UPDATED (25/5/21): SSDC REPLY - Glovers (Yeovil Town FC Supporters) Trust Statement on Future of Club - Talks Ongoing

 

The Glovers Trust

 

UPDATED (25/5/21): Councillor John Clark has replied to the letter. His reply is on the Glovers Trust website here.

More to follow.

---

The Glovers Trust, which is the supporters trust for fans of Yeovil Town Football Club (YTFC),  issued a statement yesterday evening (24th May 2021) criticising the involvement of South Somerset District Council (SSDC) in the future of the club and making it clear that they do not support the involvement of SSDC. 

The Trust released the Statement below to their members, including a reference to the letter to SSDC - attached below the Statement. They say that the deal proposed by SSDC does not benefit the Council, the people of Somerset or the club.

It follows a vote of members that "overwhelmingly" supported looking for bidders for the club.

The Statement confirms that talks are continuing about the future of YTFC, and that the Trust is working on a plan.

Somerset Independents Leader Andrew Pope says:

Andrew Pope
Campaigner for Fan Ownership

"I have been a campaigner for supporter control and ownership for many years, having had my boyhood club Enfield FC destroyed by a dodgy owner and councillors on Enfield Borough Council.

Neither of these appear to be true with Yeovil now, but they could become true, if the supporters don't have control and a proper say. Giving control to councillors would be a very bad idea, especially as the council may not even exist in a couple of years' time, due to the re-organisation of Somerset's councils being forced on residents.

Future owners need to be vetted. Future councillors may have a different approach.

Although still a member of the supporter owned Enfield Town FC that came out of the ashes of Enfield FC, I have joined the Glovers Trust to offer my support and advice, so that supporters can get some control and if possible, ownership, of YTFC.

I have helped other clubs and fans over the years, because I believe that fans are the true custodians of their football clubs - not players, not temporary owners and definitely not politicians, as the bitter experiences of Enfield FC, Wimbledon FC, Totton FC, Portsmouth FC and countless other clubs, have shown.

The total failure of the Saints Supporters Trust to safeguard Southampton FC, shows that supporters trusts are not a panacea. It was Markus Liebherr who saved Saints, not the supporters trust. Neither are share ownership schemes any good as a form of protection, unless they come with formal power and control. I urge the Glovers Trust to push for true fan power.

The active fans of Yeovil deserve to be listened and their concerns acted upon, as it is they who will suffer if the club struggles or goes out of business. And it is the people of Somerset who will suffer if SSDC gets it wrong."

Somerset Independents was formed to stand up for Somerset residents. We will do what we can to support fan control and ownership of sports clubs in Somerset, and to protect the public purse.

---

Dear Trust Member,

Please find our statement upon expiry of Asset of Community Value moratorium period below.

As an interested party in the two Assets of Community Value (ACV) on Huish Park and the surrounding land, the Glovers Trust Board exercised its right, by majority vote to delay the sale of Huish Park to South Somerset District Council (SSDC).

The Glovers Trust Board recognised that the proposed sale of Huish Park and the surrounding land to SSDC was a pivotal moment in the history of Yeovil Town Football Club (YTFC).  The activation of the ACV’s has allowed the Board time and space to fully investigate the proposal from SSDC and to give consideration to the partnering with other interested parties, with a view to making a bid to purchase.

Members of the Glovers Trust overwhelmingly supported our actions following the release of our findings on the 1st March 2021.

As early as December 2020 potential investors and consortia reached out to the Glovers Trust Board to declare an interest in the club and the land based on significant supporter involvement. This supporter involvement was at the heart of every proposal the Glovers Trust Board entertained.

Over the six-month period several groups have made contact with the Glovers Trust Board and we are aware parties have reached out to intermediaries at the club.

The statutory period of six months moratorium expires on 26th May 2021. We believe that the intervening period has been invaluable and hopefully pivotal to the future of YTFC. Without the delay, the proposed deal between owners of Huish Park and SSDC would have been rushed through by January 2021, long before any reasonable scrutiny could have been conducted. The delay has also given others the chance to reflect on the scheme and for the cultivation of a belief that a better route can be found to secure the long-term security of our club.

