28 November 2020


The following social media exchange on the Glynneath, News and Views Facebook Forum between Enzo Sauro and local chemist Simon Thomas BSc (hons), MSc 

20201120-WB-FACE- clyde-baker-post

Simon Thomas & Enzo Sauro exchange

Chris Jones (to Rhys Evans) - I agree but do you want to work for a company that puts their operatives in danger. If they didn't know what is in the waste, how can they issue the correct PPE to the operatives for removing it.
The general consensus is there is nasty stuff in stuff in the ground. For all we know they could have all been exposed to asbestos.
Enzo Sauro (to Chris Jones) and you have tested the land have you I surgest you all think befor you speak and if anyone had the brain to call me I would have been more than happy to show testing results. But you rather spread idle gossip and stop my work force from earning we’ll needed income. Well done my friend
Chris Jones (to Enzo Sauro) suggest you check your facts. Enzo was issued with a stop notice by NPT Council not I and that was done well before this post.
Rather than lashing out at the public why not try communicating with them instead.Try explaining what caused the stop notice and what Enzo are doing to try and fix it.
If you have test results, publish them. I think its fair to say a majority won't understand them but at least they will have peace of mind of knowing they have been done and Enzo can point to them when challenged.
As the saying goes "The truth will set you free"
Enzo Sauro (to Chris Jones) ask the local authority thay have had them long enough if thay would have dealt with the condition when thay should have we would not be in this situation. And for the record the reason why we were stoped was for starting the foundation. We have full authority to remove the spoil.
Simon Thomas (to Enzo Sauro) what an absolute bag of lies. You do not have permission to remove the spoil heap. In fact the council recently confirmed this with me. As for the chemical testing that you have previously submitted to the council, it only consistently tests to 50 cm deep. You want to remove up to 7 metres deep so you should test consistently to that depth. If you have submitted chemical testing that unambiguously confirms that there is no contamination then please do share.
Enzo Sauro (to Simon Thomas) you seem to know a lot and in fact you know nothing. I stick to my last comments and let nature take its corce.
Dai Richards (to Enzo Sauro) I happen to be aware that Simon Thomas has 2 chemistry degrees which makes him far more qualified to make statements on the contamination on the site than you.
Simon Thomas (to Enzo Sauro) this notice says you are in breach of condition 36 which says “Notwithstanding the submitted details, no further development shall commence on site until an assessment of the nature and extent of contamination affecting the application site area has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This assessment must be carried out by or under the direction of a suitably qualified competent person in accordance with BS10175 (2011)
'Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites Code of Practice' and shall assess any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The report of the findings shall include:

(i) a desk top study to identify all previous uses at the site and potential contaminants associated with those uses and the impacts from those contaminants on land and controlled waters. The desk study shall establish a 'conceptual site model' (CSM) which identifies and assesses all identified potential source, pathway, and receptor linkages;

(ii) an intrusive investigation to assess the extent, scale and nature of contamination which may be present, if identified as required by the desk top study;

(iii) an assessment of the potential risks to: 
- human health,
- groundwater and surface waters
- adjoining land,
- property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes,- ecological systems,
- archaeological sites and ancient monuments; and - any other receptors identified at (i)
(iv) an appraisal of remedial options, and justification for the preferred remedial option(s).”

 35-fb-enzo.jpg (274375 bytes)


Simon Thomas (to Enzo Sauro) and this email from the council confirms you have not met the conditions.

34-fb-enzo.jpg (249797 bytes)




Search the website with Google