VICTORY: Our Campaign Forces Mendip District Council To Change How They Make Planning Decisions

 

Dodgy Decisions and Corrupt Practises

After a long battle and campaign, Somerset Independents has succeeded in forcing Mendip District Council (MDC) to change how it makes planning decisions. But MDC did not want to change.

The changes were finally agreed by councillors at Full Council during late 2021, but our campaign started when Somerset Independents was formed in March 2020. Our first victory occurred in June 2020, as described in this article here.

Even after our successful campaign, Planning Team Leader Rachel Tadman described the changes to the Constitution to councillors as a "tidying up" exercise at the September 2021 Full Council meeting. You can hear what she said in the recording. As we have pointed out to Ms Tadman is itself, her claim is untrue. It is a victory for residents and for good governance.

We are pleased that these changes have been made, but how many decisions were made that have affected residents lives, in between March 2020 and when the changes were belatedly made? A lot of decisions and a lot of lives. How much have councillors got away with during this time? Too much, we feel.

Why Did We Campaign For The Changes?

We felt that one of the reasons that we had to form Somerset Independents was because of how planning decisions were made by Mendip District Council.

Somerset Independents was formed to stand up for residents, and MDC just was not listening to residents.

So during 2020 and 2021, both co-founders of Somerset Independents, Denise Wyatt and Andrew Pope, put pressure on MDC as part of the campaign.

Denise Wyatt

Andrew Pope

Denise and Andrew spoke at MDC "virtual" meetings to ask councillors to change their Constitution. We wrote to them, cajoled them, and we asked them nicely. 

 

We Listened to Somerset residents and Acted for Residents

We did everything that we could to ensure that the Seven Principles of Public Life, the Nolan Principles, were followed, that proper practises and that due governance for planning were followed too.

But councillors did not want to listen. Some of these councillors were engaging in corrupt practises. Cabinet members and the Leader of the Council sat on the Planning Board.

And officers did not want to listen either. Their failed governance being led by the councillors over many years and successive Administrations of MDC - Lib Dem and Tory.

Councillors interrupted us. Councillors tried to ignore us. We carried on.

 

Councillors and Officers Did Not Want To Change

MDC continued to ignore the right way of making decisions, as recommended by the Local Government Association.

MDC was making decisions that affected residents' lives, but was not listening to residents when they spoke at planning meetings. 

MDC councillors and officers just pretended to listen.

One of the worst examples of this was when Andrew Pope spoke at the July 2020 Planning Board, to speak against Councillor Philip Ham's Sandys Hill Lane development in Frome. Councillors pretended that they did not have a conflict of interest, and approved Councillor Ham's application. Our article on what happened is at the link here. 

Councillors on the Planning Board also approved the widely-hated Saxonvale proposal, also in Frome. This was despite huge objections from residents and organisations.

These are just two examples. There are many more examples.

 

We Won and Residents Won

Somerset Independents listened to residents and acted for them and acted with them, because it was clear that MDC was not listening to residents. Why? Because:

1. It was clear that there were corrupt practises in MDC planning, such as with the Sandys Hill Lane application, where we have shown that Councillor Ham lobbied other councillors, abusing his own position as councillor to further his land ownership and planning application. Cllr Ham's actions were reported by us and by Private Eye - as we show here.
   
2. It was clear that there was incompetence by councillors on MDC's Planning Board, with councillors not knowing how things work, but still voting applications through. 
3. It was clear that there was poor governance and inconsistent processes in MDC planning. Some applications would be done properly while others were not done properly. Being a councillor and a development agent was allowed by MDC, as we described in this article here.
4. It was clear that the Nolan Principles were irrelevant to MDC planning.
   

Leader of the Council Councillor Ros Wyke was repeatedly claiming that her Council was "open and transparent", but MDC planning was anything but open or transparent.

MDC allowed the above bad practises to continue, so Somerset Independents pointed out that other councils do not allow them.

We stand up for residents. That we stand up for residents is written in the Constitution of Somerset Independents. We are watching MDC to see if they will keep their promises.

 

UPDATE (6/7/22): Somerset Independents On Somerset Businesses: Repeat Environmental Offender Alvis Brothers at Lye Cross Farm

Alvis Brothers Ltd
Repeat Environmental Offenders

UPDATE (6/7/22)

We have repeatedly asked for a response, but have received none.

---

We will praise Somerset businesses when they are good employers, genuinely look after our wonderful County and enhance the reputation of Somerset.

And we will expose Somerset businesses when they do not, and particularly when they carry out "greenwash" to launder their image. We often find that companies that are too eager to make claims about their environmental credentials, are trying to hide something (e.g. see our reports on Wyke Farms, another "family-owned" business that claims to be "100% Green").

So we were disturbed to hear of Lye Cross Farm near Cheddar being prosecuted at Bristol Magistrates Court, which we were alerted to thanks to a report by The Leveller.

The company is Alvis Brothers Limited, who were fined £29,000 for repeated pollution incidents, after repeated visits by the Environment Agency. Apparently, says The Leveller:

"Offenders had not had as many slaps across the hand from the Environment Agency as in this case."

According to the Govwire website:

"Alvis Brothers Ltd have a long history of environmental offending, having previously received a formal caution and warning letters from the Environment Agency."

So we checked.

It turns out that like Wyke Farms, Alvis are repeat environmental offenders. And the dialogue between the Environment Agency and Alvis remained hidden until the court case. 

We believe that environmental pollution should be made public by default.

But too much pollution is hidden. And the Environment Agency do not publish their reports.

With Wyke Farms, Somerset Independents had to use Freedom of Information requests to find out what Wyke Farms had been up to, and the dialogue remained hidden until we had exposed it and reported on it.

So what of Alvis and Lye Cross Farm? On their website, they make much noise about "The Environment - Farming Responsibly". They claim that:

"The Alvis family cherish this area of outstanding natural beauty."

Really? According to Government records, Alvis were also prosecuted at the same Magistrates Court in 2014, and fined £16,000 under "EPR 2016 Regulation 38(1)(a)".

