The plans should show how will the authority ensure the Secondary access vis Celtic Way is not the Primary access? and what does this mean. For example one of the shortest routes to Tesco & the Fontygary caravan park will be via this so called Secondary access. Plans currently on display, including this document are misleading. Local residents need to be provided with assurances and accurate information. What planning has been done regarding the suitability of Celtic Way itself, not just the Fontygary Road junction?

The plan shows the access to the East as the Primary access and the one leading to Celtic way as the Secondary. Given that Celtic way is unsuitable for a large increase in traffic flow given the amount of on road parking and the fact that that some 50 houses have to reverse off their drive into the traffic flow. Local children will have to cross a busy road to access the playground. Local residents will have to contend with increased noise and air pollution severely affecting their quality of life and wellbeing. Celtic Way is a quiet, safe cul-de-sac not designed for volume traffic including (these days) increased numbers of delivery vehicles from online purchases.

Plan needs to show how existing residents will be protected from an increase in pests, how will the catchment basins be made safe and how will litter picking and maintenance be carried out and at what frequency eg particularly after recycling day when plastic blows everywhere, potentially blocking outlets.

Not withstanding previous comments on the unsafe allocation of this site on potential flooding issues into existing dwellings. The construction of large interlinked catchment basins (ie a watercourse) alongside existing garden boundaries will be a dangerous magnet for small children and a high risk area for wind blown litter & vandalism. When drying out they will be a breeding ground for pests like rodents and midges resulting in loss of garden facilities in adjoining gardens in warmer weather. What are the insurance implications of having a watercourse on our boundary? Insurance Companies may need to be informed and policy costs may become unaffordable or even be refused, depending on their interpretation.

Celtic Way need to be removed as even a secondary access for vehicles, other than cycles

Even for a secondary access, Celtic Way is unsuitable. Access is only via two routes. First via the Fontygary Inn traffic lights which are a pinch point with width for one vehicle at a time and no public pavement. Traffic often backs up beyond the entrance to Celtic way & I have photographs of this including associated queues on Fontygary Road. This is not an uncommon occurrence an will become intolerable with additional housing. Second access is via the single track road through Fonmon where there are numerous issues with reversing vehicles in the narrow lane, including some quite ugly road rage incidents.

The Authority & Government need to GET REAL. So called active travel will NEVER work. Most households will use a car. Those in affordable housing will use older, more polluting models. Everybody takes deliveries from Amazon, Ocado etc etc. Walking & cycling is fine for a few under 50's who are able, don't have young children, aren't carrying anything or don't mind getting soaked in the rain. Public transport is completely inadequate. One bus or train an hour with inconvenient times, long walks top and from stops (again in cold/wet/hot weather?). Completely unsuitable for 99% of journeys (eg travel to restaurants, shops, sports clubs, meeting friends for coffee etc etc). Authorities cannot seriously believe that residents will abandon their friends, favourite places etc and become recluses in their homes unable to even have visits from loved ones due to gridlock.

The whole area will become gridlocked as the result of this and other developments, particularly at Weycock Cross. Proposed housing in Rhoose, progressing and proposed, together with St Athan, plus the college at the airport (some 2000 pupils & staff) will completely overwhelm the already congested Weycock Cross route leading to gridlock and severe delays including to public transport). The Authority are aware of this but don't care. Rhoose is already nigh on impossible to navigate at school pick up / drop off times.

I am writing to you because of the proposed Readers Way development of land for housing.

I object to the drainage strategy for HG1 KS3 at the Fontygary railway bridge and main road. Evidence of backflooding at Celtic Way proves that the local network is already operating above its limit.

I wish to enquire about the current balance of unspent section 106 Drainage and Infrastructure contributions allocated to the Rhoose ward.

Specifically, I'm asking how these funds, and any future funds, from site HG1 KS3 will be ring fenced to provide tangible drainage betterment for the existing residents of Readers Way and Celtic Way. In particular referring to current problems with run off from the fields onto the road in Celtic Way which leads to flooding at the traffic lights and under the railway line at the Fontygary junction, rather than merely maintaining the status quo. Money is clearly required to upgrade this drainage now, before any development takes place under the LDP.

