Public Meeting 13 November 2017 Presentation Script


Welcome everybody, I’m Andy Robertson.  . Many of you will know I’m one of your four new Vale Councillors and also Chair of the Dinas Powys Community Council.  But I’m here tonight as a member of the By-Pass Steering Group.

May I introduce my colleagues who will give what we hope will be an informative, important and perhaps eye-opening presentation.

Rod Harrod is chair of the Steering Group and the initiator of the current campaign to, at last, get a By-Pass for our village – which will, in turn, help to free up traffic throughout the Eastern Vale.  Born in Dinas Powys he’s been a journalist and author and has held many positions on the business side of the entertainment industry.

Roger Pattenden is a civil engineer who is a member of and technical advisor to the Steering Group.

Between them they’ve spent months researching documents relevant to the By-Pass and the proposed housing developments that will have even greater impact on our transport infrastructure in the already over-burdened corridor through Dinas Powys.

Over to you Roger.


Thank you Andy.  Good evening everyone.  We are going to update you on the By-Pass campaign and the current situation regarding the two main housing developments that are currently in the spotlight.

First the 70 house Caerleon Road site and then the site of the former St Cyres Junior School beside the new Health Centre at the top of Murch Crescent now planned for 215 houses.

We will answer questions after each main section.  In order to give all those who have questions an opportunity to speak, we ask that you limit your questions to one per person on each section.  And we request that you try to avoid repeating questions already asked and answered.

Rod will now give you a brief summary of the By-Pass history.



By-Pass Campaign

Brief History

Good evening.  I’m not going to go back to 1928 – I’m not even that old! –but I can say that a By-Pass was first muted by residents when there were only green fields between Murch Road and Cross Common and without a house between Murch Road and Chamberlain Road.  When the population was a quarter of its current 9,000.

In the mid 1960s, the line of a by-pass was drawn by the then Glamorgan County Council.  This Map can be seen on the wall of Barry Docks Building – home of the Vale Council Planning Department.  The corridor was safeguarded from development in the Local Plan.  The By-Pass would be flagged as intended to happen to anyone making a search when applying to buy or develop in the vicinity of the proposed corridor.

In 1996 – the Glamorgan County Council split with Cardiff and we became the Vale Borough Council.

Over the next few years a recently discovered scheme shown on this drawing was prepared for improving the capacity of the Merrie Harrier junction.  SEE SLIDE.

Ironically its design is similar to one sketched earlier this year by my colleague Roger though we were unaware of the earlier detailed work at the time.  Both have a double roundabout layout with the earlier design providing a spur for a new access into Llandough Hospital.  This project was to be largely funded by a developer rather than public funds.  It was only abandoned after the financial crash in 2008.  A similar idea for a developer to fund a by-pass also fell by the wayside at that time.

In 2005 the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted for 1996 – 2011.  This included a proposal for Dinas Powys By-Pass.

In 2008 and for several successive years the Conservative led Vale Council had repeated applications for funding for a by-pass rejected by the Welsh Assembly.

In 2011, when the Labour Party, with the help of Llantwit First Independents took control in the Vale, they started preparing their Local Development Plan (LDP) to replace the former UDP.  After two years working on the document it was found to be seriously flawed, so it was scrapped and they started all over again.

In 2012 the Council commissioned Capita Symonds to prepare a Highway Impact Assessment (HIA) to assess the current traffic situation and to predict what impact the proposed new housing would have on the road network.  Their report was delivered in 2013.

While the Council was preparing its LDP, which was scheduled to run from 2011 to 2026, the Welsh Assembly Government apportioned 10,000 new houses to be built across the Vale.

This slide lists those in and around Dinas Powys.  Also in its draft LDP, the Council recognised the need to improve the Strategic Highway corridor from Barry to Cardiff through Dinas Powys and its potential benefits.

The Council said it considered ‘securing the infrastructure necessary to deliver the developments proposed in their draft LDP as imperative.’ But this draft LDP contained no firm commitments for significant infrastructure improvements.

But, because it viewed improving the capacity of the Merrie Harrier junction as difficult to overcome, it considered that the current economic climate and the Welsh Government’s preference to make better use of the existing transport system made a by-pass scheme unlikely to happen before the end of their Plan in 2026 so omitted it from their draft LDP as well as any firm commitments on improving highway infrastructure.

The LDP was only reluctantly signed off in June of this year.  However, before it was signed off, the current administration asked the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths AM for an extension specifically to re-examine the number of houses the Welsh Assembly Government had instructed the Vale to build.  She flatly refused and said if they didn’t sign off the LDP by the end of June 2017 she would send in her Officers to carry out the work.  Apparently this would have resulted in the Vale – therefore ratepayers – being charged around £150,000 for this work.

