Agenda Item No. 5
THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE : 13 February 2025
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
1. BUILDING REGULATION APPLICATIONS AND OTHER BUILDING
CONTROL MATTERS DETERMINED BY THE HEAD OF SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Decision Codes:
A Accepted
AC Approved Conditionally
AW Accepted (Welsh Water)
R Refused
(a) Building Regulation Applications - Pass
For the information of Members, the following applications have been determined:
2024/0615/BR AC 6, Park Road, Barry. New internal
CF62 6NU reconfigurations and
refurbishments
2024/0617/BN A 37, Fontygary Road, Integral garage conversion
Rhoose. CF62 3DS
2024/0625/BN A 64, Shakespeare Avenue, Single storey side
Penarth. CF64 2RW extension
2024/0627/BR AC 94, Plymouth Road, Demolition of existing
Penarth. CF64 5DL single storey rear utility and
side conservatory.
Construction of new single
storey flat roofed side
extension and structural
alterations internally
2024/0628/BN A 5, Maes Y Bryn, Proposed single storey
W Colwinston, Cowbridge. rear extension
CF71 7NP
2024/0630/BN A 28, Broadway, Cowbridge. Double storey extension
CF71 7ER wrapping around to a
single storey sun room &
front porch. New roof and
velux on existing single
storey extension.
1
2024/0634/BN A 38, Elfed Avenue, Penarth. Single storey rear
CF64 3LY extension
2024/0635/BN A 37, Westbourne Road, Installation of 2 log burners
Penarth. CF64 3HA
2024/0637/BR AC The Old Station, (Station Construction of a rear
House) Station Road East, single storey extension
Wenvoe. CF5 6AG including internal
alterations, new first floor
construction and
associated roof drawings
2024/0638/BR AC 19, Suran Y Gog, Barry. Proposed single storey
CF63 1FT side extension with all
associated internal and
external works
2024/0639/BN A 7, Wordsworth Avenue, Re roof
Penarth. CF64 2RL
2024/0640/BN A 29, Purdey Close, Barry. Single storey rear
CF62 8NT extension
2024/0641/BN A 9, Stradling Close, Single storey extension to
W Cowbridge. CF71 7BX front and side of property
plus internal alterations
2024/0643/BR AC Westgarth, Siginstone. Two storey extension &
CF71 7LP internal alterations
2024/0644/BN A 27, Fairfield Road, Re roof main house & low
Penarth. CF64 2SN level roof
2024/0645/BN A High Street Primary To refelt small area of flat
School, St. Paul's Avenue, roof located on the main
Barry. CF62 8HT roof
2024/0646/BN A 164, Redlands Road, Re roof
Penarth. CF64 2QR
2024/0647/BN A Melrose, Swanbridge Double storey extension
Road, Sully. CF64 5UF
2024/0648/BN A 9, Church Place South, Internal knock through
Penarth. CF64 1BA between new kitchen and
hallway
2
2024/0649/BN A 40, Stanwell Road, Internal alterations, new
Penarth. CF64 2EY windows and bifold doors
(with RSJ), minor
underpinning as part of
structural opening for bifold
door
2024/0650/BR AC The Waverley Care Centre, Extension and Installation
122-124, Plymouth Road, of 21 passanger lift 6
Penarth. CF64 5DN Storey
2024/0651/BN A 18, Tordoff Way, Barry. Re roof
CF62 8ET
2024/0652/BR AC Ty Croeso, West End, Proposed refurbishment of
Llantwit Major. CF61 1SL existing dormer
2024/0653/BN A The Paddocks, Llanmaes. Alterations of two windows
CF61 2XR and replacement of 6
windows
2024/0654/BR AC Awbery House, Burttrills Internal communal area
Walk, Barry. CF62 8DG refurbishment including
flooring, ceilings, lighting
and redecoration. External
work includes security
doors, washing drying
areas, reinstatement of
sheds within shed area of
the building. We are also
installing a full sprinkler
system to each individual
flat with spaces over 2m2
and communal area
2024/0655/BN A 7, Court Road, Barry. Single storey extension
CF63 4ER from side to rear (L Shape)
2024/0656/BN A Ty Blaidd, Leckwith Road, Single Storey rear
W Llandough. CF64 2LY extension
2024/0657/BN A 17, Woodland Drive, 2 storey rear extension &
W Penarth. CF64 2EW single storey extension
plus structural works
2024/0658/BR AC Crosslands, Whitefields New build 2 storey, 5
Farm Road, Welsh bedroom dwelling house
St. Donats. CF71 7SS with integral double garage
2024/0659/BN A 17, Petrel Close, Sully, Integral garage conversion
Penarth. CF64 5FT with knock through
between kitchen & new
bifolds
3
2024/0661/BN A 1, The Cottages, Pen Y Single storey extension to
Turnpike Road, Dinas enlarge kitchen and extend
Powys. CF64 4HR patio
2024/0662/BN A Haelfaes Cottage, St Two rooms into one adding
Nicholas, Cardiff, Cf5 6SG two steels side by side and
rebuilding the gable above
with blockwork
2024/0663/BR AC 62, Cornwall Rise, Barry. Proposed rear
CF62 9AG conservatory extension
and associated works
2024/0664/BN A 2, Lord Street, Penarth. Make new opening and
CF64 1DD close original opening on
first floor to more doorway
between two rooms, to
provide separate access to
bathroom. Make new
opening and close original
opening to move stairway.
Close window opening on
first floor. Install two velux
windows. Extension to first
floor.
2024/0665/BR AC 92-94, Holton Road, Barry. Conversion of commercial
CF63 4HJ shop into 11 no. 1 & 2
bedroom flats
2024/0666/BN A Seadowns, Beach Road, Single storey rear
Southerndown. CF32 0RP extension and garage
conversion
2024/0667/BR AC 1, Aberdovey Close, Dinas Single storey front
Powys. CF64 4PS extension
2024/0669/BN A 10, Windsor Terrace, Single storey kitchen
Penarth. CF64 1AA extension
2024/0670/BN A 10, Samson Street, Conversion of attached
Llantwit Major. CF61 2SH garage to habitable room
2024/0671/BN A Llys Yr Hafod, Prisk, Integral garage conversion
Cowbridge. CF71 7PJ into works from home
space
2024/0672/BN A 46, Millbrook Road, Dinas Re roof
Powys. CF64 4DA
2024/0673/BN A Ruthin Chapel, St. Mary Chapel conversion to two
W Hill, Ruthin. bed holiday let
4
2024/0675/BN A 57, Westbourne Road, Re roof
Penarth. CF64 3HB
2024/0676/BN A 69, Boverton Road, New roof, felt, battens &
Llantwit Major. CF61 1YA tiles
2024/0677/BN A 64 Pontypridd Road, Barry. Rear single storey
W CF62 7LS extension & replacement
steels
2024/0678/BN A The Haven, Bonvilston. Removal of all pre-cast
CF5 6TS reinforced concrete and
replace with traditional
materials. New additional
foundations to join existing
floor slab & single storey
extension
2024/0679/BN A Victoria Primary School, Install data points with
24, Cornerswell Road, cabling
Penarth. CF64 2UZ
2024/0680/BN A 34, Andrew Road, Cogan, Internal alterations to
Penarth. CF64 2NS remove wall (open up)
between kitchen & dining
room and lounge & back
room
2024/0681/BN A East Hall, Fonmon, New windows
Rhoose. CF62 3BJ
2024/0688/BN A 4, Stanwell Crescent, Structural opening between
Penarth. CF64 1DF the two reception rooms
2024/0690/BN A 60, Minehead Avenue, Rear single storey
W Sully. CF64 5TJ extension with internal
alterations
2024/0632/BR AC 40-42, Windsor Road, Single storey extension to
Penarth. CF64 1JJ front. Conversion of part of
lower ground floor to
ancillary cooking school
and toilets for use in
connection with proposed
restaurant. Dormer
extensions to existing flat
above. Internal alterations.
2024/0668/BR AC 4, Lon Y Pinwydden, Garage conversion to utility
Ystradowen. CF71 7SF room
5
2024/0682/BR AC 12, Paget Road, Barry. Internal alteration to lower
CF62 5TQ ground floor to create
studio apartment
2024/0684/BN A 31B, Albert Road, Penarth. Conversion of commercial
W CF64 1BY unit to a two bedroom
residential dwelling
2024/0691/BN A 11, Llantwit Major Road, Double storey extension to
Cowbridge. CF71 7JP side
2024/0692/BN A 24, Grange Gardens, Single storey flat roof
W Llantwit Major. CF61 1XB kitchen extension
2024/0693/BN A 26, Plymouth Road, New window opening in
Penarth. CF64 3DH 2nd floor bedroom & knock
through on ground floor
2024/0694/BR AC 40, Coleridge Avenue, Rear extension, demolition
Penarth. CF64 2SP of walls and demolition of
ground floor chimney
breast
2024/0695/BN A 9, Hilda Street, Barry. Removal of conservatory
CF62 7AQ and external utility room
and installation of new
windows and doors in their
place. Modification of
internal doors locations.
Moving kitchen from one
side to the other side of
open plan room.
2025/0001/BN A 8, Upper Guthrie Street, Re roof
Barry. CF63 4PR
2025/0001/RV A 99A, Plymouth Road, Handrail and balustrading
Penarth. CF64 3DE to stairs, guarding to low
level windows and door,
certificate of conformity for
fire suppression system -
Part sign off for rest of
Dwelling works received
from Celtech
2025/0002/BN A 16A, Field View Road, Single storey side
Barry. CF63 1ED extension and knock
through to ground floor
2025/0003/BN A 18, Tordoff Way, Barry. Insulation blocks and
CF62 8ET silicone rendering
6
2025/0004/BN A 49, Cedar Way, Penarth. Single storey extension
CF64 3NN
2025/0005/BN A Glebe Field Barn, Llandow. Two storey extension and
CF71 7NT entrance porch to existing
converted barn dwelling,
conversion of existing
adjoining single storey barn
2025/0006/BR AC 1, Eastgate, Cowbridge. Refurbishment and
CF71 7EL reconfiguration of 3 bed, 2
storey terraced house plus
loft conversion
2025/0007/BR AC Ffordd Y Milleniwm, Barry. 56 plots consisting of 42
CF63 2QW apartments and 14 1, 2 & 3
storey houses
2025/0008/BN A 1, Wolffe Close, Extending dormer
Cowbridge. CF71 7AZ
2025/0009/BN A 4, Rhodfa'r Hurricane, Conversion of integral
St. Athan. CF62 4HP garage to habitable room
2025/0010/BR AC 104, Colcot Road, Barry. Demolish existing rear
CF62 8UH single storey extension(s)
and replace with proposed
replacement rear single
storey extension with
conversion of garage into
habitable accommodation
including changes to
garage roof, walls and
fenestration, all with the
associated internal and
external works
2025/0011/BN A 49, Seaview Drive, Re roof
Ogmore By Sea.
CF32 0PB
2025/0012/BN A 70, Porth Y Castell, Barry. Single Storey side
CF62 6QE extension less than 10m2
2025/0013/BN A 32, Aneurin Road, Barry. Demolish & reconstruct
W CF63 4PP single storey extension
2025/0014/BN A 26, St. Brides Road, Wick. Single storey extension at
CF71 7QB side and front of house to
provide utility room and
porch
7
2025/0015/BN A 17, Barrians Way, Barry. Single storey rear
CF62 8JG extension
2025/0016/BN A Pant Glas, Treoes. Single storey rear
CF35 5DL extension to replace an
existing conservatory
2025/0017/BR AC 15, Church View, Close, Single storey front porch,
Llandough. CF64 2NN single storey side utility
and first floor side
extension over existing
ground floor extension
2025/0018/BN A 45, Althorp Drive, Penarth. Re roof
CF64 5FJ
2025/0019/BN A 4, Fairfield Road, Penarth. Removal of rear elevation
CF64 2SL ground floor walling and
erection of new lean to rear
extension
2025/0021/BN A 11, Dyffryn Crescent, Removal of internal walls
Peterston Super Ely. and areas of external walls
CF5 6NF to form kitchen diner. Minor
alterations to main
entrance and former dining
room
2025/0023/BN A 11, Blodyn Y Gog, Barry. Kitchen knock through to
CF63 1FB dining room. Removal of 2
stud walls and 1 opening
up with 1 low bearing
2025/0028/BN A 6, Augusta Crescent, Rear low level roof renewal
Penarth. CF64 5RL
2025/0029/BN A 19, Augusta Road, Internal alterations to
Penarth. CF64 5RJ include a wall between
kitchen and hall to be
removed. Removal of wall
between dining room and
hall. To produce a more
open plan kitchen / diner.
Door into study from
hallway being blocked up.
New entrance to be made
from dining room into
study. Removal of a
chimney breast. Inserting
a larger window in dining
room either side of the
present double doors
8
2025/0030/BR AC 32, Seaview Drive, Single storey side
Ogmore By Sea. extension and loft
CF32 0PB conversion
2025/0031/BN A 22, Britway Road, Dinas Re roof
Powys. CF64 4AF
2025/0036/BR AC Hillfield Farm, Peterston Proposed creation of new
Super Ely. CF5 6ND first floor, ground floor
extension and remodelling
of property
2025/0037/BR AC Downsend, Drope Road, Part single, part two storey
St. Georges Super Ely. extension with internal
CF5 6EP works
(b) Building Regulation Applications - Reject
For the information of Members, the following applications have been determined:
2024/0686/BN R REFUSED - 6, College REFUSED - Knocking
Road, Barry. CF63 8BE down a load bearing wall
(c) The Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2000
For the information of Members the following initial notices have been received:
2024/0169/AI A 46, Drake Close, St. Athan. Replacement conservatory
CF62 4JF roof to an existing dwelling
house
2024/0170/AI A Denovo, St. Andrews Single storey rear
Road, Dinas Powys. extension and internal
CF64 4HB alterations
2024/0171/AI A 24, Benecroft, Rhoose. Garage conversion to
CF62 3HJ create habitable
accommodation (works to
incorporate material
alterations to structure,
controlled services, fittings
9
and thermal elements)
2024/0172/AI A 66, High Street, Single storey extension,
Cowbridge. CF71 7AH removal of internal wall,
new WC / shower room,
renovation of a thermal
element (re-roofing, new
render system etc) grade 2
listed building with
commercial unit at front as
well as 4 flats
2024/0173/AI A 15, Murch Crescent, Dinas Renovation of existing
Powys. CF64 4RF conservatory to include
new frames and solid leka
roof only
2024/0174/AI A Rear of 59, Vere Street, Construction of a block of 3
Barry. CF63 2HW no. flats (works to
incorporate material
alterations to structure,
controlled services, fittings
and thermal elements)
2024/0175/AI A Asda Stores Ltd, Ffordd Y Material alterations to fire
Mileniwm, Barry. escape doors to provide
CF62 5AT delayed egress equipment
2024/0176/AI A Cardiff Dogs Home, West Single storey extension
Point Industrial Estate, and associated works
Penarth Road, Cardiff.
CF11 8JQ
2024/0177/AI A 62, Murlande Way, New warm type roof to
Rhoose. CF62 3HL existing conservatory
(works to incorporate
material alterations to
structure, controlled
services and fittings)
10
2024/0178/AI A The Poplars, Southgate, Single storey rear
Cowbridge. CF71 7BD extension (works to
incorporate material
alterations to structure,
controlled services, fittings
and thermal elements)
AMENDED 28/01/2025 -
Single-storey rear
extension, Conversion of
attached garden
shed/plotting area into a
utility room and W/C
(works to incorporate
material alterations to
structure, controlled
services, fittings and
thermal elements)
2025/0001/AI A Penmark Farmhouse, Single storey oak glazed
Penmark. CF62 3BP extension
2025/0002/AI A Sunshine House, New detached garage
Southerndown. CF32 0RN
2025/0003/AI A 5, Llys Steffan, Llantwit Single storey rear
Major. CF61 2UF extension (works to
incorporate material
alterations to structure,
controlled services, fittings
and thermal elements)
2025/0004/AI A 29, Ffordd Y Dociau, Barry. Reinstatement of 1st floor
CF63 4RT bedroom in residential
dwelling following fire
damage
2025/0005/AI A 37, Monmouth Way, New warm type roof and
Boverton, Llantwit Major. replacement frames to
CF61 2GT existing conservatory
(works to incorporate
material alterations to
structure, controlled
services and fittings)
11
2025/0006/AI A 33, Rhodfa Sweldon, Single storey rear
Barry. CF62 5AD extension (works to
incorporate material
alterations to structure,
controlled services, fittings
and thermal elements)
2025/0007/AI A 130, Fontygary Road, Single storey rear
Rhoose. CF62 3DU extension and detached
garage / home office
outbuilding (works to
incorporate material
alterations to structure,
controlled services, fittings
and thermal elements)
2025/0008/AI A 32, Plymouth Road, Proposed internal
Penarth. CF64 3DH alterations to remove walls
and install steels, including
bi-fold installation to rear
2025/0009/AI A SNC Mission Systems UK External structural opening
Limited, Building No. 406, to form new loading bay
Beggars Pound, Bro and personnel doors into
Tathan East, off Cowbridge an existing hanger building
Road, St. Athan. (works to controlled
CF62 4AH services, fittings and
thermal elements)
2025/0010/AI R 7, Mountbatten Road, Garage conversion to form
Barry. CF62 9HF habitable accommodation
(works to incorporate
material alterations to
structure, controlled
services, fitting and thermal
elements)
2025/0011/AI A Unit 18, Llandough Trading Replacement of asbestos
Estate, Penarth. CF11 8RR roof covering, replacement
of cladding to the gable
elevation, removal of
12
internal asbestos insulating
board to existing industrial
unit
2025/0012/AI A 3, Turnpike Close, Dinas Installation of structural
Powys. CF64 4HT beam to create two rooms
into one (works to
incorporate material
alterations to structure,
controlled services, fittings
and thermal elements)
AMENDED 27/01/2025 -
Internal and external
structural alterations
(works to incorporate
material alterations to
structure, controlled
services, fittings and
thermal elements)
(d) Section 32 Building Act, 1984
It is proposed to implement the above section of the Building Act with a view to
remove from the filing system, building regulation plans relating to work which has
not commenced. This section of the Building Act makes provision for the Local
Authority to serve notice in respect of plans which are three or more years old.
Where such notices have been served (when the proposal has not commenced),
it means that the plans are of no further effect and can be destroyed.
It is proposed to serve notices in respect of the following Building Regulations
applications.
2021/0896/BN
2021/0875/BN
2022/0041/BN
2022/0024/BN
2022/0047/BN
2021/0798/BR
2021/0872/BR
2021/0885/BR
2021/0803/BR
2022/0036/BR
2021/0936/BR
2022/0078/BR
2022/0045/BR
13
Agenda Item No. 6
THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE : 13 February 2025
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
2. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE HEAD OF
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
If Members have any queries on the details of these applications please contact the
Department.
Decision Codes
A - Approved O - Outstanding (approved subject to the
C - Unclear if permitted (PN) approval of Cadw OR to a prior agreement
EB EIA (Scoping) Further B - No observations (OBS)
information required E Split Decision
EN EIA (Screening) Not Required G - Approved the further information following
F - Prior approval required (PN) “F” above (PN)
H - Allowed : Agricultural Condition N - Non Permittal (OBS - objections)
Imposed : Appeals NMA – Non Material Amendments
J - Determined by NAfW Q - Referred to Secretary of State for Wales
L - Approved AND refused (LAW) (HAZ)
P - Permittal (OBS - no objections) S - Special observations (OBS)
R - Refused U - Undetermined
RE - Refused (Enforcement Unit Attention)
V - Variation of condition(s) approved
2023/00087/1/NM A Crossway Methodist Non-Material Amendment
A Church, Court Road, Barry for the rewording of
Condition 2. Planning
Permission ref.
2023/00087/FUL:
Proposed development of
15 no. affordable flats and
associated works.
2023/00466/FUL A The Rocks Restaurant and Proposed first floor glazed
Grill, Beach Road, addition to serve as a
Swanbridge, Sully restaurant
14
2023/01245/FUL R Henywen, Llandough, Conversion of redundant
Cowbridge agricultural building into
dwelling
2024/00166/FUL R Marlborough Grange Farm, Development of car boot
Cross Ways, Cowbridge sale Saturday and Sunday
during period from 22nd
March to 31st October
inclusive. Change of use of
agricultural grazing land to
car boot during these
months. Including
temporary facilities for
toilets and catering.
Provision of hard and soft
landscaping to include
signage, native hedge and
fencing
2024/00240/FUL A 23, Enfield Drive, Barry Part retrospective
application to regularise as
- built rear extension
including addition of roof
lights and balcony screens,
raised patio to rear garden,
enlarged landing window
on west facing side
elevation, proposed render
finish to main dwelling and
porch.
2024/00247/1/CD A 22 Victoria Road, Penarth Discharge of Condition 3.
(Historic building
Recording) for planning ref
2024/00247/LBC -
Alterations to grade II listed
home including some
replacement windows,
improvements to envelope,
new roof penetration,
amendments to layout
internally at ground and
first floor. at 22, Victoria
Road, Penarth
2024/00493/FUL A 1, Arlington Road, Sully Side extension and loft
conversion to existing semi
detached bungalow
15
2024/00498/FUL A Secret Garden, Increase in height of the
Llanbethery existing boundary wall with
timber gate. The
installation of a light weight
timber frame garden
structure to the rear
including boundary wall
material remedial works.
2024/00594/FUL A Warren House, Pendoylan Proposed Alterations and
Extensions to existing
dwelling. New Garage
2024/00618/FUL A Maes Y Crydd, Pont Sarn Proposed remodelling of
Lane, Peterston Super Ely the existing ground floor
extension, and the addition
of a first floor side
extension.
2024/00659/FUL R Heritage Coast Campsite, Proposed extension to
Monknash existing cafe and campsite
facilities
2024/00665/FUL A 13, Cwrt-y-vil Road, Proposed new Garage and
Penarth associated Gym, BBQ area
and Home Office.
2024/00693/LBC A Previously Lloyds Bank Demolition of internal walls
Plc, 33 High Street, & partitions. Removal of
Cowbridge central modern staircase &
installation of new
staircase to access 1st &
2nd floors, involving
removal of one window at
ground level. At left hand
facing of facade replacing
with a front door in style of
windows. Creating splays
to curtilage wall onto North
road at rear of site.
2024/00760/FUL R 45, Conybeare Road, Sully Take down garage to side
of property, construct new
two storey extension to the
side only. Ground floor
extension to the rear of the
property.
16
2024/00768/LAW A 97 Tynewydd Road, Barry On Road EV charging
solution, amendment to
refused dropped kerb
application. Permission
requested to break into the
pavement to provide an EV
charging gulley. The Gulley
would run through the
pavement from the edge of
the property at 97
Tynewydd Road to the
highway to enable a safe
on road solution to home
EV charging.
2024/00769/FUL A Cole Farm, 9, Cold Knap Removal and
Way, Barry reconstruction of the
chimney stacks and
alteration to lean to roof
structure.
2024/00770/FUL A Cole Farm, 9, Cold Knap Regularise the
Way, Barry reconstruction of the
chimneys and remedial
works to the timber roof
structure.
2024/00777/FUL A 3 Heol St. Cattwg, Revision to previously
Pendoylan approved application
2022/00448/FUL. Re-build
rear retaining wall 0.5m
higher and raise garden
level behind. Reconstruct
boundary wall to side of
property. Additional side
window added to en-suite
and alterations to rear
elevation windows and
doors.
2024/00788/FUL A 22 Minehead Avenue, Sully Single storey rear
extension with enlargement
of existing first floor rear
dormer. New first floor
extension onto existing
front annex. Demolition of
existing garage to create
an attached garage to the
house
17
2024/00798/FUL A 24, Grange Gardens, Single storey flat roof
Llantwit Major extension to the rear of the
detached property.
2024/00823/LAW R 1, Turnpike Close, Dinas Change to position of front
Powys door; make internal two
small undercroft areas at
ground floor; new velux
balcony-type roof windows
to rear elevation; lower
box/oriel window sill to
corner bedroom at first
floor; lower window sill to
middle bedroom at first
floor to allow juliette
balcony arrangement;
double garage changed to
allow for guest bedroom;
internal reconfiguration
with bifold doors to rear
elevation
2024/00825/FUL A 25, Smithies Avenue, Sully It is proposed to add a first
and second floor above the
existing dormer bungalow
and to extend the ground
floor to the side.
2024/00828/RG3 A Colcot Junior And Infant Proposed Extension to
School, Florence Avenue, existing Nursery Building
Barry
2024/00834/FUL A Unit B, Station Approach, Change of use from Tattoo
Penarth Parlour back to offices
(class B1)
2024/00853/FUL A 94, Westward Rise, Barry New Single Storey
extension to the side of the
property with new shed to
the rear
2024/00866/FUL A The Laurels, 6, Walston Two storey extension to
Road, Wenvoe the rear of the house. An
existing single storey side
extension is to be
removed.
18
2024/00878/FUL A 40, Coleridge Avenue, Rear extension to
Penarth incorporate a Kitchen
ground floor and family
bathroom on first floor.
2024/00889/LBC A Ancient Druid, 44 Eastgate, Refurbishment of front
Cowbridge elevation
2024/00893/FUL A Sainte Adresse, Paget Proposed site entrance
Place, Penarth gates.
2024/00900/FUL A Pantwilkin Stables, Variation of condition 2
Aberthin (Approved Plans and
Documents) of planning
permission
2022/01305/FUL: Equine
rehabilitation building.
Installation of Biomass
Boiler into equine
rehabilitation building
2024/00918/FUL A Unit 33, Vale Business Proposed change of use
Park, Llandow from B1, B2 and B8 use to
gymnastics centre (Class
D2)
2024/00925/FUL A Downsend, Drope Road, Proposed part single part
Drope, St Georges Super two storey rear extensions,
Ely creation of balcony and
conversion of garage
2024/00948/FUL A 28, Perclose, Dinas Powys Single storey side
extension to provide open
plan kitchen/dining area &
wc
2024/00952/FUL R 92-94 Holton Road, Barry Residential Development
to convert commercial
shop premises into 11 No.
1 and 2 Bedroom Flats.
19
2024/00957/LAW R 6, Victoria Avenue, Penarth Childrens Day Nursery - to
increase the registered
number of children to 49 -
to regularise a continual
breach of Condition 4
relating to the number of
children attending the
premises.
2024/00979/FUL A Stornaway, 20 Westbourne Proposed single storey
Road, Penarth rear extension.
Replacement of existing
pitched utility roof with flat
roof
2024/00980/FUL A 25 John Batchelor Way, Alterations and extension
Penarth of existing balcony
2024/00982/FUL A 6, Church View, Proposed single-storey
Llanblethian, Cowbridge side extension and infill
extension to the front of the
property
2024/00985/FUL A 1 Middlegate Walk, Remove existing garage
Cowbridge and construct double
storey side extension.
Changes to fenestration
2024/00994/FUL A 80, Millfield Drive, Proposed loft conversion
Cowbridge with rear dormer
2024/01015/FUL A 23, Woodland Place, Proposed single storey
Penarth side extension off rear
annex to provide increased
living/kitchen area plus
revised new window
opening to side elevation
facing Woodland Place.
This revised application
seeks to locate the new
extension wall at the
boundary with No 22.
20
2024/01016/FUL A Glynne Tower, 12, Replacement of defective
Bridgeman Road, Penarth timber cladding and
balustrade to existing
balcony areas with colour
coated aluminium and
toughened glass
balustrade
2024/01017/FUL A Slon Cottage, Slon Lane, Two Storey Extension to
Ogmore By Sea Left Hand Side.
Remodelling of Hard
Landscaping to Front
Curtilage
2024/01019/FUL R Plot of land 230 metres Change of use of an
west of Picketston, agricultural field to secure
Llanmaes dog walking field to use
alongside my dog walking
business and for public
private hire use with
associated access and
parking area for up to 2
cars.
2024/01022/FUL A 34, Victoria Road, Penarth Removal of existing timber
box sash windows to front
elevation and replacement
with new double glazed
upvc sliding sash windows.
2024/01029/FUL A 17, Windsor Terrace, Retention of rear dormer
Penarth roof extension and 2 No.
rooflights to the front
roofplane
2024/01031/FUL A 27 Longmeadow Drive, Single Storey Rear
Dinas Powys Extension, Rear Dormer
with recessed terraced
balcony, and detached
Garden Room
2024/01032/FUL A 5, Clos Yr Ysgol, Dinas Proposed loft conversion
Powys with dormer to rear
2024/01038/FUL A 10 Marquis Close, Barry Proposed New second
storey side extension
21
2024/01039/FUL A Ystradowen Village Hall, Provision of a new store
Cowbridge Road, room as an extension to
Ystradowen Ystradowen Village Hall.
Provision of 2 no. air
source heat pumps on
external wall of existing
store room
2024/01046/LAW A 17, St Donats Close, Dinas Single storey rear
Powys extension to provide open
plan kitchen / dining area.
Demolition of existing
conservatory & out-
building.
2024/01054/FUL A Middle Hill, Llancarfan Retrospective application
to retain two stable blocks
and a storage container for
agricultural and equine
purposes
2024/01057/FUL A 42, Chandlers Way, Proposed garage
Penarth conversion to form
habitable accommodation,
with insertion of new
window unit and
associated works.
2024/01058/LAW A 29 Cilgant-y-meillion, Single storey rear kitchen
Rhoose extension.
2024/01061/LAW R Y Berllan, Peterston Super Proposed Garden Building
Ely
2024/01062/FUL A 85, Westbourne Road, Demolition of single storey
Penarth garage to side and rear,
and rear single storey
porch. Construct new
single garage and utility
room to side and two
storey rear extension
22
2024/01071/FUL A Norfolk Villa, 11, Pembroke Retention of 'as built' rear
Terrace, Penarth dormer with replacement
conservation roof lights on
front elevation, render
house gable wall with
alterations and side
extension to existing rear
detached garage. The rear
dormer was previously
approved Ref:
2022/00949/FUL on
08/11/2022.
