Cyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol r gw O r a t

n

o

b

-

y

Bridgend Local Development Plan -

n

e P

BRIDGEND 2006-2021 County Borough Council

Background Paper 4: Green Wedge Designation March 2011

NB. Print using Docucolor 250PCL

Draft Candidate Site

Background Paper 4:

Green Wedge Designation

Development Planning Regeneration and Development Communities Directorate Bridgend County Borough Council Angel Street, Bridgend CF31 4WB

‐ Contents Page Number

Section 1: Introduction and Overview 2

1.1 Introduction 2

1.2 Purpose of the Report 2

1.3 Key Aims and Objectives 2

Section 2: National and Local Policy Context 3

2.1 National Policy Context 3

2.2 Local Policy Context 4

Section 3: Analysis and Results 7

3.1 Analysis 7

3.2 Results 34

Section 4: Implementation and Review 35

4.1 Implications for the LDP 35

4.2 Monitoring and Review 35

Appendix 1: LDP Green Wedge Allocations

Section 1: Introduction and Overview

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 The purpose of this background paper is to ascertain the need, and provide the justification for, green wedge allocations and related protection policies, within the Bridgend Local Development Plan (LDP).

1.1.2 The countryside plays an important role in the County Borough and therefore requires protection in the interest of safeguarding it for its agricultural function, preserving its rural & scenic landscape, providing opportunities for recreation and tourism, and promoting biodiversity.

1.1.3 In addition, areas of open countryside provide a ‘buffer’ between settlements which allows them to function independently from one another, whilst preserving and enhancing their individual character and distinctiveness.

1.2 Purpose of the Report

1.2.1 In light of the current work being undertaken by Bridgend County Borough Council on the preparation of its Local Development Plan (LDP), the opportunity is provided to assess the need and justification for green wedge allocations throughout the County Borough and where they are required to protect settlements from coalescence.

1.2.2 The recommendations from this report will be carried forward to the Local Development Plan (LDP) 2006-2021. The LDP, along with other related guidance and strategies, will establish some workable aims and objectives to maintain and enhance the countryside and the individual character of communities throughout the County Borough.

1.3 Key Aims and Objectives

1.3.1 The key aims and objectives of this study are:

 Devise a methodology, based on relevant guidance to justify green wedge allocations.  Apply the methodology to the County Borough and identify where green wedge allocations would be justified.  Recommend allocations for inclusion in the LDP.

Section 2: National & Local Policy Context

2.1 National Policy Context

People, Places and Futures – The Wales Spatial Plan (2008 Update)

2.1.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (section 62) states that local planning authorities, in preparing a Local Development Plan (LDP), must have regard to the Wales Spatial Plan (WSP). It provides a guide for development and policy intervention across Wales. Bridgend, amongst its neighbouring authorities is included within the South East Capital Network Zone within which the Vision is:

“An innovative skilled area offering a high quality of life – international yet distinctively Welsh. It will compete internationally by increasing its global viability through stronger links between the Valleys and the coast and the UK and Europe, helping spread prosperity within the area and benefiting other parts of Wales”.

2.1.2 Whist the WSP does not provide specific guidance in relation to Green Wedges; recurring themes of sustainability and more specifically, sustaining the character and distinctiveness of communities can be directly related to justifying their inclusion.

2.1.3 Sustaining the character and distinctiveness of communities can also play an important function for regeneration by helping identify needs and aspirations specific to one area. The aim is not to keep settlements in isolation, as sustainable transport links are a key issue in the LDP; it is about promoting sustainable transport links, and capitalising on opportunities to prosper in the wider economy, whilst also allowing a settlement to retain its local identity.

Planning Policy Wales 2010

2.1.4 Planning Policy Wales (PPW) also reflects the need for sustainability and the importance of ‘respecting local diversity and protecting the character and cultural identity of communities’.

2.1.5 Paragraph 4.7.2 of PPW states that green wedges can:

 Provide opportunities for access to the open countryside;  Provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation;  Maintain landscape/wildlife interests  Retain land for agriculture, forestry, and related purposes, and;  Improve derelict land

2.1.6 However, their purpose is to:

 Prevent the coalescence of settlements  Manage urban form through controlled expansion of urban areas;  Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;  Protect the setting of an urban area;

 Assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

2.1.7 The urban areas of Bridgend benefit from designated settlement boundaries which have undergone a substantive review as part of the LDP process. A settlement boundary’s primary function is to separate the urban area from the countryside. PPW advises that green wedges should be used only where normal policies and development control cannot provide the necessary protection and, whilst green wedges may fulfil more general objectives like loss of agricultural land or visual amenity, these should not determine whether land is part of a green wedge. Settlement boundary policies assist in managing the urban form, safeguard the countryside from development, protect the urban setting, and assists in the regeneration of urban land. In this respect therefore, it is considered that all but one of the purposes for a green wedge outlined in PPW will be satisfied through the settlement boundaries policy. Therefore, it is recommended that the purpose of the green wedge allocations in the LDP should be for their primary functions only - to prevent the coalescence of settlements.

