TRANSPORT
Eastbrook Transport Documents reveal Highway objections ignored by RLWP planners.
The Highway Development Section would inform the Planning Authority that it is essential. that a development of this size and nature MUST be accompanied by a robust and comprehensive Scoping Study to be agreed by the Local Planning / Highway Authority and a comprehensive Transport Assessment being undertaken to evaluate the affects the proposed change of use will have on the surrounding highway network and how they will be addressed by carrying out off site highway improvements / public transport facilities. and other sustainable modes of transport like cycling and walking.
It is very clear from the lack of information and comments from the public consultation that this has not been taken into account due to the inability to answer the questions. In addition, Dinas Powys Community Council received and email saying the plans had been revised. When asked about what revisions had been made, I was told 'none'.

'Emergency access' adjacent to 14 Cardiff Rd. The planners changed it to secondary access for the recent display. When asked at the consultation what this was. They did not have an answer.

Highways said, "given the issue along Cardiff Road with congestion a TA will need to demonstrate is suitability". The consultants SLR provided no such Transport Assessment. SLR argued they did not require to provide foot/cycleways along Cardiff Rd to the Murch crossroad, as St Georges Row and Highfield Close could be used, which they would assess further. As no such routes exist (to AT standards) the site is not accessible via active travel to all local amenities as per the Active Travel Act 2021, as Highways require.

In the plans there are active travel routes along Georges Row, cutting through garages just off it. This route is not owned by the council and is not adopted by them. So they have no jurisdiction to offer it as an active travel route. The access from the top of Highfield Close through the alley into Powys Gardens does not comply with criteria from Active Travel guidelines due to no lighting and a 90-degree angle rendering it unsafe as you are not able to see all the way through. This is the same with the one going from Chapel Close to Highfield Close. Powys Gardens is extremely steep and would be a challenge for the fittest of people to walk or push a pushchair up, never mind people with mobility issues and is extremely dangerous during icy weather. Cardiff Road is not suitable as there is no capacity to widen it to accommodate the width that is required following active travel guidelines for various configurations of pedestrians. When asked during the consultation meeting if they had walked the route along Cardiff Road. The officer admitted they had not.

Attached 'Vectos' pictures show over-narrow passages. No wonder SLR chose not to assess them.

Highways commented overall.
The site may not be able to accommodate connectivity via active travel due to limited space along Cardiff Road. Other locations at the Southern end of the site will need to be investigated to confirm it the site can be accessed via walking and cycling.
Persimmons' documents omit the "investigation", Vectos pictures show over-narrow passages, but the RLWP planners still nodded the site through. Highways require public transport improvements should be provided along with the implementation of the site including internally and along the existing adopted highway, yet SLR ignore the proposed turn-in with internal roundabout for buses.

It is not good enough to assume because there is a train station/bus stop that it makes this development sustainable. It doesn't. What this development provides is discrimination against people with protected characteristics. Due to the lack of a ramp at the station people who have mobility issues or people with pushchairs are unable to use the train both ways without incurring a lengthy walk. Again when I asked about this during the consultation I was told 'it is fine for the majority'. I replied, 'what about the minority, you're discriminating against? There was no reply.

We have documentation from the Department of Transport that there are no plans to upgrade Easbrook train station.

They offer a bus stop but no crossing of Cardiff Rd to access it.

A recent meeting with a bus company talked about reducing the service due to the volume of traffic along the Cardiff Road and that they are unable to keep to the timetable. You can make all the alterations you like to the area from Mathew Terrace to the Merrie Harrier. But you will not get away from the fact that prior to that there is NO capacity to widen the road and improve the flow of traffic from Mathew Terrace towards Barry. I asked how many houses were being built in Barry and was told 700. This traffic will come through Dinas Powys adding to the already congested road.

Highways saying, "likely need to be improvements to the Cardiff Road A4055/Murch Road/Millbrook Road junction" ('11' circled on plan) is ignored by SLR.

FLOODING
BA Consulting suppressed DP flooding in the RLDP documents.