On the Alvis website, they also claim:

"Each system under Alvis management aims to protect and value wildlife and the environment by encouraging diverse habitat and the utilisation of animal manure and by crop rotation."

Their claims are difficult to reconcile with the successful prosecutions in court. Both prosecutions relate to pollution of the very environment that they claim to "cherish".

They also claim that:

"Other environmental measures include the creation and renovation of ponds and tributaries flowing into the River Yeo."

Yet they have polluted local waterways in repeated pollution incidents.

In the latest incident, the Govwire website stated that:

"Assessments by the Environment Agency the following week found a chronic impact on the aquatic invertebrates living downstream of the farm, whilst sensitive species, indicating a good water quality, were only found upstream."

The original article on Gov.uk stated that the offences were:

"Causing an unpermitted water discharge activity, namely the discharge of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter on and before 28 June 2019 from Lye Cross Farm, Redhill, Bristol into inland fresh waters contrary to Regulations 12(1)(b) and Regulation 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.

Fine £22,000.00

Causing an unpermitted water discharge activity, namely the discharge of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter on and before 18 September 2019 from Lye Cross Farm, Redhill, Bristol into inland fresh waters contrary to Regulations 12(1)(b) and Regulation 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.

Fine £ 7,000.00

Costs £ 8,003.02

Victim surcharge £ 181.00"

We will be asking Alvis Brothers to respond. We contacted Lye Cross Farm by email but they have not responded.

Standing Up For Somerset's Environment

 

The Clark's Strike and March - We Support Workers Not The Labour Party

The Picket Line at Clark's in Street

We wish to highlight our position, following the allegations by Clark's of "threats and intimidation" to its workers at the picket line organised by the Labour Party-affiliated union "Community".

Leader of Somerset Independents, Andrew Pope responds:

 

Leader of Somerset Independents
Andrew Pope

"Somerset Independents states again its support for residents and workers of Somerset. Indeed, it is in our Constitution that we protect Somerset residents and Somerset workers at Clark's - all of them.

Somerset Independents wishes to state that we support Clark's workers, but not the Labour Party. And from their responses to our questions to them, the local Somerset Tory MPs seem to support Clark's managements actions, to their shame. Neither Labour nor Tory are helping. They are out-of-date and out-of-touch.

Somerset Independents has taken action to protect residents and workers at Clark's - whether they are in the Community Union mentioned by Clark's - or not in the union. We've taken action to support workers at Norseland in Ilchester too. Where is Labour? Where are the Tories?

Somerset Independents has tried to work with the unions. We've offered the hand of help. But we have been met with a brick wall on Clark's and also at Norseland, where the GMB Union has let workers down. Their pay and working conditions have suffered.

These unions fail because of their connections to Labour, which put workers off. The Community Union and the GMB Union both affiliate to the Labour Party. Both unions donate large sums of money to the Labour Party. At a time when MPs are being examined for paid advocacy following Tory MP Owen Paterson's corruption, this needs to be looked at.

Labour's unions have also donated to Barry Gardiner, Brent North MP from London, who is due to speak at Saturday's march. He has received tens of thousands of pounds from these unions, as shown in his Register of Interests at Parliament, seemingly for his deeply flawed Fire and Rehire Bill, but for a company that he is the sole director of, according to Companies House records.

Barry Gardiner MP controls the money and the unions give it to him. There is no other Director, despite claims to the contrary that a Labour Lord is also a Director (Labour Lord Hendy).

Sadly it's another case of Labour or Tory, same old story. Gardiner is paid by the unions, but where the union money goes is not transparent enough.

So now we know why these unions don't want to work with Somerset Independents, although we have offered to pressure Clark's management and to work with the unions in the spirit of partnership.

These Labour Party-dominated unions are more interested in dialogue with the Labour Party and Labour MPs who do not live in Somerset such as Barry Gardiner, than working with Somerset Independents to pressure Clark's management and to resolve this dispute.

The Labour Party's methods are outdated. Their attitudes are outdated. Members money is mis-spent. Labour is totally split from top to bottom between Corbyn supporters and Starmer supporters.

That's why Labour is going nowhere in Somerset.

Meanwhile, Somerset Independents is winning its campaigns:

- exposing councillors who don't pay council tax,

- exposing councils who spend public money wrongly, and

- on holding companies like Norseland and Clark's to account.

Somerset Independents is standing up for workers and residents, whereas Labour-supporting unions have failed to win for workers.

And our success in campaigns shows why Somerset Independents is gaining support for its work in Somerset, working with residents and workers.

Somerset is our County."

 

UPDATED (9/6/22): Latest Attacks on Glastonbury Government and Council Crony "Slush Fund"

 

Is Mendip District Council Corrupt?

UPDATED (9/6/22): The normally Labour-friendly Mirror is reporting the latest attacks on the Conservative Government's "Levelling Up" by the (Labour) Chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee:

"Ministers were today accused of "gambling taxpayers' money on policies" which are "little more than a slogan" over Boris Johnson ’s flagship levelling-up plan.

The Commons Public Accounts Committee blasted the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for using "unsatisfactory" methods to hand out billions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash.

In a report published today, the cross-party group of MPs highlighted how the first round of the £1.7bn Levelling-Up Fund was only awarded after the ministry knew the identities of shortlisted bidders."

This adds to the revelations that we have reported below in Somerset about Glastonbury money and how it has been handled by Lib Dem-run Mendip District Council, with Internal Audit intervening as we have previously reported. We have also received worrying allegations regarding Glastonbury Town Council, relating to how the money is being handled.

The Mirror goes on (Commons) Public Accounts Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier "fumed": 

"Without clear parameters, plans or measures of success it's hard to avoid the appearance that government is just gambling taxpayers’ money on policies and programmes that are little more than a slogan, retrofitting the criteria for success and not even bothering to evaluate if it worked."

Leader of Somerset Independents, Andrew Pope, responds:

Andrew Pope

"We reported it, but local media have not given this scandal and this slush fund the attention that the public deserve.