2024/01072/LAW R 43, Salop Street, Penarth Construction to extend
kitchen to the side and
level floor of bathroom on
rear of property
2024/01073/FUL R Land adjacent to 44, Erection of Detached
Coldbrook Road East, House
Barry
2024/01077/FUL A 98, Windsor Road, Penarth Erect a Heritage Orangery
to the Rear Elevation
2024/01086/FUL A Whips Bungalow, Lane - Ground floor side
Junction Llanmihangel extension to form a 4th
Road To Junction At bedroom
Llandough Village,
Llandough, Cowbridge
2024/01087/FUL A 50 St David's Crescent, Proposed ground floor and
Penarth first floor extensions and
entrance porch to create
additional living space &
bedrooms
2024/01089/RG3 A Victoria Primary School, Demolition of existing
Cornerswell Road, Penarth outdoor shelter and store.
Erection of single storey
canteen building with
dining room and kitchen
amended scheme to
2023/00435/RG3
2024/01090/LAW A 1 East View, Twyn Yr Odyn Building of a single storey
Village, Twyn Yr Odyn extension to the rear of the
property.
23
2024/01113/FUL R 53 Cedar Way, Penarth First floor rear extension
with ground floor front
porch extension
2024/01115/FUL R 5, Hazledene Close, Barry Retrospective planning
application for a Garden
Fence post the removal of
Conifer Hedgerow.
2024/01122/RG3 A Cold Knap Gardens, The Installation of 8.76m high
Knap, Barry bird and bat nesting tower
2024/01125/FUL R 1, Eastgate, Cowbridge Internal alterations and loft
conversion incorporating 2
new conservation roof
windows on rear elevation
2024/01133/FUL A 15B, Victoria Square, (Flat Replacement of 4x box
15b is the middle floor of sash windows in front bay
3). Penarth and adjacent 1 x box sash
window on the front
elevation.
2024/01139/FUL A 8, Dowland Road, Penarth Demolish existing rear
single storey conservatory
structure and replace with
proposed part single
storey, Part two storey rear
extension with relocation of
bathroom window and a
proposed covered area to
side elevation
2024/01140/FUL A Brynawel, 47, Broadway, Extension to add a side
Llanblethian, Cowbridge return extension to the
ground floor kitchen and
first floor shower room,
with associated external
works. 2 no. roof windows
to be added to ground floor
kitchen/ dining room, and
installation of sun tunnel to
first floor landing.
24
Agenda Item No. 7
THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE: 13 FEBRUARY 2025
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
4. APPEALS
(a) Planning Appeals Received
LPA Reference No: 2024/00224/FUL
Appeal Method: Written Representations
Appeal Reference No: CAS-03686-P9V1N7
Appellant: Transworld Real Estate Ltd
Location: Bolston House, Bonvilston, CF5 6TP
Proposal: Demolition of the existing dwelling and re-
development of the site to accommodate
residential development and associated works
Start Date: 25 November 2024
LPA Reference No: 2024/00235/CAC
Appeal Method: Written Representations
Appeal Reference No: CAS-03688-G9P4Y4
Appellant: Transworld Real Estate Ltd
Location: Bolston House, Bonvilston, CF5 6TP
Proposal: Demolition of the existing dwelling and re-
development of the site to accommodate
residential development and associated works
Start Date: 25 November 2024
LPA Reference No: 2023/01131/FUL
Appeal Method: Written Representations
Appeal Reference No: CAS-03706-V7D1L5
Appellant: Jo-Anne Watts and Stephen Craddock
Location: Five Acres, St. Hilary, CF71 7DP
Proposal: Erection of cattery, retention of log cabin for 3
years (rural enterprise dwelling), amendment to
access
Start Date: 10 December 2024
25
LPA Reference No: 2024/00681/FUL
Appeal Method: Written Representations
Appeal Reference No: CAS-03849-H0F0W1
Appellant: Mr & Mrs A Donnelly
Location: Homri Barn, Well Lane, St Nicholas, CF5 6SG
Proposal: Retention of garage and greenhouse
Start Date: 22 January 2025
(b) Enforcement Appeals Received
None.
(c) Planning Appeal Decisions
LPA Reference No: 2024/00423/FUL
Appeal Method: Written Representations
Appeal Reference No: CAS-03679-F3L3D9
Appellant: Mr Ben Frith
Location: 18, Dochdwy Road, Llandough, Penarth
Proposal: A first floor extension to provide a bedroom and
utility room with a carport at ground level below.
Decision: Appeal Dismissed
Date: 15 December 2024
Inspector: L Hughson-Smith
Council Determination: Delegated
Summary
The main issue was considered to be the effect of the proposal on the
character and appearance of the area. The appeal related to a semi-detached
property which sat amongst a group of traditional semi-detached properties.
Some of the properties within the group had been subject to small scale
alterations however, the shared characteristics of the group was considered to
provide a coherent and attractive street scene.
The proposed extension had a flat roof design that would span a significant
portion of the property’s side elevation at the first floor, supported by steel
posts above a proposed car port. Whilst it would be set back from the front
elevation of the property, preventing a terracing effect with the neighbouring
property, it would project beyond the rear elevation, resulting in it being a
prominent addition, visible from both Dochdwy Road and Pantycelyn Road.
Viewed from Pantycelyn Road, the visual impact of the proposal would be
mitigated by the existing large rear box dormer. However, due to its size and
design from Dochdwy Road, the proposal’s dominant box-like form would
appear awkward in its elevated position. The proposed fenestration layout
was considered to pay little regard to the proportions and arrangement of the
existing windows and the proposed cladding would starkly contrast with the
traditional materials palette of the appeal property. The Inspector did not
26
therefore consider that the proposal represented a contemporary or innovative
design and would result in an ungainly and unsympathetic feature that would
fail to respond appropriately to the character of the property and Dochdwy
Road.
Whilst the appellant had contended that the sustainability credentials of the
proposal justified the different design approach, this alone did not justify an
otherwise unacceptable design and the proposal had been assessed against
current planning policy requirements and within the existing local context. It
was therefore concluded that the development would be harmful to the
character and appearance of the appeal property and surrounding area in
conflict with Policies MD2 and MD5 of the LDP.
Other Matters and Conclusion
The Inspector noted the improvements made to the appeal property, the
benefits of increased internal space for the appellant and the retention of the
driveway and garage and garden access, but considered that the scope of
these benefits was limited and not necessarily dependent on the proposal as
designed. The absence of consultee and neighbour objections did not imply
the design was acceptable. It was therefore concluded that the appeal should
be dismissed.
LPA Reference No: 2023/00777/FUL
Appeal Method: Written Representations
Appeal Reference No: CAS-03564-X4P1M0
Appellant: Precision Construction
Location: Land to rear of 1-9, Hilda Street, Barry, CF62
7AQ
Proposal: Proposed demolition of existing buildings.
Construction of two storey block of 6 one bed
self-contained flats, with cycle storage / refuse
storage and amenity space. Changes in levels
and construction of retaining walls
Decision: Appeal Dismissed
Date: 19 December 2024
Inspector: L Hughson-Smith
Council Determination: Delegated
Summary
The main issues were considered to be the effect of the proposal on the
character and appearance of the surrounding area, the living conditions of the
occupiers of properties along Broad Street and No. 1 Hilda Road and of the
future occupiers, means of access and highway safety.
Character and Appearance
The appeal site was considered to have a low density in comparison to the
surrounding built form. In contrast, the proposed building, due to its
substantial footprint, scale and position, would occupy a large area of the
appeal site. This would introduce a dominant and imposing feature of built
form that would appear cramped, diminishing the appeal site’s openness and
27
markedly disrupting the prevailing perimeter block pattern of development,
causing harm to the area’s character and appearance.
The proposal would exhibit a simple geometric form, using external materials
which would distinguish it from the nearby existing terraced housing. Given
the appeal site’s position and the light industrial appearance of the existing
buildings, the Inspector considered the design approach and proposed
frontage to be appropriate however, these factors did not overcome the
identified harm arising from its size and appearance. It was therefore
concluded that the proposed development would be harmful to the character
and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to Policies SP1, SP10,
MD2 and MD5 of the LDP.
Living conditions of the occupiers of adjacent properties
Whilst the proposed building was separated from properties along Broad
Street by the service lane, it would remain in close proximity to them and
would have the effect of enclosing the rear boundaries of these properties.
Given the dense urban setting, the limited alternative outlooks from these
properties would not alleviate the sense of enclosure caused by the proposal
and this would result in an unacceptably confined and oppressive outlook
when viewed from the garden and rear windows of the adjacent properties.
The existing building, due to its much smaller footprint and dilapidated
condition had far lesser impact on the adjacent properties and did not
therefore justify the unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers’ outlook
which would arise.
The proposal would introduce several windows at ground and first floor, facing
the rear of the adjacent properties along Broad Street. Although the proposed
boundary treatments would limit views from the ground floor windows and the
majority of the first-floor windows would serve non-habitable rooms, this would
not overcome the high degree of perceived overlooking due to the number of
first floor windows and their limited offset from these properties. This would be
intrusive; substantially and unacceptably affecting neighbouring occupants’
privacy.
In relation to the impact on No. 1 Hilda Street, the position of the proposed
building meant that its windows would be at an oblique angle to it, making
direct overlooking unlikely. Notwithstanding this, the proposed building would
stand two storeys in height and would therefore have an unacceptable
overbearing impact when viewed from the garden and rear aspect of No. 1
Hilda Street. The Inspector was however satisfied that due to properties in St.
Paul’s Avenue being at a higher level with a significant separation distance,
the proposal would not have an overbearing impact on them. Overlooking
opportunities from habitable windows would be limited due to the difference in
levels and intervening boundary walls. It was also considered that noise
disturbance arising from the proposal would not be excessive or unacceptable
in planning terms.
The Inspector was therefore satisfied the proposal would have an acceptable
impact in terms of noise and disturbance, on the outlook and privacy of the
occupiers of the adjacent properties along St. Paul’s Avenue, and on the
privacy of occupants of No. 1 Hilda Street. It was concluded however, that the
28
proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers
of the adjacent properties along Broad Street with regard to outlook and
privacy, and on the occupiers of No. 1 Hilda Street with regard to outlook, in
conflict with policies MD2 and SP1 of the LDP and the Council’s SPG.
Living conditions of the future occupiers
Given the appeal site’s sustainable urban location, the Inspector considered
the proposed amenity space to be an adequate size, despite falling marginally
short of the minimum standards. The three reasonably sized, terraced spaces
would provide for relaxation, socialising and recreation in spaces which would
be distinct from areas given over to more functional uses such as clothes
drying, bin storage and cycle stores. Consequently, quality and useable
amenity space would be available and be well related to and accessible from
the proposed flats. The proposed pedestrian access was also considered to
be of sufficient width, overlooked by the side windows of No. 1 Hilda Street
and would benefit from some lighting from the existing adjacent streetlight and
natural surveillance. It was therefore concluded that the proposed amenity
space and means of access would be adequate and accord with LDP Policy
MD2 and the aims of the SPG.
Highway Safety
The Inspector concurred with the main parties that the appeal site was in a
highly sustainable location, a short walking distance of a number of local
facilities, services and shops and a reasonable distance from local
employment. The Council had questioned the robustness of the evidence
supporting the appellant’s claim that car ownership of future occupiers was
likely to be low and the Inspector also expressed some reservations with the
evidence. The Council had acknowledged however, that one-bedroom flats
were likely to attract smaller households which would generate a lower car
demand and the Inspector considered that the proposed development would
likely generate a parking demand for around 5no. vehicles.
The Inspector acknowledged local residents’ concerns in relation to existing
car parking issues being exacerbated by the proposals, but considered that
parking pressures would be limited to certain times of the day and evidence
within the parking survey demonstrated that there was sufficient on-street
parking capacity to accommodate the parking requirements of the proposal.
Whilst acknowledging that on-street parking would be some distance from the
residential units, this would not be an uncommon arrangement in relation to a
flatted development and servicing, deliveries and refuse collection could take
place from Hilda Street.
Whilst having regard to the neighbour concerns in relation to the local
highway network being used as a shortcut and the potential increased level of
traffic from the proposal, given the number of flats proposed, it was
considered that the traffic generation would be limited and would not harmfully
exacerbate any existing issues. The Inspector found there to be compelling
evidence that the the proposal being largely car-free was appropriate in the
location and concluded that the proposed development would not be harmful
to highway safety and would accord with LDP Policy MD2, the Parking
Standards SPG and national planning policy.
29
Other Matters and Conclusion
The appellant’s acceptance of the requested financial contributions towards
the provision of affordable housing and public open space were noted
however, the draft Unilateral Undertaking (UU) was not signed or dated, and
therefore not capable of taking effect. The development did not therefore
provide the necessary infrastructure as sought by LDP policies MG4 and MD4
however even if completed, the UU would not alter the outcome of the appeal.
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of
some aspects of the living conditions of adjacent properties, the living
conditions of the future occupiers, and on highway safety however, these
matters would not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the
area and impact on living conditions of the properties along Broad Street and
No. 1 Hilda Street and the appeal was therefore dismissed.
(d) Enforcement Appeal Decisions
None.
30
(e) April 2024 – March 2025 Appeal Statistics
Determined Appeals
Appeals
withdrawn
Dismissed Allowed Total /Invalid
Planning W 20 2 22 -
Appeals H - - - -
(to measure
performance) PI - - - -
20 2
Planning Total 22 -
(91%) (9%)
Committee
- - -
Determination
Other Planning
appeals (inc. appeal - 1 1 1
against a condition)
W 1 - 1 -
Enforcement
H - - - -
Appeals
PI - - -
Enforcement Total 1 - 1 -
W 21 3 24 -
All Appeals H - - - -
PI - - - -
21 3 24
Combined Total 1
(88%) (12%)
Background Papers
Relevant appeal decision notices and application files (as detailed above).
Contact Officer:
Sarah Feist - Tel: 01446 704690
Officers Consulted:
HEAD OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
31
Agenda Item No. 8
THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE : 13 February 2025
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
4. TREES
(a) Delegated Powers
If Members have any queries on the details of these applications please contact the
Department.
Decision Codes
A - Approved R - Refused
E Split Decision
2024/01010/TPO A White Cottage, Graig Work to Tree(s) covered by
Penllyn Tree Preservation Order
No. 15 2001: T1 elm-
Removal of dead standing
tree. T2 oak - 3m reduction
to reduce wind sail due to
location and proximity to
house, T3,4,5.6- Ash-
removal of dean standing
trees
32
2024/01063/TCA A Oakfield, Llangan Work to Trees in a
Conservation Area: Apple
tree in rear garden - Trim
back up 1m straggly
growth to create a tighter
umbrella shape. Ash
reduce height to match and
bring crown into shape.
Damson - Remove
snapped limb and thin by 1
in 5 (20%) the epicormic
growth from crown break to
approximately 4m. Stump
grind - Grind out stump to
8-10" below ground,
backfill holes with arisings,
removing any excess.
Cherry in front garden -
Fell to ground and treat
stump. Linear group, birch,
laurel, rhus and ash Fell
birch to ground level,
reduce height of laurel and
rhus to match. Ash reduce
height to match and bring
crown into shape.
2024/01116/TPO R 4, Larchwood, Wenvoe Work to Tree(s) covered by
Tree Preservation Order
No. 18, 2018 : T1; Oak;
reduce crown back to
obtain 3m clearance.
Remove lowest large limb.
Remove low dead branch
and Crown raise. T2; Oak;
remove any unstable
deadwood
33
2024/01127/TPO A Llanblethian Castle, Castle Work to Tree(s) covered
Hill, Llanblethian, Tree Preservation Order
Cowbridge No. 7, 1973: Large
sycamore on the boundary
with Castle Edge,
St Quentin’s Hill - Reduce
height by up to 2m and
bring remaining crown into
shape. Prune back any
branches in line with
boundary Woody veg from
sycamore to southern end
of site- Trim back branches
and vegetation back from
boundary
2024/01144/TCA A 30 Clive Place, Penarth Work to Trees in a
Conservation Area: 2x
Conifers & Laburnum, rear
garden and Privet hedge,
front right; fell to ground
level. 3x Conifer stumps
behind Laburnum &
Laburnum stump & 2x
smaller Conifer stumps and
2x stumps front left
boundary: Grind out stump
to 12-18" below ground,
backfill holes with arisings,
spread any excess. Privet
hedge stump, front right;
Grind out stumps to 8-10"
below ground, backfill
holes with arisings,
removing any excess.
2024/01163/TCA A The Coach House, Ffordd Work to Tree(s) in a
Yr Eglwys, Peterston Conservation Area: Fell 3 x
Super Ely Thuja Plicata which are
located on the driveway
approaching the property.
One tree is already dead
and the other two are
showing signs of stress
and disease.
34
Agenda Item No. 9
THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2025
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
5. GENERAL PLANNING MATTERS
35
2024/00060/FUL Received on 6 March 2024
APPLICANT: Mark and Roberta Vatsaloo Maes Isaf, Pencarreg, Llanybydder, SA409QG
AGENT: Mark and Roberta Vatsaloo Maes Isaf, Pencarreg, Llanybydder, SA409QG
Hillside Cottage, Leckwith Road, Leckwith
Retention of the importation and deposition of soil and inert material and associated
ground engineering operations to support and safeguard the structural stability of Hillside
Cottage, Leckwith, Cardiff, damaged by flooding originating from the adjacent public
highway, land and mud slides.
REASON FOR COMMITTEE DETERMINATION
The application is required to be determined by Planning Committee under the Council’s
approved scheme of delegation due to the nature and scale of the planning application.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The application site relates to an area of land, situated adjacent to the detached property
known as Hillside Cottage. The application site is located to the east of Leckwith Road,
with the River Ely and the Cardiff City Council boundary located in close proximity to the
eastern boundary. The application site is located within a mineral safeguarding zone for
Limestone and is also located within the Cwrt-yr-Ala Basin Special Landscape Area (SLA).
Full planning permission is sought for the “retention of the importation and deposition of
soil and inert material and associated ground engineering operations to support and
safeguard the structural stability of Hillside Cottage, Leckwith, Cardiff, damaged by
flooding originating from the adjacent public highway, land and mud slides”.
Following consultation, a number of objections and concerns have been raised by
statutory consultees, such as Natural Resources Wales (NRW) on issues such as
pollution, impact on a nearby Site of Special Scientific Importance (SSSI) and the loss of
ancient woodland.
SITE AND CONTEXT
The planning application relates to an area of land, situated adjacent to the detached
property known as Hillside Cottage. The application site is located to the east of Leckwith
Road (B4267) in an elevated position above the River Ely to the west and the A4232
beyond and the Cardiff City Council boundary located in close proximity to the eastern
boundary.
The application site is located within a mineral safeguarding zone for Limestone and is
also located within the Cwrt-yr-Ala Basin Special Landscape Area (SLA).
A portion of the site is located within the Factory Wood Site of Importance for Nature
Conservation (SINC) comprising of broadleaved woodland. There are also identified Tree
Protection Orders (TPO’s) within the site, as shown in the following map extract:
36
The application site has an unclassified Agricultural Land Classification (ALC).
An extract of the site location plan is shown below:
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT
This application seeks consent for the “retention of the importation and deposition of soil
and inert material and associated ground engineering operations to support and safeguard
the structural stability of Hillside Cottage, Leckwith, Cardiff, damaged by flooding
originating from the adjacent public highway, land and mud slides”.
37
The application is largely retrospective for the retention of imported materials, but also
proposes tree planting, as indicated on the following extract:
The Planning Statement states that the application site was previously subject to historic
mineral working and as such, the remaining land was “unrestored and, in places, unstable”
(pa. 1.2). The imported material (referred to as soils in paragraph 1.3 of the Planning
Statement) was introduced in order to “stabilise the surrounding land and remove any
potential hazard, with the final levels creating a safe, stable landform to support a
comprehensive tree planting, comprising native species consistent with the surrounding
ground” (pa. 1.4, Planning Statement).
PLANNING HISTORY
1999/00470/FUL, Address: Hillside Cottage, Leckwith Hill, Leckwith, Proposal: Construct
retaining wall with associated earthworks, Decision: Approved
1999/00643/FUL, Address: Hillside Cottage, Leckwith Hill, Leckwith, Proposal:
Construction of access drive and associated engineering works, Decision: Approved
2019/01198/SC2, Address: Land at Leckwith Quays, Leckwith Road, Proposal: Request
for a formal opinion on the scope of an Environmental Statement (ES) to be submitted in
conjunction with a hybrid planning application for residential development (to be submitted
in Outline), associated highway and bridge improvement works (to be submitted in Full),
Decision: EIA (Scoping) - Further info required
2020/01218/HYB, Address: Leckwith Quay, Leckwith Road, Leckwith, Proposal: Hybrid
planning application for residential development for up to 228 dwellings (submitted in
OUTLINE), associated highway and bridge improvement / realignment works (submitted in
FULL). Development involves the demolition of all buildings on site and of the existing
B4267 Leckwith Road Bridge, Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement
(outstanding). For reference, the site plan for this application is included below:
38
2020/01423/OBS, Address: Leckwith Quays, Proposal: (20/02081/MJR) - Highway and
bridge works necessary to implement proposed hybrid scheme for up to 250 dwellings and
associated highway and bridge works at Leckwith Quays (located within Vale of
Glamorgan), Decision: Committee Resolution to Approve but pending an Article 18
Holding Direction from the Welsh Ministers.
CONSULTATIONS
Michaelston le Pit with Leckwith Community Council commented on 12 May 2024 to
state that they were concerned of the possible presence of contaminants and the stability
of the deposit material. They stated that no permission should be granted until the NRW
report is complete and that if NRW investigation confirms their concerns, they object to the
application.
Following re-consultation, they commented on 16 July 2024 to state the following:
The report by the National Resources Wales (NRW) highlighted several serious concerns
with actions already carried out at the property and the Community Council share these
concerns and feel the requests made by NRW and others must be reviewed before any
further work or requests are carried out.
The Community Council hope these observations are seriously considered by Vale
Planning before making their final decision on the proposed application.
Following further consultation, they commented 25 November 2024 to state that, in
summary, they continue to oppose the application for the reasons previously given.
39
The Council’s Highway Development department were consulted and commented on 6
June 2024 to state that the operation of transporting soils to the site have already been
completed and therefore, no further traffic movements relate to this application. Whilst
they note that information should have been provided as to the number of trips and route
as Leckwith Bridge has a weight restriction, given that this is now completed then the
highway authority is unable to sustain an objection and has no further comment.
Cardiff County Council commented on 24 April 2024 to state that they had no objection
to the proposal. They subsequently commented on 18 July 2024 to acknowledge receipt
of a re-consult and that observations would be forwarded as soon as possible. They
commented further on 23 August 2024 to state that they had no objection.
The Councils Drainage Section were consulted and to date, no comments have been
received.
Heneb, The Trust for Welsh Archaelogy commented 19 April and 17 July 2024 to state
the following:
Information in the Historic Environment Record indicates that the building in the application
area dates from the 18th century and was a former fulling mill, as noted on the Tithe of
1841. Historic mapping sequences show the property altered in size, and changes to the
boundaries.
We do not condone development undertaken without planning consent. The undertaking
that has occurred may have damaged or destroyed any unrecorded archaeological
features. However, its retention would not cause further impact.
Consequently, as the archaeological advisors to your Members, we have no objections to
the positive determination of this application. The record is not definitive, however, and
features may be disturbed during the course of the work. In this event, please contact this
division of the Trust.
Dwr Cymru / Welsh Water commented 10 April 2024 and 28 November 2024 to state that
they had no objections but requested informatives to ensure no detriment to existing
residents or the environment and to Dwr Cymru Welsh Water’s assets.
The Council’s Ecology Officer commented 29 July 2024 to object and in summary,
stated the following:
• An Ecological consultant has not been engaged and Preliminary Ecological
Assessment (PEA) not prepared as recommended by CIEEM and PPW12
• Damage to Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland and SINC has been undertaken in
advance of the application
• Baseline of site has not been established through researching records
• No specification of topsoils provided and risk to creating a disparate parcel of
woodland that will not fit the wider woodland
• No reference to natural regeneration
Following re-consultation, the Ecologist commented 29 November 2024 in summary to
state the following:
• Applicant strongly recommended to engage a registered ecological consultancy
40
• Issues raised by NRW and previous comments need to be addressed
• Recommendation for refusal still stands
• Additional documents supplied do not address issues
The Council’s Landscape Section were consulted and to date, no comments have been
received.
Dinas Powys Ward members were consulted and to date, no comments have been
received.
Natural Resources Wales commented 3 May 2024 to raise concern due to inadequate
information submitted in support of the proposal. To overcome the concerns, they sought
further detail regarding ancient woodlands, protected sites, waste and pollution prevention.
Without this information, they would object to the application. They also requested a
condition for a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP). In summary, they
stated:
• Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland within the application site, which extends to a SSSI
in the North
• Site has already been felled without following step-wise approach and material
deposited and spread
• Loss of the swathe of woodland fragments the primary core woodland habitat
network
• Negatively impacted the woodlands’ ability to adapt to changing conditions, such as
climate change; negatively impacted the woodlands’ ability to recover; reduced the
resilience of the adjoining woodland by decreasing the level of connection between
woodland ecosystems, reducing the scale of the ecosystem and had a detrimental
effect on the condition of the remaining woodlands.
• Development has not appropriately safeguarded the important ancient woodland
soils which contain important seed banks
• Deposition of material at this site has been detrimental to the viability of restoration
of the site
• Replacement planting would not achieve a satisfactory ratio
• Lack of detail on proposed ground preparation methods
• No ecological surveys
• Tree Planting Proposals include planting of species which likely did not and do not
occur in the surrounding woodland
• Wildflower meadow is lacking in details
• Proposed development is likely to damage Cwm Cydfin SSSI woodland
• Landslip on site December 2022 which involved imported and deposited material
• No engineering details provided to demonstrate the material will provide
stabilisation
• No evidence of classification of imported material
• Large, unconsolidated mass of loose material perched above River Ely
• Leachate testing results should be sought
• Displacement of water is negligible
• Proposal could be acceptable in flood risk terms
41
Following a re-consultation, comments were received 14 August 2024, stating that they
continue to have concerns with the application and sought further information regarding
ancient woodlands, protected sites and pollution prevention. Without this information, they
would object to the planning application. They also request a CEMP condition. In
summary, they stated the following:
• Note the applicant’s dispute of previous response but we maintain parts of the site
are classified as Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland
• Ancient Woodland is valuable and site has already been felled
• Loss of woodland fragments the primary core woodland habitat network
• Negatively impacted woodland ability to adapt to changing conditions
• Development has not safeguarded important ancient woodland soils
• Baseline assessment not submitted
• Deposition of material likely detrimental to the viability of restoration of the site
• Replacement woodland would not achieve the value of former Ancient Semi-Natural
Woodland and would not connect to surrounding woodland as once did
• No ground preparation methods provided
• No ecological surveys submitted
• Mitigation insufficient and poorly designed
• Tree Planting proposals include species which likely did and do not occur in
surrounding woodland
• Unknown if development has potential to impact European Protected Species
• Concerns regarding damage to Cwm Cydfin SSSI
• Presents significant pollution risk and leachate testing results need to be submitted
• Buffer zone of a minimum of 10m to be provided as part of a CEMP
• Materials may have been deposited without due consideration to structural stability
• No evidence on classification of imported material
Following the submission of amended / additional information, NRW commented 17
December 2024 (albeit this is dated 14 August 2024) to state that they continue to have
concerns with the application as submitted because inadequate information has been
provided in support of the proposal. In summary, NRW stated that in order to overcome
these concerns, further information is required on ancient woodlands, protected sites and
pollution prevention. NRW stated that if this information is not provided, they would object
to the planning application. They also advise a CEMP condition.
In summary they stated that:
• Planting and management needs to be agreed prior to permission granted
• Insufficient detail for planting scheme
• Ecological profile of adjacent woodland not provided
• Previous comments remain relevant
Carmarthenshire County Council, as the Minerals and Waste department commented
10 May 2024 to state the following:
The application seeks to retain material which has been imported and deposited on site in
order to safeguard and support the stability of a dwelling.
42
The application documents state the site has been subject to previous mineral working,
with quarried material on site in stockpiles. Soils have been imported to infill the old quarry
and its associated landform profile, and no further infilling is required with the site having
achieved the final landform profile.
Planning Policy Wales promotes a circular economy principle and the use of the most
appropriate material available to prevent the depletion of non renewable resources and
prevent waste arising. The materials or resources needed by development should be
considered at an early stage, and the policy recognises that where cut and fill is required, it
may provide material for remediation of land elsewhere in the area. For material generated
which becomes a waste, PPW sets out the role that Local Authority has in managing
waste, in balancing the social, economic and environmental benefits of waste as a
resource whilst minimising adverse environmental impacts, avoiding risk to human health,
protecting landscape and nature from inappropriate development, and protecting amenity.
Restoration and reclamation of mineral sites can also provide opportunities for creating or
enhancing sites for nature conservation.
The application, which includes the importation and deposition of soils, should have regard
to the policy contained in PPW on circular economy, deposition of material, landfilling
operations, waste management, and site restoration. We have concerns with the
application as submitted, and further information is required to inform the proposals;
• Further details are required on the volume of material imported to site, and
confirmation on the volumes, given that the application documents state 65,000 tonnes
and 6,500 tonnes of material bought to site. The volumes of material bought to site should
be justified; and is it the minimum amount required to achieve site stability. Further clarity
is required on this point to ensure the development is justified in its aim to achieve stability,
that only as much waste as necessary has been bought to site, that it is not over and
above the necessary, and become a ‘landfilling’ exercise.
