Keep it as it is

Changes to this roundabout will only make a scary roundabout into a more dangerous one

More detail to show that improvements at Weycock Cross Junction are deliverable and will be implemented before additional housing is allowed in Rhoose.

The Plan must show the improvements to be made, how they will be paid for and when they will happen and demonstrate the impact this will have on moving public transport quicker through the junction. Without this no development in Rhoose should occur the developments at Readers Way Model Farm and at the Airport will mean far more traffic will come via this junction as public transport facilities are totally inadequate.

The idea that a few 'lane marking modifications', 'extended approach lanes', and 'some signalization' will address the prospective increases in traffic is absurd. Housing growth in St. Athan, Llantwit Major, Rhoose, together with a growing Airport, potential industrial park traffic, will all feed extra traffic onto this route. This will not be addressed in these sticking-plastere proposals. Add to this the 700 plus cars (from the NW Barry development) trying to access Port Road immediately by the roundabout, and the overall outlook is disastrous.

This roading improvement needs to be fast tracked and made a priority. At present the junction is well over capacity at many times of day. I support any improvements to this junction but I do feel that even with improvements the capacity of the road network here will still have constraints. Even with considerable improvements, from reading the transport modelling reports, it seems any additional housing development in the area will result in future, major, over capacity issues. I also fear the ratepayers will end up making oversized financial contributions relative to that from housing developers.

HG1 KS1: Mitigation measures for Weycock roundabout – marginal widening and signalization - remain untested conjecture. Further, the sentence (BP14, 4.2.13): ‘controlled crossings and access arrangements for Land at North West Barry’, have been ‘excluded.’ and 'The access for Land at North West Barry and the impact on Waycock Cross Roundabout is to be considered ... between the land promoter and the Vale of Glamorgan Council' raise a core question. The core question is: what will be the effect of "one" entrance/exit for the KS1 site, that is 20 yards from the Weycock roundabout, with up to 700 plus potential cars traveling to and from work, schools, shops, etc edging directly onto a massively congested Port Road every weekday? A crucial dimension of the traffic dilemma is simply absent here in studies. In addition the question: "HOW" and "WHEN" was the traffic data collected? Neither BP14 or BP 14A provide ANY information here. Persimmon indicate in their document that "one" day in September 2023 provided the data. Can this really be taken seriously as anything more than an unrepresentative three year old snapshot? How did they collate data, what time of day did they collect it etc. All unanswered questions. However Persimmon build up 500+ pages of data on this thin example. I suspect the same holds for the data in BP14 and BP14A. It is an impressive fiction. Photos provide indication of normal traffic on Port Road and Pontypridd Road on the roundabout and immediately by the proposed entrance to the KS1 site as of March 2026

Marginal widening of the roads entering Weycock roundabout the and signalisation will almost certainly not adequately address the gridlock that we already experience daily. The purported evidence of this document is flimsy guesswork. It does not take into account the effect of signalised junctions for cars and/or pedestrians and insufficient weight is given to the estimated traffic increases at each junction and the delays this will cause. We all know that the slightest hiccup in traffic flow (and there are many potential causes for this) can bring about disproportionate delays. It seems that no real allowance is made for the fact that this roundabout is a conduit for emergency vehicles to, from and between the airport, the town centre and other towns and villages along the coast.

We live with the existing traffic overload on a daily basis and it negatively impacts our lives. Additional housing with the extra ensuing traffic emptying onto the roundabout every morning and evening can only make this significently worse. If national planning policy states that development should not worsen traffic or pollution, then North West Barry site does not meet these standards. It should be withdrawn from the plan.

Transport from Weycock Cross to Cardiff Airport is certainly an issue, but more of an issue is the increased amount of traffic through Weycock Cross from the inreased housing at St Athan, the new Technical College, the airport and the industrial site at Model Farm should that go ahead. Emergency services will struggle.

There is no adequate provision for public transport, the addition of a separate lane on Pontypridd Road to feed on to Port Road to a traffic light junction with the Weycock Cross development is going to hold up already congested traffic.

The housing and industrial proposals will cause a severe traffic problem that is already an issue. Currently, queues are frequently encountered approaching from the Five Mile Lane, Pontypridd Road and Port Road West from the Colcot roundabout to beyond the Dragon Tails roundabout.

The proposed addition of lanes approaching Weycock Cross will do nothing to increase flow around the roundabout and hence delays will only increase with increased amount of traffic. I would suggest that the roundabout should, regardless of predicted increase in traffic flow resulting from developments in Barry, Rhoose & St. Athan, be replaced with traffic lights.

I went to the consultation meeting in Rhoose yesterday. My questions are why is an access road being built to the bypass instead of sending the traffic through the village. Also no amenities are being provided as what happened with Rhoose point. There is also the problem with the college traffic plus more houses being built at Rhoose point and also the ongoing battle at Model farm. More houses are being built at Weycock cross adding to traffic congestion. The proposed changes to Weycock cross roundabout will not work because if you put traffic lights on port road to allow traffic out of the proposed development by the toby inn the amount of traffic coming from Rhoose would be a nightmare. If you lived around here you would know that you only have to have roadworks on port road coming from the airport and it’s gridlocked for hours. There also is only one train and bus an hour so if you’re trying to get cars off the roads these need to be increased.

1. Introduction

1.1.1 Savills is instructed by Taylor Wimpey PLC (‘Taylor Wimpey’) to respond to the consultation on the Deposit Plan as part of the preparation of the Replacement Local Development Plan (‘RLDP’) by the Vale of Glamorgan Council (‘VoG’).