The Tories nationally have opaquely allocated public money that has then been channelled and promoted very loudly by Lib Dems and Greens on Mendip District Council and Glastonbury Town Council.

Lib Dems, Greens or Tory, same old story - these Westminster parties want to look like "Lady Bountiful" in handing out the money. But as we've pointed out previously and many times over, it is public money that must be accounted for properly and distributed with due process and criteria.

At every level, national or local, this Levelling Up money is grubby dirty money, because of the way it has been dished out.

Residents would have hoped that these Lib Dem and Green councillors would be ashamed to have accepted this money when it has been repeatedly slammed by auditors and those accounting for it - at national level and at local level, as we have reported (see below). Lib Dems and Greens have no shame though...

One Glastonbury councillor, Chair of Mendip District Council, Nick Cottle attacked Somerset Independents for pointing out the national and local criticisms. He needs to listen to the public's valid concern.

Today's criticisms from the Public Accounts Committee are legitimate, despite them coming from a Labour-friendly newspaper quoting a Labour MP attacking the Tories.

And it's the latest criticism that makes "Levelling Up" look nothing more than a slush fund to corruptly build networks of cronies for the Lib Dems, Greens or Tories and to be used for what these Westminster parties hope - to influence voting patterns in constituencies or local council wards.

It's a scandal and the local media must give this due reporting now.

Too many local news outlets are asleep at the wheel, letting councillors and MPs get away with it."

---

UPDATED (19/2/22): Mendip District Council (MDC)'s internal audit function (a.k.a. SWAP) has now reported again to Mendip's Audit Committee of councillors. 

Minutes of the 2nd February 2022 meeting contained a report by SWAP. This had previously been mentioned as a "Fraud Risk Assessment" in a previous meeting of the Audit Committee in December 2021. 

Financial anomalies including weaknesses in how these millions were handled, were reported in Daniel Mumby's report that we linked to in the original article (see quotes below).

At the February 2022 meeting, councillors were asked to consider this report on the millions without the public being able to see it, or hear their deliberations.

This is public money, millions of pounds of public money. It is being handed out without public scrutiny.

WHAT DO THESE COUNCILLORS HAVE TO HIDE?

Somerset Independents has received information from a whistleblower about the Glastonbury Town Deal.

We will be looking into how MDC has conducted itself, and what conflicts of interest there have been in relation to how MDC, its councillors and officers have managed the money allocated by Boris Johnson's Conservative Government.

*At the August 2021 meeting, the minutes stated:

"Payments were issued without the required cashflow documentation to ensure funding was only distributed to verified project need. 

 Limited invoice and cashflow information from the grantees resulted in low level monitoring being undertaken to ensure that funds would be appropriately used during the projects’ lifecycles. 

 

The expenditure reports for Building C contain anomalies and questionable items that have not been queried by the Council. 

 

There is no distinct Code of Conduct for the Town Deal Board, nor is a formal process documented for members of the Town Deal Board to register gifts / hospitality and declarations of interest.

A follow up audit will be scheduled into the 2021-22 plan to confirm that recommendations are implemented to address the control weaknesses identified."

---

Ever since Somerset Independents was formed, we've been challenging Mendip District Council (MDC) for how it spends YOUR money and how it makes decisions.

We have not said that Mendip District Council is corrupt.

But we have provided the evidence so that Mendip residents can make up their own minds and have their own ideas about corruption.

We define corruption as the abuse of power, so we present the evidence again.

Here are just five examples of what is wrong with Mendip District Council, but there is more on this website and more to come:

1. For two years running, we have got agreement from MDC's External Auditor Ernst and Young (EY) that how MDC operates is wrong. We are helping EY with their enquiries, following our second complaint into MDC, its accounts and governance.
2. We have shown that conflicts of interest are not managed, including on Licensing and Planning decisions that affect Mendip residents' lives, and we have shown that MDC are mostly deaf to the public's concerns and objections but allow grave contraventions of good practice to go ahead, unchecked.
   
3. We have shown that Mendip Council officers have suppressed information relating to councillors who have not paid their council tax, and taken this to local and national media, plus the Information Commissioner's Office.
   
4. We have shown that Mendip Council officers allowed a Chair of Scrutiny to preside over his own election as Chair, and after the Head of Legal (Monitoring Officer) ruled it was OK to do this, then through our action we forced Mendip into a u-turn and a proper vote of the Chair, months later.
5. After a bitter fight over 2020 and 2021, we have forced MDC to change their Constitution on Planning. Despite this, a senior planning officer described the changes to councillors as "tidying up" when presenting the changes to them. And bad governance and practises continue in MDC Planning.
   

But there is more.

This brings us to The Glastonbury Town Deal, part of the corrupt Prime Minster Boris Johnson's (BoJo's) Government "levelling up" agenda.

Nobody seems to know what "levelling up" means. Spitting Image have derided it in their latest episodes. Things have got so bad that Michael Gove has been sent in to explain what it is. That is desperate.

So what is The Glastonbury Town Deal? It is part of the £3.6 billion Towns Fund for England that has awarded public money to 101 towns. Some of this appears to have been done in the correct way, but most (around 60%) of the allocations were not done correctly. Tory Ministers interfered.

Glastonbury needs investment, but the way this has been done is wrong.

In short, the Towns Fund is a multi-billion pot of public money handed out by Boris to help the Conservative Party win elections. 

The Towns Fund is dirty money used for corrupt purposes. And therefore the Glastonbury Town Deal money, which Mendip District Council applied for, is also dirty. 

Why do we say this? 

Because the evidence is clear that the money was allocated with political interference by Conservative Party ministers, instead of according to clear criteria and methodology by public servants.

It isn't just Somerset Independents that says this. Multiple other credible sources also say this, including MPs, the National Audit Office and independent journalism.

According to Byline Times, it is "61 Pork Barrels", with "weak and unconvincing arguments" used by Government Ministers in defending how money was allocated, according to MPs on the Commons Public Accounts Committee.