• Cross sections have been provided, however are limited in their scope and detail.
Only three sections (namely section A-A, B-B, and C-C) show both pre and post
development levels, which is not sufficient to inform the proposals. Further cross sections
are required showing the pre and post development levels for the whole site.
• The cross sections which have been provided suggest the new profile, though
infilling with material to create a flat landform profile. The Local Planning Authority would
need to be satisfied that the profiles achieved are necessary and reasonable; there has
been no justification provided for the developed profile, or a reasoning for creating flat
platforms. Would the same outcomes have been achieved through creating a landform
more sympathetic to the original profile, or would the steepest slopes and edges have
been infilled creating gentle slopes of a more natural profile? Again, to ensure and satisfy
the Planning Authority that the development and works carried out have been necessary,
that the works have not gone over and above, infilled to excess or become a ‘landfilling
exercise’, the application should address this.
• In terms of the choice of material, which the application states is inert material, why
use the material, and if it was not available would the applicant have completed the works,
using alternative material?
The Council’s Shared Regulatory Services (Pollution) department were consulted and
to date, no comments have been received.
The Council’s Environment Team - Land Quality department were consulted, who
commented to state the following:
43
The report by Dice Environmental includes a contamination assessment of the site based
on a site walkover and programme of exploratory holes, sampling and laboratory testing.
Section 1.2 of the report indicates the assessment is for suitability for residential private
garden use,
(although Section 2.2 indicates the adjacent dwelling is currently unoccupied).
Contaminants of concern have been identified that will require remediation to ensure the
site is made suitable for use.
The report refers briefly to remediation options, including removal of burnt waste material
on site and a clean cover system. It should be noted that Dice suggest a clean cover of
minimum depth of 500mm; this is insufficient without further detailed assessment and
SRS would advise that a minimum cover of 600mm is required. The applicant will need to
submit for approval a detailed Remediation Strategy and Verification Plan.
If the applicant intends to proceed with a clean cover system as part of the remediation
strategy, there will be a requirement for site won and/or additional imported soils. The
assessment scheme for these materials can be submitted for approval separately or as
part of the remediation strategy and verification plan.
The report also includes a ground gas assessment based on limited data: One monitoring
point and a single monitoring visit. The results indicate ground gas emissions from within
the made ground which may pose a risk to future occupants of the adjacent dwelling and
further assessments are required in relation to this.
It should be noted that if further earthworks are proposed, this could alter the ground gas
emissions and additional gas monitoring and assessments should be undertaken following
completion of all earthworks but prior to occupation.
However, site workers/contractors must be made aware of the risk to human health from
ground gas during the development so that appropriate mitigation is in place during this
process.
Shared Regulatory Services have requested the inclusion of a number of conditions and
informatives in accordance with CIEH best practice and to ensure that the safety of future
occupiers is not prejudiced in accordance with policy MD7 of the Vale of Glamorgan Local
Development Plan.
REPRESENTATIONS
The neighbouring properties were consulted on 21 March and 18 November 2024 and a
site notice was also displayed on 1 May, 1 August and 20 November 2024. The application
was also advertised in the press on 18 April and 25 July 2024.
To date, comments have been received by one anonymous neighbour. In summary, the
comments do not object to the work that was carried out, however they have raised issue
with the reasoning for the works as they are causing water issues along the road, such as
larger vehicles ignoring the weight restriction, illegal parking etc. which cause damage to
the road surface leading to water draining incorrectly. In addition, they request a crossing
by the Leckwith Green.
44
REPORT
Planning Policies and Guidance
Local Development Plan:
Section 38 of The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that in
determining a planning application the determination must be in accordance with the
Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Vale of
Glamorgan Adopted Local Development Plan 2011-2026 forms the local authority level tier
of the development plan framework. The LDP was formally adopted by the Council on 28
June 2017, and within which the following policies are of relevance:
Strategic Policies:
POLICY SP1 – Delivering the Strategy
POLICY SP7 – Transportation
POLICY SP8 – Sustainable Waste Management
POLICY SP9 – Minerals
POLICY SP10 – Built and Natural Environment
Managing Growth Policies:
POLICY MG17 – Special Landscape Areas
POLICY MG19 – Sites and Species of European Importance
POLICY MG20 – Nationally Protected Sites and Species
POLICY MG21 – Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation, Regionally Important
Geological and Geomorphological Sites and Priority Habitats and Species
POLICY MG22 – Development in Minerals Safeguarding Areas
Managing Development Policies:
POLICY MD1 - Location of New Development
POLICY MD2 - Design of New Development
POLICY MD7 - Environmental Protection
POLICY MD9 - Promoting Biodiversity
POLICY MD12 - Dwellings in the Countryside
In addition to the Adopted LDP the following policy, guidance and documentation supports
the relevant LDP policies.
Future Wales: The National Plan 2040:
Future Wales – the National Plan 2040 is the national development plan and is of
relevance to the determination of this planning application. Future Wales provides a
strategic direction for all scales of planning and sets out policies and key issues to be
considered in the planning decision making process. The following chapters and policies
are of relevance in the assessment of this planning application:
Chapter 3: Setting and achieving our ambitions
• 11 Future Wales’ outcomes are overarching ambitions based on the national
planning principles and national sustainable placemaking outcomes set out in
Planning Policy Wales.
45
Chapter 4: Strategic and Spatial Choices: Future Wales’ Spatial Strategy
• Guiding framework for where large-scale change and nationally important
developments will be focussed over the next 20 years.
• Strategy builds on existing strengths and advantages and encourages sustainable
and efficient patterns of development.
Chapter 5 – The Regions
• The Vale of Glamorgan falls within the South East region.
• Regional policies provide a framework for national growth, for regional growth, for
managing growth and supporting growth.
• In the absence of SDPs, development management process needs to demonstrate
how Future Wales’ regional policies have been taken into account.
Policy 1 – Where Wales will grow
o Supports sustainable growth in all parts of Wales.
o Development in towns and villages in rural areas should be of an appropriate
scale and support local aspirations and need.
Policy 4 – Supporting Rural Communities
o Supports sustainable and vibrant rural communities.
Policy 5 – Supporting the Rural Economy
o Supports sustainable, appropriate and proportionate economic growth in
rural towns.
o Supports development of innovative and emerging technology businesses
and sectors to help rural areas unlock their full potential, broadening the
economic base and creating higher paid jobs.
Policy 8 – Flooding
o Focus on nature-based schemes and enhancing existing defences to
improve protection to developed areas.
o Maximise opportunities for social, economic and environmental benefits
when investing in flood risk management infrastructure.
Policy 9 – Resilient Ecological Networks and Green Infrastructure
o Action towards securing the maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity
(to provide a net benefit), the resilience of ecosystems and green
infrastructure assets must be demonstrated as part of development
proposals through innovative, nature-based approaches to site planning and
the design of the built environment.
Policy 15 – National Forest
o Supports tree planting as part of new development proposals.
Planning Policy Wales:
National planning policy in the form of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 12, February 2024)
(PPW) is of relevance to the determination of this application.
The primary objective of PPW is to ensure that the planning system contributes towards
the delivery of sustainable development and improves the social, economic, environmental
and cultural well-being of Wales.
46
The following chapters and sections are of particular relevance in the assessment of this
planning application:
Chapter 2 - People and Places: Achieving Well-being Through Placemaking,
• Maximising well-being and sustainable places through placemaking (key Planning
Principles, national sustainable placemaking outcomes, Planning Policy Wales and
placemaking
Chapter 3 - Strategic and Spatial Choices
• Good Design Making Better Places
• Promoting Healthier Places
• Sustainable Management of Natural Resources
• Placemaking in Rural Areas
• Accessibility
• Previously Developed Land
• The Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
• Development in the Countryside (including new housing)
Chapter 4 - Active and Social Places
• Transport
• Living in a Place (housing, affordable housing and gypsies and travellers and rural
enterprise dwellings)
• Activities in Places (retail and commercial development)
Chapter 5 - Productive and Enterprising Places
• Economic Infrastructure (electronic communications, transportation Infrastructure,
economic development, tourism and the Rural Economy)
• Energy (reduce energy demand and use of energy efficiency, renewable and low
carbon energy, energy minerals)
• Making Best Use of Material Resources and Promoting the Circular Economy
(design choices to prevent waste, sustainable Waste Management Facilities and
Minerals)
Chapter 6 - Distinctive and Natural Places
• Recognising the Special Characteristics of Places (The Historic Environment,
Green Infrastructure, Landscape, Biodiversity and Ecological Networks, Coastal
Areas)
• Recognising the Environmental Qualities of Places (water and flood risk, air quality
and soundscape, lighting, unlocking potential by taking a de-risking approach)
47
6.4.16 Potential applicants should not conduct any pre-emptive site clearance works
before submitting a planning application as this can make it more difficult for a
development proposal to secure a net benefit for biodiversity. Where a site has been
cleared prior to development its biodiversity value should be deemed to have been as it
was before any site investigations or clearance took place. A net benefit for biodiversity
must be achieved from that point. Habitat status can be established through evidence
remaining on site and local desk-based assessments (planning authorities must ensure
that they have access to these data sources). In such cases, habitat status will be
presumed to be good in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
6.4.25 Development in a SSSI which is not necessary for the management of the site must
be avoided. This is a matter of principle to ensure that these sites can continue to fulfil
their role at the heart of resilient ecological networks. What may be necessary for the
management of a site will need to be considered on a case by case basis but it is likely to
be limited to activities needed to meet its conservation objectives, including restoration and
nature recovery, as well as site management infrastructure, natural flood management and
other appropriate nature based solutions. There may be desirable interventions in SSSIs
relating to public access, active travel, educational projects and other minor development
necessary to secure its role as a living landscape. This may include agricultural
development, such as new barns, slurry stores required to reduce pollution, barn
conversions to support tourism or other alterations or extensions to existing houses or
buildings on existing employment sites where effects on the features for which a site has
been designated can be considered to be acceptable.
6.4.26 There is a presumption against all other forms of development in a SSSI as a
matter of principle and this presumption should be appropriately reflected in development
plans and development management decisions. There is also a presumption against
development not within a SSSI but likely to damage a SSSI. In such cases, proposals
must be carefully assessed to ensure that effects on those nature conservation interests
which the designation is intended to protect are clearly understood and development
should be refused where there are adverse impacts on the features for which a site has
been designated. International and national responsibilities and obligations for
conservation should be fully met, and, consistent with the objectives of the designation,
statutorily designated sites should be protected from damage and deterioration, with
their important features conserved and enhanced and the capacity for restoration
demonstrated by and through appropriate management.
6.4.27 In wholly exceptional circumstances and only where development is considered to
be appropriate and is not likely to damage a SSSI and there is broad and clear agreement
for mitigation and enhancement as part of a development plan should development be
proposed. This means that development will be considered unacceptable in the absence
of an agreed position in a development plan which indicates that it is acceptable in terms
of its effect on the notified features of a SSSI.
6.4.28 Before authorising development outside of a SSSI but likely to damage any of
the notified features of a SSSI, planning authorities must give notice of the
proposed operations to NRW, and must take its advice into account in deciding
whether to grant planning permission and in attaching planning conditions.
Where local planning authorities are minded to grant planning permission
against the advice of NRW they must notify Welsh Ministers. For the purposes
of landuse planning proposed SSSIs will be treated in the same way as notified
SSSIs .
48
6.4.37 Trees, hedgerows, groups of trees and areas of woodland are of great importance
for biodiversity. They are important connecting habitats for resilient ecological networks
and make an essential wider contribution to landscape character, culture, heritage and
sense of place, air quality, recreation and local climate moderation. They also play a vital
role in tackling the climate emergency by locking up carbon, and can provide shade,
shelter and foraging opportunities, wider landscape benefits such as air and diffuse
pollution interception, natural flood management, and building materials. The importance
of trees, in particular urban trees, in creating distinctive and natural places which deliver
health and well-being benefits to communities, now and in the future should be promoted
as part of plan making and decision taking135. Planning authorities must promote the
planting of new trees, hedgerows, groups of trees and areas of woodland as part of new
development.
6.4.38 Welsh native tree and hedge species, characteristic of the local area, provide a
strong ecosystem resilience function, and they provide resources for local wildlife,
particularly other native plants and species. Native tree and hedge species can also
complement opportunities for natural regeneration. Alongside broader woodland habitat
types, such as wood pasture, parkland and traditional orchards, native tree and hedge
species help to define our cultural heritage and landscape, creating a strong sense of
place and connection to the past.
6.4.39 Planning authorities must protect trees, hedgerows, groups of trees and areas of
woodland where they have ecological value, contribute to the character or amenity of a
particular locality, or perform a beneficial green infrastructure function136. Planning
authorities should consider the importance of trees and woodland, particularly native
woodland and valued trees, and should have regard to local authority tree strategies or
SPG and the Green Infrastructure Assessment. Planning authorities should adopt
appropriate, locally relevant, time sensitive, minimum tree canopy cover targets for their
authority area to guide the protection and where appropriate the expansion of canopy
cover. The Green Infrastructure Assessment and tools such as NRW’s Tree Cover in
Wales’ Towns and Cities study and Forest Research’s i-Tree Eco tool will help establish a
baseline of canopy cover and guide the identification of appropriate and measurable
canopy targets.137 Tools to help with design and species choice in urban areas are also
available.138
6.4.40 Where trees, woodland and hedgerows are present, their retention, protection and
integration should be identified within planning applications. Where surveys identify trees,
hedgerows, groups of trees and areas of woodland capable of making a significant
contribution to the area, these trees should be retained and protected. The provision of
services and utilities infrastructure to the application site should also avoid the loss of
trees, woodlands or hedges and must be considered as part of the development proposal;
where such trees are lost, they will be subject to the replacement planting ratios set
out below.
49
6.4.41 Whilst most focus within the planning system is targeted at urban trees, planning
authorities should recognise the importance of trees within the countryside, either as
woodlands, within hedgerows and hedgebanks, or free-standing trees in fields, or as wood
pasture. This is particularly important as the effects of climate change are leading towards
pests and diseases that are damaging many of our native species in the rural landscape.
Positive mechanisms of rural tree retention should be considered, and measures taken to
replace them in an effective and economic manner, either with new planting or by allowing
them to grow to their full potential.
6.4.42 Permanent removal of trees, woodland and hedgerows will only be permitted where
it would achieve significant and clearly defined public benefits. Where individual or groups
of trees and hedgerows are removed as part of a proposed scheme, planning authorities
must first follow the step-wise approach as set out in paragraph 6.4.15. Where loss is
unavoidable developers will be required to provide compensatory planting (which is
proportionate to the proposed loss as identified through an assessment of green
infrastructure 139 Further advice in relation to ancient woodland is available on NRW’s
website. value including biodiversity, landscape value and carbon capture). Replacement
planting shall be at a ratio equivalent to the quality, environmental and ecological
importance of the tree(s) lost and this must be preferably onsite, or immediately adjacent
to the site, and at a minimum ratio of at least 3 trees of a similar type and compensatory
size planted for every 1 lost. Where a woodland or a shelterbelt area is lost as part of a
proposed scheme, the compensation planting must be at a scale, design and species mix
reflective of that area lost. In such circumstances, the planting rate must be at a minimum
of 1600 trees per hectare for broadleaves, and 2500 trees per hectare for conifers. The
planting position for each replacement tree shall be fit to support its establishment and
health, and ensure its unconstrained long-term growth to optimise the environmental and
ecological benefits it affords.
6.4.43 Ancient woodland, semi-natural woodlands, individual ancient, veteran and heritage
trees and ancient hedgerows are irreplaceable natural resources, and have significant
landscape, biodiversity and cultural value. Such trees, woodlands and hedgerows are to
be afforded protection from development which would result in their loss or deterioration
unless very exceptionally there are significant and clearly defined public benefits; this
protection must prevent potentially damaging operations and their unnecessary loss139. In
the case of a site recorded on the Ancient Woodland Inventory, authorities should consider
the advice of NRW. Planning authorities should also have regard to the Ancient Tree
Inventory, work to improve its completeness and use it to ensure the protection of trees
and woodland and identify opportunities for more planting as part of the Green
Infrastructure Assessment, particularly in terms of canopy cover.
6.4.44 The protection and planting of trees and hedgerows should be delivered, where
appropriate, through locally-specific strategies and policies, through imposing conditions
when granting planning permission, and/or by making Tree Preservation Orders
(TPOs)140. They should also be incorporated into Green Infrastructure Assessments and
plans.
Technical Advice Notes:
The Welsh Government has provided additional guidance in the form of Technical Advice
Notes. The following are of relevance:
• Technical Advice Note 12 – Design (2016)
50
• Technical Advice Note 15 – Development and Flood Risk (2004)
• Technical Advice Note 21 – Waste (2014)
Welsh National Marine Plan:
National marine planning policy in the form of the Welsh National Marine Plan (2019)
(WNMP) is of relevance to the determination of this application. The primary objective of
WNMP is to ensure that the planning system contributes towards the delivery of
sustainable development and contributes to the Wales well-being goals within the Marine
Plan Area for Wales.
Supplementary Planning Guidance:
In addition to the adopted Local Development Plan, the Council has approved
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). Some SPG documents refer to previous
adopted UDP policies and to ensure conformity with LDP policies, a review will be carried
out as soon as is practicable following adoption of the LDP. The Council considers that the
content and guidance of the adopted SPGs remains relevant and has approved the
continued use of these SPGs as material considerations in the determination of planning
applications until they are replaced or otherwise withdrawn. The following SPG are of
relevance:
• Biodiversity and Development (2018)
• Design in the Landscape
• Economic Development, Employment Land and Premises (2023)
• Minerals Safeguarding (2018)
• Parking Standards (2019)
• Trees, Woodlands, Hedgerows and Development (2025)
Other relevant evidence or policy guidance:
• Manual for Streets (Welsh Assembly Government, DCLG and DfT - March 2007)
• Welsh Government Circular 016/2014: The Use of Planning Conditions for
Development Management
• Welsh Office Circular 11/99 – Environmental Impact Assessment
Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act 2010 identifies a number of ‘protected characteristics’, namely age;
disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex;
sexual orientation; marriage and civil partnership. The Council’s duty under the above Act
has been given due consideration in the preparation of this report.
51
Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015
The Well-being of Future Generations Act (Wales) 2015 places a duty on the Council to
take reasonable steps in exercising its functions to meet its sustainable development (or
wellbeing) objectives. This report has been prepared in consideration of the Council’s duty
and the “sustainable development principle”, as set out in the 2015 Act. In reaching the
recommendation set out below, the Council has sought to ensure that the needs of the
present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.
Issues
The main issues to consider in the determination of this application is the visual impact of
the proposals, the impact on the environment by way of pollution / contamination etc.,
impact upon the SSSI, the loss of green infrastructure and the proposed replanting
scheme.
Environmental Impact Assessment
The Environmental Impact Assessment regulations state the following:
11.—(1) Where an EIA application before a local planning authority for determination is not
accompanied by a statement referred to by the applicant as an environmental statement
for the purposes of these Regulations, the authority must notify the applicant that the
submission of an environmental statement is required.
(2) Where the relevant planning authority is aware that any particular person is or is likely
to be affected by, or has an interest in, the application, who is unlikely to become aware of
it by means of electronic publication, a site notice or by local advertisement, the relevant
planning authority must notify the applicant of any such person.
(3) An authority must notify the applicant in accordance with paragraph (1)—
(a)within 21 days beginning with the date of receipt of the application or such longer period
as may be agreed in writing with the applicant; or
(b)where the Welsh Ministers, after the expiry of that 21 days or any longer agreed period,
make a screening direction to the effect that the development is EIA development, within 7
days beginning with the date the authority received a copy of that screening direction.
Following receipt of the planning application, the agent was informed that following a
screening evaluation, it was concluded that in this instance, an Environmental Impact
Assessment is required on the basis that the development is considered to fall within
Schedule 2 11 (b) Installations for the disposal of waste under The Town and Country
Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.
The amended site area would exceed the thresholds and criteria set out in Column 2,
where the site area is 0.642 ha and therefore exceeds threshold (ii) – the area of
development exceeds 0.5 ha.
52
Following notification of the above, the planning application was amended to include
additional information, including an Environmental Statement. This document, along with
others, has been assessed as supporting documentation.
Background
This application is largely retrospective, with the exception of a proposed planting scheme.
The Planning Statement states that the importation of “soils” commenced in December
2021 and continued, on a campaign basis, until February 2023. In total, 65000 tonnes of
“soil and inert material waste” are stated to have been imported. The Statement states
that the importation has been carried out in order to safeguard the structural stability of
Hillside and to achieve appropriate levels.
The supporting documentation states that the tipping was carried out in order to remove
voids within the land that were deemed an unacceptable hazard.
However, paragraph 4.1 of the Planning Statement states that due to the cost implications
of commissioning written recommendations, the applicants relied on the verbal advice of a
Chartered Engineer. The following image from the Environmental Statement (ES) is
submitted in support of the application:
Image of application site, source: Environmental Statement, page. 15
A breach of planning control Enforcement Notice was served on the 3 February, 2023, due
to the material change of use of the land from a mixed use comprising use as a residential
garden and agriculture, to a mixed use comprising use as a residential garden, agriculture
and the importation and depositing of materials including waste material and ground
engineering excavation and re-profiling operations. This notice required the land owner to
cease the use of the land for importing and depositing of any materials; permanently cease
all ground engineering operations on the land and permanently remove all of the deposited
material from the land.
The Planning Statement has set out the options available to the applicant and the potential
consequences of each option. An extract of this table is included below:
53
Source: Table 1, Planning Statement
Paragraph 3.12 of the Planning Statement states that the removal of the tipped material
off-site would not only be financially unviable but would result in considerable
disadvantages.
This application seeks to retain the material and carry out a tree planting scheme and as
such, this option will be considered further below. For the avoidance of doubt, the other
options provided in the table above are not proposed and as such, will not be considered.
54
Visual impact on countryside
As aforementioned, the application site is not located within a settlement boundary and as
such, the site is considered as a countryside location. Policy MD1 (Location of New
Development) is therefore considered of relevance, which states that new development on
unallocated sites should, amongst other things, have no unacceptable impact on the
countryside and have no unacceptable impact on the best and most versatile agricultural
land.
Firstly, with regards to agricultural land, the application site is unclassified and as such, the
development has not impacted upon the best and most versatile agricultural land and the
development is not contrary to criterion 9 of policy MD1.
Moving to the visual impacts of the proposal on the countryside, the application site is
visible to the north and east of the site and due to its elevated siting on the escarpment
above the Ely River visible from the main A4232 (Cardiff Link Road) and cycle / footpaths
running along the Ely River. Whilst the Environmental Statement refers to a preliminary
Landscape and Visual Assessment (pa 6.1), this has not been received in support of the
application.
Paragraph 6.6 of the Environmental Statement states that four landscape receptors were
assessed of which two were found to be significant, i.e. having a major and adverse effect
during initial tipping, due mainly to the loss of trees from the woodland “and bare
appearance of the newly tipped soil”. However, it concluded that during the growth of
grasses and flora, the distant views from these receptors were negligible.
The regrading of the land and infilling has resulted in a loss of mature trees and this, in
addition to the level alterations has resulted in a different visual appearance. The following
is noted from the Enforcement Notice:
The volume of imported material, tree clearance and re-profiling of the land has resulted in
a barren uncharacteristic feature set within sloping wooded land which is detrimental to the
character of the area and local visual amenities.
The planning application is supported by section plans, indicating the amended levels
throughout the site. These are shown in the following extracts:
55
Source: Supporting document, Sections A-A, B-B & C-C
Source: Supporting document, Sections D-D, E-E, F-F & G-G
56
It is evident from the section plans that there have been significant level alterations
throughout the site, the greatest difference is measured at approximately 10.5m, which
has altered its appearance. The following Google street image shows the site in the
distance from the A4232:
View towards the site from the A4232, source: Google streetview, dated March 2023
Whilst the level variations are noted, given the varying levels along Leckwith Road, the
alterations in this regard do not look out of context.
However, the barren feature does contrast with the wider landscape and as such, the
proposal includes the provision of tree planting etc. and, it is likely that with sufficient
planting, the site could be completed to an acceptable visual standard, purely in terms of
visual impact. Re-planting of the site with grass, vegetation and trees etc. could reduce
the overall visual harm, which is currently caused by the stark appearance of the land.
However, whilst it will be discussed in further detail below, there remain concerns over the
acceptability of the landscaping scheme and there are queries regarding whether or not
the ground conditions could provide a viable scheme. The loss of the tree group has
detrimentally impacted upon the appearance of the site, resulting in a stark and
engineered appearance and as such, the visual appearance of the site could only be
improved by substantial replanting. However, in the absence of an acceptable
landscaping scheme and the lack of evidence to demonstrate viability of the site for such a
scheme, the proposal is considered unacceptable. The proposal is therefore considered
contrary to criterion 1 of policy MD1 (Location of New Development) and criterion 1 of
policy MD2 (Design of New Development) of the LDP.
57
Pollution and Waste
Policy MD7 (Environmental Protection) of the LDP states that development proposals will
be required to demonstrate that they will not result in an unacceptable impact on people,
residential amenity, prosperity and / or the natural environment from either:
1 - Pollution of land, surface water, ground water and the air
2 - Land contamination
3 - Hazardous substances
6 - Coastal erosion or land stability
8 - any other identified risk to public health and safety
As aforementioned, the application site lies to the west of the Ely Valley River, at an
elevated position above it. The supporting documentation states that 65000 tonnes of
material have been deposited on site and given its position and the nature of the material,
Natural Resources Wales have stated that this has resulted in “an unconsolidated mass of
loose material perched above the River Ely” (NRW comments, 14 August 2024). In
addition, it is noted that there is a watercourse within the application site, which is a
tributary of the River Ely and as such, the application site is hydrologically connected to
River Ely, which presents a significant pollution risk.
Source: Google Earth June 2022 - Site in relation to River Ely and A4050
In their comments, dated 14 August 2024, NRW refer to a landslip at the application site in
December 2022 which involved the imported and deposited material and resulted in
pollution of controlled waters via the release of suspended solids into the River Ely. In
reference to comments in supporting documentation that the alleged pollution may have
been caused by leachate from a neighbouring site, NRW emphasise that suspended solids
are very different to leachate and are a contaminant in their own right.
A Phase 2 Contamination Assessment has been submitted in support of this planning
application. In concluding and to summarise the findings of the phase 2 contamination
assessment (pages 17-18), it states that:
58
• Exceedances in Lead, Napthalene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene and Dibenz(ah)anthracene were identified.
• The site has been identified as CS2 / Amber 1 for ground gas.
• No significant levels of contaminants of concern have been identified with respect to
controlled waters at this time.
The Contamination Assessment includes evidence gathered from boreholes and trial pits
at the application site. The extract below, appendix A of the report, shows the locations of
these:
Location of boreholes, source: Phase 2 Contamination Assessment, Appendix A
Appendix B of the report provides details of the materials found and the depth to which
each of these holes was made. The depths of the boreholes range from approximately
0.3m (WS05) to 5m (WS03, WS02). The findings of the borehole examination are
included within the survey.
However, the deeper two boreholes, as aforementioned, were carried out at a depth of
approximately 5m. Borehole WS02 found evidence of plastic, ceramic, concrete, brick and
mixed lithologies, some as deep as 5m where the borehole was terminated. Borehole
WS03 found evidence of concrete, ceramic, mixed lithologies, some as deep as 5m where
the borehole was terminated. Of note in this borehole is what is referenced as ‘black
staining and odour’ within the first 1m of ground. Elsewhere within the site, various
materials were found, such as metal wire (HP12), whole bricks (HP11), wood chippings
and glass etc.
NRW in their comments (August 2024) state the following:
59
We are aware there was a landslip at the application site in December 2022 which
involved the imported and deposited material. We note there is no information confirming
the material meets the technical requirements for the specified purpose of its use, nor is
there evidence showing the volume of material is the minimum required to meet the
objectives of its use, i.e. stabilisation of the surrounding ground following a landslip. There
are no details of engineering considerations to show how the material will provide the
stated stabilisation of the surrounding ground. Therefore, it may be considered the material
has been deposited without due consideration to structural stability. Furthermore, there is
no evidence to show the classification of the imported material, i.e. what the material is,
where it has come from, testing to show it is suitable for use. These matters may be
considered as part of the Environmental Permitting regime (please see below) however,
we consider it prudent to highlight these concerns as they may also be matters for your
Authority’s consideration. You may also wish to consider consulting other professional
advisors on these matters and any further information which should be sought from the
applicant prior to determination.
Whilst the permitting regime is not a material planning consideration, the concerns raised
by NRW in respect of the nature of materials deposited is noted.
Page 19 of the phase 2 contamination assessment report makes the following
recommendations:
It is evident from the survey that some remediation is required in order to return the
dwelling and its garden to a habitable state. Whilst the dwelling is not included within the
red line boundary, some of the garden and residential curtilage is and as such, details of
how the property would be reinstated are considered necessary.
In their comments, the Council’s Shared Regulatory Services for land quality have
requested a number of conditions to be added to any decision notice, including the
provision of a scheme of investigation for ground gas, a remediation scheme and other
conditions relating to contamination and importation etc.
60
The Phase 2 Contamination Assessment advises that further assessments may be
required, including leachate testing (p. 16). NRW in their August 2024 comments state
that the applicant had requested leachate testing results directly from them (NRW),
however, they advise that their samples were taken in December 2022 and were analysed
for suspended solids as opposed to chemical composition / pollutants. NRW therefore
maintained that leachate testing results are required prior to determination. These
comments were submitted to the agent and as a direct result, further information was
received by way of a response to NRW on the need for leachate assessment (received 18
November 2024). To summarise, this document states that the request for leachate
testing by NRW is unacceptable as the application site lies directly adjacent to the
Leckwith Quays residential development, which “contains several historical landfill sites,
that have not been remediated” (p.1). The document continues to state that as the
Leckwith Quays redevelopment site flows directly into the River Ely through the application
site, such an analysis would not be conclusive or accurate in terms of traceability and
reliability. The document suggests a pre-commencement condition and remediation
measures relating to leachate migration.