1.1.2 The submission is made in the context of Taylor Wimpey’s position as the promoter of Site ID 376 (Land West of Swanbridge Road, Phase 3). The site is being promoted for a residential development comprising of 260 homes.

1.1.3 Taylor Wimpey is one of the UK’s leading national housebuilders, with extensive experience in delivering high-quality residential developments across a wide range of local authority areas. The company has an established presence within the VoG area. Taylor Wimpey is in the process of delivering Phase 1 of the site with development of Phase 2 close to commencing to dovetail with the completion of Phase 1. Phase 3 would act as a logical extension to the site, effectively rounding off development in this part of Sully and dovetailing with Phase 2 which is anticipated to be completed in 2029.

1.1.4 The site was originally submitted as a candidate site as part of the Call for Candidate Sites stage in September 2022 by Taylor Wimpey. This was a comprehensive site submission demonstrating that the site was viable, deliverable and sustainable – the three tests for Candidate Sites to satisfy as set out in Paragraph 3.36 of the Development Plans Manual. The Candidate Site submission consisted of the following information:

• Archaeological Desk-based Assessment (prepared by RPS);
• Design Vision (prepared by Pegasus Group);
• Drainage Strategy & Flood Risk Assessment (prepared by Pheonix Design);
• Landscape Appraisal (prepared by Pegasus Group);
• Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (prepared by Soltys Brewster);
• High Level Viability Statement (prepared by Savills);
• Transport Technical Note (prepared by Vectos); and
• Supporting Statement (prepared by Savills).

1.1.5 Since then, and on behalf of Taylor Wimpey , Savills have also responded to the consultation on the Preferred Strategy in February 2024 as well as the Housing Growth in Barry consultation in July 2025 and the Housing Trajectory in October 2025.

1.1.6 This supporting statement is structured to initially comment on the approach taken by the VoG in assessing the Land West of Swanbridge Road, Phase 3 site before commenting on specific policies that are contained within the Deposit RLDP.

1.1.7 In general, Taylor Wimpey’s position is that, at present, the Deposit RLDP is not sound but that it could be made sound through the amendments as suggested throughout this Statement.

2. Candidate Site Assessment Process and Integrated Sustainability Assessment
Introduction

2.1.1 Candidate sites are in essence assessed through two means – the Candidate Site Assessment Background Papers and the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal.

2.1.2 Taylor Wimpey’s position is that both of these documents do not provide an adequate assessment of the Land West of Swanbridge Road, Phase 3 site.

2.1.3 Each is considered in turn below.

Candidate Site Assessment Process

2.1.4 All candidate sites have been assessed at Preferred Strategy stage (reported as Background Paper 18) and Deposit stage (reported as Background Paper 18a).

2.1.5 The reason for the Land West of Swanbridge Road (Phase 3), Sully (Ref. 376) site not being carried forward as part of these assessments was presented in Background Paper 18 at the time of publication of the Preferred Strategy with Backgropund Paper 18a providing no further site analysis. The reason for the site not progressing this stage of the Candidate Site assessment process is as follows:

“Development of the site would lead to a loss of the Best and Most Versatile Grade 3a agricultural land contrary to national policy.”

2.1.6 Whilst parts of the site do constitute Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land, Taylor Wimpey’s position is that there are compelling reasons relating to the site’s context and how it is utilised that mean a more nuanced position needs to be taken. Without such nuance, the RLDP risks not allocating a site that, whilst perhaps containing BMV, is otherwise suitable for development and more suitable for development then sites that the Deposit RLDP proposes to instead allocate.

2.1.7 Included at Appendix A, and included as part of Taylor Wimpey’s representations on the Preferred Strategy and the Housing Growth in Barry consultations, is an Agricultural Assessment prepared by The Andersons Centre.

2.1.8 The key conclusions from this Assessment are that:

• The site is farmed by a tenant farmer whose main base is approximately 12km away which presents logistical and practical challenges. These challenges are exacerbated by the lack of farm buildings and the fact that there is no mains electricity;

• The site forms part of a wider 230 acre farm and so the cessation of agricultural practices on this parcel will not, by virtue of its size, prejudice the continued farming of the wider land parcel;

• The tenant farmer farms approximately 3,000 acres of land and so the loss of the ability to farm this parcel will have a negligible impact on the continuation of their agricultural operations;

• The site is bound on two sides by existing or permitted housing, on a third boundary by a railway line, and on its eastern boundary by a road; and

• Farming of the land does not support a high level of employment and if the land was lost for development, 0.15 of a full time labour unit’s equivalent work would be lost.

2.1.9 Taking the above together, the conclusion needs to be reached that the site’s size and context presents challenges for farming and that the development of Phase 2 by Taylor Wimpey has the potential to exacerbate these challenges. Aligned to this, the level of employment that the farming of the site supports is negligible and the cessation of farming of this particular parcel of land will not materially impact either the continued farming operations of the wider farm that the land sits apart of or the tenant farmer that farms the land.

Integrated Sustainability Appraisal

2.1.10 The Initial Integrated Sustainability Appraisal undertaken at Preferred Strategy stage provides a GIS based appraisal of all sites against 17 objectives. Inherently the Initial Integrated Sustainability Appraisal can be a bit of a blunt tool but Taylor Wimpey’s position is that the site performs better against a substantial number of the 17 objectives than the current assessment.

