Cyngor Bro Morgannwg
Vale of Glamorgan Council

Consultation Ref - HG1 KS1
Proposed Development Weycock Cross
Dear Sir,
In line with the requirement of the consultation period I submit my grave concerns/observations/objections as regards this misjudged and misguided proposal for North West Barry in the RLDP.
Given the magnitude of the on-line information the time permitted for public review of all documents is grossly insufficient and disrespectful.
Allowing a period of just 42 days i.e. 28 Jan to 11 March for lay people to assimilate hundreds if not thousands of pages is wholly inappropriate and disingenuous. This is especially so mindful it has taken paid officials and others months and months to compile the data.
Unless adequate timelines are permitted how can those most impacted do justice to their contribution to the consultation and effectively present their objections ??
There have been major communication shortcomings/flaws here that threaten the integrity of this initiative and require your immediate rectification :-

 Clear evidence of age discrimination for those who can’t do things on line with no obvious and straightforward way they can access hard copies of relevant documents!

 Paper copies are not readily available for analysis at home – the Head Planner did agree at the Barry Memo meeting to look into this and come back to me but has failed to deliver.


 There is no reference or regard to what caused the earlier 2015 application to fail? What happened to the 2015 proposal and why was it turned down ?

 Have the barriers from 2015 been overcome or are they still bona fide or just swept to one side?


 On the subject of the published Vision Statement that underpins the councils plans – Who instigated and paid for this presentation and/or the various supporting attachments?
 Were the supporting documents commissioned and addressed prima face to the Council or Persimmon? This needs to be clarified please.

 The suggested development area has been under the microscope for many years – now there is a rush to complete what paid officials describe as the “best option currently available”. What other areas have been explored for a Barry Site and exactly why have they not been pursued ?

 We are told that the Council appealed for available development sites rather than drive the action to acquire land/space that best fitted their needs – please can you outline, in detail, the process that was followed?

 Was this specific land acquisition developer or Council sourced/driven?

 The Revised Local Development Plan is only until 2036 !! ….that suggests it is 6 Years minimum behind the curve and will be on its last legs before any development gets underway.

 Can you please detail exactly what the Council’s vision is beyond 2036 ? Indeed, can the Council demonstrate a clear plan/picture across the next two decades?

 The choice of Weycock Cross could be said to be the route of least resistance in a builders eyes looking purely from purely a profit perspective…. Flat land and easy to build on. What other builders showed an interest in this development site and on what basis were Persimmon selected?


 Other possible sites adjoining the Weycock Roundabout seem to have been overlooked/sidelined when they offer tangible benefits e.g. Land to the left of the Five Mile Lane which has been subject to planning dialogue in the past and the former College site to the right. To what extent were these considered?

 How much money has been invested in pursuing the LDP this far?

 Can you please confirm what the Section 106 agreement for Schools, Doctors Surgery, Dental Surgery etc. will be? Experience tells us that Surgeries are overflowing, road traffic overflowing and schools full so any funding from a S106 Agreement must be sufficient to build for future needs. Local councilors inform us that this has all been agreed but seem unable to confirm the details! What exactly is the position on this matter?

 Road provision around the proposed site entrance and minimum planned highway enhancement beggars belief with MAJOR road upgrading / widening clearly needed before any ground is cut. The roads around Weycock Cross cannot cope NOW and will be even more bottlenecked with approaching well over another 1000 cars trying to get through.


 The commercial development near Cardiff Wales Airport – Model Farm land - will only add to the congestion. What traffic volumes is this site expected to add to the existing bottlenecks?

 Can/should the land at Model Farm include a mix of commercial and 376 residential developments? If not- why not?

 Local councilors verbally tell us the environmental impact would be unacceptable so why is the Weycock site not assessed similarly?

 The uplift in traffic volumes demonstrates the need for a cross-country link from the Airport to the recently upgraded Five Mile lane – what are the Councils plans on delivering such a route?

 The residential House market has seen tangible valuation slippage at present and allied to the cost of living crisis questions the sale-ability of new properties.

 Existing nearby housing stock is seeing depressed values as the risk of these new homes bites. What will the council do to compensate existing homeowners so impacted?

 Any downturn in saleability will massively impact on S106 payments – what are the council planning to do if S106 monies are depleted and insufficient funds pull through for roads, infrastructure etc?

 Persimmon’s track record at other local sites does not inspire confidence they will be compliant. What detailed assessment / examination has the council undertaken to establish that Persimmon are the right builders of choice? What do the council plan to do to ensure they deliver on their obligations?

This is very much “last chance saloon” for the Council to meet targets imposed on them by central government and smacks of an embedded lack of ownership, understanding and vision.
The recent council meeting in early December 25 failed to have the engagement of any councilors from Illtyd Ward so those residents directly impacted had “NO VOICE”– should this vote have been postponed?
Two councillors were prevented from physically attending due to illness and missed the opportunity to partake and/or vote remotely !! Allowance should have been made for their medically enforced absence.
The third abstained on political grounds and did not fairly represent the constituents!!
Had the two attended, the vote would have been 26:25 against and the proposal defeated.
One would logically think that it should have been postponed to ensure integrity, democracy and respect. What is the councils view ?

