COUNCILLOR HUNT QUESTIONS - 3

Overview: The planning department are attempting to cover up historical malpractice where they colluded with the Cuddy Group to hide contamination and a human health risk assessment in a series of planning applications between the period 2008 and 2010. This malpractice breached the 1990 Environmental Protection Act and the planning department are trying to hide this. Evidence was submitted to the Neath-Port Talbot Council Planning Committee and the Glynneath County Councillors Del Morgan and Simon Knoyle on 7/9/2020 in the below document and to date no counter evidence has been provided by the council.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE EGRAC 1990 ENVIRIONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT BREACH REPORT

CLICK TO SEE THIS DOCUMENT AS A YOUTUBE VIDEO

Subsequent to this document being submitted to the NPT Council planning committee a second member of our residents group died from an extremely rare neurodegenerative disorder PSP that has been linked to Arsenic. The residents lived 5 doors apart and at the closest proximity to the site. Our 1990 EPA breach document provides evidence that an above safe level of the contaminant Arsenic was found at the site and left un-remediated against the advice of the human health risk assessment submitted to NPTC. A second document was created at submitted to Natural Resources Wales, Glynneath Town Council and Neath-Port Talbot Council that contained this information.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE EGRAC PSP REPORT

Chemical testing

7 October WAC sheets

12 October P2020/0863 submitted to remove the spoil heap without testing

13 October chem testing of the site.

16 March approved without going through the committee.

http://www.walk-around-wales.com/county/npt/glynneath/enzo-development/2021-06-plans/p2021-0546-01-chemical-testing.pdf

My chemical analysis support team have identified the following corruption indicators in the chemical testing of 13 October 2020 undertaken by Terra Firma

pre info

Splitting of chemical testing. There is no valid reason why a developer or planning agent would split the testing. To test again in another area would incur unneccessary additional costs. A duplication of the testing effort would almost double overall cost of testing. Previous testing at the site has always been of the whole area so a partial testing of the site raises the question why? .

If we refer to the text in this image we will see that: 'Shallow soil samples were taken from the top 600mm and in addition, deeper samples were collected to ascertain the nature of the deeper soils.' Then if we refer to the testing samples we will see that TP1-6 shallow sample is missing. If the deeper sample is contained on the spreadsheet then the shallow sample must have been submitted to the testing agent because it is inconceivable that they would start a trial pit and abandon the top layer as unsuitable once the pit is completed. If the top layer was unsuitable for testing the trial pit would not have been started or abandoned as unsuitable at an early stage.

RED FLAG - If we look at the sequencing of the contamination we will see the potential reason why this sample is missing. 

In trial pits 1 and 2 we don't see a lower level, potentially this could be because the lower level was not unsuitable for extraction however, if we refer to trial pit 6 we will see there is no test recorded for the top layer of the soil. 

If we then refer to the level of contamination of the lower level of TP1-6 we will see a high level of contamination (1.3, 4.6, 3.5 & 8.75 above safety guidelines).

Looking at the sequencing of the contamination in the remaining trial pits that have both samples recorded (3, 4, 5 & 7) we will see that in TP1-3 all the contamination is in the top layer, in TP1-4 the contamination in the top layer exceeds that of the lower sample, Only in layer 5 does the contamination in the lower level exceed the top layer, TP1-7 is inert. 

If we refer again to the information contained in the introduction to the chemical testing table:

"'Shallow soil samples were taken from the top 600mm and in addition, deeper samples were collected to ascertain the nature of the deeper soils.'

This would suggest that 14 samples were submitted to the testing agent and 3 have been removed from the final testing results. 

The document was created in Microsoft Word on the 3/11/2021, the properties suggest that it was created by Ian Henley. Any information received from Chemtest could have been altered by Terra Firma (Wales) Ltd or adjusted by Chemtest to suit the needs of the developer.

We see evidence of tampering with the testing resuilts in the statement "Two exccedances of Aromatic TPH C8 – C10 were noted, although when corrected for the prevailing Organic Matter (>2.5%) do not exceed the guideline", this tampering is shown in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet inserted into the document, we can see by the green triangles in the upper left hand corner in the bottom left of the spreadsheet that the information received from Chemtest has been tampered with by Terra Firma. A green triangle indicates an error in the formula. 

We have serious concerns about the integrity of the information in this document, we believe the reason the 3 samples are missing is because the contamination recorded in these samples is well above the safety guidelines and may present a real health hazard to the residents surrounding the development.

Question: Are the planning department able to organise the original communications, presumably by email, containing the original chemical testing information sent by Terra Firma to Chemtest and from Chemtest to Terra Firma? 