According to the National Audit Office (NAO), "the UK's independent public-spending watchdog", in their review of the Towns Fund:

"On 27 July 2019, the government announced the £3.6 billion Towns Fund for England (The Towns Fund). The Towns Fund is expected to support towns that currently do not have the right conditions to develop and sustain strong local economies"

The NAO said:

"This review describes the process followed by the Department to select the 101 towns. First, this involved an assessment – scoring, ranking, filtering and prioritising – of all 1,082 towns across England by the Department’s officials against a range of criteria. Second, ministers selected the towns to be invited to bid for Town Deals using the officials’ assessments to guide them.¹ The Department published the list of selected towns in September 2019 but did not publish the basis on which they selected the towns."

Like we have said when we have challenged local councils in how they operate, politicians should not be involved in any interference in the allocation of public money via grants. There should be clear criteria and a methodology, and civil servants or local government officers should be allowed to make the decisions in an open and transparent way.

Leader of Somerset Independents, Andrew Pope says: 

Andrew Pope

"Glastonbury Town Deal money was allocated in a corrupt way by  Conservative Government Ministers. This is not the fault of civil servants, but of Boris Johnson's corrupt MPs, most of whom recently voted to protect corrupt Tory MP Owen Paterson. This included local Somerset MPs.

We say again that Glastonbury and a whole host of other towns in Somerset including Yeovil, Shepton Mallet and Frome - desperately need investment and a plan for investment and jobs.

But not like this with dirty Tory money being laundered by Liberal Democrat and Green councillors, who like the Tories are desperate to spend millions of pounds of OUR money for THEIR political gain.

The Liberal Democrat Leader of Mendip, Councillor Ros Wyke, is doing the Conservative Party's dirty work for them, when she is crowing about the money. And so is any other Lib Dem, Green or Tory councillor or MP that is crowing about this dirty money.

Already Mendip have claimed transparency, but provided anything but transparency (see here and * below). Even the normally pathetic Internal Mendip Audit (SWAP) has found "questionable items" within the accounts!

It is no surprise as Ros Wyke has form for this, which we know from our campaigning on the governance failings at Mendip on how our money is spent in the Asset Management Group and Phoenix Sponsorship Board.

The Tories have used public cash on a spending spree to enhance their election chances in a marginal seat. That's why Tory MP for Glastonbury James Heappey is so involved on this "Board" for spending the money.

Other parts of Somerset are being taken for granted, because of the broken First Post The Post voting system which provides "safe seats" for Tories.

We want to see investment in Somerset and a plan for jobs, but done in a way that Somerset can be proud of, not in a way that is shameful and grubby."

 

Standing Up For Somerset
Not Westminster

From the Mendip District Council "Frequently Asked Questions" page (emphasis added):

Where can we, the citizens of Glastonbury, see the detailed accounts of the money spent thus far?
All funds will eventually flow through Mendip District Council, which is the Accountable Body for any eventual grant allocation.  An accountable body generally takes responsibility for the legal and financial management of a grant given to a particular project or projects.  MDC's Section 151 Officer oversees the accountable body function.  As such, MDC works to government guidance and will eventually be reporting to government and the Glastonbury Town Fund Board.

Some limited prefunding of matters such as architects and project managers is taking place at the moment through MDC to enable the 12 projects to deliver their HM Treasury Green Book Business Cases.  The actual grant allocation of £23.6m will not be approved until each project completes this process.  Thus, the full grant allocations will not be available until a few months after MDC has received permission for the projects to proceed.  We anticipate that the first 'major' funds will arrive in mid 2022.

As well as MDC's role as the Accountable Body, the operation of the Glastonbury Town Deal, including financial, is overseen by the Glastonbury Town Deal Board which will receive detailed financial reporting once the grant allocations start to be received.  This reporting will be recorded in the Board minutes which are posted regularly on the MDC website.  Please note that some confidential information may necessarily be excluded if it is 'commercial in confidence'.  Both MDC and the Glastonbury Town Deal Board are committed to working in an open and transparent manner.  Currently, there is simply no information to share.

 

 

UPDATED (20/3/22): South Somerset District Council Lets Councillors Off The Hook and Lets Them Make Unsubstantiated Allegations

UPDATE (20/3/22): Lib Dem Leader of South Somerset District Council, Councillor Val Keitch, survived the vote of no confidence at the recent Full Council meeting.

But at the same meeting, councillors made allegations about a former Conservative councillor Linda Vijeh. Ms Vijeh was unable to defend herself. She was also the Leader of the Conservative Group until she resigned.

Former Conservative Councillor
Linda Vijeh

So we have offered her an opportunity to defend herself, as we believe that this is fair. 

Yes, we even apply this principle to former Conservative councillors:

• despite her being a Conservative, 
• despite Ms Vijeh accusing us previously of "political games" (see below) - or was she talking about the Lib Dems when they supported a unitary authority? - and  
• despite her bringing SSDC into disrepute by swearing audibly during a Council meeting.
  

Tweet by Linda Vijeh July 2020
when we spoke at South Somerset Council

Following the SSDC Full Council meeting where councillors were allowed to attack her, Ms Vijeh published a Statement on her website and on her Facebook page.

We believe that this Statement led to a range of unanswered questions. Ms Vijeh agreed to answer our questions.

The questions were as follows:

Q1. What were these South Somerset District Council Street Scene people doing in France?

Q2. How did these people get there?

Q3. Why did no money change hands?

Q4. Were other benefits offered and if so, what were they?

Q5. Did they just happen to be there or were they flown across by you, a sitting councillor, or by a paid official of SSDC?

Q6. Why did you get these Street Scene staff to do the work, and not hire someone local instead?

Q7. If money didn't change hands, why did they do the work and were other benefits provided? If there were, what were they?

Q8. Who advised you not to declare an interest during the investigation, when you offered to do so?

Q9. Did you consult the Monitoring Officer?

Q10. Did you consult the Chief Executive?

We had sent these to Ms Vijeh in an email.

Ms Vijeh did respond to these questions. But sadly that was in a recorded audio message, and not in writing.

So as it stands, we are unable to publish her response. We've asked for a response in writing. But Ms Vijeh does not have the answers in writing. 

