remove site

RLDP Consultation: HG1 KS1 – Land at North West Barry (Weycock Cross)
Summary of Objections
11/03/26
I object to the proposed allocation of HG1 KS1 (North West Barry / Weycock Cross) on the grounds that it is unsound, unjustified, and undeliverable. Taken together, the Council's own evidence base and the developer's supporting technical documents demonstrate that the site fails to meet key tests of sustainability, deliverability, and policy compliance. Fundamental constraints relating to infrastructure capacity, transport, drainage, biodiversity, Green Wedge protection, landscape character, and heritage remain unresolved and cannot realistically be mitigated.

Community Infrastructure & Health
The RLDP fails to provide a credible or deliverable strategy for addressing pressures on GP services, education, social care, and community facilities arising from this allocation. The Council's own Health Impact Assessments warn of adverse health outcomes where development proceeds in advance of infrastructure delivery. Reliance on vague future off-site financial contributions does not constitute a sound or strategic approach and provides no certainty that infrastructure would be delivered in a timely or coordinated manner.

Transport & Air Quality
The road network around Weycock Cross already operates at or beyond capacity. The RLDP transport evidence is incomplete, relies on limited datasets, and notably omits an Air Quality Assessment. Opportunities for active travel and public transport are indirect, poorly connected, or impractical. As a result, the allocation would promote highly car-dependent growth, leading to increased congestion and pollution, contrary to Planning Policy Wales and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act.

Drainage & Flood Risk
The developer's own drainage strategy identifies unresolved and potentially critical risks. These include the absence of NRW Product 6 data, significant discrepancies between flood model outputs and existing ground levels, uncertainty over downstream watercourse capacity, and soil conditions that render SuDS infiltration unviable. The requirement for approximately 9,580 m³ of attenuation raises serious concerns regarding land take and viability. Foul drainage proposals remain speculative and dependent on extensive off-site works. Overall, the evidence does not demonstrate that a workable or deliverable drainage solution exists.

Biodiversity & Ecological Constraints
The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal identifies multiple high-value ecological receptors, including Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland, Priority Hedgerows, bats, dormice, badgers, otters, reptiles, and Red-List protected ground-nesting birds. Given the scale and location of the proposed development, impacts cannot be adequately avoided, mitigated, or compensated. The site is therefore incapable of delivering the net benefit for biodiversity required by Planning Policy Wales, rendering the allocation fundamentally unsound.

Green Wedge & Landscape Character
The Council’s Technical Briefing Note misinterprets Planning Policy Wales by reducing Green Wedge assessment to a simplistic distance-based test, failing to consider the functional and visual role of the land. The 2015 Inspector concluded that this site is integral to maintaining openness and preventing coalescence. The land remains highly visible, contributes to the rural setting of Barry, and forms part of a continuous and sensitive landscape corridor. The justification for redefining the Green Wedge boundary is weak and would set a damaging precedent elsewhere in the Vale of Glamorgan.

Homes yes- but not like this and on this site.
The 2014 assessments conclusion development. At this locations would be detrimental to the capacity and free flow of the traffic, nothing has changed except that today the traffic is much heavier and already experiences significant congestion, especially during peak times. This route is the main road to Rhoose, St Athan and Cardiff Airport. Additional Zebra crossing/traffic lights needed for pedestrian safety will further add to queuing or delays. Will add to pollution. Risk of sewage entering the Millwood stream. Which is often close to flooding. The proposed ponds may have limited capacity. They may be effective on sandy soil. But here we have clay soil so not very effective for drainage. This site is not close to amenities walking to co-op and Tesco is not feasible when carrying shopping small children, and older people. I defy anyone but the young and superfit to walk from the nearest train station. The lowest point in Barry to the highest up very steep hills. Doctors surgery, dentists, schools are not within walking distance and are full. I urge you to put the people first and not £££££.

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.

This is just yet another application to build on this prime agricultural land. It was rejected in 2013 and the same reasons apply! In fact the traffic here at Waycock cross in now so bad that there will be complete gridlock from any more cars! We residents do not want or need any more houses. The wildlife will be effected (we regularly see foxes, bats, woodpeckers etc.) any future applications will be rigorously opposed by all residents.