In light of this supporting information and following a re-consultation, NRW commented to
state that whilst the document was noted, they consider a risk cannot be mitigated until it
has been fully investigated and as such, they maintain the need for a leachate
assessment.
Taking the above into consideration, whilst some issues could be addressed by the
provision of conditions and informatives, it is evident from NRW comments that some
evidence is required upfront, prior to the determination of the application. Comments from
consultees such as NRW have previously been sent to the agent, with opportunities to
address. However and despite the submission of further information, leachate surveys
etc. have not been provided and NRW have maintained their stance regarding concerns
on pollution. The Authority considers that sufficient opportunity has been given to the
applicant to address such concerns / requests and in light of the most recent comments
from NRW, it is evident that concerns are still present.
It is evident that considerable ground works have been carried out on site, without
planning permission and insufficient information as to the nature of waste used. As
aforementioned, there is an enforcement case ongoing and images taken by Officers
clearly show a wide range of waste has been deposited which may be of concern. Whilst
the Contamination Assessment states that no levels of contaminants of concern with
respect to groundwater or controlled waters was found, it recommends further testing,
such as leachate, which NRW have requested prior to determination in order to assess the
impact of the material on water pollution.
In the absence of such surveys, insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate
that the retrospective deposition of materials has not detrimentally impacted upon /
polluted the ground and nearby watercourses.
In addition to the above concerns regarding pollutants, it is evident from NRW statements
that there have been landslips and that a query remains over the stability of the land. This
issue is also raised in the Contamination Assessment, which states that further
consideration is required as to the stability of the land in order to prevent further
movement. Whilst section 8 of the ES states that surveys have been carried out and that
“the stability of the overall landform has been shown to be stable” (pa. 8.21), this survey
has not been received and as such, this information / evidence cannot be corroborated.
61
In light of the above, insufficient information and evidence has been submitted to
adequately demonstrate that the deposition of material has not been detrimental to the
nearby watercourses or indeed to public health by way of potential pollutants. The
property known as Hillside currently is uninhabitable and further assessments are required
prior to the property potentially being used once again for residential purposes.
It is evident that due to the nature and level of materials used to deposit on site, there
remain uncertainties with regards to the overall stability of the land, which is further
evidenced in a landslip referenced by NRW in December 2022. Whilst conditions could be
added to address some issues, such as a CEMP and conditions regarding remediation,
the issues relating to pollutant and land stability remain a concern and evidence on both
would be required prior to determination. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to
policy MD7 (criterion 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8) of the Council’s adopted Local Development Plan.
Trees (Ancient woodland, TPO’s), Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure
On 18 October 2023, Welsh Government announced changes to Planning Policy Wales
(PPW) by way of a Dear CPO letter entitled ‘Addressing the nature emergency through the
planning system: update to Chapter 6 of Planning Policy Wales’. The main policy changes
which are of relevance relate to green infrastructure, net benefit for biodiversity and the
protection afforded to trees.
This application has been supported by a biodiversity statement, which the agent also
refers to as the Green Infrastructure Statement for the planning application. However this
statement does not provide a detailed analysis of the step-wise approach as referred to in
PPW. The Environmental Statement states that the infill resulted in the loss of some trees,
“many of which were dead or dying due to Ash die back” (pa. 2.13) or were non-native
species. Paragraph 3.9 of the Planning Statement states that no trees protected by the
TPO were removed and that a felling license was not required.
With regards to the felling license, this is a matter for Natural Resources Wales to resolve
and falls outside the planning parameters and as such, will not be discussed further.
In terms of the TPO trees, whilst it is noted that a section of a TPO is included within the
red line boundary, it is unknown as to whether or not any of the trees removed were
included within the TPO. The statement made in the accompanying documentation must
therefore be accepted, given the lack of evidence to advise of the contrary.
Nevertheless, trees have been removed from the site, albeit, the overall quantity is
unknown. However, as noted within NRW’s response, the site does contain Ancient Semi-
Natural Woodland, as shown in the following extract:
62
Whilst the applicants dispute the ancient woodland, NRW maintain that parts of the site
are classified as Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland. Ancient Woodlands are valuable due to
their long ecological history which results in diverse species, habitats and characteristic
woodland soils. NRW note that a primary core woodland network extends from Leckwith
Road in the North to Cwm Cydfin Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) woodland in the
south. The application site has been felled, however, NRW state that historic images
indicate that woodland habitat was present on the site. NRW have raised concern over
the loss of the woodland as its loss is considered detrimental to the application site and
also to the woodlands in the north and the south.
The following satellite images indicate the level of tree loss:
Satellite image, June 2018, source: Google Earth
63
Satellite image, June 2022, source: Google Earth
Satellite image, June 2023, source: Google Earth
In their August 2024 response, NRW note the following:
The increased fragmentation and the damage caused by the deposition and spreading of
material has also negatively impacted the woodlands’ ability to adapt to changing
conditions, such as climate change; negatively impacted the woodlands ability to recover;
reduced the resilience of the adjoining woodland by decreasing the level of connection
between woodland ecosystems, reducing the scale of the ecosystem and had a
detrimental effect on the condition of the remaining woodlands. The proposed
development has not appropriately safeguarded the important ancient woodland soils
64
which contain important seed banks, ancient woodland remnant features and carbon
stores.
Paragraph 6.4.16 of Planning Policy Wales (PPW) states that ‘Potential applicants should
not conduct any pre-emptive site clearance works before submitting a planning application
as this can make it more difficult for a development proposal to secure a net benefit for
biodiversity. Where a site has been cleared prior to development its biodiversity value
should be deemed to have been as it was before any site investigations or clearance took
place. A net benefit for biodiversity must be achieved from that point. Habitat status can be
established through evidence remaining on site and local desk-based assessments
(planning authorities must ensure that they have access to these data sources). In such
cases, habitat status will be presumed to be good in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary.’ It is unclear from the submission as to the extent of the cleared woodland and
no baseline surveys / assessments have been submitted in support of the planning
application.
NRW have also raised concern regarding the deposition of material at the site, which is
likely to be detrimental to the viability of restoration of the site. Whilst the ES suggests that
tips contain rich habitat for wildlife, NRW state that the majority of the biodiversity interest
which occurs on coal spoil is the development of species rich open habitats. In this
instance, the most critical element for achieving the restoration of the site to Ancient Semi-
Natural Woodland are the woodland soils on the site, which have been developing for
centuries. NRW state that the “tipped material will inevitably be different to the previously
developed woodland soils”.
Whilst the supporting documentation states that remaining trees will not be felled, a large
amount of Ancient Woodland has already been lost, which was undertaken without
following the stepwise approach as outlined in PPW.
Notwithstanding the concerns raised above on the loss of woodland and the impact of the
deposition of material, the application is supported by a tree planting proposal, as shown in
the following extract:
65
However, NRW do not consider the replacement ratio equivalent to the quality,
environmental and ecological importance of the trees lost, as the woodland proposed is
substantially smaller than that which have been lost. In addition, the replacement would
be considered secondary woodland and as such, would not achieve the value of the
former Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland. Notwithstanding this, the tree planting scheme
does not in any case provide sufficient detail in terms of ground preparation methods and
without detail on the substrate, NRW are unable to comment on the suitability or viability of
the establishment proposal.
In response to NRW’s August 2024 comments, further information was received, such as a
‘ground Preparation and Post-Planting Management’ document, an amended location and
tree planting plan and an ecology document. In response to this further information, NRW
commented in December 2024, in summary, to state that preparation and ground
management etc. must be agreed prior to permission being granted and that they
considered the document did not address any of the issues previously identified as it
“provides no firm commitments, site-specific specifications or site-specific approach” to
resolve the issues previously identified. In addition, the planting plan, whilst it proposes
increased tree planting does not provide the appropriate level of detailed information
necessary to alter their previous opinion and the ecology document submitted describes
the adjacent woodland, rather than the ecological profile of the proposed development site
and as a result, NRW considered that this provides minimal additional information to that
already submitted.
It should also be noted that the Council’s Ecologist also echoed some of the concerns
raised by NRW. In their July 2024 comments they referred to the above referenced
paragraph in PPW (Paragraph 6.4.16) which states that sites should be returned to their
former state. The baseline therefore should be to understand the site prior to works
commencing (by looking at the surrounding woodland, the SINC data from 2009 and 2023
and any records from the South East Wales Biological Records Centre) and reinstating the
woodland to its original extent. The Ecologist stated that such information was not
provided in the supporting documentation and that the areas of wildflower should be
reduced. However, given that the baseline has not been established, it is difficult to
conclude that the current proposal is effectively reinstating the woodland as an integral
part of Factory Wood. In addition, the Ecologist raised concern on the lack of details in the
establishment of the capping layer and the tree planting plans had no reference to the
existing woodland species composition. In concluding, the Ecologist recommended
refusal of the application and recommended the applicant use the services of an ecological
consultant.
Whilst additional information has been received following the Ecologist comments, the
recommendation for refusal still stands with the Ecologist as they have stated that the
additional information has not addressed their concerns.
Taking all of the above into consideration, whilst the comments in the supporting
documentation regarding the health of the trees is noted, given the absence of evidence to
corroborate these claims by a qualified arboriculturist, and in line with paragraph 6.4.16 of
PPW, and given that the baseline has not been established, the habitat status of the
application site prior to site clearance must be presumed to be good.
66
In this case, trees have been removed from the application site without the necessary
consents from NRW. Whilst such consent is a separate matter, PPW outlines the
importance of trees and woodland and states that they are “of great importance for
biodiversity” (pa. 6.4.37). Not only does PPW outline the importance of trees, it states at
paragraph 6.4.39 “that planning authorities must protect trees, hedgerows, groups of trees
and areas of woodland” and that the “permanent removal of trees, woodland and
hedgerows will only be permitted where it would achieve significant and clearly defined
public benefits” (pa. 6.4.42). Further weight and protection is afforded to ancient
woodlands, which is of relevance in this instance, as these are “irreplaceable natural
resources, and have significant landscape, biodiversity and cultural value” (pa. 6.4.43).
Paragraph 6.4.43 of Planning Policy Wales, outlines that ancient woodland (amongst other
designations) are to be afforded protection from development which would result in their
loss of deterioration unless very exceptionally there are significant and clearly defined
public benefits. This is echoed within criteria 1a and 1b of the stepwise approach within
paragraph 6.4.13 of PPW. PPW states that loss of green infrastructure should be avoided
and that a step-wise approach should be followed.
With reference to the step-wise approach and having regard to the points within PPW (pa.
6.4.15), the following is noted.
Point 1a) refers to the first priority for planning authorities to avoid damage to biodiversity
and in instances where there may be harm, planning authorities will need to be satisfied
that alternative sites have been considered. This is closely linked to point 1b) which refers
to the need to further protect designated sites, sites containing protected species and
habitats. In this instance, no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that alternative
sites or design options have been explored and as such, the proposal has failed to satisfy
the requirements of point 1a) of the step-wise approach. In addition, given the nature of
the site and loss of ancient semi-natural woodland, the proposal is also considered
contrary to point 1b).
Point 2 refers to minimising the damage by, for example, maintaining the largest possible
area of existing habitat supporting biodiversity, ensuring that retained habitats continue to
be well connected, retaining features etc. It is evident, given the loss of woodland and
comments from NRW and the Authority’s Ecologist that the loss of habitat has impacted
upon its connection to the wider network and as such, it is considered that the proposal
has also failed to demonstrate compliance with point 2 of the step-wise approach.
Point 3 refers to mitigation, whilst point 4 refers to compensation in instances where there
is unavoidable damage. As aforementioned, the first steps of the step-wise approach
have not been complied with and as such, the loss of woodland and habitat may not be
considered as unavoidable.
67
It is important to note that this application is partly retrospective, given that the ancient
woodland within the application site has already been lost, contrary to PPW. This loss is
irreversible and as such, whilst the loss is contrary to policy, the only option currently
available from a planning perspective is to secure replanting and attempt to address the
loss of the woodland, restoring it back to its original state. In order for an assessment to
be made on replacement, a survey of the pre-existing woodland is required (as
aforementioned by the Authority’s Ecologist), which has not been provided. Whilst a
planting scheme is proposed, it fails to provide sufficient information and notwithstanding
this, is not considered of a scale / nature that would be comparable with the woodland lost.
Therefore, whilst the loss of the trees / ancient woodland is irreversible, there is now a
requirement to assess the proposed replacement against what has been lost, which in this
instance is considered inadequate and is not proportionate to the loss, as required in
paragraph 6.4.42 of PPW. The proposal is therefore considered unacceptable in terms of
its replacement tree and green infrastructure provision, contrary to paragraph 6.4.42 of
Planning Policy Wales.
Notwithstanding this, insufficient information has been provided on the composition of the
soils / materials and the nature of any ground preparation methods etc. and as such, it is
unclear as to whether or not the proposed planting scheme would in any case be well
suited to these ground conditions. The materials need to be contiguous with soils and
subsoils found in the undisturbed woodland and sourced sustainably as not doing so risks
creating a disparate parcel of woodland that will not fit with the wider woodland and could
change the character of Factory Wood in a way that may be detrimental.
Therefore, in addition to the concerns regarding the scale and nature of the replacement
planting scheme, it is evident from both NRW and the Councils Ecology Officers
comments that insufficient information has been provided on the ground conditions to
enable an assessment on the overall suitability of the planting scheme as proposed.
Whilst supporting documentation suggests a pre-commencement condition for details such
as this, this is considered a vital piece of evidence that is required prior to determination.
To conclude, the application site has been subjected to a significant loss of green
infrastructure and the Green Infrastructure Statement has failed to demonstrate that the
stepwise approach has been followed. Whilst the loss of trees is irreversible, the site
should be returned to its original state, prior to the loss of green infrastructure. However,
insufficient information / evidence has been submitted to provide a baseline for the
previous state of the site and as such, an assessment cannot be made as to whether or
not the proposed replacement planting scheme is sufficient to address the loss.
Notwithstanding this, the scheme proposed is not considered to be of a scale / nature that
would be comparable with the woodland lost and given the lack of evidence on the
composition of the soils / materials and the nature of any ground preparation methods, it is
considered that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed planting
would be suited to these ground conditions. The proposal is therefore considered
contrary to Policies SP1 (Delivering the Strategy) and MD2 (Design of New Development)
of the LDP, in addition to the advice set out in Planning Policy Wales (Edition 12).
68
Protected sites
In light of the above assessment on ancient woodland, NRW have also raised concern
regarding the impact of the proposals on the Cwm Cydfin SSSI woodland. Whilst the SSSI
is located approximately 700m away from the site, NRW state that in the absence of
adequate information, they are unable to rule out adverse impacts on the Cwm Cydfin
SSSI woodland as there may be pathway links to the SSSI. NRW continue to state that
permission should only be granted if it can be demonstrated that the proposed
development will not unacceptably damage the features for which the SSSI is of special
interest.
Policy MG20 (Nationally Protected Sites and Species) of the LDP states:
Development likely to have an adverse effect either directly or indirectly on the
conservation value of a site of special scientific interest will only be permitted where it is
demonstrated that:
1. There is no suitable alternative to the proposed development; and
2. It can be demonstrated that the benefits from the development clearly outweigh the
special interest of the site; and
3. Appropriate compensatory measures are secured; or
4. The proposal contributes to the protection, enhancement or positive management of the
site.
With regards to the above policy, as aforementioned, the step-wise approach from PPW
has not been followed. Criterion 3 states that appropriate compensatory measures should
be secured and in light of the above assessment on the inadequacy of the proposed
replanting scheme and insufficient evidence of suitability, the proposal is considered
contrary to policy MG20 (criterion 3).
Paragraph 6.4.26 of PPW states the following:
There is also a presumption against development not within a SSSI but likely to damage a
SSSI. In such cases, proposals must be carefully assessed to ensure that effects on those
nature conservation interests which the designation is intended to protect are clearly
understood and development should be refused where there are adverse impacts on the
features for which a site has been designated. International and national responsibilities
and obligations for conservation should be fully met, and, consistent with the objectives of
the designation, statutorily designated sites should be protected from damage and
deterioration, with their important features conserved and enhanced and the capacity for
restoration demonstrated by and through appropriate management.
Taking the above into consideration, it is considered that a lack of evidence has been
submitted to demonstrate that the proposed retention of materials would not be detrimental
to the SSSI. In addition, the proposed compensatory measures for the loss of habitats /
green infrastructure is considered insufficient (as highlighted above). The proposal
therefore fails to comply with policy MG20 of the Council’s LDP, in addition to PPW
(paragraph 6.4.26).
69
Highway Safety
Firstly, the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal, on the basis that
works have already been completed.
As aforementioned, this application only assesses the retention of the material and the
proposed planting scheme. However, it is important to note the comments in the
supporting documentation relating to highway network issues should the application be
refused and action sought to carry out the removal of material from the site, such as the
increase in traffic generation and increased manoeuvres into and out of the site have been
noted.
A Transport Statement, received in June 2024 states that the access is substandard and
that “any action that results in an intensification of its use would be detrimental in terms of
the safety of road users” (pa. 2.3). Whilst this is noted, the removal of the material is not
subject of this application and as such, is not assessed. Notwithstanding this, with regards
to the increased traffic, this can be controlled by means of a Construction Traffic
Management Plan as is often used to control traffic for larger schemes and as such, whilst
some traffic is expected, it is considered that with sufficient conditions, this could be
controlled to a degree where it could be appropriately managed and would not be
unacceptable. In addition, whilst the site entrance is not ideal for larger vehicles, given the
nature of the site and the level of infill over the years, it is evident that such manoeuvres
are possible. Notwithstanding this, a CTMP would be able to control and monitor such
movements / manoeuvres to a degree that would result in minor impact on the highway
infrastructure.
Drainage
The Authority’s drainage department have been consulted but no comments have been
received to date. Nevertheless, the application is likely to require separate consent via the
Drainage Authority and as such, the onus is on the applicant to ensure that such consents
are in place.
Notwithstanding this, the Environmental Statement (paragraph 2.2) states that the storm
water that damaged the application site originated from the public highway and as such,
the applicant is in discussion with regards to financial recompense. Whilst this is noted,
this forms a separate legal matter and as such, adds no weight to the overall conclusions
on the application.
Impact on neighbouring amenities
The application site is located a sufficient distance from neighbouring properties to ensure
no harmful overbearing impact as a result of the ground variations.
The Environmental Statement (page 20) states that noise generated by the removal of the
fill material “would be out of keeping with the existing noise climate”. Whilst this is noted,
this application assesses the retention of material and not its removal. As such, the noise
impact of the removal of material (in addition to other mentioned impacts such as dust, air
quality etc.) is not considered relevant in this instance.
70
Conclusions
As aforementioned, the Enforcement Notice in place at the application site seeks the
removal of all tipped material. This application seeks to retain it and to make provisions for
a replanting scheme. It is stated from the submission and the table at the beginning of the
report (taken from the Planning Statement) that the removal of the materials would have
an impact on the wider environment. However, the current proposal seeks to retain the
material and whilst this is noted, it is evident that in this case, insufficient evidence /
information has been provided to demonstrate that the materials deposited would not
detrimentally impact upon the environment by way of pollutant and ground stability. In
addition, there are concerns regarding the impact of the proposals on the SSSI.
Whilst the loss of ancient woodland is regrettable, this is irreversible and as such, this
resource is forever lost. However, whilst the application states that the removal of all
tipped material would delay any replanting, this is not considered a sufficient reason on its
own for allowing the retention of the materials. There remains a clear need to ensure that
if the material were to be retained, it would need to be demonstrated that the ground
conditions could be sufficient / suitable for such a planting scheme, which in this instance
has not been demonstrated. As such, it remains uncertain as to whether a replanting
scheme could feasibly be provided and retained on site. In addition, the replanting
scheme is not considered suitable / sufficient to address the woodland lost and given the
lack of surveys / evidence of the site prior to the removal of woodland, an assessment
cannot be made on whether or not the proposals return the site back to its prior state.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Insufficient information and evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the
deposition of material has not been detrimental to the nearby watercourses or to
public health by way of potential pollutants. The property known as Hillside
currently is uninhabitable and further assessments are required prior to the property
potentially being used once again for residential purposes. It is evident, due to the
nature and level of materials deposited on the site, that there remain uncertainties
with regards to the overall stability of the site, which is further evidenced in a
landslip in December 2022. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policy
MD7 (Environmental Protection) of the Vale of Glamorgan Adopted Local
Development Plan 2011-2026.
71
2. The application site has been subjected to a significant loss of green infrastructure
and the Green Infrastructure Statement has failed to demonstrate that the stepwise
approach has been followed. Whilst the loss of trees is irreversible, the site should
be returned to its original state, prior to the loss of green infrastructure. However,
insufficient information / evidence has been submitted to provide a baseline for the
previous state of the site and as such, an assessment cannot be made as to
whether or not the proposed replacement planting scheme is sufficient to address
the loss. Notwithstanding this, the scheme proposed is not considered to be of a
scale / nature that would be comparable with the woodland lost and given the lack
of evidence on the composition of the soils / materials and the nature of any ground
preparation methods, it is considered that there is insufficient evidence to
demonstrate that the proposed planting would be suited to these ground conditions.
The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policies SP1 (Delivering the
Strategy) and MD2 (Design of New Development) of the Vale of Glamorgan
Adopted Local Development Plan 2011-2026, in addition to the advice set out in
Planning Policy Wales (Edition 12).
3. Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed
retention of materials would not be detrimental to the Cwm Cydfin Site of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI). In addition, the proposed compensatory measures for the
loss of habitats / green infrastructure is considered insufficient. The proposal
therefore fails to comply with Policy MG20 (Nationally Protected Sites and Species)
of the Vale of Glamorgan Adopted Local Development Plan 2011-2026, in addition
to the advice set out in Planning Policy Wales (Edition 12).
4. Given the concerns on the acceptability of the landscaping scheme and the lack of
evidence to demonstrate that the site is viable for a landscaping scheme, the
proposed development is considered unacceptable as it results in a stark and
engineered appearance. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to policies
MD1 (Location of New Development) and MD2 (Design of New Development) of the
Vale of Glamorgan Adopted Local Development Plan 2011-2026.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The decision to refuse planning permission has been taken in accordance with Section 38
of The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, in determining a
planning application the determination must be in accordance with the Development Plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for the area
comprises the Vale of Glamorgan Adopted Local Development Plan 2011-2026 and Future
Wales – the National Plan 2040.
Having regard to the Council’s duties under the Equality Act 2010 the proposed
development does not have any significant implications for, or effect on, persons who
share a protected characteristic.
It is considered that the decision complies with the Council’s well-being objectives and the
sustainable development principle in accordance with the requirements of the Well-being
of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.
The appropriate marine policy documents have been considered in the determination of
this application in accordance with Section 59 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
72
2022/00907/FUL Received on 18 August 2022
APPLICANT: Lidl GB Ltd C/O Agent
AGENT: Mr Rob Mitchell Brunel House, 2 Fitzalan Road, Cardiff, CF24 0EB
Land at Bridge House Farm, Llanmaes Road, Llanmaes, Llantwit Major
Erection of a Class A1 foodstore with access, surface level parking, landscaping and all
associated development
REASON FOR COMMITTEE DETERMINATION
The application is required to be determined by Planning Committee under the Council’s
approved scheme of delegation because:
• the application is of a scale and / or nature that is not covered by the scheme of
delegation.
SITE AND CONTEXT
The application site lies adjacent to the junction of Llanmaes Road and the Llantwit Major
Bypass, outside of a settlement boundary as identified by the adopted Vale of Glamorgan
Local Development Plan 2011-2026, and as such falls within the countryside. It is
however, noted that the Llantwit Major settlement boundary runs along the southern edge
of the adjacent bypass whilst the outskirts of Llanmaes is circa 150 metres from the site at
its nearest point to the north. A plan showing the context of the site is shown below for
information:
73
The site does fall within a Mineral Safeguarding Area for Limestone (Category 2) and also
a 45m height civil aviation safeguarding area. Llanmaes Brook running circa 75 metres to
the north of the site is identified within C2 Flood Zone whilst the edge of the Llanmaes
Conservation Area is within circa 70 metres of the north-eastern corner of the site.
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT
The application relates to the development of the site for the erection of a Class A1
foodstore with access, surface level parking, landscaping and all associated development.
The proposed foodstore would have a floorspace of circa 2000 square metres with an
indicated retail floor space of 1250 square metres. The proposed store would have a
maximum width of circa 78 metres and a depth of approximately 32 metres (inclusive of
the canopy area to the front). The buildings would have a monopitch roof design with a
maximum height of circa 8 metres (owing to levels). The site layout would accommodate
access from Llanmaes Road to the east and a 122 bay parking area to the front of the
store to the east with a servicing area for delivery vehicles to the north.
During the course of the application the application has been revised noting officer
concerns, including alterations to landscaping, fenestration details and the addition of a
green roof. As amended, plans and elevations of the proposals are shown below:
Site layout plan
74
Southern side elevation fronting onto B4265
Eastern elevation fronting Llanmaes Road
Northern elevation fronting Thursday House/Bridge House Farm
Western elevation
REPORT
Members will recall that this application was first considered at the Planning Committee
Meeting on 12th December 2024. A copy of the report presented at that committee, which
includes consideration of all material matters and relevant policies, is attached at
Appendix A to this report for information and is therefore not repeated here.
At the December meeting members resolved to approve the planning application subject
to suitable conditions and S106 agreement. This was contrary to the officer
recommendation which was to refuse the planning application, principally owing to its
location and associated visual impacts.
The matters that were considered by members to outweigh the proposed reason for
refusal given by planning officers are summarised below:
• The relevant public consultation had not suggested significant opposition to the
development, but rather significant support for it within the wider Llantwit Major
area.
75
• The concerns raised around the access to the proposed retail development / food
outlet had been considered by the Council’s Highways Section, and no objection
had been raised (subject to the conditions outlined within the report in question and
the applicant undertaking the necessary works and providing S106 funding). The
site also lay near to a substantial highway network and population area.
• The applicant had revised their plans with regard to the development of the site for
the erection of a Class A1 foodstore. This included the height of the food outlet to
be limited to 7 metres (comparable to a typical UK house), the use of green roofing,
solar panels, etc. This would also help to mitigate the concerns raised around the
visual, ecological, etc. impacts of the development on the local area.
• Due to the location, landscape and topography of the area identified for this
development, it was felt that these would help to minimise the visual impact on the
local primary catchment area and community.
• The proposed area for development lay outside of the Llanmaes Conservation Area
and it was felt therefore that although it was near to this area, there was still
insufficient visual harm to justify refusing the application.
• Due to the increased urbanisation and significant population within the local Llantwit
Major / St Athan area and the wider southwestern Glamorgan location (including the
Wick-Rhoose ‘corridor’) there was a need to have further retail / food outlet
development in order to meet increased need and address the insufficient
availability of such an outlet in the local area.
• This development would also help benefit the local environment and sustainability
by lessening the journeys required by local communities in order to access such a
retail / food outlet, as well as the wider economic, employment, commercial and
financial benefits to the local communities and economy.
Following the deferral of the application at the December meeting, circa 15 further
representations have been received, largely from residents of Llanmaes and Llanmaes
Community Council, these are summarised below:
• Request to revisit matters considered by the previous committee meeting
• Impact upon Llanmaes Conservation Area
• Highways implications of the development including HGVs driving through the
village noting existing issues; indicate that submitted transport statement
inadequate; impact upon emergency vehicles being able to access Llanmaes;
request for traffic calming measures in Llanmaes
• Concern with regard to position of access and implications for access of delivery
vehicles; need for safety railings on footway; need for segregated pedestrian
facilities in the car park; need for further alterations to the main junction to the south
• Impact upon riding club opposite owing to location of access and indication that
dedicated right of way could be provided
• Evidence of need for the supermarket
• Need for the development to contribute positively to public amenity
• Request to have sight of the conditions being put before members and
subsequently comments about the scope of conditions including restrictions on
76
traffic through Llanmaes; restriction on use of the car parking to restrict anti-social
behaviour; lighting and hours of operation
• Request alterations to pedestrian crossing and a slip road into the store
• Closing time of store should be 9pm
• Car park barrier should be installed to prevent anti-social behaviour
• Concern over veracity of submitted documents by applicant including that of the
opinion survey
• Application site is not the only appropriate site is available
• Site not in a sustainable location
• Members gave undue weight to the affordability of goods
• Drainage implications
Consideration of all material planning matters, including but not limited to the need for
retail development; location of the site; drainage and impact on Llanmaes Conservation
Area are detailed within the original committee report in consultation with relevant
consultees, including the Council’s Highway Development Section. Noting there has been
a resolution by members to grant planning permission, it is not considered reasonable or
necessary to revisit the merits of the proposals within this report.
Although officers remain of the view that there is significant tension with the relevant policy
framework (hence officers’ recommendation was to refuse the application), should
members be minded to approve the application, officers recommend that any approval
should be subject to the conditions and legal agreement as detailed further below. These
conditions include those referred to by consultees in the original report and those
considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms by officers.
These conditions have been shared with Llanmaes Community Council and the applicant.
Following comments received by both parties, the conditions have been amended and
additional conditions added where necessary to ensure they are as robust as possible. For
instance, Llanmaes Community Council representations with regard to additional
requirements relating to restrictions on routing of traffic including further details of signage
and restriction on access to the car park outside of store opening hours to prevent anti-
social behaviour, are reflected within the suite of conditions for member consideration The
policy background behind the required planning obligations is also detailed within the
December committee report.