2.1.11 Included at Appendix B is an assessment undertaken by Taylor Wimpey which provides commentary against certain objectives and suggests why the site performs considerably better than forecast in the Initial Integrated Sustainability Appraisal.

2.1.12 A summary of this is presented below:
Table 1 Summary of ISA and Suggested Taylor Wimpey Approach

2.1.13 Taylor Wimpey’s position here is clear – the inadequacy of the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal as a tool for assessing candidate sites can only be appropriate where the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal is done correctly and considers the mitigation measures that a candidate site submission proposed to put in place. Without this, the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal risks a situation – as Taylor Wimpey suggest has been the case in Policy HG1 KS1 – where a Key Site is selected in favour of alternative sites that are better performing.

3. Deposit Plan

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 The following section of this Statement comments on the relevant Key Themes, Strategic Objectives and draft Policy Framework forming part of the Deposit Plan Consultation.

3.1.2 The Policy Framework has been reviewed with comments provided on only those policies considered to be of most relevance to Land West of Swanbridge Road (Phase 3), Sully. The position on individual policies contained within the Deposit RLDP are summarised in the table below:

Table 2 Taylor Wimpey Policy Position

Relevant Policy Support or Object
SP1 Sustainable Growth Strategy - Object
SP2 Settlement Hierarchy - Support
SP 6 Housing Requirement - Object
HG1 Housing Allocations: HG1 KS1 – Land at North West Barry - Object
TR1 Transport Proposals: TR1(2) Active Travel Route Sully to Cosmeston - Support
TR1 Transport Proposals: TR1(6) Highway Improvement Works Weycock Cross Roundabout - Object
CC1 Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development - Object
CI1 Open Space Provision - Clarity required
DNP5 Environmental Protection - Object as currently worded

3.2 Key Themes and Strategic Objectives

Homes For All

3.2.1 As noted in paragraphs 3.17 and 3.18 of the Deposit Plan the VoG has the highest affordability ratio in Wales with average house prices 9.7 times the average workplace earnings compared to the Welsh average, giving rise to a significant need for affordable homes which is under significant pressure. This highlights the ever increasing need for sufficient high quality housing, which Taylor Wimpey are committed to provide and supply the mix, type and tenure of housing needed within the local authority’s growing population.

Placemaking

3.2.2 Taylor Wimpey embed strong placemaking standards across their developments as detailed within their Placemaking Charter. Taylor Wimpey consider Land West of Swanbridge Road (Phase 3) to present an opportunity to provide a comprehensive residential development that is accessible and well-connected with the existing settlement of Sully and compliments the earlier phases of development. As demonstrated in the earlier phases of development, the Site offers a sustainable location for future growth with easy access to a range of services and facilities in Sully.

Protecting and Enhancing the Natural Environment

3.2.3 Taylor Wimpey support the VoG’s commitment to protect and enhance the natural environment through the integration of green/blue infrastructure network and the sustainable management of resources within the VoG. However where Objective 5 seeks to safeguard land from inappropriate development, proposals must be subject to the relevant planning balance giving weight to the surrounding land use and appropriateness of safeguarding agricultural land that would otherwise be unconstrained and considered suitable for development given the outstanding need for housing.

Promoting Active and Sustainable Travel Choices

3.2.4 Taylor Wimpey support the promotion of sustainable travel and active modes of transport, including the provision of designated active travel routes that improve the connectivity between primary and key settlements, such as the Sully to Cosmeston active travel route.

3.2.5 As demonstrated in the earlier phases of Land West of Swanbridge Road, Taylor Wimpey support the promotion of active travel within new developments and provide opportunities for residents to easily engage with active travel.

3.3 Policy Framework

Policy SP1 Sustainable Growth Strategy

3.3.1 Taylor Wimpey’s comments on this policy relate to the sustainable growth strategy in so much as it relates to the spatial strategy rather than the housing requirement that the RLDP adopts with further comments on the housing requirement provided in connection to Policy SP6 (Housing Requirement).

3.3.2 Taylor Wimpey appreciate the need to balance the ten strategic objectives against the need for growth and protection of the VoG’s natural and built environment, and strongly support the strategic objective to provide homes for all. Taylor Wimpey maintain their position on the proposed growth strategy that has been established within earlier consultation responses submitted throughout the RLDP process, including the most recent consultation on ‘Growth Options in Barry’.

3.3.3 Taylor Wimpey consider that to date the growth strategy has placed disproportionate emphasis on identifying an alternative site within Barry, rather than giving due consideration to potential sites in nearby high‑performing settlements such as Sully. Taylor Wimpey therefore strongly encourage the VoG to widen the search for additional allocations beyond the administrative boundary of Barry Town Council and to consider locations that represent a logical and sustainable extension to neighbouring primary settlements that are located within the Strategic Growth Area, including Sully.

3.3.4 The six key elements of the Sustainable Growth Strategy are noted and Taylor Wimpey support a spatial strategy that locates major new development for the delivery of sustainable housing growth in appropriate locations, such as Sully, that are supported by the relevant infrastructure, services and facilities. Providing new homes within Phase 3 aligns with the Strategic Growth Area identified within the RLDP Strategy which forms the primary focus for housing growth.

