The VOG's justification for changing the Green Wedge between Barry and Rhoose is a handy fudge in order to push forward its intention to build. Why does the Green Wedge argument against its use for housing, upheld in 2015, no longer apply? The 'three parcel' argument from BR1-3, has all the appearence of a smokescreen.
The land with its old hedgerows acts as a wildlife corridor from Porthkerry Park, providing protective habitat for mammals and birds and the means of moving between areas, so essential for successful breeding. And please note -the skylarks breeding in the field are red-listed birds.

Increase in traffic on roads that are already congested. This impacts not only Barry but the surrounding areas. Emergency access for ambulances and fire engines would be impacted especially in the case of emergencies at the airport. Greenbelt land should not be built on, this is detrimental to our wildlife. This will cause more flooding as we are taking away greenfield that soak up open water. Pressure on GPs, dentists and schools. It is already difficult to register with these services. The website is difficult to use!

Too much traffic already, airport access, fire station access

The roads around Weycock cross and Rhoose are not adequate for the amount of traffic that building more houses brings. Also the green belt between Barry and Rhoose is being eroded especially if the model farm development gets the go ahead.

The Green Wedge site contains a network of native hedgerows (several of them species rich), all classified as Priority Habitats under Section 7 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. These facilitate bat commuting and dormouse movement routes. Multiple bat species use the site, including Common and Soprano Pipistrelle, Noctul, Daubenton, Serotine and Brown Long eared Bat. Development would cause: loss/breaching of critical flight lines; introduction of artificial lighting that disrupts foraging and commuting; potential loss of a mature Ash with high roost potential. Lighting impacts cannot be fully mitigated within a residential estate and would severely degrade the ecological function of the site and adjacent woodland.
Hazel Dormouse, a European Protected Species, nest within the site. Hedgerows and woodland edge provide food sources and connect directly to high quality woodland habitat capable of supporting a population. Hedgerow loss, lighting spill and disturbance could well compromise this species. Dormice and their resting places are strictly protected under the Habitats Regulations. The site lies within the home territory of a Badger clan and is used for foraging and movement. Development would disrupt these routes and increase risk of harm during construction. Otters have also been observed (fresh footprint) in the central wet ditch and frequently recorded in the nearby Nant Talwg watercourse. In fact a dead otter was only recently seen in February 2006 by Cwm Ciddy (a road casualty). Pollution risks from construction, drainage changes, and lighting impacts that could disturb nocturnal movement. The central ditch is likely used as a commuting link, despite seasonal drying. Further ultiple species of birds were recorded, including Skylark, Song Thrush and House Sparrow, all Section 7 Priority Species. Development would remove nesting habitat, increase disturbance, cause irreversible loss of farmland bird territory. Impacts could also be catastrophic for reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates. Field margins, the wet ditch, hedgerows and woodland edge will all be degraded. With building work a fragmented landscape will fundamentally destroy a wildlife corridor into the wider Vale of Glamorgan. Development will inevitably therefore cause deterioration of habitat connectivity and introduce artificial lighting and disturbance and will diminish biodiversity. The development of KS1 and the destruction of the Green wedge will lead to unavoidable ecological harm, contrary to Planning Policy Wales (PPW) Edition 12, The Environment (Wales) Act 2016, Sections 6 & 7, TAN 5: Nature Conservation & Planning, Local LDP policies SP10, MG20, MG21 and MD7
For these reasons, the allocation of this land for development is ecologically unsound and should be removed from the RLDP.
However configured, the HG1 KS1 will drag Barry closer to Rhoose, destroy the preexisting functional Green wedge (defended robustly by Vale Planning in 2014/15), facilitate urban coalescence, worsen pollution/noise and create clearly evidenced ecological harm. KS1 should thus be removed from the RLDP.

