UPDATED (25/3/21): PCC Responds - Does the Police Commissioner think the Nolan Principles Are Optional?

Police Commissioner Sue Mountstevens
on her Office's website

UPDATE (25/3/21): Ms Mountstevens' answers are now on the article here.

We are about to publish more details of what the PCC said, when we asked her those questions late in 2020. Quite a bit has happened since then, including the increases to the Police Budget and the council tax including increases which our Leader Andrew Pope opposed, but which the Police and Crime Panel of party politicians approved. 

We know that John Smith, Ms Mountstevens' endorsed "Independent" candidate to replace her at this May's PCC election, is reading our publications, because he is now following our Twitter account.

So far, Mr Smith has not provided any response on the complaints or the situation facing the PCC and the PCC's office. An office which he headed as Chief Executive. He was appointed under a cloud of controversy, by Ms Mountstevens.

Let us not forget, Ms Mountstevens has repeatedly claimed that she wanted to keep politics out of policing.

That has not happened. Ms Mountstevens has brought politics into policing.

We will be asking ALL declared PCC candidates to respond.

---

UPDATE (19/12/20): We have now received a written response from Sue Mountstevens. At first glance, many of the issues that we have raised, have not been properly answered or addressed. This includes the investigation but also many other important and urgent items. Many of the answers are evasive and employ passing the buck.

We will be reviewing the response again, and will provide a further update.

Because of this, we are now seriously considering whether to stand a candidate against Sue Mountstevens' endorsed candidate, John Smith. If he is reading this, perhaps he might like to let us know what he thought of the situation.

Update to follow...

---

Somerset Independents was formed because the Westminster parties - Lib Dems, Tories, Labour and Greens - continue to let Somerset down.

Somerset Independents works with residents to promote independent candidates and independent representatives.

Somerset Independents will do this, as long as candidates are properly vetted and uphold certain values and principles.

True Independents Or Not?

Sadly, since our formation in 2020, we have had to challenge so-called independents who are not. Our definition of what is an independent representative and what is not is at this link here. This definition has stood up to challenge well, but if you disagree, please get in touch.

Councillors such as Mendip District Councillor Helen Sprawson-White, whose independence we challenged over several months, told us in writing that she had no intention of joining a political party, including the Lib Dems who she had left. This was despite claiming to be an "independent" councillor, yet endorsing in writing Adam Boyden, the Liberal Democrat Candidate for Somerton and Frome. 

Soon after our challenges to her, Sprawson-White joined the Lib Dems which handed control of the Council to the Lib Dems. Then she was rewarded with remaining as Chair of the Council, a position of power which attracts extra money in her allowance from the Council. Usually a Chair is only for one year. How convenient.

Another councillor that we have challenged is Somerset West and Taunton Councillor Mike Rigby, who was an independent, and then joined the Lib Dems. Soon after, he was elevated to the Cabinet of the Council, a position of power and which also attracts extra money in his allowance from the Council. How convenient.

What are the Nolan Principles?

Recently, our Leader Andrew Pope spoke at the Full Council of Mendip District Council, on the Nolan Principles. These are also known as "The Seven Principles of Public Life" and are now 25 years old. Andrew's speech is on this website and it lists the principles. More information on the Nolan Principles is on the website of the Committee for Standards in Public Life.

As reported on this website, Mendip District Council is being investigated by the External Auditor, Ernst and Young, for breaching "openness and transparency", in relation to its property investment. This investigation was began after members of Somerset Independents provided evidence to Ernst and Young.

All public servants are supposed to be bound by the Nolan Principles. Yet at Mendip District Council, it appears to be optional. And elsewhere too, as noted by Lord Evans, the Chair of the Committee for Standards in Public Life.

So what of so-called "independent" elected representatives? How can you tell whether they are what they claim to be?

One of the Nolan Principles is selflessness.

Being rewarded financially and with power, after joining a political party, is not only the opposite of selflessness, it disobeys other of the seven Nolan Principles.

Where Somerset Independents sees those Principles being breached, we will challenge those who we think are responsible. If they are party politicians, then we will challenge them. If they are so-called independents, we will challenge them too. 

We are consistent and when residents contact us with information or concerns, we will listen and we will act.

So What About the Police and Crime Commissioner?

So we now turn to Sue Mountstevens, the "independent" Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Avon and Somerset.

We have become increasingly concerned at her performance in overseeing the Police.

We have become increasingly concerned at the potential for the reputations of "independents" being tarnished.

And we have seen and heard that a large number of Somerset residents are pretty clear that they are dissatisfied with the performance of the Police.

Ms Mountstevens is supposed to be accountable for this, as an elected representative of the people of Somerset.

Ms Mountstevens was elected twice as an independent candidate for PCC.

But as we have pointed out to her in a letter this week, Ms Mountstevens was NOT a Somerset Independents candidate. Somerset Independents did not even exist when she was elected.

