Testun llawn:
Weycock Cross is always gridlocked. I live on Coed-Y-Felin and no matter what time of day it can take at least 10/15 mins to drive to Tesco. This should take no more than 5 mins. No public transport to Barry train station. It takes me 30 mins to walk to the station and longer coming back because of the hills. You need to add at least another 15/20 mins on this walk to KS1. For a bus to Cardiff you have to walk to Jenner Rd for the 96 which takes just over an hour to get to Cardiff plus the walk. The 304 at Weycock Cross takes at least 2 hours which is not good for commuters. You would also need additional parking at the train station as this is already well used. You're taking good green fields away to build houses on extremely roundabout disturbing our beautiful green landscape. I object to the allocation of HG1 KS1 North West Barry on the grounds that the site is unsound, unjustified and undeliverable.
I object to the allocation of HG1 KS1 (North West Barry / Weycock Cross) on the grounds that the site is unsound, unjustified, and undeliverable. The Council's own supporting evidence, together with the developer's technical reports, demonstrates that the site 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. 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 growth and site- related congestion & pollution contrary to PPW and the 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, reptiles, and Red-List protected ground-nesting birds. Impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated. 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 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 9,580 m³ of attenuation. Foul drainage solutions are speculative and require major off-site works. Fundamental viability remains unproven.
Heritage: The Heritage Assessment fails to comply with PPW and Cadw guidance. It does not assess significance, setting, cumulative impacts, or mitigation. 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.