The provisional plans shared with us by the SSDC may bring a limited short term financial boost, however there is no legal framework to guarantee that YTFC benefits from the scheme over the longer term. We believe that under this proposal the future of YTFC is in jeopardy.

We also note the public war of words between SSDC and Marcus Fysh MP regarding the decisions that have been made regarding the Yeovil Refresh scheme and scrutiny on decision-making and finances involved with it. Surely we do not need our football club to get caught up in similar political criticism.

We acknowledge that from Wednesday 26th, the owners are free to continue with the proposal from SSDC or to affect a sale to whomsoever they choose. The Glovers Trust Board’s stance remains unaltered with regard to the SSDC proposal in that we retain major concerns. This proposal was championed as ‘the only option’ but this has been proved to have been only one of the options available. The Glovers Trust Board hold serious reservations as to whether the monetary figures involved add up. Will a tenant YTFC ever be in a financial position to own Huish Park again? 

We will continue to object to the SSDC proposal as strongly as possible and in pursuit of this aim we have sent letters to the lead Councillor, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Executive Officer elect.  A copy of this letter is attached to this statement.

We will strive to work with those who seek a strong and vibrant future for YTFC based on community values and involvement.

The Glovers Trust Board

 

Letter to South Somerset District Council

YEOVIL TOWN SUPPORTERS SOCIETY LIMITED (Glovers Trust) 

22.5.21 

Councillor John Clark,Chief Executive Alex Parmley 

South Somerset District Council  

The Council Offices 

Brympton Way  

Yeovil BA20 2HT 

 

Dear Councillor Clark, Mr Parmley 

Purchase of Yeovil Town FC 

You will be aware that South Somerset District Council at its meeting of December 2020 agreed to purchase Yeovil Town Football Club Ground. The decision meant that the community group who had placed two Assets of Community Value(The Glover’s Trust) on the assets were able to activate a six-month moratorium to consider the purchase of the assets. This six-month period ends on 26th May, and whilst the Glover’s Trust is not in a position to purchase the Club, the moratorium period has provided us with the opportunity to look at the detail of the proposed purchase, and as a result we write formally to ask South Somerset District Council to review the decision.

It is our view that considerations have changed substantially since December and some of the imperatives that prompted the decision have changed. 

The report presented to Members in December 2020 made reference to the parlous state of the Club’s finances; with the report stating the Chairman of the Club reported that the club will “run out of money by Christmas 20” Here we are in May 2021 with the Club still operating,so clearly it has been able to make alternative financial arrangements. I’m sure you are aware part of this includes a loan from Sport England who now become a creditor. It is likely therefore that funds generated from the sale of the club will go to pay off debts and covenants that currently prevent development.

The protection offered to SSDC is via the commercial value of the club’s land asset,and a commercial rent on lease back to the Club. Whilst we are not privy to the financial calculations, a straight housing led development of the site is far from straightforward.  

Should the two “top pitches” be put forward for development and not be re-provided elsewhere Sport England will object to a planning application. Any loss of the pitches would also be contrary to South Somerset’s own Local Plan which seeks to preserve existing sports pitches.  

Secondly any plan to develop on the existing car park will mean the only car parking then available on site being a small number of spaces around the “core” which are currently used for VIP’s players and visitors. The loss of the car park will on busy match days mean that the streets including the nearby residential streets will be used by spectators attending the games. Without a clear and robust alternative car parking strategy, or a public transport strategy, it is likely that this will be an area of considerable concern to local residents, businesses and SSDC’s own Planning Department.

Members will know that sites that have been classified as Assets of Community Value are a Material Consideration if a planning application is put forward for the development of that asset. This requires the applicant to ensure there is no loss of community benefit from a development on the site, or to re-provide in equal measure.  