3.3.5 Policy SPG1 continues to identify Sully as a location where new housing development will be concentrated, therefore establishing a principle of development for Phase 3 and help to further align the provision of new housing with the existing facilities of Sully, reducing the need to travel. Sully represents an inherently sustainable location for future growth and aligns well with the Sustainable Transport Oriented Growth Option. As identified in the Deposit RLDP, Sully is classified as a Primary Settlement and performs a complementary role to Barry as a key centre. Its position within the Strategic Growth Area further indicates that an appropriate level of development at Sully would be acceptable, with both existing housing delivery and the current allocation at Swanbridge Road supporting its established role.
3.3.6 With existing development ongoing to the north of the Site, at Phases 1 and 2 of Land West of Swanbridge Road, Phase 3 is considered to provide an appropriate level of growth in a sustainable location that would form a logical extension to existing allocations. The sustainability and suitability of Sully to accommodate residential development is reinforced by the allocation of 500 dwellings under Policy MG2(37) (‘Land West of Swanbridge Road, Sully’) on land directly north of the site promoted by Taylor Wimpey. The progression of this location into a phase 3 development would continue to strengthen Sully’s function as a primary settlement and would constitute a logical and coherent extension to the existing built form.

Figure 1 Extract of Growth Strategy

3.3.7 Taylor Wimpey appreciate the aspirations of the Council to deliver housing to meet the identified future housing needs of the VoG and wider growth aspirations of the South East Wales Region at a strategic level. Taylor Wimpey support the revised strategy moving away from North East Barry, however maintain the position that this level of growth should be re-allocated to those locations that are most suitable for growth, including sustainable settlements outside of Barry. Growth should not be focuses solely on Barry.

Policy SP2 Settlement Hierarchy

3.3.8 Taylor Wimpey support the conclusions of the Settlement Appraisal Review Background Paper which identifies Sully as a Primary Settlement, reflecting its important role in providing a level of housing growth, in addition to key local services and facilities. Within this Background Paper, Sully is recognised for its vital role as a sustainable community, scoring highly across all key principles in demonstrating its sustainability by providing for the day-to-day needs of its residents. Taylor Wimpey concur with the supporting evidence which reinforces Sully’s importance within the settlement hierarchy.

3.3.9 Whilst Draft Policy SP2 presents a ‘broad distribution of development within the Strategic Growth Area..’, serious concerns continue to be raised around the level of growth around Barry and the emphasis placed on it as the focus for future development. Taylor Wimpey do not dispute the identification of Barry as a Key Settlement, given its position as the largest town within the VoG, however believe Barry should not remain the sole focus for growth where there are opportunities available around primary settlements located within the Strategic Growth Area.

3.3.10 Put another way, it seems perverse for the Deposit RLDP to direct no new growth to a Primary Settlement within the identified Strategic Growth Area.

Policy SP 6 Housing Requirement

3.3.11 The purpose of this policy is to set the housing requirement and then identify the components of supply that are anticipated to meet this housing requirement. A number of Background Papers (nos. BP7, BP8, BP8A, ad BP9A) underpin the approach that is taken. Taylor Wimpey have a number of comments to make on the approach taken in this policy.

Housing Requirement

3.3.12 The approach taken in the Deposit RLDP, as with the Preferred Strategy beforehand, is for the housing requirement to make use of a 10 year dwelling-led scenario, an approach that reflects past completions and looks to extrapolate this forward over the lifetime of the RLDP.

3.3.13 Taylor Wimpey provided detailed commentary on the proposed housing requirement in their comments on the Preferred Strategy but note that Welsh Government have subsequently provided their comments on the Preferred Strategy raising no objection with the housing requirement proposed to be taken.

3.3.14 Taylor Wimpey’s position though remains – if a dwelling-led scenario is to be used to determine the housing requirement then it needs to have a far shorter scenario length then 10 years as the first three years of the 10 year period selected were when supply was suppressed as a result of the current LDP not having been adopted.

3.3.15 That said, there is a clear contextual change since the Preferred Strategy was adopted, this being the publication of the 2022-based household projections have been published. Table 5 of Background Paper 8A Supplementary Demographic Evidence – 2022-based WG Projections provides a comparison of the 2022-based projections with the 2018-based projections and the Deposit RLDP’s housing requirement. A simplified version of this table is shown overleaf:

Table 3 RLDP Housing Requirement
Scenario Housing Requirement
RLDP 7,587
2018-based projections 6,214
2022-based projections 9,623

3.3.16 This is important as Paragraph 4.2.6 of PWW states that:

‘The latest Welsh Government local authority level Household Projections for Wales, alongside the latest Local Housing Market Assessment (LHMA) and the Well-being plan for a plan area, will form a fundamental part of the evidence base for development plans.’

3.3.17 The proposed approach of continuing to use the 10 year dwelling-led scenario, as a methodology, clearly does not do this.

3.3.18 The approach of using the 2022-based household projections would comply with the aspirations of PPW. Taylor Wimpey’s position is that the commentary provided in the Background Paper 8A Supplementary Demographic Evidence – 2022-based WG Projections for not using 2022-based projections is wholly inadequate and that these projections should be used.

Flexibility Allowance

3.3.19 Paragraph 5.58 of Edition 3 the Development Plans Manual (March 2020) makes it clear that there is a requirement for a flexibility allowance to be added on top of the housing requirement to derive the number of homes the RLDP should plan for. This is in the interest of ensuring that sufficient housing is delivered in the event of some allocated sites either not delivering in their entirety or delivering less homes than anticipated. Paragraph 5.59 of the Manual clarifies that the extent of the flexibility allowance should be informed by local issues with 10% as a starting point (i.e. as the minimum).

3.3.20 The Adopted Local Development Plan (ALDP) applies a 10% flexibility allowance on top of the housing requirement for 9,460 homes so that provision is made for 10,408 homes.