There are technical and legal reasons why we won't publish the recording.

Ms Vijeh did confirm in writing that:

"I can confirm that my solicitor has been in contact with the perpetrators, am waiting for their response."

We will not be repeating any of the allegations uttered by these perpetrators, and await the progress of Ms Vijeh's legal action.

---

UPDATE (7/3/22): Following our showing the Standards Committee up for the charade that it is, The Leveller Confidential has done a more detailed analysis of South Somerset's Standards Committee. 

They have also written an explanation of what Standards Committee are supposed to be for, and asked some very pertinents questions.

They have also looked at the Standards Committees other Somerset councils.

We hope that Somerset residents will share our concern, and The Leveller's concern, that these committees don't seem to be achieving what they are supposed to achieve.

And this is especially concerning when the current Leader of the Council and the former Leader of the Council have failed to uphold the standards that Somerset residents expect - see our original article below and elsewhere on the Somerset Independents website.

---

Original article from November 2021 follows...

South Somerset District Council (SSDC) has upset local residents again. The Public Inquiry into the Wyke Farms and Hopkins proposed development near Castle Cary Railway Station, which was refused TWICE by planning committees of the Council, has been adjourned today (10/11/21), as reported here by Somerset Independents.

Apparently it was due to "IT issues" at the venue, but residents are very upset at the decision to hold it "virtually" instead of in public with public attendance. The virtual public inquiry will now be re-convening, starting on 24th November. Many residents attended, and now they feel excluded from the reconvened virtual meeting. One resident told Andrew Pope, Leader of Somerset Independents:

"well they obviously misjudged the number of people who don't want this and the only way they can think of dealing with it is to exclude the people who it will affect."

We say that SSDC has upset local residents again because SSDC has been dogged by controversy.

SSDC Covers Up Names of Councillors Not Paying Council Tax

An investigation by Somerset Independents shows that multiple SSDC councillors have been found to have persistently failed to pay their council tax. Our investigations were blocked by SSDC, who tried to cover up the names of the councillors. 

Eventually, we forced SSDC to name the councillors, but only after a fight involving the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), who enforce Freedom of Information (FoI) law, and with the help of local and national media Private Eye and The Leveller. Recent issues of both newspapers reported on our investigation.

Private Eye "Rotten Boroughs"

The Leveller

SSDC Fails To Answer FoI Requests In a Timely and Accurate Manner

We have taken SSDC to the ICO and we are pursuing a Formal Complaint, because SSDC have still not answered the FoI requests about councillors in arrears.

They have refused to give details of the correspondence between councillors and officers on the arrears. Other councils gave us those details, with the exception of Mendip District Council (MDC - also run by the Liberal Democrats with the help of the Greens). As reported here, MDC are also subject to a separate complaint for withholding public information about councillors in arrears.

We are aware of many other local residents, and The Levellers, being blocked on FoI requests by SSDC.

Former SSDC Council Leader Guilty of Multiple Criminal Offences

The former Liberal Democrat Leader of SSDC, Ric Pallister, has been recently convicted of multiple criminal offences. He has been jailed as reported by the Crown Prosecution Service.

So what state are standards in, at the Council that Pallister ran for years?

In a sorry state, is the answer. They don't even check up on councillors. In fact, worse than this, they even cover up for councillors, as shown in their shameful behaviour regarding our council tax investigation. 

SSDC Standards Committee Hardly Ever Meets in YEARS

SSDC's Standards Committee has hardly ever met
over YEARS

The SSDC Standards Committee, which is supposed to uphold standards by councillors, has hardly ever met over YEARS, including the period when Pallister was Leader of the Council.

The above meeting schedule shows that between June 2015 and December 2018, the Standards Committee only met twice. 

As you can see, NINE out of ELEVEN SSDC Standards Committee Meetings were cancelled over THREE YEARS. Meeting after meeting was cancelled.

Only two Standards Committee meetings were held in 2019.

Only one was held in 2020.

And according to the above schedule, taken on 29th October 2021, there have been no Standards Committee meetings held since July 2020.

We challenged this, and SSDC told us that cancellations were the responsibility of the Chair of the Committee.

We will continue our investigations into SSDC, including the behaviour of its councillors, former councillors and council officers.

Somerset Independents stands up for residents, because we are Somerset residents.

Somerset Tory MP Warburton Advocates Repeat Polluter Wyke Farms in Parliament and Votes to Defend Disgraced Tory MP Owen Paterson

Wyke Farms Greenwash
Involving Local Tory MP

Conservative MP for Somerton and Frome, David Warburton, has recently mentioned Wyke Farms at Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) in Parliament. 

We hope that Mr Warburton was not following the example set by disgraced fellow Tory MP Owen Paterson, in using his position as an MP to help a company. Paterson has had to resign. We examine Mr Warburton's speech below.

Do Warburton's claims hold up to scrutiny, because he was praising Wyke Farms, using PR claims made by them?

No, they do not, because the claims come from Wyke Farms, who we have already shown are far from being "100% Green". Wyke Farms are much less than 100% "green". They are more brown than green.

We have shown that Wyke Farms are repeat environmental offenders, by showing evidence from Freedom of Information requests that we sent to the Environment Agency. 

We have shown that Wyke Farms' bad behaviour has been going on for years by showing the disgusting Pig Fattening Unit that Wyke Farms used for their "green" gas, and which was shut down after reports by animal rights activists in the Daily Mail. 

We have received the full reports from the Environment Agency and have published extracts from them to show the repeated pollution incidents and management failure by Wyke Farms at their Anaerobic Digester Plant, near Bruton in Somerset. We have more evidence and will publish it.

Warburton Advocates Wyke Farms "Green" Claims in Parliament

At PMQs, Mr Warburton asked the Prime Minister a stitched-up question making outlandish claims about Wyke Farms in a question about "National Cheese Toastie Day" (yes, really!). 

We will come to why he might be so keen to do this later, due to links between the local and national Conservative Party, Warburton and Wyke Farms. Is it advocacy or is it paid advocacy?