In Sept 2016, Conservative leader in the Assembly Andrew R.T. Davies A.M. lobbied the Secretary of State for Economy and Infrastructure Ken Skates A.M. both in the Chamber and in correspondence on the traffic problems in Dinas Powys and the need for a By-Pass.
In Oct 2016, As a direct result of this lobbying, Ken Skates instructed his Officers to meet with Vale Council representatives to study options, stating that the outcome must be fully funded.In Nov 2016, Dinas Powys Conservatives hosted a first Public Meeting on the By-Pass and agreed to sponsor the Dinas Powys By-Pass Steering Group.In Jan 2017,     Arcadis Consulting was appointed by the Welsh Assembly Government and Vale Council to carry out a £15,000 Stage 1 study into the transport problems along this corridor through Dinas Powys.  We’ll tell you about the stages shortly.In March 2017, the Vale Council held Public Consultation Events in Dinas Powys to invite public comments for the study.

Also in March 2017, the By-Pass petition signed by over 3,000 people was handed to National Assembly Petitions Committee.

In May 2017, the Conservatives gained control of the Vale Council, including four new councillors for Dinas Powys.  The leading Conservative group pledged to make getting a by-pass its top priority in its manifesto.

In June 2017, days after the new council was formed, the Steering Group met with Vale Council Cabinet Members.  We’ll tell you about that shortly.

But now I’ll hand you over to Roger to tell you about the Arcadis Stage 1 Study.

Arcadis Stage 1 Study and Report

At this point we should explain the reference to different Stages.  These come from the Welsh Government’s Transport Appraisal Guidance termed WelTAG for dealing with major Transport projects.  Everything from the M4 Relief Road, bridges over the Menai Straits and other by-passes like those in Caernarfon or being built around Newtown all have to go through this process.

It’s important to recognise that to enter this process is a certain commitment that at last our transport problems are being taken seriously.

Stage 1 is to identify the problem and develop a list of possible solutions or part solutions.  This ends with a recommended short list of options for further study.
Stage 2 is to investigate the shortlisted options in more detail and to end by recommending a single preferred option.  This should consider benefits and ball park costs of each option and the possible source or sources of funding.

Stage 3 is a detailed appraisal of the preferred option.  This would include outline design, full impact assessment and feasibility of delivery, cost estimate and proposed source of funding.  The stage ends with a decision whether to implement the preferred option or to revisit another option.

Stage 4 is implementation of the chosen option.  I.E. Construction.

Stage 5 is the post implementation phase comprising monitoring, data recording and evaluation of outcome.

One feature of this WelTAG process is the establishment of a ‘Review Group’ initially proposed to review the study work and decide which options should be chosen.

For the Stage 1 study, this Group had been picked (by whom we don’t know) to comprise members from the Welsh Government, the Vale Council, Network Rail, Arriva Trains, the local bus company and Sustrans – the charity promoting walking and cycling.

You will note that there was no representative of road users or the local community.  This despite the fact that almost 80% of residents in Dinas Powys travel to work by vehicle as revealed by these figures from the 2011 Census.  We took this up with the Council as we will tell you later.

In addition, we thought this Group’s decision making powers were undemocratic and drew this to the Vale Council’s attention.  The Leader of the Vale Council agreed confirming to us that the Council cabinet would make the decisions not the Review Group.

Now to tell you about the Stage 1 Study and Report that was submitted to the Council in July this year.

The report identified and scored 7 options which they called their long list.

The Do-Minimum option is basically do nothing and we are already seeing what this looks like!

Improved rail services would be good but achieving them is outside the Council’s control and the report comments that some platforms are too short for longer trains.

Better bus services are difficult to achieve when the buses are stuck in congested traffic.

Better footpaths and cycle paths would be welcome but are only going to take a relatively small number of cars off the roads.

Improvements to existing roads are possible in some places but not in others.  For example, the Council’s Highways Department has confirmed that the geometry of the traffic light junction on Cardiff Road with Murch Road and Millbrook Road prevents improvement.  So this would remain a bottleneck.

A by-pass was only added to Arcadis’ list after so many people attending the public consultation event last March called for it even though the Council had not suggested it on their form.  But it was listed on its own without improving any other infrastructure.  The originally safeguarded route was assumed.

The multi-modal option is a combination of all the above except the do-minimum and the by-pass.  For the reasons mentioned this would do little to reduce current traffic congestion.  In fact it can’t work.

After what seemed to us to have been a rather subjective and biased scoring of these options in favour of so called sustainable solutions, the report recommended this short list of options for further study in Stage 2.