3.3.21 Paragraph 1.2.34 of the Annual Monitoring Report 2024-2025 provides a comparison of the number of homes that have been completed and the level of completions that the ALDP anticipates. This shows that 6,999 homes have been delivered up to 1st April 2025 against a cumulative dwelling target of 8,829 homes, representing a shortfall of 20.7%.

3.3.22 Taylor Wimpey’s point here is that the ALDP’s flexibility allowance of 10% is insufficient to ensure that the ALDP’s housing requirement is actually being delivered. This is clear evidence that a higher flexibility allowance should be used for the RLDP. Although for different reasons, but following a direction from the Welsh Government Planning Inspector, Bridgend County Borough Council has increased its flexibility allowance to 20% and, it is considered that such a buffer is appropriate for the VoG’s RLDP.

Non-Delivery Allowance on Land Bank

3.3.23 Line C of Table 2 of the Preferred Strategy relates to those sites that either benefit from planning permission or are subject to a resolution to grant planning permission subject to planning permission. Combined, these sites are identified as having capacity for 1,860 homes.

3.3.24 The current approach, which assumes that all other sites which are under construction or sites where there is either a planning permission in place or sites where there is a resolution to grant planning permission subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement will be completed in full, causes concern for Taylor Wimpey.

3.3.25 There are multiple reasons why homes that benefit from either planning permission or a resolution to grant planning may not be delivered. These relate to viability, but also to specific site constraints and landowner intentions.

3.3.26 A point that is separate, but inherently linked, to the above is that often the capacity of a site for which reserved matters approval is sought is less than that permitted at outline stage. Requirements for SAB approval and the demonstration of a biodiversity net benefit, for example, reduce the capacity of a site at detailed design stage but are often not factored in at outline stage, particularly where the outline application is not progressed by a housebuilder.

3.3.27 Research undertaken by the Local Government Association for England (no such data is available for Wales) suggests that, between 2010/2011 and 2019/2020 a total of 2,782,300 dwelling were granted planning permission whilst there were only 1,627,730 completions. This means that during this period just 58.5% of those homes which were granted planning permission were completed.

3.3.28 Taylor Wimpey is not suggesting that applying a discount of 41.5% is necessarily correct and the above is both from England and a few years out of date but the need for a discount that relates specifically to Line C is very clear.

3.3.29 It’s difficult to know what this figure should be but Taylor Wimpey suggest that a 20% figure is used to reflect the flexibility allowance.

Windfall Allowances

3.3.30 The approach taken in the Deposit RLDP is to assume that 1,303 homes will be delivered across Windfall Sites. This has been calculated on the basis of previous completion delivered as windfalls.

3.3.31 Taylor Wimpey’s concern is that the delivery of homes on Windfall Sites inherently becomes more challenging over time as the easier to develop sites have been delivered and the buildings and land that hasn’t been developed is subject to increasing levels of policy protection. The approach taken by Cardiff Council in their Deposit RLDP is to assume that 75% of the 10 year average Windfall Sites will be delivered and such an approach seems entirely appropriate in this case.

3.3.32 An Urban Capacity Study (October 2023) prepared by the VoG, seeks to corroborate this by identifying 2,627 homes that could be delivered across the VoG. Whilst the windfall allowances would be less than the suggested urban capacity, this shouldn’t be seen as problematic or as a conflict as the purpose of the Urban Capacity Study is, as the name suggests, just to identify sites which may have capacity. It doesn’t account for land ownership (and whether the land owners have aspirations to dispose of the site) or development viability. In addition, the approach taken to site capacity to is to assume a density based on site type but it does this without an appreciation of site constraints and is based on the gross rather than net area.

Rolled Forward Sites

3.3.33 Taylor Wimpey have concerns with the approach that is taken in Table 2 of the Deposit RLDP which identifies allocations for 959 homes that are to be rolled over from the ALDP to the RLDP.

3.3.34 Concerns are raised around two sites in particular - Land to the west of Pencoedtre Lane, Barry and Land between new Northern Access Road and Eglwys Brewis Road, These sites are allocated in the ALDP but have failed to be delivered. Given the longstanding period during which there has been clear policy support for development but no completions, it follows that there are serious concerns around the deliverability of these two sites which, together, are allocated for 370 homes.

3.3.35 The failure to deliver these dwellings is due to a number of factors which are detailed in Taylor Wimpey’s Preferred Strategy consultation response, which questions whether these sites will deliver at all or at a significantly reduced capacity due to the following reasons:

▪ Viability constraints;
▪ Site specific constraints;
▪ Landowner intentions;
▪ Requirements for SAB approval; and
▪ Biodiversity net benefit;

3.3.36 Whilst it is recognised that there may be policy support for the delivery of these two sites, there deliverability is clearly uncertain and they should be removed from Table 2.

Conclusion

3.3.37 The following table summarises the approach previously proposed in the Deposit RLDP and compares it to the amendments suggested by Taylor Wimpey in the preceding sections of this Statement.

Table 4 Deposit RLDP Housing Supply and Taylor Wimpey’s Suggested Approach
Housing Supply - Deposit Plan (December 2025) - Taylor Wimpey Suggested Approach (March 2026)
Housing Requirement - 7,890 - 9,623
Flexibility Allowance - 10% - 20%
Flexibility Allowance – 770 - 1,925
Housing Requirement + Flexibility Allowance - 8,660 - 11,548
A – Completions - 1,747 - 1,747
B – Units Under Construction - 313 - 313
C and D- Units with Planning Permission Minus Non-Delivery Allowance - 1,777 1,488
Existing Supply - 3,827 - 3,548
E – Large Windfall Sites - 720 - 540
F – Small Windfall Sites - 583 - 438
E+ F Total Windfall Allowance - 1,303 - 978
RLDP Allocations - 3,520 - 3,150

3.3.38 The conclusion reached in Taylor Wimpey’s analysis is that, as a result of both the suggested housing requirement and flexibility allowance combined with Taylor Wimpey’s comments on the components of supply, the Deposit RLDP needs to find allocations to deliver a further 3,872 homes.