2.1.8 Whilst it is considered that general countryside protection policies are robust enough to protect areas against the coalescence of settlements, there are those areas which, due to proximity between neighbouring settlements and development pressure, are more vulnerable than others. In this respect it is considered that additional protection in the form of green wedge allocations is necessary.

Planning Policy Wales Companion Guide

2.1.9 The Planning Policy Wales Companion Guide provides planners and stakeholders with information on applying Planning Policy Wales to the LDP system in Wales. It states what areas of policy are covered in national guidance and therefore does not need repeating in LDP Policy; and conversely the policies that do need to be included within LDP Policy. ‘Boundaries of Green Wedges’ are included in PPW as policy which should be considered for inclusion in the LDP.

2.1.10 It is considered that green wedge allocations are necessary as part of the Bridgend LDP in the interest of protecting settlements from coalescence with neighbouring settlements. Whilst there are additional policies in the LDP which will also contribute to achieving this, some settlements require additional protection due to their proximity to neighbouring settlements and development pressure etc.

2.2 Local Policy Context

Bridgend Unitary Development Plan (UDP)

2.2.1 Protecting the integrity of individual settlements is of paramount concern in the Bridgend Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Policy EV11 allocates 15 areas throughout the County Borough within which development would not be permitted if it was considered inappropriate to the purposes of the designation.

2.2.2 Notwithstanding these existing Green Wedge allocations, for the purpose of the LDP and given the revised approach to identifying where green wedge allocations are justified, it was considered necessary to start the identification process afresh.

Settlement Role and Function Study

2.2.3 Baker Associates were commissioned to undertake analysis on the role and function of settlements in Bridgend County Borough. The Settlement Role and Function Study forms part of the evidence base informing the authority’s Local Development Plan (LDP).

2.2.4 The main objective of the study was been the identification of the role and function of each settlement within the County Borough, and relating it, where possible, to the typology of settlements as set out in national policy and the Wales Spatial Plan:

 Primary key settlements Settlements which have a critical role to play in the success of each region. Act as important local service and employment hubs for surrounding settlements and rural hinterlands.

 Cross boundary settlements Settlements which have a particular role in linking with neighbouring regions.

 Key settlements Smaller settlements which support communities but which are dependant upon the hubs for some key amenities.

 Local service centres Market towns, large villages or an associated group of villages which have relatively good accessibility by non-car modes which should be identified as the preferred locations for most development in rural areas.

2.2.5 The study highlights the importance that settlements play in isolation or conjunction with one-another. Where a settlement is considered to play an important role in isolation from other settlements this should be protected. Therefore, green wedge allocations will assist in this process by preventing the coalescence of settlements with one another and potentially affect their role within the settlement hierarchy.

2.2.6 For the purpose of the LDP, the following settlements were identified in the hierarchy and will form the basis of this study:

Table 1: LDP Settlement Hierarchy

Primary Key Settlement Bridgend

Main Settlement Maesteg Porthcawl Pencoed Pyle / Kenfig Hill/North Cornelly Valleys Gateway settlements of: Aberkenfig/ Bryncethin/ Brynmenyn/ Sarn/Tondu/ Ynysawdre

Local Service Settlement Bettws Blaengarw Caerau Nantyffyllon Nantymoel Ogmore Vale Pontryhydycyff Pontycymmer

Small Settlement Blackmill Cefn Cribwr Coity Coychurch Coytrahen Cwmfelin Evanstown Glynogwr Heol Y Cyw Kenfig Laleston Llangynwyd Llangeinor Mawdlam Pen-Y-Fai Pontyrhyl Pantyrawel South Cornelly

Section 3: Analysis and Results

3.1 Analysis

Stage 1 Review - Distances between Settlements

3.1.1 The first stage of the assessment involved the examination of the distances between neighbouring settlements based on the assumption that the shorter the distance, the more vulnerable the boundaries are to development pressure.

3.1.2 This was undertaken through a GIS mapping exercise, measuring the shortest distance between all neighbouring urban fringes and illustrated on a traffic light theme with the colour of the arrow reflecting the distance between the settlements. Diagram 1 and Table 3 below reflect the findings:

Diagram 1: GIS Measurements between Settlements

Green (Under 0.5 miles) = distances below 0.5 miles were considered to represent a reasonable walking distance and therefore a distance which would make neighbouring settlements highly vulnerable in the respect that additional development between them could result in their coalescence. An automatic green wedge is therefore proposed between these boundaries unless site specific circumstances justified otherwise.

Amber (between 0.5 miles and 1 mile) = distances between 0.5 miles and 1 mile are considered to possibly be vulnerable taking account of additional factors such as existing development, previous development pressure in the form of planning applications and candidate sites, and the topography of the land etc. These additional factors were assessed at stage 2 of the study.

Red (over 1 mile) = a distance of a mile or over is considered to be a large enough distance between settlements to overcome any of the issues at stage 2 assessment and not in need of a green wedge allocation.

3.1.3 In addition to the sites identified through the GIS mapping exercise, between the November 2006 and the January 2007 the Council called for Candidate Sites to be nominated for potential allocation in the emerging LDP. The sites submitted included some green wedge allocations. It is considered that the sites submitted for consideration as green wedge designations would be best assessed as part of this green wedge assessment. In this respect the following sites will be included in this assessment and will be referenced where relevant.