1) Road Congestion 2)Air pollution 3) Airport access 4) Delaying emergency services 7) Pressure on public services Schools, GP and Dentists. 8) Flooding risks 9) More green space lost 10) Risk of more accidents in the area 11) Loss of wildlife

Re HG1 KS1: the Vale planning aims are: adapting to climate change; improving mental and physical well-being of residents; and protecting and enhancing the natural environment. However a clear well-evidenced explanation is needed from Vale Planning as to how accelerating traffic gridlock at Port Road and Weycock Cross, concreting over 6 fields of well-used ancient farmland, destroying a well-established long-existing green wedge (with the consequent destruction of wildlife and habitat for many listed and protected species), generating increased flood and drainage risk for all the existing surrounding properties, creating urban sprawl and coalescence (towards Rhoose and the airport), eliminating pre-existing open landscape vistas, having no adequate public transport infrastructure and thus generating more intensive car usage, meets the above planning aims? Climate, the environment and place-making goals are all largely sidelined, mental and physical health are all diminished for the sake of meeting a somewhat abstract housing quota.

Strategic Flood Risk Allocated Deposit Replacement Local Development Plan Sites
KS1 This site falls into two flood zones, zone 2 and zone 3.
The flood assessment states that "Flood Zone 2 covers areas with 0.1% to 1% (1 in 1000 to 1 in 100) chance of flooding from surface water and/or small watercourses in a given year, including the effects of climate change. Flood Zone 3 covers areas with more than 1% (1 in 100) chance of flooding from surface water and/or small watercourses in a given year, including the effects of climate change. It is accepted that a significant proportion of the proposed site is not identified at significant risk of flooding." However flood risk to existing properties already exists and climate change is making it worse. Flood risk management is incomplete and foul drainage is dependent on complex modifications and large investment, none of it confirmed. This development is playing with people's lives. It is not fit to be in the RDLP.

1) traffic at a standstill at all times now!!! 2) no air quality checks 3) Emergency services issues

1) Road congestion 2) Air pollution 3) Airport access especially emergency services 5) Pressures on schools, GP and Dentists 6) Flooding risks 7) Loss of wildlife 8) More green space lost!!

1) Increased volume of traffic on Port Road, Pontypridd Road 2) No extra schools - Whitmore is now oversubscribed 3) No extra GPs 4) No extra bus stops 5) Just more houses with no support (ridiculous) 6) Destruction to land which is home to wildlife 7) No where near a train station. Nearest is Barry station. 8) The whole area will be gridlocked which it is a lot of the time.
ALSO Barry College is moving to waterfront (by good sheds) so the college at Colcot road will be vacant. This will be used for more housing. So Colcot Rd onto port road will have more traffic adding to the problem!!!

There is too much traffic on the road at Waycock Cross already from Rhoose. This development will only add to the congestion. The schools in Barry are already full, doctors are full and dentists are full. There will be no more green belt land left for the future if we keep building on it. The facilities in the town are poor now so how will it cope with more houses.

I apologise for sending this representation to you by email. The online consultation portal kept saying I had incorrect credentials. There is a tremendous amount of information to expect a person to take in but having read all the documents my initial feelings have been confirmed. It seems that the Vale of Glamorgan is being used to help solve the problems of lack of housing in the Cardiff area and that the Vale of Glamorgan is using Barry to solve its desire for more housing rather than Penarth or the more rural towns. Is this because of the leadership of the Vale Council at the present time?

The amount of housing proposed in the plans for this area are far too great. The roundabout approaches from all directions can be gridlocked at rush hour times and also at other times because of the sheer volume of traffic coming down 5 mile lane ;coming from the direction of Rhoose from the new housing developments there and further west and also coming from the easterly direction from Barry itself and Cardiff. Recently it took me five minutes to drive from the roundabout of Port Road with Colcot Road to Weycock Cross not at rush hour or schools finishing time but because of the sheer volume of traffic queues and at rush-hour times the tailback coming into Barry from the east can stretch as far as Pencoedtre school. Therefore to think of housing developments of this size is absolutely mind-boggling .The infrastructure in terms of traffic cannot cope well as it is and building so many houses will exacerbate this problem to the detriment of local residents and the environment.

I am not convinced despite reading the tremendous amount of information provided that there is a need for such a large amount of new housing in the Vale of Glamorgan let alone in Barry. It is of note that the recent by election was won in our ward by Reform. The winning candidate did not turn up for the recent vote and the existing Labour representative councillors either did not attend or abstained so that the motion was passed by a meagre vote. I would suggest therefore that there is not overwhelming support in the council for building on this site and that the decision is politically influenced by the leadership of the council from people who represent areas outside the town of Barry.