I wish to object to the proposed development of approximately 380 homes on land adjacent to the A4226. My concerns are as follows:
1. Traffic and Road safety
The A4226 is a key route to Cardiff airport and the town centre, already congested at peak times. Additional traffic from 380 homes would worsen delays, reduce reliability and increase accident risk. New pedestrians crossing, while necessary would further interrupt traffic flow.
2. Strategic Access and Unsustainable Location
This route provides essential access to Cardiff access to Cardiff Airport. Increased congestion could effect passengers, staff and businesses. The site's location is likely to result in high car dependency, conflicting with sustainable transport principles in Planning Policy Wales.
3. Infrastructure and Environment
Existing drainage and sewage systems may not cope, risking overflows to the Millwood stream. The site supports protected species including bats and the development would cause habitat loss contrary to the biodiversity duty under the Envriomental (Wales) Act 2016.
4. Green Wedge and premature development
I object to the inclusion of this site within the green wedge in the RLDP. Green Wedges protect the open character of the countryside to prevent urban sprawl, and maintain separation between settlements. Development here would undermine these objectives. Combined with the local development plan still being under review, the proposal is premature and would result in permanent loss of greenfield land.
Conclusion: For these reasons, traffic, road safety, infrastructure pressures, environmental harm, unsustainable location, and loss of green wedge land- I ask that the council gives full weight to these concerns and refuses this application.

I oppose the Vale of Glamorgan Council Replacement Local Redevelopment Plan (RLDP), in particular the Weycock Cross, Barry development for the following reasons:

1. The consultation form and accompanying literature/reports is excessively lengthy, making it difficult for many individuals, especially those with health challenges and older adults, to engage effectively. This renders the consultation process inequitable.
2. While I agree that personal details of those commenting should be shared with relevant Council members, these should not be made public, I question the legality of this. The current policy discourages participation due to fears of backlash, undermining fairness.
3. Neither I nor several other residents were informed about the public consultation event at Barry Memo Arts Centre on Monday, 2nd February, which is unfair.
4. The term "unit" is undefined in the documents. Does it refer to an entire block of flats/apartments or a single flat within a block? Clarification is needed on the number of units/blocks and flats/apartments per block planned for the Weycock Cross, Barry and other sites.
5. The RLDP specifies a minimum of 30% affordable housing for the proposed Weycock Cross, Barry site which is substantial. However, the maximum percentage is not stated. What is the proposed maximum amount?
6. How much of the affordable housing will be acquired by the council or private entities and converted into social housing?
7. Regarding social housing occupancy - with VOG Council being a "county of sanctuary" and the Government's "Operation Scatter" initiative, how many individuals with illegal or uncertain immigration status or with indefinite leave to remain, will reside in Weycock Cross, Barry? This could significantly impact the area's culture.
8. How many Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMOs) will be established at Weycock Cross, Barry? What is the maximum number of occupants per HMO? This also relates back to point 7.
9. Traffic congestion is already a significant issue around Weycock Cross, Barry. Additional housing developments at Weycock Cross, Barry and surrounding areas (e.g. Rhoose, Llantwit Major, St Athan, etc.) will exacerbate this, increasing air pollution and affecting access to Cardiff Airport and access for emergency services.
10. Flooding is a serious concern. Areas like Porthkerry Park and the Millwood already experience significant flooding, which development at Weycock Cross would worsen, to potentially catastrophic levels.
11. Illegal sewage dumping is likely to increase with new developments, compounding environmental and health issues.
12. The loss of green spaces and wildlife habitats is troubling, especially given the ongoing ash dieback affecting Porthkerry Park and surrounding areas. Traffic has also resulted in otter fatalities.
13. According to the Council's report, there are insufficient primary school places to accommodate new housing developments.
14. Health and well-being facilities, such as GP surgeries, are inadequate to support additional residents, as noted in the Council's report.
15. Public transport is insufficient. The nearest train station, Barry, is a considerable distance away and requires an uphill walk. Bus services are infrequent, making car travel necessary. Walking to and from the town center is impractical.
16. Concerns exist regarding the use of Persimmon for this development, given past issues with fire regulation compliance at the White Farm, Barry development and legal action required to enforce infrastructure commitments at both the White Farm and the Barry Waterfront developments. What guarantees will the Council put in place to ensure this won't be repeated?