To my Ward Councillors : can you please clarify what specific Section 106 financial contributions are being secured from the Site HG1 KS3 developers to provide 'Betterment ' for the existing drainage issues on Celtic Way? As a resident I expect the LDP to solve existing infrastructure failures, not make them worse. These problems should be addressed and resolved before any LDP go ahead is given for the site.
There seems to be a lot of ambiguity about the flooding assessments by the site developers, given the amount of water runoff that already occurs.

Greater emphasis needs to be given to brownfield sites in larger towns with smaller communities having much smaller, more proportional development with less community impact. This would have to include smaller Vale villages who currently seem to be in a privileged position where no development is allowed. Why? I fear the Authority is looking at the cheapest form of development to attract developers who will provide cash in terms or planning gain. This instead of available brownfield sites which may ne less attractive to developers on cost grounds. Example, Barry docklands and unused railway land. Llandow airfield, Tredogan abandoned village and surrounding land.

The number of proposed houses at Readers Way has increased by 25% to well over 500. This was decided after the first consultation when the original number proposed was a shock, especially give the 400 already approved at Rhoose Point. This will bring inner city type densities into a small rural community, wholly unsuitable given the existing low density developments consisting of a large proportion of bungalows. The proposed high proportion of low cost/social housing will bring an increase in anti-social behaviour (it always does) into a quiet, safe community. The Authority's only strategy seems to be to create huge anonymous commuter deserts where nobody realy wants to live in the smaller communities of the Vale.

There is absolutely zero benefit to these proposals or any positivity to local wildlife and residents. We acknowledge the need for more housing but destroying existing communities and nature is completely the wrong way to achieve this goal. All sense of community will be removed and if you happen to live in one of these new estates, frankly you could be living anywhere as they all look the same,

For an Authority and Government who champion the Environment and wildlife how is covering fields with housing the way forward? The Readers Way site is one of the few remaining local designated green wedges and this will disappear along with hedgerows, crop growing etc. Diverse wildlife habitats will be destroyed, including foxes, badgers, slow worms, voles, field mice, hedgehogs bats etc plus associated birds of prey including owls, hawks etc and insects. This will be a catastrophe for wildlife and the wellbeing of existing residents who enjoy walking in quiet country lanes and across public trails.

There is not appropriate infrastructure to support these additional houses. Readers way floods regularly already as do the fields behind, the drains cant cope with the current demand let alone hundreds more houses. It will affect natural biodiversity removing this green space. This along with one road into Barry and rural Vale that's gridlocked already at rush hour that cant cope with the current demand. Lack of spaces in schools, doctors, dentists. Its a ridiculous idea to build here!

There are many areas in the Vale that would be more suitable for new housing. Areas of land previously used for industry. These areas are where there is a need for low cost housing and the infrastructure already exists. Building over the land between semi-rural areas pushes people away from low emission travel needs and increases climate change. Repurposing existing buildings as low cost dwellings. Helping developers to achieve this rather than just destroy land and upset communities. More actual consultation with views and needs of existing residents rather than just showing them what you are going to do.

My comments/objections relate to the Readers Way. However, they are true for other areas where farmed land is being taken for new housing as Rhoose, where considerable new housing has already been built. There are few local jobs or amenities. Very poor public transport means increased traffic jams on already busy, single carriageway link roads. Estimated car ownership for Readers way 700 to 800 new vehicles. The LDP seems quite different from the objectives of the VOG "Green Infrastructure Strategy" document. Having rural pictures and putting the word "Green" in every sentence does not make it a Green Plan.

I support the Welsh Governments stance on the Climate Emergency. The problem is increasing. The LDP seem to be going in the opposite direction. i.e. The readers Way Development will be destroying Farmed Fields producing our own wheat and valuable animal food. It also provides a home for a vast range of wildlife including bird, bats, rodents, hedgehogs and many other species. Rhoose is also on a migratory bird route and this green area. 520 new houses with up to 800 vehicles is the opposite to reducing damage to the climate.