Policy HG1 KS1 – Land at North West Barry
3.3.39 Policy HG1 (Housing Allocations) identifies those sites that are to be allocated to meet the housing requirement of 7,890 homes that is set out in Policy SP1 (Sustainable Growth Strategy) and Policy SP6 (Housing Requirement) of the RLDP. Taylor Wimpey has provided comments on the housing requirement that is set in the RLDP and the components of supply that are anticipated to meet it in the proceeding sections of this Statement.

3.3.40 As well as the existing landbank and an allowance for windfalls, Policy HG1 notes that this requirement will be met through a mix of Key Sites, conventional housing allocations, housing-led regeneration opportunities, and rural affordable housing led sites.

3.3.41 There is a standalone separate policy for each of the five Key Sites that are identified in Policy HG1 (Housing Allocations). Each separate Key Site policy identifies what the site is proposed to be allocated for before providing setting out expectations of how each Key Site should come forward – both in terms of land uses that should be delivered and constraints and opportunities needing to be responded to – that are framed under a series of sub-headings. A masterplan sits alongside each Key Site policy whilst a package of supporting documentation for each Key Site submitted by the site promoter is also made available as part of the consultation on the Deposit RLDP.

3.3.42 Policy HG1 KS1 proposes to allocate the site known as ‘Land at North West Barry’.

3.3.43 The proposed allocation of this site follows a consultation – entitled ‘Housing Growth in Barry’ - undertaken by the VoG in July 2025 which proposed to allocate three sites in Barry as an alternative to the North East Barry site that was identified as a Key Site in the Preferred Strategy but was considered to no longer be deliverable.

3.3.44 Taylor Wimpey responded as part of the ‘Housing Growth in Barry’ consultation, supporting the removal of North East Barry as a Key Site but raising serious concerns with the proposed allocation of ‘Land at North West Barry’ as an alternative.
3.3.45 These concerns remain and Taylor Wimpey strongly consider there need to be other alternative sites – such as Land West of Swanbridge Road (Phase 3), Sully (Ref. 376) - within nearby settlements that perform better than the Land at North West Barry site and should be allocated for housing.
3.3.46 To support this conclusion, Taylor Wimpey has undertaken a review of the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) which provides a scoring of different candidate sites against the 17 objectives as well as considering and comparing the sustainability and accessibility of the two sites.

Integrated Sustainability Appraisal

3.3.47 The below table provides a comparison of how the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal scores Land West of Swanbridge Road (Phase 3), Sully (Ref. 376) compared to the Land at North West Barry site. Two different comparisons are provided – one which compares the actual scoring in the ISA and a second which compares the two sites following Taylor Wimpey’s suggested scoring which is included as Appendix A.

3.3.48 These tables clearly highlight where the subject site out performs North West Barry across numerous objectives.

Table 5 Comparison of Phase 3 Land West of Swanbridge Road (Site ID 376) and North West Barry (Site ID 490) ISA performance

3.3.49 From an initial review, the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal shows that Land West of Swanbridge significantly outperforms North West Barry in terms of the number of significantly positive scores ‘++’ and the number of ‘—’ scores. To this end the subject site provides clear advantages above and beyond North West Barry in terms of homes, health, and transport. As such Land West of Swanbridge is considered to have the capacity to deliver a significant number of new homes (≥ 100 dwellings) and it does not intersect with a designated green wedge; The site is within 800m of a health service and an active travel route; and, The site is within close proximity (≤800m) to a railway station or bus stop, town/ retail centre and an active travel route. Taylor Wimpey consider this assessment should go further to recognise the associated benefits to the leisure than be provided by the site’s development.

3.3.50 Following Taylor Wimpey’s re-assessment of the site against the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal ISA objectives it is also considered to obtain notably more positive ‘+’ scores than North West Barry. It is also worth noting that North West Barry has more unknown impacts than Land West of Swanbridge which introduces a level of uncertainty around its potential for further negative impacts. Moreover, North West Barry scores a significant number of negative impacts across the ISA, with the extension site obtaining double the amount than Land West of Swanbridge Road.

3.3.51 Taylor Wimpey’s position is that it would be unsound to allocate a site that performs considerably poorer in the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal than a site that is not proposed to be allocated.

Accessibility and Sustainability

3.3.52 SLR Consulting have prepared an updated document demonstrating the Site’s sustainability credentials and providing a detailed overview of existing and future active travel and public transport infrastructure. This is included as Appendix C.

3.3.53 As a starting point, it considers those services within Sully. In terms of local amenities, the population size of Sully, naturally benefits from a good range of local amenities and services, and therefore it is anticipated that a high proportion of future residents’ day-to-day journeys would be contained within the village and undertaken via walking or cycling. The Walking Catchment Map prepared by SLR demonstrates this and illustrates services within walking distance from the Site.

