Gwrthwynebu
6 Strategaeth Seilwaith Gwyrdd
ID sylw: 6255
Derbyniwyd: 11/03/2026
Respondent ID: 708
Ymatebydd: Barry & Vale Friends of the Earth
Asiant : Barry & Vale Friends of the Earth
This document falls well short of professional standards, with errors and omissions.
It should have covered all wildlife sites
The CBA body who wrote it are unidentified, with all details blacked out. They make no declaration of professional standards, so cannot be taken to be committed to accuracy and truthfulness as the WGovt requires of consultants.
At the public session, the LDP officer said one of his colleagues would have checked it to get the VoG badging. That can’t apply to all as any local resident would have know of error (number of bathing beaches) and omissions.
SINCs are mentioned, that there was a review but no report of the results
LNRs are mentioned but not their statutory designation and linkage with the 1981 WCA |(as amended) and the Section 7 responsibility of LAs under EnvWalesAct. No mention that management policies for LNRs is required in LDPs
No mention of the scope and need for extending LNRs with Barry Old Harbour, Rhoose Point, Cadoxton Ponds and Aberthaw nature reserve designations being raised. Indeed the last two are not listed though most important nature conservation sites, one owned by Dow and the other by CCR.
Bathing Beaches are mentioned but wrong number and nothing about sewage affecting them and the problems of the LA having to manage them with duties under the Bathing Water Regs.
No mention is made of the Wales Coast path, which VoG manages on behalf of NRW. Gaps in it and proposals to remedy them need listing in the RLWP.
No mention made of the designated “quiet areas” and responsibility of the Council to review and extend them countywide under the Air quality and Soundscapes (Wales) Act.
The worst werror is saying NBB – net biodiversity benefit is required for development. That’s in England, indicating this “consultant” practices there (or is based overseas). In Wales we require biodiversity is enhaced proportionate to scale and nature of the development . the RLDP checker would have been very conscious of this difference. The LPA’s problem is they hang on to the English requirement rather than the Welsh one. Perhps it was one of them who ensured keeping the serious error.
We conclude the GI document is important, so needs to be reasonably accurate. This one won’t do, and should be fully revised to meet professional stands.
This document falls well short of professional standards, with errors and omissions.
It should have covered all wildlife sites
The CBA body who wrote it are unidentified, with all details blacked out. They make no declaration of professional standards, so cannot be taken to be committed to accuracy and truthfulness as the WGovt requires of consultants.
At the public session, the LDP officer said one of his colleagues would have checked it to get the VoG badging. That can’t apply to all as any local resident would have know of error (number of bathing beaches) and omissions.
SINCs are mentioned, that there was a review but no report of the results
LNRs are mentioned but not their statutory designation and linkage with the 1981 WCA |(as amended) and the Section 7 responsibility of LAs under EnvWalesAct. No mention that management policies for LNRs is required in LDPs
No mention of the scope and need for extending LNRs with Barry Old Harbour, Rhoose Point, Cadoxton Ponds and Aberthaw nature reserve designations being raised. Indeed the last two are not listed though most important nature conservation sites, one owned by Dow and the other by CCR.
Bathing Beaches are mentioned but wrong number and nothing about sewage affecting them and the problems of the LA having to manage them with duties under the Bathing Water Regs.
No mention is made of the Wales Coast path, which VoG manages on behalf of NRW. Gaps in it and proposals to remedy them need listing in the RLWP.
No mention made of the designated “quiet areas” and responsibility of the Council to review and extend them countywide under the Air quality and Soundscapes (Wales) Act.
The worst werror is saying NBB – net biodiversity benefit is required for development. That’s in England, indicating this “consultant” practices there (or is based overseas). In Wales we require biodiversity is enhaced proportionate to scale and nature of the development . the RLDP checker would have been very conscious of this difference. The LPA’s problem is they hang on to the English requirement rather than the Welsh one. Perhps it was one of them who ensured keeping the serious error.
We conclude the GI document is important, so needs to be reasonably accurate. This one won’t do, and should be fully revised to meet professional stands.