Table 2: Candidate Sites submitted for inclusion in the LDP as Green Wedge allocations

Candidate Site No. Location of Site (as stated by Candidate Site proposer) 190.B1 EV11 (14) (Land South of Limetree Way / North of Cypress Gardens). 617.B1 Land north of Cypress Gardens, Newton Burrows, Porthcawl 696.B1 Land north of Cypress Gardens, Newton Burrows, Porthcawl 50.B3 Green Wedge at Dan-Y-Graig, Newton Burrows, Porthcawl 46.B1 Green wedge (EV11(15) Identified on pages 27 & 31 of UDP Draft Development Plan 35.B1 Land between Old Bridgend and New Brackla 624.B1 See draft UDP pages 27+31, area covered by EV15 green wedge & defined by its boundaries

Table 3: Distances between all settlements and their neighbouring settlements

CANDIDATE SITE (where ORIGIN DESTINATION applicable) DISTANCE (miles) Coychurch Bridgend 0.01 Ogmore Vale Nantymoel and Pricetown 0.07 Coity Bridgend (Brackla Industrial Estate) 0.07 Penyfai Bridgend 0.08 Lluest Pontyrhyl 0.11 Pantyrawel and Lewistown Blackmill 0.16 Cwmfelin Pont Rhyd-y-cyff 0.16 Lluest Pontycymmer 0.19 Aberkenfig Penyfai 0.21 Kenfig Hill Cefn Cribbwr 0.22 Aberkenfig Sarn 0.23 Laleston Bridgend 0.27 South Cornelly North Cornelly 0.29 Llangeinor Bettws 0.36 Llangynwyd Pont Rhyd-y-cyff 0.36 Tondu Coytrahen 0.39 Mawdlam Kenfig 0.41 Cwmfelin Llangynwyd 0.41 46.B1 Bridgend Ewenny 624.B1 0.41 Sarn Bridgend 0.46 Kenfig Pyle 0.51 Coytrahen Bettws 0.52 Ogmore Vale Pantyrawel and Lewistown 0.52 Pantyrawel and Lewistown Llangeinor 0.60 Blackmill Glynogwr (Llandyfodwg) 0.63 Coychurch Pencoed 0.64 Bettws Bryncethin 0.68 Kenfig South Cornelly 0.74

ORIGIN DESTINATION DISTANCE (miles) Porthcawl South Cornelly 0.77 Pontyrhyl Llangeinor 0.81 Mawdlam South Cornelly 0.84 Brynmenyn Llangeinor 0.90 Llangeinor Blackmill 0.99 Kenfig Porthcawl 1.04 Pencoed Bridgend 1.06 Pencoed Heol Y Cyw 1.07 Coity Pencoed 1.18 Coity Coychurch 1.20 Blackmill Heol Y Cyw 1.22 Pyle Porthcawl 1.29 Pantyrawel and Lewistown Glynogwr 1.37 Ogmore Vale Llangeinor 1.38 Pen y Fai Laleston 1.39 Brynmenyn Heol Y Cyw 1.48 Cefn Cribbwr Laleston 1.51 Aberkenfig Cefn Cribbwr 1.54 Evanstown Glynogwr 1.62 Nantymoel and Pricetown Pontycymmer 1.65 Pont Rhyd Y Cyff Bettws 1.83 Pontycymmer and Blaengarw Nantymoel 1.90 Pontycymmer and Blaengarw Maesteg, Caerau and Nantyffyllon 2.12 Laleston Porthcawl 2.14 Evanstown Blackmill 2.40 Ogmore Vale Evanstown 2.44 190.B1 617.B1 Porthcawl Bridgend 696.B1 50.B3 2.49 Llangynwyd Bettws 2.55

3.1.4 As stated above, all of the settlements within 0.5 miles (green) of one-another automatically qualify as a green wedge allocation, as their distance alone is sufficient to justify it. All settlements over a mile apart (red) would not qualify as distance alone was sufficient evidence to preclude an allocation. However, those settlements with a distance between their boundaries of 0.5 to 1 mile (amber) need to go through more rigorous assessment at stage 2. The same assessment criteria is applied to the Candidate Sites where they fall within the relevant assessment area (please see Table 3 above). Where they were not, they received their own individual assessment (please see page 18).

3.1.5 Stage 2 is a more detailed assessment of the land in-between settlements using identified indicators which would be considered as increasing the vulnerability of urban boundaries to coalescence. The indicators, and justification for using them as appropriate indicators, are outlined below:-

 Existing development – Existing development of an urban nature (i.e. residential) between settlements automatically reduces the distance between them and places more pressure on the boundaries. Development between the boundaries also suggests that there is development potential there making the land more attractive to developers.  Topography – If the land is flat, it is more suitable for development which makes it more attractive to potential developers.

