Cyngor Bro Morgannwg
Vale of Glamorgan Council

Living in the area near Weycock Cross means I have to endure constant congestion, mornings and evenings from all four directions with the entry/exit from this new build estate adding to the slowing of the traffic flow it will only come become much worse, adding to the poor air quality. The lack of public transport will obviously add to the congestion and a 45 minute to 1 hour walk to the train station from the further point, which is not viable especially in bad weather. With the additional housing to be built in Rhoose, St Athan and Llantwit major the road network is at capacity already with no true alternative when an accident happens on the road, especially if the government wants to expand the airport. Could I possibly suggest a link to the M4 to junction 34 be built from the airport roundabout, easing the traffic flow across the Vale before building ourselves into chaos.

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 m* 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.