I would also like to know what influence the local land owner has on the development of these sites. Are the local farmers pushing for this development or is the impulse coming from the Romilly estate?

I also think that some of the council support for this development is plainly wrong. I have read that there are local schools near to this proposed development . If you mean All Saints primary and Romilly then they are already fully subscribed and without room for an influx of more families with children. The suggestion that the train station is in easy walking distance is laughable. I live near to Weycock Cross on Pontypridd Road and I’m fairly fit. It takes me about 23 to 25 minutes to walk to Barry station and that is mainly downhill. It takes longer to come back home uphill.People living in the proposed development would have at least 35 minutes walk to reach the station and longer to walk back home. The elderly and children would take much longer therefore I think you are giving false information in this respect..

I hope you take my opinion into consideration and thank you for supplying such a large amount of supporting information.

Regarding Weycock Cross site. The development of this site so close to the roundabout is a recipe for disaster and chaos. The cumulative effect of other sites at Rhoose, St Athan etc plus this site will overwhelm this junction-even with the promise of adjustments to the roundabouts. There is a wild variety of wildlife in this area - and most will be lost. Many years ago the Vale Council Planning dept dismissed this site with a variety of valid reasons. These reasons still apply. I use this junction many times during the week at various times + have encountered many delays.

As a resident of the Cwm Talwg estate I am very concerned about the proposed housing estate. Concerned about the volume of traffic it will bring to the roads, here have become grid locked on many occasions. I take and collect my granddaughter from Whitmore high school, normally a 5 minute drive. But at school out time it takes 15-20 mins and a proposal of 350 houses would mean probably 700 cars as most houses have two cars, all this traffic is not good on the roads and the environment. How many more children will be needing school places, nursery schools, infant schools, junior schools these are not in the local area. Not to mention doctors appointments which are impossible to get now and dentists not to mention no hospital as such. All our green space will be lost. Lots of wildlife losing there habitat... no trees. Fields and bushes soaking up the rainfall will lead to more flooding as we will be living in a concrete jungle. I ask myself where do the people that agree to these developments live certainly not here.

Grave concerns regarding infrastructure.
Traffic congestion is already intolerable at peak times, more pollution. This development as planned could add at least 500 cars to existing traffic. People will not walk. No buses.
I am 75 and have mobility issues - I could not walk to the station or supermarket.
Loss of Green Wedge is a major concern - otters, skylarks, wildlife.
Urban sprawl.
Sewage - current system already totally inadequate with sewage alerts (Safer Seas & Rivers) every time it rains.
Impact on dark skies.

Reference Weycock Cross development - there is no proper sustainable transport from the roundabout to Barry Library/Station. The suggestion that it is a 30 minute walk is ludicrous. I have mobility issues. I would struggle to walk to the station in 30-40 minutes and would take at least 1 hour to walk home to the Weycock Cross end of Pontypridd Road.

The impact on local biodiversity of the proposed development at NW Barry will seriously affect local biodiversity - recently an otter has been killed by a vehicle. There are numerous bird populations. The increased footfall from the site down to Porthkerry Park will affect the biodiversity.

The development at NW Barry/Weycock Cross will increase light pollution into the surrounding environment; it will have an adverse impact on biodiversity, ecological connectivity and visual and landscape character. It will most definitely have an adverse impact on residential amenity, privacy and neighbouring land uses.

There are many reasons why I object this ridiculous proposal.
The proposed site is not fit for purpose. There is no consideration for the impact it will have on the local community.
You’re planning on building 376 houses. Each house will have at least x2 vehicles. There will be at least at extra 752 cars on the roads in this area.
752 extra vehicles in an already busy area. You are proposing one road into the housing estate and the same road to exit - this would be utter chaos. The roads already become gridlocked when a vehicle breaks down.

Following on from before - the extra 752 vehicles will increase air pollution.
There is no consideration the environment, for the lack of infrastructure and how it affects local residents and their well-being.
This proposal has previously been rejected - since then what has changed that makes it is ok to go ahead now?
I feel that it comes down to persimmon and the council and their financial gains and no consideration on how this impacts our local community and the environment. It has been said these new houses are needed, but this development is not fit for purpose.

