In his letter of the 11th October 2006, Newport Council's Head of Planning and Economic Regeneration, wrote:
“Following consultation with statutory consultees such as the Environment Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) it was decided that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required.”

However, in a letter dated 13th March 2009, the Acting Area Manager of Environment Agency Wales wrote:
"According to our records, we were not formally consulted on our opinion as to whether an EIA was required and we have not been consulted on the scoping of an EIA."

Annoyingly, in a letter to Ms J Morden MP dated 10th July 2009, Newport Council’s Head of Law and Standards wrote:
“. . . Mr Martin is clearly incorrect when he alleges that the Environment Agency were not consulted about the decision not to require an EIA. In fact the Council’s decision was made on the basis of the responses received from all the statutory consultees, including the EA, the CCW, and the Head of Public Protection and Environmental Services.”

Newport Council's increasingly doubtful position was re-confirmed in a further letter dated 13th August 2009 in which Newport Council’s Head of Law and Standards wrote:
“ . . . it was determined that a formal EIA was not required because the proposed development could be assessed satisfactorily from the supporting information submitted with the planning application and the imposition of relevant planning conditions requiring investigative work. This view was supported by the various statutory consultees, including the Environment Agency.”

It is deeply worrying that there should be such disagreement over such an important point.  The EIA Directive was formulated specifically to deal with complex developments such as the Glebelands development involving, as it did, the remediation of a severely contaminated site alongside the River Usk Special Area of Conservation (SAC) that flows into the Severn Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA).

In a further letter dated 1st September 2009, Newport Council’s Head of Law and Standards continued to insist that the Environment Agency was consulted about the decision as to whether an EIA was required, stating:
“An Environmental Impact Assessment was not required in this case because the proposed development could be assessed satisfactorily from the other supporting information submitted with the planning application. The Planning Officers were also satisfied that the imposition of relevant planning conditions would adequately cover any need for site investigation work. The decision was taken at the time of the original planning application by relevant Planning Officers but their views were supported by the various statutory consultees, including, in particular, the Environment Agency.”

So another enquiry was made to the Environment Agency.  In a further letter from the Environment Agency’s Planning Liaison Officer dated 17th September 2009, the Agency re-confirmed its position in this matter, stating:
“We reiterate that we have no record of being formally consulted by Newport on our opinion on whether an EIA was required.”

Then, in a letter dated 18 June 2010, the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) stated that it has "no record of Newport City Council (NCC) consulting CCW as to whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should be carried out for the Glebelands development".

So, it appears that both the Environment Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales disagree with Newport Council when, on 11 October 2006, Newport Council's Head of Planning and Economic Regeneration wrote:
“Following consultation with statutory consultees such as the Environment Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) it was decided that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required.”

On the balance of probabilities, it would appear that Newport Council failed to consult either the Environment Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) as to whether the Glebelands development should be subject to EIA.   It is not known who, apart from these statutory consultees, would have been sufficiently qualified to make meaningful decisions about EIA for such a complex development.