STEVE HUNT POST MEETING

They said that they certainly would not put people’s health at risk if giving any permission to build on this site, Mr Ball said an awful lot more as did Nicola, Calvin , Ceri but continued to say that they would not give me answers to all your questions as they have done this before, so I asked for a copy of the answers or responses to you on these questions , but I’m not sure if they going to get these to me anytime soon.

They also felt that you haven’t listened to their responses and if you was still not happy then you should gather all your evidence and give it to the Public Ombudsman for further consideration (The problem is that I did listen to their responses and understood them which is why they are pointing me to the Ombudsman again. They are hoping that he will look at the service standards and not the deception and lying.).

We went around in circles after that, as I maintained I needed answers to your questions and they saying they answered them but your coming back with more, and some threats I believe was mentioned also from you to officers (attempt to discredit me - what threats? They should report me to the police if they believe I've threatened them)

As I said Dai, I’m waiting for full response from them currently and will give you a copy, what I have written here is my take on how the meeting went with honesty , they might even dispute my findings but I like you would not want anyone’s health to be put at risk with any contamination that is a health hazard on that site. 

I’m also aware and mentioned Cuddy and his way of working during the site in question but I haven’t any proof of that of course, I also for your information that they are well aware of and that was Howard Rees and contamination of the land by him in Rheola , they all went quiet then, but stated they are aware of that situation and speaking to the possible developer at that site to deal with contamination there also, but again stating that it doesn’t always be needed to be removed. (It is not within their remit to decide this).

I’m sorry this isn’t more positive information, but I will continue in my capacity to make sure the site in question does not cause any health problems for you or the residents living close to the site, I am a one man band (not so - there are 50+ councillors whose job it is to work together to regulate these civil servants) however and not sure how much influence I have on this local authority I’m sorry to say.

I know I got around the roundabout in answering you, but it’s only what I took from the meeting but I might have missed something sorry, as soon as I get an official response from officers I will send it to you ok.

Hi Both, 
Sorry for delay in getting back to you with any response and information, but I’m relying on the heads of services to provide me with the information I gave them if I’m honest.

I will chase this up again today, but I’m not sure as you eluded to previously Dai if they going to respond in full to yours and my questions, as I previously mentioned that at the meeting they stated they had responded to you on the points you raised previously , I will as I said chase this up again today also to see what else can be achieved at this time.
They did tell me to tell you to take all your concerns to the Public Ombudsman also, of which I think you should of course, and point out the lack of response from NPTCBC in answering your specific questions with the ombudsman also.

You can also request a FOI from the Council for unanswered questions also, again if I’m hitting a brick �� wall then that should also be done in my opinion.

I will send your comments to them again today or tomorrow when I have time to see what they respond with, I agree that they promised to get back to me sooner than this previously so I’m not sure where they are with this, possibly still finding out any further information, sorry about the delay , as I said i will chase this up as a matter of urgency.

For your information though and please do not share as of yet, but Steve Ball is leaving the council middle of December to take up a new job back where he came from is my understanding, cheers Steve.

Private message to JH

Hi Jen - hope all is well, I'm taking this information from Steve as a giant leap forward in the fight against council corruption.

"Steve Ball is leaving the council"

Steve Ball is the first corrupt council official that we targeted with his own corruption incidents page and target videos. Link below to his specific corruption page. - Dai

http://www.walk-around-wales.com/county/npt/info/council/employees/ball-steve-planning-department.htm

The fact that he's getting the run around and that they are refusing to answer relevant questions should tell him something. The reason why they are doing this is because he is doing his job and supporting the community. Normally his role when dealing with these officers in relation to a planning application is as a committee member His role there is to work together with the CS to regulate authority business, the CS have already prepared information which they present. In effect what has happened in his meeting with the CS is that he is being treated like a member of the public because that's who he is representing. The planning cartel are refusing to work with you because you are advocating for the public. They have a hold on you because you have already supported the potential corporate manslaughter of Glynneath residents twice. The first time is when you voted to support them in the planning meeting of P2020/0195 ignoring the concerns of the public and the second was when you refused to undertake due diligence and referred the 'Council of Death' document back to Ceri Morris. On these occasions you fell in 

The reason this 

The reason you felt helpless and to use your terminology 'a one man band' is because you've met them on their home turf where your side is inferior in numbers, it was a case of you against them. To use a sporting analogy you are Shane Williams playing on his own against the England team. You are a brilliant player but you never get the ball and so you have no chance in achieving a fair result. The way forward for you I would suggest is to find a way turn the tables, if you are going to do it via a meeting then, many councillors, one planning department rep, one question in a recorded session. However, with these people its always best to approach them  

Did you understand why I was asking the questions that I did. I did. they did, if you didn't your not going to look for the reasons why they are avoiding them. The questions I asked should have provided you with indicators that NPTC have done in the are, are currently doing so and will in the future commit the corporate manslaughter and homicide of Glynneath residents.

From here, we can go one of two ways. I support you to do the right thing and bring these people to account or I can target them through you which will cause you problems. I would prefer the former because of the NPTC politicians in this process you have shown the greatest level of care for our community. But at the end of the day, the safety of my family is of paramount importance and I will use any means possible to protect them. 

Unless satisfactory answers can be provided to the 5 questions asked then it must be accepted that NPTC are supporting the past present and future corporate manslaughter of Glynneath residents.

Apart from the first question which they have failed to answer previously, all the other questions relate to a planning application passed in March 2021 and information relating to a current planning application. 

What toxicology qualifications have they got. 

Isn't this why your scrutiny committee exists?

If the meeting was about contaminated land, why was the Contaminated Land Officer not there?

Has the recent chemical testing document be scrutinised by the CLO?

How do they know the contaminants are safe if the site has never been fully tested and they do not have the relevant qualifications to determine this. There are no relevant qualifications that can determine whether or not the site is a safe site because the human race has not yet evolved to understand such issues.

If you believe these public officials are hiding contamination issues then you have a duty of care to refer this to a regulatory authority (The Auditor General for Wales) as defined by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1988, part 43b (1) (a, b, d, e & f, ).

https://www.audit.wales/whistleblowing - GUIDE CLICK HERE

page 17 provides a list of issues that can be reported to include two relevant to the hidden information:

Health and safety risks, either to the public or other employees;

Any deliberate concealment of information tending to show any of the above.

(e) To make reports or recommendations to the authority or the executive on matters which affect the authority’s area or the inhabitants of that area.

ombudsman - no

He should consider PIDA - If you believe these public officials are hiding contamination issues then you have a duty of care to refer this to a regulatory authority (The Auditor General for Wales) as defined by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1988, part 43b (1) (a, b, d, e & f, ).

one thing to take away from this communication exchange is the information I provided him in the earlier message.

"there is toxic waste on the surface at the site that is potentially affecting people and plans have already been passed to move toxic waste closer to our houses" and the council are without a published human health risk assessment as required 

Search the website with Google