P2020/0863 

Question 1 Why were our group's 20 objections not noted on this planning application. 

Question 2: Why is the planning website working for the planning department, the planners, the developers and not members of the public?

Question 3: If the planning department are able to create .pdf files and files in other formats for the planners and planning department information and upload them to the website. Why are they unable to do this for members of the public who submit objections to planning applications?

Question 4: Is there a log available of attempts to fix the areas of the planning department website that are not working?

The reason we ask these questions is because the planning department have maintained throughout the Covid pandemic that the website is working and that information is available to view online. This is incorrect, the only information published on-line is information that the planning department are allowing people to see. The planning department are using methods of blocking information to disadvantage members of the public who require the use of all available information to fully understand the planning application in question. 

P2020/0863 

Overview: Planning approval P2020/0863. We have yet to undertake a full analysis of this planning application yet but it is obviously designed to cover-up the testing of an area of land that is almost certainly contaminated: Our initial thoughts are as follows: 

The planning department are aware that if the spoil heap tests as contaminated then it identifies that the information supplied by our group that Cuddy never intended to build on the land is correct as are the reports of the tipping of toxic waste at the site which we have supplied to them. There is also the case of the planning condition that allowed the Cuddy Group to only tip for 12 months at the site, they actually tipped for 12 years. The planning department  have therefore allowed Enzo to remove the two conditions relating to the testing so that the contaminated soil can be removed from the site to avoid being tested as contaminated. I would suggest that they have told Enzo the soil is inert. If we refer to the recent chemical testing submitted which includes soil from part of the spoil heap, it is clearly not inert. If moved without first testing it and it proves to be contaminated as it almost certainly is, then this is a breach of the Environmental Protection Act. This is why Enzo approached a land owner in Seven Sisters to dump on his land because it is an unregulated site and he could make a short journey and dump without the spoil being tested. Communities such as this are in danger from the P2020/0863 approval as are the residents surrounding the site.  

Info - After promising rigorous testing of the land in accordance with the Contaminated Land Strategy at the planning committee meeting on 8 September 2020, the first thing the planning department did was allow Enzo to submit plans that avoided testing the main area of land believed to contain toxic waste. They then ignored residents reports that Enzo was breaking the planning conditions and it wasn't until members of our group followed Enzo's lorries containing contaminated spoil from the site and reported this to Powys County Council who then contacted NPTC planning department that the planning department had to do something to stop Enzo breaching the Environmental Protection Act which he was doing by carrying contaminated waste to an unlicensed site in Powys. 

In the meantime, Enzo also moved a large section of the spoil heap towards the houses in Woodland Park and Brynhyfryd. This soil was contaminated as can be seen in the recent testing. The red squares on the image to the left show contamination in the area where the spoil heap was moved to. It should be noted that the top layer of the soil contains greater contamination than that lower down, this is supporting evidence to show that it had been moved from the spoil heap. There are 6 different contaminants in the test which was undertaken in October 2020, the contaminants include several carcinogens and lead and are up to 9 times the regulation safety level. The planning approval P2020/0863 allows the removal of the remaining area of the spoil heap. This is where eyewitness reports of barrels of toxic waste have been seen at the site. The eyewitness report was submitted to the planning department and also to the Contaminated Land Officer at NPTC in July 20020 and to NRW around the same time. P2020/0863 also allows the spoil heap to be moved right up to the boundaries of the houses bordering the site to include the filling in of the stream that runs at the rear of several properties. 

Summary of above information: P2020/0863 will allow the distribution of toxic waste to other areas in south Wales and move toxic waste next to residents properties. 

If we refer to the following information that forms part of the summary and the reason for the approval of the application P2020/0863 we will see that the following paragraph is complete nonsense and is without meaning which would suggest that the Head of Planning could find no valid reason for the removal of the requirement to test the spoil heap for contamination:

"Although the developer has breached conditions, by re-commencing work on site prior to seeking approval of all required details, it is nevertheless considered that the amendments to the conditions to allow early removal of the spoil heap (and to amend triggers for submission of other details reserved by condition) will ensure that the current proposed development represents an appropriate form of development that would subject to the imposition of such appropriately wording conditions have no unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the immediate and wider surrounding area;"

Question: The spoil heap was tested and found to be contaminated in October 2020. Why then did you give approval for the remaining are of the spoil heap to be removed from the site without first testing it?  

Reason: Both NPTC planning department and NRW failed to regulate the Cuddy Group while they tipped waste at the Heol y Glyn landfill site. Both organisations are attempting to avoid the testing of the main area of the site because it will prove them both negligent.  

Search the website with Google