 Road linkages – Roadsides are potentially suitable locations for development and, where there are direct road linkages between the closest edges of the settlements, development along them would make the boundaries more vulnerable. Direct road linkages also reduce the travelling distance between settlements which psychologically reduces the distance between them.  Development Barriers – Roads, rivers and railway lines of a certain size can represent physical barriers between settlements reducing, or sometime precluding, the possibility of development and/or coalescence.  Candidate sites – Candidate site submissions reflect an aspiration/intention to develop. Where these are located between settlements they increase the vulnerability of the boundaries.  Planning applications/appeals – Planning applications and appeals reflect an aspiration/intention to develop. Taking account of the size and nature of the development proposal, and the distance between the boundaries, development proposals, if granted, could weaken the settlement boundaries and increase the possibility of coalescence.

3.1.6 Each site is assessed using the above indicators and where it is considered that an indicator would contribute to weakening settlement boundaries, it will receive one point. Any site scoring 4 or more out of the total 6 possible points will be recommended for inclusion in the LDP as a green wedge allocation.

3.1.7 However, there are some anomalies which arise at the stage 1 assessment. These are illustrated below with a supporting justification for their inclusion or exclusion. The stage 2 assessment follows.

SITE: BETWEEN NORTH CORNELLY, MAWDLAM

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.03 MILES

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 0 The M4 physically links the settlements

TOPOGRAPHY 0 The gradient of the land is suitable for built development but it consists of a road ROAD 0 There is no direct road linkage BARRIER 0 The M4 motorway acts as an impenetrable barrier CANDIDATE SITES 0 There are no Candidate Sites in-between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals APPLICATIONS/APPEALS between the settlements

CONCLUSION:

THE M4 MOTORWAY ACTS AS A PHYSICAL, IMPENETRABLE BARRIER BETWEEN THE SETTLEMENTS WHICH NEGATES ANY POSSIBILITY OF COALESCENCE BETWEEN NORTH CORNELLY AND MAWDLAM.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN NORTH CORNELLY AND MAWDLAM

SITE: BETWEEN BRIDGEND AND COYCHURCH

1 1

2

E 4 1 A 1 1

AD S 1 O T L le R S we H T l lfa 4 C ly T R o n y R Bridgend E tt s w rt O The ag s u N E e re o

Industrial Estate T Grange P C Ha l l 4 Ha l l 8 a

1 Llewellyns

3 Co tt a g e t W 2 ur 7 1 o The Grange I h C L rt L No O Sh elte r

7 6 2 9 W

E C

A Bry n ffrwd 4 S L T O E S IV M S 1 R S T E D R E E V R I O E R E N T D S A O M N L R C 1 O D

H W 6

T Llwyn On FR 2 Cae W F M A S Ch a i n N 1 H Y 3

BR

1 Westcro ft 1

B Che rry Croft 8

4 2 1 2 0.1 m 2 8 5 1

Crossways

2 1

3 7 1 Gwyneddfa 1 Ho u s e Crud-yr-Awel Poli c e 20 .4m TRE Ho use s OES ROAD

Ta nk e f

He n G artr k 2 2 c Haffan Deg ra T

Pu mp ing

Station 3

4 7

1 3 4 A Mast

D  A n O i

a s r y R a D W B y N Y B -W O ETL A T Cypruss Y S R C E OU T A B R T W

4 Greystones Pe n-y -Bon t 1 3 8 7 T 1 4 Natha ni e l Hou s e Fron-Deg A Tryweryn

.9m

El Sub Sta

The P ied Piper (PH)

B a Issues n k B a nk 8

B a n k 5 K I N Ta nk s 15 .2 G  LB Car Park S TCB W

A 1 Ba nk s  Y

2 Buildings PO k

an B 4

s e 21.3m o u H ay s w ng Ki Tank s

Waterton Point

L T E ny AD ) O B n i R e n N R w n O E e T O r w R e E v E AT C i n W A R fo A S ( T A D L RO E Tank ON

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.01 MILES

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 0 The A473 and B4181 physically link the settlements. TOPOGRAPHY 0 The gradient of the land is suitable for built development but it consists of roads ROAD 0 There is a direct road linkage but it is across 0.01 miles of main road BARRIER 0 Whilst they link the settlements, the roads act as physical barriers in this instance. CANDIDATE SITES 0 There are no Candidate Sites in-between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals APPLICATIONS/APPEALS between the settlements

CONCLUSION:

THE TWO SETTLEMENTS ARE ALREADY PHYSICALLY LINKED BY THE A473 AND THE B4181 WITH NO OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ALLOCATION. NOTWITHSTANDING THIS HOWEVER, THIS WESTERN EDGE OF BRIDGEND IS CHARACTERISED BY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH ITSELF ACTS AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE URBAN AREAS.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN BRIDGEND AND COYCHURCH

SITE: BETWEEN COITY AND BRIDGEND (PARC DERWEN)

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.06 MILES

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 1 Landscape development proposed as part of Development Brief TOPOGRAPHY 1 The gradient of the land is suitable for built development ROAD 1 There is a direct road linkage BARRIER 1 No barriers to development CANDIDATE SITES 1 There are Candidate Sites submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 1 The residential planning permission boundary APPLICATIONS/APPEALS for Parc Derwen adjoins Coity.