At the end of July, the Vale Cabinet referred Arcadis’ recommendation to their Scrutiny Committee for Environment and Regeneration.

We weren’t happy with this short list or with the composition of the Review Group so Rod and myself, along with fellow Steering Group members Vale and Community Cllr Rob Crowley and Community Councillor Edward Jenkins, made representations to and spoke at the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 14 September.

The cross-party Scrutiny Committee agreed with our concerns and recommended to the Cabinet to add a 4th option of By-Pass plus Multi-modal for study in Stage 2 and to invite Dinas Powys Community Council to nominate a representative of the community to join the Review Group.

On 9 October, the Vale Cabinet meeting accepted the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendations.  So the short list now includes By-Pass + Multi-modal.

This may appear insignificant but, without this fourth option, the scoring system devised for the process and which appeared to favour the Multi-Modal option could have resulted in the By-Pass alone option being rejected.  If the decision-making power had been with the Review Group, the Assembly Government could have distanced itself from the process, claiming it was nothing to do with them.

At their 12 October meeting, the Community Council nominated me to join the Review Group.  I am currently waiting to engage with other members of the Review Group to try to ensure that the Stage 2 study (which has been funded with a further £60,000) assesses all the aspects and alternatives which we think are relevant.

Rod will now tell you about the meetings which we have had with Vale Council Cabinet members and officers.



Steering Group’s Contact with Council

Early in June this year, soon after the May local election and the change of Administration, the Steering Group met with Vale Council Cabinet members and senior officials to present the Group’s views and ideas.  These included:

The increasing traffic was due to general growth and more housing particularly at Barry Waterfront.  The housing sites planned in the Local Development Plan (the LDP) in the Dinas Powys area are shown on this slide.  SEE SLIDE.

Increasing congestion was due to inadequate infrastructure.  This drawing shows the Strategic Transport Corridors in the Vale designated by the Council in its Local Transport Plan.  It was pointed out that all significant settlements in these corridors have by-passes with the exception of Dinas Powys.

The Council’s 2013 Highway Impact Assessment document predicted severe congestion along the A4055 corridor through Dinas Powys.  We highlighted the effect of this congestion on the Vale economy and the benefits which a by-pass could provide.

Our idea of improving the capacity of the Merrie Harrier junction with the double roundabout arrangement which you see here was presented.  You may notice how similar this is to the proposal in the late 1990s which we showed earlier but which we had not seen until recently.

We described in outline several possible route options for a by-pass as follows:-

Our Route A is based roughly on the previously safeguarded route.  The blue areas are the housing sites proposed in the LDP, some of which are already built.

The green blob indicates a suggested ‘Park and Ride’ facility near Merrie Harrier.  Buses would need to go from here into Cardiff and this would take some traffic off the road via the Baron’s Court junction.

The red blobs indicate possible connections from existing roads to the by-pass –SEE SLIDE – from the top of Murch Crescent, from the end of Dinas Rd in west Penarth and at Cross Common Rd.  We are choosing not to speculate on the route of a connection from Dinas Rd to the by-pass though we believe this is feasible.

In answer to any criticism that two routes converging at Merrie Harrier still mean a bottleneck, our suggested revamp of the Merrie Harrier junction would increase its capacity and, together with a park and ride facility close to the Merrie Harrier, would reduce traffic through both the Merrie Harrier and Barons Court junctions.

This slide shows our B and C alternative by-pass route suggestions to connect to Sully roundabout. SEE SLIDE.  Connecting to Sully roundabout would offer the following advantages:-

  • It would give direct access to the by-pass from developments along Hayes Rd.
  • When combined with an upgraded road connection from Millenium Way via Wimborne & Hayes Roads, it would provide better access to the by-pass for south Barry traffic particularly from the Waterfront housing.  It would also relieve congestion on the section of A4055 from the Gladstone Road roundabout to the McDonalds roundabout.
  • It would provide two routes along the corridor from Barry to Merrie Harrier (via the existing A4055 and via the by-pass) which would help spread the traffic.

As before blue are LDP proposed housing sites and red blobs indicate possible connections to existing roads along the route – SEE SLIDE – to top of Murch Crescent, to the end of Dinas Rd, Penarth and either with Cross Common Rd or with Sully Rd in two places.

Both these routes have the facility to connect with Cog Road thus giving traffic from the new 500 house Cog development (and from Sully) access to the by-pass.  This would relieve existing Sully roads from too much extra traffic particularly as there will be extra traffic from nearly 600 extra houses at the planned Cosmeston development.  SEE SLIDE.