Members are also advised that, since the December meeting, Welsh Government have
advised that they may wish to ‘call in’ the planning application. As such they have issued a
Holding Direction that states as per Article 18 of the Town and Country Planning
(Development Management Procedure (Wales) Order 2012, the Council should not grant
planning permission for application 2022/00907/FUL or any development of the same kind
which is the subject of the application, without the prior authorisation of the Welsh
Ministers.
As such, should members agree and resolve to grant planning permission, a permission
could only be issued following confirmation from the Welsh Ministers that they do wish to
call the application in.
77
APPROVE, subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement to provide for the
following:
• Pay a contribution of £50,600 for the provision of sustainable transport
improvements
• Pay £30,000 towards public art
• Pay a contribution of £5,020 for the provision of training and development
Proposed condition(s):
1. The development shall begin no later than five years from the date of this decision.
Reason:
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved
plans and documents:
Drawings
Site Location Plan P420
• P110 Proposed Floor Plan
• P111 B Proposed Roof Plan
• P222 A Proposed Elevations Option 9
• P423 D Proposed Surfacing Plan
• P424 D Proposed Boundary Treatment
• SS P425 C Proposed Site Plan
• P428 D Proposed Levels
• PA02 B Proposed Access Design and Active Travel Improvements
• SP01 A Proposed Access Swept Path Analysis;
• SP02 A Proposed Access Swept Path Analysis; and
Documents
• Design and Access Statement (DA01 Revision E, July 2024)
• Green Infrastructure Statement (R04, June 2024)
• Arboricultural Report ArbsTS, 5 March 2024
• Ecological Survey Revision 4 (Just Mammals, July 2022)
• Transport Assessment 20-00699/TA/01/A (Corun, May 2023)
• Travel Plan 20-00699/TP/01/A (Corun, August 2022)
• Delivery Management Plan 20-00699/DMP/01 Rev A (Corun, November
2023)
• Agricultural Land Classification Report (LRA, Report 2039/1, July 2022);
• Heritage Assessment (Cotswold Archaeology, CA Report: CR1049_1, April
2022);
• Red River Archaeology (Report no. RR0982, dated August 2023)
• Flood Consequences Assessment & Drainage Strategy (Waterco);
• Noise Assessment (Inacoustic, May 2022);
• Ground Investigation Report Phase 2 (943.02.01, Remada, March 2022);
• Landscape and Visual Appraisal (Tir Collective, June 2022);
78
Reason:
For the avoidance of doubt as to the approved development and to accord with
Circular 016:2014 on The Use of Planning Conditions for Development
Management.
3. A schedule of materials (including samples) to be used in the construction of the
development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with
the approved details prior to the first beneficial use of the development.
Reason:
To safeguard local visual amenities, as required by Policies SP1 (Delivering the
Strategy) and Policy MD2 (Design of New Development) of the Local Development
Plan.
4. Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Traffic Management
Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The Management Plan shall include details of parking for construction traffic, the
proposed routes for heavy construction vehicles (including, amongst other things,
measures to avoid routing vehicles through Llanmaes), timings of construction
traffic and means of defining and controlling such traffic routes and timings. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Management
Plan.
Reason:
To ensure that the parking provision and highway safety in the area are not
adversely affected by the construction of the development and to meet the
requirements of Policies SP1 (Delivering the Strategy), MD2 (Design of New
Developments) and MD7 (Environmental Protection) of the Local Development
Plan.
5. Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development shall commence until full
Engineering details of the "off site works", including those shown on drawings PA02
Rev B ‘Proposed Access Design and Active Travel Improvements’ have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall
include the vehicular and pedestrian access into the site inclusive of vision splays;
new shared active travel route; toucan crossings; street lighting; highway drainage;
details of Traffic Regulatory Orders for no waiting and no loading along the site
frontage (Llanmaes Road to include all carriageway markings and signage
(including that to limit heavy vehicle movements through Llanmaes); and any
associated highway retaining structures within the vicinity of the site. The works
approved by this condition shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the
approved details and implemented in full prior to beneficial use of the development.
Reason:
79
In the interests of highway safety and to ensure compliance with Policies SP1
(Delivering the Strategy), MD2 (Design of New Development) and
MD7 (Environmental Protection) of the Local Development Plan.
6. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall commence until a
scheme has been provided and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority for
the alteration of the staging sequences/telematics for the signalised junction to the
South of the site (B4265/Llanmaes Road). The works shall then be carried out by an
approved telematics contractor, which shall also be agreed in writing, prior to the
beneficial occupation of the development hereby approved.
Reason: -
In the interests of highway safety and to ensure compliance with Policies SP1
(Delivering the Strategy), MD2 (Design of New Development) and MD7
(Environmental Protection) of the Local Development Plan.
7. No development (including site clearance and demolition) shall take place, until a
Condition Survey of an agreed route along the adopted highway has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The extent of
the area to be surveyed must be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to
the survey being undertaken. The survey must consist of:
• A plan to an appropriate scale showing the location of all defects identified within
the routes for construction traffic
• A written and photographic record of all defects with corresponding location
references accompanied by a description of the extent of the
assessed area and a record of the date, time and weather conditions at the time of
the survey
Reason:
To ensure that any damage to the adopted highway sustained throughout the
development process can be identified and subsequently remedied at the expense
of the developer in accordance with Policy MD2 (Design of New Developments) of
the Local Development Plan.
8. Within 1 month following the completion of the development, a Second Condition
Survey along the route agreed under Condition 7 shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Second Condition Survey
shall identify any remedial works to be carried out which are a direct result of the
development approved and shall include the timings of the remedial works. Any
agreed remedial works shall thereafter be carried out at the developer’s expense in
accordance with the agreed timescales.
Reason:
80
To ensure that any damage to the adopted highway sustained throughout the
development process can be identified and subsequently remedied at the expense
of the developer in accordance with Policy MD2 (Design of New Developments) of
the Local Development Plan.
9. The site access, circulation, shared cycle footway to site frontage and on-site
parking as shown on drawing nos. PA02 Rev B ‘Proposed Access Design and
Active Travel Improvements’ and SS P425 Rev C shall be laid out prior to first
beneficial use of the development and thereafter retained whilst the development
remains in existence.
Reason:
To ensure that the development is served by satisfactory access, circulation and
parking and to ensure compliance with Policies SP1 (Delivering the Strategy), MD2
(Design of New Development) and MD7 (Environmental Protection) of the Local
Development Plan.
10. The operation of the development hereby approved shall be carried out in
accordance with the Delivery Management Plan 20-00699/DMP/01, including with
reference to routing of delivery vehicles as specified in paragraph 1.3, and there
shall be no arrival, departure, loading or unloading of delivery vehicles between the
hours of 11pm and 7am.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety and free flow of traffic along the highway network
and to ensure compliance with Policies SP1 (Delivering the Strategy), MD2 (Design
of New Development) and MD7 (Environmental Protection) of the Local
Development Plan.
11. Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the beneficial occupation of the
development hereby approved, a scheme of EV car parking shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall thereafter be
provided and retained in accordance with the agreed details prior to the beneficial
use of the development hereby approved.
Reason:
To ensure the timely provision of suitable parking facilities and the wider area and to
ensure compliance with Policies MD2 and MD5 of the Local Development Plan and
to ensure compliance with the requirements of Policy 12 of Future Wales
81
12. Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the beneficial occupation of the
development hereby approved, a scheme of cycle parking shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall thereafter be provided
and retained in accordance with the agreed details prior to the beneficial use of the
development hereby approved.
Reason:
To encourage alternative modes of transport in accordance with both local and
national planning policy and to conform with the requirements of Policy SP7 of the
adopted Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan and Future Wales.
13. No surface water and/or land drainage shall be allowed to connect directly or
indirectly with the public sewerage network.
Reason:
To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the
health and safety of existing residents and ensure no pollution of or detriment to the
environment and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy MD7 of the
adopted Local Development Plan.
14. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with Arboricultural
Report, ArbsTS dated 25.03.2024. All the trees and hedges shown on the Tree
Protection Plan ref 1421.5 enclosed in the Arboricultural Report as "to be retained"
and/or any trees whose canopies overhang the site shall be protected in
accordance with the Arboricultural Report. Tree/hedgerow protective fencing shall
be erected in accordance with the approved details before any equipment,
machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the
development (including site clearance), and shall be maintained until all equipment,
machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall
be stored or placed within any fenced area, and the ground levels within those
areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made.
Reason:
In order to avoid damage to trees on or adjoining the site which are of amenity value
to the area and to ensure compliance with Policies SP10 and MD2 of the adopted
Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan and Future Wales
15. Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the first beneficial occupation of the
development, a detailed scheme of soft landscaping, which shall include, but not be
limited to, further details of translocated and additional hedgerow planting;
additional native tree planting; provenance of wildflower mixes, shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
82
To safeguard local visual amenities, and to ensure compliance with the terms of
Policies SP1 (Delivering the Strategy), SP10 (Built and Natural Environment) and
MD2 (Design of New Developments)
16. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping
shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the
occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the
sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion
of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased
shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory maintenance of the landscaped area to ensure compliance
with Policies SP1 (Delivering the Strategy), SP10 (Built and Natural Environment),
MD1 (Location of New Development) and MD2 (Design of New Developments) of
the Local Development Plan.
17. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall take place, including
site clearance, until a landscape & ecological management plan has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall include:
i) Details of sensitive site clearance with respect to reptiles and breeding birds;
ii) Details of newt friendly drainage.
iii) A plan showing wildlife and habitat protection zones, if appropriate;
iv) A lighting scheme (including specifications, timing, intensity and details of
lighting) for the site in order to ensure minimal light spillage onto adjoining
vegetation;
v) Details of the management of ecology features and landscaped areas to
maximise biodiversity;
vi) Measures to be undertaken to enhance biodiversity on site (including but not
limited to bat and bird box provision);
vii) Details of site wide scrub and compensatory planting (including details of
aftercare);
viii) A minimum of 100mm gap at the bottom of all fencing used on site;
ix) Details of ongoing maintenance and management of both retained and additional
landscaping features.
x) Additional details of the proposed mitigation to the western boundary of the site
that should be in line with section 10.3 of the submitted preliminary ecological
appraisal
xI) Details of tree/hedgerow replacement/translocation to ensure a 3:1 replacement
ratio in line with chapter 6 of PPW
xii) Further details of the proposed green roof as shown on the approved plans,
including planting specifications, details of aftercare and maintenance.
The works shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the timings approved
by the local planning authority and the site operated in accordance with the
approved details (including management and aftercare) thereafter.
83
Reason:
In the interests of ecology and to ensure compliance with Policies SP1 (Delivering
the Strategy) and MD9 (Promoting Biodiversity) of the Local Development Plan.
18. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved
development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing within 2
days to the Local Planning Authority, all associated works must stop, and no further
development shall take place until a scheme to deal with the contamination found
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. An
investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and where remediation is
necessary a remediation scheme and verification plan must be prepared and
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Following
completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a
verification report must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The timescale for the above actions shall be agreed with the
LPA within 2 weeks of the discovery of any unsuspected contamination.
Reason:
To ensure that any unacceptable risks from land contamination to the future users
of the land, neighbouring land, controlled waters, property and ecological systems
are minimised, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without
unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance
with Policies SP1 (Delivering the Strategy) and MD7 (Environmental Protection) of
the Local Development Plan.
19. Any aggregate (other than virgin quarry stone) or recycled aggregate material and
any topsoil [natural or manufactured],or subsoil, to be imported shall be assessed
for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of
investigation which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the
Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved
scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with Pollution Control’s Imported
Materials Guidance Notes. Subject to approval of the above, sampling of the
material received at the development site to verify that the imported soil is free from
contamination shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme and timescale to
be agreed in writing by the LPA.
Reason:
To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced in accordance with
Policies SP1 (Delivering the Strategy) and MD7 (Environmental Protection) of the
Local Development Plan.
84
20. The retail unit hereby approved shall be operated as a class A1 foodstore as
detailed within the submissions with a floor sales area of no more than 1251 sqm as
shown on the submitted floor plan. Services offered within the building shall not
extend at any time to ancillary functions including, but not limited to, post office,
financial services, pharmacy, delicatessen, cafe or newsagent, or any other use not
falling within class A1.
Reason:
To safeguard the health and vitality of Llantwit Major Town Centre in accordance
with Policy MG13 of the adopted Local Development Plan and accord with the
provisions of Chapter 4 (inclusive of paragraph 4.3.29) of Planning Policy Wales
(12th edition).
21. Prior to beneficial use of the building, further details of a scheme of acoustic
mitigation (including any acoustic fencing necessary) shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall ensure that
the rating noise level of static plant serving the store is no greater than the
background sound level when assessed in accordance with the
BS4142:2014+A1:2019 methodology at any off-site residential receptor. The
development shall thereafter be operated at all times in accordance with the
approved details.
Reason:
In the interests of residential amenity and to ensure compliance with the terms of
Policy MD2 (Design of New Development) of the Local Development Plan.
22. Prior to beneficial use of the building hereby approved, further details of the public
art to be provided on site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The approved Strategy shall thereafter be implemented in
accordance with its agreed implementation plan.
Reason:
To ensure that public art is provided as integral part of the development in
accordance with Policy MD2 (Design of New Development) of the Local
Development Plan and the advice contained in the Public Art Supplementary
Planning Guidance.
23. Prior to the beneficial occupation of the development hereby approved, a scheme
(including details of the timing of such provision) for the provision and maintenance
of the identified open space shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority, and the open space shall thereafter be provided and
retained in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason:
85
To ensure the timely provision of open space in the interests of the amenity of future
occupiers and the wider area and to ensure compliance with Policies MD2 and MD5
of the Local Development Plan.
24. The use, hereby approved, shall not be open to customers visiting the premises
outside of the following hours:
08:00 hours to 22:00 hours Monday-Saturday.
10:00 hours to 16:00 hours Sundays
Reason:
To ensure that the amenities of adjoining occupiers are safeguarded, and to ensure
compliance with the terms of Policies SP1 (Delivering the Strategy), MD2 (Design of
New Developments) and MD7 (Environmental Protection) of the Local Development
Plan.
25. Prior to the beneficial occupation of the development hereby approved, a scheme
for securing the car park outside of operational hours, including gates/enclosures;
mechanism of opening/closing and hours of closure, shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All measures shall be installed
prior to beneficial occupation of the development and maintained and operated in
accordance with the approved details thereafter.
Reason:
To safeguard local amenities and reduce the opportunity for crime and anti-social
behaviour in accordance with the provisions of criterion 4 of Policy MD2 of the Local
Development Plan.
26. Prior to the beneficial use of the development hereby approved, and
notwithstanding the details submitted a revised scheme of lighting (including any
associated mitigation measures) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include:
• Details of the siting and type of external lighting to be used.
• Drawings setting out light spillage from the store, within the car park and on
vegetative boundaries surrounding the site
The lighting and any mitigation measures shall be installed and retained in
accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In the interests of amenity and biodiversity interests at the site in accordance with
the provisions of Policy MD2, MD7 and MD9 of the adopted Local Development
Plan.
86
NOTE:
1. Please note that a legal agreement/planning obligation has been entered into
in respect of the site referred to in this planning consent. Should you require
clarification of any particular aspect of the legal agreement/planning
obligation please do not hesitate to contact the Local Planning Authority.
2. This permission does not purport to grant consent for the display of any
advertisements which require consent under the Town and Country Planning
(Control of Advertisements) Regulations, 1992.
3. New developments of more than one dwelling or where the area covered by
construction work equals or exceeds 100 square metres as defined by The
Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (Schedule 3), will require SuDS
Approval Body (SAB) approval prior to the commencement of construction.
Further information of the SAB process can be found at our website or by
contacting our SAB team: sab@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
Please note that this consent is specific to the plans and particulars approved as
part of the application. Any departure from the approved plans will constitute
unauthorised development and may be liable to enforcement action. You (or any
subsequent developer) should advise the Council of any actual or proposed
variations from the approved plans immediately so that you can be advised how to
best resolve the matter.
In addition, any conditions that the Council has imposed on this consent will be
listed above and should be read carefully. It is your (or any subsequent developers)
responsibility to ensure that the terms of all conditions are met in full at the
appropriate time (as outlined in the specific condition).
The commencement of development without firstly meeting in full the terms of any
conditions that require the submission of details prior to the commencement of
development will constitute unauthorised development. This will necessitate the
submission of a further application to retain the unauthorised development and may
render you liable to formal enforcement action.
Failure on the part of the developer to observe the requirements of any other
conditions could result in the Council pursuing formal enforcement action in the
form of a Breach of Condition Notice.
87
APPENDIX A
2022/00907/FUL Received on 18 August 2022
APPLICANT: Lidl GB Ltd C/O Agent
AGENT: Mr Rob Mitchell Brunel House, 2 Fitzalan Road, Cardiff, CF24 0EB
Land at Bridge House Farm, Llanmaes Road, Llanmaes, Llantwit Major
Erection of a Class A1 foodstore with access, surface level parking, landscaping and all
associated development
REASON FOR COMMITTEE DETERMINATION
The application is required to be determined by Planning Committee under the Council’s
approved scheme of delegation because:
• the application is of a scale and / or nature that is not covered by the scheme of
delegation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The application has been submitted in full and relates to the development of the site for the
erection of a Class A1 foodstore with access, surface level parking, landscaping and all
associated development. The proposed foodstore would have a floorspace of circa 2000
square metres with an indicated retail floor space of 1250 square metres. The proposed
store would have a maximum width of circa 78 metres and a depth of approximately 32
metres (inclusive of the canopy area to the front). The buildings would have a monopitch
roof design with a maximum height of circa 8 metres (owing to levels). The site layout
would accommodate access from Llanmaes Road to the east and a 122 bay parking area
to the front of the store with a servicing area for delivery vehicles to the north.
The application site lies adjacent to the junction of Llanmaes Road and the Llantwit Major
Bypass (B4265), outside of a settlement boundary as identified by the adopted Vale of
Glamorgan Local Development Plan 2011-2026, and as such falls within the countryside. It
is however, noted that the Llantwit Major settlement boundary runs along the southern
edge of the adjacent bypass whilst the outskirts of Llanmaes is circa 150 metres from the
site at its nearest point to the north.
The neighbouring properties were consulted on 24 August 2022, a site notice was also
displayed on 2 September 2022 and the application was also advertised in the press on 8
September 2022. At the time of writing this report circa 700 letters of representation had
been received. Of these there was a mix of support and circa 25% raising objection to the
proposals.
88
Whilst not intended as an exhaustive list, the following principal reasons for support are
lack of availability of existing low price retailers/supermarkets in the area; would assist with
living costs; expense of existing retailers in Llantwit Major town centre; job provision and
environmental benefits of less car travel to supermarkets. Furthermore the principal
reasons for objection (again not intended as an exhaustive list) are the site not being
allocated for such purposes within the LDP; greenfield land; highways issues including
junction capacity, lack of suitable pedestrian and cycle access; visual impact including loss
of gap between Llanmaes & Llantwit Major; impacts on Llanmaes Conservation Area and
suggested inadequacies of the retail assessment submitted.
The issues covered with the following report are the principle of development (including
retail capacity), visual impact, historic environment, agricultural land classification,
drainage & flooding; impact upon neighbouring residential properties; ecology & green
infrastructure; highways impacts and planning obligations.
Following consideration of all these matters, when weighed in the planning balance, it is
considered that the visual impacts of the proposals would be significantly harmful to a degree
that they would outweigh any suggested benefits. As such the application is recommended
for refusal.
SITE AND CONTEXT
The application site lies adjacent to the junction of Llanmaes Road and the Llantwit Major
Bypass, outside of a settlement boundary as identified by the adopted Vale of Glamorgan
Local Development Plan 2011-2026, and as such falls within the countryside. It is
however, noted that the Llantwit Major settlement boundary runs along the southern edge
of the adjacent bypass whilst the outskirts of Llanmaes is circa 150 metres from the site at
its nearest point to the north. A plan showing the context of the site is shown below for
information:
89
The site does fall within a Mineral Safeguarding Area for Limestone (Category 2) and also
a 45m height civil aviation safeguarding area. Llanmaes Brook running circa 75 metres to
the north of the site is identified within C2 Flood Zone whilst the edge of the Llanmaes
Conservation Area is within circa 70 metres of the north-eastern corner of the site.
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT
The application relates to the development of the site for the erection of a Class A1
foodstore with access, surface level parking, landscaping and all associated development.
The proposed foodstore would have a floorspace of circa 2000 square metres with an
indicated retail floor space of 1250 square metres. The proposed store would have a
maximum width of circa 78 metres and a depth of approximately 32 metres (inclusive of
the canopy area to the front). The buildings would have a monopitch roof design with a
maximum height of circa 8 metres (owing to levels). The site layout would accommodate
access from Llanmaes Road to the east and a 122 bay parking area to the front of the
store to the east with a servicing area for delivery vehicles to the north.
During the course of the application the application has been revised noting officer
concerns, including alterations to landscaping, fenestration details and the addition of a
green roof. As amended, plans and elevations of the proposals are shown below:
90
Site layout plan
Southern side elevation fronting onto B4265
Eastern elevation fronting Llanmaes Road
91
Northern elevation fronting Thursday House/Bridge House Farm
Western elevation
PLANNING HISTORY
1974/00108/OUT, Address: North East corner of Field OS No. 380, Llanmaes, Proposal:
Erection of a detached Dwelling, Decision: Refused
CONSULTATIONS
The Ministry of Defence were consulted although no comments had been received at the
time of writing this report.
The Council’s Drainage Section provided comments they had provided with regard to
the SAB pre-app submission that states ‘An appraisal of this application has been made by
the SuDS Approval Body in line with Welsh Governments Statutory Standards for
Sustainable Drainage Systems. From the details provided we offer no objection in principle
to the proposed drainage scheme subject to our comments above.’
Shared Regulatory Services (Pollution Control) provided comments with regard to the
application including no delivery vehicles between the hours of 11pm and 7am; control of
construction hours and noise levels during construction activities; recommendations with
regard to illuminated advertisements. With regard to the submitted noise assessment they
state:
Regarding the BS4142 noise assessment conducted for the development the conclusion is
that there will be a 2+db above background noise levels. This authority looks towards have
a noise level of -10 below background noise levels, however with a development of this size
this may be difficult to achieve if the developers can look at the mitigation to reduce the 2+db
above background noise levels to 0db or better then it will satisfy the departments concerns.
Heneb (at the time of providing comments known as Glamorgan Gwent
Archaeological Trust) identify the site as having an archaeological constraint and
originally requested that a field evaluation would be appropriate and that the consideration
of the application should be deferred until an associated evaluation of the site had been
submitted to Members.
Following the submission of additional information (inclusive of a geophysical survey) they
state ‘the results indicate it is unlikely that significant archaeological remains will be
92
encountered during the course of the application. As a result, there is unlikely to be an
archaeological restraint to this proposed development and consequently, as the
archaeological advisors to your Members, we have no objections to the positive
determination of this application.’
Cadw, Ancient Monuments were consulted and state that ‘Having carefully considered the
information provided, we have no objection to the proposed development in regards to the
scheduled monuments or registered historic park and garden listed in our assessment of the
application below.’
Dwr Cymru Welsh Water were consulted who request a condition relating to no surface
water or land drainage being allowed to connect directly or indirectly with the public
sewerage network.
The Council’s Ecologist provided comments with regard to the application. They note
that the PEA recommends a reptile mitigation strategy that they would prefer to form part
of a Landcape and Ecology Management Plan (including clarification of the western part of
the site and biodiversity enhancements) and recommend that this can be secured by way
of condition attached to any planning permission given. They also provide commentary
with regard to potential removal of trees and hedgerow and whether the amount of
hedgerow lost could be minimised; request a lighting plan and strategy should be secured
and consideration to whether an open pond could be incorporated into the development.
The Council’s Landscape Section was consulted with regard to the application who
initially provided comments with regard to the lack of zone of theoretical visibility; updated
eye levels of the viewpoints provided; lack of massing within viewpoints provided;
proposals not being viewed against the backdrop of the B4265 and north-west of Llantwit
Major noting that these are obscured by vegetation. They stated that ‘the design, scale
and massing of the proposed development is out of character with the views presented
and will be a significant intrusion into the rural buffer between the 2 communities.’ Original
viewpoints not being representative of actual impacts of the development; further viewpoint
being required from east adjacent to Great House Farm; understating of landscape
impacts between Llantwit Major and Llanmaes; comments on drainage strategy; impacts
upon root protection area of hedgerow from parking bays and concern over loss of trees.
Further clarification should be provided with regard to the replacement trees in terms.
Following the submission of further details, whilst they welcome some further wireframing
of the building and the visualisations and associated comments they advise that ‘Whilst
there is some screening provided by existing vegetation and the proposed planting when
viewed from Llanmaes the development is still a significant intrusion into the largely rural
character of the landscape between Llantwit major and Llanmaes where it is visible. Whilst
the scale of the building is not dissimilar from the large agricultural shed of Tremains farm,
it is not an agricultural building and is very different in character and use pattern resulting
in a larger overall impact on the character of the area.
The references in the LVIA to the building being seen in the context of a back drop of
urban development can be argued because there are views of the residential building roof
tops and the lighting columns along the road. However, these backdrop elements are
small in scale with current views significantly filtered up by the existing vegetation which
separates the urban character to the south of the road from the more rural character area
to the north. The proposed development will constitute a significant change to the
character and scale of the urban development visible from a number of viewpoints.’
93
The Council’s Highways Section were consulted on the application and in their
additional comments requested additional information requesting a separation of the
parking and delivery areas for the proposed store owing to potential conflict; visibility
splays being provided to accord with Manual for Streets and being over third party;
amendments to geometry of access; lack of suitable swept path analysis; insufficient EV
charging spaces; amended path to the front of the site to meet active travel requirements;
lack of crossing facility across the B4265; need for public transport improvements and
clarifications with regard to HGV movements and technical data within the submitted
Transport Assessment.
Following the submission of further information, the Highways section provided final
comments with regard to the proposals. In summary, they state that the provision of 122
parking spaces (inclusive of disabled bays; EV and parent and child bays) are appropriate
for a development of this form in this location; traffic regulation orders would be required
along the site frontage; note that proposals will include 3.5m footway/cycleway; two new
controlled toucan crossing points that would connect into existing infrastructure. They also
indicate that S106 money should be used to improve real time information displays at
nearby bus stops. Following review of the Transport Assessment and suggested
works/improvements at the junction to improve its capacity, this would mitigate any
associated impacts to the highway network. As such they state that they have no objection
to the proposals subject to conditions relating to engineering details for off-site works; the
requirement for a construction traffic management plan; traffic regulation orders; details of
altered staging sequences/telematics for the signalised junction B4265/Llanmaes Road
and condition surveys; in addition to advisories for the applicant’s attention.
Natural Resources Wales were consulted who advise that they have ‘no objection to the
proposed development as submitted.’
Shared Regulatory Services (Contaminated Land, Air & Water Quality) were
consulted who note that submitted assessments do not detail any significant contamination
or ground gas concerns. However, they acknowledge that the risk of contamination cannot
be entirely ruled out and as such request that conditions relating to unforeseen
contamination and imported soils/aggregates be attached to any permission given.
South Wales Police were consulted although no comments had been received at the time
of writing this report.
Llanmaes Community Council were consulted as part of the planning application and
object to the development on the following grounds:
• Principle of development therefore it is concluded that the location of the proposed
development outside of the defined settlement boundary of Llantwit Major would
represent an in-principle conflict with the LDP Strategy, and policies MD5 and MD1
which (read together) seek to promote development within settlement boundaries
and seek to prevent inappropriate development (which includes retail) outside of
settlement boundaries.
• Shortcomings with the sequential site analysis within the Retail Statement, including
the failure to justify the minimum site requirements or evidence efforts to pursue a
flexible/innovative approach; the dismissal of a sequentially preferable, brownfield,
site without considered justification; and the failure to consider any out of centre
94
sites within the settlement, or any other possible preferable edge of settlement
sites; and suggested conflict with LDP Policy MG13.
• Submissions fail to evidence that proposals would have an acceptable impact upon
landscape or heritage assets and coalescence of Llantwit Major and Llanmaes.
• Access and highway safety concerns, including incorrect zoning of parking levels
and concerns over the submitted Transport Statement in terms of highway safety;
road usage and traffic generation.
A further letter was received following additional detail submitted by the applicant advising
that the applicant is ‘somewhat confused’ by their position including relating impacts upon
this greenfield site and the associated impact on Llanmaes Conservation Area. They also
raised comment with regard to the lack of notification of members of the public within the
Llanmaes Community Council area.
A subsequent letter was also received raising concern about assertions of public support
and suggestion that significant numbers of those supporting/were contacted for the
submitted Lidl survey were not from Llanmaes. They conclude ‘although Carney Sweeney
report that the people of Llantwit Major support an additional supermarket, the land at
Bridge House Farm is not the correct site for it as it fails to meet any of the planning
requirements outlined in the Local Development Plan.’
Llantwit Major Town Council do not object to the development and note that Llantwit
Major residents are supportive of the application. Concerns are raised with regard to the
development of a green field site and that other potentially suitable brownfield sites.
should be considered. Significant concerns were raised with regard to the effects of traffic
on the busty junction and query whether a roundabout could be considered on the main
junction with the main road.
Further comments were later received following the receipt of a letter to the Council from
the agent for the application that states the following ‘it is important to note that Carney
Sweeney concentrates on our non-objection but fails to indicate the Council did not
recommend ‘approval’ of the application to the Vale.’ They go further to state that ‘the
Council disassociates itself from any reference or conclusions made by Carney Sweeney
to our ‘survey’’.