The proposed development (HG1 KS1 - Land at North West Barry) will put add significant pressure on the following areas: Congestion on Port Rd and Pontrypridd Roads will most certainly worsen. We believe emergency access will be more of an issues without considering additional exists routes. The existing pressure on services is not currently being met, and additional housing will inevitably add pressure to the already inadequate service provision (health, schools and infrastructure). The development does not meet the deliverable social infrastructure how will policy be implemented and met without this provision in the first instance. The proposal states the development is suited to older single persons, however the development proposed does not meet that need. There is an obvious oversight on this point. Mention of the green wedge lands with impacts to wildlife, has incorectly assumed (DNP2) as well as skylark activity (SP19) has not been taken into consideration. It is my opinion that the impact on the envrioment will be detrimental and irreversible. Not to mention the pollution (CC6). Most certainly a negative impact upon the use of the Welsh Language, due consideration should be given to -Pressure on schools and the accessibility to Welsh Schools
-Community impact and the existing Welsh speaking community with additional disruptions caused to networks. What measures, support and financial infrastructure will be available?
-The proposal fails to support the growth and expansion of Welsh Language.

The development proposed off Port Road West near Weycock Cross would only exacerbate the horrendous traffic congestion which exists now for residents on Pontrypridd Road and nearby streets. Tailbacks up the new five mile road, on port road coming from the direction of Rhoose and from the Colcot road roundabout and on Pontrypridd road itself are long, particularly at rush hours and when schools finish for the day as it is. Putting such a large development at Weycock Cross will only make the situation worse. Sometimes even away from rush hours the sheer volume on traffic causes large queues to circum navigate the roundabout and if the road traffic collision any where in the area leading to the roundabout the results congestion and tailback can affect the whole of Barry as it has on occasions due to the roadworks. Access from the new developments onto the busy Port Road West will be problematic and traffic lights or a further roundabout will cause further chaotic traffic congestion. As it is air quality is poor in the area with consequences on residents health particular people with asthma, COPD and heart disease. Most houses will have 2 cars I anticipate, further increasing pollution for residents. Also the developments are at least 1/2 hr walking distance from the rail station. Local schools are also fully subscribed now. Romilly school would be a good 20 min walk away for fit adults let alone children and parents pushing prams. In conclusion these developments are in the wrong place and too the detriment of the physical and mental health of the local population.

1. Traffic and congestion on Port Rd and Pontypridd road will worsen. This already a highly congested area. Especially on the school run both AM+PM. This will impact emergency access. The nearest train station is about a 30 minute walk.
2. Pressure on services
Pressure on health, schools and infrastructure. GP Dental and schools are already at or even over capacity, with waiting lists in place additional housing will exacerbate this.
3. 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 recreated. CC6-increasing frequent pollution alerts on our local beaches will worsen with development in this area.
Summary: Harm to transport and emergency access risk harm to social infrastructure both health and schools. Harm to environment.

For all these reasons, the KS1 housing development should be removed from the plan.

The measures suggested in the traffic mitigation packages' cannot possibly meaningfully ease the density of traffic that an added 700-900 cars entering almost directly onto the roundabout will bring. The current congestion and frequent gridlock will increase exponentially. This affects not only the residents on all the roads leading to, from and around the roundabout, but also all people travelling through it each and every day, not to mention its function as a main conduit for emergency vehicles passing between Barry, the airport and towns and villages further along the coast. No public transport links the site with shops, the railway station, the town centre, local schools or health services. Walking the long up and down route to the station and back is not feasible for the majority of residents. All who already live in the area know this. The new residents will drive everywhere.

The increased pressure that will be placed on health services, amenities and schools will break the systems. These are already overstretched. This site is not capable of offering its residents a good quality of life. It will however line the pockets of the developers.