Earlier this week, our Leader Andrew Pope wrote formally to Ms Mountstevens with a long letter, asking a series of questions and challenging her robustly.

We await her answers. We also copied in all members of the Police and Crime Panel, who are there to hold the Police and Crime Commissioner to account.

One of the questions is copied, verbatim, below:

"Parliament postponed the 2020 PCC Elections, leading to you staying on. Residents and members of the Police and Crime Panel have expressed concern regarding the appointment of the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner as reported by the BBC¹. We share the concerns expressed about the Chief Constable appearing to endorse the Deputy, especially as you also endorsed Mr Smith as a candidate for the postponed 2020 PCC elections.

Please could you explain how and why you allowed this chain of events to occur, and whether and why you think that you have upheld the Nolan Principles in doing so, including reference to your Joint Governance Framework Policy document mentioned above?

1 BBC, “Boundaries 'blurred' over Avon and Somerset deputy PCC appointment”, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-52527988, 6^th May 2020

 

Then later during the week, a source close the Police and Crime Panel brought our attention to  the BBC reporting "'Transparency failings' in Avon and Somerset deputy PCC appointment".

Our Leader and Spokesperson for Police and Crime, Andrew Pope, says:

Andrew Pope

"Does the PCC think the Nolan Principles Are Optional? It appears so.

Somerset Independents is extremely concerned at the contents of the BBC report this week, and the findings against Sue Mountstevens.

In the BBC report, it states that: "Avon and Somerset PCC Sue Mountstevens controversially appointed John Smith, who had previously worked in her department, to the post in May."

We were alerted by a Somerset resident to the BBC report, after we had stated publicly, via our Twitter account, that we were asking questions of Ms Mountstevens.

We are also extremely concerned at the report by the Sub-Group of the Police and Crime Panel of three people - one Liberal Democrat councillor, one Conservative councillor, and an Independent Panel member. It mentions serial breaches of transparency. This is not a once-off.

We do not know whether our letter triggered the BBC report. But it does seem to be a remarkable coincidence that it was published this week when the report by the Sub-Group, which was dated September 2020, was quietly published two months ago, in the backwaters of the World Wide Web.

We will await the answers to our letter from Ms Mountstevens. We will give her a chance to respond.

However, on the face of the findings by the Sub-Group, it appears that Ms Mountstevens needs to be reminded of the Nolan Principles.

That is not a position in which a truly independent public servant should be.

Therefore if Ms Mountstevens stands in the postponed PCC elections, or Mr Smith, who she has endorsed as her successor, stands in the postponed 2021 PCC elections instead, we will be forced to consider whether to stand a Somerset Independents candidate against them as a truly independent candidate for PCC.

However, we will await the answers to our questions and see what transpires now at the Police and Crime Panel. We believe that Ms Mountstevens should be given the opportunity to respond in writing to us, before making our decision."

Standing Up For Somerset Residents

 

Mendip District Council Thinks The Nolan Principles Are Optional!

Andrew Pope
Mendip South Candidate
for Somerset County Council

Leader of Somerset Independents, Andrew Pope, is also our Candidate for the Mendip South division on Somerset County Council at the 2021 Elections.

Andrew spoke at the 9th November 2020 Mendip District Council Full Council meeting, to remind them of their obligations under the Nolan Principles. All public servants are required to adhere to the Principles, which were originally stated 25 years ago.

Andrew also attacked Mendip District Council for not adhering to the Nolan Principles in relation to its property investment and the proposed development of social housing at Easthill, From. The chief legal officer wrote to Andrew this year to say that the Nolan Principles were not part of the code of conduct. An incorrect and outrageous assertion.

His speech can be heard on the recording on the Mendip District Council website here.

The speech is also transcribed below.

"Good Evening! I am Andrew Pope, Leader of Somerset Independents, Somerset’s newest and only dedicated and registered political party.

I speak tonight on the 7 Principles of Public Life, also known as the Nolan Principles, which councillors and officers in public life, should live, breath and practice. They are:

    selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership

Lord Jonathan Evans, Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, recently reflected on the 25th Anniversary of the Nolan Principles, by saying:

“It’s clear that some of these elements are more developed in some areas of public life than others.”

So how “developed” are the Nolan Principles at Mendip District Council, and do you know what the expected standards of behaviour are? I suggest to you that behaviour and culture are not developed, in light of the fact that both the Deputy Monitoring Officer and Monitoring Officer have told me in writing, and I quote in response to a Formal Complaint I submitted on a Mendip District Councillor.

They said: “With regard to the Nolan Principles, they are exactly that and underpin the code of conduct but are not part of the code.”

A bit of a surprise to me that was. That might explain perhaps that the investigation was not conducted properly because of this, and the Councillor escaped the sanctions that should have followed a proper investigation. Let’s be absolutely clear – the Nolan Principles ARE part of all councils’ codes of conduct. They relate to ALL public servants.