We hope that Mr Warburton has not been engaging in paid advocacy like Paterson did.

Warburton asked at PMQs (emphasis added, taken from Hansard):

"As the whole House will know, today is National Cheese Toastie Day. [Interruption.] It is a fact. A massive 4.3 billion toasties were consumed last year—they are the nation’s favourite snack—and glorious Somerset is the home of cheddar cheese. Wyke Farms, in my constituency, is now producing what I think is the world’s first entirely carbon-neutral cheddar cheese. Did my right hon. Friend know that eating cheddar from Somerset can reduce one’s cheese consumption carbon footprint by 55%, and will he support our vital diary industry by committing himself to enjoying a carbon-neutral cheese toastie today?"

We agree that Somerset is glorious! That's why we formed Somerset Independents. We are Somerset's only dedicated political party and campaign group that was formed in Somerset by Somerset residents and for Somerset residents.

But the rest of Warburton's question is highly dubious, laughable even, and is advocacy. 

Did Wyke Farms put Warburton up to this?

Many Tory MPs did laugh - and now we know from the recent scandal that so many Tory MPs are prepared to back a corrupt colleague who was found guilty by Standards investigation, to have done paid advocacy. 

Wyke Farms, who make much of being in Somerset, want to work with German-owned Lidl on this supposed "carbon neutral" cheese. It sounds like another exercise in greenwash from Wyke Farms, especially considering their record on the environment as evidenced by the Environment Agency, as well as complaints going back years from local residents to the authorities and further evidence from those local authorities. As we have said, we will be publishing further evidence in due course.

Warburton rarely makes a telling contribution inside or outside the House of Commons - don't take our word for it, that is what many constituents of his tell us regularly. As reported on this website, they've complained to us because he did not respond to residents. We took it up with Mark Spencer, the Chief Whip who ordered Tory MPs to back the corrupt Owen Paterson this week.

As we reported on this website, Mark Spencer told us that he could not intervene. So he covers up for failing MPs like David Warburton who do not respond to constituents. 

Letter from Chief Whip Mark Spencer
To Somerset Independents Leader

And Mark Spencer covered up for Owen Paterson as well in this week's shameful vote by Tory MPs.

Warburton has been photographed on site at Wyke Farms, with the owners of Wyke Farms and with David Cameron - another person who made grand claims of being "green" that turned out to be fake. 

David Cameron David Warburton
at Wyke Farms (photo from Wyke Farms Press Release)

David Warburton Is Hiding Behind David Cameron
(photo from Wyke Farms press release)

There are also lots of examples of Warburton mentioning Wyke Farms in Parliament and elsewhere including on his Facebook Page.

 

Is Warburton Doing Advocacy or Paid Advocacy?

We really do hope that David Warburton does not engage in paid advocacy. Standing up for local businesses is fine. Being paid to do it, whether directly, or into Conservative Party funds, is not. It is illegal and wrong, and if there is evidence presented to us, we will present it. 

Why would Wyke Farms wish to be promoted by such an MP?

Why would an MP wish to be associated with Wyke Farms?

Why didn't Warburton use PMQs to praise other Somerset cheese producers, e.g. Barber's, who have certified status as producing West Country Cheddar Cheese, as we have reported.

What is the relationship between Warburton and Wyke Farms?

Why Did Warburton Back Owen Paterson Who Was Guilty of Paid Advocacy?

Whether Warburton is engaging in paid advocacy or not, he did back paid advocacy. Why? Because he voted with other Conservative MPs who were whipped (told by the Chief Whip Mark Spencer) to back defeating the 30-day suspension of  Paterson.

It could be that paid advocacy is not limited, in the Conservative Party, to Owen Paterson. We would say that there are more MPs who have done it, and who are doing it.

These MPS need to be exposed and Parliament needs to be rid of this vile corruption.

It could be that individual MPs do not benefit from illegal payments. And it could be that the Conservative Party does benefit. The public need to know.

Other questions arise:

How many other MPs are doing paid advocacy, but have not been found out yet?

How many other MPs backed Owen Paterson to try to save their own skins, by stacking enquiries into MPs with Tories? Warburton did and Somerset MPs Marcus Fysh and Rebecca Pow also voted to protect Tory corruption.

Does the corruption include the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a close "friend" of Owen Paterson?

And is David Warburton, with his fellow Tory MPs, now seeking to change the rules so that they are even less likely to be found out?

Investigations of MPs need to be independent of the political parties. The current system has independent lay people (non-MPs) on the Committee. They outweigh the MPs. That needs to be case. That must be the case.

The people of Somerset deserve to know the full truth about their MPs, and independence of these corrupt national political parties, is the only way of finding out the truth. That's why Somerset Independents was formed!

We will continue our investigations into MPs and councillors.

Guilty MPs Paterson and Webbe + Councillors Too: It's No Wonder They Don't Want Criminal Records Checks For All Candidates!

Labour, Lib Dem, Green or Tory
SAME OLD STORY

On the same day as each other, Tory MP Owen Paterson quits! Labour MP Claudia Webbe sentenced! Labour or Tory, same old story! We've told you so many times!

It's no wonder Labour and Tory MPs, who make up the vast majority of MPs, haven't changed the law to make sure MP and councillor candidates have to have independent criminal records checks before they can stand for election! It might stop dodgy MPs getting elected!

Guilty Tory MP Owen Paterson

After yesterday's shameful vote by Tory MPs to ignore his censure by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Committee, North Shropshire MP Owen Paterson and his Tory Party now seem to want to avoid the facts being publicised over a prolonged period. So he has resigned.

Paterson was found by Standards to have done "paid advocacy", abusing his position as an MP. The Report says that Paterson committed paid advocacy and did declare his interests (see below* for quotes). Paterson was due to be suspended for 30 days, but Tory MPs tried to block it by voting by 250-232 by ignoring the committee and forming one full of Tories! Somerset MPs including David Warburton, Marcus Fysh and Rebecca Pow backed this shameful plan from Tory MP Andrea Leadsom to excuse Paterson.

The next day, after shameful headlines about Paterson, we now learn Paterson has quit.