The site already has flooding and drainage and foul water issues. Tarmacking over a large part of it will negatively impact this. Measures suggested by the developer will not resolve these. The flood risk and foul management strategies are incomplete. It seems that the culvert under the whole of Nant Talwg is not identified and is already backing up under heavy rainfall. The old system was not built to deal with climate change.

The KS1 NW Barry site is directly on a designated Green Wedge. This will not be a small group of dwellings but a housing estate of over 370 houses, extending the outer boundary of the town of Barry significantly, encroaching on the settlements of Rhoose. This was decisively rejected in the previous 2015 judgement of the suitability of the site for housing. No amount of word salad redefinitions will alter this fact. The arguments the council puts out for abandoning the Green Wedge at north west Barry would seem to be spurious, formulated to justify their own backtrackingon the reasons upheld for the Wedge in 2015. The loss of green space that housing and hardcore will replace is unforgivable. There will be less uncovered land to drain the increasing heavy rainfall. The impact on biodiversity will also be felt. Loss of habitat is a main reason for the drastic decline in wildlife species countrywide. Bats, field mice, otters, owls, raptors, wood pigeons and skylarks inhabit these fields. Swallows skim them in summer for the plethora of insects. Wrens and other small birds nest in the scrub and hedges surrounding them. From my garden I hear the songs of robins, wood pigeons, blackbirds, dunnocks, tits and goldfinches. Skylarks nest in them all through spring and summer, their songs lifting up into the air above us as they rise. These are endangered red-listed birds. Green woodpeckers probe our lawn, sparrow hawks sit on our wall, Jackdaws, crows and gulls circle the skies above us. Sometimes they are joined by buzzards or red kites. THIS is biodiversity.

lolo Williams, Wales' most famous wildlife protanganist, says in Tyr Natur : "Cymru is one of the most nature depleted countries on the planet and despite conservation efforts our wildlife is still in decline."

These Green Wedge fields act as a wildlife corridor, (essential for successful breeding and survival) between the country park and the further landscape of our beautiful Vale. Take it away and it is gone for good. Yet more numbers of species will be lost. Wildlife is not just a luxury. It is the web that supports the health and wellbeing of all creatures on this earth, ourselves included. We should not lightly throw away what is on our doorstep.

Finally for me, as an artist and a gardener this aspect is close to my heart. Landscape, vegetation and wildlife are key inspirations. I garden organically with care for biodiversity.

For all these reasons, the KS1 housing development should be removed from the plan.

Object

My second major concern is the specific KS1 Weycock Cross site. The need for housing is not the issue; it is rather where housing is situated and Weycock Cross KS1 is an inappropriate site. The reasons for this are clear. Weycock Cross is already a traffic pinch point, mentioned in Planning documents and previous inquiries in the 1990s and 2015, as being at or beyond capacity. The proposed 376 houses (on the KS1 site) will eventuate in up to 700 or more cars, whose only one exit/entrance (for schools, work, the station) will be directly onto Port Road, about 20 yards from Weycock Roundabout. Vale Planning suggest that a third lane just by the roundabout and a traffic light will solve the issue. However, two lanes along the whole length of Port Road remain two lanes, until immediately by the roundabout. Gridlock will therefore inevitably worsen. No evidence whatsoever is provided either on the effect of traffic lights, or the exit/entry point for the NW Barry KS1 site. This all remains blank. Further, over the next decade housing growth in St. Athan, Rhoose, Llantwit and airport expansion will funnel further sizeable increases in traffic into Port Road, on their way to Cardiff or the M4. This is a recipe for traffic chaos.

1Vale Planning present alleged evidence documents (well over a thousand dense technical pages on traffic). Puzzlingly nothing is said about how or when this supposed empirical evidence was collected. Documents BP14 and BP14A remain totally silent on this. The Persimmon traffic document indicates that "one" day in September 2023 was used. If the latter embodies their collection method, can it really be viewed as an accurate assessment, namely, one three-year-old snapshot on one day? Consequently the bulk of the highly technical-sounding data remains simply an unwieldy conjecture based on thin and dubious collection methods. Vale Planning admittedly do try to further alleviate this whole traffic issue by suggesting that walking and cycling will replace car use for those going to the station, Barry town, GPs and so forth. However this is unevidenced wishful thinking. A walk from Barry station to Weycock Cross is a tough 35-40-minute uphill push, totally impractical for the majority. Similarly the blunt Vale Planning statement that there are regular bus services from the Weycock site is not just wishful thinking it is just false and there is little to no prospect (in the current febrile financial environment) of any change. Vale Planning do need to stop hallucinating.