The area is overcapacity already.
There is no delivery strategy for GP, social care or education or community facilities. These additional 376 houses will mean there will be approx. an additional 1504 people living in the area. How can the local schools and local health board cope with an additional approx 1504 people. It is already challenging to get a GP appointment or to get registered with a dentist, and the schools are already under pressure with classes having up to 30 pupils in each class.

The development is destroying the green wedge. The site will have a massive detrimental impact on the community through increased strain on limited local drs, dentist and schools. Poor public transport links else where in the vale is not a reason to over populate barry. Weycock cross is a pinch point for traffic through the vale. The junction is already at capacity. Future commercial developments in the vale will not be viable as the road network is not fit for purpose. Water run off will flood the millwood and nant talwg way.

The development is destroying the green wedge. The site will have a massive detrimental impact on the community through increased strain on limited local drs, dentist and schools. Poor public transport links else where in the vale is not a reason to over populate barry. Weycock cross is a pinch point for traffic through the vale. The junction is already at capacity. Future commercial developments in the vale will not be viable as the road network is not fit for purpose. Water run off will flood the millwood and nant talwg way.

Object to the development near welcome cross due to overloading of existing infrastructure particularly including roads and drainage issues and increased traffic causing major issues.
Also object to the encroachment of green land around Porthkerry park and Rhoose which should be preserved as natural habitat.

This settlement is going to cause so many traffic problems. When trialling from st athan to Barry I the morning it can take 25 minutes to go from the first roundabout to Wenlock Cross. Adding another tributary by the roundabout is going make this even worse. I would like to move to barry soon to be able to use green infrastructure and transport but this is not going to be possible as my daughter will be i school in rhoose so the school run will take well over an hour. I cannot move her as her mother lives near the school. So I am being prevented in using green transport and living in my preference area. Further to this, there is no viable train link near this so more cars will be added, going against the climate emergency you have declared.

I do not think the land at the north West of barry off 5 mile lane is a good idea due to the amount of pressure it would put on an already overloaded road. The amount of disruption with builders and lorries etc would cause untold damage on the environment and on roads that are already in a bad state of repair

Barry has become gridlocked along port road from Rhoose to culverhouse. Another development increases this and there is only so much altering road structure do to alleviate.
I lived in St Athan 40 years ago and retuning and I am shocked by the wiring traffic at weycock cross. Too many schools along the road does not help nor those heading for Romilly school

