COUNCILLOR HUNT QUESTIONS - 4

Overview and background information relating to the question: 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 to refute the allegation that the council colluded with the Cuddy Group Ltd to hide contamination at the Heol y Glyn development.

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

CLICK HERE 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 on 1 May 2021 and submitted to Natural Resources Wales, Glynneath Town Council and Neath-Port Talbot Council that contained this information and reached the following conclusion:

“Residents of Brynhyfryd are dying from the rare neurological disorder Progressive Supranuclear Palsy. These deaths are almost certainly due to specified and other probable unspecified contamination tipped at the Heol y Glyn landfill site. Public officers who have covered up this contamination are potentially responsible for the unlawful killing of these residents.”

Document 1 provides the cause and Document 2 shows the effect. 

To date no counter evidence has been provided by the council in relation to either document to refute the allegation that public officers at Neath-Port Talbot Council are responsible for the deaths of Brynhyfryd residents. 

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE EGRAC PSP REPORT

Overview and background information relating to the question: To avoid accountability for potentially causing the death of Glynneath residents, the planning department are enabling developers to remove the toxic waste tipped at the site which will enable them to then test the natural ground and find the ground to be suitably uncontaminated as one would expect with natural ground.

The following document relates to the testing of the contamination at the Heol y Glyn landfill site and has been submitted to NPTC as part of the application for P2021/0153 (Heol y Glyn Development) by Enzo Homes. 

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

The document shows chemical testing that took place on 13 October 2020 and the Geotechnical advisor to Enzo Homes, Terra Firma (Wales) Ltd have dated their transfer of this information to their contact at Enzo Homes, Mr Enzo Sauro, 3 November 2020.

If we refer to planning application P2020/0863 registered on 12 October 2020 and submitted on the day before the chemical testing, we will see that it was passed by the planning department on the 16 March 2021. This information was therefore available to consider as part of this application which was passed by the planning department on 16 March 2021 without having gone through the planning committee. If we look at the area of testing within the site you will note from our estimation of the area tested that the majority of the tested area contains soil from the spoil heap. Of the 7 trial pits in the published test results 6 of the pits were found to be contaminated.

Area 1: in red is an area of spoil heap within the testing area.

Area 2: in blue is soil removed from the spoil heap and spread over the ground to achieve an even gradient.

Area 3: in maroon is the area of spoil heap that was required to be tested prior to the approval of P2020/0863 but is now free to be removed from the site and also moved towards the boundaries of the residents of Brynhyfryd to fill in the stream and create an even gradient.

Question to Ceri Morris: Why was the information relating to the chemical testing of the site withheld from the planning application P2020/0863? (End of question) 

The reason we ask this question is because: This information is crucial to the planning application because it identifies that the spoil heap is contaminated with 6 out 7 trial pits testing as contaminated.

Additional Notes: Linked to the next question.

Overview and background information relating to the question: Councillor Simon Knoyle has posted the following information on his Councillor Facebook page which he uses to make NPTC and Glynneath Town Council announcements. 

"I was provided with a copy of the WAC (Waste Acceptance Criteria) Tests which were carried out on 7th October 2020" 

(image to the left, the results of the test have been redacted by Councillor Knoyle to avoid public scrutiny)

Question to Ceri Morris: Why were the WAC (Waste Acceptance Criteria) Tests on the removed spoil heap not included as part of the application P2020/0863? (End of question) 

The reason we ask this question is because: These results are more than relevant to the application, they are of paramount importance and if Simon Knoyle, the Glynneath Councillor was in possession of this information then it was clearly available to the Neath-Port Talbot Council Planning Department.

Additional Notes: Councillor Simon Knoyle has refused to communicate with our group since April 2020. Councillor Knoyle runs a construction industry consultancy, SAK Consulting and has been seen on the site working with Enzo Sauro on more than one occasion.

Overview and background information relating to the question: There are several corruption indicators identified that suggest the chemical testing results supplied for P2021/0153 have been tampered with and are not a fair representation of the level of contamination found at the site. 

Question to Ceri Morris : The chemical testing submitted for P2021/0153 suggests a form of remediation is necessary for this area of the development and 6 out of the 7 trial pits have been found to contain at least 1 contaminant. If remediation is necessary and the results of the testing show some of the carcinogens and mutagens to be nearly 9 times above the safety guidelines. Why is the human health risk assessment missing from this document? (End of question) 

The reason we ask this question is because: 20% of properties with long term occupancy that border the site have had a death from a neurodegenerative disorder in the last 5 years. Our figures show that this is 112 times above the national average. 

Additional Notes: Linked to next question.

Overview and background information relating to the question: If we refer to the text in the chemical testing report dated 3 November 2020 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 it would have been abandoned as unsuitable at an early stage. Our interpretation of the text in the document is that 14 samples were submitted, however only 11 samples have been recorded on the document which was compiled by Terra Firma (Wales) Ltd on 3 November 2020. If we refer to the results of the test on the lower level we will see that the greatest concentration of contamination can be found in this trial pit. If we then refer to the sequencing of the other tests we will see that in the majority, the contamination is in the top layer of the soil. It is therefore probable that the contamination in the top layer of TP1-6 was of a greater concentration than the lower level test. If we refer to the spreadsheet in the document we will see green triangles on some squares. This indicates that the test results have probably been tampered with.

Question to Ceri Morris: The TP1-6 shallow sample result is missing on the test results submitted for P2021/0153, Why? (End of question) 

The reason we ask this question is because: This is only one incidence of a 'corruption indicator' that we have found in these results. 

Search the website with Google