Llantwit Major Ward members were consulted and comments received from Cllr John
who requested that the application be called in to planning committee, identifying conflict
with the development plan including Policies MD1, MD2 and MG13, including by virtue of
impact upon the countryside; lack of sustainable transport modes; impact upon the vitality
and viability established premises within the town centre including Filco and Coop; impact
upon riding club opposite; impact upon highway network; impacts upon biodiversity; impact
upon residents of Llanmaes
South Wales Fire and Rescue Service who advise that ‘the Fire Authority has no
objection to the proposed development and refers the Local Planning Authority to any
standing advice by the Fire Authority.’
95
The Planning Department’s Conservation and Design Officer was consulted with
regard to the application who was ‘of the view that the proposal will have a harmful effect
on the setting of the Llanmaes Conservation Area’ owing to the impact upon its setting as
a result of the introduction of a building of the proposed scale and the dilution of the
separation between Llanmaes and Llantwit Major. They note that this impact was originally
exacerbated by the extensive use of grey and white cladding.
Following a change in Conservation Officer during the course of the application having
regard to amended plans they state ‘I’ve reviewed the comments provided by the previous
conservation officer and I do not have anything to add to them and agree with their
conclusions.’
Comments were also received from Andrew RT Davies who advised that that he does not
object to the concept of a new supermarket in the Llantwit Major area. However, concern
is raised with regard to the impact of the proposed development on highway safety;
impacts upon biodiversity in the area; impacts upon existing settlement boundaries and the
existing distinction between Llanmaes and Llantwit Major and the associated conflict with
the adopted Local Development Plan; the proposed development would be out of keeping
with the character of the area, including the impacts of light and noise pollution, including
from the late opening hours and detriment to residential amenity.
REPRESENTATIONS
The neighbouring properties were consulted on 24 August 2022, a site notice was also
displayed on 2 September 2022 and the application was also advertised in the press on 8
September 2022. At the time of writing this report circa 700 letters of representation had
been received including those received from the Llanmaes Residents Group. Of these
there was a mix of support and circa 25% raising objection to the proposals. In summary
these raised the following:
Support
• Lack of availability of existing low price retailers/supermarkets within immediate
area
• Would be good for local low income families and others suffering through cost of
living crisis
• Existing retailers within Llantwit Major too expensive
• Suggested monopoly on trade of existing retailers and this would offer competition
• Would limit trips away from Llantwit Major to other retail centres, including reduction
in emissions and carbon footprint from travel to Cowbridge, Bridgend and Barry
• Job provision to support local economy
• Increased and enhanced choice of goods
• Car traffic diverted from Llantwit Major town centre
• Potential benefits of increased visitors to the town
• Environmental benefits from less car travel
Objection
• Not allocated for use within the LDP
• Impact upon scheduled ancient monument
• Location of development not suitable for access by cyclists/pedestrians
96
• Proximity and impact upon the village of Llanmaes and confluence with Llantwit
Major
• Traffic impacts of the development including impacts upon Llanmaes and nearby
equestrian centre
• Highway safety of the adjoining road layout and proposed access point
• Lack of petrol station/clothing offer
• Greenfield land
• Detriment to businesses within Llantwit Major Town Centre and other nearby
centres and that the proposals would be contrary to Town Centres First
• Lack of allocation for the intended use
• Landscape impacts
• Noise/air Quality
• Light impacts and advertisements
• Archaeological impacts
• Loss of agricultural land
• Ecological impacts
• Inadequacies of retail assessment including sequential test and whether alternative
sites are available (Northern Access Road, Llandow, Eagleswell School site)
• Inadequate PAC process, including suggestion that not inclusive of residents of
Llanmaes
• Lack of public transport provision to the site
• Drainage and sewerage issues including impact upon flooding as a result of the
development
• Area should be designated as green wedge
• Impact upon national cycle network
• Impact on Llanmaes Conservation Area
• Future applications on adjoining land for associated businesses
• Increase in crime
• Potential for anti-social behavior within the car park
• Canvassing by Lidl of local people
• Detriment to property prices
• Land should be used for alternative uses such as social housing or doctors surgery
• Issues with the submitted transport assessment including suggestion of fraudulent
information being included
• Omission in retail assessment to impacts on St Athan centre
Letters from those representing the Cooperative Group and Filco raise the following points:
• Over simplistic and flawed approach to the assessment of need and do not meet
relevant policy requirements
• Unreliable retail impact assessment which under-states the significance of retail
impacts on Llanwit Major district centre
• The site is located beyond the settlement boundary of Llantwit Major in a prominent
and unsustainable location
• Further information required with regard to protected species
• Impacts on residential amenity
• Heritage Assessment and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
97
This number was significantly increased as a result of a letters sent by the applicant
pursuant to the Council’s own consultation.
REPORT
Planning Policies and Guidance
Local Development Plan:
Section 38 of The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that in
determining a planning application the determination must be in accordance with the
Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Vale of
Glamorgan Adopted Local Development Plan 2011-2026 forms the local authority level tier
of the development plan framework. The LDP was formally adopted by the Council on 28
June 2017, and within which the following policies are of relevance:
Strategic Policies:
POLICY SP1 – Delivering the Strategy
POLICY SP6 – Retail
POLICY SP7 – Transportation
POLICY SP9 – Minerals
POLICY SP10 – Built and Natural Environment
Managing Growth Policies:
POLICY MG12 – Retail Hierarchy
POLICY MG13 – Edge and out of Town Retailing Areas
POLICY MG20 – Nationally Protected Sites and Species
POLICY MG21 – Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation, Regionally Important
Geological and Geomorphological Sites and Priority Habitats and Species
POLICY MG22 – Development in Minerals Safeguarding Areas
Managing Development Policies:
POLICY MD1 - Location of New Development
POLICY MD2 - Design of New Development
POLICY MD4 - Community Infrastructure and Planning Obligations
POLICY MD7 - Environmental Protection
POLICY MD8 - Historic Environment
POLICY MD9 - Promoting Biodiversity
POLICY MD14 - New Employment Proposals
In addition to the Adopted LDP the following policy, guidance and documentation supports
the relevant LDP policies.
98
Future Wales: The National Plan 2040:
Future Wales – the National Plan 2040 is the national development plan and is of
relevance to the determination of this planning application. Future Wales provides a
strategic direction for all scales of planning and sets out policies and key issues to be
considered in the planning decision making process. The following chapters and policies
are of relevance in the assessment of this planning application:
Chapter 3: Setting and achieving our ambitions
• 11 Future Wales’ outcomes are overarching ambitions based on the national
planning principles and national sustainable placemaking outcomes set out in
Planning Policy Wales.
Policy 1 – Where Wales will grow
o Supports sustainable growth in all parts of Wales.
o Development in towns and villages in rural areas should be of an appropriate
scale and support local aspirations and need.
Policy 4 – Supporting Rural Communities
o Supports sustainable and vibrant rural communities.
Policy 5 – Supporting the Rural Economy
o Supports sustainable, appropriate and proportionate economic growth in
rural towns.
o Supports development of innovative and emerging technology businesses
and sectors to help rural areas unlock their full potential, broadening the
economic base and creating higher paid jobs.
Policy 6 – Town Centre First
This Policy states:
Significant new commercial, retail, education, health, leisure and public service facilities
must be located within town and city centres. They should have good access by public
transport to and from the whole town or city and, where appropriate, the wider region. A
sequential approach must be used to inform the identification of the best location for these
developments and they should be identified in Strategic and Local Development Plans.
Planning Policy Wales:
National planning policy in the form of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 12, 2024) (PPW) is
of relevance to the determination of this application.
The primary objective of PPW is to ensure that the planning system contributes towards
the delivery of sustainable development and improves the social, economic, environmental
and cultural well-being of Wales.
The following chapters and sections are of particular relevance in the assessment of this
planning application:
Chapter 2 - People and Places: Achieving Well-being Through Placemaking,
99
• Maximising well-being and sustainable places through placemaking (key Planning
Principles, national sustainable placemaking outcomes, Planning Policy Wales and
placemaking
Chapter 3 - Strategic and Spatial Choices
• Good Design Making Better Places
• Accessibility
• The Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
• Development in the Countryside (including new housing)
• Supporting Infrastructure
Chapter 4 - Active and Social Places
• Transport
• Activities in Places (retail and commercial development)
There is extensive guidance contained within Chapter 4 of PPW that is of direct relevance
to the proposals including the guidance contained within the following paragraphs relating
to the Needs and Sequential Tests and Retail Impact Assessments:
Retail Needs Test
4.3.13 It is important that communities have access to adequate levels of retail provision.
Evidence should demonstrate whether retail provision is adequate or not, by assessing if
there is further expenditure capacity in a catchment area (quantitative need) or if there is a
lack of retail quality, range of goods or accessibility (qualitative need). Needs tests only
apply to retail uses and do not apply to other uses which are complementary to town and
city centres, examples of which are set out in paragraph 4.3.21.
4.3.14 In deciding whether to identify sites for comparison, convenience or other forms of
retail uses in development plans or when determining planning applications for such uses,
planning authorities should first consider whether there is a need for additional retail
provision. However, there is no requirement to demonstrate the need for developments
within defined retail and commercial centre boundaries or sites allocated in a development
plan for specific retail uses. This approach reinforces the role of centres, and other
allocated sites, as the best location for most retail, leisure, and commercial activities. It is
not the role of the planning system to restrict competition between retailers within centres.
4.3.15 Need may be quantitative, to address a quantifiable unmet demand for the
provision concerned, or qualitative. Precedence should be given to establishing
quantitative need before qualitative need is considered for both convenience and
comparison floorspace, particularly as a basis for development plan allocations.
100
4.3.16 Qualitative assessment should cover both positive and negative aspects and may
become an important consideration where it: • supports the objectives and retail strategy of
an adopted development plan or the policies in this guidance; • is highly accessible by
walking, cycling or public transport; • contributes to a substantial reduction in car journeys;
• contributes to the co-location of facilities in existing retail and commercial centres; •
significantly contributes to the vibrancy, attractiveness and viability of such a centre; •
assists in the alleviation of over-trading of, or traffic congestion surrounding, existing local
comparable stores; • addresses locally defined deficiencies in provision in terms of quality
and quantity, including that which would serve new residential developments; or where it; •
alleviates a lack of convenience goods provision in a disadvantaged area.
4.3.17 It will be for the planning authority to determine and justify the weight to be given to
any qualitative assessment. Regeneration and additional employment benefits are not
considered qualitative need factors in retail policy terms. However, they may be material
considerations in making a decision on individual planning applications if the regeneration
and job creating benefits can be evidenced. If there is no quantitative or qualitative need
for further development for retail uses, there will be no need to identify additional sites.
Sequential Test
4.3.18 The Welsh Government operates a ‘town centres first’ policy in relation to the
location of new retail and commercial centre development. Future Wales provides further
context on ‘town centres first’ policy in respect of large scale and out of centre
development. In implementing this policy, planning authorities should adopt a sequential
approach to the selection of new sites in their development plan and when determining
planning applications for retail and other complementary uses. By adopting a sequential
approach first preference should be to locate new development within a retail and
commercial centre defined in the development plan hierarchy of centres.
4.3.19 If a suitable site or building is not available within a retail and commercial centre or
centres, then consideration should be given to edge of centre sites and if no such sites are
suitable or available, only then should out-of-centre sites in locations that are accessible
by a choice of travel modes, including active travel and public transport, be considered.
Developers should demonstrate that all potential retail and commercial centre options, and
then edge-of-centre options, have been thoroughly assessed using the sequential
approach before out-of-centre sites are considered. The onus of proof that central sites
have been thoroughly assessed rests with the developer.
4.3.20 Edge-of-centre or out-of-centre sites should be accessible by a choice of public and
private modes of travel. New out-of-centre retail developments or extensions to existing
out-of-centre developments should not be of a scale, type or location likely to undermine
the vibrancy, attractiveness and viability of those retail and commercial centres that would
otherwise serve the community, and should not be allowed if they would be likely to put
development plan retail strategy at risk. The extent of a sequential test should be agreed
by pre-application discussion between the planning authority and the developer.
101
4.3.21 The sequential approach applies to retail and all other uses complementary to retail
and commercial centres. Other complementary uses include, for example, financial and
professional services (A2), food and drink (A3), offices (B1), hotels (C1), residential
institutions (C2), educational and other non-residential establishments (D1), leisure (D2)
and certain other uses such as launderettes and theatres. However, some education,
healthcare and community uses may have specific accessibility requirements which mean
they need to be located close to the communities they serve. Planning authorities should
be flexible in their approach where it is necessary. The nature of a proposed use is likely to
determine what type of centre (i.e. higher or lower order centre) is most appropriate as a
starting point for the sequential approach process.
4.3.22 When preparing development plans, planning authorities should take a positive
approach, in partnership with the private sector, in identifying sites which accord with the
sequential approach and are in line with the development plan retail strategy in terms of
the size, scale and format of new developments needed. In allocating sites for different
types of retail and commercial centre uses planning authorities should take account of
factors such as floorspace, quality, convenience, traffic generation and attractiveness of
the site. Planning authorities should not prescribe rigid floorspace limits on allocated sites
that would unreasonably inhibit the retail industry from responding to changing demand
and opportunity.
4.3.23 Some types of retail store, such as those selling bulky goods and requiring large
showrooms, may not be able to find suitable sites or buildings within existing retail and
commercial centres. Where this is the case such stores should in the first instance be
located on sites identified for such a purpose in the development plan, preferably on an
edge of centre site. Where such sites are not available or suitable, other sites at the edge
of retail and commercial centres, followed by out-of-centre locations may be considered,
subject to application of the needs and impact tests. The Town and Country (Use Classes)
Order 1987 (as amended) puts uses of land and buildings into various categories known
as ‘Use Classes’.
4.3.24 Planning authorities should include policies in their plans to protect existing retail
sites from inappropriate development. However, where a planning authority has evidence
an existing retail site is no longer required for the use it was intended, the authority should
consider what alternative uses may be appropriate and include policies in its plan.
Retail Impact Assessments
4.3.25 Retail developments outside designated retail and commercial centres, and which
are not located on an allocated site, can impact on the viability and vibrancy of a centre.
Impacts resulting from such development, whether individual or cumulative, may include
changes in turnover and trading ability, consumer choice, traffic and travel patterns,
footfall, as well as affect centre regeneration strategies and existing or proposed retail
sites allocated in the development plan. The purpose of the retail impact assessment is to
consider these issues and determine if these developments are likely to have detrimental
consequences.
4.3.26 All retail planning applications or retail site allocations of 2,500 sq. metres or more
gross floorspace that are proposed on the edge of or outside designated retail and
commercial centres should, once a need has been established, be supported by a retail
impact assessment.
102
4.3.27 For smaller retail planning applications or site allocations, planning authorities will
need to determine whether an assessment is necessary, for example when a smaller
proposal may have a significant impact on a centre. Requests for retail impact
assessments by planning authorities on smaller developments should be proportionate to
potential impacts.
4.3.28 Retail proposals on the edge-of-centre or out-of-centre, which are to be located on
sites allocated in accordance with an up-to-date development plan, will not normally
require the application of a retail need test, a sequential test or an impact assessment.
These tests should have been carried out by the planning authority when the development
plan was prepared and the acceptable uses for the site identified. However, there may be
instances where the nature of the proposal is not adequately addressed by the
development plan and it may be appropriate to apply one or more of these tests.
4.3.29 Edge of centre or out-of-centre retail developments may seek, over time, to change
the range of goods they sell or the nature of the sales area. Planning authorities should
anticipate such changes using appropriate conditions on the initial permission or in relation
to requests for any subsequent change or variation of condition. Conditions can restrict the
amount of floorspace, or prevent a development from being sub-divided into smaller shops
to limit the range of goods sold, or prevent the creation of a single large store. Also where
the inclusion, for instance, of post offices and pharmacies in out-of-centre retail
developments would be likely to lead to the loss of existing provision in a designated retail
and commercial centre, they should be discouraged by imposing appropriate conditions.
Planning authorities may wish to consider extending the list of uses controlled in
out-of-centre retail developments if the location of such uses are likely to lead to the loss of
existing provision in retail and commercial centres. Applications to remove or vary
conditions should be subject to the same considerations.
Chapter 6 - Distinctive and Natural Places
• Recognising the Special Characteristics of Places (The Historic Environment,
Green Infrastructure, Landscape, Biodiversity and Ecological Networks, Coastal
Areas)
• Recognising the Environmental Qualities of Places (water and flood risk, air quality
and soundscape, lighting, unlocking potential by taking a de-risking approach)
Technical Advice Notes:
The Welsh Government has provided additional guidance in the form of Technical Advice
Notes. The following are of relevance:
• Technical Advice Note 4 – Retailing and Town Centres (1996)
• Technical Advice Note 5 – Nature Conservation and Planning (2009)
• Technical Advice Note 12 – Design (2016)
• Technical Advice Note 23 – Economic Development (2014)
• Technical Advice Note 24 – The Historic Environment (2017)
103
Welsh National Marine Plan:
National marine planning policy in the form of the Welsh National Marine Plan (2019)
(WNMP) is of relevance to the determination of this application. The primary objective of
WNMP is to ensure that the planning system contributes towards the delivery of
sustainable development and contributes to the Wales well-being goals within the Marine
Plan Area for Wales.
Supplementary Planning Guidance:
In addition to the adopted Local Development Plan, the Council has approved
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). The following SPG are of relevance:
• Biodiversity and Development (2018)
• Design in the Landscape
• Minerals Safeguarding (2018)
• Parking Standards (2019)
• Planning Obligations (2018)
• Public Art in New Development (2018)
• Travel Plan (2018)
• Trees, Woodlands, Hedgerows and Development (2018)
In addition, the following background evidence to the Local Development Plan is
considered relevant to the consideration of this application insofar as it provides a factual
analysis and information that is material to the issues addressed in this report:
• Local and Neighbourhood Retail Centre Review updated background paper (2015)
• Retail Planning Study (2013 Update) (Also see LDP Hearing Session 15, Action
Point 1 response)
• Town and District Retail Centre Appraisal (2013 Update) (Also see LDP Hearing
Session 15, Action Point 4 response)
Other relevant evidence or policy guidance:
• Manual for Streets (Welsh Assembly Government, DCLG and DfT - March 2007)
• Welsh Government Circular 016/2014: The Use of Planning Conditions for
Development Management
• Welsh Office Circular 13/97 - Planning Obligations
104
Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015
The Well-being of Future Generations Act (Wales) 2015 places a duty on the Council to
take reasonable steps in exercising its functions to meet its sustainable development (or
wellbeing) objectives. This report has been prepared in consideration of the Council’s duty
and the “sustainable development principle”, as set out in the 2015 Act. In reaching the
recommendation set out below, the Council has sought to ensure that the needs of the
present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.
Issues
Principle of Development
The site falls on the opposite side of the road to the settlement boundary defined by the
Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan and as such falls within the countryside.
Policy MD1 ‘Location of New Development’ is a criteria based policy relating to
development on unallocated sites, including that such development should have no
unacceptable impact on the countryside; reinforce the role of function of… service
settlements, primary settlements or minor rural settlements as key providers of
commercial, community and healthcare facilities; have access to or promote the use of
sustainable modes of transport; where possible promote sustainable construction and
make use of previously developed land. The criteria will be considered in greater detail
within the following report.
Policy SP6 of the LDP seeks to ensure the ‘the continued vitality, viability and
attractiveness of the Vale of Glamorgan’s town and district centres, provision is made for
2,329 sqm (net) new comparison and 3,495 sqm (net) new convenience retail floorspace.
In addition, opportunities for the effective use of vacant floorspace and refurbishment of
properties will be maximised, alongside measures to improve public realm and access.’
The site falls outside of the defined town and district centres and is not identified within the
identified additional floor space adopted under Policy SP6, nor does it represent use of
vacant floorspace or refurbishment of property.
By way of background and considering the retail capacity with regard to Llantwit Major
itself, the Retail Planning Study, which formed part of the evidence base for the LDP
specifically in relation to Llantwit Major Retail Area identified that there was headroom for
468sqm additional convenience floorspace up to 2026. However, it went on to recommend
that this headroom needs be reassessed in light of any applications that come forward in
Barry or Penarth. As part of the examination of the current LDP, the Council provided a
response where this re-assessment took place, following Hearing Session 15 of the
Examination (Response to Action Point 1). This also considered further housing
allocations in Llantwit Major. The response identified that due to a significant amount of
convenience retail floorspace being approved in Barry and Penarth since the Retail
Planning Study, (8445.07sqm), this ‘addressed a large part of the headroom identified in
Llantwit Major’. In addition, the response highlighted that:
• 330sqm of the headroom requirement had been met through the approval
(2013/00018/FUL) of a convenience retail site in St. Athan, which is within the
Llantwit Major Retail Area (This unit has subsequently been constructed and
occupied);
105
• There was a significant amount of existing convenience floorspace within Llantwit
Major district centre (1675sqm), which would enable local residents to conduct
weekly main food shops; and;
• 64% of the population of Llantwit Major commute over 10km to work (2011 Census
Data) and ‘it is inevitable that such people will combine their shopping trips with
work trips and or leisure / non-food shopping trips, thus creating more sustainable
shopping’.
The above submissions were considered sound by the appointed Inspector, in
recommending adoption of the LDP. The response was made following a representation
on behalf of a national convenience retailer for the siting of a supermarket on the former
Eagleswell School Site, which is considered in the applicant’s sequential test (to be
discussed later within this report). This displays that a new supermarket was considered
unjustified within the Llantwit Major Retail Area in adopting the extant LDP.
The LDP Inspector’s Report identifies that a scheme could be progressed through the plan
period in accordance with the sequential test set out in national policy and the provisions
of Policy MG13 ‘Edge and Out of Town Retailing Areas’. Llantwit Major itself is identified
as a District Centre within the retail hierarchy established under Policy MG12 of the LDP,
although the site is evidently outside of this area and any other allocation within the extant
development plan, and thus Policy MG13 is considered to be of particular relevance. This
policy states that:
Proposals for new retail development on new sites or existing retail areas in edge and out
of town locations, including changes of use, extensions, the merger or subdivision of
existing units or amendments to existing planning conditions relating to the sale of goods
will only be permitted where:
1. It can be demonstrated that there is an additional need for the proposal which cannot be
provided within an existing town, or district retail centre, and
2. The proposal would not either individually or cumulatively with other recent or proposed
consented developments have an unacceptable impact on the trade, turnover, vitality and
viability of the town, district, local or neighbourhood centres
In terms of criterion 1 of Policy MG13, as set out above, the retail space allocated in the
extant LDP has been surpassed. Therefore, at a Council wide level, the position relative to
the aspirations of the LDP is that need up to 2026 has been long met. At a Llantwit Major
Retail Area specific level, the additional floorspace provided in Barry and Penarth was
considered to have addressed a ‘large part’ of the headroom identified here. A significant
amount of that headroom (330sqm) was also addressed by the approval of planning
application ref. 2013/00018/FUL. The recalculated headroom, incorporating this grant of
planning permission would be 138sqm. This was the position at the time of the adoption of
the LDP.
106
To address the apparent tension with this Policy the applicant has submitted a Retail and
Planning Statement prepared by Carney Sweeney dated August 2022 that seeks to make
an assessment of the existing provision; demonstrate that there is a quantitative and
qualitative need for such development; demonstrate that a sequential approach to site
selection has been undertaken and in turn seek to evidence that there would not be an
unacceptable impact upon existing centres. This concluded that quantitative and
qualitative need had been demonstrated; that pre-application consultation had highlighted
significant support for the proposals; that a sequential search had been carried out and
found no other suitable sites; the proposals would have no unacceptable landscape
impacts and that the site is well located to be accessible by a choice of means of transport
and would not be overly reliant on the private car for access. The statement also indicates
that health checks of nearby centres within the primary catchment area demonstrate that
Llantwit Major centre and other surrounding centres are vital and viable. It therefore
concludes that ‘in respect to Policy MG13 of the LDP there is no evidence to indicate the
proposal would either individually or cumulatively with other recent or proposed consented
developments have an unacceptable impact on the trade, turnover, vitality and viability of
town, district, local or neighbourhood centres.’ It also indicates that the proposals are
‘considered acceptable in all other technical aspects including design, flood risk and
drainage, heritage, ecology and noise considerations.’
It is acknowledged that the applicant has argued there is a quantitative and qualitative
need for the development in their retail assessment and this is considered below. The
quantitative methodology employed focuses on unmet expenditure within the primary
catchment area. It specifically notes that there is significant ‘leaked’ income from Llantwit
major for convenience goods. This was highlighted in Hearing Session 15 of the LDP and
the points raised in the Action Point 1 Response, highlighted above, were deemed
sufficient to overcome this position at that time. As such the Council initially considered
that there had been no material change to the retail headroom in Llantwit Major, as the
further assessment carried out in response to Session 15: Action Point 1 considered
housing projections in the LDP (housing allocations and projected windfall development),
within the Retail Area.
Initial concerns included the methodology and sample size of the qualitative assessment
that underpinned the household survey and that the main thrust of responses received
(low prices/value for money, convenience and a range of food goods) to justify a new
foodstore weren’t considered to provide justification when other supermarkets exist in
Llantwit Major. The retail study also stated that Lidl’s existing store in Bridgend attracts
users from Llantwit Major and that therefore there was latent demand for a Limited
Assortment Discounter (LAD) on these grounds. The retail study submitted by the
applicant provides a definition of a LAD from the Competition Commission that broadly
means they “carry a limited range of grocery products and base their retail offer on selling
those products at very competitive prices. The three major LADs in the UK are Aldi, Lidl
and Netto. Each … carries in the region of 1,000 to 1,400 product lines in stores ranging
from 500m² to 1,400m².”
107
Officers at the time considered that implications of commuting had not been considered
and overall that the benefit of a LAD in the Llantwit Major Retail Area context had not
communicated to a degree whereby it would be considered to overcome the position on
convenience need. Noting all of this, there were significant concerns with regard to the
quantitative and qualitative need justifications put forward by the applicant, that were not
considered to overcome this position. There was also concern with regard to the lack of
rationale provided to quantify certain assumptions with regard to the impacts upon trade
that would be drawn away from retail centres. To this end, there was considered to be
tension with both criteria 1 and 2 of Policy MG13 (Edge and Out of Town Retailing Areas),
and in turn their grounding within national policy, including Policy 6 of Future Wales, that
advocates a Town Centre First approach.
Following this a response was received from the agent that sought to address the issues
raised by the Council dated January 2023. This sought to address the points raised within
the Council’s response to the policy acceptability as noted above, including that the
evidence base underpinning the current LDP is circa 15 years old and therefore is out of
date. They also suggest that there is a manifest lack of choice within Llantwit Major town
centre that fuels leakage and that a LAD would not directly compete in a number of ways
with existing businesses within the Town Centre, owing to the nature of produce stocked
(no tobacco, no individual confectionary items and only stocks limited pre-packed fish and
meat and individual fruit and vegetable products). It is therefore suggested by the applicant
that this does not directly overlap with independent retailers such as Filco which offer in
store delicatessen, bakery and butchers, nor does it offer in store concessions such as a
post-office, café, newsagent or pharmacy.
The submissions also provide details of the survey work undertaken by an independent
consultant, NEMS, in May 2022, that is argued to demonstrate ‘leakage’ from Llantwit
Major to other shopping areas with the main suggested reason being low prices/value for
money (26% respondents within Llantwit). It also suggests that the majority of those doing
their main weekly shop would travel by car (71% those within Llanwit Major zone; 79% all
zones) with journey times suggesting the that a high number take 16-20 minutes to travel
to their chosen shopping destination (36% those within Llantwit Major zone). It also
indicates that of respondents 61% of those interviewed within Llantwit Major zone believe
there should be an additional supermarket within Llantwit Major area, with 35% saying no.
Indeed these points are reflected largely within the third party representations received in
support of the planning application.
The submissions seek to address the impacts of the development upon the existing centre
and suggest that the market share of main food shopping trips of Llantwit Major (ie Coop
and Filco) is just 8.9%. As such they suggest that they are not currently utilised for main
food shops of those residents within the Primary Catchment Area for main food shopping.
As such they suggest that this demonstrates significant existing leakage from the principal
town centre retailers and indicate that only circa 9% of the proposed Lidl stores trade
would be drawn from these shops, whilst also suggesting that based on Coop average
sales density that this shop is currently overtrading.
108
As members will be aware, the planning department is currently undergoing the review of
the Local Development Plan. This includes an assessment of the more up to date retail
position, including a review and separate household survey being undertaken by the
Council’s appointed advisors Nexus. To this end, following the receipt of the rebuttal by the
applicant, Nexus were instructed to undertake a retail audit of the proposals put forward
under this application. In reviewing the submissions, they concur with the findings of the
applicant including that currently there is no purpose-built main food shopping destination
in Llantwit Major and as such indicate there exists both a qualitative and quantitative
capacity for a new foodstore in the primary catchment area. They also state that Llantwit
Major Centre is healthy based on their health-check metrics. They also suggest that there
are unlikely to be any suitable, viable and available sequentially preferable sites for the
nature of the development proposed within the primary catchment area. Officers are
minded to agree that within Llantwit Major itself there are no known suitable sites that
could accommodate a development of this form closer to the town centre.