In addition to increasing traffic gridlock residents on Port Road, Pontypridd Road and Colcot Road already suffer high pollution and noise levels every weekday morning and evening from very slow moving or idling vehicles. No air quality studies have been undertaken at all by Vale Planning. Traffic pollution will only worsen with the KS1 site. Further, well over a thousand or more new residents from the site will be scrabbling for already way over-subscribed GP and Dental services, which, of course, they will travel to by car. Yet, Vale Planning keep articulating their proposals for KS1 as developing 'high quality places' that work for the 'benefit of community'. I simply fail to see this.

There are a number of further issues relating to, for example, the Green wedge. I attended the previous Public Inquiry in 2014/15 and paradoxically Planning defended the Green wedge (between Barry and Rhoose) as necessary to prevent urban sprawl and coalescence towards Rhoose. Planning have now performed a baffling volte face. The developer-based arguments they robustly denied in 2014 have now been enthusiastically embraced. KS1 and the green wedge seem only to figure now in current planning proposals because there was failure to purchase land on the preferred Northeast Barry site. Essentially, KS1 was dropped in at the last moment in December 2025 since it was just administratively easier to proceed with. The destruction of 'green wedge' in this context looks simply like the worst form of expediency. The wedge fields of well-utilised farmland, as well as preventing urban sprawl, also provide a core wild-life corridor into the Vale. They are also crucial areas for rainwater absorption in a time of both accelerating climate change and significantly increased precipitation. Residents are concerned already about problematic drainage, foul water and sewage capacity as it stands. All that Vale Planning have iterated is that Welsh Water and Persimmon are aware of the issues. This is simply not good enough.

A personal comment: I attended a council Scrutiny meeting in December 2025 where a vote was taken to remove KS1 from the RLDP. This proposal was rejected by a one vote majority. Despite the fact that certain Labour councillors spoke for its removal in the meeting, in the voting process they abstained. It appears that Labour whipping enforced the one vote majority. Without this whipping KS1 would have been removed. This could hardly be described as a glowing democratic endorsement of KS1's late inclusion in the RLDP.

I object to the plan to build 250 new homes on Cardiff Road, Dinas Powys

Main concern traffic congestion. Poor transport. Pollution.

Object. Too much traffic. Sewage issues/drainage problems. Bad pollution. Will not be safe. Children in danger. Parking issues for locals. No bus or trains link. This area will look like a ********. Greenland should be here for oxygen. Affordable housing attracts the wrong people and it puts the locals in danger. Traffic will be heavy. Parking. Sewage issues. Bad pollution. Not safe.

Traffic is already at full capacity (Pontypridd rd and roads connecting at Weycock cross roundabout) - dangerous.
Drainage problems already-only going to get worse
Not enough road space regardless of what gets done.
Unfair on onlooking houses views-land and greenery, residents paid money for views.
Greenery/land needs to be kept for agriculture and quality of society.
Not enough public transport (trains)-buses will only add to chaos if goes ahead anyway.
Pollution is already extremely bad. I can't open our windows black dust from road accumulating currently.
Parking is an issue already.
Unsafe to make main road even busier-families and elderly children.
Affordable housing attracts wrong demographic-residents pay for a nice area and have been paying/living here for years-I don't want to live in any less of a nice area as CF62 *** is currently!
More housing isn't needed-modern times are calling for going back to growing own food and using land for this. Busiest roundabout currently-connecting to airport etc.
Ambulances ongoing continuously. Health Hazard for many of the above reasons.

Object

Object

Beth fydd yr effaith ar ansawdd yr aer?

How Will air quality be affected?