3.3.54 The proposed development benefits from local existing and future / planned infrastructure which will help support travel by sustainable modes such as walking, cycling and public transport. The Site falls within the less than 15 minutes Public Transport Catchment for bus and rail services. The Site is supported by the existing bus network, connecting Sully with Barry, Penarth and Cardiff – the nearest bus stop approximately 400m from the centre of the site; Moreover the Site is within proximity to Cadoxton and Penarth railway stations which have regular services in each direction in addition to the existing walking and cycling infrastructure in and around Sully.

3.3.55 The future accessibility of the Site will be further enhanced through the ongoing and planned South Wales Metro improvements, future active travel routes and the proposed Sully to Penarth mixed use link. The below figure shows several newly proposed active travel routes running close to the site including a new walking / cycling route along Swanbridge Road. Planning applications are now being submitted to support the delivery of these new active travel links. In March 2025 a planning application was submitted proposing a new route between Palmerstown and Dinas Powys.

3.4 SLR have undertaken further assessment work comparing the sustainability credentials of Land West of Swanbridge Road to Land North West of Barry. Land North West of Barry, is separated from the existing built-up area by the B4266 Pontypridd Road where the eastern and southern boundaries abut residential properties. As such, the proposed access for all modes would be taken from the A4226 Port Road West. The A4226 and B4266 can be a barrier to the promotion of active travel in that they facilitate vehicular travel and do not provide an attractive environment for pedestrians.

3.5 Furthermore, Land North West of Barry is on the fringes of Barry and had few if any facilities within a 10 minute walk, other than bus stops. In comparison, Land West of Swanbridge Road in Sully benefits from its proximity to the High Street in Sully and the services there.

3.6 The below table demonstrates differences in accessibility to amenities between the two sites, where Land West of Swanbridge Road presents a more favourable location for future development.

Table 6 Comparison of Local Facilities Between Land North West of Barry (Site ID 449) and Land West of Swanbridge Road (Phase 3) (Site ID 376)

3.7 Whilst the walking distance shown from Land North West of Barry to the nearest bus stop is slightly less than the Swanbridge Road Site, it should be noted that the bus services that can be accessed from Sully are more frequent and more direct than those which can be accessed from Land North West of Barry.

Conclusion

3.8 Taking the above together, the conclusion Taylor Wimepy reach is that their Land West of Swanbridge Road (Phase 3), Sully (Ref. 376) site performs more strongly than the Land North West of Barry site.

Policy TR1 Transport Proposals

3.9 The draft transport proposals contained within the Deposit RLDP have been reviewed with the following proposals considered to be pertinent to the Site and draft residential allocations.

TR 1 (2) Active Travel Route: Sully to Cosmeston

3.10 Taylor Wimpey support the designation of an active travel route connection the eastern side of Sully with Cosmeston in the north-east. Most notably the proposed route will pass Swanbridge Road which provides direct access to Land West of Swanbridge Road Site, with Phase 3 in close proximity to the travel route. The proposal would further enhance the accessibility and sustainability of the Site as a logical extension for residential development in Sully.

Figure 4 Extract of Deposit RLDP Proposals Map with Land West of Swanbridge Road (Phase 3) Identified

TR1 (6) Highway Improvement works: Weycock Cross Roundabout, Barry

3.11 Taylor Wimpey raise concerns around the proposed works at the Wyecock Cross Roundabout, compared to the other improvement works proposed. As noted in the Deposit RLDP, this roundabout forms a key connection within the wider strategic highway network and therefore of high importance for the local area and surrounding communities. The proposed options presented within the Deposit RLDP provide little certainty of the scope of works required with no preferred option identified. This raises concerns around the impacts of the highway improvements on the deliverability of the adjacent draft allocation of North West Barry. The same concerns arise when considering the roundabout improvement works in combination with the proposed access strategy contained within North West Barry’s supporting information package. The proposed road widening measures (c.11m increase) required to make the draft allocation accessible would have a significant impact on the wider transport network at this strategic junction.

Policy CC1 (Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development)

3.12 The effect of this policy is to require new build development to achieve net-zero operational emissions. This is to be achieved through the following of the Energy Hierarchy for Planning with Policy CC1 (Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development) then setting out space heating and energy use intensity standards to be met from RLDP adoption through to 2030 and then from 2030 onwards, and setting a requirement for on-site renewable electricity generation to have an output equivalent to annual energy consumption. The policy notes that this may not be technically feasible and, in these cases, requires that development maximises onsite renewable generation and / or connects or proposes to connect to a heat network and / or contributes to offsetting.

3.13 As a starting point, Taylor Wimpey share the concerns expressed by the wider development industry that setting requirements above and beyond building regulations (the 2025 Future homes Standard) is not appropriate. Building regulations are there as a mechanism to set fixed requirements that any development must achieve and the effect of introducing requirements to go beyond this results to an uneven framework for housebuilders, significantly adding cost and reducing certainty.

3.14 The justification for exceeding building regulations is set out in Section 7 of Background Paper 33A Net Zero Buildings and throughout Background Paper 33 Net Zero Buildings Feasibility Study and Cost Assessment and centres on the fact that there is a precedent for such policies in both adopted and emerging policies.

3.15 There are two points to be made here:

3.16 Firstly, a Written Ministerial Statement by then Housing and Planning Minister Lee Rowley made clear that it was not for Local Plans to set local energy efficiency standards that go beyond the requirements of building regulations with Inspectors to take this position at Local Plan examination stage. This Written Ministerial Statement was subject to a judicial review which was dismissed with the position taken in it found to be legally sound.