There is also a covenant on the site in favour of the former landowner that will only be lifted on receipt of a negotiated fee.

The process towards achieving planning permission for the site is therefore one that could be long and in parts far from straight forward. We are not aware that the analysis of the capital return to SSDC has taken these complexities into consideration when making the decision to purchase, or consideration given to the number of planning objections that may be received.  

Whilst a “core” of the Club has been preserved other aspect of the sale are of concern to us. 

The report to Council highlights the Social and Economic importance of the club to the Town and its hinterland. However,the sale and leaseback will see the asset move away from the club and prevent it from determining future use. 

It is disingenuous of the Council to claim that it is helping save the club when it is giving with one hand and taking with the other. They club may have a short-term fix,but its long-term effects will be damaging.

Clubs like Yeovil Town need to generate revenue, and the land asset is the club’s treasure that given the right strategy could be sweated to provide an income in addition to match days and sponsorship. Selling and developing for short term gain will harm the Club’s long-term future. Added to this is the lease agreement whereby the club pays a rental on its ground, and the future is looking even more gloomy. With a rental figure 7% of the purchase price,we estimate that the club will pay an annual rental of £140,000. By way of comparison Exeter City pay £40,000 per annum to their City Council for the rent of that ground.  

The purchase also states that the Club will benefit from the capital receipts from any sale of parcels of land. We can see no legal framework in place to guarantee long term benefits in this arrangement with the likely benefit to be a reduction in rental. 

With the Club confined to the “core” its ability to grow and develop is severely limited, and along with it the contribution that the club can make to the wider economy and community. Add to this the burden of an annual rental then an already marginal Club could be pushed over the edge.  

Nor do we believe this deal is a good one for the people of South Somerset. There may be some short-term gain via new housing and capital receipts,but the prize is bigger than that. As custodians of the community,it is surely SSDC’s duty to create sustainable communities. This site offers the opportunity not just to create something for Yeovil Town FC but for the wider locality, providing a focus for the growing community and linking the work areas to the housing, it just takes a bit of vision and a determination to see beyond short term financial gains. 

As a supporter’s group we have been working with Architects and Master planners and have begun to construct a vision for the site, one that would make the site a destination through the working week as well as weekends, and that would be based around health and well being as well as commercial and housing developments. We believe it is possible to do all of these things. 

Whilst the deal with South Somerset District Council may provide both the Club and SSDC with a capital receipt once the site has been developed out there will be little long-term benefit to the area or the Local Authority,whilst the football club will be saddled with a repayment lease on its own ground and few means of generating income. 

We believe there is a better more sustainable solution and as the Local Authority we would implore you to take a longer-term view of the site, and work with us to develop this.  

As an Authority you have articulated the importance of the Club to the town and the surrounding area. It is after all the largest cultural institution in the area.As custodians of the public good we urge you to reconsider the decision to purchase the club and its asset, as we firmly believe that the current deal is not in the interest of the club or the local community that you serve.  

Yours sincerely,Brendon Owen 

Chair Glover’s Trust Board. 

CC Clare Pestell

 

UPDATE (4/6/21): EVERYONE Should Get A Refund! For The Global Rip-Off Streamed from Worthy Farm by Glastonbury - while Mendip Council Stood By!

The Actual Glastonbury Festival
NOT the Online Disastrous Version

UPDATE (4/6/21): It is now 10 days since we wrote to GFEL to ask them to issue a refund to everybody who paid for a ticket.

We still await a reply.

Today, we have chased up GFEL and said:

"Please can we have a response.

 Our campaign has generated considerable interest, and we think that your customers deserve their refund.

 You could go some way to repair the damage done by making this gesture."

---

Last night, the Glastonbury LiveStream event by the organisers of Glastonbury Festival - Glastonbury Festival Events Limited - was an absolute disaster. 

People across the World paid money for "tickets" and could not access the stream, as reported by traditional media and on social media.

Driift have apologised. GFEL have apologised. But the situation needs to be rectified properly.

