KS1 is directly on a designated Green Wedge. This is not 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. No amount of word salad redefinitions will alter this fact. So where is the 'additional protection'. (6.417)
It seems that meeting housing quotas takes priority over common sense and care for residents. This is an inappropriate development and the presumption against it should be upheld.

The RLDP views KS1 land as “unnecessary” because the "wedge" is still 2.28–2.5 km wide. This contradicts the 2015 Planning Inspector who found KS1 forms an integral part of the pastoral landscape and plays a key role in maintaining openness. Openness, not distance, is the core attribute of a Green Wedge. Distance is not the measure of coalescence. The RLDP misinterprets national policy by reducing it to kilometres. For RLDP the edge is “poor quality”, so is acceptable to build on. A poor edge however strengthens, not weakens, the case for retaining openness and enforcing settlement containment. Further it is illogical to argue that the because the Green Wedge has already been weakened, it should be weakened further. The Inspector previously confirmed the land contributes to both openness and the perception of separation.

I object to the proposed development at Weycock Cross, Barry because the developer’s own Preliminary Drainage Strategy shows that the site has major flood risk and drainage problems that have not been resolved. Certain areas of the development land are already at risk of surface water flooding and NRW flood mapping shows local watercourse flooding within parts of the developable area. Several residents already experience flooding into their gardens, and fear that any increase will compromise their homes. There is no proper assessment of hazard rating.

Noise, vibration and pollution are already at unacceptable levels for those facing the congested roads. Light pollution from a new housing delopment will adversely affect nocturnal species that cross this corridor. This development will most definitely result in an unacceptable impact on people, residential amenity, property and the natural environment.

I totally object to this development on various grounds:
1) Declared green wedge land should remain that and not built on
2) Area infrastructure totally inadequate for current levels of traffic let alone future levels. The report states levels of a 25% increase. This goes against SSC1 development within settlement boundaries, item 9. "It would unacceptably impact upon the amenity and character of locality by way of noise, pollution, traffic congestion and parking." Traffic increase around schools (Romilly, Colcot, Ysgol Saint Curig) have all raised safety issues around school runs.
3) There has been no improved access to medical/doctors and dentists in the area.
4) The Argument that 6000 families need housing in the area doesn't add up to what is affordable in particular groups.
5) The redesign of the roundabout and extra slip road makes for those houses accessing onto the roundabout more dangerous that is already is.
Barry is being seen as an area of growth. But growth can only be achieved if the surrounding area can achieve it. In my view the large scale housing developments being proposed only benefit the council financially, they will swamp an already choking infrastructure. Most of the large employers have gone, the largest remaining is slowly reducing capacity so people looking for jobs need to travel, so this just adds to road congestion. Maybe planners need to look at how to reduce congestion in areas where traffic flows at less than 5mph first and not add to the existing problems.

The site should be removed from the LDP, there has bee little thought for existing residents who pay high rates of council tax.
The site is too far out & will encourage use of private vehicles for all journeys.
The site is not in keeping with the Council's pledge to reduce loss of green spaces & biodiversity.
Building on the site will affect the well being of existing residents by increased traffic, longer commutes & competition for healthcare appointments, also the disruption when building taking place..
The increase traffic will not encourage new businesses & will cause problems for emergency services.
The site will significantly slow down the flow of traffic, cause frustration & possible accidents with the proposed number of sets of lights. the road structure should be in place before any building work commenced.

Increased traffic problems with flawed solutions & the mitigation measures proposed will not meet the long term traffic capacity requirements.
The public transport in the area is insufficient there is no mention of increased bus services -this will increase reliance on private cars.
Increased population in the area will aggravate existing wait times for health care.
There will be a need for more school places. All schools are not within reasonable walking distance & will increase the use of cars.
Development will encroach in the green wedge - what has changed since the last LDP.
Totally unacceptable.

