Do not build these extra houses. Improve the facilities for the existing population in Barry. That's what the council should be doing.

I object to the 376 houses that are planned near Weycock Cross. Several times each day Port Road, Pontypridd Road and Colcot Road are gridlocked with the high volumes of traffic. Adding extra people/traffic will only make the problem worse.
In addition, there is a severe lack of resources. Doctors, Dentists, Schools, etc. Barry is full!

I oppose the council’s proposal to build housing on this alreadybusy road because it will worsen traffic congestion and reduce safety for residents. The road already struggles to cope with current traffic levels, and additional housing will increase vehicle numbers, causing delays and pressure on local infrastructure. The development would also remove valuable active farmland that supports local agriculture and the rural character of the area. Once this land is lost, it cannot be replaced. These concerns represent only a small number of the issues this development would create, negatively affecting the community’s environment, sustainability, and overall quality of life.

May I respectfully register my.objection to the planned development by the Vale of Glamorgan Council to build 449 houses at Weycock Cross the the following reasons:

1. There is no planned upgrade to the road infrastructure in the area.
2. It is on top of other developments planned for Rhoose compounding the issue above.
3. It is building on a green site,.which will cause drainage and flooding issues. There are many brown sites available with less impact.
4. It will overload an already oversubscribed primary care provision in Barry and the wider Vale.
5. The transport links just do not exist to support the development. the developers statement that not everyone will be on the road at the same time is illogical as an argument to build. Profit over common sense.
6. The council have not properly considered the environmental impact.
7. There has not been a wider reasonable consultation across all media channels with public meetings by the Council, it is clear that linking all developments together will place an unsustainable strain on the community, it's cohesiveness and the aforementioned infrastructure.
8. The education system will not cope with the huge influx of people.

There are many more considerations, but these are those that will result in the highest impact.to residents including me and my family.

Refuse this site unless and until demonstrable, funded infrastructure solutions and sustainable transport provisions are secured.

To: Planning Department
Vale of Glamorgan Council

I wish to formally object to the proposed residential development at Weycock Cross. My objection is based on conflict with the Local Development Plan (LDP), Planning Policy Wales (PPW), and placemaking and sustainability principles.

1. Infrastructure Capacity – Foul Drainage and Sewerage
Planning Policy Wales requires that development be supported by adequate infrastructure. There are ongoing concerns locally regarding sewage capacity and environmental discharges. Approving additional housing without confirmed and fully funded upgrades to wastewater infrastructure risks placing unacceptable strain on the system.

Development should not proceed where essential infrastructure is demonstrably insufficient or where it risks environmental harm. Without clear evidence of capacity improvements, the proposal is premature and contrary to sustainable development principles.

2. Loss of Productive Agricultural Land
The site comprises active, productive farmland. Planning Policy Wales emphasises the protection of the best and most versatile agricultural land and supports sustainable land use.

At a time when the UK is seeking greater food resilience and reduced reliance on imports, the irreversible loss of productive farmland undermines long-term sustainability objectives. The proposal conflicts with the principle of safeguarding rural resources for future generations.

3. Highway Capacity and Severe Traffic Impact
Weycock Cross already experiences significant congestion. Peak-time journeys from Rhoose to Whitmore commonly take up to 45 minutes. The junction is operating under strain, and additional housing will inevitably increase traffic movements.

Under placemaking principles, development should not create unacceptable impacts on existing communities. Without substantial and deliverable highway improvements, the cumulative impact on traffic flow, safety, and community wellbeing would be severe.

4. Air Quality and Public Health
Increased congestion results in prolonged idling and higher emissions. This has direct consequences for air quality and public health. Planning Policy Wales promotes development that minimises pollution and protects health.

Approving development that exacerbates existing congestion contradicts these policy aims and undermines environmental quality for current and future residents.

5. Unsustainable Location and Poor Public Transport Provision
The site is not sustainably connected. The only bus service serving the area is the 304, which is unreliable and does not provide comprehensive connectivity. There are no meaningful cycle provisions and limited safe active travel infrastructure.