Their Strategic Flooding Assmt (SFCA) had to record detains of historical flood events. yet omitted the Dec.2020 flooding of 100 homes in Dinas. The same company wrote its Section 19 legal report in 2021. Their SFCA just mentions the flooding measures dealt with the problem - yet their 2021 report recommends that NRW assess the viability of options to manage the flood risk across Dinas Powys; for DCWW to assess the viability of offline storage for the Cae'r Odyn surface water system. These measures were ignored, I was surprised to find their map on the last page of the SFCA that proposes woodland planting to hold-back rainstorm run-off, on part of Persimmon's Eastbrook site.

Covering up Eastbrook and Dinas flooding issue in the RLDP There's a legal requirement on the Vale to conduct a Strategic Flood Consequences Assessment. Yet the flooding assessment for the RLDP shows the Vale and their consultants JBA Consulting suppressing the flooding in Penarth/Cosmeston and Sully and pretending the measures taken in Dinas Powys for individual house protection dealt with the Cadoxton flooding issue. The Vale say (https://valeofglamorgan.oc2.uk/document63) that JBA did a desk study of available documents in their report at the end of 2022. Yet no mention of the Statutory S.19 reports for Dinas and Sully (2021) or Penarth/Cosmeston (mid 2023). They knew from those that the rainstorm was a 1 in 20yr event, whereas they need to plan for rainstorms twice as intense**. Still, the BP21 Strategic Flood Consequences Assessment (p153 last page) has a map by JBA+VoG of Dec.2021, Working with Natural Processes - Potential Mapping. It shows tree planting on the hillside of the Eastbrook Housing site. Not the whole of the site, but an important part.
The Map is only indicative, giving no source for the data, so in principle it requires a survey to establish the full potential for such measures. Persimmon did none, indeed their drainage expert did not reveal this proposal when asked at their presentation. Nor did JBA consider diverting Llandough Hospital drainage into new woodland and soakaways on the hillside, instead of the East Brook (via attenuation tanks) which the Vale wrongly approved for the recent car parks and hospital buildings. Did the Vale steer JBA away from this proposal? There's a good basis for strong objections over Persimmon's documents, since reversing the increased flooding of the East Brook from recent developments and increasing storms requires priority in use of this land (Working with Natural Processes).

The Vale of Glamorgan have no flood strategy. Their last one is dated 2013. Since then Dinas Powys have had nearly 100 houses flooded. NRW decided that it was too costly to make any improvements. In addition in the Vale of Glamorgan, Project Zero Update Report dated 14 January 2025 it states.

PZC11.1 Implement a Flood Risk Management Plan and Shoreline Management Plan. No progress. - Resource and competing priorities within the service area.

PZC6.1 Produce Sustainable Urban Drainage Guidance. No Further progress to date due to limited resource and other ongoing flood action priorities - Resource, funding and competing priorities.

These two statements contradict each other. There is no acknowledgement of the flooding or issues with the drains which are unable to cope with the volume of water. With additional flooding just before Christmas again in 2025. In addition there is no mention of the Holy Well as referenced in the NRW document on flooding in Dinas Powys which is not located and could cause extensive issues if disturbed during the building process.

During the consultation / asked what happens when the proposed Swales, Suds and ponds fail. Again no response.

EDUCATION
What evidence is there that the schools in the local area can cope with the demand this housing estate will bring? St Cyres is over subscribed. This will be exacerbated the development of 250 properties at Leckwith. As that development falls on the Vale side of the river St Cyres will be the nearest school for these children to attend.
In the previous plans it was proposed a school would be built on the Eastbrook site. Was that because of the volume of children they expected within the development? If so, now the school has gone. Where do they expect those children to go when schools are oversubscribed?
GP SURGERY
I have written confirmation from the surgery that there has been no consultation with them about the proposed development. It is not good enough to speak to just the health authority. Consultation should take place with the surgery involved. I note from the scrutiny meeting with regard to this development that Councillor Selby had a dispensation to speak as she is a member of the Health Board and also chaired the meeting when discussing this development. Was nobody else available to chair?

