STEVE HUNT POST HEAD OF PLANNING MEETING

STEVE HUNT & DAI RICHARDS CONVERSATION

(with JENNIFER HERBERT observing)

POST SCRUTINY CHAIR MEETING

PRECEDING CONVERSATION - END OF CONVERSATION / THIS PAGE

Following on from questions presented to the a group of NPTC staff including Steve Ball, Ceri Morris and Nicola Pearce. - CLICK HERE Councillor's Hunt & Herbert picked up on our FB messenger conversation.

Dai Richards - 5 Nov 2021, 12.02

Hi Steve, would it be possible to have an update following Tuesday's meeting please? - Dai

Steve Hunt - 5 Nov 2021, 13.29 (20211105A-PM-SKHU - ANALYSIS - CLICK HERE)

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.

COUNCILLOR HUNT RESPONSE 1 POST 2/11/21 MEETING - CURRENT ANALYSIS

(WITH OUR ADDITIONAL NOTES IN RED)

POSITIVES FROM STEVE HUNT IN GREEN

KEY INFORMATION IN MAROON (bold + highlighted - give priority to actions relating to this information)

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 (The problem is that I did listen to their responses and understood them which is why they are pointing me to the Ombudsman again. They are hoping that he will look at the service standards and not the deception and lying.).

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 (attempt to discredit me - what threats? They should report me to the police if they believe I've threatened them)

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. (It is not within their remit to decide this).

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 (not so - there are 50+ councillors whose job it is to work together to regulate these civil servants) 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.

Dai Richards - 5 Nov 2021, 14.01

Steve - thanks for the reply and info, if you could press for the official response please that would be great. Thanks again. - Dai

Steve Hunt - 5 Nov 2021, 14.29

Dai Richards - 24 Nov 2021, 09.13

Hi Steve - can we move forward on this now please, the PD are not going to answer the questions because they are covering up the historical Corporate Manslaughter of people in my street with the intention to continue this practice and place the residents in further danger to cover their tracks. The answers to our questions will provide you with evidence of this and so they have attempted to discredit me verbally but when it comes to committing information that can be recorded on file they will not oblige. It is not my intention and never has been to target you, all I ask is that you and your fellow councillors do the jobs they are elected to do, that is to regulate and scrutinise the actions of the civil servants employed by the authority. The main cause of this problem is Steve Ball, everyone else is supporting his deception and refusal to follow protocol. It was of interest to us that the Contaminated Land Officer was not present at the meeting you had and considering the meeting was about contamination that to me seems strange. We need to move forward now at my end because there is toxic waste on the surface at the site that is potentially affecting people and plans have already been passed to move toxic waste closer to our houses. I'm sure that following the meeting you've had time to think about the actions of the group you met with and are concerned about their motives in refusing to answer simple relevant questions. I'll be happy to support you and any other councilllors with information and/or analysis of the actions of the PD should you require it. - Dai

Jennifer Herbert - 24 Nov 2021, 10.24

Morning Steve,
I would also like to add to Mr Richards concerns, that I have repeatedly tried to support him in council, and the barrage of abuse against his character, he claims here, is very real.
This isn’t just 1 person wanting answers, there are countless residents in support of Mr Richards, wanting to get to the bottom of why Cuddy was even allowed to dump waste there in the first place? And I’m one of them.
And I have to be honest with you Steve, the more I’m hearing about the lack of interest shown by GTC and also Steve ball, to why they won’t do the ‘ Proper investigation’ or if they have? Show the true results?
The more people will keep asking.

I will support Mr Richards in any which way I can, because that is what I was elected to do, and if for any reason I find any information hidden from this investigation, or even think that There are more questions to be asked, I will more than happy oblige.
There are bigger risks at stake here,than us failing to get involved, from what I’ve read/heard, Glynneath residents will be paying a very high price, if we don’t do everything we can right now, to uncover anything that is deemed toxic at Heol Y Glyn.

I myself have been ridiculed by certain councillors for even acknowledging Mr Richard’s, but I know I’m made of stronger thread than most of them, so their actions will not deter me from asking awkward questions which they are trying their hardest to deflect from.

If, everything possible has been done to uncover any contamination at this site, then why can’t we see the information? It’s a simple ask really, and surely it’s better to produce that, than continue with the pressure of constant questions.

Steve Hunt (20211124A-PM-SKHU - ANALYSIS NOT DONE)

Hi Both,
Sorry for delay in getting back to you with any response and information, but I’m relying on the heads of services to provide me with the information I gave them if I’m honest.

I will chase this up again today, but I’m not sure as you eluded to previously Dai if they going to respond in full to yours and my questions, as I previously mentioned that at the meeting they stated they had responded to you on the points you raised previously , I will as I said chase this up again today also to see what else can be achieved at this time.
They did tell me to tell you to take all your concerns to the Public Ombudsman also, of which I think you should of course, and point out the lack of response from NPTCBC in answering your specific questions with the ombudsman also.

You can also request a FOI from the Council for unanswered questions also, again if I’m hitting a brick �� wall then that should also be done in my opinion.

I will send your comments to them again today or tomorrow when I have time to see what they respond with, I agree that they promised to get back to me sooner than this previously so I’m not sure where they are with this, possibly still finding out any further information, sorry about the delay , as I said i will chase this up as a matter of urgency.

For your information though and please do not share as of yet, but Steve Ball is leaving the council middle of December to take up a new job back where he came from is my understanding, cheers Steve.

http://www.walk-around-wales.com/county/npt/info/council/employees/ball-steve-planning-department.htm

COUNCILLOR HUNT RESPONSE 2 POST 2/11/21 MEETING - CURRENT ANALYSIS - NOT DONE YET

(WITH OUR NOTES IN RED)

POSITIVES FROM STEVE HUNT IN GREEN

KEY INFORMATION IN MAROON (bold + highlighted - give priority to actions relating to this information)

Dai Richards to Steve Hunt & Jennifer Herbert - 21 Dec 2021 - 10.10 ( 20211221A-PM-RICD-to-SKHU-meeting)

Hi Steve and Jennifer - I hope you are both well and looking forward to the Christmas break.

I still haven't heard back from you Steve about the questions you asked the Head of Planning so I will be starting to take action in relation to the information already received from you as regards the meeting sooner, rather than later. Some of the relevant points from our previous conversations are as follows:

On the 24 November you mentioned that I should put in a FOI to the council. You will remember of course that I provided you with an FOI on the 25 October 2020 which you passed on to the Head of Planning Ceri Morris to action. The links for these communications can be found below.

http://www.walk-around-wales.com/county/npt/glynneath/enzo-development/archive/2021/06-2021/20210607R-EM-20201025A-EM-PCOM-foi.pdf

http://www.walk-around-wales.com/county/npt/glynneath/enzo-development/archive/2021/06-2021/20210607R-20201102A-LE-NPTC-PCOM-response.pdf

The result of this FOI / Council purpose communication was that I was identified as a vexatious complainant and blocked from asking further questions of the council. this is still the case. The fact that I was ushered into the complaints process while requesting information, before I even complained, and since have only complained once, and this complaint was ignored, is of course of no relevance to the Planning Department. They have blocked me in the knowledge that the Ombudsman complaints service will look at service issues and not the finer detail of the subject matter. The Ombudsman is not a democratically elected service and I do not pay my council tax to him. My actions for the foreseeable future will remain directed towards staff within the council and those elected to regulate their actions (NPTCBC Councillors).

If we refer to the 5 questions you asked at the 2 November meeting on our behalf. The correct answers to the questions will of course have provided you with evidence of gross misconduct by the Head of Planning and Public Protection and also the potential current and future Corporate Manslaughter of Glynneath residents by the actions of the Planning Department who are using developers to cover up their past malpractice. As the Chair of the relevant Scrutiny Committee, I believe this is what you should be concerning yourself with now. In particular you should pay special attention to the last 4 questions I asked and the reasons why I asked them which are detailed on the page which I have previously sent a link to.

http://www.walk-around-wales.com/county/npt/glynneath/enzo-development/archive/2021/10-2021/20211031S-WB-cllr-hunt-questions5.htm

On the 5 November 2021 you said about the meeting (on 2 November) that.......... "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."

I take this to mean that you wanted the Planning Department to provide you with proof that you they had already answered my questions. This is of course impossible because 2 of the questions relate to a planning application approved in March 2021 and the other 2 questions, to a pending planning application. This being the case I would expect you to scrutinize the relevant information or lack of it within these applications because it relates to contamination and the laws that govern contaminated land. If you fail to get this information from the planning department then I would expect you to scrutinize this in a meeting that is available for viewing by the public.

I have a new number for you:

125,000,000 : 1 (One hundred and twenty five million to one)

Those are the odds for two people in a random group of 20 people dying in a period of two years from the rare neurodegenerative disorder Progressive Supranuclear Palsy.

This has happened in our group since we first made representations to the NPTCBC in 2016. Two of our group have died from this rare neurodegenerative disorder in the period November 2018 to December 2020. Progressive Supranuclear Palsy has been linked to the contaminant Arsenic which was found to exceed recognised safety guidelines in 2008. The chances of this happening are 1 in 125,000,000.

On the 14 October 2021 you said - "No problem and I will after the responses take it to my scrutiny committee if necessary depending on what they come back with, I have told all officers to invite NRW and Land Contamination experts to the said meeting".

I have already noted that there were no Land Contamination experts at the meeting which was unusual considering the meeting was about land contamination.

On the 29 October 2021 you said - "The purpose of the meeting (2 November 2021) is to specifically discuss your issues as you brought them to me in my role as Chairman of Regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee , land contamination falls under my portfolio so my obliged if asked by any member of the public to try and find answers to their questions.................. I hope that explains the purpose of the meeting, as I do take my job and position very seriously indeed and if I’m able to help residents wherever they live across NPTCBC I will."

On the 1 November 2021 - you said to Jennifer: - "We will see what they say tomorrow, but this is my meeting as Chairman of Regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee Jen as Land Contamination falls under my remit."

and Jennifer replied to you saying "Then I know Dai is in good hands Steve. This is an awful situation for you Steve, but we have to look at the bigger picture, and this whole thing needs scrutiny."

If we refer back to 2 March 2021, you said "I would fully support any action you need to take to get the answers to contamination on the site in question that’s for sure as I wouldn’t want you or anyone else living there to be put at any health risk and if that would be the case then it certainly needs dealing with as a matter of urgency."

Steve - if I refer you to that last word 'urgency' and the date 2nd March I think we would both agree that in the last 9 months I have placed enough information into the public domain that identifies corruption within the NPTCBC Planning and Public Protection Department in particular their actions relating to Contaminated Land at the Heol y Glyn Development. I believe that you as Chairman of Regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee should be seriously concerned about this especially as you have been implicated in your role as a member of the Planning Committee.

It should be noted that I have offered NPTCBC the opportunity to challenge my analysis and the only response I have had is to be lied to, blocked and identified as vexatious. I may have made you aware previously of my support team of three PhD academics currently working in the chemical and health and safety industries, I am not a one man band. I have these academics as support when required and the backing of the residents in my group who are still dying at an alarming rate.

I realise that what I am asking you to do is a difficult and unpleasant task, we noted the difference in your level of confidence before and after the meeting with the 'cover up coalition', you sounded as though you had taken a beating. However, you did the right thing in questioning them and you must continue to do the right thing because the residents of this area are depending on your honesty and integrity to potentially save their lives. Jennifer is confident, as am I that you will do the right thing for the people of this area. Again, I offer you my support in helping you achieve this. This communication is not intended to attack you, but to support you in your role as a NPTCBC Scrutiny Chair supporting a community under attack by unscrupulous developers and a coalition of corrupt public officials.

Please note that there is toxic waste on the surface at the site that is potentially affecting people and plans have already been passed to move toxic waste closer to our houses, The council are also without a published human health risk assessment as required by the Contaminated Land Strategy.

If we refer again back to 2 March 2021, you said .......... "I wouldn’t want you or anyone else living there to be put at any health risk and if that would be the case then it certainly needs dealing with as a matter of urgency."

It is 7 weeks today since the meeting. Can I now ask of you now to "deal with this as a matter of urgency" PLEASE - Dai

Steve Hunt - 21 Dec 2021 - 13.48 (20211221A-PM-SKHU)

Sorry Dai i havnt got back to you with answers to your questions but this is completely the officers fault and the Director of the Environment Nicola Pearce ,I'm sure your aware that Steve Ball the planning development officer has left the authority last Friday, I have for your information in an online meeting in front of all officers and chief executive criticised the time we are all waiting for responses and asking should we councillors use the FOI system to get answers and I used that opportunity to say I have been waiting for months for a reply to my questions as on your behalf, Nicola was quick to send me an email to ask what I was referring to so I told her and she said she will rattle a few cages to get me the response to the questions I seeked, I am still waiting of course and as officers are dropping like flies I doubt if I'll have anything before Christmas now, I would put a FOI into the council yourself if I was you , or you can still leave me to try and get some answers, your call ok.
Sorry about this but I'm in same place as you waiting for them I guess , have a good Christmas though , catch up soon Steve

Dai Richards - 21 Dec 2021 - 14.41

Steve - thanks for the reply, - can you identify for me what meeting that was please, I'm not doubting that you asked this, I would like to have the information for my records and your identification will save me a ton of time looking for it. Thanks again for your help in this matter. Have a great Xmas and new year - Dai

Steve Hunt - 21 Dec 2021 - 15.33

The meeting wasn’t a scrutiny meeting but one I called for with officers to deal with your questions as was previously put to NPTCBC also.
In attendance was Steve Ball Development and Control Officer, Head of Planning Ceri Morris , Environmental officers Calvin Davies and Nicola Pearce Director of the environment but she joined the meeting late.
I will need to go back if it’s still in the system Dai to give you the date I’m afraid , but I will see for you ok, it was a meeting I asked for with officers in my role as Chairman of Regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee of which land contamination falls under, and as you asked me to get answers to your questions that’s what I attempted to achieve , without success it would seem.
But as I mentioned I did recently embarrass the Director with FOI for councillors to as create an email and response to me which was in reference to your questions , have a good Christmas �� yourself with friends and family ok.

Dai Richards - 21 Dec 2021

Hi Steve, further to today's conversation, I'm happy to wait for you to chase up the answers to those questions. The meeting I wanted a date for was the one you mention here

"But as I mentioned I did recently embarrass the Director with FOI for councillors to as create an email and response to me which was in reference to your questions"

You mentioned this was an on-line one and as such I have assumed it is a public one that is available to view on the council's YouTube channel. - Dai

Steve Hunt

Ah got you now, it was a seminar and wasn’t recorded for public viewing sorry, only recorded for members who could not make the meeting to view , so no it’s not on YouTube I’m afraid.

Dai Richards

Steve - great, just to confirm that I'm happy to wait for you to chase up the answers to those questions. - Dai

Steve Hunt

Hi Both, I’m terribly sorry this has taken so long, but it wasn’t a lack of trying on my part I can assure you, you are aware that Steve Ball has left the authority now as well, and he was one of the main planning officers as in Development and Control officer.

I have been contacting Head of planning and director of the environment for answers that you previously asked me @Dai Richards and others I posed as well, I’m not sure if we are going to get the substantive response you require , but see below Nicola’s response to my recent email.

Dear Cllr Hunt,

My apologies that you haven’t had a substantive response on this yet. You will appreciate that work pressures are more acute than normal for us within the Directorate, with staff shortages and multiple emergencies to handle in addition to the normal business as normal workloads.

As stated in the email below I wasn’t in the majority of the meeting you held with Ceri as I was double booked in my diary. Ceri has confirmed that it was agreed that officers would provide an overall update regarding this site, as opposed to answering all of Mr Richards’ concerns given that we have been in detailed written communications with him for some time now and we are effectively repeating ourselves.

Ceri has confirmed that this overall update will be finalised this week and forwarded to you as soon as possible thereafter. I hope that this is acceptable and apologise that it is taking so long, but as I said earlier, it is exceptionally busy at the moment.

Kind regards

Nicola

Jennifer Herbert

Thanks for your work on this Stephen. And a happy new year to you.

Since I last spoke with you, the Heol Y Glyn site , has attracted a great deal of attention from residents in Glynneath, it is gaining momentum ( as in questions being asked) and the borough should be made aware of this, People are scared Stephen, and need certainty of the levels of contamination there.
I have pledged my alliance to this group, as it was clear to me, there has been NO thorough investigation into the contamination there. ( none that confirms for sure it’s levels of contamination).

The 20 tonnes of top soil taken away from this site ( before being tested) adds further question marks.
I am hoping the borough won’t fail us with their findings, as this matter needs urgent attention.

Thanks Jenni.

Dai Richards

Hi Steve - the reply from Nicola Pearce is unacceptable as far as I'm concerned, I don't need an update on the site, I can see it from my house and nothing is happening there. I would like answers to relevant questions that have been asked of public officers who are paid to answer them. Rather than bleating about overwork Nicola Pearce should prioritise important relevant questions that could save lives. Steve Ball and Ceri Morris have done nothing but fabricate information and use methods of deception to avoid providing truthful answers in relation to the contamination and the site in general since I first started dealing with them in March 2020, even then they refused to answer further questions and blocked me completely in October 2020. What she is proposing will produce exactly the same results. The 5 questions I have asked are relevant to the planning process and 4 of them relate to planning applications approved or submitted since I was blocked in October 2020. Nicola Pearce was guilty of covering up Steve Ball's corrupt activities early on in the planning process, she is not to be trusted.

The chemical testing document for the current contamination on the site stinks of being tampered with and I have evidence of the planning department tampering with similar documents submitted by specialists that do not suit their objective. There should be a human health risk assessment submitted with the chemical testing, there is not. Where is the human health risk assessment? People are dying living next to the site and nobody gives a shit about them. There needs to be a human health risk assessment and it needs to be submitted. This is a priority and the Contaminated Land Strategy says there should be one. Please stick to your guns Steve, and please keep asking the questions, they are relevant to the planning process and they need to be answered by the planning department. Please insist that they answer them or provide evidence that they have answered them previously. - Dai

Steve one last note, when Nicola Pearce says "as opposed to answering all of Mr Richards’ concerns given that we have been in detailed written communications with him for some time now and we are effectively repeating ourselves." she's lying to you. I would suggest that you push her for proof of this.

Steve Hunt

Thanks for this information and I will certainly relate back to her once more as to what information she or her colleagues have already given you as I’m pretty much in the dark with all of this correspondence, if you have any from Steve Ball , Ceri Morris or Nicola Pearce can you send it to me please.
I will be watching the site carefully in my own right , I understand your children are in the field of chemists or something like that?
Is that true, are you able to use them to get a report if there is air pollution on the site, as the strongest evidence is hard copies , written proof , your an intelligent man, so you know not all contaminates are dangerous of course , but I like you would not want to risk anyones health living in close proximity of the site in question that’s for sure, as I said happy to keep asking the questions for you and others of course.
Maybe if you send me just two questions at a time we can get somewhere , just a thought , send me a couple of questions after I get you the response that Nicola mentioned end of week , and I’ll bounce them back , if they answer them, I can then ask a couple more, �� a different way of skinning a cat ��‍⬛ as they say, but you might not like their responses though.
Have you contacted public health wales at all? anyway bed for me now , Nos Da ok.

Dai Richards to Steve Hunt - 25 January 2022

Hi Steve - this is what you stated on the 29 October 2021

"The purpose of the meeting is to specifically discuss your issues as you brought them to me in my role as Chairman of Regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee , land contamination falls under my portfolio so my obliged if asked by any member of the public to try and find answers to their questions , even if they as in your case to date are not the answers they are looking for I guess.

So if you bullet point once more some questions as specifically to the land contamination, I will endeavour to get you answers, I suspect they will say or explain they have given you answers previously but I’m prepared to give them a proper grilling on your behalf, I hope that explains the purpose of the meeting, as I do take my job and position very seriously indeed and if I’m able to help residents wherever they live across NPTCBC I will, thanks once more Steve."

I did what you asked and I provided you with 5 questions to ask the Head of Planning & Public Protection Ceri Morris, this is what I said last night 24 January 2022.

"The chemical testing document for the current contamination on the site stinks of being tampered with and I have evidence of the planning department tampering with similar documents submitted by specialists that do not suit their objective. There should be a human health risk assessment submitted with the chemical testing, there is not. Where is the human health risk assessment? People are dying living next to the site and nobody gives a shit about them. There needs to be a human health risk assessment and it needs to be submitted. This is a priority and the Contaminated Land Strategy says there should be one. Please stick to your guns Steve, and please keep asking the questions, they are relevant to the planning process and they need to be answered by the planning department. Please insist that they answer them or provide evidence that they have answered them previously. - Dai"

I followed that by providing you with the following information:

If we refer also to what I said on the 28 October 2020.

" I refer to the roles of Nicola Pearce and the planning officers Steve Ball and Ceri Morris in the early cover-up of the 2008 identified contamination at the development and would suggest that they will use any excuse possible to prevent being questioned on this subject"

Steve, the big picture at the moment is this:

You are the Chairman of Regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee and land contamination falls under your portfolio. You have asked 5 questions of the civil servants whom you are paid as a councillor to scrutinise. These civil servants are refusing to answer those questions and are lying to you in an attempt to avoid accountability for corrupt actions that has placed the lives of my family and other families in this area in danger. If you take your job seriously as you say, you will keep scrutinising them and keep asking them the same questions until they answer them. The questions are relevant to contamination and so you have every right to keep asking them. Rather than trying to make me jump through hoops to accommodate them and letting them off the hook as your last message suggests you should be putting more pressure on these heads of department to answer the questions or you should be taking this case to your scrutiny committee or you should whistle blow on them as previously suggested. Whichever way you decide, I'm not jumping through hoops and neither are my support team. We've done what you asked, over to you. - Dai

Thanks for your response @Dai Richards I will do my job as you suggest and continue to ask all questions for answers , what I was trying to say as I don’t actually like typing if honest was that according to the officers they have answered your questions previously with regular correspondence with you.

Can you do me a favour again then please.

Email me the five questions again as outlines like:

Question 1. Blah Blah

Question 2. Etc etc

Question 3.

and so on, but specific questions without lots of details for answering and I will relate they again to officers that are currently working for the authority , if they choose not to answer them then, as an excuse that they have already done do, I will ask them to reference their previous replays to you , to me once more.

As you say if they are not directly answering the questions , please take it further with public ombudsman and FOI requests , I will always attempt to do my job as Chairman of Regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee I promise you, however if officers decide to not answer or give responses like they are doing then I’m not sure what I can do, as I don’t know enough about the site in question as to any serious life threatening pollution or contamination there, if there is as you say then I would stand alongside you for sure as nobody’s life should be put at risk with contamination or poor air quality, but I would say we really need evidence and poof of such things I believe.

Thanks again for your response and I will continue to ask questions I promise you, no matter what obstacles are put in front of me, Steve.
Write to Stephen Karl Hunt and Jennifer Herbert

Dai Richards

Hi Steve - I'll get back to you tomorrow with a response to this message, meanwhile here is some reading matter for you in relation to the site. It shows that if you live next to the Heol-y-Glyn development you are far more likely to die from a neurodegenerative disorder. Also attached are 2 images of contaminants found at the site together with a list of what effects they have on human beings, and in those human beings I include my granddaughter who was born with a mutation (her parents lived with us in the period living up to her conception). Perhaps you can check the list of contaminants and let me know which ones are not harmful to humans?- As previously stated, I will respond to your message tomorrow, meanwhile, happy reading and have a nice day. - Dai

Attached - PSP report - images of 2008, 2020 contamination & list of contaminants

Jennifer Herbert

Given the extent of Mr Richard findings Steve, there are NO reports made by NPTCBC, that can prove that these findings are not accurate, and neither, it seems, do the borough want to prove him wrong? Only to ridicule all the evidence, and try and close this down as Pure Fabrication.
If I were living near/around this site, I would at least expect a thorough investigation to be done and prove him wrong?
There are many unanswered questions surrounding this site, when it was used as a ‘Dumping ground’ by Cuddies, and the people who live near there, are demanding that the Answers are now put on the table.

We can ALL walk away from this, and hope that MR Richards has got this completely wrong, and pray that his reports are nothing more than delusional, but for me personally, something is niggling, that things don’t seem quite right, and the more unanswered questions, the more momentum this will gather.

Jennifer Herbert

Mr Richards sent a FOI request into GTC, which was received by our then Clerk JVT.
The request was for answers to a previous report Mr Richards had submitted to council members on the 3rd May, 2021.
JVT confirmed the FOI had been dealt with under the Freedom of information act 2005, and replied with -
“ The current physical location of Mr Richards report sent to councillors on the 3rd May 2021, is unknown as both councillors had disposed of them?
JVT also went on to say ‘ She had NOT received the report’?

I can categorically say, that this Item (The suspected contamination of Heol Y Glyn,) has never come up for discussion ( not in my presence anyway) or I would have been aware of it ( in my 4 yrs).
This sent alarm bells ringing, as we had seen video footage of Mr Richards delivering these reports.

It’s as plain as day, that GTC refuse to engage in any correspondence with Mr Richards, and would sooner brush him aside with bullying tactics, ( which I have seen first hand), rather than do the RIGHT thing and bloody investigate the site.
This isn’t fair Stephen, and say what you like, it takes two to tango! As far as I’m concerned, and many more here in Glynneath are not going to stop asking these questions until the correct answers are given and it’s put to bed, and people can safely raise their families in this area, knowing the investigation has been done.

I have NO gain here Stephen, backing this Item, has lost me some friends here in Glynneath, but they are friends I can do without, if this is for the greater good. I have NO political agenda, other than to help, where NO help is being given.

A PROW was recently reopened here in Glynneath, and I backed it ( as a resident who had lived in the area for 50yrs) and witnessed the lies and lengths people will go to, to have kept that PROW shut.

I am being Intimidated/bullied, by a select few councillors, because I dared to back this PROW.
And although ‘The Welsh office’ concluded the investigation into the PROW, and seen fit to Install it back to its original state, and don’t forget EVERYONE had the opportunity to object it at the time, but no one did? I have been targeted ( while other councillors inc borough councillors look on and say NOTHING) yet, they know, the enquiry that the ‘Welsh office’ undertook was all above board and thorough, but they allow “ The bullying” to continue?
Good job I’m me, and see through the games they play, hey Stephen.

Dai Richards

Steve - I must say, I am more than disappointed by your response. I would suggest that you re-consider your position based upon the following information

On 13 October 2021 I said: "It is your job as the chairman of scrutiny committee to investigate such corruption that has almost certainly caused the corporate manslaughter of Glynneath residents. Passing the buck to the ombudsman and the planning department will not bring back these lives and the lives of those who will die because your planning committee have allowed the planning department to bypass the remediation process again on land that has been tested as contaminated."

(you should pay particular attention to the word 'again' here because it refers to the planning approval in March 2021, P2020/0863)

On 14 October 2021 you replied with: - No problem and I will after the responses take it to my scrutiny committee if necessary depending on what they come back with

On 29 October 2021 you arranged a meeting in relation to my 13 October comment and said: The purpose of the meeting is to specifically discuss your issues as you brought them to me in my role as Chairman of Regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee , land contamination falls under my portfolio so my obliged if asked by any member of the public to try and find answers to their questions.................. So if you bullet point once more some questions as specifically to the land contamination

On 31 October 2021 I sent you a .pdf file of the questions + additional info. The pdf basically was a print of a web page I'd built to organise the information relating to the questions. The page is live in the public domain at the address below. I sent you a link to the page with questions on and you acknowledged receipt and also stated that you had sent the link to the others at the meeting.

http://www.walk-around-wales.com/county/npt/glynneath/enzo-development/archive/2021/10-2021/20211031S-WB-cllr-hunt-questions5.htm

The information above is a timeline line leading up to the meeting where you presented the questions to those attending.

Where we are today is that I've informed you through the provision of relevant information that the council you work for has supported unscrupulous developers to avoid the remediation process. This happened in 2008-10, and has happened again in 2021 with the planning approval P2020/0863. The 2008-10 avoidance of the process has almost certainly caused the death of Glynneath residents and by your refusal to investigate the 2021 planning approval further, it will allow another developer to spread a contaminated spoil heap around the site releasing neurotoxins, carcinogens and mutagens into the air affecting residents around the site.

I have provided evidence of the 2008-10 avoidance to you previously in a document received by you on 7/9/2020 and I also provided you with a question which when answered truthfully will implicate your Head of Planning in a cover up of the process that has potentially led to the death of residents in Brynhyfryd. I provided you with a document relating to the Progressive Supranuclear Palsy deaths in Brynhyfryd which are almost certainly related to the chemical contamination at the site.

I have provided you with questions relating to the planning process P2020/0863 which was approved in March 2021. Along with those questions I provided you with evidence that the land had been tested as contaminated and information was available for this planning application and that your planning department by-passed the committee process and approved the removal of 22,000 tons of contaminated spoil heap from Heol-y-Glyn marking it as inert and not contaminated as the testing had already proved. This contaminated soil will also be cut and filled and placed next to peoples houses as indicated by County Councillor Knoyle in the planning committee meeting of 8/10/2020.

I have provided you with evidence that the chemical testing relating to the current planning application P2021/0153 has been tampered with and is also missing the associated 'human health risk assessment' that should accompany the contamination report. This would indicate that the 'health of the humans' bordering the site is of secondary concern and not relevant to the development. I have provided you with questions relating to this current application and the chemical testing.

It would seem from the last two messages received from you, that you are attempting to manipulate the information I have provided you with, it would seem with the sole purpose of supporting corrupt public officials at NPTCBC. I would like to remind you that you role as a councillor is to support the people of the county borough and the purpose of the council in general is:

to serve and represent the interests of its citizens and communities. We strive to improve the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of all of our people."

and one of the values of NPTCBC is

We will conduct the work of the Council in an open and accessible way, ensuring we are properly accountable for the decisions we make.

The above value you will see does not include the Ombudsman as an investigating authority, it says 'we', and I would take 'we' to mean public officials at NPTCBC and no-one else. If we return to our recent correspondence, I would suggest that the previous two messages show that you are no longer impartial and have sided with 'evil' rather than 'good', this would suggest that you are happy that people may die because of the decisions you have made previously as a member of the planning committee and now as the Chair of the relevant scrutiny committee. I would also suggest that this is an error of judgement on your part that can be easily rectified by following the process we discussed and agreed upon early on in our communication exchange. That is, if the public officials you have met with refuse to answer the questions I provided, you take those questions to the scrutiny panel/committee and ask them there. There is also the option of PIDA 1998 which I have previously mentioned.

My position now is that I have placed you back on my confirmed 'corrupt public official' target list until you make at least one positive action on in relation to the safety of my family and the other families which I am supporting that surround the Heol-y-Glyn site.

My intended timeframe for the release of the above information and our complete communication chain into the public domain is as follows:

14 days - publish Walk Around Wales website & Facebook Glynneath Residents Against Contamination page

28 days - YouTube video released on Walk Around Wales channel & the following Facebook pages, Corruption at NPT Council, Rugby Relics, Walk Around Wales, Glynneath Residents Against Contamination.

May 2022 Stand for election as a NPTCBC councillor on the basis that I am fighting corruption within NPTCBC and name the corrupt public officials that I will be fighting against individually in my election leaflets which as you well know is a legal document on which the truth must be told.

If we reach this stage I would suggest that one of us will be going to prison, and I would suggest that the 'one of us' won't be me.

regards - Dai Richards (Rugby Relics Ltd) on behalf of East Glynneath Residents Against Contamination.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (as amended 2013)

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) offers protection to workers from any
detriment from their employer that arises from the worker making a ‘protected disclosure’.

To qualify as a ‘protected disclosure’ the disclosure must satisfy a number of requirements under PIDA:

1. The worker must have made a ‘qualifying disclosure’. This is a disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker, tends to show one or more of the following:

(a) That a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed, or is likely to be committed

(b) That a person has failed, is failing, or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject.

(c) That a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur

(d) That the health and safety of any individual has been, is being, or is likely to be endangered

(e) That the environment has been, is being, or is likely to be damaged

(f) That information tending to show any matter falling within any of the preceding paragraphs has been, or is likely to be deliberately
concealed. A disclosure of information is not a qualifying disclosure if the person making it commits a criminal offence in doing so.

.............from the NPTC whistleblowing policy

also sent as an email with .pdf attachment of original questions file

2021103WB-cllr-hunt-questions6 - CLICK HERE

Steve Hunt

Thank you for this information once more, I’m really sorry you feel that way as my only intention is to get your questions answered , I have in my capacity as chair of the regeneration and sustainable development scrutiny committee taken you questions to relevant officers at NPTCBC , I have also chased up further for a response of which they said they would respond end of the week.
I can assure you that I would not personally put anyones lives at risk and I’m certainly not corrupt as you suggest, I’m really disappointed myself with this thread of information if I’m honest, also surprised as your obviously an intelligent man, if someone has died as you suggest then I expect you to take this evidence to the police and those responsible as you also suggest would be dealt with in an appropriate manner.
I can also assure you I haven’t concealed anything , whatever NPTCBC officers , directors , head of legal services answer me with, I will pass onto you.
I will continue to try and get answers for you , irrespective how you feel I am managing the situation , but as I said I can only get the answers that those at NPTCBC give me, I’m sure there are plenty of other avenues for you to pursue to get answers to your questions also , if what I am trying to help you with is unsatisfactory then I suggest you do look to get your answers else where , I honestly can tell you that if wrongdoing or contamination on this site has harmed or killed anyone now or going forward I will stand with you and others to hold those responsible to account I promise you.
I will still send you the response I receive from officers as they promised end of week.

Dai Richards

Hi Stephen - this is confirmation I have received this message. - Dai

Steve Hunt on 31/1/22 - 20220131A-FM-SKHU-questions06 - original - CLICK HERE FOR ANALYSIS

Hi both,
Sorry @Jennifer Herbert I sent this information to only @Dai Richards as an email as error , but posting here for you to see response I have received from NPTCBC to the questions I and Dai raised , probably not as expected , but this is what they have sent back to myself for your information, thanks Steve.

Dear Mr Richards

Further to your recent correspondence of the 28th January 2022, I would confirm I have raised your queries to officers of the Council’s Environment Directorate and met with them to discuss the points raised.

I have now had a response from the Council’s Head of Planning and Public Protection providing me with some further clarity, and I set out below their response to me:

As advised when we met, we are firmly of the belief that we have adequately responded to the issues raised by Mr Richards and advised him on the process which will be followed to address any issues – i.e. through the planning process. Mr Richards has also been advised where he can make a formal complaint so that these matters can be fairly and properly investigated by an independent external source should he wish.

We do of course take our responsibilities with regards to ground contamination with the utmost seriousness. The very serious allegations made by Mr Richards, both in the past and currently, are clearly based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the planning process on remediating contaminated land. Mr Richards has been advised that the obligations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 no longer apply when a site is going through the planning process. Accordingly, the Council has not, at any point, contravened its duties under this legislation as it is not relevant once the planning process has commenced. Notwithstanding this point, the Council is required to address land contamination, in line with guidance, to ensure sites are safe and suitable for use after development has been completed.

In respect of the current planning status of the Heol Y Glyn site, you will of course be aware that planning permission was granted on 14th September 2020 (ref. P2020/0195) and subsequently varied under application ref. P2020/0863 (granted 16th March 2021). Officers are continuing to engage with agents on behalf of the developer to ensure that all conditions on the consent, notably including those relating to land contamination (i.e. Condition 36 – Desk Top Assessment and Condition 37 – Remediation Assessment), are approved to our satisfaction. In this regard, I would note that to this point, our land contamination specialists have advised that the details on the current application (Ref. P2021/0546) do not provide us with sufficient level of information to approve such details.

Specifically, the following has been reiterated and emphasised to the agent/developer:

· An updated Preliminary Risk Assessment (also known as a ‘Desk Study’) is required for the whole of the site – this is a minimum requirement to help design future site investigation work and to ensure everything has been done to try and identify whether there are any contamination issues that need to be addressed. As a comprehensive desk study has not been carried out to date, the site investigation work done so far is not considered to be reliable to address any potential contamination issues.
· Additional Site Investigation works need to be completed and should be designed using a revised Conceptual Site Model (CSM) based off the updated Desk Study – the works will need to be broad enough to characterise the whole site and after the Site Investigation is completed the CSM should be refined using the new site data.
· The final Risk Assessment should be detailed enough that our land contamination specialists have enough confidence to know the depth and constituents of the made ground to address any public concerns about the site. Only then can a remediation strategy be designed and implemented.

Throughout we have been consistent with the agent/developer as to the requirements needed to discharge the above referenced conditions. Officers have provided detailed comments and a comprehensive list of additional information that they would need to be satisfied before the details of the conditions could be agreed. Furthermore, ownership of the site has recently changed hands – again, it has been emphasised to the new owners that it is in their best interests to seek to prioritise and progress matters in relation to the contaminated land conditions, bringing it to an acceptable conclusion so that the public can have a degree of confidence that development will progress and any identified contamination fully remediated.

As you will see therefore, at this stage perhaps officers have provided the assurance to me that they are looking into these issues and addressing. I understand though that you might feel this is does not satisfactorily answer your concerns but you will appreciate that at this time I have been provided with all the information I am able to obtain. The specific queries you raised with me I understand have been answered in the past by officers direct to you. If you feel though that is not the case then this could be referred back to them.

I will assure you though that I will continue to monitor the position and to ensure that officers are addressing the same, both in my capacity as a Planning Committee member and as Chair of the Regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee.

I know from previous correspondence that you have received that suggestions has been made to referral to independent bodies who have oversight of the work of the local authority and I would strongly encourage you to make a referral to the Public Service Ombudsman in this regard regarding your concerns. They are independent from the Council and might assist in providing you with any assurance you require that the Authority has acted appropriately.

Yours sincerely
Councillor Steve Hunt.

20220131A-DO-SKHU-questions

Steve Hunt - ANALYSIS OF REPLY

COUNCILLOR HUNT RESPONSE 3 POST 31/12/21 MEETING - CURRENT ANALYSIS

(WITH OUR NOTES IN RED)

POSITIVES FROM STEVE HUNT IN GREEN

KEY INFORMATION IN MAROON (bold + highlighted - give priority to actions relating to this information)

intro 1	Hi both, Sorry @Jennifer Herbert I sent this information to only @Dai Richards as an email as error , but posting here for you to see response I have received from NPTCBC to the questions I and Dai raised , probably not as expected , but this is what they have sent back to myself for your information, thanks Steve.	Attempting to avoid accountability. If the questions are not what he expected then he should raise the issue with the Scrutiny Committee
intro 2	Dear Mr Richards Further to your recent correspondence of the 28th January 2022, I would confirm I have raised your queries to officers of the Council’s Environment Directorate and met with them to discuss the points raised. I have now had a response from the Council’s Head of Planning and Public Protection providing me with some further clarity , and I set out below their response to me:	he is stating that he has a better understanding can he quantify this statement - what has he a better understanding of not worth bothering with
CERI MORRIS RESPONSE FROM HERE	As advised when we met, we are firmly of the belief that we have adequately responded to the issues raised by Mr Richards and advised him on the process which will be followed to address any issues – i.e. through the planning process	he has not provided evidence of this, he needs to provide evidence of this. By the planning process he must mean objections etc The planning department used methods of deception and misrepresentation to avoid accountability for their actions. As in this statement which refuses to answer 5 direct relevant questions about the planning process.
where you can complain	Mr Richards has also been advised where he can make a formal complaint so that these matters can be fairly and properly investigated by an independent external source should he wish.	(I didn't complain, I was railroaded early into the complaints process even when I identified that I did not want to complain because I was requesting information which identified that NPTCBC had breached a major environmental law) (passing the buck up a level of understanding - looking for the Ombudsman to adjudicate on service issues as opposed to deception and false information issues) refer corruption dic that says Welsh Ombud uses 3rd party for planning issues)
The remainder of the communication Ceri Morris has changed the tense to the future tense so nothing here is relevant to the questions asked. There are references to historical actions, however the focus is on what the planning department and developer are going to do, not what they have done in the past which is what the questions are all about)
we do our job correctly	We do of course take our responsibilities with regards to ground contamination with the utmost seriousness.	Beginning of we do our job correctly - trying to gain the confidence of SKH
discrediting the opposition	The very serious allegations made by Mr Richards, both in the past and currently, are clearly based on a fundamental misunderstanding	(Beginning of discredit)
deception / change of subject matter - misrepresentation of previous stance	of the role of the planning process on remediating contaminated land. Mr Richards has been advised that the obligations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 no longer apply when a site is going through the planning process. He is using the words "has been advised that the obligations" meaning that the obligations of remediating land as opposed to the 'further testing of the land' which is what the EPA requires.' Quite simply he's trying to change the requirements from the testing of the land which is covered by the EPA 1990 to the remediation of the land which is not covered by that act. He is probably right in what he says but in the past he has said the the EPA 1990 doesn't apply during the planning process, which it does. video.............. https://youtu.be/ZNR32GjgBqM	(grouping the planning process with remediation, as opposed to the further testing which the act required, testing and public health risk assesment, he is attempting to back pedal on his previous statement and is manipulating information by changing his tune from contamination to remediating. - CLICK HERE - ORIGINAL DOCUMENT)
generic statement of innocence	Accordingly, the Council has not, at any point, contravened its duties under this legislation as it is not relevant once the planning process has commenced.	He should provide evidence of this
our duties	Notwithstanding this point, the Council is required to address land contamination, , in line with guidance, to ensure sites are safe and suitable for use after development has been completed.	with further additional testing that did not take place. The Contaminated Land Strategy says it needs to be tackled early in the planning process - see video
specific relevant subject matter - stating facts in relation to the planning process to give the impression of knowledge	In respect of the current planning status of the Heol Y Glyn site, you will of course be aware that planning permission was granted on 14th September 2020 (ref. P2020/0195) and subsequently varied under application ref. P2020/0863 (granted 16th March 2021). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/40 The Control control of Pollution Act 1974 states that: (1)Except in prescribed cases, a person shall not— (a)deposit controlled waste on any land or cause or knowingly permit controlled waste to be deposited on any land; "(b)use any plant or equipment, or cause or knowingly permit any plant or equipment to be used, for the purpose of disposing of controlled waste or of dealing in a prescribed manner with controlled waste, unless the land on which the waste is deposited or, as the case may be, which forms the site of the plant or equipment is occupied by the holder of a licence issued in pursuance of section 5 of this Act (in this Part of this Act referred to as a “disposal licence”) which authorises the deposit or use in question and the deposit or use is in accordance with the conditions, if any, specified in the licence.	Two of the questions asked relate to contamination information available but not submitted for Application P2020/0863. The recent testing at the site provided evidence that the spoil heap was contaminated and this planning approval required the removal of the testing for the spoil heap, 22,000 tons of waste previously dumped by the Cuddy Group including an area that has had reports of barrels of waste tipped there. No valid reason was given for the removal of the testing of contaminated land for this planning approval.
our actions are genuine and we are following the process	Officers are continuing to engage with agents on behalf of the developer to ensure that all conditions on the consent, notably including those relating to land contamination (i.e. Condition 36 – Desk Top Assessment and Condition 37 – Remediation Assessment), are approved to our satisfaction.	See above: The rquirement for chemical testing of this land has already been removed. The planning department are suggesting that the spoil heap be removed and the natural land be tested for contamination. The natural land should be free of contamination because its natural land.
we don't have enough information,	In this regard, I would note that to this point, our land contamination specialists have advised that the details on the current application (Ref. P2021/0546) do not provide us with sufficient level of information to approve such details.	The chemical testing has a suggested remediation strategy, adding top soil over the contamination.
	Specifically, the following has been reiterated and emphasised to the agent/developer:
we will use an unsuitable method of testing that is too modern to understand the historical complexities of the site. The information that is available for the site is too old to have been input into the data systems we will use. We wil avoid the relevant correct testing of the site this way.	An updated Preliminary Risk Assessment (also known as a ‘Desk Study’) is required for the whole of the site (that's a lie because the requirement for testing and providing a RA for the spoil heap has been removed from the conditions) – this is a minimum requirement to help design future site investigation work and to ensure everything has been done to try and identify whether there are any contamination issues that need to be addressed. As a comprehensive desk study has not been carried out to date, the site investigation work done so far is not considered to be reliable to address any potential contamination issues. (why then were the conditions for the spoil heap removal allowed, why is the spoil heap allowed to be removed when there have been reports of barrels of toxic waste being tipped there and why is the spoil heap being allowed to be moved close to peoples homes)	(At this point I believe he's trying to give a reason why there is no risk assessment with the current testing. Remediation through soil covering had been advised therefore a RA should have accompanied this report) (can we have the complete intended process for the Desk Study please?)
we are appeasing you	Additional Site Investigation works need to be completed and should be designed using a revised Conceptual Site Model (CSM) based off the updated Desk Study – the works will need to be broad enough to characterise the whole site and after the Site Investigation is completed the CSM should be refined using the new site data.	One desk study shows the land to have been historically greenfield. This was by a company in Reading who obtained this information from OS maps. The desk study (System Purpose Corruption) will not include local knowledge information, it will only include info held on a computer. use geo-tech report 2008 as a classic example.
we are appeasing you	The final Risk Assessment should be detailed enough that our land contamination specialists have enough confidence to know the depth and constituents of the made ground to address any public concerns about the site. Only then can a remediation strategy be designed and implemented.	Nobody has listened to public concerns, why should they start now 2 Remediation strategies have already been submitted
we are appeasing you and we don't intend to keep you safe but we will pretend in advance to do our job	Throughout we have been consistent with the agent/developer as to the requirements needed to discharge the above referenced conditions. Officers have provided detailed comments and a comprehensive list of additional information that they would need to be satisfied before the details of the conditions could be agreed. Furthermore, ownership of the site has recently changed hands – again, it has been emphasised to the new owners that it is in their best interests to seek to prioritise and progress matters in relation to the contaminated land conditions, bringing it to an acceptable conclusion so that the public can have a degree of confidence that development will progress and any identified contamination fully remediated.	(Enzo history - there was no control over Enzo's actions, he was breaking the conditions in front of the planning dept and local councillors. what degree of confidence? The land has been tested and found to be contaminated. Where is the HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
STEVE HUNT RESUMES HERE	As you will see therefore, at this stage perhaps officers have provided the assurance to me that they are looking into these issues and addressing.	I asked 5 questions, where are the answers
I refuse to do my job	I understand though that you might feel this is does not satisfactorily answer your concerns but you will appreciate that at this time I have been provided with all the information I am able to obtain	He is the chair of the relevant scrutiny committee and he has not been provided with the answers to relevant questions in relation to contaminated land.
I'm leaving the door open because if I finalise this then you will go away I'm I'm afraid you will crucify me.	The specific queries you raised with me I understand have been answered in the past by officers direct to you. If you feel though that is not the case then this could be referred back to them.	( He's played his cards here and he's siding with the PD but the following statement leaves the door open slightly).
I am appeasing you	I will assure you though that I will continue to monitor the position and to ensure that officers are addressing the same, both in my capacity as a Planning Committee member and as Chair of the Regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee.	He has not done so up to this point, why would he change his stance now.
here's a buck, go and take it somewhere else	I know from previous correspondence that you have received that suggestions has been made to referral to independent bodies who have oversight of the work of the local authority and I would strongly encourage you to make a referral to the Public Service Ombudsman in this regard regarding your concerns. They are independent from the Council and might assist in providing you with any assurance you require that the Authority has acted appropriately.	Ceri Morris would deceive the Ombud just as he's deceived SKH here. (Ombudsman statement on the Transparency International Corruption report)
	Yours sincerely Councillor Steve Hunt.

SKH

(Big Picture - 20210607R-EM-20201025A-EM-PCOM-foi - 25/10/2020 we emailed an FOI and/or council purpose to every member of the PC including SKH for DD (due diligence) undertaken on the COD document. This was passed on to CM who whitewashed the communication off the face of the earth. SKH, perhaps he is paying back the PD for protecting the PC on this occasion.) The PC worked together to avoid accounatbility, potentially they have all been working together from day 1

MOVING FORWARD

Potential option: Q = In you role as the Chair of the relevant scrutiny committee in relation to contaminated land, do you believe that the responses by the CM of the PD answer the 5 questions which we provided to you to ask CM?

YT videos placing info in the public domain and providing evidence of the correct answers to each question having linked form the reply by CM. Place SKH on the image of every video. Start at the beginning with

ACTION PLAN

Info published - JH - does she want to be removed from the published pages.

We are wasting time - Force SKH into closure by thanking him for his scrutiny report in relation to our questions. We need to define this last communication as a report and move on.

FUTURE ACTIONS

Start FOI on him for his correspondence with CM

RESOURCES

Scrutiny Explained at NPTC

https://www.npt.gov.uk/5854#:~:text=Involved%20in%20Scrutiny%3F-,What%20is%20Scrutiny%3F,decisions%20taken%20by%20the%20Cabinet.

SCRUTINY & THE PUBLIC (we need to move it away from the SKH committee to another one.

If members of the public have a particular interest in a topic, they can contact their local Councillor or contact the Scrutiny Team on 01639 763194 or scrutiny@npt.gov.uk

Members of the public may also be invited to inform and provide information to specific inquiry groups.

The Council wants to make it easier for members of the public to get involved in Scrutiny. If you have any suggestions to improve the process please contact us.

Jennifer Herbert

Can I meet with them Steve, it’s a serious question.

Steve Hunt - 11:13 (31/1/22) - Stephen replied to Jennifer

Speak to Dai first Jen, and I might be able to get you a meeting with the Director of the Environment if that’s what you want , but she might not agree of course, or would outline or ask you , why you want to meet with her in advance.

Jennifer Herbert

Sorry Stephen, it shouldn’t be ME really that needs this question answered, You should be banging heads together down there, to get these residents that report, so they can sleep safe knowing their not in danger of bringing up their small families in that area.
Of course she wouldn’t agree to meet me , if she cannot find ‘ The Human Health Risk Assessment ‘on that Investigation they say they’ve done at the site.
That’s one way of making this all go away, provide the proof.