I want to register my concerns regarding the proposed housing development at Weycock Cross.
The roads around the area are already very congested at peak times, to the extent that I can smell and taste diesel exhaust fumes when I walk in the area.
The local schools are already overwhelmed and Barry kids are in some cases having to go to Cowbridge for secondary education. Are GPs are also under pressure, hundreds of more patients is going to make this worse.
The railway station is not within 20 minutes walking distance as stated in the plan.
No one who lives or commutes in and around Weycock Cross would ever agree that the roads and junctions can cope with any more traffic.

Alternative site to be sought - What about the old Incinerator site?

1. Traffic and mitigation
• Congestion on Port and Pontypridd Roads will worsen
• Emergency access will be compromised
• No adequate mitigation exists

Increased queueing on Pontypridd Road will directly extend blue light response times on an identified hospital and airport route.
Traffic capacity on Pontypridd road is already at 100% at peak times there is no room for improvement.
The widening on Pontypridd road is unsuitable and encroaches on Local residents land, it will also make crossing the road to the petrol station/shop practically impossible.
SP10 – specifically in relation to distance to Barry Train station on foot, this regularly takes me 30-40 minutes and requires at least two steep hills.
2. Pressure on services (health, schools, infrastructure)
All evidence states that:
• GP, dental, and school capacity is already stretched.
• Waiting lists and capacity limits exist.
• Additional housing would exacerbate this.
The development fails the test of deliverable social infrastructure, as no funded or timetabled expansion of GP, dental or school provision is identified – this would equate to policy failure in this area.
3. Housing numbers and population argument
The statistics are repeated consistently:
• Housebuilding rate cited as 7.55%.
• Population growth cited as 4.1%.
• Birth rate cited as 1.38, described as declining.
The scale and type of housing proposed is not supported by demographic drivers, indicating supply led development rather than needs led planning.

This would constitute a clear planning objection.
4. Type of housing vs. stated need
The argument that:
• The Vale of Glamorgan needs housing suited to older single people, and
• The proposed development does not meet that need
The proposal therefore fails to meet the stated housing mix priorities previously identified by the Vale of Glamorgan. This reinforces internal inconsistency within the council’s own position.
5. Previously Refused Proposals still Stand
• Similar proposals declined in 2013 and the concerns raised then are still in existence with no sensible mitigation

The persistence of identical unresolved issues since the 2013/16 refusal demonstrates a failure to address material planning objections over time. This shows a lack of understanding and willingness to consider alternatives.

This is a significant point as none of the submissions include sufficient mitigation to previous points

6. Green Wedge Land with impacts to wildlife

The proposed development would result in the irreversible loss of designated Green Wedge land, which plays a critical role in preventing urban coalescence, maintaining landscape character, and supporting biodiversity. The site currently functions as an important ecological buffer between settlements and contributes to the wider network of green and environmental spaces in the area.

DNP2 – Incorrectly assumes this is not Green Wedge Land

There is documented local concern regarding skylark activity on the site, including potential nesting within the fields affected by the proposal. Skylarks are a recognised ground nesting farmland species that is highly sensitive to habitat loss and disturbance. The permanent development of this land would remove suitable breeding and foraging habitat, with no clear or credible mitigation identified to offset this loss.

SP19 – It feels that this has not been taken into consideration at all.

In addition, otter sightings have been reported locally, indicating the potential use of connected habitats and watercourses in and around the site. This is in direct contradiction to the point CC6 point 3 “ Avoid significant adverse effects on designated habitats, species and landscape character”.

The fragmentation, lighting, noise and increased human activity associated with the development would be likely to degrade habitat connectivity and increase disturbance risks for protected species. The proposal therefore raises serious concerns regarding compliance with 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 realistically recreated elsewhere

CC6 – Increasingly frequent pollution alerts on our local beaches will worsen with development in this area.
7. Welsh Assembly / governance position
References to criticism or lack of support from the Welsh Assembly are aligned in tone and conclusion across documents. None of the material claims formal endorsement elsewhere.
Planning Harm Summary:
• Transport harm (no mitigation, emergency access risk)
• Social infrastructure harm (health, schools)
• Environmental harm (green space, ecology)
• Policy harm (housing mix mismatch, demographic misalignment)
• Governance harm (prior refusal, lack of cross agency coordination)

Unless these harms are demonstrably mitigated, the proposal should not be approved.