- Dim cynllunio nac amserlen ar gyfer pwysau ychwanegol ar feddygon, ysgolion ayyb.
- Mae Ffordd Pontypridd yn brysur iawn yn barod fel un o’r prif ffyrdd i mewn i’r Barri ac mae’n agos at y ffordd i’r Maes Awyr. Mae’r gorsaf drên tua 30 munud i ffwrdd ac nid yw’n ffordd wastad
- Cais blaenorol tebyg yn 2013 wedi ei wrthod, felly beth sy’n wahanol y tro yma?
-Y tir yn Green Wedge Land – felly bydd unrhyw ddatblygiad yn cael effaith negyddol. Ble fydd y dŵr yn mynd, gan gofio ein bod yn cael llawer o law.
-Effaith negyddol os yw’n golygu bod llawer o bobl o’r tu allan i’r gymuned yn symud i mewn i’r ardal.
- Oes lle yn yr ysgolion cyfrwng Cymraeg am fwy o ddysgwyr?
- Oes cynllunio tymor hir wedi bod o ran cynyddu’r ddarpariaeth ar gyfer addysg Gymraeg.
- A fydd teuluoedd ifanc (lleol) yn gallu fforddio prynu’r tai, ac felly anfon eu plant i’r ysgolion lleol?


-No plans or timetable regarding additional strain on doctors, schools, etc.
- Pontypridd Road is already extremely busy as it is one of the main roads into Barry and is close to the Airport. The train station is about 30 minutes away and is not an even road.
-A similar proposal yn 2013 was rejected, so what’s different this time?
- The land is Green Wedge Land, therefore any development will have a negative effect. Where will the water go, considering we have a lot of rain.
- The effect will be negative if it means a lot of people outside the community moving into the area.
- Is there room in the Welsh school for more learners?
- Has there been long term planning with regards to increasing Welsh education provision?
- Will young (Local) families be able to afford to buy these houses, and therefore send their children to the local schools?

Overall traffic congestion @ times, Weycock cross affects all along Port Rd and adjoining roads, making travel difficult. Emergency vehicle access will be affected. The RLDP is insufficient and contradicts itself its not suitable. This will add pressure to local services, it's already hard enough to secure a Dr's appointment. The previously refused planning attempt does not seem to be mitigated-with a lot of faith being put into the housing company. Green wedge land-should be preserved.

I object to the proposed development @ Weycock Cross due to the following.
1. Increased traffic on roads which are already heavily congested. Previous study over many years indicated poor transport link to the airport and vale areas. There has been no improvement of the road from Barry to Rhoose. This congestion will be increased by this development and aggravated by additional housing in the Vale.
2. Increased delay to emergency services
3. Environmental loss of green spaces, increased water run off with the risk of pollution/flooding in Porthkerry Country Park
4. Increased pressure on local infrastructure of health care and schools

I object to the above inclusion in the RLDP. This development has previously been confused and since this nothing has changed for the better. Traffic is worse increasing pollution for local residents. Flooding has increased and will get worse with the removal of green wedge land and hedgerows. Along with flooding will come increased pollution to the streams in the country park. Pressure on services in the Vale will increase including on schools meaning people travelling further and more congestion. Weycock Cross is the main route into the airport and the route for emergency fire/ambulance gridlock on this junction will have an adverse safety implication.

As a long term resident of this area (nearly 50 years) it has become obvious to me that the volume of traffic is currently over capacity. Walking along the length of Pontypridd road and onto port road, the traffic fumes are evident and unpleasant. I am disappointed that plans, turned down, previously, have been overturned. The problems are much much worse. I note that run off from the development and roads will make its way into the nant stream and eventually into Porthkerry Park. This stream already has sewage making its way from the overworked Pumping Station, during heavy rain!! Therefore environmental impact will be compounded by excess water run off. The extreme amount of houses and buildings proposed is much bigger than the original.

I think the whole RLDP needs looking at again as its not helping the huge traffic congestion that is facing this town each day. The location of the proposed 376 houses at Weycock Cross in particular, needs to be taken out of the scheme. It is too close to a major roundabout and then routes to Rhoose, Llantwit Major and Cardiff Airport. It is also at the cross-section to Five Mile Lane, Port Road and Pontrypridd Road are also major roads in Barry and they all converge at this location. As a rep for surfers against sewage in the Vale of Glamorgan, I am aware of the pressures on the current sewage systems in Barry, which eventually are pumped into the sea at Barry Island. Due to climate change and an increase in rainfall, is resulting in flooding and pollution.