For Route B, there would need to be a new connecting link road from the by-pass to Cog Road  SEE SLIDE while our Route C would connect directly to Sully road SEE SLIDE and the section of Sully Road from this junction to Cog Road would need to be upgraded.

I emphasize that the routes on these slides are just our suggestions although we did show them to Vale Cabinet members.  We expect Stage 2 of the study just starting to consider the pros and cons of different route options.

Last week we had a further meeting with the Leader of the Council and the Managing Director.  The purpose of this meeting was to suggest different sources of finance for part or the whole of the by-pass scheme.  In particular, we drew their attention to the regeneration opportunities of the East Barry area between Cardiff Road and Hayes Road which includes Dow Corning’s site.

The Secretary of State for Wales and Vale MP Alun Cairns had expressed interest in this idea when we met with him recently.  However it is a little early and could be commercially insensitive, to discuss this idea at this moment but it could be very exciting. So the work on Stage 2 will continue regardless.

Arcadis Stage 2 Study

Yes, so let’s now consider the scope of Stage 2.

The aspects which we think should be investigated and evaluated in this stage and which, through my position on the Review Group, I will try to ensure are covered, include those listed on this slide.

The last traffic survey on main roads was done in 2012 and this should be updated and should include the Lavernock Road / Redlands Road route through Penarth which was omitted in 2012.

With morning rush hour trains often full by the time they arrive at Dinas Powys station and with the news that Arriva Trains will no longer be the train operator, we need to know about any plans to increase train capacity and/or frequency from Dinas Powys and Eastbrook stations.

There’s all this talk about the Metro system, but if it materialises it is unlikely to reach our line for at least ten years.

The need for better facilities at stations including for dropping off passengers and secure cycle parking.  These must be addressed including who should pay for them.

As mentioned earlier, we think it would make sense to create a Park and Ride facility near the Merrie Harrier.  This would need to include new bus services into Cardiff.

With a by-pass taking traffic off Cardiff Road, improvements to existing bus services could be achieved.

Improvements to some existing road junctions may be possible but those junctions that remain bottlenecks make any option without a by-pass ineffective at reducing traffic congestion.

Existing plans for footpath and cycleway improvement are unclear.  Individual schemes need prioritising on the basis of benefit to the maximum number of people.

We’ve mentioned one possible scheme for increasing the capacity of the Merrie Harrier junction but the effectiveness and impact of different options needs evaluation.

Apart from connections at either end of the by-pass, links to existing roads along the way need study to identify optimum locations and routes.

Also as mentioned, we want to see the benefits of alternative routes for the southern part of the by-pass fully considered.

The existing road route from Millenium Way to Sully roundabout POINT OUT uses Wimborne Road which belongs to Associated British Ports.  We discussed the feasibility of developing this route at our recent meeting at the Council.

Through my position on the Review Group, I hope to be able to ensure that all options and aspects are fairly and fully evaluated.

Stage 2 is scheduled to be completed during Spring 2018.  We will keep you updated on its progress through our website and press stories.

Stage 3 Work

This stage is likely to include consideration of funding for the chosen option and we are seeking to understand the possible sources of finance.  This might include money from the Welsh Government’s City Deal and/or from agreements with developers.
We will of course keep you informed on the progress of this Stage next year.


Questions on By-Pass

That’s the end of our Part 1.  We will now take questions on the by-pass and will then have a brief break before talking to you about the Caerleon and St Cyres housing developments.

Please put up your hand to speak and, when called, please state your name when standing to ask your question and speak clearly.

Who would like to ask a question?

Brief Break
Major Housing Developments

Now to update you on the two main housing developments that are planned in the Murch area.  Just to remind you of their locations on our map.  SEE SLIDE – LAND OFF CAERLEON ROAD SITE AND FORMER ST CYRES JUNIOR SACHOOL SITE.

We’ll tell you about both of these applications without a break and then you can ask questions on them.  So, when you do stand up to ask a question, please say which application you are referring to.

First Rod will fill you in on the background to the planned development off Caerleon Road.

Land off Caerleon Road – Background

70 houses are planned for this development.  The application for Outline Planning Permission for them was submitted in 2014.

This slide shows the site layout proposed then.  At that time the field was designated as Green Wedge (that’s the same as Green Belt).  Many objectors highlighted that the development would make the traffic situation even worse particularly at the Cardiff Road junction.  This application took a long time to come before the Planning Committee.

When it did, on 14 January 2016, the Officers’ report to the Planning Committee stated that their Highways department had reported that the capacity of the Cardiff Road junction could not be increased despite it being listed in the draft Local Development Plan as needing improvement.