Relocate the site

The location of the north west Barry site will only encourage more people to use cars - circa 800 vehicles may be added to the road in this area which is untenable given the current 100% capacity.

By signing up to the Placemaking Wales Charter, the Vale has made a commitment to develop ‘high quality places’ that ‘work for the benefit of local communities.’ The Placemaking Principle of People and Community prioritises ‘the health and well-being of all people from the outset’ and states that new developments should ‘protect or enhance a sense of community’ however when concerns were raised by residents about the impact on health infrastructure, no mitigation or assurances were given in the council’s response other than to state the council will be in discussion with the health board.
In the same way, the concerns about noise and air pollution for local residents (as well as increased travel times for people in surrounding communities) have not been adequately addressed in this response. This doesn’t build trust with us as a local community but instead appears to ignore our lived experience of living in an already-congested area with poor transport links. The council’s responses even go as far as to dismiss the STA modelling that they themselves have commissioned as too cautious; instead, there’s mention of greater reliance on existing bus routes which in reality are wholly insufficient. This leads directly into the Placemaking principle of Movement – where walking, cycling and public transport are prioritised to avoid dependence on private vehicles and well-designed and safe active travel routes connect to the wider public transport network and public transport stations… Despite this, the council’s response to residents’ well-placed concerns and experience of insufficient and unreliable public transport in and around Weycock Cross is simply to reference the existence of bus services B1, B2 and 304.
Of these, the B1 service only serves Weycock Cross once a day (at 5:18pm) while the B2 service does not pass until 9:42 in the morning. According to the report, these services connect us as residents to Barry station and beyond, but under greater scrutiny it is apparent that none of these bus services go near Barry station, nor indeed any of the other Barry train stations.
Likewise, the placemaking principle of Identity commits to value and respect existing places – their uniqueness, their heritage and their natural, physical attributes. As the Vale Council itself said previously when rejecting the last planning application –Weycock Cross is a sensitive location between urban and rural land with a defensible clear-cut boundary differentiating between urban Barry and the countryside beyond. This proposal in no way respects the rural, open landscape of the area, a feature that’s unique within Barry. Indeed, residents of the Weycock Cross area have historically migrated to the area precisely due to its location at this natural open boundary - Barry will no longer be a diverse mix of differing communities if everywhere becomes the same.

The flood risk management strategy is incomplete with many critical elements remaining 'to be confirmed'. The outstanding issues are significant, unresolved and represent fundamental constraints that cannot be conditioned away or resolved later. The site should therefore not be allocated within the RLDP.

The developers 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. Foul drainage solutions are speculative and require major off-site works. Fundamental viability remains unproven. 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. The building of such a large estate in this location will pose a very real risk of flooding to the houses in Nant Talwg Way

HG1 KS1 (North West Barry / Weycock Cross) needs to be removed from the RLDP

In order to support the role of Cardiff Airport as a strategic gateway for international connectivity the allocation of HG1 KS1 (North West Barry / Weycock Cross) needs to be removed from the RLDP. The location is on the main route to Cardiff Airport . The road is already a busy road that is often stacked up with traffic. Increasing the number of cars to the road from the proposed estate and changing the current road layout will certainly have a negative effect on the use of the airport.