HG1 KS1 - LAND AT NORTH WEST BARRY

Objection re: HG1 KS1: Affordable Housing
Reference: RLDP-OBJ-RVN-001
I object to the proposals and intent set out within the Weycock Cross Vision Statement (June 2025 by Persimmon). The document is written primarily from the perspective of
future residents, offering limited and non-specific benefits for those residents already
living in the community.
The Vision focuses almost entirely on delivering a “high-quality… residential extension…
of up to 376 dwellings” and highlights the “significant opportunity for future residents”
accessing nearby amenities. This emphasis sidelines the needs, expectations, and lived
experience of existing residents, who will shoulder the immediate impacts.
Public open spaces are pitched as general ‘wider community’ assets but with no detail
of how existing residents benefit (access, parking, management, safety, programming).
Benefits are framed as making a ‘new neighbourhood’ rather than improving conditions
for the existing one: “Create a distinctive new neighbourhood for Barry…” (Objectives of
Good Design – Character, p.21)
Although the Statement claims the development will “consider the amenity of existing
residents,” it fails to provide any concrete commitments— it lacks specifics on buAer
widths, overlooking/overshadowing distances, acoustic mitigation, or lighting controls
along the eastern boundary backing onto existing homes.
“Rear gardens to adjoin current development edge” is described as a sensitivity
measure, but it can also reduce permeability for current residents and offers no detail
on boundary treatment quality, overlooking controls, or anti-social behaviour design—
only: “Rear gardens to adjoin current development edge to secure boundary and
provide a sensitive response to existing residences” (Concept diagram, p.3).
Without specifics, this reads as minimal mitigation.
Noise and air quality sections appraise conditions for the site rather than for existing
residents. For example: “The only part of the site sensitive to increased noise levels is
the northern boundary… Although within a reasonable proximity to Cardiff Airport… [it]
does not prove to be of any significant impact to development.” (Site & Context – p.11).
This is framed around feasibility for new housing, not the net impact on existing
residents’ exposure (construction and operational phases).
The Vale’s Healthy Placemaking Draft SPG (2025) emphasises that placemaking should
deliver health, well-being and inclusive benefits and includes checklists and Health
Impact Assessment expectations. If a scheme’s vision does not set out tangible,
locally-relevant benefits (access, safety, active travel, quality open space with inclusive
design, etc.), it risks falling short of those placemaking standards applied in practice.
This is the wrong site for this proposed housing development. We need further
consultation based on assessing information in relation to:
Amenity & privacy on the eastern boundary (existing homes):
o Minimum buffer width and landscape/woodland edge specification.
o Overlooking/overshadowing parameters (e.g., minimum separation distances,
height transitions).
o Lighting and acoustic design standards for boundaries
A Construction Environmental Management Plan covering:
o dust suppression
o noise limits
o HGV routing/turning and contractor parking
o complaint response times
Public open space that truly benefits existing residents:
o Guaranteed public access points for current residents (with wayfinding),
o Maintenance/management arrangements and safety design (overlooked routes,
lighting),
o Inclusive facilities (seating, nature play, accessible paths) and programming that
local groups can use. (Vision promises “wider community” access but gives no
detail.)
Traffic and community infrastructure capacity to be highlighted in other areas of
objection.

