HEOL Y GLYN DEVELOPMENT, GLYNNEATH

date	keywords	info
END		Steve - I must say, I am more than disappointed by your response. I would suggest that you re-consider your position based upon the following information On 13 October 2021 I said: "It is your job as the chairman of scrutiny committee to investigate such corruption that has almost certainly caused the corporate manslaughter of Glynneath residents. Passing the buck to the ombudsman and the planning department will not bring back these lives and the lives of those who will die because your planning committee have allowed the planning department to bypass the remediation process again on land that has been tested as contaminated." (you should pay particular attention to the word 'again' here because it refers to the planning approval in March 2021, P2020/0863) On 14 October 2021 you replied with: - No problem and I will after the responses take it to my scrutiny committee if necessary depending on what they come back with On 29 October 2021 you arranged a meeting in relation to my 13 October comment and said: The purpose of the meeting is to specifically discuss your issues as you brought them to me in my role as Chairman of Regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee , land contamination falls under my portfolio so my obliged if asked by any member of the public to try and find answers to their questions.................. So if you bullet point once more some questions as specifically to the land contamination On 31 October 2021 I sent you a .pdf file of the questions + additional info. The pdf basically was a print of a web page I'd built to organise the information relating to the questions. The page is live in the public domain at the address below. I sent you a link to the page with questions on and you acknowledged receipt and also stated that you had sent the link to the others at the meeting. http://www.walk-around-wales.com/county/npt/glynneath/enzo-development/archive/2021/10-2021/20211031S-WB-cllr-hunt-questions5.htm The information above is a timeline line leading up to the meeting where you presented the questions to those attending. Where we are today is that I've informed you through the provision of relevant information that the council you work for has supported unscrupulous developers to avoid the remediation process. This happened in 2008-10, and has happened again in 2021 with the planning approval P2020/0863. The 2008-10 avoidance of the process has almost certainly caused the death of Glynneath residents and by your refusal to investigate the 2021 planning approval further, it will allow another developer to spread a contaminated spoil heap around the site releasing neurotoxins, carcinogens and mutagens into the air affecting residents around the site. I have provided evidence of the 2008-10 avoidance to you previously in a document received by you on 7/9/2020 and I also provided you with a question which when answered truthfully will implicate your Head of Planning in a cover up of the process that has potentially led to the death of residents in Brynhyfryd. I provided you with a document relating to the Progressive Supranuclear Palsy deaths in Brynhyfryd which are almost certainly related to the chemical contamination at the site. I have provided you with questions relating to the planning process P2020/0863 which was approved in March 2021. Along with those questions I provided you with evidence that the land had been tested as contaminated and information was available for this planning application and that your planning department by-passed the committee process and approved the removal of 22,000 tons of contaminated spoil heap from Heol-y-Glyn marking it as inert and not contaminated as the testing had already proved. This contaminated soil will also be cut and filled and placed next to peoples houses as indicated by County Councillor Knoyle in the planning committee meeting of 8/10/2020. I have provided you with evidence that the chemical testing relating to the current planning application P2021/0153 has been tampered with and is also missing the associated 'human health risk assessment' that should accompany the contamination report. This would indicate that the 'health of the humans' bordering the site is of secondary concern and not relevant to the development. I have provided you with questions relating to this current application and the chemical testing. It would seem from the last two messages received from you, that you are attempting to manipulate the information I have provided you with, it would seem with the sole purpose of supporting corrupt public officials at NPTCBC. I would like to remind you that you role as a councillor is to support the people of the county borough and the purpose of the council in general is: to serve and represent the interests of its citizens and communities. We strive to improve the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of all of our people." and one of the values of NPTCBC is We will conduct the work of the Council in an open and accessible way, ensuring we are properly accountable for the decisions we make. The above value you will see does not include the Ombudsman as an investigating authority, it says 'we', and I would take 'we' to mean public officials at NPTCBC and no-one else. If we return to our recent correspondence, I would suggest that the previous two messages show that you are no longer impartial and have sided with 'evil' rather than 'good', this would suggest that you are happy that people may die because of the decisions you have made previously as a member of the planning committee and now as the Chair of the relevant scrutiny committee. I would also suggest that this is an error of judgement on your part that can be easily rectified by following the process we discussed and agreed upon early on in our communication exchange. That is, if the public officials you have met with refuse to answer the questions I provided, you take those questions to the scrutiny panel/committee and ask them there. There is also the option of PIDA 1998 which I have previously mentioned.