CONCLUSION:

ALTHOUGH THE PARC DERWEN DEVELOPMENT IS NOT YET COMPLETE (AND WAS THEREFROE NOT HIGHLIGHTED IN DIAGRAM 1), ITS DEVELOPMENT IS UNDERWAY AND THE ASSESSMENT IS THEREFORE BASED ON THE ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT BRIEF FOR THE SITE. ONCE COMPLETE, THE SECTION OF LAND BETWEEN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT AND COITY WILL CONSIST OF A GREEN ‘BUFFER’ BUT, DUE TO ITS CLOSE PROXIMITY, THE PLANNING PERMISSION AND THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE SITE; IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE BOUNDARIES ARE VULNERABLE TO COALESCENCE.

RECOMMENDATION:

GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN COITY AND PARC DERWEN

SITE: BETWEEN BETTWS AND LLANGEINOR

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.36 MILES

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 1 Residential development. TOPOGRAPHY 0 The gradient of the land is not suitable for built development ROAD 0 There is a direct road linkage but this is an undulating country lane along which development would not be suitable. BARRIER 0 The river and railway act as barriers to development. CANDIDATE SITES 1 There are Candidate Sites submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals APPLICATIONS/APPEALS which could prejudice these boundaries.

CONCLUSION:

THE SETTLEMENTS ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE 0.5 MILES OF ONE-ANOTHER WHICH WOULD NORMALLY RECEIVE AN AUTOMATIC ALLOCATION. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS A LARGE CANDIDATE SITE ON THE EASTERN BONDARY OF BETTWS AND AN ELEMENT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE SETTLEMENTS. HOWEVER, THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF 2 DWELLINGS WHICH DO NOT PREJUDICE THE BOUNDARIES. ALSO, THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAND IN BETWEEN THE SETTLEMENTS, INCLUDING THE GRADIENT OF THE LAND, THE PHYSICAL BARRIERS AND NO PLANNING APPLICATIONS; INDICATE THAT THERE IS NO ALLOCATION NECESSARY.

RECOMMENDATION: NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN BETTWS AND LLANGEINOR

SITE: BETWEEN NORTH CORNELLY AND SOUTH CORNELLY

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.29 MILES

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 1 Small row of residential units located along the road link on the opposite side of the M4 from North Cornelly. TOPOGRAPHY 1 The gradient of the land is suitable for built development ROAD 1 There is a direct road linkage BARRIER 0 The M4 and A4229 act as impenetrable barriers to development. CANDIDATE SITES 0 There are no Candidate Sites submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals in APPLICATIONS/APPEALS between these boundaries.

CONCLUSION:

ALTHOUGH THE SETTLEMENTS ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE 0.5 MILES WHICH WOULD NORMALLY RECEIVE AN AUTOMATIC ALLOCATION, THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAND IN BETWEEN THE SETTLEMENTS, INCLUDING THE IMPENETRABLE PHYSICAL BARRIERS OF THE M4 AND A4229 AND LACK OF DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE INDICATE THAT THERE IS NO ALLOCATION NECESSARY.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN NORTH CORNELLY AND SOUTH CORNELLY

SITE: BETWEEN LLUEST AND PONT-Y-RHYL

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.1 MILES

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 0 No built development TOPOGRAPHY 1 The gradient of the land is suitable for built development ROAD 0 No direct road linkage BARRIER 0 The river and railway act as barriers to development. CANDIDATE SITES 0 There are no Candidate Sites submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals in APPLICATIONS/APPEALS between these boundaries.

CONCLUSION:

ALTHOUGH THE SETTLEMENTS ARE LOCTED WITHIN THE 0.5 MILES WHICH WOULD NORMALLY RECEIVE AN AUTOMATIC ALLOCATION, THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAND IN BETWEEN THE SETTLEMENTS, INCLUDING ITS PHYSICAL BARRIERS AND LACK OF DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE, INDICATE THAT THERE IS NO ALLOCATION NECESSARY.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN LLUEST AND PONTYRHYL

SITE: BETWEEN LLUEST AND PONTYCYMMER

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.33 MILES

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 0 No built development TOPOGRAPHY 0 The gradient of the land is not suitable for built development ROAD 0 No direct road linkage BARRIER 0 The river and railway act as barriers to development. CANDIDATE SITES 0 There are no Candidate Sites submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals in APPLICATIONS/APPEALS between these boundaries.

CONCLUSION:

ALTHOUGH THE SETTLEMENTS ARE LOCTED WITHIN THE 0.5 MILES WHICH WOULD NORMALLY RECEIVE AN AUTOMATIC ALLOCATION, THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAND IN BETWEEN THE SETTLEMENTS INCLUDING ITS PHYSICAL BARRIERS AND DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE INDICATES THAT THERE IS NO ALLOCATION NECESSARY.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN LLUEST AND PONTYCYMMER

CANDIDATE SITE NO. 35.B1

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS N/A

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT N/A N/A TOPOGRAPHY N/A N/A ROAD N/A N/A BARRIER N/A N/A CANDIDATE SITES N/A N/A PLANNING N/A N/A APPLICATIONS/APPEALS

CONCLUSION:

THE SITE FALLS WITHIN THE DESIGNATED SETTLEMNT BOUNDARY OF BRIDGEND. THEREFORE, A GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION IN THIS LOCATION WOULD NOT ACCORD WITH THE GUIDANCE IN PLANNING POLICY WALES AND IS NOT SUITABLE FOR ASSESSMENT AS A POTENTIAL ALLOCATION.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION

Stage 2 Review – Detailed Assessments

SITE: BETWEEN LLANGEINOR AND BLACKMILL

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.99 Miles

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 0 No built development which increases vulnerability. TOPOGRAPHY 0 The gradient of the land is not suitable for built development ROAD 0 There is no direct road linkage BARRIER 1 There are no development barriers between the settlements CANDIDATE SITES 0 There are no Candidate Sites submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals in APPLICATIONS/APPEALS between these boundaries.