The drainage report confirms that certain areas of the development land are already at high risk of surface water flooding. NRW flood mapping shows strong possibilities of local watercourse flooding. NRW’s detailed Product 6 flood data is not available, meaning there is no numerical assessment of depth, velocity, or hazard rating. This omission makes it impossible to determine if there is safe access/egress during a flood event, whether proposed levels will displace water, or whether the attenuation system is correctly sized. Without this essential dataset, no defensible flood risk assessment can be completed. The drainage report acknowledges differences of up to 2.5 metres between the site’s topographical survey and NRW flood model outputs. Such a discrepancy is extreme. This means the modelled flood outlines may be wholly incorrect. A site with such substantial mapping errors should not be advanced to allocation. The capacity of the central watercourse is unknown and no evidence exists on either the open channel or culvert(s). If this watercourse lacks capacity, the result would be flooding of new homes and existing homes. KS1 site comprises slowly permeable, seasonally wet loamy and clay soils, with impeded drainage. Infiltration rates are expected to be too low to meet BRE365 standards. KS1 runoff must be discharged to the watercourse. This places huge pressure on the ditch and culvert. Reliance on a single outfall in these conditions is high risk. The land naturally produces high runoff and is hydrologically very sensitive. Overland flow from neighbouring farmland already enters the site. This means the drainage design must reroute external water as well as onsite runoff. Foul drainage all remains entirely unconfirmed - with all options requiring major off site works. The strategy presents multiple foul disposal options, all of which are speculative. This means that even if surface water solutions were viable (which they are not), the foul network may be unable to support the development, creating uncertainty and risk. The strategy is incomplete, with many critical elements remaining “to be confirmed”. Key required data and assessments are missing, including: BRE365 infiltration testing, downstream culvert surveys, Watercourse capacity assessment, confirmation of foul capacity from Welsh Water. A site cannot be allocated when its fundamental drainage viability is still unproven: flood mapping is unreliable; flood risk data is missing; outfall capacity is untested; foul drainage has no confirmed solution. These issues represent fundamental constraints. The site should therefore not be allocated within the RLDP.

NW Barry site: I simply cannot understand how putting 376 new houses in the open green farm land (with accompanying street lamps etc) will enhance Dark Skies for existing residents, increase biodiversity, ecological connectivity and landscape character. Such a proposition is beyond my comprehension.

The Weycock Site North west Barry needs to be removed.
If the Weycock site is included the road needs improvement allowing for laybys for bus stops & a lane for emergency vehicles especially for incidents at the airport.
All other sites need to be revisited & consideration be given to increasing housing in other areas of the Vale. This will ensure Barry residents do not see an increase in waiting times for heath care, lack of school places & increase in traffic & pollution.

Weycock Cross site - this site is too far out & will encourage use of cars & increase pollution. English, non faith primary schools are too far to reasonably walk to as is the train station especially for parents having to drop children off on way to work. Bus service inadequate.
Cars will be used for shopping.
This site was previously a green wedge, why has it changed?
The little countryside Barry has is being destroyed & the noise, pollution & increased traffic will have a negative impact on the local residents & their well being.

Weycock Cross needs to be removed from the LDP.
The Senedd decreed the site should not be built on in 2015. What has changed?
All other sites should be revisited.
The council should look at other ways to engage residents in these consultations. Older residents who do not have access to social media & are not computer literate are not able to easily have their opinions heard.

The Weycock Cross site will increase traffic as all amenities are too far away or are not easy to access i.e the Co-op which means crossing busy roads & a busy garage forecourt. English, non faith schools too far to walk with small children & usually dropped off on the way to work. The majority of people will use cars for ease & to save time.
This site should be retained as a green wedge for the well being of the local residents & enhance the outskirts of the town retaining it's identity.