3.17 Clearly this is the position of the Westminster Government rather than the Welsh Government but the point is that it is wrong to suggest that there is a clear approach emerging in England for Local Plans to incorporate such policies when the Written Ministerial Statement warns Local Plans against setting energy efficiency targets that are stricter than building regulations.

3.18 Turning to a Wales context, whilst it may be the case that other local planning authorities are considering or looking into the use of such policies, it is worth noting that the two South East Wales local planning authorities which have adopted RLDPs do not include such policies and therefore that can be no confidence that the incorporation of such a policy approach will be found to be sound.

3.19 Secondly, Taylor Wimpey have concerns with the approach that has been taken with regards to viability.

3.20 From Taylor Wimpey’s review, a figure for achieving the requirements of Policy CC1 (Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development) is based on an analysis of three separate house type typologies as presented in Figure 4 of Background Paper 33A Net Zero Buildings. Background Paper 33A Net Zero Buildings is dated November 2025 but Background Paper 33 Net Zero Buildings Feasibility Study and Cost Assessment is from January 2024.

3.21 As a starting point, the figures for achieving this upgrade have been used by Hallam in the undertaking of the Development Viability Model with the development of the site found to continue to be viable with these incorporated.

3.22 Taylor Wimpey’s concern is around the robustness of an approach that considers only three building typologies and does not carry out the exercise for a far broader range of house types that are deployed by all of the active housebuilders (both market and affordable) across Wales. Savills’ experience is that in reality the cost associated with delivering these standards is in reality far higher and closer to the £15,000 or £20,000 per unit mark.

3.23 Taylor Wimpey’s other concern with this approach is that the figure assumed as being required to achieve the policy requirements of Policy CC1 (Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development) is driven from a Cost Assessment report published in January 2024. With the Background Paper 9A Housing Land Supply and Housing Trajectory not forecasting first completion onsite until 2028/2029, there is likely to be a period of approximately five years from the establishment of the figure for delivering the policy requirements of Policy CC1 (Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development) and when the first units would be delivered onsite.

3.24 Taking the above together, not only is the approach proposed to be taken in Policy CC1 (Residential Operational Net Zero Carbon Development) out of line with the approach that is to be taken in England and the approach that has been taken in Wales, it is considered that there is insufficient certainty around the ability for these works to be delivered when they are required to be without harming viability.

Policy CI1 (Open Space Provision)

3.25 This policy consists of four parts which, combined, dictate how open space should be provided. These parts of the policy set expectations for the level of public open space that should be provided for, confirm that provisions for open space should also be made for commercial uses, notes that it is expected that open space will be provided onsite, and requires that an open space strategy is submitted as part of applications where open space is required to be provided.

3.26 Taylor Wimpey note that Policy CI1 (Open Space Provision) of the Deposit RLDP, when compared with Policy MD3 (Provision of Open Space) of the adopted LDP, proposes an increase in public open space provision from a total of 2.4ha / 1000 people to 2.75ha / 1000 people.

3.27 Taylor Wimpey is not clear as to what has driven the increased level of public open space that Policy CI1 (Open Space Provision) identifies as being required and would welcome clarification on this matter, Policy DNP5 Environmental Protection

3.28 Taylor Wimpey consider the inclusion of ‘the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land’ to be at odds with the other elements listed, where unlike the others mentioned, the loss of agricultural land would have limited, if any, impact on people, residential amenity and property.

3.29 It is acknowledged that the loss of BMV agricultural land may impact the VoG’s overall amount of high quality agricultural land, however this should be assessed against the existing high level of BMV agricultural land within the County. The extent to which its loss is considered “unacceptable” should be subject to the planning balance against the overriding need for affordable housing and local housing need. Consideration towards the farming business case and economic viability are also required within the planning balance. In the case of Land West of Swanbridge Road, the loss of BMV agricultural land remains the only constraint that cannot be overcome, as noted in the Candidate Site Assessment. Whilst the loss of high quality agricultural land should be avoided, Taylor Wimpey consider that where the merits of the Site are overwhelmingly in favour for sustainable residential development in a suitable and logical location, Policy DNP5 should not stand in the way of housing delivery.

3.30 Whilst Taylor Wimpey support the clause within the draft policy: “Where impacts are identified the Council will require applicants to demonstrate that appropriate measures can be taken to minimise the impact identified to an acceptable level. Planning conditions may be imposed, or legal obligation entered into, to secure any necessary mitigation and monitoring processes.” However, in the context of BMV agricultural land, it is not clear how the mitigating measures, in the form of planning conditions or legal obligations, can be applied. This reinforces the earlier view that the inclusion of ‘the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land’, as currently worded within the draft policy, is at odds with the other elements listed where mitigation strategies for pollution can be suitably conditioned.

I wanted to make you aware that in your plans to widen the road to 3 lanes on Pontypridd Road by integrating the road for the row of houses opposite the petrol station.
I wanted to make you aware that my Grandma lives on that side of the road and on her deeds she owns the frontage of the garden, part of the road and the grass verge that goes up to the main road.
I can send a copy of this information.
The plans cannot go ahead unless the land is bought off my grandmother and the other properties on the street! My grandma bought the house from a developer.
I wanted to make sure that you are aware of this situation.
Also I wanted to point out the increased congestion especially now with the road works and this would only get worse.
There would be a loss of privacy to existing neighbours due to new properties overlooking existing properties and the noise of development.
There is a lack of infrastructure for example schools in the area are already full, doctors are full and have no appointments.
Can someone please get back to me especially regarding my grandmothers land at the front of the property that you are looking to alter.