PLANNING HISTORY |
This page is in the process of construction............. |
2003
P2003/1330 |
ORIGINAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS PAGE - CLICK HERE ORIGINAL LAYOUT OF HOUSES - CLICK HERE DECISION & CONDITIONS - CLICK HERE The original plans were approved on 12/7/2005 Illustrated is condition 17 which states "tipped material on the site" which identifies that the ground is historically landfill.
|
|
2008 |
P2008/1462 - PLANNING APPLICATION WITHDRAWN - P2008/1462 Agent: Martin Healer Development Services In 2008 the Cuddy Group attempted to meet condition 17 (access road borehole testing) imposed by the council planning department. Part of the condition was that a "Geotechnical Survey of the ground be submitted "In the interests of highway safety and structural stability, in view of the tipped material on the site. VIEW PLANNING APPLICATION WEBSITE SUMMARY - SEARCH P2008/1462 - CLICK HERE VIEW PLANNING APPLICATION DOCUMENTS - (20081106a-WB-NPTC-CUDD=cond17 - CLICK HERE) A geo-technical and geo-environmental report was submitted on the 26 November 2008. This was prepared for Moore Knight Limited by Terra Firma (Wales) Limited KEY DOCUMENT - P2008/1462 - GEO-TECHNICAL and GEO-ENVIROMENTAL REPORT - Prepared for Moore Knight Limited by Terra Firma (Wales) Limited ( 20080500a-DO-TFIR-geo.rpt.cuddy - CLICK HERE) This document contains a mass of information relating to the site including the identification of contaminated ground and advice against building on the peat bog, however there are several contradictions contained in the report relating to its historical use as a tip. For example the majority of the land is made up mainly of 'made ground, (landfill) yet the report says there has never been a tip on site ever. KEY DOCUMENT - P2008/1462 - ENVIROCHECK HISTORICAL INFORMATION includes maps and test results for boreholes etc for the above report. 20090710a-DO-ENVI-hist.rpt.cuddy - CLICK HERE Application received by the NPTC Planning Department on 6/11/2008 The application was withdrawn on 2/4/2009 - CLICK HERE This application was most likely withdrawn because the contaminated land report and remediation recommendations would have cost the Cuddy Group several thousand pounds. |
|
2010 | Ref: 2010/0260
FULL APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS - CLICK HERE approved on 23/4/2010 The council gave approval for Cuddy to tip materials onto the site up to a level of 15 metres. full planning permission on the site in 2010 with conditions. The approval on more than occasion referred to "tipped material" at the site. Conditions 17 and 18 state "In the interests of highway safety and structural stability, in view of the tipped material on the site." Condition 27 states - (27) Any importation of material shall cease within 12 months of its commencement, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing when operations commence within 7 days of the commencement of tipping operations. Reason In the interest of amenity. The condition states that Cuddy was only allowed to tip for 12 months. What is the start date? There's an email from Nicola Lake in 2016 that says there are complex issues however the condition is quite simple, Cuddy is to give a start date, then tip for 12 months and finish. Cuddy tipped for around 5-6 years which would indicate that he gave no start date or the condition was not policed correctly by either the NPTC or Glynneath TC. |
|
2010 | PLANS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS - P2010/0562 - 1/7/2010 CLICK HERE FOR NPTC PLANNING DOCUMENTS - CLICK HERE FOR THE DECISION INCLUDING CONDITIONS Condition 1 of the development states that the development needs to have begun within 5 years of the original planning approval on 12/7/2005. "(1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of the original planning permission P2003/1330 (approved on 12/07/05). Reason To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990." The last fully approved permission with conditions were made on 1/7/2010. There is no evidence of the development beginning since 2005 and only the tipping of industrial waste has occurred since 2010. Even if this permission carried forward to the 2010 approved plans, there has been a considerable alteration to the shape of the site and the make up of the ground. The satellite photographs below provide evidence of this. Therefore the permission for P2003/1330 has lapsed because the owners of the land have been unable to meet this condition. It is therefore inadmissible with this application. |
|
2016 | PLANS DECLINED - P2016/0974 (not found on the 2003
search) - REFUSAL OF PLANNING
failure to meet conditions including the cessation of tipping. |
|
2020 | P2020/0195
What the NPT Council Planning Department said when we asked them to delay the Enzo planning application because of COVID-19 and the social distancing restrictions for the elderly in our street. "However despite the current circumstances in relation to Covid 19 we are unable to hold the application until after the present circumstances have been relaxed. Instead we would suggest that you consider using social media" |
|
2020 |
On 28th July 2020 the Glynneath Town Council met and resolved to make the following representation on the planning application. "The Glynneath Town Council is concerned about resident's reports of illegal tipping of chemical waste on the site and of its historical use as a domestic and industrial landfill site since the 1940s. We would like to see a thorough investigation of the land for actual and potential contamination of the site down to its natural ground level".