Guilty Labour MP Claudia Webbe

This news comes on the same day that Labour's Claudia Webbe was sentenced.

"Claudia Webbe, Leicester East MP since 2019, was handed a suspended 10-week jail sentence, and 200 hours of community service at Westminster Magistrates' Court." (see ** below for her crimes)

Both MPs could face a recall petition, triggering a by-election. But Paterson has quit, avoiding further humiliation at the hands of North Shropshire's residents.

Webbe is appealing her sentence, meaning that a recall petition has to wait for now. 

Add this to the prominent Lib Dem and Tory councillors in Somerset, Devon and Wiltshire found guilty of crimes, or on trial for crimes, (see our Pallister, Greenslade, Seed article here). 

It is no wonder then that the Labour Party and the Conservative Party do not want their candidates to have to pass a criminal records checks before becoming a candidate for councillor, Police and Crime Commissioner or Member of Parliament.

How do we know this? Because we wrote to all 250+ district and county councillors in Somerset, asking them to back our campaign for DBS checks.

A few councillors weakly said they supported the campaign, but none of them did anything to help bring it about. Some of them even suggested that the parties should do the checks, not the returning officers for the elections. Unbelievable! Of course then, the candidates and their parties could hide their criminal records from the voters.

And after a battle where Somerset's councils and councillors tried to ignore us and block us, we at Somerset Independents exposed Lib Dem, Tory, former Tory, Green and fake independent councillors for persistently failing to pay their council tax.

Now (some of) our investigation on councillors in arrears on council tax is in the 60th Anniversary Edition of Private Eye Magazine and local newspaper The Leveller.

Private Eye "Rotten Boroughs"

 

The Leveller

We will continue our campaign for DBS checks for all councillor, MP and PCC candidates.

---

*The Report said of Paterson:

"Paid advocacy

8.The Commissioner found that Mr Paterson had breached the rule prohibiting paid advocacy, set out in paragraph 11 of the 2015 Code of Conduct for Members, in making three approaches to the Food Standards Agency relating to Randox and the testing of antibiotics in milk in November 2016 and November 2017; in making seven approaches to the Food Standards Agency relating to Lynn’s Country Foods in November 2017, January 2018 and July 2018; and in making four approaches to Ministers at the Department for International Development relating to Randox and blood testing technology in October 2016 and January 2017.

Declaration of interests

9.The Commissioner found that Mr Paterson had breached paragraph 13 of the 2015 Code of Conduct, on declarations of interest, by failing to declare his interest as a paid consultant to Lynn’s Country Foods in four emails to officials at the Food Standards Agency on 16 November 2016, 15 November 2017, 8 January 2018 and 17 January 2018."

---

** Webbe's sentence comes..."

"after a campaign of harassment of Michelle Merritt, a long-term friend of her boyfriend, Lester Thomas, who said she needed therapy after her ordeal.

Webbe, 56, was convicted last month after the court heard she also threatened to leak naked images of Ms Merritt and made a string of phone calls in which she warned her to “get out of my relationship” some 11 times."

Somerset Independents On Somerset Businesses: Wyke Farms Claims "100% Green" Energy But Environment Agency Shows Wyke Farms As Repeat Environmental Offenders

 

Wyke Farms Claims "100% Green"
But Is It? No.

As well as holding Somerset's councils and elected representatives to account, and praising them where appropriate, Somerset Independents has been penning a series of articles on Somerset's businesses.

Somerset has businesses that have great reputations in the West Country, in the UK and over the World. We want Somerset to be know for the right reasons. So far, we have looked at Clark's, Barber's and Norseland.

We have looked at employment rights, recruitment and retention, quality produce, the impact of Brexit, the impact of Covid-19 and the reputation of Somerset's businesses in general.

Now we turn our attention to Wyke Farms, a Somerset-based company in Wyke Champflower, near Bruton. The company has other sites in Somerset, including an Anaerobic Digester (AD) plant at Lamyatt, and a depot at Wincanton. They are also building a new storage facility at the former Lambrook Piggery, next to the AD plant.

Wyke Farms Sustainable Energy Visitor Centre

They claim, at the entrance to the AD plant and former Piggery, what is shown in the below photo.

Wyke Farms 100% Green

"Wyke Farms 100% Green Sustainable Energy Visitor Centre" the sign says.

They also make much of being in Somerset, and they repeat their "100% Green" claims several times on their website.

But Wyke Farms is not 100% green as they claim. Not by a long shot. It is just another load of greenwash, on the eve of the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow.

What do we mean by "greenwash". We mean that Wyke Farms appears to be yet another company that claims it is "green" but is not. The UK has enough of those already.

One earlier example of the gulf between their marketing and the reality of their business practises was the Lambrook Piggery that was next to the AD Plant. It is  now closed after animal rights activists exposed the barbaric practises at the Piggery, as reported by the Daily Mail.

Was this just a one-off offence? No. Why do we say this?

Because Wyke Farms is, in fact, a serial offender on the environment and being "green".

Do we have evidence? Yes we do. We do not state things without evidence, because we are a credible force in Somerset. It would be foolish, and illegal, to do anything else.

Any reasonable person would agree with us, presented with the evidence that we have, that Wyke Farms is a repeat offender. The facts are there in the evidence.

Our evidence is taken from Freedom of Information requests submitted by Somerset Independents, and other information that our officers and supporters have gleaned about Wyke Farms and its environmental greenwash.

The evidence is from the Environment Agency, who have been very reluctant to give it to us, and even more reluctant to enforce on Wyke Farms, despite their repeated offences. 

The evidence is also from local residents who have been impacted by Wyke Farms and its operations at various sites in Somerset.

And the evidence is also from various departments of the local authorities, Somerset County Council, Mendip District Council and South Somerset District Council. Like the Environment Agency, these local authorities have used a very "light touch" approach to regulating Wyke Farms, despite their repeated offences and despite the legal duty on the authorities to protect local residents and the environment, in co-ordination with the Environment Agency.

Below are some examples of the evidence that we have obtained. We publish it in the public interest, on the eve of COP26.