Unfortunately, I am experiencing great difficulty in accessing the online consultation portal to enable me to comment on this developments. So, I would like you to accept this letter as my opposition to this development along with all the other developments in the RLDP affecting other parts of the Vale. My specific objection is to the Waycock Cross area I have managed over the weeks however to read all you have said about the development etc. Firstly and perhaps the most important thing to address is the total lack of infrastructure to support this development. The roads in this area are gridlocked even now without, the addition of a further 300 cars plus using the road. Its ok to say a bit of road widening and some traffic lights will do the trick but it wont. In fact, this will only escalate the problem. Only a few days ago, road works were being carried out on the road where the development is being proposed. This resulted in traffic queuing back towards Culverhouse Cross with 5 Mile Lane and Pontypridd Road being at standstill. The roads in this area just cannot cope with any extra traffic. Air quality will be compromised something which we will all suffer from. Turning now to sewage/flooding. By building this development, we are losing valuable greenland which allows the natural drainage of the fields. We already have a sewage overspill in the area and the bottom of the field is always sodden. To build over the fields would be insane and lead to flooding. I fear for the houses in the bottom of the field who would obviously, despite what your investigations say, get the full force of water overflow. Also, the fields are used for grazing cattle and alternatively for growing crops SO this is not a brownsite, unused and left rotting away. Your Planning Dept have simply offloaded the flooding/drainage issue to Welsh Water/Persimmon in vague terms such as "we have had conversations with..." meaning not very much at all. We have a great variety of wildlife in the field and only recently a dead otter was found alongside the field so we have proof of wildlife being in existence here. There are bats, field mice, otters, owls, pigeons, skylarks swallows to mention just a few. It would
be totally heartbreaking to see this development put paid to these creatures. Turning now to public transport/amenities. There is one bus per hour (if it turns up) to serve the area of Waycock Cross. The nearest railway station is a good 40 minute walk away from the development site. The local GP surgeries are running at capacity and where would all the children be schooled. Lets hope the developers can come up with an answer. I totally support Cardiff Airport and a further strain on the roads leading to the airport would result in disaster. I have witnessed travellers leaving their cars and walking to the airport after the road has been closed due accidents/ road works causing huge tailbacks. I have also been told that travellers would not travel from Cardiff again because of this. This in itself should be enough to tell you that development of this site and all that comes with it is not acceptable. The airport is the Welsh Governments baby and it intends to invest over the coming years over £100 million pounds I'm sure that they wont be too keen on anything that would jeopardise its future success. Perhaps the demolition of the Biomass site in Barry would offer a
solution for a housing development. It is local to rail/bus supermarkets a GP surgery and a Dentists. All within walking stance Surely you as our Council should be protecting us and our beautiful countryside not turning it over to mass development from greedy developers... Are these houses even needed and if so are they the right type of properties that are needed... at the recent consultation I was told by one of the planners that Waycock Cross was in the RLDP as there was nowhere else left to build.

Thank on you for taking the time to read this letter and I really do hope that my objections are noted.

Remove Weycock Cross from the LDP.
Improve infrastructure in the town.
Repair pavements to encourage people to be able to walk safely.
Tidy up the town to increase people's well being.

Weycock Cross site is not served by adequate nearby local transport. This site will encourage use of cars by it's location. the increased traffic on this congested road will reduce well being for existing & new resisents of Barry & Rhoose.
The development will have a huge impact on the privacy of the St James' Cres & Nant Talwg Way residents who have small gardens.
The wildlife in the area will be reduced & their habitats destroyed.
Building will increase the chance of flooding which the area is prone to.

Remove Weycock Cross from the LDP'
Undertake more traffic surveys & speak to local residents to ascertain their method of transport to school, work & shopping & produce honest statistics not ideal statistics.

Weycock Cross site is not a safe site for walking or driving, access from the site is onto a busy congested road near to lights & a very busy roundabout.
The proposed site will also add to the already lengthy waiting times for healthcare, increase traffic, which will not promote a healthy living environment physically or mentally for new or existing residents.
The traffic information given does not reflect a real world but is based on an ideal world where people have good infrastructure & the time to walk to work or school safely.

Object

Object

I am writing to formally object to the proposed planning application for the development of 200+ homes in the Weycock area.

While I recognise the need for housing, this development in its current form raises serious concerns regarding infrastructure capacity, public safety, and sustainability, all of which fall within the planning responsibilities of the Vale of Glamorgan Council under its Local Development Plan and sustainable development duties.The existing road network is already under extreme pressure. Traffic congestion at peak times, particularly between Whitmore High School and the Weycock roundabout, is severe. A 0.7-mile journey regularly takes between 10-20 minutes during school drop-off and pick-up times.

This demonstrates that the current road structure is struggling to cope with present demand. Adding over 200 additional households would inevitably worsen congestion and increase pollution levels.