Therefore the impact of extra traffic from the development could not be mitigated by highway improvement.  That statement by the Council’s Highways department has been repeated recently in an email to us from the senior planner handling the current application.

Despite the site being Green Wedge and this clear acknowledgement about the capacity limitations of the local highway network, the Officers’ January 2016 report made the case that the need for more housing was the more important factor (presumably more important than the traffic situation and road safety, particularly for young children?)  So they recommended approval of the outline application.

In its draft Local Development Plan (LDP), the previous Council then re-designated the site as being within the development envelope for Dinas Powys and no longer part of the Green Wedge.

The Application was approved by the Planning Committee in January 2016 with 14 conditions which are called the reserved matters.  The applicant for that Application was United Welsh Housing Association.

That approval covered the principle of the development and all access related matters including the impact of the development on local traffic and congestion.  So, unfortunately, those aspects can no longer be challenged in response to the current application which Roger will now tell you about.



Land off Caerleon Road –The Current Application

In July this year a different Applicant, Kier Living Ltd, submitted the current application with various drawings and information to satisfy the 14 conditions.  This slide shows the revised site layout.  So the only comments and objections which we’re told can now be made must relate to the adequacy of the Applicant’s responses to the 14 conditions.

The response period for the current application has been extended due to submission of further information by the Applicant since July.  We are told it will run until the day before the Planning Committee considers it.  The earliest this will be is on 7 December 2017.  Approval of this application would give the Applicant full permission to start the development.

We have studied the 14 conditions and the Applicant’s submissions.  We will now summarise our comments and objections on those conditions which we consider are the more important ones and have not been satisfactorily addressed by the Applicant.  By tonight, we will have put a copy of this presentation on our website plus a guide on how to submit your comments and/or objections.

  • First we object to the proposed Site Layout because it does not appear to allow space for a cycleway and footpath along the western boundary of the development SEE SLIDE which would form part of the Council’s proposed link from the railway footbridge at Eastbrook station to the Merrie Harrier on the east side of the railway line.  This was called for by the Council’s own Footpath’s Officer within the last month. Post Meeting Note: REVISED SITE PLAN SUBMITTED 14 NOV LEAVES SPACE FOR THIS.
  • Secondly, neither the Site Layout drawing or any other submission show any proposal to provide a footpath from the south western corner of the development to the end of Caerleon Road. SEE SLIDE  This would considerably shorten the walking distance to the station and thereby enhance pedestrian facilities as promised in the Transport Assessment.
  • Thirdly, this application fails to detail traffic calming measures along Caerleon Road and Castle Drive or to enhance pedestrian movement to Eastbrook station as required in the Transport Assessment.
  • Fourthly, the submitted Travel Plan offers no certainty whatsoever that it could achieve its stated objectives of reducing the impact of traffic from the site on the local highways by persuading residents to use sustainable transport (i.e. not their vehicles) and is therefore not fit for purpose.
  • Finally, the Construction Traffic Management Plan fails to detail measures to restrict the impact of construction vehicles on peak hour congestion at the signal junction on Cardiff Road or to acknowledge the safety risk to young children going to the Infants School or leaving it when many parent’s or carer’s cars are parked along Murch Road considerably reducing the roadway width.
    These were all requirements of the Council’s Traffic Department at the time the Outline Planning was granted.

If you want to comment on and/or object to this application, we suggest you do so before the end of this month.  Remember you can no longer comment on the impact of this development on local traffic.  See our website  for a Guide to tell you how to respond to the Council on planning applications.

Now to deal with the St Cyres application and Rod will now give you cover the background to this.

Former St Cyres Junior School site – Background

In 2014, following a public consultation between November 2012 and January 2013, the Vale Council offered the site of the former St Cyres Junior School for sale.  After the tender period closed in December 2014, David Wilson Homes (which is part of Barratt Homes so we’ll call them Battatts) was declared the preferred bidder for a proposal to build 300 homes.

So an agreement to buy the site was made subject to the granting of planning permission.

In May 2015    , Welsh Water informed the Council that the existing sewer at the top of Murch Crescent had insufficient capacity to take the site’s foul sewage from 300 houses.
Early in 2017, Barratts applied to the Council to waive the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment for the site and in March, despite protests from residents, the previous Council agreed to this request.

In August this year, Barratts’ submitted their Consultant’s Transport Assessment which covered the impact of the development on local roads.  We’ll comment on that shortly.