The proposal must be rejected in its current form. Any future development must demonstrate full compliance with national planning policy, provide new educational and healthcare infrastructure, deliver genuine environmental protection, and ensure that Barry’s community, infrastructure, and environment are not placed under unsustainable pressure.

I submit a formal and unequivocal objection to the proposed residential development of approximately 376 dwellings on the 18.73 hectare site at North West Barry. While the need for housing, including affordable housing, is acknowledged, the scale and location of this development will place unacceptable and unsustainable pressure on existing infrastructure, public services, educational provision, and the natural environment. The proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of Welsh planning policy and does not demonstrate that the town of Barry possesses the capacity to absorb such a significant population increase without serious and long-lasting harm.

**Conflict with Welsh Planning Policy**Under Planning Policy Wales, development must follow the principles of sustainable placemaking and ensure that infrastructure, services, and environmental protections are in place to support population growth. The proposal fails to meet these fundamental requirements.

Planning Policy Wales states that development must:

* Deliver sustainable locations with adequate infrastructure * Protect and enhance biodiversity and green infrastructure * Avoid placing unacceptable pressure on public services * Promote sustainable transport and reduce reliance on private vehicles

The current proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with these principles. No clear, binding commitments exist to deliver the infrastructure, educational capacity, healthcare provision, or environmental protections required to support 376 additional dwellings.

Furthermore, the Future Wales - The National Plan 2040 emphasises sustainable growth, protection of green infrastructure networks, and resilience to climate change. The large-scale development of open land on the edge of Barry directly conflicts with these objectives.

*Severe Pressure on Local Schools*

The proposed development will directly intensify existing pressures on local educational facilities. Schools within Barry already operate under high levels of demand, with waiting lists and limited capacity in several year groups.

Secondary schools such as *Whitmore High School* Pencoedtre High School* and *Ysgol Gymraeg Bro Morgannwg** already serve expanding catchment areas and face increasing enrolment pressure.

The addition of approximately 376 dwellings will generate a substantial number of additional school- aged children. Without the construction of new school facilities or significant expansion of existing schools, classroom overcrowding will intensify, waiting lists will expand, and local families will face reduced access to education within their community.

Planning authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that adequate educational provision exists before large residential developments are approved. This proposal fails to demonstrate that sufficient educational infrastructure accompanies the planned housing.

*Inadequate Healthcare Capacity**

Primary healthcare services in Barry already experience substantial demand. Local GP surgeries operate under capacity constraints and residents routinely experience extended waiting times for appointments.

The addition of hundreds of new households will significantly increase demand for GP services, dental care, community health provision, and pharmacy access. Without the simultaneous development of new healthcare facilities and additional medical staff, residents will experience worsening access to essential healthcare services.

This directly contradicts the planning principle that population growth must be matched with proportional expansion of public service capacity.**Transport Congestion and Infrastructure Failure*

The proposal recognises that *Weycock Cross Roundabout** already experiences significant congestion during peak commuting hours. This junction serves as a critical traffic node for the town and regularly experiences heavy queues.

The development will generate a substantial increase in daily vehicle movements connecting to A4226 Port Road West* intensifying congestion and reducing road safety.

Transport studies across the United Kingdom consistently show that new suburban housing developments increase vehicle dependency and traffic volumes. The Department for Transport** reports that suburban households typically generate multiple car journeys per day, particularly where employment centres are located outside the immediate area.

Incremental modifications to junction layouts do not address the structural limitation of a road network already operating close to capacity. Increased congestion results in longer commute times, greater accident risk, and elevated vehicle emissions.

*Environmental Damage and Biodiversity Loss**

The development site currently provides open land which contributes to ecological stability, wildlife habitats, and natural biodiversity. Urban development of this land will permanently disrupt ecosystems, fragment habitats, and reduce biodiversity levels.