Allow me to give you an example of why the Nolan Principles are so important to the people of Somerset – indeed across England, as the law is the same, yet councils like yours think that it isn’t!

In 2013, I was a Councillor in Southampton City Council and the Leader of the Council had to resign because he breached the Nolan Principles after an investigation.

So, if you haven’t understood why I tell you that story and you still ask what has this got to do with you, then you have been misled by Mendip District Council and its poor quality of organisational culture and behaviour. It is a culture and behaviour which, as a result of investigations under the 2014 Regulations by members of Somerset Indepedents, has now resulted in an investigation by the External Auditor Ernst and Young into two of the Nolan Principles – openness and transparency, in relation to the Council’s policy of property investment.

And as we’ve heard this evening, just look at the Easthill development in Frome, the decision happening behind closed doors.

What makes Mendip District Council so special, councillors? What do you have to hide? A lot, it seems.

You need to make sure that those Nolan Principles are at the heart of everything you do.

And that needs to start now.

Thank you very much for listening."

UPDATE (6/2/21): Easthill Frome - Councillor Resignation at "Farcical" Mendip District Council Meeting

 

Lib Dems "Run" Mendip Council

UPDATE (6/2/21): Now includes links to Somerset Independents, SomersetLive and Private Eye articles relating to Mendip District Council and Frome.

Members of Somerset Independents attended last night's Mendip District Council Scrutiny meeting (Monday 16th Nov 2020). The meeting was run virtually (link here to the Microsoft Teams recording). 

The meeting may well go down in history as one of the most chaotic in a Somerset council.

The Scrutiny Board is supposed to hold the Lib Dem-run "Cabinet" or "Executive" to account. But it does not, and it has not. During the meeting, even the Chair and former Chair (Lib Dem Councillor Damon Hooton) admitted that it does not do this - whether Lib Dems or Tories are in control of the Council.

Then the Chair, Councillor Philip Ham, quit, saying it was "ludicrous" and "farcical". It is the same Cllr Ham mentioned by Private Eye in relation to his planning application and land near Sandys Hill Lane, also in Frome.

Easthill, Frome
Isn't this beautiful?
(pictures used with permission of owner)

Residents local to Easthill spoke at the meeting. Somerset Independents is standing with them against this disgraceful development.

Denise Wyatt

Our County Council Candidate for Frome Denise Wyatt spoke to support them in their campaign to stop the Lib Dem-controlled Mendip District Council from building 77 dwellings on this prized haven for flora and fauna. Denise's speech is at this link here.

What Denise said has also been reported by Daniel Mumby via the Somerset County Gazette here. In response to Denise and the local residents who also spoke, the Council Leader, Lib Dem Councillor Ros Wyke, spouted her usual meaningless platitudes such as: "My administration wants to listen and reflect" and "We welcome transparency".

Councillor Wyke's claims go against the evidence. The Council's External Auditor Ernst and Young is conducting an investigation into the evidence that Somerset Independents has provided that Mendip District Council's property investment is lacking openness and transparency!

Leader of Somerset Independents, Andrew Pope, who spoke against the development at last week's Full Council meeting, to support local residents (speech at this link here), says now:

Andrew Pope

"Somerset Independents was formed to stand up for Somerset residents, and to stand up for wildlife. Since we learned of Mendip District Council's plans and local residents' outrage and surprise, we have supported the residents in their fight.

Somerset Independents live-tweeted from the meeting, so you can go and read what happened on our Twitter feed here.

The meeting was a shambles. As we live-tweeted, and as reported by BBC Radio Somerset today, the Chair of the Scrutiny Board, Tory Councillor Philip Ham, resigned as Chair. The former Chair Lib Dem Damon Hooton, who is now Chair of the Planning Board, told him to "suck it up"! What a disgrace!

There was very little proper order or control, with Vice-Chair Councillor Chris Inchley forced to chair the meeting when Councillor Ham quit.

Councillors spoke over each other and there was no proper debate because Lib Dem Councillor Sam Phripp and other councillors supported his bad idea that there be no debate at this meeting.

The whole point of the meeting was to listen to residents' concerns. Instead of doing that, the Lib Dem, Tory and Green councillors bickered amongst themselves and the Lib Dem councillors tried to stop debate. That's why we don't like the Westminster parties - the Lib Dems and Greens put themselves ahead of residents in their dodgy backroom deals. The Mendip Tories' form of opposition is also pathetic.

Why don't the Mendip Greens and Tories provide proper opposition?

What was the "informal" arrangement between the Lib Dems and Greens that Green Group Leader Councillor Shane Collins admitted to the BBC's David Garmston live on TV in 2019, just after the Mendip Council elections?

Was it a coincidence that in so many Mendip wards, the Lib Dems and Greens did not stand against each other? NO!

It was another dodgy backroom deal, just like Easthill, but this time, instead of the integrity of the elections, its residents and wildlife who are losing out! I thought the Greens were supposed to fight for wildlife, not have housing built on it! All the while, brownfield sites like Saxonvale remain derelict! We've spoken out on that too!

