Cyngor Bro Morgannwg
Vale of Glamorgan Council

SITE - HG1/KS1

I object to the allocation of this site on the grounds that it fails to meet the requirements of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 12) placemaking tests, performs poorly against the Council’s Candidate Site Assessment Methodology, and has significant unresolved impacts relating to transport, infrastructure, landscape, biodiversity protection, drainage/flood risk, character and appearance of existing place, and community safety. The site was approved for inclusion in the RLDP by a single vote margin, despite substantial public and councillor opposition, indicating that it is not a robust or consensus based strategic choice.

1.Infrastructure Capacity - Flood Risk and Sustainable Drainage

The site plan states that:

• The site must incorporate appropriate high quality sustainable drainage
systems (SuDS) which integrate the surface water drainage function with
open space and provide opportunities to deliver biodiversity.

• No built development will be permitted within the central east-west corridor of
the site, which is within a surface water and small watercourses flood zone.
This area should be retained as a wetland park, which will incorporate
appropriate sustainable drainage features to serve the site.

However, regarding the preliminary drainage strategy report for the Weycock Cross development prepared by Quad Consult Limited, I have the following comments:

a. The existing localised areas of flood risk from surface water and small watercourses include the point at which an existing watercourse running through the proposed development area enters a culvert under the houses in Nant Talwg Way. This discharges into a larger watercourse which is then culverted under Pontypridd Road, also shown as a localised area of flood risk.

b. The report follows the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems 2025. The Uplift for Climate Change is 40%. This is the lower end of the recommended 40% – 45% range depending on location in the UK. Barry has rainfall of 1000-1500mm per year much higher than most of England at less than 700mm per year. Surely the higher recommended figure should have been used.

c. A 10% allowance for urban creep has been allowed, but mitigation measures such as water butts to the houses is not considered to comply with BS EN 16941 Standard 2. They do not guarantee storage will be available.

d. The existing drainage systems for Nant Talwg Way were designed without any Climate Change uplift, and with no allowance for any future development above the estate. Both gravity and pumping capacity would be so much lower than required to cater for the new dev elopment, a completely separate system would be necessary in my opinion. The proposal to just upgrade the existing drainage would have to be very substantial indeed to avoid flood risk and foul sewer back up.

Conclusion: The culvert size running under the whole Nant Talwg is not identified and is already backing up during heavy rainfall. (*See email attachment for video of the watercourse after recent heavy rainfall).

Despite all the mitigation measures, the building of such a large estate in this location is inevitably going to pose a very real risk of flooding to the houses in Nant Talwg Way. Attenuation ponds can cease to prevent discharge when prolonged rainfall or very intense rainfall occurs. These events are now more likely in future due to Climate change and Climate Emergency.

**Appendix 3 of the Quad Consult report indicates that Nant Talwg brook and under the housing as being in Flood Zone 3. A site identified as being within Flood Zone 3 area where the susceptibility to surface water flooding and/or at risk of flooding from other sources is high and unlikely to be resolved through mitigation.

Another substantial concern is that historical and recent developments in the Vale of Glamorgan have had flooding issues due to inadequate drainage infrastructure, hence have NOT adhered to the Placemaking Principle 7-Maximizing Environmental Protection and Minimising Environmental Impact.


2. Infrastructure Capacity - Transport & Traffic

The Weycock Cross roundabout is already a known congestion hotspot, and the council itself acknowledged “specific concerns about increased traffic congestion at Weycock Cross roundabout” during the RLDP debate. Emissions and noise pollution would increase with extra traffic impacting on air quality, biodiversity and public safety. The site is also located in an area with limited public transport options, as highlighted by Plaid Cymru councillors opposing the allocation.

It is not sustainably located within EASY walking and cycling distance of existing employment, public transport and services/facilities. Accessing buses would entail installing zebra crossings and/or traffic lights across Port Road and Pontypridd Road, which would further impede traffic flow and increase emissions. Pontypridd Road itself has just ONE bus (B2) per hour to the rail station which begins at 9.42am. The last return bus is 15.53pm, therefore inadequate for commuting or school runs. Port Road has the 304 service which does not stop near a railway station.

The site is purportedly within a 20 minute walk TO a railway station, which may be the case IF you are very fit, are not pushing a pram or have health issues which impact walking. Walking back UP would take much longer due to very steep hills.

This directly conflicts with PPW12’s sustainable transport hierarchy, which requires development to be accessible by walking, cycling, and public transport before car use is prioritised. The site is inherently car dependent, and mitigation relies on future, developer funded off site works, demonstrating that the baseline transport environment is inadequate and cannot be considered “the right development in the right place.”

3. Infrastructure Capacity – Schools and Health

School places: Additional capacity would be required and funded by developers. Local schools are currently oversubscribed and have significant staff shortages because many teachers are leaving the profession due to feeling unsupported in having to deal with significant discipline issues.