The HG1 KS1 Land at North West Barry should be removed from the Plan

The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal of the HG1 KS1 Land at North West Barry identifies multiple high-value receptors including ASNW, priority hedgerows, bats, dormice, badgers, otters, reptiles an red-list protected ground-nesting birds. impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated. The site cannot deliver PPW's requirement net benefit for biodiversity.
Weycock Cross is already at over capacity with regards transport and air quality. The RLDP transport evidence is incomplete and based on limited data. It omits an Air Quality Assessment entirely. The site would generate significant car-dependent growth and site-related congestion and pollution contrary to PPW and the Well-Being Act

The site is not sustainable, not deliverable and should be removed from the RLDP

I object to the allocation of HG1 KS1 on the grounds that the site is unsound, unjustified and undeliverable. The Council's own supporting evidence, together with the developers technical reports, demonstrates that the site fails key tests relating to transport, drainage, biodiversity, green wedge protection, landscape character, heritage and community infrastructure. Flooding is a real concern for those in Nant Talwg Way.
The allocation conflicts with PPW, TAN guidance, the Well-Being Act and the Council's own evidence base.

The site lies within Flood Zone 1 and the drainage reports confirm that certain areas of the development land are already at high risk of surface water flooding. Flood mapping shows local watercourse flooding within parts of the KS1 area. There appears to be 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. Significant inaccuracies exist between NRW flood maps and surveyed ground levels: 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 - flood models typically operate within tolerances of 0.10-0.25 m, not 2.50 m. This means that modeled flood outlines may be wholly incorrect. Flooding could be far greater or extend into additional areas of the KS1 site. In effect a site with such potential mapping errors should not be advanced to allocation.
The central watercourse must accommodate up to 70.4 litres per second of discharge, yet its capacity is unknown. The strategy proposes discharging all surface water from the development into the on-site watercourse at a controlled rate of 70.4 litres per second (l/s). However no evidence exists to show that either the open channel or culverts) can take an additional 70.4 I/s, let alone the exceedance flows during extreme rainfall. If this watercourse lacks capacity, the result would be flooding of new homes, existing homes, or both. Allocating a site before verifying its outfall capacity is unsafe and contrary to PPW drainage principles. A site cannot be allocated when its fundamental drainage viability is still unproven. The numerical evidence within the drainage report confirms that: flood mapping is unreliable, flood-risk data is missing, outfall capacity is untested, infiltration is unlikely, a discharge rate of 70.4 I/s must be imposed on an unmodelled watercourse, foul drainage has no confirmed solution.

Soil conditions make the effectiveness of infiltration SuDS highly unlikely - forcing all runoff into a constrained ditch. Soilscapes and strategy data show the site is comprised of slowly permeable, seasonally wet loamy and clay soils, with impeded drainage. As a result, infiltration rates are expected to be too low to meet BRE365 standards: 100% of the developable area's runoff must be attenuated and discharged to the watercourse. This places huge pressure on the ditch and culvert, especially during high-intensity storms. Reliance on a single outfall in these conditions is high-risk and non-compliant with SuDS hierarchy best practice. The development requires extremely large attenuation volumes which are not accounted for in current plans. The need for such enormous attenuation demonstrates that the land naturally produces high runoff, that the site is hydrologically sensitive and also that the developable area must be dramatically reshaped. Such significant engineering intervention is a strong indicator that the land is not suitable for housing development.
Overland flow from neighbouring farmland already enters the site - the report confirms that runoff from land outside of the proposed site boundary flows onto the development area. This means the drainage design must intercept and reroute external water as well as onsite runoff. Any mis-calculation in flow direction, levels, or attenuation capacity could:
• push this water towards existing housing increase flood risk on site
• cause contaminated exceedance flows to migrate toward sensitive receptors, including the nearby Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland (ASNW).
This represents a major and unmanaged risk.
Foul drainage is entirely unconfirmed - with all options requiring major off-site works. The strategy presents multiple foul disposal options, all of which are speculative and depend upon:
• pumping stations and rising mains as long as 650 metres
• the need for third-party land agreements
• possible network upgrades
• pending confirmation of capacity from Welsh Water.
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 further delays, uncertainty and risk.
In conclusion, the flood risk management 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
• Full SAB pre-application review
• Confirmation of foul capacity from Welsh Water
• Flood hazard data (NRW Product 6).
A site cannot be allocated when its fundamental drainage viability is still unproven.
The numerical evidence within the developer's own drainage report confirms that:
• flood mapping is unreliable
• flood-risk data is missing
• outfall capacity is untested
• infiltration is unlikely
• over 9,580 m3 of attenuation is required
• a discharge rate of 70.4 I/s must be imposed on an unmodelled watercourse
• overland flows enter the site from surrounding farmland
• foul drainage has no confirmed solution.
These issues are significant, unresolved, and represent fundamental constraints. The site should therefore not be allocated within the RLDP.