All the evidence points towards an electoral pact, and hidden deals between the Lib Dems and Greens, but did they tell the public? No. We've asked them to but they have refused. 

Did they tell the local residents that a vote for a Green was a vote for Lib Dem and vice versa? NO!

The public need to know what the Lib Dem-Green deal was! Since then, the Greens have gone easy on the Lib Dems - with all Green councillors even voting for the Lib Dem budget.

They've gone easy on the Lib Dems on Easthill too. Why? They are supposed to be in opposition, not in a cosy cartel!

Councillor Philip Ham summed the Scrutiny meeting up when he said it was "Farcical". He quit because he said that the Scrutiny Board was once again being stopped from doing its job of scrutinising the Council. He was right!

The Somerset Lib Dems don't like being challenged and they have regularly ignored members of the public, including members of Somerset Independents, when they have spoken at their meetings. Green and Tory councillors at those meetings also ignored our representations on behalf of Somerset residents. We even chased them up.

So it's no surprise that the Lib Dems don't want to listen to Easthill residents either.

We will continue to stand up and stand with these residents and with the wildlife. As Denise said when she spoke, this development must be stopped by Mendip District Council.

Denise has confirmed with the Council directly that the land has NOT been sold yet. They must not sell it. It must be saved for Frome."

 

Easthill, Frome

 

Denise Wyatt Speaks Up for Frome Residents

 

Denise Wyatt

At last night's Mendip District Council Scrutiny meeting, our Frome County Council Candidate Denise Wyatt spoke.

Denise stood up for residents of Easthill who are opposed to 77 social housing dwellings being built on the beautiful wildlife haven there. Somerset Independents is standing up for them.

Easthill, Frome

The Lib Dem-run Mendip District Council Cabinet already agreed to sell the land to Aster, the social housing provider.

We agree with residents that this site is the wrong place for social housing, especially whilst sites like Saxonvale remain derelict.

Denise's speech is below:

"What took Mendip District Council so long to spend this funding? They've had two years! Why the secrecy?
Members of Somerset Independents have been investigating Mendip District Council.  Our investigations have led to the External Auditor, Ernst and Young investigating this Council’s lack of openness and transparency in its purchase of commercial properties.
The Councils Monitoring Officer, as my colleague Andrew Pope said at the last Council meeting, does not even think that the Nolan Principles are part of the councillor’s code of conduct.
So it comes as absolutely no surprise that this Council is not being open in its decision-making at Easthill. No wonder residents are so unhappy.
I was astonished when watching the Cabinet meeting, that Cllr Janine Nash, did not raise questions at Cabinet, about local residents concerns, and on wild life at Easthill. Was this because as someone said to me, she is probably worried about being “drummed out of the brownies”- the Liberal Democrats?
You can resign from the Liberal Democrats Cllr Nash and still remain a councillor.
The main reason that the Council are pushing for this site to progress so quickly and without proper process and openness, is because they will lose funding.   


I quote from a Cabinet Report of July this year.
“ Approximately £570,000 of Land Release Fund,  grant remains unspent, and Mendip could be at risk of losing this money, if a programme to deliver housing is not agreed, implemented and demonstrable progress, made by the end of 2020. “
The Council have had two years to spend this money. So why hasn’t it?  The Council is now in a panic to spend the money by the end of December.
So the environment and wildlife of Easthill is to be sacrificed and built on because of the incompetence of the Council.
This is why the rush and lack of consultation and why the Council has failed to be open and transparent.
I had it confirmed by the Monitoring Officer just before 5pm this evening that the land at Easthill has not yet been sold. The land is still within the Councils ownership.
So I ask councillors, that you, tonight amend the proposed recommendations on the report, which you can, as you can ask Cabinet anything.

Ignore Councillor Wyke, and request the Cabinet to reverse its decision on Easthill and remove it from the house building programme.

What took Mendip District Council so long to spend this funding? They've had two years! Why the secrecy?
Because this Council is incompetent and
Because this Council appears to disregard the Nolan principles."

Leader of Somerset Independents and Mendip South Council Candidate Andrew Pope also spoke in support of local residents at last week's Full Council meeting of Mendip District Council. His speech is here.

Easthill, Frome

Independents across England Raise Alarm on "Stalinist" Government Trojan Horse

 

England's Green and Pleasant Land
UNDER THREAT

 

Denise Wyatt, Planning Spokesperson for Somerset Independents says:

Denise Wyatt

"The Conservative Government has put forward a Planning White Paper. What this means is that they want to change how planning works in England. The proposals look disastrous, and are a blatant Stalinist attack on residents' democratic rights under the Trojan Horse of promoting those very same rights.

Our friends in Lincolnshire at Lincolnshire Independents have submitted their response and published it on their website. 