Welsh planning policy prioritises sustainable transport and reducing reliance on private vehicles. Given the limited public transport and active travel options, future residents would be heavily car-dependent. This is inconsistent with national and local transport sustainability objectives.

Conclusion
The proposal:

1. Places additional strain on already stretched infrastructure
2. Results in the permanent loss of productive farmland
3. Exacerbates severe congestion at Weycock Cross
4. Worsens air quality and environmental conditions
5. Fails to meet sustainable transport and placemaking principles

For these reasons, the development conflicts with the Local Development Plan and Planning Policy Wales. I respectfully request that the Vale of Glamorgan Council refuse this application unless and until demonstrable, funded infrastructure solutions and sustainable transport provisions are secured.

Yours faithfully,
Martyn Grey.

These houses will spoil the rural view from my property. The volume of cars and traffic will be dangerous for area already densely populated. We do not have the infrastructure for that number of houses to be built

I live on The Crescent, off Pontypridd Road. It is already extremely difficult to turn right onto Pontypridd Road between about 7:30am and 9am and between 5pm and 6:30pm. Turning left is also frequently a problem, relying on the kindness of drivers letting you in. During the day, outside of the peak times, Pontypridd Road is very busy and there are frequent tailbacks of cars from the traffic lights by Severn Avenue. The proposed development will exacerbate these problems enormously. In addition, the emissions from the additional traffic will constitute a major health hazard to existing residents (with strong potential for an independent analysis and legal action against the Vale Council if such concerns are ignored or minimised).

There is also a concern over the junction at Weycock Cross. This is already proving to be problematic at peak times, with traffic tailing back in all directions. More houses and more cars and other vehicles will inevitably make this much worse, adding to the environmental pollution experienced.

Alongside the issues above, the necessary socio-economic infrastructure to support the development of some 360 plus homes is missing.

Education and medical facilities in the area are already stretched. There is no indication of how this will be addressed to ensure appropriate access to all local residents.

The sewage and water pipes are also struggling to cope with existing demand (witness the problems that occurred with the housing development above the Millwood Bowling and around Cwm Barry Way). There will need to be major upgrades of all facilities, with resulting disruption especially where underground water pipes need to be replaced.

These issues need to be included in any evaluation of the proposals and must bring doubt as to their viability.

Are you going to be asking schools to open their breakfast clubs earlier, to give people stuck in all the traffic this and the other developments a chance to get to work, somewhere near their start times? Will you also be providing more breakfast club spaces? These breakfast clubs are essential for people to stay employed, with all of these new people these spaces like all of our dwindling infrastructure will be a fight to get hold off. Everything you are doing is causing the people of Barry additional stress and life is difficult enough.

The traffic around Weycock Cross gives rise to queues and traffic jams on a daily basis currently. If the volume of houses you are currently looking to site in this area are built, the traffic problems will obviously increase exponentially. You say this will be addressed by Persimmon, but do not say how. I cannot see , no matter how competent they are as builders, they can conjure the land to provide additional road area to relieve the current problems let alone the problems the additional housing will create.

Currently grid lock at certain times of day, with traffic lights installed.
Consider impact on emergency services needed for 5 mile lane and airport.
Shall get much worse with housing development proposed.
Pollution levels need monitoring now- increasing with future house building.
Stop raping Vales green belt.
Leave for future generations to enjoy.
No more destruction of wildlife habitat.
Build only on brown sites.Demolish incinerator and build there.
Where are extra surgeries/ schools proposed to accommodate this over development?

Finding another site

Traffic in the weycock cross area is already an issue. Adding more houses will only add to this issue. Getting to the school on port road is already timely. Also people going to the airport will have problems. This area is not ideal for extra houses.

Try and find another location a bit further away.

Wrong location for houses, this is already a very busy roundabout where traffic cannot cope. This is going to cause chaos for the local residents and businesses.