Don’t build at Weycock Cross. And if the further building goes ahead in Rhoose there needs to be substantial changes to the road network from Cardiff airport.

Building at Weycock Cross will have a negative impact on all residents in Barry. The infrastructure can’t handle the current traffic load. With all of the additional building planned on the road, it will cause major issues, particularly for vehicles trying to enter and exit Barry.

KS1 should be removed from the plan

Don’t build at Weycock Cross.

You are planning on building on green land that is farmed. Never mind all of the wildlife in the area backing on to Porthkerry Country Park.

It will have a negative impact on tourism in the area as there is guaranteed to be traffic issues which will put off potential visitors. As well as the impact on travellers trying to access the airport.

Also, it will have a negative impact on pollution as every person that lives there will need to drive, it is out of the way from all of the main transport hubs.

Aside from glowing objectives and the verbosity of the Green infrastructure plan, in regard to the HG1 KS1 site, I still fail to see how building across 6 fields of long-standing and well-used farmland, outside the boundaries of Barry, corrupting the long-standing open Green wedge vistas (paradoxically defended and upheld by Planning in 1990s and 2015) with high density housing, intensifying already gridlocked traffic issues on Port Road (up to Weycock roundabout) and thus increasing pollution and noise levels for residents, is either enhancing place-making well-being objectives or facilitating the environment. It seems to be doing the precise opposite.

The Plan aims for a 'more resilient and greener Vale', responding to 'climate and nature emergencies'; and creating a 'more active and healthier Vale'. YET, in NW Barry KS1, building over well-used farmland with concrete; destroying wild life corridors; intensifying light and noise pollution, derisory local public transport (forcing car usage), utterly unrealistic speculations concerning people walking up and down steep hills to stations, GP services or shops etc; in reality forcing hundreds more cars onto road pinch-points like Weycock Cross roundabout. None of the above Vale planning aims make ANY sense in this light. It is just empty rhetoric.

The RLDP aims below would be laudable if they were true. Just in relation to the HG1 KS1 site: building over ancient farmland outside of Barry's historic boundaries; forcing people into cars due to derisory public transport; creating greater intensities of traffic on already over-congested roads, increasing pollution, engaging in empty verbosity about walking and cycling; engaging in an obfuscation exercise - entitled 'consultation'. Consultation here is a misnomer. Residents have been given minimal chances to comment on an overlong, ill-organized and confusing RLDP website. We have consequently been swamped with thousands of pages of preemptive refutations to local worries.

Don’t build at Weycock Cross.

We are not in a suburb of Cardiff. It feels like to residents of Barry that houses keep getting built in Barry as it the easiest option, without taking into account the opinions of the residents. With a massive influx of people to Barry, but the infrastructure and amenities not increasing to match.

Don’t build at Weycock Cross.

Why does all new developments have to happen in Barry? There are many other towns in the area that would benefit from new housing. Where are the opportunities for employment?

Traffic is already a nightmare what provision would be made to improve access to Barry which already awful at peak times from the rural vale

Don’t build at Weycock Cross.

Why are you planning to build on farm land that is still used that directly backs onto Porthkerry Country Park, that has just been awarded National Forestry status, but will not be further polluted with fumes from cars, potential pollution from sewerage.

The area around weycock cross cannot cope with the traffic at the moment as well as this development, model farm,new airport college and the Rhoose planned developments. You only need a set of temporary traffic lights on port road and it’s gridlocked for hours.

Don’t build at Weycock Cross.

Just to reiterate what I have already said:
- the infrastructure of the area can’t handle the current traffic of the area.
- schools in the area are already at full capacity and having to turn away pupils within the catchment area.
- local surgeries are full
- every person on the estate will need a car to travel anywhere adding to the traffic and pollution
- it would mean building on working farm land?
- where is the run off water going to go?
- building next to Porthkerry Country Park, just received National Forestry status, potential pollution.

