COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 

28/12/21

VIDEO UPLOAD

Council upload - https://youtu.be/d7LwpVlT4q4

ENZO

planning committee meeting

ENZO

planning committee meeting

ENZO

planning committee meeting

At 7.57 in the video the chairperson Suzanne Paddison states that all members of the planning committee have received a document.

7.57 - You will be aware that certain literature arrived yesterday, you will have all received literature. This will not partake as part of the aaaaaaahh proceedings today but obviously you have had it, you have read it. You may ask questions, um any questions on the debate part of it so if anybody wants to ask questions, but we won't be actually questioning that document This is in the interests of fairness and equity, it arrived after the deadline of Friday at 2.00 o'clock so officers [the planning department] have had very little time to look at it, members may, one member received it last night when the came home after a day out so, its not been fully accessible to everybody so that's why its not going to be included in the proceedings but obviously if there are any questions that any member wishes to ask they can do that .   

The document to which the chairperson and the planning development officer Steve Ball refer provides evidence that the planning committee breached the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1990 in 2010 when they rubber stamped planning department malpractice. The chairperson Suzanne Paddison, the Deputy Chair Sean Pursey and local councillors Del Morgan and Simon Knoyle were copied to a series of emails  between myself (David Richards) and the Council Leader Rob Jones on 15th May 2020. The subject line of these email was "NPTC planning department have contravened the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The planning department had also been made aware of this breach in at least 20 representations from local residents. 

At 51.10 in the video the planning office Steve Ball confirms this when he states that:  

"I do just want to again mention the literature, you may or may not have seen it but regardless of that you are able to answer questions on item at anytime so Mr Ball would you please take us through the application. 

Of course, thank you chair and just to re-iterate the point you just made in terms of the correspondence being received late and that's why the amendment sheet doesn't refer to that at all (51.40) because its outside of the process and protocol um but you will note that um one of the registered speakers is a Mr Richards who is the author of the submission that came round so no doubt Mr Richards will be able to raise um whatever he wishes in his presentation to you and then obviously at that point you will be able to draw any matters or any issues you wish to raise with me as a consequence.

Ah Mr Ball, just.....

yes councillor

I just wondered how you knew that Mr Richards was the author, because I couldn't see anywhere on it that somebody had signed it.

I believe that came through from his email (fabricated information) is my understanding and we've also had um correspondence from Mr Richards throughout the course of this application which has raised if not all, certainly almost all of the matters raised within the literature in any event.

so what I was gong to say under the representation section is quite a lengthy representation summary has been provided (52.40) um and that I would say summarises everything within the submissions which are largely raising significant concerns about land contamination and obviously we'll come to that in my response and in any discussion we may have

that's fine - thank you Mr Ball, carry on

57.52 - number of consultations approx 80 - 40 properties - all of their concerns have been summarised on pages 10 through to 14

1.01.06 NRW licence misrep - taking the land of the site may seem unusual. (creating a scenario to fit the facts)

1.02.59 - removal of trees - changes of level bullshit

1 culverting the stream - 

biodiversity and extant plans - did they investigate concerns about cuddy not intending to build

1.09 contamination - no evidence - nigel's statement

1.14 

1.23.42 geraint john extensive and thorough reports contamination bullshit - Mo counter evidence contradicts GJ 

1.30.40 - SB trees bullshit - info gap - TPO how can those trees be allowed to go - lying and playing God - 1.32.18 - complex history

1.36 asks about contamination surveys

1.43.19 - 

At 7.57 in the video the chairperson Suzanne Paddison states that all members of the planning committee have received a document.

7.57 - You will be aware that certain literature arrived yesterday, you will have all received literature. This will not partake as part of the aaaaaaahh proceedings today but obviously you have had it, you have read it. You may ask questions, um any questions on the debate part of it so if anybody wants to ask questions, but we won't be actually questioning that document This is in the interests of fairness and equity, it arrived after the deadline of Friday at 2.00 o'clock so officers [the planning department] have had very little time to look at it, members may, one member received it last night when the came home after a day out so, its not been fully accessible to everybody so that's why its not going to be included in the proceedings but obviously if there are any questions that any member wishes to ask they can do that .   

The document to which the chairperson and the planning development officer Steve Ball refer provides evidence that the planning committee breached the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1990 in 2010 when they rubber stamped planning department malpractice. The chairperson Suzanne Paddison, the Deputy Chair Sean Pursey and local councillors Del Morgan and Simon Knoyle were copied to a series of emails  between myself (David Richards) and the Council Leader Rob Jones on 15th May 2020. The subject line of these email was "NPTC planning department have contravened the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The planning department had also been made aware of this breach in at least 20 representations from local residents. 

At 51.10 in the video the planning office Steve Ball confirms this when he states that:  

"I do just want to again mention the literature, you may or may not have seen it but regardless of that you are able to answer questions on item at anytime so Mr Ball would you please take us through the application. 

Of course, thank you chair and just to re-iterate the point you just made in terms of the correspondence being received late and that's why the ammendment sheet doesn't refer to that at all (51.40) because its outside of the process and protocol um but you will note that um one of the registered speakers is a Mr Richards who is the author of the submission that came round so no doubt Mr Richards will be able to raise um whatever he wishes in his presentation to you and then obviously at that point you will be able to draw any matters or any issues you wish to raise with me as a consequence.

Ah Mr Ball, just.....

yes councillor

I just wondered how you knew that Mr Richards was the author, because I couldn't see anywhere on it that somebody had signed it.

I believe that came through from his email (fabricated information) is my understanding and we've also had um correspondence from Mr Richards throughout the course of this application which has raised if not all, certainly almost all of the matters raised within the literature in any event.

so what I was gong to say under the representation section is quite a lengthy representation summary has been provided (52.40) um and that I would say summarises everything within the submissions which are largely raising significant concerns about land contamination and obviously we'll come to that in my resonse and in any discussion we may have

that's fine - thank you Mr Ball, carry on

The chair person then says

Search the website with Google