CONCLUSION:

THE GRADIENT OF THE LAND BETWEEN THESE SETTLEMENTS IS NOT SUITABLE FOR BUILT DEVELOPMENT; THERE ARE NO DIRECT ROAD LINKAGE AND NO CANDIDATE SITE SUBMISSIONS. IN THIS RESPECT, THE URBAN BOUNDARIES ARE NOT CONSISDERED TO BE VULNERABLE TO DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN BLACKMILL AND LLANGEINOR

SITE: BETWEEN MAWDLAM AND SOUTH CORNELLY

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.84 Miles

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 0 No built development TOPOGRAPHY 1 The gradient of the land is suitable for built development ROAD 0 There is a no direct road linkage BARRIER 1 There are no development barriers between the settlements CANDIDATE SITES 1 There is one Candidate Site submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals in APPLICATIONS/APPEALS between these boundaries.

CONCLUSION:

THIS IS A LARGE AREA OF COUNTRYSIDE WITH NO DIRECT ROAD LINKAGE, NO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE. IN THIS RESPECT IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE URBAN BOUNDARIES ARE NOT VULNERABLE.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN MAWDLAM AND SOUTH CORNELLY

SITE: BETWEEN OGMORE VALE AND PANTYRAWEL/LEWISTON

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.52 Miles

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 0 No built development TOPOGRAPHY 0 The gradient of the land is not suitable for built development ROAD 1 There is a direct road linkage BARRIER 1 There are no development barriers between the settlements CANDIDATE SITES 1 There is one Candidate Site submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals in APPLICATIONS/APPEALS between these boundaries.

CONCLUSION:

THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THESE SETTLEMENTS WAS ONLY 0.02 MILES OVER THE THRESHOLD FOR AN ALLOCATION AT STAGE 1. IT ADDITIONALLY HAS A DIRECT ROAD LINKAGE ALONG THE A4061 WITH NO BARRIERS BETWEEN WHICH WOULD PREVENT DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, THE GRADIENT OF THE LAND WOULD STRONGLY DETER ANY DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND, WITH ONLY 1 CANDIDATE SITE SUBMISSION, THE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE IS NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO WARRANT A GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN OGMORE VALE AND PANTYRAWEL/ LEWISTOWN

SITE: BETWEEN PANTYRAWEL/LEWISTON AND LLANGEINOR

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.6 Miles

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 0 No built development which increases vulnerability. TOPOGRAPHY 0 The gradient of the land is not suitable for built development ROAD 0 There is a road linkage although this meanders between the settlements increasing its length to 1.6 miles. Therefore, it would not be considered as increasing vulnerability. BARRIER 1 There are no development barriers between the settlements CANDIDATE SITES 0 There are no Candidate Sites submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals in APPLICATIONS/APPEALS between these boundaries.

CONCLUSION:

THE GRADIENT OF THE LAND BETWEEN THESE SETTLEMENTS IS NOT SUITABLE FOR BUILT DEVELOPMENT; THERE IS NO DIRECT ROAD LINKAGE AND NO CANDIDATE SITE SUBMISSIONS. IN THIS RESPECT, THE URBAN BOUNDARIES ARE NOT CONSISDERED TO BE VULNERABLE TO DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN PANTYRAWEL/LEWISTOWN AND LLANGEINOR.

SITE: BETWEEN PENCOED AND COYCHURCH

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.64 Miles

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 1 There are existing residential dwellings between the settlements. TOPOGRAPHY 1 The gradient of the land is suitable for built development ROAD 1 There is a direct road linkage BARRIER 1 There are no development barriers between the settlements CANDIDATE SITES 1 There are Candidate Sites submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals in APPLICATIONS/APPEALS between these boundaries.

CONCLUSION:

THIS COUNTRYSIDE LOCATION CONSISTS OF NUMEROUS FIELDS JOINING THE SETTLEMENTS. THERE ARE 5 CANDIDATE SITES (SOME OF WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIAL IN SIZE) ON THE LAND SHOWING SIGNIFICANT PRESSURE AND, WHILST SINGLARLY THEY MAY NOT RESULT IN COALESCENCE, DUE TO THE ENCLOSED NATURE OF THE LAND INBETWEEN THE RAILWAY LINE AND THE ROAD, THE DEVELOPMENT OF ONE WOULD SET A PRECIDENT IN THE LOCATION AND PREJUDICE THE ENTIRE AREA. THIS IS FURTHER REINFORCED BY THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, THE FLAT GRADIENT OF THE LAND AND DIRECT ROAD LINKAGE.