Of particular concern is emergency vehicle access. When traffic is gridlocked, there is very limited ability for vehicles to move aside safely. Any further increase in traffic volumes could significantly delay ambulances, fire appliances, and police response times. This presents a serious and unacceptable risk to public safety.

A development of this scale should not proceed without a clear, deliverable plan demonstrating that emergency services will be able to access the area quickly and safely at all times.

In addition, there is no clear provision for the necessary supporting infrastructure. Local GP surgeries and dental practices are already oversubscribed, with residents experiencing difficulty accessing appointments.

Schools in the vicinity are operating at or near full capacity. Without guaranteed and funded expansion of healthcare and education services, this proposal risks placing unsustainable pressure on existing facilities.

The Vale of Glamorgan Council's own planning policies emphasise that new developments must be supported by adequate infrastructure and must not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or community wellbeing. In its current form, this proposal does not appear to meet those standards.

I respectfully urge you to oppose this application unless firm, fully funded, and enforceable commitments are secured for road improvements, emergency access provision, healthcare services, and school capacity.

Please confirm that my objection has been formally recorded.

The road network is already at capacity at the location, only to be made worse by other planned developments around carisff airport. There is a shortage of services in the surrounding area, exisitng will be put under more pressure by more houses. This site chosen for ease of developing the green wedge over various brown field sites across the vale. Water run off from site will flood existing properties in nant talwg way and effect the eco system. This plan helps to erode the Welsh culture and community.

The roads are grid locked as it is. We don’t need more houses and cars on the same road infrastructure. We also have flooding on the round about when it rains so if the green space is built on, this will impact water drainage even further causing even more issues. Also think we have too much housing in Barry without anymore. People in Rhoose must be dreading the thought of getting through Barry or into Cardiff for work if this goes ahead.
Doubt this will affect the people making the decision as most won’t live near. But use your heads.

Scrap that plan ! Or at least change the access area

This is possibly the worst location considering the heavy traffic in that area at rush hours. The whole area will be gridlocked. Furthermore, the location of the entrance access to the built area would be dangerous as near the bend of the road and I can anticipate people driving too fast round that corner and creating accidents.

Remove Weycock Cross site from the LDP.
Find a more suitable site or smaller more suitable sites.

The Weycock Cross site is situated too far out all shops, schools & healthcare facilities will be accessed by car. Walking & cycling creates danger due to the busy roads & poor pavement network.
The added traffic will not improve health & well being for new or existing nearby residents or commuters from Rhoose & the Vale,

Before sites are considered for inclusion in the LDP proper up to date transport assessments and modelling should be undertaken and the results and an action plan summarised in future LDP's.
The vast majority of sites considered need considerable further assessment and research and a concrete plan to integrate them into already existing communities prior to inclusion in the LDP.

Many of the proposed housing development sites do not demonstrate the criteria laid out have been considered and researched properly at all. The traffic modelling reports carried out on behalf of the council all show many road major junctions within the vale exceeding capacity by 2026. Transport modelling for the North West Barry site for example is only basic and based on limited data set. The modelling undertaken by Asbri acknowledges significant disruption will likely occur as a result of development in the area and further down the Vale with limited scope for mitigation and improvements.

The site needs to be removed from inclusion into the LDP. It cannot be delivered in any way that meets the standards set out for new housing developments and in any form that results in a positive impact for residents of the Vale.

The North West Barry site is unsuitable for inclusion into the LDP. It falls short of meeting the standards required. The traffic on junctions in this area is already over capacity at many times of day. The transport modelling for the site has been far too limited and already states that limited long term solutions for mitigation exist. The site has been removed in the past die to the area being a green wedge. Its inclusion sets a precedent for moving settlement boundaries and growth into green spaces whenever convenient and the associated loss of valuable green space and habitats.

Identify suitable locations

4. Active travel - Current travel provision at Weycock cross is poor and unrealistic travel to station times quoted - its not an easy access site without a car and this is not planned for in the road works plan.
5. Open space - contradictory building on green wedge land.
9. Protecting the environment and it's historic settings - this is a direct contradiction to the proposal.