The *Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change** identifies land-use change and urban expansion as major contributors to biodiversity decline and environmental degradation. Once natural landscapes are replaced with housing infrastructure, ecological restoration becomes extremely difficult.

Furthermore, research from the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology** demonstrates that green spaces surrounding towns provide essential ecological services including flood mitigation, carbon storage, air purification, and wildlife corridors.

Development of the site undermines these environmental functions. Even when partial open space remains within housing developments, ecological quality declines significantly due to human disturbance, light pollution, and habitat fragmentation.

*Flood Risk and Drainage Concerns**

Open land naturally absorbs rainfall and reduces surface water runoff. Replacing permeable land with roads, roofs, and hard surfaces increases the risk of surface water flooding.

Research from the Environment Agency demonstrates that urban expansion significantly increases stormwater runoff, placing pressure on drainage systems and increasing flood risk in surrounding areas.

As extreme weather events become more frequent due to climate change, preserving permeable green land becomes increasingly important for managing water flow and protecting surrounding communities.*Climate Change and Carbon Impact**

Large-scale housing developments increase construction emissions, energy consumption, and long- term transport emissions. Construction materials such as concrete and steel generate significant carbon emissions during production.

The Climate Change Committee has emphasised the need for the UK to reduce emissions associated with land-use change and construction in order to meet legally binding climate targets.

Encouraging further suburban expansion that relies heavily on private vehicle travel conflicts with national climate commitments and undermines sustainable development objectives.

Loss of Local Character and Community Identity**

Barry possesses a distinctive character shaped by its historic development pattern, surrounding landscapes, and established communities. Rapid large-scale residential expansion risks eroding this identity and replacing it with dense housing estates disconnected from the town's traditional structure.

Sustainable placemaking requires balanced development that integrates infrastructure, community facilities, and green space. Housing-led expansion without equivalent investment in social infrastructure undermines community cohesion and reduces overall quality of life.

**Impact on Existing Residents*

Residents already living in the surrounding area will experience significant and direct negative impacts including:

* Increased traffic congestion and road safety risks * Overcrowding within local schools * Reduced access to healthcare services * Increased noise and air pollution * Loss of nearby green space and natural landscape * Additional pressure on public services and community resources

These consequences directly reduce the quality of life for existing residents who rely on already stretched local infrastructure.

*Conclusion**

The proposed development at North West Barry fails to satisfy the fundamental requirements of sustainable planning under Welsh national policy. It places severe pressure on schools, healthcare services, transport infrastructure, and environmental resources while offering no credible guarantees that these systems will expand proportionally.

The development also conflicts with national environmental objectives, contributes to biodiversity loss, increases flood risk, and undermines climate commitments.

For these reasons the proposal must be rejected in its current form. Any future development must demonstrate full compliance with national planning policy, provide new educational and healthcareinfrastructure, deliver genuine environmental protection, and ensure that Barry's community, infrastructure, and environment are not placed under unsustainable pressure.

* Accessibility and Fair Consultation Concern**

The consultation process for this proposed development raises serious concerns regarding accessibility and fairness. The objection form provided for public responses is difficult to access and not user-friendly, which creates a barrier for residents wishing to participate in the consultation. Under * *Town and Country Planning (Local Development Plan) (Wales) Regulations 2005 , planning authorities must ensure that consultation procedures are accessible and allow meaningful public participation. Additionally, the principles of public participation set out within Planning Policy Wales** require planning authorities to provide clear, transparent, and inclusive consultation opportunities so that all members of the community can engage with the planning process.

Where consultation mechanisms are difficult to locate, inaccessible, or overly complex to use, this restricts the ability of residents to submit representations and undermines the legitimacy of the consultation process. Public consultation must be conducted in a manner that is fair, transparent, and genuinely accessible to the community affected by the proposed development. If residents face barriers when attempting to submit objections or feedback, the consultation cannot be considered fully compliant with the principles of meaningful public engagement required in the planning process.

Causes harm to woodland- dormouse are endangered. Traffic is already bad. Not enough dentists- mine is in Swansea as I can't get one in Barry.

I object to the increase in Traffic

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.

Disagree/object
HG1 - KS1 Land at North West Barry:

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.