Objection re: HG1 KS1: Community Infrastructure
Including Active Travel, Social Cohesion, Environmental Health, Education,
Community Infrastructure
I object to the proposed allocation of Land at North West Barry (HG1 KS1) based on
significant concerns raised by examination of BP37 – Primary, Community &
Intermediate Health Care along with the clear and repeatedly stated risks identified in
the BP3 Rapid Participatory HIA of the Preferred Strategy (2023) and BP3A Rapid
Participatory HIA of the Deposit Plan (2025)
The Deposit RLDP fails to demonstrate that suAicient healthcare infrastructure
(particularly primary and community care) will be delivered in step with growth. Close
reading of BP37 – Primary, Community & Intermediate Health Care shows there is no
identifiable set of mitigations, no delivery programme, no capital plan, and no agreed
actions with CardiA & Vale University Health Board (CAVUHB) to manage or expand
healthcare capacity in response to the growth proposed in the RLDP.
BP37 contains extensive description of pressures, including:
o 24% increase in registered population since 2015 and further growth expected.
o Significant growth in the 65+ population and prevalence of long-term conditions.
o Workforce shortages, premises constraints, dental access issues, mental health
pressures, and long secondary-care waits.
However, nowhere in BP37 is there:
o a list of healthcare infrastructure projects to be delivered
o costs, funding sources, or capital commitments
o timelines or delivery windows
o agreed expansion of GP practices or primary care hubs
o S106 / CIL contribution mechanisms
o phasing triggers tied to housing delivery
o CAVUHB implementation plan
o any actual mitigation measures for the increase in demand
BP37 explicitly highlights cross-boundary pressures, but without solutions. For
example, it acknowledges cross-boundary flows where residents from eastern and
western Vale access healthcare in CardiA or Cwm Taf Morgannwg. It highlights the need
for “continued collaboration” and “capacity planning” across HB boundaries. Yet again
it provides no evidence of joint capacity modelling; agreed service expansion; an
investment plan; any commitment from either CAVUHB or the Council.
It is an assessment document, not a mitigation or delivery document. This is a critical
gap, because the RLDP allocates 7,890 dwellings across the Vale, all of which will
significantly increase demand for primary and community healthcare. Yet BP37
provides no mitigation pathway for any of these settlements. Therefore, how can I have
been properly consulted in this respect?
Because of this, the RLDP risks failing Welsh Government policy tests of soundness:
CE2 — coherence and eAectiveness
CE3 — deliverability
CE4 — consistency with national policy (Planning Policy Wales)
Likewise, taking into account the content of BP3 Rapid Participatory HIA of the Preferred
Strategy (2023) and BP3A Rapid Participatory HIA of the Deposit Plan (2025), both HIAs
raise substantive risks to health, wellbeing, inequalities, and service capacity.
Both HIAs warn that if new development comes forward without simultaneous delivery
of GP, social care, open space and community facilities, significant negative health
impacts occur and car dependency rises.
When applied to North West Barry development (HG1/KS1), this indicates that this site
is an unsuitable, high-risk site - preliminary enquiries indicate that the only local GP
practice within access of North West Barry (Highlight Park) is already oversubscribed
and struggling to deliver the expected level of service for existing residents. The HIAs
repeatedly highlight the danger of early phases of development outpacing healthcare,
social care and community infrastructure capacity.
With particular reference to the North West Barry site, the only specific reference to any
measures to mitigate these serious and significant infrastructure concerns is a vague
statement promising “an oA-site financial contribution towards the provision or
enhancement of community facilities in the area”. Even more concerning, is the
likelihood that this will be delivered after need develops, not before. The Deposit HIA
explicitly flags that increased population without matching capacity can overstretch GP
access and reduce service availability for existing residents.
Furthermore, in light of Persimmon Homes’ documented track record of failure to
deliver legally-agreed S106 funding mitigation measures, this brings the whole inclusion
of North West Barry site in the RLDP into question.
The RLDP allocation is therefore not Sound because the plan does not ensure timely,
certain, or adequate delivery of health-critical infrastructure.
Active Travel / environmental health risks
The HIAs warn that active travel must be safe, direct, and attractive or it will fail. North
West Barry cannot deliver this due to its severance by major roads, and in particular, its
inherent location and topology which places it an arduous uphill 30–40-minute walk
from the nearest train station. No manner of active travel measures can change this
simple fact: it is the wrong location to build 376 houses.
The 2025 HIA states that active travel requires safe, well-lit, continuous, connected,
inclusive routes, and must be designed as the easiest and most attractive option.
The 2023 HIA highlights that behaviour change is extremely diAicult where car
dependence is entrenched or where routes are unsafe or indirect. Yet the NW Barry site
is isolated by the A4226 and relies on the already-heavily-congested and unsafe
Weycock Cross junction.
The HIA findings are:
o Severance by arterial roads undermines walkability.
o Major junctions without transformational redesign deter walking and cycling.
o Active travel routes along high-traAic corridors expose users to air pollution and
noise—both HIA-identified health risks.
The site cannot fulfil the RLDP’s health and transport objectives as required by its own
evidence base.
The HIAs highlight significant concerns about noise, air pollution and cumulative
environmental hazards—conditions that are unavoidable at this site. The Preferred
