Vale of Glamorgan Council / Cyngor Bro Morgannwg

Gwrthwynebu

1 Ymgynghoriad ar Cynllun Datblygu Lleol Newydd

ID sylw: 5543

Derbyniwyd: 09/03/2026

Respondent ID: 2657

Ymatebydd: Mrs Mary Vincent

Cadarn? Heb nodi

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

I learned that decisions about site use occurred before residents were informed. The Weycock Cross development was first mentioned in July 2025, during a poorly conducted consultation. Later, a vote on the NW Barry site was held, with objections dismissed quickly. A formal consultation on the RDLP involved online responses referencing complex, confusing documents, which was unfair and inaccessible for many residents. The process relied on questionable data, lacked transparency, and was not a genuine democratic consultation.

Testun llawn:

It would seem that decisions were being taken on the use of sites well before affected residents were even aware of them. The first I heard of the proposed rehash of the development at Weycock Cross (refused in 2015) was in July 2025, when we were invited to a consultation at Millwood Bowling Club. This was more of a show-and-tell than a consultation. No one took down our comments. Didn't they count? The next we heard was that there would be a vote in December to decide whether the NW Barry site should be removed or included. Some members of my family attended and were give three minutes to state their objections. I watched online and say how these objections were summarily dismissed by a planning officer. Then came the vote. Neck and neck, but passed through. Key councillors did not vote. Next was a 'consultation on the RDLP' in Memorial Hall, Barry. Here we were informed of how we could 'have our say' on the proposed developments, by stating our responses to the proposals through an online portal, which would have reports of all the detailed investigations into viability and suitability of their 'mitigation packages' to offset the objections. These would be found in the supporting documents. In order for our responses to be valid, they had to reference these documents. These turned out to be vast in number, packed with confusing and often contradictory details. This was the detail we were told we had to reply to. This process was grossly unfair in that the majority of residents would not have the digital skills to navigate the way through them. This is neither fair nor transparent. Those that were better able to trawl through the huge megabites of scattered and hidden graphs and reports found that the evidence was very thin and far from trustworthy, with many inner contradictions, inaccuracies and false conclusions. From this unreliable and unscientific data 'evidence' had been extrapolated and decisions made. This is neither transparent nor honest.

It is not democratic consultation.