Evidence Part 1 - EPR Compliance Assessment Report from the Environment Agency on 11th March 2020 to Wyke Farms Limited regarding Lambrook AD Plant

"You have been scored a CCS 3 for the breach in emission limits with the test failure under condition 3.5.1 and table 3.1. If you are unable to fix this issue there are likely to be further scores including under management as root cause.
You should also have reported the breach as soon as you became aware of this under a schedule 5 notice of the permit - see condition."

This was a breach of an Air condition via a breach in emission limits and a breach of reporting. In other words, air pollution in the Somerset countryside.

Evidence Part 2 - EPR Compliance Assessment Report from the Environment Agency on 22nd May 2020 to Wyke Farms Limited regarding Lambrook AD Plant

"Pests
Non-compliance You have been scored a CCS 3 for presence of pests which are likely to give rise to annoyance outside the boundary of the site under condition 3.6.1. There were hundreds of gulls above and adjacent to the site. There were signs of mess on the AD domes and this has been mentioned before. It was said that these birds are present in such numbers since closure of a nearby landfill.
There has been a complaint regarding shooting of birds around the AD plant. But you say you do not use this method. There are other measures you could try.
Action Under condition 3.6.2 please submit for approval, within 1 month, a pest management plan which identifies and minimises the risk of pollution from pests."

You can see that Wyke Farms have tried to claim that "these birds are present in such numbers since closure of a nearby landfill". Wyke Farms tried to blame something else, other than their own shoddy practises - just like when Lambrook Piggery reached the national headlines and brought shame to Somerset.

Evidence Part 3 - EPR Compliance Assessment Report from the Environment Agency on 22nd May 2020 to Wyke Farms Limited regarding Lambrook AD Plant

"Odours...There was a faint gassy smell at the fence line of the AD site, but this was not detected further away over the culvert.
You said that as part of your own management regime you continue to undertake a routine leak detection and repair schedule.
Close by to the slurry lagoon there was an odour– although it was not noticed off site before my arrival. I recommended that, if ever agitation was needed, then this should be at times when the wind is not blowing from the south or towards nearby residents. The slurry pit is open and is a potential source of odour.
There is also an open circular tank in the permit which was said to be being used for surplus cow slurry. I explained that this is old infrastructure. Risks to the water course from it need to be minimised as well as being a potential source of odour. "

It is important to note the above, as there is later evidence from the Environment Agency and complaints from local residents over several years that shows repeat offences relating to pollution, noise and odours.

 

Evidence Part 4 - EPR Compliance Assessment Report from the Environment Agency on 15th February 2021 to Wyke Farms Limited regarding Lambrook AD Plant 

After an incident at the AD Plant, Wyke Farms was found to have made multiple breaches of the conditions of their permit. The four breaches were:

1. Breach of Infrastructure Permit Conditions (Engineering for prevention & control of pollution).
2. Breach of General Management Permit Conditions (Management system & operating procedures).
3. Breach of Emissions Permit Conditions (Surface water).
4. Breach of Monitoring and records, maintenance and reporting Permit Conditions (Reporting & notification).
   

The Environment Agency Report says:

"This was a response to a self-report of an incident involving the over topping of the permitted slurry lagoon. This arose from waste being stored in the Permastore leading to uncontrolled emissions of slurry contents to the yard, surface water drains and the stream which runs beneath the site. The report was phoned in around 8:50 on 15/02/2021, but had occurred at around 16:00 on 14/02/2021."

As we have pointed out above, Wyke Farms were warned in earlier reports of "The slurry pit is open and is a potential source of odour... Risks to the water course from it need to be minimised as well as being a potential source of odour. " 

The Report says:

"We consider pollution was caused... 

The failure to put in place appropriate measures to prevent the spill...

The root cause is considered to be a failure of management."

So despite being warned about it, Wyke Farms did not pay attention. Their management failed. And when the incident occurred, causing pollution, they delayed reporting it. 

The Environment Agency should have acted earlier. Local residents made many complaints about the AD Plant, and the Piggery. But the Environment Agency did not act early enough. And repeated pollution incidents, to air and water, have occurred.

But the same lax management of the Piggery, and the repeated failures by Wyke Farms to act on the Environment Agency reports, added to the reluctance of the Agency and local authorities, meant that pollution had occurred again at the AD Plant.

In a time when development in Somerset is held up due to pollution, it is important to note that the local river is the River Brue that flows through Bruton, past Glastonbury and eventually into Bridgwater Bay.

So Wyke Farms has polluted air and water repeatedly, as we have said at the beginning of the article. But this is only some of evidence.

The Environment Agency has set out the Actions that Wyke Farms must take:

"Actions
Monitoring the water quality including any waste or polluting sludges or slurries that are stored or spread to land
Make arrangement to tanker excess liquids away
Provide a plan to remove the contents of the tank in the safest way possible by 26 February 2021
Review your accident management plan 26 February 2021
Provide a plan for decommissioning the Permastore tank by 26 February 2021 works to be completed by August 2021.
Review and improve monitoring of the former pig slurry pit.
Review your notification procedures 26 February 2021
We consider that there is an on-going pollution risk at the site and therefore you are requested to submit an Emissions Management Plan to identify and minimise the risk of pollution to the ground and water as set out in condition 3.2.2. This shall include: Managing the water course in the culvert including an assessment to minimise potential emission sources from the site.

This is an initial Compliance Assessment Report for the incident. We may review scores and action subject to any further information that may come to light. We are considering our enforcement response."

Above are just some examples of the environment offences by Wyke Farms, that prove that the are repeat offenders, and that the exposure of the disgraceful Piggery was not just a once-off.

We will be publishing more, leading up to and during the COP26 Climate Change summit. There will be enough BS being spoken and written in Glasgow for COP26.

So we hope to restore the balance and facts to the reputation of companies like Wyke Farms who are based in Somerset, use questionable marketing and PR claims to market their products. And as we have shown, Wyke Farms' claims do not stand up to much scrutiny. 

Wyke Farms are definitely not 100% Green.