On 10 August, Barratts held a public consultation event in the Lee Hall in Dinas Powys.  This was the site plan displayed at that event.  The LDP had proposed 300 houses for this site but ecological surveys had revealed the presence of protected species in parts of the site so the area which could be built on had to be reduced to the 230 houses shown on this plan.
We informed Barratts about Welsh Water’s statement regarding sewer capacity but they appeared not to know this.  We also told them we considered the development should wait until it could connect directly to the by-pass but we were not able to tell them when that would happen.

At the end of October, Barratts submitted a Planning Application together with drawings and various documents which were put on the Council’s website just last week.  We are still digesting all these but tell you what this application covers and can give you our initial comments and suggested objections.

St Cyres site – Planning Application and Objections

This application is now for 215 houses as shown on this site plan.  The consultation period runs for 21 days up to 28 November.  So unless that period is extended, any responses to the Council must be submitted by that date.  I repeat, your objections must be in by 28th November.

Responses can be submitted via the Council’s website or in writing and we tell you how to do this on our website.

Many documents and drawings have been submitted with this application and we haven’t yet had time to study all those we consider are important from our viewpoint.

However, we can give you our initial comments on the following aspects:-

  1. The impact that the traffic from this development will have on the local roads and on the wider highway network.
  2. The proposals for storm water and sewage disposal.
  3. The accessibility of the site by foot or bicycle.
  4. Sewer Rising Main route in Murch Road.
  5. The impact of the site boundary on the possible Dinas Powys by-pass road corridor.
  6. The lack of a Council run public consultation event.

Roger will deal with each of these aspects in turn.  First the traffic.

  1. Traffic Implications

This estate will generate additional traffic both during construction and after occupation.  The only road access to both this site and the site off Caerleon Road which we’ve already talked about is off the traffic light controlled junction on the strategic highway Cardiff Road (A4055) and up Murch Road.

The implications of extra traffic on Murch Crescent and Murch Road include:

  1. The safety aspect resulting from the combination of parked vehicles and many more vehicles using this road which could prevent open access for all types of Emergency Vehicles.  This includes ambulance access to and from the Health Centre and residents homes in the area.
  2. The safety impact for children entering and leaving Dinas Powys Infant School on the corner of Cardiff Road when there is considerably more traffic including possibly construction vehicles using the narrow section of Murch Road approaching the Cardiff Road traffic lights.
  3. The safety of residents of all ages crossing roads, particularly at the Murch Road / Castle Drive junction, and accessing the shops on Castle Drive.
  4. Added pollution along the routes.
  5. Increased noise along the routes.
  6. The impact of significantly more traffic from both this development and the site off Caerleon Road on the already over-capacity traffic light junction on Cardiff Road and A4055 strategic highway through Dinas Powys.

This last point may represent the strongest case for objecting to the planning application.  The situation would of course be different if the development is delayed until the by-pass is constructed.

There are two aspects to our objection regarding traffic.  First the impact of the projected extra traffic on the operational capacity of the local roads, the main road junctions and the wider strategic highway network.  And secondly the non compliance of the application with policies in the adopted LDP.  The strategic road junction nearest the St Cyres and Caerleon Road developments is the Cardiff Rd / Murch Rd traffic light junction.

To identify the severity of the impact which these developments could have on this junction, we have looked at the traffic studies listed on this slide.

  1. Highway Impact Assessment (HIA) by Capita Symonds for the Vale Council, August 2013.
  2. Transport Statement by Asbri Transport for United Welsh Housing Association (Caerleon), February 2015
  3. Transport Assessment by RPS Group for Barratt Homes South Wales (St Cyres), August 2017

Traffic count surveys were carried out in December 2012 for the HIA and in September 2015 for Barratt’s St Cyres development.  Asbri’s report appears to have used the HIA’s 2012 traffic figures for this junction though they did counts in 2013 and 2015 for the Castle Drive / Conway Close and Murch Rd / Castle Drive junctions.

All three studies show that the Cardiff Rd / Murch Rd / Millbrook Rd junction was close to or over capacity at the start of the study period.  We’ll now show you some of the figures from these reports to illustrate this.

Let me explain this first table.  It shows figures from each report for the situation at the Cardiff Road junction at the start of their studies.  SEE SLIDE The top table assumes the pedestrian green man lights operate on every cycle of the traffic lights which is usual when children are being taken to or from the Infant’s School on the corner of this junction.  The bottom table shows the figures with no pedestrian light delays.

PRC stands for Practical Reserve Capacity which is a measure of the spare capacity at a road junction.

A positive PRC figure in black means the junction has spare capacity.  A negative PRC in red indicates the junction over capacity.  The higher the red figure the more over capacity.

Queue lengths at the lights are available for all branches of the junction but we are showing them just for the queue on Murch Road.