Mitigating And Adapting Climate Change & The Environment
• Huge growth in traffic at a long standing bottle neck that can’t manage at present – 20/25 minutes to travel from Hotel International to Weycock Cross now. This point, on its own, defeats this mission objective.
• Additional pressure will come from new residential development in Llantwit Major, St Athan and Rhoose and the current gridlock merely worsens.
• More car exhaust with ever longer journey times means more wasted fossil fuels in a dense residential area with significantly more air pollution and impact on people’s health.
• Nearly 800 more cars locally from Weycock development alone will be intolerable!
• Traffic light provision into and out of the development on top of a congested roundabout is sheer madness!
• Destroying green belt unnecessarily is totally unacceptable.
• Damage to the surrounding woodland will undoubtedly follow the urbanization of the fields with increased water discharge into the already environmentally challenged Millwood area!
• Impact on normal Emergency Services and those for Airport Incidents will be massive with the serious risk that lives will be lost as a consequence.

Improving Mental Health & Physical Health & Well Being
• Who exactly will see any benefit? All those who use the area will suffer badly!
• The stress / Impact on the existing residents, highways and services will be unbearable!
• The inevitable devaluation of quality owner-occupied properties will be financially devastating.
• The removal of countryside views owners paid for in their house purchase costs is totally unacceptable.
• There has been no respect or regard for the dramatic impact on existing residents when drawing these proposals together – we have been overlooked until the consultation kicked off!!

Homes for All
• Who exactly make up the “ALL”?
• Who is expected to move into the housing stock should they be built and where will they come from?
• Where does any local demand come from with published falling birth rates?
• Affordability for owner occupied properties is vital and how has this been tested??
• Will there be population drift from outside the Vale? Why can’t we just focus on our own ?
• Putting Vale resident needs front and centre must be the priority!



Place Making
• How will this help create Adaptable, Safe, Accessible and well- connected communities?
• The general area is hardly easily accessible now given reliance on present infrastructure never mind expansion? Please explain!
• The proposal is said to be offering a sustainable range of service and facilities and yet there is no defined and funded expansion for GP, Dentist or schools?
• No future proofing for these demands is evident - why?
• Unless these priority services upgrades are embedded there is every reason to sense that personal suffering will prevail and even loss of life!
• The clear absence of drastically improved road infra-structure will not make it “place making” but “place avoiding” !!

Protecting & Enhancing the Natural Environment
 Destroying natural habitat adjoining Porthkerry park and the Millwod does anything but protect and enhance the natural environment.

 Domestic waste management is problematic now and will only worsen as they often can’t collect on time now!
 Where are the renewable energy plans in this proposal?

Embracing Culture & Heritage
What has this to do with this development other than destroying the history and countryside that has stood the test of time for centuries?

Fostering Diverse, Vibrant & Connected Communites
• Fostering safe and cohesive communities- exactly how?
• The ensuing chaos such a development will bring is hardly safe, vibrant etc!
• On the contrary it brings disconnect, disharmony, dislocation and disappointment.

Promoting Active & Sustainable Travel Choices
• This will only produce more of the same on what is highly congested routes already
• Hardly a plan for active and sustainable travel as you wont be able yo get through the gridlock! More like sustainable parking for extended periods on main travel arteries into and out of town.
• Reducing the need to travel – it is anything but this – when attracting the young family types to 376 new homes, even when attracting minimum extra vehicles of say 1.5 cars each that is 564 more vehicles.

Building a Prosperous & Green Economy
• There is little if anything in this plan to manage pollution, or develop a prosperous green economy.
• The loss of prime dedicated green open space actually worsens the situation
• Job opportunities – where exactly will these come from to foster the local economy?
• The evolution of covid has driven remote working rather than local jobs?
• This development will REMOVE a massive slice of the GREEN ECONOMY with the fields built plus the undoubted damage to the Millwood.

Sustainable Tourism
• How on earth does this apply to this proposed development?

In summary this proposal is poorly thought out and completely inappropriate.
It falls down on every one of the above key drivers.
An initiative that is builder driven will lead to headaches not solutions and hugely impact local people.
Travel will come to a grinding halt across this area and the wider Vale will become a nightmare.
Existing property values will see a down turn.
Emergency services will see access to patients severely tested and lives put at risk.
Airport access will be under-mind a emergency incident management severely threatened.
Barry and the wider Vale will not be a place to visit but one to avoid.

The RLDP is simply NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE and needs to be paused IMMEDIATELY.
The idea of residential development in the Vale needs a complete rethink with properly throught out terms of reference underlining tried and tested proposals.
In similar view to the terms of the consultation process might I suggest you be kind enough to provide your detailed response within the next 42 days.
I trust common sense will prevail and THE COUNCIL makes the right decision for the whole of the Vale.