I have nothing against the outlined strategic aims. However, with regard to the "lived-reality" of the HG1 KS1 site, the various RDLP documents bear little to no relation to the empirical facts on the ground. Vale Planning appear to subsist in a different reality. Thus destruction of a long-standing Green wedge (which in 2014/15 they had defended), destroying well-used ancient farmland at a time increasing food uncertainty and climate crisis, intensifying traffic gridlock, increasing noise and pollution levels, fantasizing about non-existent transport infrastructure and imagining a population walking or cycling everywhere (miles from existing services). None of this inspires confidence.

Sustainable housing growth is required, but the HG1 KS1 site is not a good place for it. Destruction of a historical Green wedge (defended by former planners in the 1990s and 2015), which essentially tried to stop urban coalescence and sprawl towards Rhoose, increasing traffic gridlock at a well-established pinchpoint (at Weycock roundabout) and offering utterly inadequate face-saving mitigations, increasing pollution and noise for residents, destroying a long-standing open-vista of landscape, building over well-used farmland. HS1 KS1 is simply not the right place for such a dense housing development.

I can see the logic of Wales Transport Strategy 'to reduce the need to travel and the dependency on private cars' and that 'settlements must be sustainable and in the right locations', however I would see this is a clinching argument "against" the HG1 KS1 site. The lack of public transport, the total impracticality of walking and cycling to major amenities and services within Barry, the steadily increasing density of existing and future traffic, the building over of usable farmland, outside the historic limits of Barry, urban sprawl towards Rhoose. All this militates against the NW Barry site

Re HG1 KS1 site: it is excellent to have a station at Barry, but the NW Barry site is, once again, totally impractical for regular access without a car. Busy commuters, families with young children, older people will NOT walk or cycle to the station and there is NO easily accessible public transport to the station (and never has been since we moved here in 2015). Cars will inevitably be used for park and ride at the station. Walking or cycling to the station will be the exception, not the rule. To think otherwise is disingenuous.

They need to remove Weycock cross from the RLDP plan.

I don't agree with any part of this plan and don't believe these concerns have been addressed in the RLDP documentation.

To build so many houses on this stretch of road will hugely increase traffic and emissions. I travel from
St Athan to Cardiff for work by car and if I’m not out of the house and by this junction by 7am you’re at in traffic, tailing all the way back to the roundabout towards the airport. We just can not cope with adding over 1500 houses between St Athan and here. Safety and safety wellbeing must come first!

The plan is simply unsuitable for the proposed location.

1. Affordable Housing & Residential Amenity
Vision Statement prioritises future residents and offers no tangible benefits for existing communities.
“Create a distinctive new neighbourhood for Barry…”

No commitments on buffer widths, overlooking distances, acoustic or lighting controls along the eastern boundary.

Public open space described vaguely with no detail on access, safety, management or inclusivity.

Noise/air quality assessments consider only feasibility for new homes, not impacts on existing residents.

2. Transport, Congestion & Air Quality
All RLDP transport assessments show Weycock Cross already near or over capacity, with 2036 modelling predicting critical failure.

Developer TA uses a single day of traffic data and omits cumulative assessment of the required signalised access junction.

No Air Quality Assessment despite clear triggers — a direct breach of PPW12 and TAN 18.

Active travel provision is non‑compliant, with a 30–40‑minute uphill walk to the nearest station and no viable bus services for commuting.

3. Heritage
Heritage Assessment fails to meet PPW12 and Cadw requirements:
“does not identify the significance… does not explain how development would affect that significance.”

No asset‑specific setting analysis despite proximity to listed buildings and historic landscapes.

Ignores cumulative harm and experiential qualities such as tranquillity and rural character.

Lacks photomontages, setting diagrams, or evidence — not sound evidence for allocation.

4. Community Infrastructure (Health, Social Care, Community Facilities)
BP37 identifies severe pressures on primary care but no mitigation plan, no capital programme, no delivery mechanism, no S106 strategy.

