HEOL Y GLYN DEVELOPMENT, GLYNNEATH

The questions only can be found in this table. Information and illustrations relating to the questions can be found by scrolling down or CLICKING HERE

Question 1 to Ceri Morris: In an email dated 4/5 2020 you stated that:

"Turning specifically to the issue of land contamination at the site and whether the Council has historically contravened the Environmental Protection Act 1990, I would advise that this legislation no longer applies when a site is going through the planning process; by definition therefore the Council has not at any point contravened its duties under this legislation, as it is not relevant once the planning process has commenced."

Please can you supply evidence that the council followed the Contaminated Land Strategy process in relation to the contamination identified in the 2008 chemical testing and human health risk assessment at the Heol y Glyn landfill. The UK law the Environmental Protection Act required either testing the site further to establish whether or not the site was a special site or remediation of the land as suggested in the human health risk assessment and the council Contaminated Land Strategy?

Question 2 to Ceri Morris: Why was the information relating to the chemical testing of the site withheld from the planning application P2020/0863?

Question 3 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?

Question 4 to Ceri Morris : The chemical testing submitted for P2021/0546 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?

Question 5 to Ceri Morris: The TP1-6 shallow sample result is missing on the test results submitted for P2021/0546, Why?

QUESTION 1 - RELATING TO THE HISTORICAL BREACH OF THE 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

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

CLICK TO SEE THIS DOCUMENT AS A YOUTUBE VIDEO

Question to Ceri Morris: In an email dated 4/5 2020 you stated that:

The reason we ask this question is because: This statement by Ceri Morris is a deliberate misrepresentation of a UK Government law, his responsibilities include upholding this law within the county borough of Neath-Port Talbot.

CLICK HERE FOR THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT WRITTEN BY CERI MORRIS

CLICK HERE FOR A YOUTUBE VIDEO THAT EXPLAINS THIS INCIDENT IN GREATER DETAIL

Additional Notes 1: The Contaminated Land Officer identified that the testing in 2008 was inadequate during the planning committee meeting of 8/9/2020.

Additional Notes 2: Failure to provide evidence of correct contaminated land protocol by the developer Cuddy Group Ltd. means that the council planning department worked together with the Cuddy Group Ltd to avoid the correct contaminated land protocol as required UK Government law, the 1990 Environmental Protection Act.

QUESTION RELATING TO THE PLANNING APPROVAL P2020/0863

http://appsportal.npt.gov.uk/ords/idocs12/f?p=Planning:2:0::NO::P2_REFERENCE:P2020/0863

CHEMICAL TESTING

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 P2021/0546 (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.

QUESTION RELATING TO THE PLANNING APPROVAL P2020/0863

http://appsportal.npt.gov.uk/ords/idocs12/f?p=Planning:2:0::NO::P2_REFERENCE:P2020/0863

WASTE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA INFORMATION

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 above, 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 Neath-Port Talbot Council 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 and is recorded as supporting this application to remove the spoil heap without testing.

QUESTION RELATING TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION P2021/0546

https://planningonline.npt.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=QTB8NLKZMQP00&activeTab=summary

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

Overview and background information relating to the question: There are several corruption indicators identified that suggest the chemical testing results supplied for P2021/0546 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 P2021/0546 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.

QUESTION RELATING TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION P2021/0546

https://planningonline.npt.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=QTB8NLKZMQP00&activeTab=summary

INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE CHEMICAL TESTING DOCUMENT

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 potentially been tampered with.

Question to Ceri Morris: The TP1-6 shallow sample result is missing on the test results submitted for P2021/0546, 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.

Hi Dai, sorry I have not got back to you after the meeting as I am waiting for further information from officers at that meeting I asked for and to answer the questions I gave them from you and some of my own.
I haven’t to date received any further correspondence or information yet, but I’m not going to lie to you on how the meeting went as it was highly charged , Nicola Pearce Director of the Environment joined the meeting late , at the meeting was Calvin Davies Environmental Health Team Leader, Ceri Morris Head Of Planning & Public Protection and Steve Ball Development Manager - Planning, there was no representative from NRW but apologies were given as I asked for these representatives late apparently.

They listened to everything I had to say in my capacity as chair of regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee where contaminated land falls under.

They as in different speakers during the meeting were singing from the same hymn sheet as they say, explaining to me that all the questions I have given them on Tuesday and your Web Link questions have already been answered to yourself in full.

They gave me assurances that no work will start on the site until the new owners satisfy planning that the necessary work and information would need to be given and that is including land contamination survey , they did state that and this came from Calvin and Steve Ball that , I think they presumed that you or others would want the whole site excavated to determine the land contamination that is on the said site, this isn’t achievable but they would follow the legal practices to make sure the site is safe with various bore holes if needed, they also went onto say that not all contamination is a health risk or harmful to the environment or people and in certain circumstances these contaminates can stay on site and be treated appropriately within health and safety guidelines set out by NRW and Welsh Government.

They said that they certainly would not put people’s health at risk if giving any permission to build on this site, Mr Ball said an awful lot more as did Nicola, Calvin , Ceri but continued to say that they would not give me answers to all your questions as they have done this before, so I asked for a copy of the answers or responses to you on these questions , but I’m not sure if they going to get these to me anytime soon.

They also felt that you haven’t listened to their responses and if you was still not happy then you should gather all your evidence and give it to the Public Ombudsman for further consideration.

We went around in circles after that, as I maintained I needed answers to your questions and they saying they answered them but your coming back with more, and some threats I believe was mentioned also from you to officers?

As I said Dai, I’m waiting for full response from them currently and will give you a copy, what I have written here is my take on how the meeting went with honesty , they might even dispute my findings but I like you would not want anyone’s health to be put at risk with any contamination that is a health hazard on that site.

I’m also aware and mentioned Cuddy and his way of working during the site in question but I haven’t any proof of that of course, I also for your information that they are well aware of and that was Howard Rees and contamination of the land by him in Rheola , they all went quiet then, but stated they are aware of that situation and speaking to the possible developer at that site to deal with contamination there also, but again stating that it doesn’t always be needed to be removed.

I’m sorry this isn’t more positive information, but I will continue in my capacity to make sure the site in question does not cause any health problems for you or the residents living close to the site, I am a one man band however and not sure how much influence I have on this local authority I’m sorry to say.

I know I got around the roundabout in answering you, but it’s only what I took from the meeting but I might have missed something sorry, as soon as I get an official response from officers I will send it to you ok.

"The result of the P2020/0863 approval means that the current application for the Heol y Glyn site will allow toxic waste to be deposited next to our homes. If you search the re-distribution of soil levels in application P2021/0546 you will see that in some areas of the site, this will mean the raising of the current levels of the ground with toxic waste by over 5 metres.

We are deeply concerned that the contamination testing submitted with application P2021/0546 lacks the supporting Human Health Risk Assessment as required by the Council Contamination Land Strategy and the results of the testing can also be seen to have been potentially tampered with to suit planning department malpractice as was identified in our unanswered questions.

I would urge you please to request the HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT from the planning department. This is key safety information. I would also urge you to personally investigate the chemical testing information submitted to NPTC for the current application P2021/0546."