Development at Readers Way will likely be affected from flooding and airport noise already occurring in the Rhoose area. Development of the readers way site could curtail the development of the airport as there will be more houses to object to operations on the airport site due to noise and no control over BAMC opening their doors and testing engines. Likely increased flooding too from the airport runways,

Current arrangement for a culvert to take excess run off of field water held with pipes running through properties on Matthew Road, agreement was granted by residents only for run off from fields not a housing development, we would anticipate being consulted about the anticipated changes this.

Keep this area as green wedge.

Regular flooding on adjoining roadways make the access unsuitable. Additional hard landscaping will make this worse, flooding housing.
Use of agricultural land which creates food should not be permitted, and this area is currently green wedge which should be protected at all costs.
Very limited public transport access so development should not be permitted.
Disturbance to SSSI and protected species.
Highways already overloaded and proposals for improvement, based on outdated traffic information, will not address the current gridlock as soon as any incident happens on Port Road, any development will severely aversely affect existing residents of the western Vale.

These farmed fields are totally unsuitable for further housing development in Rhoose. This area should remain a green space where, in additional to being farmed for food, it provides a natural habitat for a wide range of animals, birds and insects. Even if the ancient trees/hedgerows remain, it is unlikely that the wildlife will stay. This area is on a know migratory route for birdlife. The land provides much needed soak-away as we face record breaking rainfall due to the ongoing Climate Crisis. The proposed pools of standing water risk breeding pests as temperatures increase, A development here would dramatically increase local pollution with increased vehicle use being the preferred transport. Existing local businesses will suffer. This quite, happy, friendly local community will be destroyed as it becomes just another suburb.

There are already many new houses in Rhoose. The population has increased dramatically in the last decade with no new facilities.
Transport links remain very poor, unreliable and sparce, both rail and road. Bike tracks not used.
The plan pushes Rhoose from semi-rural village to suburb of Barry.
The land is unsuitable having poor drainage, probably difficult to build on.
The proposed commercial and community provision will take business from existing businesses in the village.
The plan is the opposite to the sustainable and Green objective. It will create pollution and contribute to climate emergency

No more houses unless you improve the infrastructure. The roads can't cope with more traffic, there aren't sufficient GP Surgeries or schools and proper affordable sustainable transport is non existent, one train an hour is pathetic.
Fonmon Road, past the pond out onto the bypass is too narrow and will not cope.

If it must happen, then all works to mitigate poor drainage, run-off, and flooding of existing neighbourhood must be carried out before dwellings construction begins. Alternative site access must be found and implemented prior to any works commencing. Local and wider infrastructure and amenities must be assured and legally bound before commencement of any groundworks. However...

The need for housing is understood and recognised, but this is not the right place for such a huge development. It should simply not go ahead; changing the very nature of this village and the community within the immediate vicinity of the proposed site would be devastating, and its effects on the wider area – especially along with other developments and new commercial ventures at the airport - can only be debilitating. Any remaining confidence in the local authority will be lost if this goes ahead.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Readers Way development. The scale of this project is fundamentally unsustainable for the following reasons:
- Drainage: The area suffers from well-documented and significant drainage problems. Even with suggested mitigation measures, replacing permeable greenfield land with hard surfaces will exacerbate surface water run-off, increasing flood risks for existing properties.
- Inadequate Access: The proposed access is wholly inadequate and potentially dangerous. The existing road and surrounding network cannot safely support heavy construction traffic or the permanent increase in private vehicles. This will create a lasting safety hazard and inevitable regular gridlock.
- Infrastructure & Amenities: Rhoose has already endured significant expansion without proportional increase in essential services; every promise has been broken. Local schools, dental practices, and GP surgeries are at breaking point. Adding 500+ units will cause the collapse of these overstretched amenities.
- Loss of Tranquillity & Environment: This development signals the death of local tranquillity. It contradicts environmental goals by destroying vital green buffers and the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), causing irreparable harm to local biodiversity and resident well-being.
The Vale of Glamorgan Council must reject this proposal to protect the integrity of our community.

SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE

1. The biggest issue regarding the viability of the site known as ‘Land at Readers Way Rhoose’ (HG1 K53) is surface water drainage. The supporting information the Planning Department has provided for public to comment on, a single drawing by Cambria Number P01, is simply not sufficient. This clearly stated by the drawing itself which is marked preliminary and is not conclusive and open ended.
2. The existing site currently has known surface water drainage issues because of the clay and limestone substrate. During heavy rainwater can be seen running down the surface of the fields and often floods over the boundary in places.
3. Drawing P01 states,” Is indicative of design intention and remains subject to detailed design”. There are no calculations in fact nothing to indicate they have a viable solution.
4. Drawing P01 states, “Soakaway testing unsuccessful – surface water requires positively drainage solution”, this unsurprising given the clay and limestone substrate.
5. Graphically drawing P01 seems to adopt a solution of ‘Attenuation Basins’, the surface water being held there during rainstorms and I assume sent to the two outfalls shown on the drawing with some sort of discharge rate control.
6. Both discharge outfalls are noted as, “Retain and reuse existing offsite surface water connection. Downstream conveyance route requires further investigation”. So currently this is an unknown! This the key to allowing the surface water drainage of this whole site and the number of houses stated left as “Requires further Investigation”.
7. The plan shows pipe connections between the attenuation basins and the outfalls. Four long, large basins along the southern boundary are not shown connected. I assume this is a mistake on the drawing as they will not act as soakaways. In fact, they are the highest risk for the existing houses directly along the southern boundary.
8. The open attenuation basins are shown as 1.5 M deep. When full these will present a significant drowning hazard to local children who will be drawn there as they are not full of water all the time. How is this risk controlled with an open basing design. SuDS principles, “To help create healthy resilient spaces for people …”.
9. An open basin attenuation design my well draw wildlife, but it will also draw rats, midges and mosquitos. As the basins are all located along the existing boundary with existing houses how will this aspect be managed, and should it even be a solution.
10. The LDP talks of up to 520 houses. How could you possibly get to that figure if you do not have a final detailed housing design and in response a fully checked out surface water drainage design. Having carried out these calculations myself you will need the exact area of hard surfaces, roof areas ( so number and size of houses) etc to correctly calculate the attenuation required. Also, fully surveyed outfalls with proved allowable outfall discharge rates. Assume you were just given a number of houses by the developer which is not good enough.
11. With an attenuation design maintenance is critical, without it given the right circumstances the attenuation basins will flood. Note you have referred to a Section 106 agreement. Historically these agreements have not gone well. Who will be responsible for the maintenance of the attenuation basins? If the developer, who will police this and what provisions will be in place if he was to cease trading, as without it we will have a flood situation. Or will it be the local authority and does it have the necessary resource for the long-term commitment. SuDS principles, “considering both construction and long-term maintenance.”
12. What factor of Safety will be built into any drainage design given the existing houses at risk. Currently no detail, how can you expect interested parties to fully comment.
13. The LDP refers to Climate Warming and the anticipated increase in rainfall. What account has the local authority taken of this and what demands have they made on the surface water drainage solution. The basis of the drainage design needs to extend to the life of the proposed development, otherwise in the future the surface water drainage proposal may fail and cause flooding say 10, 20 years on.
14. What allowance has been made when people in the new development start providing hard standings on their front garden. Due allowance for this must be allowed for in the design as this eventuality is uncontrolled.
15. When developing sites, it is a principle that developers should manage and contain potential hazards within their site. In the current proposal the hazard, surface water flooding, has been collected in basins along the southern boundary presenting an increased flood risk to the existing houses along and outside that boundary that did not exist before.

Given all the above it seems inconceivable that this site can be designated as a key Site without the primary hazard of surface water flooding to existing housing being positively resolved. This with at least one fully explored housing layout and compliant drainage solution considering the actual capacity of the two outfalls with full allowance of all the matters raised above.

TRANSPORT

1. The LDP plan clearly shows two access points to the proposed site. The Eastern access is noted as the ‘Primary Access’ and the West to Celtic Way is noted as ‘Secondary Access’. What does this mean? How do you ensure that is the case and that the traffic from the new estate isn’t equally split down both access points and that the Celtic Way access is not actually the ‘Primary Access’. Unless you put controls of some sort in you simply don’t know.
2. Whilst the route down Readers Way is reasonable, (very few houses off the road), and designed for a future estate Celtic Way is not. Some 150 properties are already served on this one estate road, but more importantly there are some 45 houses who must reverse backwards out into the road. This together the many parked cars along the road due to lack of parking provides a significant safety hazard. This hazard will now be increased many times by connecting so many houses down Celtic Way a road which was never designed for this. The transport supplementary information does not deal with this.

