Testun llawn:
HG1 KS1 North West Barry (Weycock Cross)
Topic: KS1: Summary of Objections to Proposed Development
I object to the allocation of HG1 KS1 (North West Barry / Weycock Cross) on the grounds that the
proposed site development is unsound, unjustified, and undeliverable. The Council’s own RLDP
supporting evidence, together with the developer’s technical reports, demonstrates that the site
proposal fails key tests relating to Transport, Drainage, Biodiversity, Green Wedge protection,
Landscape Character, Heritage, and Community Infrastructure.
Transport & Air Quality:
Weycock Cross is already over capacity at peak times. The RLDP transport evidence is incomplete,
based on limited data, and omits an Air Quality Assessment entirely. Active-travel and public
transport options are weak, indirect, or impractical. The site would generate significant
car-dependent traffic growth and site-related conges on & pollution contrary to PPW/Well-being Act.
Green Wedge & Landscape:
The Technical Briefing Note misinterprets PPW by reducing Green Wedge policy to a distance test. The
2015 Inspector found this land integral to openness and separation. The site remains visually
exposed, contributes to the rural setting of Barry, and forms part of a continuous landscape corridor.
The case for moving the GW boundary is weak and would set a damaging precedent.
Biodiversity:
The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal identifies multiple high-value receptors, including ASNW, Priority
Hedgerows, bats, dormice, badgers, otters, rep les, and Red-List protected ground-nesting birds.
Impacts of the development (and building process) on these priority concerns cannot be avoided or
mi gated. The site cannot deliver PPW’s required net benefit for biodiversity.
Community Infrastructure:
The RLDP provides no deliverable strategy for GP capacity, social care, education, or community
facilities. The Council’s own Health Impact Assessments warn of negative health outcomes if
development proceeds without infrastructure in place. Vague developer assurances of off-site
financial contributions have no real bearing on strategic infrastructure provision.
Drainage & Flood Risk:
The developer’s own drainage strategy shows unresolved risks: missing NRW Product 6 data,
significant height discrepancies between flood models and ground levels, unknown outgoing
watercourse capacity, unviable SuDS infiltration due to soil type, and the need for over 9500 m³ of
attenuation (four Olympic swimming pools). Foul drainage solutions are speculative and require major
off-site works. Fundamental viability remains unproven. The site location is unsuitable.
Heritage:
The Heritage Assessment fails to comply with PPW and Cadw guidance. It does not assess
significance, se ng, cumulative impacts, or mi ga on. Conclusions are unsupported and cannot be
relied upon for plan-making.
Conclusion:
The allocation conflicts with PPW, TAN guidance, the Well-being Act, and the Council’s own evidence
base. The site is not sustainable, not deliverable, and should be removed from the RLDP.