HOUSING
The Vale of Glamorgan are holding roughly £1 million pounds of affordable S106 money for Dinas Powys. Dinas Powys has been told that there are no housing developments planned in Dinas Powys and that the Vale wish to move this money to Myrtle Close in Penarth. If this is the case the Eastbrook development should be withdrawn from the RLDP. If this is not the case and it will not be removed then the £1 million pounds should be moved back for the benefit of Dinas Powys residents and the affordable housing it was intended for. The argument that there is a need for affordable housing does not stack up with the removal of S106 money.

There is capacity to remove this development from the RLDP as statistics have shown that the Vale have an additional 700 housed on top of their 8000-target included.
With regard to the article in the Penarth Times about this development the Vale is delusional! We have asked for evidence of their alleged need for housing and none has been provided. It does not meet the needs of the community as the community are objecting. If 250 houses = 100 affordable homes this would mean you would have to build 1250 houses in Dinas Powys to meet your target. This would mean a 25% increase on the total amount of housing that already exists. You say about affordable housing but when it suits you that is not important. Only 10% instead of the 40% which should have been provided in Leckwith is being set aside for affordable housing. The S106 money set aside for affordable housing in Dinas Powys has disappeared. In your 'Housing growth Barry' document you have admitted that the greatest need for housing is Barry, Penarth and Llandough. No mention of Dinas Powys.
It is evidently clear your proposal is not sustainable and the information which has been provided is very questionable.

A Vale of Glamorgan Council spokesman said: "With a need for more than 500 affordable homes locally in Dinas Powys over the next 15 years, this site will make an important contribution to meeting the needs of the community.

"The proposed development is in a sustainable location with strong public transport links and good access to local services, and will also deliver investment in highways improvements, additional school places and community facilities alongside enhancements to open spaces and biodiversity projects.

"The site will also be required to incorporate sustainable drainage systems to manage surface water runoff and reduce the risk of flooding in the area."

Dinas Powys crowded into Eastbrook /RLWP display.

On Friday at Murchfield community centre. Eight Vale planning officers were busy trying to answer, but unable to cope with the numbers of residents.

One thing caught them, that was the sewage treatment works at Cog Moors often discharges untreated sewage. Assurances from Welsh Water cannot be trusted - the RLWP lacks genuine data to show how and the sewage will be taken. A second crucial point that WGovt required in 2023/4 that plans "build with Nature". The Eastbrook site was chosen earlier, in 2023 and has not been reviewed - despite going against Nature in increasing flooding via speeding storm run-off from the hillside meadows which currently soak up rainwater. These basic objections run alongside the remoteness from shops and community facilities and the dreadful traffic and walk/cycle route on the Cardiff Rd.

CONCLUSION
I also wish to bring to the attention that during the meeting held on the 6 January 2026 a number of councillors stated that they had not had enough time to read the 900 pages of dialogue. Bearing in mind that the previous meeting was held on the 18 December and there was the Christmas period this was overlooked/ignored. How is this fair and democratic. How do you expect councillors to make such an important decision when they have not had time to read all the paperwork or have access to all of it if it has not been included.

I also note from the scrutiny meeting with regard to this development that Councillor Selby had a dispensation to speak as she is a member of the Health Board and also chaired the meeting when discussing this development.

This development is ill thought out and ill-conceived and is not a sustainable development. The information seems heavily reliant on the information Persimmon have provided. I don't believe the process has been open and transparent. The lack of information during the consultation process and the speed in which this is going through is a concern. How can people make informed judgements when they are not given all of the facts and those facts are not correct. Documentation has shown that the Vale has said the residents are in support of the development. From the responses the Opposition to the Development group have received along with the petition, objections, and comments on Dinas Powys Chat they show they are very much not in support!

It is my hope the process will be fair, open and transparent and that the examiner will be in a position to consider matters thoroughly and reach their conclusions entirely independently, within good time, without any undue influence and with following further investigations that are necessary.