I oppose all developments around Weycock Cross and Highlight Park, as they harm local wildlife and green spaces and would significantly increase traffic on Port Road. I believe enlarging lanes at Weycock Cross roundabout will not effectively reduce congestion. Additionally, there is no information on how the growing population will access healthcare or education, and public transport in the area is minimal. Overall, I see these developments as detrimental to the environment and community infrastructure.

Infrastructure will not cope with the proposal. More traffic, poor location. Not sustainable

Don't build in an already overdeveloped area.

Too much traffic, roads can't cope already. Weycock cross is dangerous for road users, the roundabout is poorly designed. We don't want more houses here.

The plan needs to be halted until infrastructure is improved massively

More housing in a already congested area is going to cause gridlock for traffic around waycock cross coming from all directions, it's already at breaking point as it is.
There are times its taking 40-50 minutes to get into Barry from Rhoose as it is.
There would need to be huge improvements to the road infrastructure before more housing is eventually considered in this area

My overwhelming sense is that the KS1 site should be removed from the RLDP plans. There are many reasons for this, which I discuss in futher comments. However the chosen developers, Persimmon, have shown themselves to be untrustworthy in honouring contracted commitments, as seen in relation to their construction on the Barry Waterfront. They also have a dismal record on the quality of their construction countrywide. It is widely reported as shoddy. How can it be responsible for a Labour administration to even consider entrusting them not to cause real damage on what is a very sensitive site?

The site at Weycock Cross site (NW Barry) is NOT served by ANY existing viable public transport routes. There is no adequate sustainable transport connectivity other than by car on already massively over congested roads. Walking and cycling to major destinations such as the rail station, schools, Barry town or leisure center is totally impractical for the majority of residents particularly in poor weather conditions. The roundabout at Weycock Cross was recognised in previous Public Inquiries as at or beyond capacity (even by Vale Planning). The KS1 site will only worsen this traffic chaos. It is not a sustainable site.

North West Barry is not an appropriate site for this (KS1) housing development. It is not served by ANY public transport services. Ask the people who live there! Traffic congestion is horrific. Noise and pollution are already at unacceptable levels. Services (health, schooling, drainage and sewerage..) are at breaking point for existing residents. Hundreds more new ones would be ill-served by being housed at this location and the strain on existing ones would be severely increased.

Community infrastructure at Weycock Cross is sadly lacking in terms of Health provision and public transport. Accessing GP appointments is a nightmare. Our surgery is already oversubscribed. NO buses currently serve us from the Weycock roundabout to either the station or to the town centre. In order to access either we must use a car. I am in my 80s. Walking to and from the station is not an option for me, or for young families with prams or toddlers, either to the station or to the supermarket. I have raised 4 children. I know what is possible.

The Weycock Cross KS1 site lacks "any" transport infrastructure (this has been the case for the last fifteen years) and vague promises are simply not adequate in a time of local government financial austerity. There are no buses to the Rail station or Barry town and no adequate or regularized links to Cardiff from KS1. Walking to any such faculties is just plain silly. Port Road and Pontypridd Road are already over congested and over-polluted with cars. 376 houses with up to 700 potential cars and over a 1000 (potentially) extra residents can only worsen an already parlous situation.

Re KSI: at the Public Inquiry in 2014/15 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 wedge fields of well-utilised farmland, as well as preventing urban sprawl, also provide a wild-life corridor into the Vale. They are crucial areas for rainwater absorption at a time of accelerating climate change and significantly increased precipitation. Drainage and sewage capacity are already struggling. Vale Planning simply note that Welsh Water and Persimmon are aware of the issues. This is not good enough.

The KS1 plan needs to be scrapped. It is the wrong place for this development.

Our home has been on the outer boundary of the town of Barry for over 70 years, facing open farmland, and formerly designated as Green Wedge. This is clearly 'countryside' and falls into category 2 Policy HG5.
The loss of green space that housing and hardcore will replace is unforgivable. Loss of habitat is a main reason for the drastic decline in wildlife species countrywide.
The environmental destruction and inevitable increase in pollution at an existing 'pinch point' make this development a potential disaster for existing residents. Their needs cannot be brushed aside in order to fill 'Quota' housing lists.