The Council-commissioned HIA study showed the junction was over capacity to a greater amount and with longer queues on Murch Road in 2012 than the other studies showed in 2015.

This table shows the future traffic situation predicted by each study taking into account general growth and planned developments such as at Caerleon Rd and St Cyres.  The HIA and Asbri give projected traffic figures for 2026 and 2028 respectively while the RPS study for St Cyres only looked as far ahead as 2020.

What all studies show is that traffic congestion at the Cardiff Rd / Murch Rd / Millbrook Rd junction will be significantly worse in the future if these developments are completed without improvements to the highway network.

Because the Council’s own Highways Department states that the capacity of the Cardiff Road junction cannot be increased, this can only mean the provision of a by-pass and its connection to the top of Murch Crescent.

The reports for both the St Cyres and Caerleon developers attempt to play down the predicted future increase in traffic congestion at the Murch Road / Cardiff Road junction.

The Asbri report for Caerleon therefore concludes ‘that the existing junction is likely to have sufficient capacity to accommodate both developments ….’

The RPS report for St Cyres notes that this junction ‘is currently operating close to its design capacity’ and that ‘the proposed development will have an impact on this junction although it is not considered to be severe.  It concludes that the proposed development of 220 dwellings …… can be adequately accommodated on the local junctions to the site.

But these statements by the Developers’ consultants do not change the fact that these developments would adversely affect this strategic highway junction by making it more congested in future and therefore do not comply with several LDP Policies as Rod will explain.

The Local Development Plan (the LDP) compiled by the previous administration contain several policies which relate to the impact of new developments on the strategic transport infrastructure and specifically on the highway network.  The relevant extracts are as follows:-

Policy SP7 is headed Transportation

The last paragraph states: ‘All new developments that have a direct impact on the strategic transportation infrastructure will be required to deliver appropriate improvements to the network.

Policy MG 16 is headed Transport Proposals

The last section under the sub-heading ‘Highway Improvement Works’ states:     ‘In addition, to mitigate the impact of development on the highway network, highway improvement works in the form of corridor or junction improvement schemes will be required.’

Policy MD 5 is headed Developments within Settlement Boundaries

Dinas Powys and Sully are among the Settlements listed in the LDP.  This Policy states: New development within these settlements will be permitted where the proposed development has no unacceptable impact on the amenity and character of the locality by way of noise, traffic congestion and parking.

These Policies, which were presumably written to avoid traffic from new developments congesting the road network, mean that no new development should be permitted if it would result in an adverse or unacceptable impact on the highway network.  So, in order for a new development which would have such an impact to gain planning permission, appropriate highway improvement works should be implemented first.

So, unless adequate highway improvement (i.e. the by-pass) is carried out, the planning application for the St Cyres development should be rejected on the basis of non-compliance with the stated LDP policies.

Roger will now talk about drainage.

  1. Drainage

Drainage from the site covers both rain water, also called storm water, and foul sewage.  Barratt’s plans show how they intend to deal with the disposal of both storm water and sewage.  This slide shows just the east side of the site.  SEE SLIDE MURCH CRESCENT, HEALTH CENTRE AND PATH TOWARDS SULLY ROAD.

Rain water is to be drained from the site into a large on-site holding tank – like a collection of large plastic milk crates – with outlet at a controlled rate piped to a local watercourse near Sully Road.  This appears satisfactory to us.

Barratts plan for sewage is to drain it from the site in a gravity sewer to the existing Stonylands pumping station near Sully Rd which will be upgraded.  From there sewage will be pumped back to discharge into the head of the existing gravity sewer at the top of Murch Crescent.

However, in documents dated 2015 and 2016, Welsh Water stated that the existing Murch Crescent sewer does not have adequate capacity to take the flow from the development.  At the 10 August 2017 Exhibition, Barratts were unaware of this.

Both the 2015 Statement of Common Ground produced by the Council and Welsh Water and Welsh Water’s evidence to LDP Hearing Session 9 in March 2016 state: Our local sewer network is too small to accommodate the foul flows from this development.

The Drainage Strategy document submitted with the planning contains no explicit statement that the existing sewer has adequate capacity to take the site’s foul sewage.
But in an Appendix to this document, we find a letter from Welsh Water to the Council dated February 2014 stating:  ‘The foul only flows from the proposed development can be accommodated within the public sewerage system    .

This statement predates and is at odds with the later statements by Welsh Water and we will be asking for an explanation.  When we have an answer, we will put a statement on our website.

  1. Accessibility by Pedestrians and Cyclists

Planners quite rightly want to encourage walking and cycling as sustainable modes of travel.  The Transport Assessment submitted with this application refers to several policy and guidance documents which state that a new housing site must have easy access by foot and bicycle to public transport and other local amenities.