INFRASTRUCTURE


1. The LDP refers to developer contribution to the costs of additional school places. The cost of each school place includes a classroom space, teachers, maintenance, etc Has the authority really looked at the real cost of this, and do they really expect the developer to cover that full cost, it would be very surprising if this was the case. The direct result of not providing the full cost of providing the additional school places will inevitably mean stretching things in the existing schools and a drop in what’s available. This the normal story on existing infrastructure in these situations and so this proposal will inevitably impact on the education system in this area. Not great planning.
2. The same situation applies to the doctors and dentists in what is a small village which has seen many developments added in recent years without any additional facilities. There are issues currently accessing both doctors and dentists. What is the planning solution to deal with this issue, it should be in the supporting information for the viability of this key site. This should be identified prior to sites being put on the LDP. To just add sites and refer to Councillors as in some of the recent authority responses is simply not planning.

Unless a new road from the Readers Way development towards the port road and Nursten that links directly to the the B4265 Rhoose bypass avoiding Fonmon. This development puts too many tourists and Rhoose pedestrians at risk.

Formal Representation: Site SP4 KS3 (Readers Way, Rhoose)
​To: The Planning Policy Department, Vale of Glamorgan Council

​Subject: Objection to Allocation of Site SP4 KS3 – Lack of Technical Soundness and Deliverability

​I am writing to formally object to the inclusion of Site SP4 KS3 (Land at Readers Way) in the Deposit RLDP. The proposal for 520 homes at this location is technically "Unsound" under the Welsh Government Development Plans Manual and fails to meet the requirements of TAN 15 and Planning Policy Wales (PPW) for the following reasons:

​1. Lack of Validated Drainage Evidence (Test of Soundness 2 & 3)

The proposed drainage strategy relies on deep borehole infiltration. However, the evidence base (ESP Report 7618e) appears to lack a full, consecutive winter groundwater monitoring program (Oct–Mar). Without winter data, the Council cannot confirm that the "1m unsaturated zone" required by SuDS Standard S6 is maintained. This is a critical failure, given the known variability of the limestone.Also it is proposed to increase the site from 450 to 520 houses. It is not evident that the site been accurately monitored for this increase. Without the full winter monitoring and revision of the calculations for the additional housing this fundamentally fails.

will this extra housing also adversely affect the possibility of ground water contamination into the Reader Way biodiversity pond in that area.

​2. Failure to Apply Mandatory Factor of Safety (FoS)

The developer has failed to demonstrate the application of a Factor of Safety (FoS) of 10.0 to borehole infiltration rates, as mandated by the SAB for high-risk sites near existing residential assets. A 10.0 FoS should be applied.No mention of who takes responsibility for the upkeep of the drainage and attenuation ponds infrastructure when the development is completed ie the associated problems that occurred at Rhoose Point development where nobody would take overall responsibility.

​3. Cumulative Impact and Infrastructure Failure

The site’s drainage impact on the existing flood drainage issues at Celtic Way and the railway underpass has not been addressed through enforceable mechanisms. I contend that the Council must mandate Grampian Conditions or Section 106/104 agreements to ensure:

​No development commences until off-site flood mitigation for the underpass bottleneck is completed compliant with SuDS sustainable drainage requirements
​"Bunding" requirements for attenuation ponds are legally secured to prevent overtopping during 1-in-100-year storm events (+40% climate change).
​4. Historic Precedent (Rhoose Point)

The Council is repeating the systemic drainage failings seen at Rhoose Point, where inadequate technical oversight has led to long-term adoption and maintenance issues this should not happen again. The current "Amber" assessment of SP4 KS3 must be elevated to "Red" until such time as the winter monitoring and mounding analysis definitively prove the site's safety .

Number of houses must not be increased; local and tourist pedestrian safety and active travel must be properly addressed; accept that the built contraints at Fontygary traffic lights/junction cannot be mitigated by traffic light timings and that a new access road from B4265 is essential.