RECOMMENDATION:

GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN COYCHURCH AND PENCOED.

SITE: BETWEEN COYTRAHEN AND BETTWS

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.52 Miles

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 0 No built development which increases vulnerability. TOPOGRAPHY 0 The gradient of the land is not suitable for built development ROAD 0 There is no direct road linkage. BARRIER 0 The river and railway act as barriers to development. CANDIDATE SITES 1 There are Candidate Sites submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals in APPLICATIONS/APPEALS between these boundaries.

CONCLUSION:

THE LAND SEPERATING THESE SETTLEMENTS IS UNDULATING AND HAS BOTH A RIVER AND A RAILWAY LINE ACTING AS PHYSICAL BARRIERS TO DEVELOPMENT. THERE IS NO DIRECT ROAD LINKAGE AND, WHILST THERE ARE CANDIDATE SITE SUBMISSIONS, THEY ARE ALL ON THE PERIPHARY OF BETTWS URBAN AREA AND WOULD NOT PREJUDICE THE BOUNDARIES TO THE EXTENT THAT COALESCENE COULD BE CONSIDERED A POSSIBILITY.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN COYTRAHEN AND BETTWS.

SITE: BETWEEN GLYNOGWR AND BLACKMILL

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.63 Miles

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 0 There is a farm between the settlements but given its rural use it would not be considered to reduce the urban boundaries. TOPOGRAPHY 1 The gradient of the land is suitable for built development ROAD 1 There is a direct road linkage. BARRIER 1 No barriers to development CANDIDATE SITES 0 There are no Candidate Sites submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 0 There is a planning application in between APPLICATIONS/APPEALS these boundaries but it relates to development which would be permitted in a countryside location.

CONCLUSION:

THERE ARE NO CANDIDATE SITES SUBMITTED ON THIS SITE AND THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS ONE WHICH WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER NATIONAL POLICY AND WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PREJUDICING THE BOUNDARIES. ALTHOUGH THE LAND IS SUITABLE FOR BUILT DEVELOPMENT IN THE RESPECT THAT IT IS RELATIVELY FLAT IN THIS VALLEYS LOCATION AND THE BOUNDARIES ARE DIRECTLY LINKED BY THE A4093, THE LACK OF PRESSURE INDICATES THAT THERE IS NO DESIGNATION NECESSARY.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN GLYNOGWR AND BLACKMILL.

SITE: BETWEEN KENFIG AND PYLE

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.51 Miles

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 0 No existing development between these boundaries.

TOPOGRAPHY 1 The gradient of the land is suitable for built development ROAD 0 There is no direct road linkage. BARRIER 0 The M4 motorway acts as an impenetrable barrier between these settlements CANDIDATE SITES 1 There are Candidate Sites submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals in APPLICATIONS/APPEALS between these boundaries.

CONCLUSION:

PYLE AND KENFIG ARE SEPARATED BY THE M4 MOTORWAY AND THERE IS NO DIRECT ROAD LINK EXCEPT VIA MAWDLAM WHERE A GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION WAS JUSTIFIED AT STAGE 1 TO SEPARATE IT AND KENFIG. ALTHOUGH THERE ARE CANDIDATE SITE SUBMISSIONS BETWEEN THE SETTLEMENTS, THE OTHER INDICATORS WOULD MITIGATE AGAINST ANY DEVELOPMENT WHICH COULD HYPOTHETICALLY TAKE PLACE AS A RESULT.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN KENFIG AND PYLE.

SITE: BETWEEN KENFIG AND SOUTH CORNELLY

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.74 Miles

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 0 No existing development between these boundaries.

TOPOGRAPHY 1 The gradient of the land is suitable for built development ROAD 0 There is no direct road linkage. BARRIER 1 There are no barriers to development CANDIDATE SITES 0 There are no Candidate Sites submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals in APPLICATIONS/APPEALS between these boundaries.

CONCLUSION:

THESE SETTLEMENTS ARE JOINED BY A NARROW COUNTRY LANE WHICH WOULD NOT SUPPORT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. ADDITIONALLY, NO PRESSURE EXISTS IN THE FORM OF CANDIDATE SITES OR PLANNING APPLICATIONS.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN KENFIG AND SOUTH CORNELLY.

SITE: BETWEEN LLANGEINOR AND PONTRHYL

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.81 Miles

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 1 There is a very small number of residential units between the settlements

TOPOGRAPHY 0 The gradient of the land is not suitable for further built development ROAD 1 There is a direct road linkage. BARRIER 1 There are no barriers to development CANDIDATE SITES 0 There are no Candidate Sites submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals in APPLICATIONS/APPEALS between these boundaries.

CONCLUSION:

THESE SETTLEMENTS ARE LINKED BY A MAIN ROAD AND DO HAVE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT INBETWEEN THEIR BOUNDARIES. NOTWITHSTANDING THIS, THE BOUNDARIES LIE APPROXIMATELY 0.81 MILES APART AND THIS DEVELOPMENT IS THEREFORE DILUTED IN THIS RESPECT. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS NO INCREASED PRESSURE IN THE FORM OF CANDIDATE SITE SUBMISSIONS OR PLANNING APPLICATIONS.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN LLANGEINOR AND PONTYRYL.