They do however disagree with the findings of the convenience good trading impacts
arising from the development, including on the level of draw from Coop and Filco within
Llantwit Major and Waitrose within Cowbridge. They indicate that the main food trade
would be higher from Coop and Filco as suggested by the applicant and assume that this
would consume around half of the existing main food trade from each. To this end, they
anticipate that Co-op would lose circa 22.4% of overall trade and Filco 32.8% of overall
trade, with the overall impact on Llantwit Major Town Centre, circa 11.9%, significantly
higher than the 2.9% impact suggested by the applicants. In this regard Nexus state that:
Our view is that this level of impact is significant. Clearly, a loss of trade to the two small
foodstores in the town centre will be harmful, and will have knock‐on implications for other
traders and footfall in general. However, such impacts need to be weighed against the
baseline position for the town centre in question. In this case, CS has established, and we
agree, that Llantwit Major Town Centre is healthy, with very low vacancy rates, good
footfall and high environmental quality. Whilst the loss of any main food trade from the Co‐
op and Filco stores would be regrettable, and despite CS having considerably under‐
estimated that impact in our opinion, we do not go as far as to conclude that the proposals
would result in ‘unacceptable impact’ (Policy MG13 of the Vale of Glamorgan Local
Development Plan). We consider that those stores will continue to attract a small amount
of main food shopping, but that their primary purpose as top‐up shopping destinations
related to a pass‐by and walk‐in trade would enable them to remain viable.
In the absence of a main food shopping destination they note that ‘as a result, a number of
people are having to carry out their food shopping, and potentially other conjoined
shopping, much further afield’. Overall with regard to impact they state that ‘whilst there
will be an impact, that impact is unlikely to reach the bar of ‘unacceptable impact’ on
Llantwit Major Town Centre, or any other centre within the Primary Catchment Area.’
109
Noting the findings of the applicant and of the Council’s appointed retail consultants in
review of the RLDP, it is considered that having regard to the requirements of Policy MG13
of the LDP, that there is capacity for the proposal that has been established that cannot be
provided within the district retail centre of Llantwit Major. Furthermore noting the
comments of Nexus, whilst it is acknowledged that there would be an impact upon Llantwit
Major Town Centre and the identified retailers, this level of impact is not considered to be
sufficient to represent an unacceptable impact upon trade or turnover. Whilst main food
shoppers may be drawn to the Lidl store, it is considered, noting the nature of Lidl as a
LAD and with the lack of in store facilities, such as post office of café, that the overall retail
offer within Llantwit Major town centre would not be unacceptably impacted. As prescribed
within paragraph 4.3.29 of PPW and the supporting text of Policy MG13, if the proposals
were considered acceptable in all other regards a condition could be utilised to control the
nature of the retail offer at the site and limit any ancillary or changes of use/functions to
ensure that this could not be changed to a use more likely to compete/conflict with the
above assessment, without consent.
Overall, however, on the basis of the information available and the conclusions of the
Council’s appointed consultants, it is considered that the proposals would broadly comply
with the provisions of Policy MG13 and that of PPW in terms of demonstrating capacity
and the sequential test.
Visual impact
Policy MD1 ‘Location of New Development’ is of particular relevance to the determination
of this planning application, including criterion 1 that requires that development has no
unacceptable impact on the countryside. The supporting text of this policy expands upon
this at paragraph 7.3 that notes ‘within rural locations development will be managed
carefully to ensure that it contributes positively to the rural economy and the viability and
sustainability of rural communities, whilst ensuring the distinctive character of the Vale of
Glamorgan is protected. In this regard, Policy MD1 still seeks to emphasise the importance
of protecting the countryside from unacceptable and unjustified new development. For the
purposes of the LDP, countryside is defined as that area of land lying outside the
settlement boundaries of the main towns and villages identified in the LDP settlement
hierarchy that has not been developed for employment use or allocated for development in
the Plan’.
Policy MD2 ‘Design of New Development’ is a criteria-based policy that is of significant
relevance to the determination of the application, including criteria 1, that requires
development to be of a high standard of design that positively contributes to the context
and character of the surrounding natural and built environment and protects existing
features of townscape and landscape interest.
110
The application was originally supported with a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
prepared by TIR Collective dated June 2022 that sought to identify the visual impacts of
the proposals from a number of different vantage points including for people on the
northern edge of Llantwit Major and from Llanmaes to the north. In conclusion this report
states that the LVIA ‘has identified that the site could accommodate the proposed
development without resulting in an unacceptable adverse landscape character and visual
amenity experienced within the surrounding landscape.’ Notwithstanding this, it was
evident that of the 6 receptors identified, moderate adverse impacts were anticipated upon
completion of the site from 3 of the 4 receptors being identified as being of moderate
sensitivity. These include those from people in the northern edge of the settlement of
Llantwit Major; southern edge of Llanmaes and users of a nearby public right of way 300m
to the north of the site that offer relatively unobstructed views. These assumptions in part
are made on the retention of vegetation pattern around the site and additional tree and
coppice planting that would assist in partially screening views. As such concerns were
raised by officers with regard to the visual impact of the proposals including from the
Council’s Landscape Officer, including with regard to some of the methodology of the
originally submitted LVIA.
With a view to overcome these concerns the proposals have undergone some revision,
with the most recent set of amended plans amending the material palette to a blue-grey
cladding; grey render to the northern and western elevations and darkening of timber
acoustic fencing. Furthermore an element of green roof has been added around the
centrally located solar panel array. Additional viewpoints, inclusive of wire framing and
visualisations, have also been provided to seek to overcome some of the concerns raised
by officers and by the Council’s Landscape Officer. Although matters relating to green
infrastructure and ecology will be discussed in greater detail later in the report, additional
planting to the northern edge is proposed, with 5 additional specimen trees, which it is
suggested have been placed to obscure more visible corners from view. The applicant
also suggests that planting proposals would largely screen the car park and owing to the
height of the building at circa 7m, coupled with site levels would result in the store, sitting
lower in the landscape than neighbouring 2 storey properties.
The submissions include topographical details that indicate that the southern side of the
site is set down slightly from the road level (between circa 1m-1.7m) whilst the site itself
drops circa 2.5m from south to north. The submitted levels plan indicates that the finished
floor level of the proposed store would be 56.375m, resulting in the store being set below
the level of the level of the road, which in turn would require retaining works of circa 1.1m
to the southern end of the site to retain the bank supporting the road, and a 1.2m - 1.8m
retaining wall in places to the northern end of the site, adjacent to the proposed loading
bay, noting the lower level of the land to the north.
As noted previously, the site lies to the northern edge of the B4265 and to the west of
Llanmaes Road. As existing the site is a field parcel that benefits from vegetative
boundaries, with a field hedge to the eastern and western boundaries, with an existing
vehicular entrance proposed. The southern boundary with the B4265 is demarcated by an
overgrown field hedge (set below the level of the road), whilst to the south-eastern corner
adjacent to the south-eastern corner at the junction of the B4265 and the Llanmaes Road
are 8 lime trees, noted as being category B trees within the submitted tree report. The
green infrastructure impacts of the proposals will be considered fully later within the report.
111
Although there is some looseknit development to the north of the B4265, it is considered
that there is very clear distinction in built form between this and the more dense suburban
development within Llantwit Major’s more northern suburbs. This is evident within the
aerial photograph below with the site marked red below:
It is acknowledged that the site is not designated explicitly for its landscape quality and lies
adjacent to the northern edge of the Llantwit Major Bypass, a somewhat urban feature.
Nevertheless, as can be seen there is a clear distinction between the form and density of
development between the north and south of the road with development to the south of the
road, urban and close knit, with a significantly more rural and undeveloped character to the
northern side. Whilst there is a modern barn to the east of the Llanmaes Road, this is of an
agrarian form that one would reasonably expect to find in the countryside and is evidently
agricultural in its character and typical of a form of development one would find in the
countryside, its presence therefore does little to justify a development of the scale and
form proposed.
Whilst to some degree the proposed building may be seen in the context of a back drop of
urban development when viewed from approach to the north, owing to the location,
building roof tops and the lighting columns along the road, these backdrop elements are
small in scale with current views significantly filtered by the existing vegetation which
separates the urban character to the south of the road from the more rural character area
to the north. The proposed development will constitute a significant change to the
character and scale of the urban development visible from a number of viewpoints. Indeed
this is considered to be evidenced within the viewpoints provided by the applicant in
support of the application.
112
Illustrative viewpoint from the B4265 showing evidenced scale and massing of the building
on approach to the site from the east
Illustrative viewpoint from the Llanmaes Road with the front wall of Thursday House to the
right hand side. Officer note: the position of the footway and hedge on this plan appears to
be incorrect noting that the footway would be setback behind the neighbouring wall and in
turn the hedge and trees would be set further back in the site. This also shows the hedge
as it currently exists/mature which may take some time following translocation
Provided illustrative view of the development from public right of way L12/1/1 circa 230
metres to the north of the site.
113
It is considered that the submitted viewpoints and visual assessment, underrepresent the
likely magnitude of visual change that would result from the development. Whilst the
existing and proposed vegetation does offer some screening, it is at best providing a
filtered view rather than obstructing the view with the massing of the building still clearly
evident and at odds with the characteristically smaller built elements visible in the view.
The visible large area of parking is out of character with the general setting and backdrop
which consists largely of smaller built elements well screened and filtered by existing
vegetation, whilst acoustic screens and other paraphernalia would add to the urbanising
impacts. Even with suggested screening of the proposed development by existing and
proposed vegetation, it is considered that the substantial massing of the building would still
likely be evident with views through to the elevation and although similar in scale to the
large barn at Tremains farm the development is of a very different character and at odds
with the rural agricultural setting in which it sits.
It is noted that a number of design changes have been incorporated into the development,
including changes to cladding colour, the introduction of a degree of green roof and
alterations to the colour of cladding and acoustic screens. Whilst these are acknowledged
it remains the case that the proposals would introduce a building of a significant footprint of
circa 78m by 35m, with a maximum height above existing ground level of circa 8.5m,
inclusive of the proposed retaining works to the northern end. Furthermore whilst it is
noted that at its southern end the site sits below road level, the highly glazed elevation to
this frontage coupled with signage both on the building and potential freestanding totem
style signage as shown on the landscaping submissions (noting that these would require
advertisement consent in their own right), would introduce illuminated and prominent
elements. These would increasingly draw the eye to the development, that would
inherently seek a roadside presence to attract potential shoppers to the store. This would
be further compounded by the proposed introduction of a significant car parking area to
the frontage of the property that would introduce lighting columns and manoeuvring
vehicles that would introduce significant additional illuminance into what is a currently
undeveloped field that positively contributes to the verdant and pleasing rural character of
the local environs.
Although there is a degree of vegetation to the southern boundary of the site, this is not
significant and does not offer substantive or particularly meaningful screening from the
Llantwit Major bypass. Furthermore, such screening benefits would vary significantly
throughout the year given their deciduous nature, nor could this be relied upon in
perpetuity, given this planting does not currently benefit from any formal protection and in
any event, with time, will die. Additionally, whilst the applicant has submitted amended
landscaping plans that include additional planting within the confines of the site, the local
planning authority are not persuaded that the proposals would provide effective screening
or softening impacts that would mitigate the harm to the overall character of the
countryside noted above. The likely desire for a significant roadside presence from the
Llantwit Major bypass, would likely further diminish any suggested screening benefits and
likely place additional pressure for the removal of such vegetation in the future. Whilst
future advertisements and other paraphernalia could potentially be controlled, it is the
Local Planning Authority’s view that the introduction of such development would
undoubtedly represent a significant urbanising presence in this location that would
fundamentally alter the character of the area. To this end, the addition of a significant
supermarket building and its associated lighting, parking and servicing, and in due course
advertisements, would likely have a significant detrimental impact on the intrinsic, verdant
character of the countryside.
114
Further to the above it is considered the harm associated with the addition of a building of
this scale would be compounded by the introduction of a significant bellmouth access and
footway/cycleway. It is considered that the submissions evidence that the proposed
enlarged access with associated extension of the footway and visibility splays would cause
significant impacts to the character of this part of Llanmaes Road, including through the loss
of the established field hedge fronting the road. Currently there is a footway to the other side
of the road and the proposals would appear to seek to replicate arrangement that would
further urbanise the environs. Whilst the hedgerow would be translocated behind the
proposed visibility splays this would take time to establish and would not suitably mitigate
the likely visual harm from the creation of the significant access and widened carriageway.
Furthermore, it is noted that the village of Llanmaes is located only circa 250m to the north
of the B4265, with the B4265 representing a clear and distinct edge to the settlement of
Llantwit Major. This level of separation and agrarian character of the intervening land, that
despite some scattered development maintains a verdant and rural appearance that are
considered to represent significant contributors to the distinctiveness of the local area and
to each of the respective settlements. The introduction of a development of this size, would
inherently result in a significant and urbanising addition in this location that would
significantly reduce the gap between urban development to the south of the road and the
more traditional, distinct development of the village of Llanmaes. To this end it is
considered that the proposals would result in significant coalescence between the
settlements of Llantwit Major and Llanmaes to the north that would result in a loss of the
sense of openness between the two. The introduction of a substantial and urban feature
that would significantly blur the distinction between the two settlements is considered
significantly harmful to each of their respective characters and that of the countryside.
Whilst this area may not have been formally designated as a green wedge previously
under the LDP, it is nevertheless considered to positively contribute to the pleasing and
rural character to the north of the road, that is considered to be an important and defining
characteristic of local landscape and townscape character.
As part of the preparation of the Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) a
candidate site was submitted for a green wedge on the land between Llantwit Major and
Llanmaes where the proposed development is sited. As the RLDP is progressed the green
wedges will be reviewed, and this would involve assessing the land between Llantwit
Major and Llanmaes. Notwithstanding this, the site is not currently located within a Green
Wedge and therefore policy pertaining to them would not apply.
To this end, it is also noted that the village of Llanmaes is designated as a conservation
area. The associated conservation appraisal and management plan, details the defining
characteristics of the Conservation Area, including it being a small village in a rural setting
of open fields; views of Llanmaes from the southern approach road; rural views to
surrounding countryside through breaks in the buildings and from the public footpaths.
Indeed the importance of the surrounding rural land and setting of the conservation area is
reflected in the boundary of the conservation area extending to the southern edge of the
Llanmaes Brook only circa 75 metres from the north-east of the development site. The
contribution of surrounding fields, inclusive of the application site, reinforces the rural
nature and agrarian origins of the village, and is therefore important to its setting as
detailed on page 8 of the appraisal that states the following:
115
There is a close relationship between buildings and surrounding countryside, with open
fields providing a foil to the built environment. The village is visible in its landscape setting
from the by-pass. Intervening fields to the north of the by-pass form an important element
of separation from modern housing estates located on the edge of Llantwit Major.
Whilst the proposals have sought to amend the form of cladding and materials of the
building, it is evident that the introduction of a building of the proposed scale in an elevated
position relative to the village would significantly dilute the established importance of the
setting of the conservation area and represent an urbanising and a significant coalescing
presence, detrimental to landscape and identified historic character.
The CAAMP also includes a number of recommendations including, that ‘development
which impacts in a detrimental way upon the immediate setting of the Conservation Area
will be resisted. The Council will resist applications for change on the edges of the
Conservation Area which would have a detrimental effect on the area’s setting.’
PPW 6.1.15 is considered to be of relevance here in that there is a strong presumption
against granting of planning permission which damage the character or appearance of a
conservation area or its setting to an unacceptable level. It goes on to state that in
exceptional circumstances, the presumption may be overridden in favour of development
considered desirable in public interest grounds.’ This will be considered later within the
planning balance section of the report.
Noting all of the above, it is considered that the proposals would likely have significant
detrimental impacts upon the character of the countryside, the Llanmaes Conservation
Area and result in the coalescence of Llantwit Major and Llanmaes. To this end the
proposals are considered to be at odds with the provisions of Policies MD1, MD2 and MD8
of the Local Development Plan.
Historic Environment
Policy SP10 (Built and Natural Environment) seeks to preserve and enhance the rich and
diverse built and natural environment and heritage of the Vale of Glamorgan. Furthermore,
Policy MD8 (Historic Environment) states:
‘Development proposals must protect the qualities of the built and historic environment of
the Vale of Glamorgan, specifically:
1. Within conservation areas, development proposals must preserve or enhance the
character or appearance of the area;
2. For listed and locally listed buildings, development proposals must preserve or
enhance the building, its setting and any features of significance it possesses;
3. Within designated landscapes, historic parks and gardens, and battlefields,
development proposals must respect the special historic character and quality of
these areas, their settings or historic views or vistas;
4. For sites of archaeological interest, development proposals must preserve or
enhance archaeological remains and where appropriate their settings.’
116
The proposal as originally submitted was supported by a Heritage Assessment prepared
by Cotswold Archaeology dated April 2022. This concludes that the proposals in terms of
physical effects have potential to encounter archaeological features within the site and
recommended further investigation. In terms of non-physical effects, the statement details
that the proposed development ‘would not alter the setting of any historic assets such that
it would have no effect on an asset’s significance.’
As noted previously there is concern with regard to the visual impacts of the development
and the resulting coalescence between the settlements of Llanmaes and Llantwit Major
and the resulting impacts of the proposals on the setting of Llanmaes Conservation Area.
The Llanmaes Conservation Area boundary is only circa 75 metres to the north of the site
at its closest point. This has been discussed above with regard to visual impacts and not
expanded upon here.
In terms of designated assets, with regard to identified historic parks and gardens and
scheduled ancient monuments, Cadw have considered the submissions and their potential
impacts with regard to the assets and have concluded that they have no objection to the
proposals. To this end the proposals are considered to comply with the requirements of
criterion 3 of Policy MD8.
Pursuant to this and initial comments provided by the Council’s archaeological advisors,
Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust (now Heneb), a field evaluation prepared by Red
River Archaeology that states ‘no finds or features of archaeological significance were
encountered during the evaluation.’ Following this the Council’s archaeological advisors
stated that there is no objection with reference to archaeological resource at the site. As
such the proposals are considered to comply with the requirements of criterion 4 of Policy
MD8.
Agricultural Land Classification
The majority of the site is identified as Grade 4 agricultural land under the Predictive ALC
(2) map produced by Welsh Government. The application has also been supported by a
nuanced assessment of the particular site that identifies that the land falls largely within
Grade 4 and partially 3B.
To this end the proposals are considered to accord with Criterion 9 of LDP Policy MD1;
and LDP Policy MD7 – Environmental Protection, which states, “development proposals
will be required to demonstrate they will not result in an unacceptable impact on people,
residential amenity, property and / or the natural environment from either:…7. The loss of
the best and most versatile agricultural land…where impacts are identified the Council will
require applicants to demonstrate that appropriate measures can be taken to minimise the
impact identified to an acceptable level. Planning conditions may be imposed, or legal
obligation entered into, to secure any necessary mitigation and monitoring processes”.
Given the above, it is considered that the loss of agricultural land would not represent a
reason to withhold planning permission in this instance.
117
Drainage and Flooding
Criterion 5 of Policy MD7 – ‘Environmental Protection’ requires development proposals to
demonstrate that they will not result in an unacceptable impact from flood risk and
consequences. The site falls within Flood Zone A although it is noted that the site lies
upslope of Llanmaes Brook and adjacent land which is designated as Flood Zone C2. The
application is supported by a Flood Consequences Assessment that has been considered
by the Council’s Drainage Section and NRW, and no related objections have been
received from either party. Furthermore the Council’s Drainage section in consideration of
the separate SAB application advise ‘from the details provided we offer no objection in
principle to the proposed drainage scheme subject to our comments above.’
Consequently, it is concluded that on the grounds of flood risk, the proposed development
meets the principles and requirements set out in TAN 15 and the aims of PPW12. Noting
the above and that no objection has been raised by the relevant consultees, the proposal
is considered acceptable with regards to flood risk and therefore complies with criterion 5
outlined above.
Impact upon neighbouring residential properties
The proposed store would be set a significant distance away from neighbouring properties
to the south (in excess of 50m), east (in excess of 100m) and west, noting this level of
separation and intervening features, including highways to the south and east it is
considered that the proposals would not cause an unacceptable impact on neighbouring
residences in these directions by virtue of overbearing or loss of light impacts.
The site also shares a boundary with Thursday House to the north with the store itself
being set approximately 44 metres from the rear of this property. Noting this degree of
separation, it is considered even with the levels difference that the proposed mass and
bulk of the building, that would undoubtedly be a visual presence when viewed from this
property, it is considered it would not give rise to any unacceptable impacts in terms of
being overbearing or resulting in an unacceptable loss of light.
The proposals would also introduce a car parking and servicing area that would be set
within circa 4m of the boundary, that would, noting the retaining works at the site be
elevated above the neighbouring property by up to circa 1.8m. During the course of the
application, car parking spaces adjacent to the boundary with the rear garden of the
neighbouring dwelling have been removed to be limited to those adjacent to the side
elevation that would be at a commensurate level to the existing levels of the site. The
proposed loading and delivery bay would be situated circa 4m from the shared boundary
with delivery vehicles accessing the loading bay and set circa 58m from the rear elevation
of the neighbouring dwelling with a 1.8m high acoustic fence proposed along the site
boundary, with a further 2.4m fence proposed circa 4.5m from the boundary with property.
118
It is considered that these measures would adequately safeguard noise and lightspill
associated with manoeuvring vehicles in the car park and delivery bay. SRS comments with
regard to noise and potentially further reducing noise are noted, albeit it is considered that
this would have been sought/secured by condition if the development was considered
acceptable in all other regards. Similarly it is considered that a lighting plan could have also
been secured/sought to control any potential light pollution issues if the development was
considered acceptable in all other regards. Furthermore whilst these features would
undoubtedly be visible from the rear of Thursday House to some degree, it is not considered
they would be overbearing or result in an unacceptable loss of light to neighbouring
properties or in turn give rise to unacceptable impacts in terms of light and noise pollution
(subject to further details).
Noting this, it is considered that the proposals would not give rise to any
unacceptable impacts upon neighbouring properties, subject to conditions attached to
any permission.
Ecology & Green Infrastructure
The application is supported by an Ecological Survey undertaken by Just Mammals LTD
dated July 2022. This identifies that the site predominantly comprises of poor semi-improved
grassland, with an intact species poor hedgerow running around the site, with tall ruderal
vegetation to the southern boundary, in addition to large trees to the south-east corner of
the site and a large sycamore to the northern boundary. The site is identified as supporting
a ‘good’ population of slow-worm, and a ‘low’ population of grass snake both identified as a
on the Section 7 list of priority species under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 as well
benefitting from other protection measures including the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
(as amended). The survey notes that the proposals would result in the loss of habitat and
potential harm and as such mitigation and compensatory habitat should be provided, and
recommends that a Reptile Mitigation Plan is prepared to safeguard the species identified.
Limited bat activity was also noted, although no bat roost activity was recorded and
foraging/commuting across the site was generally considered to found to be light tolerant
species. Measures are also noted within the submissions to avoid the bird nesting season,
including works to remove areas of hedgerow. Overall, the report finds the site to be high
ecological value due to the presence of slow worm and grass snake.
The Council’s Ecologist has considered the submissions, and notes that any reptile
mitigation strategy would best form part of a landscape and ecological management plan for
the site, that could include a consistent approach to landscaping and ecological provision,
noting that deviance in approach is noted within the ecological survey provided, and that this
should be controlled by way of condition. They also provide comments that a condition
relating to a lighting strategy/plan should be attached to any consent given; consideration
should be given to alternatives to removing hedgerow, and translocating where possible and
whether consideration could be given to provision of a pond/open-water area to the north-
west of the site. No adverse comments were received from NRW with regard to the
proposals.
119
Since the submission of the application amendments have been made to Planning Policy
Wales Edition 12 Chapter 6, that places increased emphasis on the protection and
enhancement of the natural environment. It states that all developments must achieve a
biodiversity benefit and also that Green Infrastructure Statements should accompany all
planning applications albeit that this will be proportionate to the scale and nature of the
development proposal. The application as amended is supported by an amended Green
Infrastructure Statement prepared by tir collective dated June 2024. This details a landscape
concept for the site that seeks to retain hedgerow and trees where possible with new trees,
hedgerows, shrub planting and SuDs features connected to maintain connectivity and create
wildlife corridors. Measures proposed within the submissions include translocation of
existing hedge behind the proposed footway/cycleway along the site frontage; sedum roof;
additional native tree planting (including 8 linden trees to replace 4 being removed and a
further 15 trees) and hazel coppice; shrub planting within the car park and 6 no bird boxes
within the site.
Planning Policy Wales 12 advocates a step-wise approach for local planning authorities to
ensure biodiversity enhancement (within paragraph 6.4.14). The site is not allocated for
retail purposes although if the suggestions of retail capacity are accepted and this was
considered to be the only suitable site for such development (noting significant concerns
detailed previously with regard to the development of the site) it would not be possible to
avoid the harm associated. Having regard to the suggested ecological measures (including
but not limited to a reptile mitigation strategy and a landscape and ecological management
plan) and those compensatory measures identified within the submitted GIS, it is considered
that subject to potential conditions that the proposals could suitably minimise, mitigate and
compensate for green infrastructure and ecological interests within the site, that the
proposals are acceptable in principle.
The Green Infrastructure Plan details areas of replacement hedgerow and reinforced tree
planting that would be provided through the site, in addition to wetland habitats and swales
that would form part of any SAB submission and would be more fully detailed within a
reserved matters submission. Whilst it is considered that such measures would not
overcome the significant visual harm identified previously, it is considered if the development
was considered acceptable in all other regards, that subject to a suitable suite of conditions,
including those referred to elsewhere within the report and ongoing management of the site,
that the site could be developed in a manner that would minimise and achieve suitable
mitigation and compensation within the site. Additionally it could provide suitable mitigation
for habitat loss and enhancement of those to be retained. As such the proposals are
considered to comply with the provisions of PPW and of Policy MD9 of the LDP in this
regard.
120
Highways impacts
The proposals as amended have been supported by a Transport Assessment (TA) prepared
by Corun and updated in May 2023, which have been considered by the Council’s Highway
Development Officers.
As aforementioned the site would be accessed from Llanmaes Road to the east, with a car
park to the east of the store building that would provide 122 car parking spaces, inclusive of
2 EV parking spaces on the latest site layout and 7 disabled bays. The overall provision
would provide sufficient parking within the confines of the site to comply with the maximum
standards within the adopted Parking Standards SPG. It is however, acknowledged that the
level of EV parking provision would be below the 10% requirement identified in Future
Wales.
The proposals would include the provision of a 3.5m shared footway/cycleway along the
frontage of the site and would also include off-site works including the provision of two new
toucan controlled crossing points to connect the site to existing active travel provision and
assist with pedestrian movements across the B4265 and Llanmaes Road. Llanmaes Road
is also noted as being widened to circa 7.3m south of the proposed access point.
As noted an updated Transport Assessment has been submitted in support of the
application that confirms that ‘the proposed development would be anticipated to generate
a total of 2,028 and 2,535 total two-way vehicular trips over the 12-hour weekday and
Saturday periods respectively’ with peak trips anticipated between 11am and 12pm of 213
on weekdays and 302 Saturdays at the same time. The TA is accompanied by an impact
assessment of key road junctions in the vicinity of the site. The assessment concludes that
the proposals ‘would lead to very little impact across the surrounding highway network
during the critical weekday and Saturday peak hour periods’ and ‘the proposed
development is therefore not anticipated to cause any significant capacity issues on the
local highway network’. The TA also notes ‘that the accident records near to the site
suggest that the proposed development is unlikely to exacerbate the existing safety record
to a significant enough level to warrant concern.’
Through the course of consideration of the application there has been extensive dialogue
between the applicant’s appointed highways consultants and the Council’s Highway
Development section, resulting in the revised submissions before members. The Council’s
Highway Development section note that ‘the TA recognises that the traffic impact will be
material in particular for the B4265/Llanmaes Road Staggered signalised junction and
therefore improvements have been recommended. The applicant/developer has confirmed
they will provide improvements to the timings/telematics for the signalised junction
(Section 7.6.8 in TA) which should improve capacity of the junction and therefore any
impact on traffic for the site will be mitigated by these improvements.’ Furthermore revised
details were also sought with regard to the delivery vehicles accessing the servicing bay
during busy/peak times and provision of a delivery management plan with a view to control
this. Having considered the most recently submitted details the Council’s Highway
Development Section, have responded with no objection to the proposals, subject to a
number of conditions. These include, full engineering details; the provision of a
construction traffic management plan; additional details of traffic regulation orders along
the site frontage to prevent indiscriminate parking; further details of updated
timings/telematics of the signalised junction to the south of the site; condition surveys prior
to and after the development of the site and requirement for any identified remedial works
to be undertaken.
121
The site and the enhanced pedestrian and active travel facilities detailed on the site frontage
and beyond would allow for relatively ready access to the supermarket, which the applicant
suggests is a circa 12 minute walk from Llanwit Major Town Centre and in turn closer to
many of the residential areas of the town which the development would serve. To this end
and noting the availability of local bus services circa 80 and 250 metres away, it is
considered that the site would not be overly or unacceptably reliant on the private car. The
improved crossing facilities and suggested alterations to telematics, would also allow for
improvements of the usability of the junction by those travelling to the site by non-car modes.
It is also noted that the proposals as they stand do not include adequate EV charging spaces
to comply with the 10% envisaged by Policy 15 of Future Wales albeit would comply with
the requirements of the currently adopted Parking Standards SPG. The submitted TA
indicates that 20% of the total parking space provision would ‘be enabled for future electric
vehicle charging. Usage will be monitored, with additional chargers installed should demand
dictate’. If the development was acceptable in all other regards this matter would have been
pursued further, or at the very least additional details of EV charging secured by way of
condition.
Noting all of the above, it is considered that the proposals would be acceptable in terms of
highway safety and in compliance with the provisions of Policies MD1 and MD2 of the
adopted Development Plan.
Planning Obligations
Sustainable Transport
Increasing importance is enshrined in local and national planning policies emphasising the
need for developments to be accessible by alternative modes of transport than the private
car.
Chapter 4 in Planning Policy Wales (PPW) (Ed 12) requires proposals to seek to maximise
accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport to key locations, by prioritising the
provision of appropriate on-site infrastructure and, where necessary, mitigating transport
impacts through the provision of off-site measures, such as the development of active
travel routes, bus priority infrastructure and financial support for public transport services.