I strongly object to the proposed increased housing in the revised development plan for the following reasons.

​1. Failure of "Active Travel" and Pedestrian Safety
​I strongly object to the increased density on the grounds that the site fails to meet the requirements of the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 and Planning Policy Wales (PPW) Edition 12.

​Outdated Data: The traffic counts were baseline-tested for 450 homes, and a 15.5% increase in housing density was added without new physical monitoring of the Fontygary junction.
​Physical Bottlenecks: The route between the proposed site and key amenities (the local pub, leisure facilities, and the rail station and shops) contains "critical bottlenecks" where the road narrows to a single carriage with no footway/pavement.
​Unresolvable Danger: Increased vehicle movements from 520 homes - combined with existing traffic from the B4265 via Fonmon - and B4265 by pass road creates an unacceptable risk of pedestrian-vehicle conflict in areas where there is no physical space to retro-fit a pavement.​The "offline" paths do not solve the danger for existing residents or those who still need to navigate the "pavement-free" sections of the main road toward the B4265.

​Leisure Flow: The junction at Fontygary Road is a primary access point for both residents and visitors to the coast: Increased residential traffic will lead to "junction starvation," where turning movements into the leisure park block the main arterial road.

​2. Inadequate Evidence Base: Seasonal & Leisure
​The Transport Assessment (TA) supporting the increase to 520 homes is fundamentally flawed as it fails to account for the unique local context of the impact of the Fontygary Leisure Park and local pub that share this crossroad

The current monitoring uses 'neutral month' data which does not reflect the significant surge in both vehicle and pedestrian traffic during the summer months. With the increase to 520 dwellings, the junction at the Fontygary traffic lights which even now at peak capacity are pushed beyond capacity when leisure park traffic is at its peak.

Furthermore, the safety of pedestrians navigating the 'pavement-free' zones is severely compromised when seasonal visitors are added to the residential uplift.

​The Leisure Park operates at high occupancy for 10 months of the year, not just holiday periods when there is also added traffic from touring caravans. The TA must be based on this "extended peak" rather than neutral-month averages.

​3. Impact of "Rat-Running" via Fonmon
​The proposal fails to mitigate the impact of traffic diverting from the B4265 through Fonmon into Rhoose.

​Technical Constraint: This route consists of narrow, winding lanes poorly suited for the increased volume.

​Cumulative Impact: The move from 450 to 520 houses is a "tipping point" that will push these minor roads beyond their safe design capacity, specifically at the narrowest points where residential dwellings front directly onto the road without a buffer.

The modeling doesn't sufficiently account for the combined impact of this site and other nearby developments (like St Athan or Airport expansion traffic) on the Fonmon bottleneck.

The council could alleviate significantly these highlighted road and pedestrian safety issues with a new road linking the B4265 to this development through Nurston utilising part of the Old Port Road.

​4. Conclusion: "Unsound" Allocation
Unless appropriate Grampian, Section 106 and Section 104 conditions are included to ensure essential local infrastructure requirements are met and delivered before the Readers Way development can begin, this proposal must not go ahead.
​The plan is Unsound because it is not "Effective" or "Deliverable." The infrastructure at the Fontygary junction and the surrounding pedestrian bottlenecks cannot safely accommodate a 15% increase in housing density without significant, yet currently unplanned and unfunded, topographical changes.

The infrastructure is not able to support an additional 520 households. With potentially 2 cars per household, increased traffic will make the village more isolated and cut off as traffic queues will increase. There is not a full time surgery in the village nor supermarket and there are not enough facilities to sustainably support more households. Public transport is scarce and no large retail units within walking distance. There is also no secondary school within walking distance and houses in the area will devalue with increased supply. I would support it only with major investment in infrastructure in Rhoose.

We would need a real increase in train services from one hour to at least every half hour. There is far too much pressure on the transport system.
A better road system needs to be created between the airport and Barry, especially with the new College being built and the other house proposal by Weycock Cross. The traffic is absolutely horrendous at rush hour!
We need more more amenities, proper local shops and cafes, not another aldi or discount shops!