Somerset Independents is now publishing its response, submitted before the deadline two weeks ago. It includes our promotion of MORE, not LESS democracy, including the right of appeal for residents on planning applications, I have long thought that it is wrong that developers have this right but residents do not.

We have no doubt that other independent groups share our concerns. Whilst all independents will not agree on every aspect, there is a great amount of common ground, and the excellent Lincolnshire response covers that common ground.

Will the Tory Government listen? I doubt it, but it is worth a try!

Let us know what you think of our response by contacting us."

"Response to Planning White Paper Consultation from Somerset Independents

29^th October 2020

This Planning White Paper is a Trojan Horse for development without local democracy and without local accountability. It is a cynical ploy to exploit Covid-19 and to blindside the public. It must be scrapped without delay. If it is not, then the public will know that this Government wants to centralise decision-making in a Stalinist coup.

This Planning White Paper is a manifesto for development and developers that claims that more of the public will be involved in the planning process. Yet more public involvement is a pretence of this Planning White Paper. The White Paper is a smokescreen for dishing out contracts to PropTech and GIS firms (p.26 et al) that have already failed to provide mapping systems for the public to be able to participate in the planning process.

The current local plan process does not involve the public. There is more than enough evidence here in Somerset. Putting more emphasis on the local plan part, and less emphasis on the individual applications, would exclude even more people than is the case now. It is unacceptable already.

Somerset Independents agree with our colleagues in Lincolnshire Independents that house-building targets are too high to protect our environment and too high to tackle climate change. Such high targets already mean that the local plans are regularly ignored or sidelined by the councils, because the pressure is too much. And these targets being “nationally-determined, binding” (p.23) is wrong. They should be locally-determined in a democracy. The proposals smack of the Soviet Union, not the UK. Yet this Government seems to enjoy promoting its autocratic and centralising tendencies (we reference Lady Hale’s recent comments on this) that have failed our country on Brexit, on the Supreme Court judgement on suspending Parliament, and on Covid-19. It should not make the same mistakes with the planning system.

The problems that already exist with the current planning system that exclude over 90% of residents would be exacerbated by this Planning White Paper. Power must not be taken away from local residents. They need to be given more power. But this Planning White Paper does not do that. Instead, it pretends that “going digital” will magically fix this, but the same people will continue to be involved and the very large majority will continue to be ignored or excluded.

The claim in the White Paper that it is the planning system that puts “delay” in, is just nonsense. The current involvement of the public is appropriate and time deadlines are appropriate (8 or 13 weeks) but public participation needs to be increased, not decreased as proposed in this anti-democratic White Paper. The vast majority of applications are approved without committee and without public participation. If anything, the number with public participation needs to be increased, with more involvement of the public, not increased. Yet this White Paper excludes the public more.

Site notices, notices in newspapers and notifications of local residents need to be expanded at the application stage, because public participation is already not enough. Any new digital methods of involvement need to be done as well as the existing arrangements, not instead of (p.24). How many times have residents complained that they were not told about a development? This is the normal feeling in the current system. We have had to fill in for the failing planning process, in order to involve the public but such public participation should be part of the system, not an adjunct to it.

Any involvement of the public must now allow for virtual meetings in the planning process (p.24). With safeguards on thresholds, any change to the planning system must now also allow for groups of residents to send applications to the Planning Inspectorate as an appeal. This would make the system fairer than it is now, with only applicants being able to appeal.

The centralising tendency of this Government is clear again (p.24) when it says “The Infrastructure Levy will be more transparent than Section 106, and local communities will have more control over how it is spent.” Yet it is not clear how a nationally-determined Levy, which appears to be suggested in the White Paper, can be locally-decided.

Again, we agree with our colleagues in Lincolnshire Independents that “the Government’s squeeze on local councils now extends to centralising planning in a framework where local decision-making could become a thing of the past and leave local residents without a proper voice on applications”. This is why we have described this Planning White Paper as “Stalinist”. It would suit the Soviet Union command economy, instead of a democracy where local residents are listened to and their concerns acted upon.

On the environment, on food security and on climate change, brownfield sites plus wildlife corridors plus agricultural sites must be prioritised. Already in the current system, they are not. And this White Paper does not address this.

For example, Mendip District Council has approved the Sandys Hill Lane development in Frome on farm land, but still the Saxonvale brownfield site remainsderelict. There are many other examples of divergence from the local plan. So this White Paper, by excluding even more of the public from the entire process, would make this problem even worse, when it should be ensuring that it is made better.

Conflicts of interest amongst councillors are not managed in the current system. Somerset Independents has made representations to the LGA on their consultation on Councillors Code of Conduct. And developments that local residents do not want, are given the go-ahead by councillors that are closely linked with developers. Is this what the Government wants? If this White Paper goes ahead, it will confirm that the Government does want an anti-democratic system to be promoted and made worse.