CLICK HERE FOR A YOUTUBE VIDEO OF THE DISCUSSION AT THIS MEETING An important part of this meeting was that both County Councillors, (Del Morgan and Simon Knoyle) who were due to take part in the planning application meeting failed to declare which way they would represent the people of Glynneath at the meeting. Although neither of them had a vote as such their representations to the planning committee were wholly for the development. Both councillors and Haulwen Morgan were aware that NPTC had potentially breached the 1990 EPA and failed to disclose this to the other councillors. Additional to this they will be sending a covering letter requesting further information from the planning department.
COUNCIL REPLY FROM STEVE BALL - CLICK HERE
|
|
8 Sep 2020 |
2020/0195 - PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
On 8 September 2020 the planning committee met to approve the planning department's recommendation for the development. Initial Documents were uploaded to the NPTC planning website PLANNING MEETING AGENDA - CLICK HERE PLANNING MEETING AMENDMENT SHEET - CLICK HERE
|
xl/26 | P2020/0195 - AG | |
xl/27b | P2020/0195 agenda document includes information about the barrels that the were dumped at the site. |
July
2020 |
In July 2020 a third set of plans were placed with the council. These included a revision of the Ecological Appraisal. According to the I&G Consulting representative, Nicola Lake contacted Geraint John Planning and asked this company to reword the plans to show a change in the recommendation for the stream. See illustration to the left. | |
P2020/0863
vary wording |
change of wording to remove contamination before testing | https://planningonline.npt.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=QH7TPJKZK9S00
http://appsportal.npt.gov.uk/ords/idocs12/f?p=Planning:2:0::NO::P2_REFERENCE:P2020/0863 Notes only 4 objections - we submitted 20 |
P2021/0546
18/5/2021 11/6/2021 |
Enzo - details to be agreed - new plans contamination confirmed |
https://planningonline.npt.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=QTB8NLKZMQP00&activeTab=summary
http://appsportal.npt.gov.uk/ords/idocs12/f?p=Planning:2:0::NO::P2_REFERENCE:P2021/0546 |
CONDITION 1
Condition 1 of the development states that the development needs to have begun within 5 years of the original planning approval on 12/7/2005. "(1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of the original planning permission P2003/1330 (approved on 12/07/05). Reason To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990." The last fully approved permission with conditions were made on 1/7/2010. There is no evidence of the development beginning since 2005 and only the tipping of industrial waste has occurred since 2010. Even if this permission carried forward to the 2010 approved plans, there has been a ten year gap since then without approved planning permission. There has also been considerable alteration to the shape of the site and the make up of the ground. In 2016 this necessitated a cessation of tipping order. The satellite photographs below readily available on-line provide evidence of this. Therefore the permission for P2003/1330 must be considered to have lapsed because the previous developers were unable to meet this condition. There is no extant planning permission for this application. |
NOTES -
PC meeting 8/9/20 - the following question in the amendment sheet has not been answered in relation to the 2008 RA
In his answer to this question Steve Ball uses a method of deception to avoid giving the correct answer to the 2008 RA that proved contamination (reference avoid overwhelm satisfy).
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
- 2016 - CLICK
HERE
Extracts: Conservation: Policy EN 6 Important Biodiversity and Geodiversity Sites Development proposals that would affect Regionally Important Geodiversity Sites (RIGS), Local Nature Reserves (LNRs), Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINCs), sites meeting SINC criteria or sites supporting Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) or S42 habitats or species will only be permitted where: 1. They conserve and where possible enhance the natural heritage importance of the site; or 2. The development could not reasonably be located elsewhere, and the benefits of the development outweigh the natural heritage importance of the site. Mitigation and/or compensation measures will need to be agreed where adverse efects are unavoidable. Policy EN 7 Important Natural Features Development proposals that would adversely afect ecologically or visually important natural features such as trees, woodlands, hedgerows / feld boundaries, watercourses or ponds will only be permitted where: 1. Full account has been taken of the relevant features in the design of the development, with measures put in place to ensure that they are retained and protected wherever possible; or 2. The biodiversity value and role of the relevant feature has been taken into account and where removal is unavoidable, mitigation measures are agreed.
|
NPTC PLANNING HOME - CLICK HERE
SEARCH PAGE FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS - CLICK HERE
Search the website with Google |