Too many houses have already been built in Rhoose in the last few years. The worst outcome has been the terrible increased traffic between Rhoose and Barry.
Apart from a primary school, there has been no other amenities created.
There is a flooding risk as it is near Readers Way. This will make the flood more severe.
There is already too much on the medical infrastructure- ie dental and medical .
There would be too much traffic. It is already horrendous as it is on Port Road West. A 15mn to Barry now takes an hour!

Considerable roading improvements and increased provision of public transport need to be in place before this site is considered for the LDP.

The site is well situated in terms of limiting environmental impact but falls short in terms of access to retail and public transport. Choose is poorly served by trains and buses. With the present public transport network this location will encourage private vehicle use and lead to further traffic congestion in Rhode itself and towards the main centre of Barry on Port Road and especially at the weycock cross junction.

Remove this development from the plan.

This proposed development, will be built at the back of an already busy housing estate, that is not serviced by public transportation. The roads leading to this 'new estate' are already heavily laden with cars as parking is exhausted. These road flood due to run off from the fields that you wish to build on, therefore taking away the little ground saturation provided currently. You cannot add further congestion onto the road when there is insufficient public transport. Weycock Cross is overcrowded and cannot sustain any further cars.

Incorporate a 12 month traffic monitoring of the Fontygary junction through Fonmon hamlet to the B4265 into the plan.
A new bypass road from the development northwards directly to the B4265, bypassing Fonmon hamlet.

I am writing to formally submit an objection regarding the proposed residential development at LDP Readers Way site SP4 KS3. My primary concern relates to the severe and unmitigated impact this development will have on the Fontygary traffic light junction and the subsequent northern arterial route to the B4265.
​The current infrastructure is fundamentally incapable of supporting the additional vehicle movements generated by the proposed 450 dwellings for the following reasons:
​1. Critical Junction Saturation (The Fontygary "Hub")
​The Fontygary traffic lights serve as the convergence point for three main arteries (East, West, and North). Residents of the SP4 KS3 site are forced to negotiate this junction for almost all local and commuter travel.
​Commercial Conflict: The junction already manages high-volume ingress and egress for a large, busy holiday complex and a prominent local pub.
​Strategic Pressure: The addition of hundreds of daily commuter trips from the Readers Way site onto this three-way system will lead to significant "stacking" and gridlock, particularly during peak hours and the summer tourist season.
​2. The Northern Bottleneck: A "One-Vehicle" Failure
​The exit from the Fontygary lights heading North toward the B4265 bypass is a critical safety and capacity failure.
​Width Constraints: The route narrows into a single-vehicle passage immediately after the junction. There is no physical room for two-way traffic, meaning any increase in volume will lead to "stand-offs" that will back up traffic directly into the Fontygary light sequence.
​Absence of Active Travel Infrastructure: This narrow passage has no pedestrian pavement. Forcing more vehicles into a space shared by walkers and cyclists—who use this as a primary route to the bypass—presents a severe risk to life.
​3. Rural Hamlet and Single-Track Constraints
​Beyond the initial bottleneck, the road leading to the B4265 passes through a local hamlet and transitions into a single-track road with inadequate passing places.
​Infrastructure Deficit: Much of this route lacks any pavement.
​Safety Risks: This road is a popular route for leisure walkers and cyclists. The LDP SP4 KS3 proposal fails to demonstrate how hundreds of additional vehicles can safely navigate a single-track rural lane without compromising the safety of non-motorized road users.
​Conclusion
​The LDP SP4 KS3 site relies on a highway network that is already at its limit. The northern exit is a structural bottleneck that cannot be widened without significant intervention. Until a comprehensive highway mitigation strategy is presented that addresses the single-vehicle passage and the lack of pedestrian safety, this development should be considered unsustainable and unsafe.

Our house backs directly onto the proposed field for development. We have serious concerns on the flood plans for this land. Readers way already suffers with floods on wet weather. This became extremely dangerous during the frost and ice. The flood defence plans is proposed to run along our back fence and we have serious worries of our property suffering from potential flooding. My parents live in Lon Cefn Mably Rhoose and when this estate was built our garden was constantly flooding. The drainage is not. Sufficient. The roads out of Rhoose cannot deal with existing traffic, without extra houses.

