Testun llawn:
Objection re: RLDP Consultation process
I am raising a general objection to the way in which the consultation process has been
carried out and am basing my comments on personal experience since July 2025 and a
review of the ‘Housing Growth in Barry – Report of Public Consultation’ document. I
believe there are structural weaknesses, omissions, and procedural gaps that
undermine the robustness and inclusivity of the consultation and question its
legitimacy.
In broad terms, the consultation process surrounding the proposed developments
raises significant concerns about accessibility and fairness. The consultation feedback
form was diAicult to locate and use, being hidden via multiple web pages rather than
clearly signposted. The consultation portal itself was poorly designed, being overly
complicated and unnecessarily layered. The sheer volume of documentation across the
site created unnecessary obstacles for residents who wanted to take part. Under the
Town and Country Planning (Local Development Plan) (Wales) Regulations 2005,
planning authorities have a clear duty to ensure that consultation arrangements are
accessible and enable meaningful engagement from the community.
Planning Policy Wales sets out firm expectations that public participation must be
transparent, inclusive, and straightforward, ensuring that all individuals are able to
contribute to the planning process without undue diAiculty.
When consultation tools are poorly designed, or overly complicated or burdensome, as
they were in this consultation, this calls into question the credibility and legitimacy of
the consultation exercise.
Consultation limited to the Preferred Strategy stage (not site-specific consultation)
The consultation undertaken (Dec 2023–Feb 2024) focused on high-level strategy, not
detailed impacts on specific sites such as NE Barry or alternative sites. The report itself
states the exercise was on the Preferred Strategy, which “identifies how much
sustainable growth is needed and where this growth will broadly be located.”
Gap: Residents were not consulted on the detailed implications of individual sites (e.g.,
infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints, transport, drainage), limiting the
ability of the public to make informed representations early in the process.
No evidence of direct engagement with a ected landowners or communities for
the largest site
The report acknowledges major deliverability issues with the largest key site (North East
Barry), including inability to secure landowner agreement across the fragmented
landholdings. “An agreement could not be secured with all relevant landowners.”
Gap: The Council relied on promoters’ claims rather than conducting independent
landowner engagement or reviewing deliverability before public consultation. As a
result, the public were consulted on a strategic option that was later abandoned.
Preferred Strategy proceeded despite strong objections and unresolved issues
There were “objections to each of the key sites” during the public consultation, yet the
Preferred Strategy was endorsed unchanged by Full Council on 30 Sept 2024.
Gap: There is no evidence that objections were meaningfully incorporated before
endorsing the Strategy. This suggests the consultation informed the Council but did not
shape the outcome.
Lack of site-specific technical assessments available at early consultation stage
and at this later stage
Much of the consultation occurred before key technical evidence was available,
including:
o Viability
o Deliverability
o Ownership constraints
o Infrastructure and transport assessments
o Environmental constraints (SSSI proximity, flood risk, etc.)
The report explicitly states that the viability and deliverability of sites (including the
900-unit NE Barry site) were still being assessed after the consultation.
In relation to North West Barry and from mid-July 2025, I requested to speak to Place
Scrutiny Committee and gave my views. At that meeting, and at a subsequent full
council meeting that I observed, residents like me and councillors who were
challenging the Planning Team were told to wait and that detail would be available at the
later consultation stage, via public meetings and the consultation portal. However,
either this detail was not made available because it doesn’t exist or else was it is buried
in thousands of pages of documents that we have been given 6 weeks sift through in
order to find out what is relevant.
Gap: The public were expected to comment without access to essential technical
information, undermining the quality of feedback and the transparency of the process.
This is still the case now, whereby after reading as much of the key information as
possible, there are still huge gaps in basic information that help residents make an
informed decision.
Consultation did not explore alternative growth locations until later
The public was shown only the five original key housing-led sites, even though at least
one (NE Barry) was already facing deliverability challenges. Only after public
consultation did the Council begin considering alternative options.
Gap: The public were not consulted on alternative or fallback options, limiting their
ability to compare spatial choices or suggest more acceptable solutions.
Evidence of restricted consultation scope for the Barry community
The report notes that Barry is expected to take substantial growth but there is no record
of targeted community engagement specific to Barry - the largest and most aAected
settlement.
Gap: No tailored engagement with Barry residents or community groups was
undertaken, despite the disproportionate scale of proposed development for Barry.
Limited clarity on how comments influenced later site selection
Although an “Initial Consultation Report” was prepared, the process described is
top-down:
o Consultation → summary → Preferred Strategy endorsed without change
o Only later did site feasibility issues force adjustments
Gap: A lack of transparency exists regarding how community feedback shaped
decisions. Changes to the strategy arose from landownership/deliverability - not from
public concerns.
Heavy reliance on written representations
My own experience and the Consultation report provided no evidence of:
o community workshops
o stakeholder panels
o co-design sessions
o facilitated deliberation
o youth engagement
o hard-to-reach community engagement
o ‘what does this mean for my area?’ summaries or similar
The process seemed to rely solely on written submissions. When we attended the in
person consultation event in Barry Memorial Hall in February 2026, there was no one to
record our comments, we were given no answers to our queries and concerns, and we
were constantly told to go and look at the consultation portal to get information and
submit our concerns. The in-person event was simply a ‘signposting to the consultation
portal’ event. It was not meaningful engagement and cannot legitimately be called a
consultation event.
Gap: This method excludes those less able to engage through formal written
consultation, reducing representativeness.
No community engagement prior to selecting the original five “key sites”
The five major sites (incl. North East Barry) were selected before consultation.
The report states: “As part of the Preferred Strategy, 5 new key housing-led sites were
identified…”
Gap: The public were not involved in early spatial option development; instead, they
were asked to react to a pre-determined set of locations.
Reactive, not proactive, approach to community concerns
The document describes a process where council decisions (such as dropping the NE
Barry site) follow behind-the-scenes technical negotiation rather than public influence.
The public consultation did not trigger the change - the failure of landowner agreement
did.
Gap: Public sentiment had little demonstrable impact on spatial strategy development.
The consultation was not inclusive, was discriminatory and fundamentally flawed. I
wish for this to be included as part of my objection.