Chapter 8 of Planning Policy Wales includes the following statement:

“The Welsh Government supports a transport hierarchy in relation to new development that establishes priorities in such a way that, wherever possible, they are accessible in the first instance by walking and cycling, then by public transport and then finally by private motor vehicles.  

Careful consideration needs to be given in Local Development Plans to the allocation of new sites which are likely to generate significant levels of movement to ensure that access provisions which promote walking and cycling, as well as by public transport are included from the outset.”

The transport Assessment also references LDP Policy SP7 which has the statement: ‘Priority will also be given to schemes that improve highway safety and accessibility, public transport, walking and cycling.”

The Transport Assessment shows that the site is within a reasonable walking or cycling distance of these facilities but it fails to point out that the route involved is not on flat ground.  It does not mention the steepness of the upper part of Murch Road and of Murch Crescent.  Yes, healthy fit people could probably carry several bags of shopping up the steep road to the new site or could cycle up the hill without getting off.  But there are many people not so healthy or fit or who have small children in tow for whom the hill would not be manageable either on foot or by bicycle.

Therefore the location of this site does not comply with these policies and should be rejected on that basis alone.

  1. Sewer Rising Main route in Murch Road.

Barratt’s drawing shows the proposed sewer rising main from the upgraded Stonylands Pumping Station to the head of the existing sewer in Murch Crescent is shown routed in Murch Road between the Health Centre entrance to the existing sewer manhole.  SEE SLIDE.

But the narrow width of this section of road would make it difficult to lay this section of sewer without closing the road.  This would prevent access to and from the Health Centre.

If it is demonstrated that the existing sewer can take the sewage flow from the site, then this section of the rising main may need to be rerouted to avoid closing the road to the Health Centre.

  1. The site boundary impact on the Dinas Powys by-pass

The corridor for a by-pass which had been safeguarded in the earlier UDP and which we already mentioned cut through the eastern corner of the site of the former St Cyres Junior School as indicated on this slide which is a screenshot from part of the Agent’s sale advert for the site.  SEE SLIDE SITE BOUNDARY AND APPROX SAFEGUARDED CORRIDOR.

But, when the previous Council administration offered the site for sale in 2014, the part of the site impacted by the corridor was not excluded from the sale.
Even though the LDP, which omitted the safeguarding, was still only in draft form and the Council should still have taken the UDP, which included the safeguarding, into account.  We had drawn this to the Council in the chamber long before the contract of intent with Barratts had been entered into.

It is possible for the by-pass to get around the site but with an adverse effect on the smooth line of the road.  We have recently drawn this again to the Council’s attention.

If this application is rejected for one or more of the reasons we have given, then the originally safeguarded corridor should be reinstated across the corner of this site.

  1. The Lack of a Public Consultation Event

When the Council has received a planning application for a major development, it normally arranges a public consultation event when people can come and discuss their views with Council officials.  This did happen last March for the Arcadis Stage 1 study.

Last week we asked the Senior Planner dealing with the Barratts application when and where the Council’s public consultation event would be held and were told: The Public Consultation event you refer to has already taken place and was undertaken by the applicants (that’s Barratts) as part of the Pre-Application Consultation required for major developments.’

The consultation to which the Planner is referring is the 10 August event organised by Barratts.  This slide shows an extract from Barratt’s advert for this event.  We draw your attention to the words in bold which clearly show that it would be a Barratt’s event, not the Council’s.  The Planner seems to think that even though there were no Council officials in attendance at this event, it somehow gave people to opportunity to express their views on it to the Council.  Surely the Council can’t outsource their public consultations in this way?

We are challenging the Planner on this keep you informed on our website.

  1. Any Other Matters

As mentioned, we are still digesting all the documentation submitted with this planning application.  For example we haven’t yet had a chance to study the Travel Plan.  So there could be some more comments on it which we will add to our website by the end of this week.

Questions on Housing Developments

We will now take questions on the Caerleon and St Cyres housing developments.  Who would like to ask a question?

Conclusion and Appeal for Help

The Dinas Powys By-Pass Steering Group will object to both the Caerleon and the St Cyres planning applications for the reasons given in this presentation.

On our website, you will find a copy of this presentation and a guide on to how to submit your comments and/or objections on the Council’s website.

Finally, if there is anyone here with professional knowledge which you think could help our campaign, please come and see us before you leave.

Even if you’re prepared to deliver some leaflets in your street please let us know…my legs are killing me!

Thank you all for coming.  I hope that you have found this meeting informative and useful.  Have a safe journey home.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *