|
STEPHEN KARL HUNT, DAI RICHARDS & JENNIFER HERBERT CONVERSATION VIA FACEBOOK MESSENGER & EMAIL 14 October 2021 - to 1 March 2022 |
Steve Hunt to Dai Richards - 14 Oct 2021 - 09.00
|
For your information, I have sent this short email to both the Director of the Environment Nicola Pearce and Head of Planning Ceri Morris and I’m waiting for a response , thanks Steve. Dear Both I am of course aware on the longstanding matters concerning Mr Richards and the Heol Y Glyn development at Glynneath. In recent days I have been contacted by Mr Richards requesting my assistance in helping to consider matters, specifically focussing on my remit as the Chair of the Regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee. I am of course aware that planning applications do not fall within this area but aspects of contaminated land I understand do. I wonder therefore whether I could meet with you both to have an understanding of the issues that have developed here. It is concerning of course that Mr Richards is making strong allegations of corruption and inappropriate actions and I wish to understand the basis behind this and what as an authority we are considering. I can then perhaps determine whether there is anything specific that needs to be considered from the scrutiny perspective. I would be grateful to meet with you at your earliest convenience”. Many thanks Steve. |
Dai Richards to Steve Hunt - 14 Oct 2021 - 19.17
|
Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to do this. |
Steve Hunt to Dai Richards - 14 Oct 2021 - 21.27
|
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 will keep you informed as t9 any progress as I know Nicola Pearce and Planning officers are very busy with backlog of work.
|
Dai Richards to Steve Hunt - 14 Oct 2021 - 21.35
|
OK thanks again. |
Dai Richards to Steve Hunt - 28 Oct 2021 - 16.53
|
Dear Councillor Hunt, I was wondering if there was an update on this, I
realise that you have identified that Nicola Pearce and planning officers
are busy with a backlog of work, however the contamination exposed by Enzo
Homes last October is still potentially affecting the health of Glynneath
residents. 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
and so I would suggest to you that you either demand that they meet with
you at a specific time and date or engage in correspondence in relation
the subject. I'm not sure if you viewed our Planning Committee corruption
video which identifies that NPTC have committed Corporate Manslaughter by
enabling both the Cuddy Group and Enzo Homes to breach the 1990
Environmental Protection Act. It should be noted that Enzo's actions are
potentially causing current Corporate Manslaughter enabled by the planning
department, and the recent planning department approval of the movement of
21,000 cubic feet of an area where toxic waste has been reported as dumped
will cause more deaths in the future. Here is the link again, just in case
you didn't get a chance to view it. On a different note, but on the same subject, were you aware that Enzo Homes approached a land owner in Seven Sisters to dump untreated waste there? regards - Dai Richards
|
Steve Hunt to Dai Richards - 28 Oct 2021, 19.24
|
Hi Dai, I have a meeting with Head of Planning and Director of the Environment and others next Tuesday afternoon and I will be in a position then to update you with further information, if you want to forward me a number of direct questions once more before next Tuesday for answers then forward them to me ok. |
Dai Richards to Steve Hunt - 28 Oct 2021, 19:50
|
brilliant - thanks - will the others include NRW? |
Steve Hunt to Dai Richards - 29 Oct 2021, 00:37
|
I asked for NRW representative to be at meeting, but I don’t see them as listed for the teams meeting, I have sent email to Ceri Morris asking for someone from NRW to be there, by unfortunately I’m not in a position to demand this, hopefully they will agree to my request, as I said, get me some important questions that I can try and get answers for over to me before that meeting if you can, cheers Steve. |
Dai Richards to Steve Hunt - 29 Oct 2021, 07.08
|
Thanks Steve - one final question, hopefully. What is the purpose of the meeting, is it one specifically convened to discuss our problem, is it normal council business or other. - Dai |
Steve Hunt to Dai Richards - 29 Oct 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. |
Dai Richards to Steve Hunt - 29 Oct 2021, 15.04
| Thanks again - much appreciated. |
Steve Hunt to Dai Richards - 29 Oct 2021, 17.39
| LIKE |
Dai Richards to Steve Hunt - 31 Oct 2021, 17.02
|
Hi Steve - I've attached a .pdf file of the questions + additional info. The pdf basically is a print of a web page I've built to organise the information relating to the questions. This is the link to the page. If you are unsure about anything or if any of the links fail, please contact me. Can you please acknowledge receipt. Thanks again. - Dai |
Steve Hunt to Dai Richards - 31 Oct 2021, 23.44 & 23.46
|
LIKE
Yes thanks for this information and Ceri Morris has acknowledged my email asking for NRW representation to be at meeting, he said he would do his best as he was off and only back in work on Monday. |
Dai Richards to Steve Hunt - 1 Nov 2021, 08.10
| LIKE |
CONVERSATION BETWEEN STEVE HUNT & DAI RICHARDS ENDS
At this point, the Glynneath Town Councillor, Jennifer Herbert is copied into the conversation for observation purposes.
STEVE HUNT, JENNIFER HERBERT, DAI RICHARDS
Heol y Glyn Development conversation on Facebook Messenger
Dai Richards - 1 Nov 2021, 08.07
| Hi Steve - that's great thanks, I've added Jennifer Herbert the Glynneath Town Councillor to this message, She's interested to hear the answers. - Dai |
Jennifer Herbert - 1 Nov 2021, 08.34
|
Good morning Dai and Steve, I’ve taken an interest in this Item Steve, because quite frankly nobody else has. What saddens me the most is, I was talking to a elderly lady’ Iola at Brynhyfryd ‘ a couple of months ago, and she told me of the lorries that were dumping at this site (Cudie’s) a while back, when they had the contract to dump whatever they were dumping there? And for the whole of that summer could not access her garden for the foul smell each time she opened her back door? So spent the whole summer! With her elderly husband ( deceased) indoors! and nobody namely Del at the time, looked into this for her? It’s alarming to think that this wasn’t taken seriously at the time? Dai Has spent a number of years on this, and I’ve no reason to doubt a lot of went on there because before I became a councillor for GTC, I had heard a few horror stories of ‘ The cuddie Group myself’ in other areas of South Wales. What concerns me, is the ridicule Dai has been subjected to,by members of GTC, Dai has ( rightly so) stood by his convictions, disregarding the hate campaign that was clearly set up against him in GTC. The least I can do, is try to understand the colossal work he has undergone and unearthed, and support him whichever way I can? From the mountains of work that Dai has collected on this matter over the years, and the intensity of time committed to this item, it’s a travesty to think he isn’t being taken seriously? Is it to outrageous to think that this crime hasn’t been committed? I would be blind not to investigate the seriousness of this matter, for all the residents living at that site and beyond. |
Dai Richards - 1 Nov 2021, 08.40
| Thanks Jennifer, I might add that Iola lives between the PSP victims. |
Jennifer Herbert - 1 Nov 2021, 08.45
| That’s correct Dai, what a beautiful person she is, and had nowhere to turn, before you listened to her and others at this site, the least this council can do now, is get ALL the facts in order, and insist that The Borough take it seriously. |
Jennifer Herbert - 1 Nov 2021, 09.11
| If ‘The Borough’ are saying that they “ couldn’t intervene in the process, because the Planning was underway”? That raises very serious concerns for me? |
Steve Hunt
| I haven’t time unfortunately to discuss on here Dai , I have very early this morning sent your web link and all your questions in advance of my personal meeting with Ceri Griffiths , Nicola Pearce and Steve Ball and hopefully a NRW representative, I have meetings all day today with a seven sisters community council meeting tonight so I won’t be active in this chat ok. |
Jennifer Herbert
| Let’s hope they at least hear him out Steve, and do the right thing at least, and give this whole scenario the air time it deserves. |
Steve Hunt
| LIKE |
Jennifer Herbert
| Let’s hope they at least hear him out Steve, and do the right thing at l… |
Steve Hunt - 1 Nov 2021
| We will see what they say tomorrow, but this is my meeting as Chairman of Regeration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee Jen as Land Contamination falls under my remit. |
Jennifer Herbert
| 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. |
THE MEETING WAS HELD ON
2nd NOVEMBER 2021
|
COUNCILLOR STEPHEN K HUNT COMMUNICATION Questions for the Planning Department at NPTC All questions are directed to the Head of Planning and Public Protection, Ceri Morris |
|
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: "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? (End of question) 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. 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. |
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
|
QUESTION RELATING TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION P2021/0546 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 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. |
COUNCILLOR HUNT RESPONSE POST MEETING
|
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. 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. |
|
STEVE HUNT & DAI RICHARDS CONVERSATION (with JENNIFER HERBERT observing) POST SCRUTINY CHAIR MEETING (Regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee) |
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.
|
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
| LIKE |
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
|
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. |
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: 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. 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 (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. 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.
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: .............from the NPTC whistleblowing policy also sent as an email with .pdf attachment of original questions file |
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
|
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.
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. |
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. |
Steve Hunt
| I will ask for the report of the Human Health Risk Assesment then, let’s see what they come back with ok. |
Jennifer Herbert
| Thank you very much Stephen, much appreciated. |
Steve Hunt
| Like |
Dai Richards (also sent via email - 20220301A-EM-RREL-SKHU-questions)
|
Dear Councillor Hunt Thank you for your report received in your role as Chair of the Regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee and for submitting our questions to the Head of Planning and Public Protection in this role. It is disappointing that Mr Morris has refused to answer all the relevant questions relating to the current planning application and the recent associated planning approval and to provide evidence of the correct procedures followed for land contamination in relation to the historical contamination tests. This is concerning to us as residents surrounding the site. I would suggest that the actions of the NPTC planning department including Mr Morris in relation to the planning approval P2020/0863 show a complete disregard for human health. There is no valid reason why the chemical testing of land that has previously been tested and found to be contaminated should be removed from the conditions. It must be accepted therefore that the only reason that the P2020/0863 planning application existed was to support the developer Enzo in the breaking of conditions to cover up the historical malpractice of the planning department. This historical malpractice allowed the Cuddy Group to tip toxic waste next to our homes for a number of years. As can be seen in the documentation previously submitted to you, this has almost certainly resulted in the deaths of the residents living closest to the site. 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. We appreciate the option you have given for you to ask further questions of the Planning Department on our behalf and we would like to keep this avenue of information gathering open please. regards David Richards - Rugby Relics Ltd, on behalf of East Glynneath Residents Against Contamination |