Strategy HIA identifies traAic noise, air pollution, respiratory impacts and cumulative
noise from heat pumps as major health risks requiring strong mitigation.
In addition, it is worth noting that in none of the three provided TA’s (Strategic Transport
Assessments) contained within the RLDP evidence base is any reference made to any
Air Quality Assessments having been undertaken for or as part of these TA’s.
The Deposit HIA confirms similar concerns and adds that safe, healthy environments
require:
o tree planting to mitigate noise and pollution
o reduced car dominance
o safeguards against environmental degradation.
However, the North West Barry site sits directly on a principal trunk route (A4226),
adjoining Weycock Cross, one of the Vale’s most congested junctions. Exposure to
transport-linked air pollution and noise is therefore inherent and unavoidable, not
mitigable through design alone.
The HIAs demonstrate that the environmental health risks at this location are too great
to justify residential allocation.
Social Cohesion
The HIAs emphasise the importance of social cohesion, community space and safe
public realm, yet the site’s design constraints make this unachievable.
The 2025 HIA warns against “designing out” legitimate social interaction and stresses
the need for community-led, inclusive, intergenerational public spaces. The 2023 HIA
stresses that poorly designed developments can limit social interaction, increase
isolation, and exacerbate inequality. North West Barry is a peripheral, edge-of-town site
with limited permeability and weak natural connections to established
neighbourhoods. The risk of creating a socially disconnected, car-dependent estate is
therefore substantial.
Summary:
The site is structurally incapable of supporting the health-enabling placemaking
envisaged by SP4 or the HIAs.
Development at the North West Barry is incompatible with HIA evidence
Bringing both HIA findings together, the allocation of NW Barry conflicts with:
o Health Inequality Mitigation: The site would place substantial new population
adjacent to some of the Vale’s most health-vulnerable communities without
providing guaranteed uplift in services or infrastructure.
o Environmental Health Requirements: Exposure to air pollution and noise at this
location directly contradicts HIA recommendations.
o Safe and EAective Active Travel: The site cannot deliver the direct, safe,
comfortable active travel networks the HIAs identify as essential.
o Infrastructure Phasing: Healthcare, education and community infrastructure
cannot be guaranteed early enough to prevent negative impacts.
o Social Cohesion: The edge-location and severance barriers undermine the
inclusive, connected, community-supportive placemaking the HIAs require.
Based on the evidence within the Council’s own Health Impact Assessments, the
allocation of Land at North West Barry (HG1 KS1) is neither sound, nor justified, nor
deliverable without causing avoidable and disproportionate harm to public health and
health equity. The allocation HG1 KS1 be removed from the RLDP. It cannot be claimed
that I have been consulted with when a full, site-specific Health Impact Assessment
has not been completed. The current evidence clearly demonstrates the site is not
appropriate.
Education provision
On careful review of BP43 – Education, I can see that the Vale of Glamorgan’s own RLDP
evidence shows that Barry’s schools cannot absorb the demand from the proposed
376-home Weycock Cross development:
Barry Primary Schools:
o The Barry cluster already contains 4,769 pupils across English-medium,
Welsh-medium, CIW, RC and Special streams
o Pressure is already high: several schools show deficits in the Area Data Matrix
(BP43 pp.20–58). Welsh-medium demand is ~19.6% of Barry pupils, way above
average, meaning specialist WM capacity must also grow.
Barry/Regional Secondary Schools:
o Secondary catchment totals 12,107 learners, with nearly 80% in
English-medium and ~11% in Welsh-medium
o The RLDP’s Area Data Matrix shows a secondary deficit of more than 1,000
places under RLDP growth
o No Barry secondary school currently has spare capacity to absorb new demand.
Special & ALN Provision:
o ALN deficits are flagged in red within the Area Data Matrix, meaning no cluster
has adequate ALN capacity
Using the Council’s own multipliers from the Education Cost Table, Weycock Cross
would generate:
o Nursery (0.10 per dwelling) → 38 pupils
o Primary (0.278 per dwelling) → 105 pupils
o Secondary 11–16 (0.208) → 78 pupils
o Post-16 (0.04) → 15 pupils
Language share (based on Barry patterns):
o Primary: ~67 English-medium, ~21 Welsh-medium, remainder faith/ALN.
o Secondary: ~62 English-medium, ~9 Welsh-medium.
These numbers must be accommodated somewhere, but the RLDP does not say where.
The Council’s own costing shows £27,558 per dwelling is needed for education build
costs. For 376 dwellings that’s: £10,361,808 education cost BEFORE land or external
works. The council hasn’t addressed the funding gap - no school expansions, new sites,
or S106 costings have been published for Weycock Cross.
The RLDP and the developer have not provided any detail on:
o where the 105 primary and 78 secondary pupils will go
o which schools will expand (and whether they physically can)
o how Welsh-medium and ALN capacity will be delivered
o how the £10m+ funding requirement will be met
o any phasing that prevents homes being occupied before school places exist.
As per my objections raised separately under Community Infrastructure, the only
specific reference to any measures to mitigate these serious and significant
infrastructure concerns is a vague statement promising “an oA-site financial
contribution towards the provision or enhancement of community facilities in the area”.
Until this information is published, the Weycock Cross allocation is not deliverable, not
compliant, and not justified. This is a soundness failure under planning law -
deliverability, infrastructure capacity, national policy compliance.
Conclusion: How can I be considered to have been consulted on community
infrastructure when there is such a lack of information and transparency in all these key
areas?