site ignores the importance of preserving the nearby, ancient schedule monument, as well as representing an unacceptable intrusion into the local countryside, in particular the wildlife these fields, hedges and nearby forests support. Previously (Nov 2025), Vale Council planners identified sites such as this as not being appropriate for development for these reasons, plus their isolated nature with extremely limited walking, cycling or public transport accessibility. These reasons, plus the large number of houses still to be built and sold in CG Village, should mean this site is not developed but instead preserved as it is.

Proposed development here ignores the importance of the nearby ancient monument and represents a major threat to local wildlife and rural character. In late 2025, the Council rightly identified this area as unsuitable due to its isolation and poor accessibility. With a large volume of housing already being delivered in CG Village, there is no justification for building on this site; it should remain protected green space

This site lies within the Upper & Lower Thaw Valley Special Landscape Area, per the existing Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan. This indicates that this location is of high landscape and setting value and would be of low suitability for development. The visual impact is likely to be particularly great given the elevated location of this site. The woodland bordering the site is listed in the AWI as being ancient, and would be highly sensitive to adjacent development (e.g. from airborne pollution, increased recreational pressure, ground compression, changes to hydrology). It is 3a Good-Moderate agricultural land.

Theres significantlly reduced green space in the surrounded area which would be compounded by further development.

This portion of land is of historic note as it leads up to the iron age hill fort which is one of the important areas of Cowbridge and of particular historical interest and value to CADW. It provides a rural backdrop to the town and as there is a footpath through it provides green open space with public access and is regularly used as such. Additionally the development at Clare Garden Village is not complete and therefore adequate housing in the locality is going to be available in addition to the other areas already being developed in Cowbridge.

I would like to express my objection to development of the proposed Bryn Melin site 370.

Environmentally I feel this is an inappropriate area to develop. The site (and adjoining sites 475/514) are within the Thaw valley designated special landscape area which should be protected.
Development here would destroy the character of the area and significantly impact negatively on the biodiversity and the natural lived experience of the people within Cowbridge. This is against the vale of Glamorgan’s goals to respect landscape a resource, respect scenic quality of an area, respect unspoilt character and integrity, respect the sense of place created by landscape and to conserve these attributes. The valley and the fields, the view, the sense of open space, the footpaths that people can use to walk and enjoy being in nature right next the Cowbridge town are all integral to the sense of character and place of Cowbridge. This section of the valley currently stands alone as a natural vista, and does not have encroachment of suburban development. It is enjoyed by so many. You stand in it and look out, you walk through it, and you can be entirely in the countryside. This is a significant characteristic of a rural town such as Cowbridge and losing this here will represent suburban creep and destruction of this natural character. These attributes would be ruined by development here. I believe other proposed sites such as sites 455 and 367 are better suited to development as these areas are already partially suburbanised and do not have the unspoilt rural views/space/character that the bryn melin and associated sites do.

Ultimately, there is no development currently on the Bryn Melin site, whereas there is already some development within the area of the sites 455 and 367.

Functionally I also have significant concerns about development of Bryn Melin site 370 and the adjoining sites 475 and 514. The transport infrastructure is not supportive of housing here. The St Athan road is small, windy, dangerous with no footpath. There is no public transport within easy walking distance. Amenities are also not within safe or easy walking distance and will necessitate people driving into Cowbridge. This is completely against the Vale’s own goals and ideation when it comes to sustainable and appropriate development. Conversely sites 455 and 367 are well connected with safe easy walking routes into the town centre, and access to public transport.

The site at Bryn Melin is also very steep which environmentally and socially is not a good characteristic for development. The slope is 12% and there is poor access. Again, the sites proposed at 455 and 367 appear more suitable for development with better developed access to the local amenities.

Cowbridge Town Council unanimously rejected the inclusion of Site 370 in the RLDP on 24/02/2026
As outlined in the Cowbridge Placemaking Plan, local identity, sustainable growth, and protection/enhancement of town character, public spaces and the town-edge environment is incredibly important.
Building on these sites in this unspoilt valley is contrary to these principles and undermines local placemaking desires. There must be sites that are more coherent with the ideals and values of the area?

I have concerns over the inclusion of certain candidate sites:

367-my concern is this site is on the side of a hill where water run-off if a large housing development went ahead could adversely affect the road below.
Also, my understanding is that it would be close vicinity to an iron age fort, which is a significance.

Sites 438 and 440 would put tremendous pressure onto the barely adequate road infrastructure in that area and also create a hazard for traffic pulling out onto the B4270 at the cross Inn. It would also my view be an unnecessary intrusion into the open countryside.

Site 455, again I think would put a lot of pressure on the road infrastructure and traffic lights at Cowbridge and again be an unnecessary intrusion into the open countryside. And would adversely affect the aesthetics of the gateway to Cowbridge which partly gives the town so much of its charm!

I think a very sensible inclusion is 448 the airfield and brownfield site at Llandow. My understanding is that with a little effort a new rail link could be established for this site which would be very sensible with regard to taking pressure from the road network.

