However, we can see that almost immediately he takes a stance of discrediting me. 

"I (and previous Cllr Del Morgan) were subjected to a tidal wave of abuse, bullying, harassment, slander and libel against us which continues to this day."

I am one of his electorate, representing 20 households surrounding the site who are also his electorate. We can see for what follows is that he is not representing the people of Glynneath at all, he is representing NPTC and the planning department, a stance he has adopted since the planning notices went up in March 2020. He is representing his own personal interests.

To return to Councillor Knoyle's role in this instance, because he is listed in the document, (image attached) along with Nicola Pearce and Ceri Morris, I would say that they all have a prejudicial interest in any outcome that may arise from your email. As a group we would ask that you resend the email and request an official response to the document from either the Council Leader or Chief Executive. 

Again, if we look at what Councillor Knoyle offers you, he only offers to show you documents, whereas we have asked for an 'official response' which we have yet to receive from any member of NPTC. I have attached an official statement by Councillor's Knoyle and Morgan dated 25/10/2020 which mention our 'document' and 2 documents with 'detailed responses'. It should be noted that both councillors received our document on 7/9/2020 and the only response from Ceri Morris during this period did not mention it.

The documents Councillor Knoyle will show you will show you either a deliberate misrepresentation of the 1990 EPA or a generic denial.

What our document shows with information from the council website and similar situations is that:

The land was tested and found to be contaminated.

A human health risk assessment showed that the contamination should have been remediated and/or tested further. 

There is no record of this happening.

Instead there is a record of a series of planning permissions that change the status of the site from contaminated to brownfield and then to clean without going through the relevant contaminated land protocol, thereby avoiding the remediation or further testing of the contaminated land.

If the council are unable to show that the land was remediated or tested further then they have broken the 1990 EPA. However, its not so much about the breaking of legislation that our group are concerned about, its the fact that the chemical contamination remained on site unremediated and Cuddy was then allowed to tip more and more industrial waste without the dust suppression measures suggested in the human health risk assessment.