The allocation of Readers Way is supported by the promoter and the site owners. The change to the indicative plan more accurately reflects the Masterplan submitted by the site promoters - reflecting the intention that Readers Way would provide the principal access and that Celtic Way would only be used as a secondary access. There will be no through route on the site that could be utilised to by-pass Fontygary Road.

Comments on the Deposit Plans
Objections
The Development
In addition to the Llanmead propose development, with 350/400 houses there are further developments planned for Rhoose Point, Weycock Cross, St Athan & Llantwit Major. In addition, there are other developments such as Barry College near Cardiff Airport & a potential further development at Model Farm.
The amount of development is far in excess what this area can cope with for the following reasons:
Traffic Congestion
What consideration have been made to improve access to Rhoose/Cardiff Airport/St Athan/Llantwit Major? I was advised at the consultative meeting at Celtic Way community centre that adjustment may be made to Weycock Cross Roundabout? Whatever adjustments are made the increased traffic will still end up on Port Road, Porthkerry Road & the A4226. Not only this but I believe the traffic congestion would deter people using the Airport. You only have to have one breakdown or roadworks on Port Road to see the congestion that builds up from Weycock Cross back to the Hotel International on occasions & this can only become worse with further potential development
Traffic in Rhoose at current pinch points, is at a maximum with lack of parking at village shops, Schools, Doctors, Dentist & Chemist where would another potential 350 to 550 cars be accommodated from the Llanmead development alone?
At the consultative meeting above, I was advised the access to the Llammead development via Celtic Way was at present designed to be and emergency entrance/exit. It is quite probable that this entrance/exit will be turned into a regular entrance/exit meaning, potentially, a further 220+ cars travelling up a built-up area. What road safety adjustment to this road would be made if this entrance/exit become a reality?
Overall, the village cannot cope with the additional traffic as well as Port Road, not even considering the other planned developments.



Infrastructure
The Village has seen many developments over the years with the Hollies, Celtic Way, Rhoose Point & Golwg Mor, there has been little improvement of the infrastructure, with the potential 550+ additional people requiring, Schooling, Dentist & Doctor. The infrastructure is already under severe pressures as well as changes being made to these services currently underway by local Welsh Government. It is impractical to put more pressure on already under resourced service with an additional 550+ people.
I would enquire what investigations have been carried out with regards to the sewage capability within the village. I believe that when there are certain weather conditions the capacity of the sewage system in the village can overflow with raw sewage being evident under the bridge, on the entrance to the Fontygary Leisure Park. If this situation exists at present, then it certainly cannot cope with a further 350/400 households wastage. It may well be that the sewage system cannot be improved & as such would indicate how impractical it would be to propose further developments in Rhoose & a reminder of the Health & Safety risk to this development.

Removal from the RLDP.

This proposed development has no sufficient drainage structure suitable for the area, given the already increased flooding known on Readers Way and Celtic Way. The housing proposed would have a massive impact on the already failing infrastructure in Rhoose without extract provisions provided within in proposal.

Additional housing will require drastic improvement in ground water and sewage disposal provision. The housing should not be approved until the improvements are in place.

The present black waste and surface drainage infrastructure is insufficient to deal with current demand in the village. Climate change will only increase rainfall and place extra strain on already stretched facilities.
Additional hard landscaping with housing, roads and pavements will exacerbate an already untenable situation, increasing flooding at Readers Way, along Port Road towards Fonmon and affect areas south of the proposed development.
Recent rain caused flooding under the railway bridge at Fontygary (not unusual) and I understand that it included a release of sewage onto the road.

RHOOSE READERS WAY:
Policy SP6- Rhoose seeing high order settlements than any other Vale Village. Object strongly to the massive amount of houses planned for readers way.
HG1 KS3 - Access to this enormous estate on Readers Way is ridiculously inadequate. Accident waiting to happen. Flooding is problematic already, this will get much worse when all these new dwellings are built. Who is ultimately responsible and who will be accountable for future flooding when VOG already knows the worries here?

I object strongly to all the new housing planned for Readers Way Rhoose.