This Planning White Paper is a Trojan Horse for development without local democracy and without local accountability. It is a cynical ploy to exploit Covid-19 and to blindside the public from what they entitled to – greater involvement in their local area and local democracy.

For the above reasons, now is not the time to be changing the planning system. This Stalinist Planning White Paper should be scrapped and more democratic alternatives that address the real issues brought forward instead."

VICTORY (19/12/20): Easthill Frome PAUSED: Mendip Lib Dems In Another Dodgy and Rushed Deal

Easthill, Frome

VICTORY UPDATE (19/12/20): The Liberal Democrats have been forced into a humiliating u-turn and have stopped the sale of Easthill - for now.

This is due to the pressure from Somerset Independents advising the local campaigners.

It is the second victory for Somerset residents that we are advising.

But it is only a temporary reprieve.

Denise Wyatt says:

"It is another example of the farcical Liberal Democrat Administration of Mendip District Council. They should never have agreed the sale in the first place. They were hoping to sneak it through, but we worked with local residents to stop it. We will be watching them very closely."

---

The Liberal Democrat-run Mendip District Council recently made a decision behind-closed-doors, to sell land at Easthill in Frome. Local residents are shocked and surprised by this decision, yet at the Full Council Meeting on 9th November, Lib Dem Council Leader Ros Wyke claimed that the decision was "open"!  

 

Mendip Lib Dems
Mis-using YOUR Money

This is despite local residents speaking at the meeting to prove that the decision was far from open, and making clear their anger and distress at the development.

Local resident Ba Pardhy spoke at the meeting. She told Somerset Independents:

"Mendip District Council wants to build on Easthill Field between the Cemetery and Easthill/Styles Park boundaries.

What does the Council think it is doing?

This is the Council that, in 2019, declared a 'Climate and Ecological Emergency'.  Now the Council is going to build on a habitat with bats, dormice, slow worms, owls, birds, amphibians, endangered species and numerous beneficial insects.

What the Council says and what the Council do are two different things.

Mendip Council is not listening and this development must be stopped."

Leader of Somerset Independents Andrew Pope spoke in support of the local residents, pointing out that the decision was not open or transparent and that Mendip District Council does not uphold the Nolan Principles of openness or transparency. His speech is here.

Denise Wyatt, Somerset Independents County Council Candidate for Frome, says:

Denise Wyatt

 

"What took Mendip District Council so long? They've had two years! Why the secrecy? Residents contacted Somerset Independents for our help. This rushed and hidden scheme should have been proposed a year ago, and residents properly listened to, with their concerns acted upon.

Instead, it's being rushed through by Lib Dem councillors amid false claims of building "council housing". It isn't. These won't be council-owned. Mendip Council is selling land for social housing that it should not be selling, behind-closed-doors and in a rushed way.

Somerset Independents has triggered an investigation by the Council's External Auditors, Ernst and Young. The Auditors are asking more questions about the Council's openness and transparency in property investment. Money from the sale of this land might be used for commercial property investment, a highly controversial and risky Mendip Council policy that needs to be stopped. Millions are at risk.

Cabinet members that made the decision to sell behind-closed-doors at Cabinet, also sit on the Planning Board. How can anybody believe that they won't approve this, when they have already approved the sale of the land, and the funding from Government runs out very soon!

Somerset Independents stands with local residents and local wildlife to protect them from this dreadful dodgy deal."

Standing Up For Residents

ANTI-CRIM COUNCILLORS CAMPAIGN LATEST: Mendip and Taunton Lib Dems Delay and Block

 

You Can't Trust the Fib Dems

CAMPAIGN UPDATE (13/11/20)

Leader of Somerset Independents Andrew Pope says:

Andrew Pope

"Whilst we do not like the Westminster parties and think they have no record of properly standing up for Somerset's residents, and we campaign to see the system change, we are pragmatic too and have to work within the current system. So Somerset Independents will work with those of no party and the Westminster parties on issues that we believe are important to the people of Somerset. I am therefore delighted that prominent people in Somerset are contacting us to support our campaign. Here is our latest update."

As well as the councillors below who have already declared their support of our campaign, we are pleased to announce that the Leader of the Conservative Group on SWT Council, Councillor Anthony Trollope-Bellew, has given support. He did say that it was his personal view, so we have suggested to him that he asks his group, especially as another member of the Conservative Group Roger Habgood has expressed his support. The Tories must try harder to provide strong opposition to the Lib Dems!

And...former Conservative Somerset County Council Leader John Osman has contacted us to say:

"totally agree with your view on CRB checks for all councillors."

We have gone back to Mr Osman, and asked him to ask his Conservative colleagues across Somerset to come out in full support of our DBS campaign. 

Despite being chased by us, we have had no further response from the Mendip Lib Dems who claimed they supported DBS checks, but then kicked it into the long grass to the end of 2021. Yes, they are Councillor Sam Phripp and Councillor Richard Pinnock, both chairs of Mendip's Licensing and Standards Committees. Typical Fib Dems!

