Cyngor Bro Morgannwg
Vale of Glamorgan Council

Alternative site to be sought - What about the old Incinerator site?

1. Traffic and mitigation
• Congestion on Port and Pontypridd Roads will worsen
• Emergency access will be compromised
• No adequate mitigation exists

Increased queueing on Pontypridd Road will directly extend blue light response times on an identified hospital and airport route.
Traffic capacity on Pontypridd road is already at 100% at peak times there is no room for improvement.
The widening on Pontypridd road is unsuitable and encroaches on Local residents land, it will also make crossing the road to the petrol station/shop practically impossible.
SP10 – specifically in relation to distance to Barry Train station on foot, this regularly takes me 30-40 minutes and requires at least two steep hills.
2. Pressure on services (health, schools, infrastructure)
All evidence states that:
• GP, dental, and school capacity is already stretched.
• Waiting lists and capacity limits exist.
• Additional housing would exacerbate this.
The development fails the test of deliverable social infrastructure, as no funded or timetabled expansion of GP, dental or school provision is identified – this would equate to policy failure in this area.
3. Housing numbers and population argument
The statistics are repeated consistently:
• Housebuilding rate cited as 7.55%.
• Population growth cited as 4.1%.
• Birth rate cited as 1.38, described as declining.
The scale and type of housing proposed is not supported by demographic drivers, indicating supply led development rather than needs led planning.

This would constitute a clear planning objection.
4. Type of housing vs. stated need
The argument that:
• The Vale of Glamorgan needs housing suited to older single people, and
• The proposed development does not meet that need
The proposal therefore fails to meet the stated housing mix priorities previously identified by the Vale of Glamorgan. This reinforces internal inconsistency within the council’s own position.
5. Previously Refused Proposals still Stand
• Similar proposals declined in 2013 and the concerns raised then are still in existence with no sensible mitigation

The persistence of identical unresolved issues since the 2013/16 refusal demonstrates a failure to address material planning objections over time. This shows a lack of understanding and willingness to consider alternatives.

This is a significant point as none of the submissions include sufficient mitigation to previous points

6. Green Wedge Land with impacts to wildlife

The proposed development would result in the irreversible loss of designated Green Wedge land, which plays a critical role in preventing urban coalescence, maintaining landscape character, and supporting biodiversity. The site currently functions as an important ecological buffer between settlements and contributes to the wider network of green and environmental spaces in the area.

DNP2 – Incorrectly assumes this is not Green Wedge Land

There is documented local concern regarding skylark activity on the site, including potential nesting within the fields affected by the proposal. Skylarks are a recognised ground nesting farmland species that is highly sensitive to habitat loss and disturbance. The permanent development of this land would remove suitable breeding and foraging habitat, with no clear or credible mitigation identified to offset this loss.

SP19 – It feels that this has not been taken into consideration at all.

In addition, otter sightings have been reported locally, indicating the potential use of connected habitats and watercourses in and around the site. This is in direct contradiction to the point CC6 point 3 “ Avoid significant adverse effects on designated habitats, species and landscape character”.

The fragmentation, lighting, noise and increased human activity associated with the development would be likely to degrade habitat connectivity and increase disturbance risks for protected species. The proposal therefore raises serious concerns regarding compliance with environmental protection objectives and represents a significant and unmitigated environmental harm.
Once lost, the ecological and landscape function of this Green Wedge land cannot be realistically recreated elsewhere

CC6 – Increasingly frequent pollution alerts on our local beaches will worsen with development in this area.
7. Welsh Assembly / governance position
References to criticism or lack of support from the Welsh Assembly are aligned in tone and conclusion across documents. None of the material claims formal endorsement elsewhere.
Planning Harm Summary:
• Transport harm (no mitigation, emergency access risk)
• Social infrastructure harm (health, schools)
• Environmental harm (green space, ecology)
• Policy harm (housing mix mismatch, demographic misalignment)
• Governance harm (prior refusal, lack of cross agency coordination)

Unless these harms are demonstrably mitigated, the proposal should not be approved.