HIAs (2023 & 2025) warn of significant negative health impacts if development outpaces GP, social care and community capacity.

Only mitigation offered is a vague off‑site financial contribution, likely delivered after need arises.

5. Education Capacity
BP43 shows Barry primary and secondary schools already under pressure, with >1,000 secondary place deficit under RLDP growth.

Weycock Cross would generate 105 primary and 78 secondary pupils, with no identified schools to accommodate them.

Education cost of £10.36m unaccounted for; no expansion plans, land, or phasing strategy.

Allocation therefore fails deliverability and soundness tests.

6. Green Wedge, Landscape & Recreation
Technical Note contradicts 2015 Inspector’s findings that the site:
“forms an integral part of the pastoral landscape… plays a key role in maintaining openness.”

Misinterprets PPW by reducing Green Wedge function to distance (“2.5 km left”), ignoring openness, perception and containment.

Claims of “rounding off” are flawed — Cwm Ciddy Lane is not a defensible boundary.

Sets a dangerous precedent for further erosion of the Barry–Rhoose Green Wedge.

7. Ecology & Biodiversity
Site adjoins Ancient Semi‑Natural Woodland (ASNW) — an irreplaceable habitat highly vulnerable to lighting, drainage and recreational pressure.

Multiple Priority Habitats and protected species present: bats, dormice, badgers, otters, reptiles, amphibians, skylark.

Hedgerow breaches would fragment ecological corridors, contrary to PPW and the Environment (Wales) Act.

Construction phase of development would cause significant noise, dust and debris over the duration of the build period, having serious negative impacts on sensitive natural features and existing flora and fauna native to the site.

Southern site lies within B‑Lines pollinator network — development would sever this corridor.

Conclusion: the site cannot deliver PPW’s required net benefit for biodiversity.

8. Flood Risk & Drainage
Developer’s own drainage strategy shows major unresolved risks:

Missing NRW Product 6 flood data.

2.5 m discrepancies between flood maps and ground levels.

No modelling of downstream culvert or watercourse capacity for 70.4 l/s discharge.

Infiltration unlikely due to clay soils — forcing all runoff into a constrained ditch.

Requires 9,580 m³ of attenuation (football‑pitch‑sized basin).

Foul drainage unconfirmed; all options require major off‑site works.

Fundamental viability unproven — cannot be allocated.

Weycock Cross Site HG1 KS1

I am objecting on the grounds that this site will have a significant impact on the residents of the Rhoose Ward.

A potential increase in traffic from both the new Vale College and the housing development North Of the Railway Line will add considerable increase in congestion at Weycock Cross. It has been suggested that a new layout would resolve this but that would firstly the cost would be great and no available funding and this would need to be prior to any new development.

Sewage: Welsh Water have already shown that capacity for sewerage is at capacity, and with raw sewage already being poured onto our beaches it can only get worse.

Wildlife: Many species of plants and animals are protected. The protection applies to the habitats of bats, otters and may other animals, as well as many plants

Infrastructure: There is only a 3rd level Tesco and although walking distance an elderly person would not be able to traverse this on safety grounds, and carry shopping.

Health Services: There are no Doctors or Dentists in close proximity and those that are fairly close are already at capacity.

Education: All local schools are at capacity.

Building on Green Wedge is generally restricted to protect urban sprawl and prevent towns merging, with a strong presumption against 'inappropriate development'.

Green wedges are designed to keep areas open, maintain the character of the countryside and prevent merging of settlements.

HGI-KSI Wey Cross The reasons for disagreeing with this candidate site is it is located in the wrong place, and no one has taken into count the increase traffic or the increase of drainage and sewage
in the area or the lack of infrastructure ie health or dentist service and the lack of active travel, and have not taken the local residents views in to account.

According to your RLDP it saying you would be able to walk to the train station in 15 min, that will not happen if you are elderly or disabled so your active travel proposals are ridiculous and there are no buss on Pontypridd Road.

under your plan, you could have to relocate wildlife i.e otter, badges and other wildlife, and destroy habitat for bats , birds and other animals.