Further, national policy contained within Technical Advice Note 18 ‘Transport’ (March
2007) Paragraph 9.20 allows local planning authorities to use planning obligations to
secure improvements to the travel network, for roads, walking, cycling and public
transport, as a result of a proposal.
For the provision and/or enhancement of off-site sustainable transport facilities and having
regard to the cost of providing sustainable transport infrastructure and services as set in
the adopted Planning Obligations SPG, the Council would require £2,300 per 100sqm
resulting in a total financial contribution of £50,600 (based upon 2180 sqm). This would be
used to make improvements within the vicinity of the site, such as enhanced pedestrian
and cycling facilities (not including those proposed to facilitate safe access to the site)
and/or updating existing public transport infrastructure, such as improved Real Time
Information displays in nearby bus stops.
The applicant has agreed to this contribution.
122
Public Open Space
Large scale retail or employment developments are expected to make provision for Public
Open Space and/or recreational facilities to meet the needs of their staff and/or customers.
Open space offers vital opportunities for sport and recreation, and also acts as a visual
amenity.
TAN 16: Sport, Recreation and Open Space (2009) states "Planning conditions and
obligations (Section 106 Agreements) can be used to provide open space, sport and
recreational facilities, to safeguard and enhance existing provisions, and to provide for
their management”.
Commercial developments would usually be expected to provide additional provision on site,
based upon 16sq.m. per staff member (based upon maximum numbers of staff to be in the
workplace at any one time) or 15% of the site area. The provision on-site would be the
preferred option and the site plan indicates that open areas would be retained within the
development, including that to the rear. Alternatively, in the event that on-site provision is
inappropriate, the developer would be required to pay a financial contribution of £1,150 per
employee.
The applicant has agreed to the required level of provision and the site layout, as
amended would provide circa 1000sqm to the rear of the building for future use by staff
members. The submissions detail that circa 40 staff would work at the site and as such the
proposals would exceed the amount of space available. To this end, if the development
were acceptable in all other regards, then the provision and maintenance of this area
would be sought to be delivered and maintained through a suitably worded condition.
Training and development
The development of skills and education in an economy are essential to maximise
employment opportunities, in order to achieve ‘A Prosperous Wales’ (Planning Policy Wales,
Edition 12, Section 5), and to ensure that people secure decent work and enjoy a better
quality of life.
Part of the justification for permitting new commercial developments is the employment
opportunities they present. Training local residents to be able to apply for some of the new
job opportunities helps to create sustainable communities. Therefore on major
developments the Council looks for opportunities to maximise training and development for
the Vale of Glamorgan’s resident population. This training may be provided by the developer
on site, or provided in the form of a financial contribution to the Council to facilitate skills
training to boost local economic development.
In this case, it is considered reasonable to expect training (on a recognised training course)
to be provided for at least 4 employees on site, or alternatively pay the Council a contribution
of £5,020 (4 x £1,255) as an in lieu contribution. The financial contribution would be used to
remove the barriers to work by providing assistance such as training, skills development,
childcare etc. The applicant has agreed to this contribution.
123
Public Art
Technical Advice Note (TAN) 12 ‘Design’ (March 2016) Section 5.15 recognises the
importance role of public art, in creating and enhancing “individuality and distinctiveness”
within a development, town, village and cities.
Public Art can bring distinctiveness and material and craft quality to developments, enable
local people to participate in the process of change and foster a sense of ownership. It is
therefore an important part of achieving design quality.
The Council introduced a ‘percent for art’ policy in July 2003, which is supported by the
Council’s adopted SPG on Public Art. It states that on major developments, developers
should set aside a minimum of 1% of their project budget specifically for the commissioning
of art and, as a rule, public art should be provided on site integral to the development
proposal. The public art scheme must incorporate sufficient measures for the appropriate
future maintenance of the works.
Public art should be considered early in the design process and be integral to the overall
design of a building, public space or place. The choice of artists and the nature of
subsequent work should be the subject of full collaboration from the outset between the
artist, the local community and professionals involved in the design process. This is in
accordance with TAN 12, paragraph 5.15.4.
The applicant has agreed to this indicating that they would not expect the budget to exceed
£30,000.
Planning obligations administration fee:
In addition to the above and separate to any obligation, the Council requires the developer
to pay an administration fee to monitor and implement the terms of the Planning Obligations
equivalent to 2% of the contribution or 20% of the planning fee whichever is greater. This
fee covers the Council’s costs to negotiate, monitor and implement the terms of the
necessary Section 106 Agreement. In this case the fee would equate to £2,484.
This cost is essential because the additional work involved in effectively implementing a
Section 106 Agreement is not catered for within the standard planning application fee, and
the above planning obligations are considered necessary and essential for the development
to be appropriately mitigated against. Therefore, the developer is reasonably expected to
cover the Council’s costs in this regard.
The applicant has agreed to the obligations administration fee.
124
Conclusion/balance
It is acknowledged through the body of the report that the capacity for retail development
and the relevant tests have been considered and agreed by the Council’s retail planning
advisors and the proposals found to be in broad compliance with the requirements of
Policy MG13 of the adopted development plan. It has also been found to be acceptable in
terms of other matters as detailed within the report, including in terms of highways and
ecological considerations. However, this must be weighed against other planning
considerations in the planning balance, particularly the likely substantial visual impacts of
the proposals and the likely significant detriment to the character of the countryside and
confluence of the settlements of Llantwit Major and Llanmaes that would result and
discussed in depth above.
Having regard to all of these matters, it is considered that the visual impacts associated
with the development are substantial and would outweigh the benefits of the provision of
such a facility in this location. The Council is currently undergoing work on a replacement
LDP inclusive of consideration of the retail needs of Llantwit Major and other settlements
within the Vale of Glamorgan. The site has been put forward as a candidate site and it is
considered that the examination of the plan represents the most suitable means to
holistically consider the retail needs of the Vale of Glamorgan, including whether there are
alternative sites that may be available. To this end and noting the significant detriment that
would likely occur as a result of the development, it is considered on balance that the
proposals should be refused.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE (W.R.)
1. By reason of its location, design, form, and scale, the proposals would unacceptably
impact upon the appearance and character of the countryside and would be
incongruous with the surrounding area. The proposals, inclusive of the impacts of
ancillary elements including lighting and parking, would result an unacceptable
urbanising form of development that would result in the confluence of the
settlements of Llanmaes and Llantwit Major and be detrimental to the setting of the
Llanmaes Conservation Area. As such the proposals would be at odds with Policies
MD1, MD2 and MD8 of the Vale of Glamorgan Adopted Local Development Plan
2011-2026, the council's SPG on Residential and Householder Development,
Planning Policy Wales (12th Edition) and Technical Advice Note 12 (Design).
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The decision to refuse planning permission has been taken in accordance with Section 38
of The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, in determining a
planning application the determination must be in accordance with the Development Plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for the area
comprises the Vale of Glamorgan Adopted Local Development Plan 2011-2026 and Future
Wales – the National Plan 2040.
125
It is considered that the decision complies with the Council’s well-being objectives and the
sustainable development principle in accordance with the requirements of the Well-being
of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.
The appropriate marine policy documents have been considered in the determination of
this application in accordance with Section 59 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
126
2024/00060/FUL
127
Notes :
Station Easting Northing Level
ON DETAIL SURVEY
AB Air Brick EP Electricity Pole RWP Rain Water Pipe
AC Asbestos Cement ER Earth Rod S Stump
ACU Air Conditioning Unit FB Flower Bed SAG O/H Cable Sag Height
AD Assumed Direction FH Fire Hydrant S/A Soakaway
AL Air Line FL Floor Level SC Stop Cock
N AR
ASP
Assumed Route
Artificial Stone Paving
FS
G
Flag Staff
Gully
SI
SL
Spun Iron
Soffit Level
AT Air Tower H Height SLV Sluice Valve
AV Air Valve IC Inspection Cover SP Sign Post
BB Belisha Beacon IL Invert Level Spr Spring
BD Back Drop JB Junction Box SS Structure Support
BdL Bed Level KO Kerb Outlet ST Stop Tap
BH Borehole LB Letter Box STN Survey Control Station
2024/00060/FUL
Bk Brick LI Light SV Stop Valve
0 3m 6m 9m 12m 15m 18m 21m 24m 27m 30m
BL Building Point LP Lamp Post SVP Soil Vent Pipe
BOL Bollard MB Multiple Bole Tac Tactile Paving
BR Brick MH Manhole Cover TBM Temporary Bench Mark
BS Bus Stop Mkr Marker Post TCB Telephone Call Box
BT British Telecom Cover MP Mile Post / Stone T/H Top Of Hedge
12.36 BTB British Telecom Box MOP Mooring Post T/V Top Of Vegetation
12
.0
2 CAB Cabinet NM Node Marker T/P Top Of Parapet Level
Cam Camera NP Name Plate THL Threshold Level
12
CAT Catenary Level NPV No Pipes Visible T-T Tree Top
.46
13.6
.09 CC Control Cabinet O/H Overhead T/F Top Of Fence
12.11
11
7
12
.87
14.06
13.76
CH Channel OSA Off Survey Area
3
14.48
T/W Top Of Wall
.0
12
14.02 13.87
12.71 12.07
14
3 .88 12.40
13.9 12
ChL Channel Level PO Post
.2
14
TP Telegraph Pole
2
.30
1 7
.0
3.4 12 CI Cast Iron PB Post Box TS Traffic Signals
.92
1
12.1
11
T-T
1
CL Cover Level PBM Permanent Bench Mark
14
15.28
GRASS
UTGA Unable to Gain Access
.17
.82
14.23
16
Co Concrete PGM Permanent Ground Marker UTL Unable to Lift
11.99
37.11
.06 T-T
13 18.92
12
CP Catch Pit PLA Plastic UTS Unable to Survey
.2
WOODLAND
12
8
37
7
.10
T-T
.39
14.0
37
4
14.43 17.71
CPS Conc Paving Slabs PM Parking Meter
.1
12.06
VC Vitrified Clay
.36
12
14.58 13.93 12.17
37.8 7
37
CTV Cable TV PST Stay Wire Anchor Point
.7
VDP Vehicle Detector Pads
9
5
STREAM
14.4
12.08
T-T 8 CUL Culvert PT Polythene Tunnel VP Vent Pipe
15.44
50.21 13.1 T-T
17.64
D Depth (deep) PTH Principal Tree Height VR Vapour Recovery
15.60
14.93
11
11.7.7
T-T
66
47.04
T-T DI Ductile Iron PU Pump VTP Vertical Pipe
56
4.1
18.61
15.66
14.4
.67
1
38.12
15
BRUSH
dil Dilapidated RE Rodding Eye WL Water Level
T-T
46.80 dis Disused Ri Riser WM Water Meter
38
16.01 16.25
RFL Roof Level
.76
D/S Downstream
38
WO Water Wash Out
16.25
.84
.69
16.38
T-T
14
RP Reflector Post
39
19.93
EB Electricity Box WS Window Sample
.06
T-T
32.85
39.3
T-T
EIC Electricity Inspection Cover RS Road Sign WV Water Valve
7
T-T 40.10
.9
2
.47
16.77
16
48.45
15
T-T T-T
38.97
19.7
38.83 4
0
15.4
0
ON FENCES/WALLS/DIVISIONS
11
4 .3 9
.7 17 .8
.58
17 15
B/W Barbed Wire Fence FTR Trellis Fence S/F Safety Fence
11.7
1. 2
8
9
CrB Crash Barrier H/R Hand Rail S/R Steel Railings
0
17.65
1
11.7
.1
T-T
17.75
19
69 T-T
39.93 49.66
17
. T-T
C/B Close Boarded Fence I/R Iron Rail Fence W/M Wire Mesh Fence
39
2
19.04
22
39.5
T-T 33.51
.57
STREAM
11.6
.35
404.3
WOODLAND 33.80 GRASS
1
C/I Corrugated Iron Fence P/F Picket Fence BW Brick Wall
02.3
G
39.6
2
40.2
39.73 6
2
BRUSH
18.7
23.1
7
1
6
40.7
19.7
0 18.62
50 C/L Chain Link Fence P/L Palisade Fence CW Concrete Wall
8
0
.
18
.8
11
20
BRUSH
E/F Electric Fence P/R Post and Rail Fence DSW Dry Stone Wall
.72
T-T
31.39
24
40
FPB Panel / Board Fence P/W Post and Wire Fence R/W Retaining Wall
.83
.32
T-T
11.5
T-T
1
T-T
.7
40.04 21.00
20
T-T T-T 22.18
.20
9
51.33 .7
9 T-T
.33 0
41.57
SW Stone Wall
21
22 51.06 21 19.4
ON BUILDINGS
40.5
11
20T-T T-T
.5
WOODLAND
27
22
4
.59
6
.31
23.36 .85 50.56 18.83
6
ASB Asbestos FRL Flat Roof Level SCH Suspended Ceiling Height
22.9
9
T-T T-T
.2
41.3
22.40
.74
WOODLAND
41.5
22
56.60 30.81
23 T-T
AV Air Vent
1
GRL Glazed Roof Light SOF U/S Soffit Height
22.4
9
18.88
441.7
11.5
2
11.9
9.
0
55
0
1
T-T
54.88 9 T-T
CL Cill Level HL Head Level SOIL Soil Pipe
5
0
42
.2
.8
25.7
27 24.65
CH Ceiling Height PART Partitioning SVP Sewer Vent Pipe
24
5
.35
T-T
12
23.9
0
.0
42.92
.10
26.54 11.21
16
T-T T-T
.26
41
T-T
11
41.68 59.69 T-T 27.33 11
CHM Chimney Stack Height PL Parapet Level THL Threshold Level
.25
.70
.52
49.53
47.74
.24
28
9 3 15
25 26.5 .1 .12
11.7
17
T-T DH Door Head RL Ridge Level USB Underside Of Beam
0
3
25.9 33.64
41.6
.3
T-T
11.26
6 T-T
29
.87 53.82 18.09 .26
DP Down Pipe RWC Rain Water Channel WH Water Heater
42.5
8
27
41.8
0 .93 11
29.1 14.0
42.4
4
20
31
T-T .26
26.7
4
04
1
11
.45
54.27
EL Eave Level RWP Rain Water Pipe WP Waste Pipe
4
2.7
20.05
23
8
26.2
87
.73
9. 9 BRUSH
F Frame Height SA Spring Of Arch WST Water Storage Tank
29.87
2 T-T
9
32.46
.4 42.00
T-T
2
28
4.72
T-T
42.4
58.72
42.3
38.80 17.02
42.3
2
LOOSE WOODLAND 13
3
.1 11
43.8
136.16 .0
9 .2
7
29.88 27.09 11.37 11.27 1
28.90 14.90 11 T-T
1
G
STREAM T-T 21.04
5
42.70 22.13
.3
58.51
5
32
32.3
27.18
43.4
25.6
43.3
6
T-T
43.0
5
56.72 28.5
5
13
4
6
.6
28.61 .1
0
11
3
34.4
24.72
T-T
35.71
27
2
38.43
4.09
11.28
GRASS
.3
43.8
T-T
5
22.3 19.55
8 3
0
T-T T-T 3 9
43.2
9
30.1
55.15 37 .5 T-T
36
36.4
53.47
43.3
.1 54.00
35.0
32
5
GRASS
3
.6
.1
0
2
19.81
27
37
11
.5
3
44.1
9
36.7
31.3
37.39 5 34.32 19.77 11.11 10.97
44.1
12
.5 35.91 33.07 30.84 27.82 24.91 17.93 11.10
36
.8
T-T
6
44.00 38.1
27.65
7
38.1
9
11
0
60.88 6
.43
44.8
6
38.4
43.8
0
7
38.6
11.09
7
T-T
39.1
16
57.82 BRUSH
7
11.3
.25
T-T
5
29.0
39.17 6
18.63
37.98
5
33.9
2
44.8
44.1
T-T T-T
39.6
10
44
19.02
39
19.17
.55
6
10
44.3
4
.4
10
39 0
4.91
8
29.8
39
0.0
.94
3
39
44.8
.70 .94
.6
.76
T-T 39.57
.9
10
8
9
1
16
2
8
52.83
7
35.9
.41
39
T-T
38.43
39.89
.96
11.28 11.55
39
39.44 37.51 34.85 12.31
31.3
51.48 39.77 31.85 28.55 24.45 18.59 14.6 11.40
40
.7
7 .12
.10
1
12
3
T-T
40.05
40.1
44.8
39.97
58.23 0
39.9
41.2
10.71
0
T-T
41.38
4
38.69
49.70 14.26
16.6
8
2
40.0
40.0
31.9
38.4
11.1
4
T-T
T-T
1
40.0
07
5
0
53.88
1.
3
57.58
45.0
45.5
4 SPOIL HEAP
7
40.11
45.1
40.1
32.18
8
9
39.0
.61
40.2
7
1
10
39.98
8
G
46.0
10
4
T-T T-T
9
.78
10.61
45.37 5
46.6
.0
52.00 .0 18.38
.77
41
T-T 11
3
41.44
1
49.26 37.3
38
33.1
39
40
38.04 1 21.98 11.47 10.70 T-T
39.77 38.73 17.85 11.12
.9
34.66 31.39 12.22
.1
45.7 T-T 40.69
8 39.19 27.69 10.57
15.41
2
1
45.61
10.93
40.5
39.92 GRASS
.25
8
10
T-T
4
12
T-T T-T
.5
63.85
.63
55.03
40
46.5
4
65.89
.0
46.4
38
39.4
40
4
0
.72
.92
7
13.83
46.0
46.0
10.6
13
7
40.5
33
T-T
10.9
8
3
2
40.9
54.58 33.11 31.8
.7
56.10
1
6
33.62
10.80
9
6
10
31
9
40.22
.47
.0
T-T 4
.91
T-T
40.6
43.35
STREAM
54.19
38
T-T
8
61.59
9
T-T 29.7
15.5
42.31 39.79 39.19 38.27 37.45 36.65 33.33 9 23.79 19.20 15.51 11.95 10.80 10.97
35 29.17
.4 T-T
46.7
T-T 3 30.20 19.46
47.3
WOODLAND 43.50 28.76
40.0
27
T-T
47.2
0
47.0
.2
19.09
8
T-T
10
1
.11
8
T-T
4
50.20
.38
27.1
6
.50
39
63.21
39
5
10
47.0
17
.9
WOODLAND
40.7
.5
T-T
0
1
26
21
40.5
58.40
0
.09
.1
6
41.5
23.57 22.78 10.6
5
4
2
25.86
10.4
T-T T-T
8
7
53.22 25.1
.03
62.08
40.0
4
1
T-T
39.1
20
58.66 10
39 T-T
9
47.9
.2
.3 9
10.2
18.67
39.7
6
48.39
3 48
T-T
.60
47.9
3
43
45.34
48
48.0
39.22 38.12 36.85 35.79 34.54 3322 32.47 27.45 18.22 13.92 10.86 10.79 10.69
47.6
9.7
47.99 22.14 11.92
1
.79 BRUSH
38.74
39.8
8
33
39.08
39
38.34
8
10.2
.2
8
9.7
37.75 6
33.9
40.2
33.9
0
2
49.07 T-T
6
48.0
GRASS
53.08
2
6
TRACK 6
37.1
T-T
7
G 46.53 39.69
10
T-T
9.93
GRASS
45.37 32.50
.0
57.37
32.5
39.97
39.84
3
1
39.31
49.3
38 36.7
T-T T-T .88
48.2
0
31.2
52.88 47.79
38
.64
10
48.3
6
27.4
39
.2
7
38
.92
1
38 37. 4
1
5
T-T
39.38
.41 10
48.7
.4
48.72
6
3
.0 79 .15
11.1
35.8
38
45.39
40.48
4
T-T
5
4
T-T
4
.0
48.98
2
35.3
40
42.22
35.36 6
40.20 16.73 9.75 9.5 10.13
37
49.09 37.59 36.48 34.16 31.69 30.17 26.52 21.52 13.09 10.76
33
11
10.3 10.42
.4
.54
39
7
.30
T-T
6
40.8
T-T 0
.42
40.50
49.1
50.21 36 .2
24.54
49.36
4
10
40.97
.9
9.3
48.9
30.8
9
2 13.0
48.9
0
34.92
31.2
5
10
1
3
.09
6
5
40.72
16
.8
T-T
3
10.37
.34 14.49
36
9.9
41.2 1
62.76
49.3
10
40.92
80
36
.02
8
42.2
41.03
9.
41.38
21
.2
41.29
5
6
20.05
5
9
49.60
23.91
.
9.8
56
9.8
49.6
36
49.5
6
40.41
18.5
.4
49.6
T-T
3
3 T-T
0
9
49.4
20.4
9
9 4
36.04
T-T
20.09
40.36 35
4.3
41.47
20.36 10
32.6
3
62.43 .7 .49
8
9.849
3
TRACK 41.63 9 10.1
29
35
7
22.6
3
7
10.5
32.67
.5
.3
7 .94
41.92
1
8 31.52
41.74
10.29
9
35.71
32.60 26.88
5
36.09 14.22
10
10.19
49.3
20.98
41.68 37.54 34.82 .0
34 33.83 28.61
23 22.73 19.21 13.61
.05
.2
41.37
49.8
2 7
23.5
.8
28
9
10
42.32
.1
27
42.30
11
.22
0
4
35
.8 .00
2
21
50.16
4
.1
26.97
T-T BRUSH
35.52
5
42.69
34
35.6 35.62
64.01 TRACK
42.33
9.8
0
.9
49.4
37.5
.6
0
9
.08
50.4
33 2
43.21
.2
1
10
26
35
42.64
GRASS
5
6
28.87
28.71
.2
0
T-T
7
10.1
61.45 9.9
35.5
2 0
35
28.13 24.0 5
1
49
8
9
9.9
35
.1
.2
12.0
37.9
.21
35
8
0
41.58
.1
43.11
1
42.35
35
29
5
T-T
35
49.22 2
.2
.48
.8 21.42
.5
T-T
4
T-T 32
50.5
BALCONY
1
50.6 50.95
64.37 34 31.55
43.16
50.83
43.1243.29
.2 T-T 13.54
35
1
T-T
43.34
4 12.99
13.09
6
39.50 32.53 30.27 25.21 21.79 18.95 14.04 30.44 10.55
.2
33.66
49.3
43.21 35.04 17.48
51.0
1
35
43.38
2
26
43.32
.9
31
43.67
11.58
8
.2
.1
34
.68 1.40
38.3
8
T-T
9
9
0
T-T .8
3
62.40 9 0
44.34
50
64.85 .3
0
35
WOODLAND
43.6
48
32
.67
35
E .20
50.6
43.60
.72
.5
39.99 E
0
7
35
24
37.51
38.2
8.
RL
.71
7
.2
44.02
.71
35
51.28
14
0
.11
-4
31.72
8
14
0
1.
43.00
.0 7
43.98
E 15.7
95
32 GRASS
43.78 40.02
T-T 12.40
42.72
48.54 35
43.88
43.97
66.08 T-T
44.14
E 33
35
HOUSE .0
44.22
51.61 38.18 0 .7 21
.1
.
48 50
0
34 23.50 14
3
3
.59 .3
.7 7.2
25.3
20
0
34 T-T
.7
TRACK
44.50
T-T T-T
44.28
.6
6
1
8
27.58
7
35
67.06 2 30.14 7.1
48
31
44.30 34.60 33.20 31.68 21.53
.8
5 8
.10
34.78
6
T-T 5
.24
9. 5.0 T-T T-T
2
45.15
24.5
63.84 -3 34.4
3
1 22.33 18.74
RL
44.48
.40
44.68
11
50.6
.02
48.12 27
T-T T-T 8.50
.15
.01
51.7
T-T 33
33
E 33 48.08 38.67
33
.22
7
65.95 44.60 38.15 33.1 .9
8 30.81
44.92
5
33.7
18.9
5 3 10
43.9
.56
44.68
34.0
2
9.45
45.11
4
9
26.5
34.1 32.6 9
2
45.05
T-T 9 2 .0
T-T 16
44.89
48 4
39.69 32 WOODLAND
43.17 33.8
.25 9.
T-T 7 .71
T-T T-T 32
52.2
43.4
45.10
62.24 41.09 .27 T-T
65.44 T-T T-T
1
T-T
46
32.6
.6
47.92 55.32 15.36 16.07 T-T
1
39.65 T-T
3
47
2
34
1
.7
32
WOODLAND 16.91 20.44
28
.50 42.01
.74
52.6
.59
52.4
33.4
28
45.46
T-T 2 17.10
.24
17.1
Rev: Comments By Chkd Date
T-T
45.5 45.8
3
2
4
67.02 44.81 36.41 33.631.81 20
5
49
0
36.3
45.65
1
45.33 32
45.42
.24
T-T .28 T-T
T-T
44.83
57.44 31 31 30.61
56.60 .5 T-T .71
3
52.8
45.49
45.69
3
52.5
32
45.7
T-T 51.27
48
.62
52.6
67.10 31
.81
47.99
6
45.2
2 .99
9
1
.7 5 T-T
38 30.7 16.48
7
1
45.8
46.08.91
0
T-T
24.2
T-T T-T
46.0
31
45
48
1 40.07
47
T-T 57.20 55.70 .05 .2 T-T
0
7 24
.54
48
.87
T-T
31.7 50.96
8
57.48
44
.11
61.64 T-T
. 85
46.3
58.44 30 T-T
53.20 .69
53.34
42.87
53.5
T-T
2
T-T 30.43 46.40 5
.5
46.3
7
41.77 56.95 31
48
48.05 33.73 .56 26
.29
47.0
45
2
46.28 39.51 36.32
46.52 .06
46.6
48
T-T
47
46.4
8
46.5
.13
51.20
53.7
.92
4
0
T-T 26.8
7
5
58.72
46.9
6
53.4
53.84
54.0
48.46
T-T
7
35.98
2
6
T-T T-T
63.69 52.25 WOODLAND
0
T-T
.2
48
48.15
31
69.43
48
48
.24 48
447.2
.0
47.2
.21
53.80
0
7.369
48.3
47.2
47.3
.62
6
0
47.39
6
9
T-T
T-T 55.64
47.72
48.3
64.17
TRACK
T-T
54.59
3
48.05 48.20
2
WOODLAND 48.26 47.12 43.13 39.20
47.9
.8
54.1
58.61
34
47.96
TRACK
5
4
48.5
48.35
T-T T-T T-T
54.60 62.09 58.39
9
60.32
48.5
54.8
T-T
54.87
7
70.19 T-T
0
60.79
55.07
1
GRASS .3
37
54.71
48.6
T-T
58.36
48.6
49.0
7
T-T
T-T
4
9
60.81
60.48
55.04
49.09 49.01 49.22 47.78 46.55
T-T
55.56
T-T
49.2
54.29
T-T T-T 58.77
.29
0
67.19
9
61.25
.3
40
55.90
49.3
49.3
55.51
49.51
7
T-T
7
T-T
57.10 T-T 47.58 T-T
T-T T-T 56.27 3
62.22 56.98 49.6 49.69
2 42.61
.68
49 46.1
49.80
T-T .69
55.88
49
64.10 T-T
67.56
48.26
49.85
50.94
T-T T-T
56.44
60.46 58.69 49.90 49.19 49.03
49.90
56.16
49.9 .69
56.54
T-T 1 49
56.69
50.22
49.9
56.55 T-T
66.56 50.68 51.46
56.80
1
G
51.27
50.3
50.06
7
56.53
49.89
.8
SPOIL HEAP
48
8
57.37
T-T T-T
66.97 69.10
50.3
56.89
T-T
.79
49
69.45
2
.8
49
9
57.69
50.07 50.01
57.71
T-T
57.69
77.74
T-T T-T
57.62
57.75 58.16 50
57.62
62.53 .05
2
T-T WOODLAND
.9
T-T
49
W-T 65.48
63.69
58.94 T-T
57.17
50
T-T
.23
62.95
T-T T-T
T-T
58.44
57.94 65.42
58.22
70.90
58.73
58.62
T-T 50.34 T-T
57.56 53.46
94 .
49
T-T
68.10 .89 WOODLAND
T-T 50.05 49
58.96
55.73
58.99
59.45
T-T T-T T-T
60.78 53.89 T-T
58.73
61.31
59.52
T-T 65.03
67.37 T-T T-T
59.79
58.61 59.13
T-T
T-T 65.75
72.67
59.75
59.56
T-T T-T
60.60 60.08 T-T
T-T 54.92
63.32 T-T
62.26
T-T
T-T T-T
60.32
68.62
T-T 54.96 56.79
60.30
59.34
60.35
T-T
71.93 T-T
58.17
60.38
60.37
T-T T-T
60.9
67.01 58.93
60.93
T-T
1
72.86 T-T
57.17 T-T
60.13
G
60.85
61.21
61.15
T-T
T-T 62.24
61.01
65.75
T-T
65.00 T-T
61.78
Project Name
61.58
61.78
61.89
T-T
62.2
Leckwith, Cardiff CF11 8AS
62.17
69.70
62.34
62.4
62.24
0
1
T-T
75.73
62.31
T-T
66.68
63.06
63.07
63.08
63.58
File Name:
63.51
63.49
63.8
63.88
63.74
MBS 5620 Leckwith Cardiff TOPO
8
63.81
64.25
64.23
64.16
64.19
Drawing Title :
SITE PLAN (1 of 1)
Client: Date
07/12/23
Scale
A0 @ 1:500
Drawn by: Checked by: Project Code: Revision:
TW OW MBS-5620
Grid Orientation: Site Level Datum
NORTH GPS OS GPS
All dimensions are to be checked on site where applicable.This drawing must not be scaled,
and only written dimensions should be respected.
!
Tree species and sizes on this drawing are not guaranteed, and if critical should be verified by an arboriculturist. Tree spreads are
average about the bole, and heights are approximate at the time of the survey.
128
2022/00907/FUL
129
130
2022/00907/FUL
131
132