I object to the green spaces disappearing. Traffic is already at gridlock at Waycock Cross. There are no transport links easily accessible. There are not enough schools. There are not enough Doctor's surgeries, dentists, etc

I object to the green spaces disappearing. Traffic is already gridlocked at Waycock cross. There are no transport links easily accessible. There are not enough schools. There are not enough doctors surgeries, dentists etc.

Removal of this housing development.

Weycock Cross cannot sustain any further vehicular transport. Its noted that only a contribution is worded as being from developers for improvements not full funding, which means it will lie with VoGC to fund improves, and also the CPO to install the Active Travel route between Weycock Cross and Cardiff Airport. Saying this, Cardiff Airport does not give after support to development in regards to healthcare provisions, education etc. Local doctors surgeries have recently been emalgamated which means appointments are now all over Barry, rather than local to this development, and the local transport links of the bus stop are once every hour, if that.

See email to Naomi Marshallsea.
Increase congestion and pollution. More pressure for DWR Cymru who are firefighting at best and at worse releasing more sewage into the channel. Limited school spaces. Lack of doctors and dentists. Loss of wildlife and habitat.

Re HG1 KS1: there is "NO" integrated travel network and "NO" adequate bus services. Future limits on local government finance will constrain any proposed developments. The idea that people will cycle or walk to the station, supermarket etc is guesswork with "NO" evidence, only vague hopes. It is 35 to 40 minutes tough up hill walk from thestation to Weycock. This is unrealistic for many. Cars WILL be used. The Port Road roundabout had exceeded its capabilities at the last 2014/15 report, the situation has just worsened. Car ownership has grown in Barry since 2015. Introducing the proposed KS1 entry/exit - immediately abutting the roundabout- is a recipe for traffic chaos. A446 Port Road will see traffic increases of up to 18%, Colcot Road up to 17% increase. Even small uplifts can cause disproportionate delay, a fact BP14A itself recognizes. There is NO evidence on proposed signalization effects from any direction. More cars entails high emissions, no quality air assessments have been carried out. Children walking to school will be exposed to higher levels of pollution.

"Prioritise Climate Change adaption and mitigation, ensuring that development and land use in the Vale reacts to the causes and is resilient to the impact of Climate Change."
This aim cannot be met if KS1 is included in the plan.

"Foster the development of well-connected, cohesive communities and ensure all engagement processes are as inclusive as possible, allowing everyone that wishes to share their views throughout the RLDP process to do so"
As an end user of this process in my 80s I must say that the difiiculty of navigating the huge amount of scattered data has been very far from inclusive.

"Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change, Prioritise Climate Change adaption and mitigation, ensuring that development and land use in the Vale reacts to the causes and is resilient to the impact of Climate Change."
"Protecting and Enhancing the Natural Environment, Protect and enhance the quality, connectivity and resilience of the Vale’s natural environment"
Yet again, the inclusion of the KS1 site cannot possibly meet either of these aims.

"Promote and encourage the use of sustainable methods of travel, particularly active modes of transport, whilst simultaneously reducing the need to travel."
To claim that the proposed changes to roads to improve traffic flow at Weycock roundabout is completely unrealistic if 700-900 cars are added to the point of entry. The transport evidence offered is inadequate with very little data. With no active public transport serving this location and walking distances to main services too long and difficult, sustainable travel doessn't exist.

'Integrated active travel network with particular emphasis on walking and cycling'? Not so for the KS1 site. It is is pure fantasy to imagine that. The Welsh Government's sustainable transport aims state a requirement for 'transport services and infrastructure that facilitate door-to-door movement without any hindrances' 2.1.16. No such links are available from this site. After 10 years living next to the roundabout I can state categorically that there is no reliable, punctual public transport from here to any major services. The elevation from Barry town or station makes this an impossible journey on foot for many residents. The car is king and will remain so for most journeys - for linking up with any major services, or for connecting to other modes of transport. There's little realistic prospect of increased public spending on public transport. Building at KS1 will expand car traffic exponentially. Traffic will become even more gridlocked daily and air quality will get worse - for pedestrians trying to navigate through the traffic, for drivers in long queues and for residents like us whose front doors and windows open directly onto the gridlock.

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.
[1] 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.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.