And this week's Special Prize for passing the buck, instead of taking action, goes to SWT Council Cabinet Member Chris Booth. Other members of his Council, including Lib Dems and Tories, responded positively to our campaign. But not Chris Booth!

Councillor Booth dismissed our campaign, and challenged our assertion that SWT Council was being "badly-run". When we provided substantial evidence of the Council being badly run, he became defensive and tried to blame it all on the previous Tory Administration. Then he suggested that it was all the Government's fault for not making it the law. Typical buck-passing Westminster party politician! 

Meanwhile another Lib Dem SWT councillor has supported our campaign. Councillor Sue Buller said:

"I would agree with you regarding DBS checks for all Councillors".

Andrew Pope says:

"What is wrong with Councillor Booth's Lib Dem SWT Council that they don't do the right thing, take the initiative and do the DBS checks? They have the power as they have a majority on the Council but they don't want to do it and try to blame the Government instead. Other districts including Sedgemoor are doing it. What are Somerset Lib Dems trying to hide?"

Independent County and District Councillor John Hunt has also told us that he supports DBS checks for all councillors.

CAMPAIGN UPDATE (3/11/20)

We updated you recently on our campaign for ALL councillors in Somerset to have criminal records (DBS) checks. 

There have been further developments.

We contacted all Somerset West and Taunton councillors to ask them what they thought of the official response from their own Council.

So far, only a few have replied.

Councillor Roger Habgood (Conservative) has responded positively.

Councillor Caroline Ellis (Liberal Democrat) has also responded positively.

And Councillor Lee Baker (Liberal Democrat) too.

BUT and it is A BIG BUT...

Councillor Baker, who is "CHAIR - AUDIT, STANDARDS AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE", agreed with Councillor Ellis' request, in response to us, to put it on the Agenda for his Committee.

Yet very quickly after that, when our Leader Andrew Pope 

Andrew Pope

 contacted Councillor Baker to clarify when it would be considered, this was his response:

"I will commit to NOTHING AT THIS STAGE, PLEASE BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT."

So we are being clear about that. By making sure everyone is aware of his flip-flopping.

And at Mendip District Council, when our Safeguarding Spokesperson Denise Wyatt 

Denise Wyatt

 

contacted them again to clarify the commitments that Lib Dem Councillors Sam Phripp and Richard Pinnock to DBS checks...

This happened...

The Council's Monitoring Officer David Clark said:

"Ms Wyatt,

 

As previously advised the Standards Board most recently considered this issue in October 2019. The Chairman of the Standards Board has agreed that this issue will be placed on their forward plan to be reconsidered by the Board in October 2021.

 

Kind regards

 

David"

 

Denise says: 

"Delaying until A YEAR'S TIME? This isn't a commitment at all.

As a local government governance expert, I know that there is nothing stopping these councillors from making this happen, via their committees. I even gave the Mendip councillors suggestions of how to make it happen.

Instead of actually ACTING to bring in DBS checks, they have delayed and blocked any action.

They do not appear to be really committed to checking if councillors have criminal records.

WHY?

What do Somerset's Lib Dem councillors have to hide?"

 

Andrew says:

"There are a lot of councillors in Somerset's district councils. Surely at least a few would actually act to bring these checks in. But actually they seem to say they support it but then go all floppy when it comes to acting.

Councillors such as Lib Dem Councillor Marcia Hill have questioned our campaign.

And Lib Dem County Council Candidate Natalie Dyson questioned our campaign too. She opposed DBS checks for all councillors.

What she did not realise is that IF she was elected to the County Council, she would be DBS checked! It is County Council policy.

How can she not know this? This is despite Ms Dyson's claims to be a "qualified lawyer".

She opposed our campaign without being aware of this simple fact, about the very council that she wants to be elected to!

And then, she deleted her tweet, calling our campaign, a "smear campaign"!

The tweet that she deleted is below, just in case Ms Dyson thought she could hide her ignorance from the public that she claims to want to represent.

Lib Dem Natalie Dyson's Deleted and Ignorant Tweet

What is wrong with the Somerset Liberal Democrats? A lot, it seems. Perhaps they haven't got over their Coalition with the Tories. I've always thought of them as yellow, plastic Tories who don't like to be challenged.

The Lib Dem councillors' actions and their lack of action on criminal records checks for councillors suggest that I am right.

Somerset Independents will carry on its campaign to protect Somerset residents from dodgy councillors."

We Trigger Auditor Investigation Into Mendip Council "Openness and Transparency"

 

Somerset Lib Dems Hiding YOUR Money

For many months now, Members of Somerset Independents have been investigating the finances of Mendip District Council, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats.

We have publicly expressed our concern about the finances of this Council, and its governance. Our members have taken action to expose the state of the Council. On many occasions and in different ways, members and supporters have contacted the Council to express our concerns.

Following our extensive research, questions and investigations, we formally objected to the Council's accounts.