Health services: The Council is in dialogue with the health board due to anticipated additional demand. Under their Planning and Health obligations 6.81 the council is required to ‘identify AND secure the facilities needed for primary, secondary and tertiary care and the wider health and care system’. The nearest health centre to the proposed site is in Highlight Park and part of a group practice whose automated telephone system recording states that there has been a ‘massive increase in demand’ NOW, so any ADDITIONAL demand would further exacerbate access to their services. Also, people are usually directed to other sites of the group to access appointments, within Barry and even Rhoose, thereby needing to travel by car due to the inadequate and infrequent bus services.

Dental services: There has been an acute shortage of National Health dentists in the area for many years and the waiting list to access a place in a practice continues to grow.
The site cannot be accommodated within existing infrastructure, contrary to PPW12’s requirement for development to be supported by appropriate facilities and services.

4. Green Wedge Loss and Landscape Harm

PPW12 requires strong justification for releasing Green Wedge land, including demonstrating that no suitable strategic alternatives exist. No such justification has been demonstrated. The original strategic intention was to allocate land in north east Barry, but this failed due to land ownership issues.

The Green Wedge at Weycock Cross was then released as an alternative site but is not evidence based, contrary to PPW12’s requirement for early strategic, sustainable spatial choices.

In addition, the proposed development would not adhere to the Placemaking Principle of Identity to ensure that: ‘The positive, distinctive qualities of existing places are valued and respected’.

The positive, distinctive qualities (identity) of the green wedge abutting the ancient woodland are tranquility and limited light pollution, which are part of the ‘natural’ ecosystem that enables wildlife (including protected species) to exist in this place undisturbed.

Instead the proposed development would have a very significant impact on the character and appearance of the area. The contemporary architectural vernacular of homogenization used by developers would result in a distinct reduction of local architectural character. It would also look ‘out of place’ alongside an ancient woodland, therefore it does not adhere to point 6.54 of the valeofglamorgan.oc.2.uk document - ‘protecting the surrounding undeveloped countryside from inappropriate development’.

5. Public Opposition & Democratic Concerns

The motion to remove Weycock Cross from the RLDP failed by a single vote (23–24). 159 consultation responses raised concerns about traffic and infrastructure.
In addition, the public ‘consultation’ process has been UNDEMOCRATIC because:

a. Various people in the community directly facing the proposed site were NOT notified about the Memorial Hall drop-in consultation session on 2nd February and would have been excluded from participating if they hadn’t been made aware of it from other persons in the vicinity.

b. The huge amount of official data and jargon from so many ‘related’ documents, reports, policies etc that we have been forced to try to navigate in a six week period (alongside our ‘normal’ lives, commitments, child care and elderly parent care etc) has been unacceptable and impossible to enable us to give our objections full justice.

c. The points raised in b, clearly demonstrate that people who are unable or choose not to use technology, have time constraints, are not educationally able to understand the information available, have physical or mental disabilities which prevent equitable participation in the process cannot be part of ‘community involvement’.

PPW12 emphasises community involvement and the creation of places that reflect LOCAL needs and aspirations. This allocation and process does not meet that standard.

6. Community Safety & Antisocial Behaviour Risks

PPW requires developments to create safe, inclusive, well-overlooked environments that reduce opportunities for crime and antisocial behaviour.
The developer’s Vision Statement proposes a network of green corridors, watercourse edges, and planted boundaries. While positive in principle, the site’s configuration and context raise concerns about:
• unobserved or poorly overlooked spaces
• isolated pedestrian routes
• lack of natural surveillance
• potential for unmanaged “leftover” land
• increased vulnerability to antisocial behaviour
These issues conflict with PPW’s requirement for secure, well designed places.
The site’s edge of settlement location and landscape led layout make this difficult to achieve without significant redesign. In addition, due to the close proximity of the ancient woodland and paths through Porthkerry Park the design could encourage modified e-bikes and their associated antisocial activities, which along with the proposed ponds and play park spaces would increase noise levels impacting on wildlife and also the existing community’s safety and mental health.

The site therefore does not convincingly demonstrate compliance with PPW12’s community safety requirements.

I request that HG1/KS1 (Weycock Cross) is removed from the RLDP on the grounds that it not sustainable, not strategically justified, and not compliant with PPW12 Placemaking Principles:

• fails PPW12 sustainable placemaking outcomes
• is not accessible by sustainable transport
• requires significant off site mitigation to function
• results in unjustified Green Wedge loss and increased emissions, both impacting biodiversity and air quality
• lacks community support
• presents unresolved community safety risks
• was selected as a fallback rather than a strategic choice
• there are very concerning flood risks
The Council should instead reconsider alternative sites that better align with PPW12, the Well being of Future Generations Act, and the RLDP’s own spatial strategy.