The Weycock Cross site is NOT compatible with the wider surroundings. it will result in loss of natural features and radically change the character of our setting. In particular it will impact the existing local community by way of noise, pollution, and hugely increased traffic congestion. We live opposite the roundabout. Our front doors open onto the noise and pollution of congested traffic. Meanwhile new housing development will eliminate the wildlife corridor between the country park and the existing boundary.

The Weycock Cross (KS1) - there is NO sustainable existing transport infrastructure other than by car on already overly-congested roads. KS1 site is on open actively-utilized farmland (arable and livestock). The proposed development neither gels with existing housing nor will it contribute anything but more cars and excessive demands for already over-subscribed services (such as GPs). Planning indicate that they have consulted the NHS, but no guarantees have been given of any amelioration. Overall the KS1 site will increase problems for basic services, generate more noise, pollution and traffic congestion and will be environmentally destructive of an ancient greenfield site.

HG1 KS1 (NW Barry site). The suggestion that "Placemaking" will create 'quality places that benefit residents and visitors through a holistic approach to planning, design.... aiming to create vibrant, memorable, and social places', is meaningless verbiage. The KS1 site was chosen because Planning could not easily obtain their preferred site in NE Barry. KS1 (opportunistically) was easier to acquire and fill up a pre-set housing quota. There has been no "listening" consultation, rather a series of rephrased ultimatums from Planning. The well-being of existing residents WILL be affected detrimentally by traffic increase, pollution, noise and excessive strain on all services.

It is hard to see how the current proposal for Weycock Cross will enhance the lives of existing residents or new ones, when the pollution levels of the air we/they will all breathe will be so badly affected by the intensity of traffic flow (or lack of!)
Currently local services and facilities are neither easily accessible nor well connected within the existing community. A large additional housing estate will put further strain on these, and the whole system is likely to fail for everyone. This is not responsible planning.

Re NW Barry HS1 KS1: the idea that traffic movements can be mitigated is unproven guesswork. There is a long-standing recognition, accepted by earlier Councils/Planning in the 1990s and 2014, that Port Road is a pinch-point, already at capacity. Minor widening at Weycock roundabout and traffic lights will not mitigate this. No evidence is given either for the KS1 site Port Road entrance/exit or the effect of traffic lights. Two lanes remains two lanes. Further, the argument that there will be 'no unacceptable impacts on public and residential amenity, particularly regarding privacy, ..... security, noise and disturbance', is patently false.

Three out of five Placemaking Objectives completley rule out the suitability of the Weycock Cross site, particularly in relation to Location and Movement. This development is in direct contravention of the stated principles. No mitigation packages as suggested can possibly offset the glaring issues that arise from the inevitable increase in traffic as well as the need for additional services. Health, transport, drainage, sewerage measures are mere unsubstantiated promises. Lip service only is applied to environmental protection. Loss of privacy and security, increase in noise and disturbance are what is in store for existing residents. They appear not to matter.

If 6.53 PGD2 'supports the residential development at higher densities particularly where these proposals are located within urban centres and near major public transport nodes or interchanges and where these can assist in supporting local services and facilities', I cannot see how the proposed density for the North West Barry site fulfills any of the above conditions. This site is NOT within an urban centre and presently has no public transport links to shops, railway station or health centres. It is a greenfield site. If 'greenfield' does not mean green fields what else does it mean?

The density of building on the HG1 KS1 site - 376 houses (previously in 2015 it was 200) is incompatible not only with the existing building in this area, but it entails a wide range of unresolved problems on traffic increases, transport, road gridlock, overburdened existing Health services, water, drainage and sewerage impacts. Planning speak very vaguely of conversations with NHS and West water etc, but NOTHING substantive exists. The Planning documentation is replete with vague promises which in the current financial climate remain vague hopes. I do hope some sense of realism can eventually prevails somewhere.