SITE: BETWEEN LLANGEINOR AND BRYNMENYN

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.9 Miles

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 0 There is no existing development between the settlements TOPOGRAPHY 0 The gradient of the land is not suitable for built development ROAD 1 There is a direct road linkage via the A4064 BARRIER 1 There are no barriers to development CANDIDATE SITES 1 There is a Candidate Site submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals in APPLICATIONS/APPEALS between these boundaries.

CONCLUSION:

THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SETTLEMENTS IS CLOSE TO 1 MILE AND SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE WOULD HAVE TO BE PRESENT FOR THE BOUDARIES TO BE MADE VULNERABLE.ALTHOUGH THERE IS A DIRECT ROAD LINKING THE SETTLEMENTS, THE INTERVENING LAND COMPRISES STEEPLY SLOPING VALLEY SIDES. THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE AS THE CANDIDATE SITE WHICH WAS SUBMITTED IS ON THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF LLANGEINOR WHICH, DUE TO ITS SIZE WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO PREJUDICE THE BOUNDARIES.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN LLANGEINOR AND BRYNMENYN.

SITE: BETWEEN BETTWS AND BRYCETHIN

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.68 Miles

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 0 There is no existing development between the settlements

TOPOGRAPHY 0 The gradient of the land is not suitable for built development ROAD 1 There is a direct road linkage. BARRIER 1 There are no barriers to development CANDIDATE SITES 0 There are no Candidate Sites submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 0 There are no planning applications/appeals in APPLICATIONS/APPEALS between these boundaries.

CONCLUSION:

THIS IS A LARGE AREA OF COUNTRYSIDE WITH NO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE. IN THIS RESPECT IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE URBAN BOUNDARIES ARE NOT VULNERABLE.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN BETTWS AND BRYNCETHIN.

SITE: BETWEEN SOUTH CORNELLY AND PORTHCAWL

DISTANCE BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS 0.77 Miles

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 0 There is no existing development between the settlements

TOPOGRAPHY 1 The gradient of the land is suitable for built development ROAD 0 There is no direct road linkage. BARRIER 1 There are no barriers to development CANDIDATE SITES 0 There are no Candidate Sites submitted in- between the settlements PLANNING 1 There is a planning application with associated APPLICATIONS/APPEALS appeal in between these boundaries.

CONCLUSION:

THIS AREA OF LAND IS DOMINATED BY A GOLF COURSE. THERE IS ONE SITE WITH NUMEROUS PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL UNITS AND RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS. ONLY ONE OF THESE WAS GRANTED PERMISSION (WHICH WAS UNIMPLEMENTAED AND THE PERMISSION HAS LAPSED). ALL SUBSEQUENT APLICATIONS HAVE BEEN REFUSED. AN APPLICATION FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WAS ALSO DISMISSED AT APPEAL. ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE NO CANDIDATE SITES PROPOSED FOR ALTERNATIVE USES.

RECOMMENDATION:

NO GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATION BETWEEN SOUTH CORNELLY AND PORTHCAWL.

3.2 Results

3.2.1 Stage 3 reflects the results from the stage 1 and 2 assessment and illustrates how the areas identified for Green Wedge protection will be reflected in the LDP.

3.2.2 The sites which were are recommended for allocation in the LDP are:

Coity and Bridgend Tondu and Coytrahen Coychurch and Pencoed Bridgend and Laleston Bridgend and Sarn Kenfig Hill and Cefn Cribwr Cwmfelin, Llangynwyd, and Pont Rhyd Y Cyff Penyfai and Aberkenfig Penyfai and Bridgend Aberkenfig and Sarn Bridgend and Ewenny Nantymoel and Ogmore Vale Kenfig and Mawdlam Blackmill and Pantyrawel

3.2.3 Once again the GIS mapping system was used and the allocation was drawn to cover an area which effectively covered the area between the settlements perceived to be vulnerable. These are included in Appendix 1.

3.2.4 It should be noted that the number of recommended allocations does not reflect the number of areas individually assessed and recommended for an allocation at stage 1 and 2 of the report. The reason for this is some of the settlements, whilst assessed separately, are grouped so closely in geographical terms that one continuous allocation to protect all vulnerable boundaries was necessary.

Section 4: Implementation and Review

4.1 Implications for the LDP

4.1.1 In designating the above Green Wedges in the LDP, the Council will develop policies which seek to protect them from development which would result in the coalescence of settlements.

4.1.2 These policies will be accompanied by additional Supplementary Planning Guidance where appropriate.

4.1.3 All relevant information will be a key consideration in the determination of Planning Applications.

4.2 Monitoring and Review

4.2.1 The LDP will be subject to a four year review to ensure that all of the Policies within it are up-to-date and remain consistent with respect of the decision-making process. In light of this, the allocations will be monitored and revised if necessary.

APPENDIX 1 – LDP GREEN WEDGE ALLOCATIONS