Denise Wyatt, expert in Local Government governance, was the lead objector. She explains:

 

Denise Wyatt, Member of Somerset Independents

"Mendip District Council as with all councils is required to appoint auditors to audit their accounts.

When a council publishes its accounts, residents have the right to ask questions on them and make objection to the external auditor. Mendip Council appointed Ernst & Young as its auditor.

There were a number of financial and procedural matters that we objected to. One was regarding Mendip Council's political blindness and hidden decision-making process regarding the purchase of commercial investment property.

The External Auditor advised us today that Mendip Council's decision-making process:

'on the face of the information provided identifies a matter in relation to which a public interest report could be warranted'.

The Objection has passed Stage 1 and Stage 2 and has entered Stage 3 of the process. 

The Auditors, in looking at our objection, have said that on the evidence that we have provided that they need to investigate further whether Mendip Council lacked transparency and openness in its decision making process, for investment of property. 

Ernst & Young are now investigating this matter further and are asking the Council more questions."

 

Leader of Somerset Independents, Andrew Pope says:

Andrew Pope, Leader of Somerset Independents

"Somerset Independents will continue to stand up for residents and taxpayers and to expose the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Tory councillors on Mendip District Council for what they are - incompetent and obstructive. This is another reason why it is only reasonable to conclude, and the evidence points to it, that Mendip District Council is corrupt."

 

Standing Up For Mendip's Residents

CAMPAIGN Update: Somerset West and Taunton Finally Replies!

 

Somerset Lib Dems
Do Not Support DBS Checks

 

Following our campaign for DBS checks for all Somerset councillors, and our previous updates, we have an update on one of the district councils.

Somerset West and Taunton Council was formed by the forced merger, against residents' wishes, of Taunton Deane and West Somerset councils.

The merger has already cost taxpayers millions of pounds.

But has the change from Tory control to Liberal Democrat control resulted in better responses to residents?

No.

Friends of Galmington Playing Fields, who are fighting to save their beloved playing fields from development by the NHS or its charities, were given promises by the Liberal Democrats before last year's elections. We have seen from public statements given by the Friends, that the Lib Dems were once again the Fib Dems. They have not kept their promises.

Also before last year's elections, the public was told by Lib Dem Councillor Mike Rigby, who is responsible for heritage in the Council, that the Tory record was awful on Tonedale Mill, the derelict mill. Yet eighteen months later, he will not answer questions from us on what he has done differently. This is despite being given several opportunities to do so, and his Tory "Heritage Champion" Councillor Roger Habgood also promising us answers. Instead, they want to meet with us to talk about it. We have told them that we will meet, but only when we have answers from them in writing first!

And so to DBS checks for councillors, what was SWT Council's response to our questions?

We sent them a set of questions back in August. It took them TWO MONTHS to respond, and we had to chase them to get those answers. The Leveller had also asked them similar questions about DBS checks.

The Leveller Article on DBS Checks

 

SWT Council told us and The Leveller very similar answers, but we have a lot more than the below. They told us and we quote:

"SWT does not carry out DBS checks for Councillors as there is no legal basis to do so.  The DBS advice, given to another District Council in 2016 was “Councillors and Mayors, as named positions, are not eligible for a DBS check. However, it is accepted that individuals tasked with certain functions would have been eligible for an 'Enhanced' level check with a check against the appropriate Barred list. However, following changes in legislation, and the enactment of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, those positions were removed from the scope of Regulated Activity and consequentially an entitlement now only exists for a Councillor (not Mayor) at 'Enhanced only' level if the individual retains those same responsibilities. Please take into consideration that DBS checks are not mandatory unless there exists a piece of legislation that makes checks a requirement for the role being offered.”

 

If the councillor or Mayor has other duties that they carry out outside of their role of Councillor, that would meet the conditions for a DBS check with barred lists then it would be for the organisation to determine what level of check would be appropriate for those duties. For example, if they volunteered with a youth club on a regular basis, the youth service would be the organisation required to ensure that a DBS check has been completed as per their procedures."

Leader of Somerset Independents Andrew Pope says:

Andrew Pope

"What do you think of this Lib Dem Council's response?

 

Do you agree that councillors should have criminal records checks before they represent you?

 

From their responses to our campaign, Somerset's Lib Dem-controlled councils - Mendip, South Somerset and SWT - ALL DO NOT SUPPORT DBS CHECKS. In contrast, Tory-run Somerset County Council have implemented DBS checks, as has Tory-controlled Sedgemoor District Council. We like to criticise the Tories, but on this one thing, they have got it right.

What do you think of the SWT Council's actions, or lack of actions, on Galmington Playing Fields and Tonedale Mill?

 

What do you think of the Liberal Democrats record over the past 18 months on Somerset West and Taunton Council?

 

Contact us, join us and donate to us to fight for a better representation on Somerset's councils - independent councillors that listen to you and act for you."

Standing Up For Somerset's Residents