Please let me know if it is not acceptable for me to comment on a number of sites in one email and I will gladly send other emails for each site individually.

Candidate Site 367

This is near a historically significant site, again putting extra strain on the infrastructure of Cowbridge. It is also an unnecessary intrusion
into the countryside.
This attractive, small, rural market town is rapidly morphing into a larger more suburban dormitory community for Cardiff, effectively
detracting from its’ rich historical and traditionally agricultural identity. To add further housing developments on the periphery of the town will
add unacceptable strain to the already congested high street and parking facilities.
Cowbridge has always been considered an attractive tourist destination, as well as a thriving agricultural centre. It is significant that agriculture
which has been key to the economy of the area, has been pushed to the margins of the community with the Market Place being turned into a car park
to cater for the influx of people on the recent development of Claire Gardens. Even this is inadequate with people parking in inappropriate places, and with
it more congestion in the High Street and raised pollution. This is now; before new developments are added.

In consideration of the facts which I have outlined above, I would urge the Planning Department to reconsider where these developments should be situated,
and preferably place them on the more appropriate outlying brown field sites.

Access too dangerous. Do not put in LDP.

Re. Site nos 367, 438, 440

We object to the above candidate sites as
they represent unacceptable intrusion into the local countryside as stated in the LDP in 2025, and have a
severe impact on the setting of a very ancient Celtic-Romano fortification. Furthermore the previous LDP 2021-2036 rejected these sites in 2015 at the Deposit Plan Stage. Site 438 and 440 would both be difficult for cycling and walking into Cowbridge which is a mile away, and there is no bus service
..

I oppose the proposed housing development in the Vale of Glamorgan because I am concerned about the pressure it could place on local infrastructure and services. Roads in the area are already busy, and additional housing is likely to increase traffic and congestion. I am also worried about the loss of green space and the impact this could have on local wildlife and the rural character of the area. Schools, GP surgeries, and other services are already stretched, and without clear investment in infrastructure to support growth, this development risks reducing the quality of life for existing residents.

We object to the following proposals in the ldp replacement plan. The first is no 367 south of Llantwit Major Road, Cowbridge and no 440 north of Church Road, Llanblethian on land of considerable historical importance encompassing the site of a large iron age settlement. No 367 overlooks a new estate of nearly 500 houses (still under construction) with no added amenities provided to the town of Cowbridge.

We object to developments nos 438 south of Church Road, Llanblethian and 440 north of Church Road, Llanblethian between the Cross Inn and the village. This small road is already a busy route used by vehicles avoiding Cowbridge High Street, it is no more than a country lane and has no pavements or lightning. Added development would also make the dangerous junction between Church Road and the B4270 at the Cross Inn even worse.

I would like to object to the development of the Bryn Melin field (site 370, and adjoining sites 475 and 514)
This site is not as well suited as alternative sites (such as 455 and 367), and directly contravenes the placemaking goals and priorities of the area.
The site is within the thaw valley designated special landscape area and has uninterrupted views and access to nature. There is currently no development/suburban creep in this vicinity and developing here would destroy that. Other alternative sites (eg 455 and 367) appear better suited as they are already adjacent to suburban sprawl.
I am also particularly interested in astronomy. This area of Cowbridge, as it is a valley with no development, has significantly less light pollution than other more suburbanised areas. This is a valuable and a relatively rare resource so close to a town. Development here would destroy this.
I also do not feel the site is appropriate for a housing development. The site itself is very steep and the St Athan road is steep, narrow, with blind bends and no footpaths and no public transport. There is no easily accessible local access to jobs/amenities. Other sites (e.g 455 and 367) seem better suited to development as they have better access/transport links and already have adjacent suburban sprawl.
Please retain this site within open countryside and protect it for people to enjoy, for the wildlife and diversity that currently lives there, and to maintain the character of the area.

I am writing regarding the current consultation for the Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP), specifically the candidate sites proposed for housing development in the Rural Vale area near Cowbridge.

I would like to formally express my strong concern about the inclusion of several greenfield sites for large-scale housing development. In particular, I am referring to candidate sites 367 (land on the bank approaching Cowbridge), 438 and 440 (between Cross Inn and Llanblethian), and 455 (Primrose Hill).

These locations form part of the rural landscape that defines the character of the Vale of Glamorgan and the setting of Cowbridge. Large housing estates on these greenfield sites would risk causing permanent damage to the countryside, the natural environment, and the historic rural character that makes this area unique.

The Rural Vale is valued for its open farmland, biodiversity, and scenic views. Development on this scale would place significant pressure on local infrastructure, increase traffic on already limited rural roads, and contribute to the gradual erosion of the countryside surrounding the town.

Where housing development is required, priority should instead be given to brownfield sites and previously developed land. For this reason, I believe that the potential redevelopment of site 448 at Llandow Airfield is a far more appropriate option, as it makes use of existing developed land rather than sacrificing valuable greenfield countryside.

I respectfully urge the Council to reconsider the inclusion of these greenfield sites in the RLDP and to prioritise sustainable development that protects the Rural Vale's landscape, environment, and heritage.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this representation as part of the consultation process.