Apology from Driift

Instead of issuing a refund to everyone who paid, people have to APPLY for a refund via a form, as reported by the NME.com website:

"If those ticketholders would prefer to request a refund instead, Driift Live has made a form available. Ticketholders for other timeslots should not be affected by the tech issues."

Driift Update and Refund Application

We think that Glastonbury Festival should be giving refunds to everybody who paid for a ticket, because they paid but others got it for free due to the disastrously bad organisation of the event by GFEL and their contractors Driift.

This is an event which Mendip District Council, the local Licensing Authority and Planning Authority, failed to properly regulate. Not only did Mendip refuse to enforce planning rules (see the Statement we have obtained from Mendip officers below). It is also a trading standards issue. 

We believe that the failure also reflects poorly on the reputation of GFEL especially in the light of the huge outcry by local residents to the new spin-off events and the impact on paying customers. Organiser Emily Eavis took to Twitter to apologise:

Apology from Emily Eavis of GFEL

So as a gesture of goodwill to local residents and paying customers, we think that GFEL should do the right thing and give everyone who paid a refund. 

GFEL can afford it, because they are a multi-million pounds business that is profit-making, not a charity.

We have written to GFEL to ask that they do this.

The lack of access to the LiveStream affected a lot of people - thousands or possibly tens of thousands.

One of those affected was one of the councillors on Mendip District Council's (MDC's) Licensing Sub-Committee, Cllr Helen Sprawson-White. 

Days before, Cllr Sprawson-White had been involved in a decision over another spin-off event at Worthy Farm, which gave permission to the September two-day concert as described on this Somerset Independents article.

Cllr Sprawson-White took to Twitter to complain that she could not access the event. She claimed that she was given a free ticket on her Twitter feed.

Councillor Helen Sprawson-White
Got A Free Ticket For Glastonbury

That would be an issue for a declaration of interest at the Licensing Sub-Committee. 

Yet Cllr Sprawson-White did not declare an interest and she later gave permission for the new event in September, along with MDC Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Cllr Simon Carswell. Carswell also sat on the Sub-Committee, as if it is was not a conflict of interest. 

Clearly these are serious conflicts of interest.

Cllr Sprawson-White also did not declare that she is close to Cllr Francis Hayden - the councillor who told Somerset Independents that he makes money from Glastonbury Festival. 

And yes, this is the same councillor who did not pay his council tax between April 2020 and February 2021, as documented elsewhere on this website.

These are glaring conflicts of interest, which are not stopped or managed at MDC. 

To the average person, it would seem reasonable to conclude that such dealings are encouraged by MDC councillors in private and behind closed doors. 

Somerset Independents has proved to the Council's External Auditor that meetings involving property dealings were not open or transparent. The Auditor made a ruling to that effect to the Council.

And as documented by Daniel Mumby, LDR reporter for Somerset Live, MDC took nearly a week to make a decision behind-closed-doors about the new September event.

MDC cannot claim ignorance. Somerset Independents has warned them of these conflicts of interest. But it has not prevented them - time and time again.

MDC and GFEL are too cosy, say local residents. And MDC believe the hype from GFEL, despite being the Licensing Authority that is supposed to hold the licensee to account.

MDC have used specious rationale that have nothing to do with licensing or planning rules. The evidence is clear.

The organisers of Glastonbury Festival, Glastonbury Festival Events Ltd (GFEL), have told the World that if Glastonbury Festival did not go ahead two years in a row, that they might go bankrupt. Then later, they claimed that it would all be OK. 

This was before they announced new spin-off events that impact on local residents, and now we have seen - on the "global audience" of Worthy Farm.

We say that GFEL announced to "the World", because they tend to favour national, London-based and international media who are based outside Somerset, instead of local media that exists for local residents.

As well as claiming potential bankruptcy, GFEL have claimed that they need more events to "compensate" for the loss of the festivals to Covid-19 restrictions and associated Government laws and guidance.

As we have documented on this website and on our Twitter feed, Mendip District Council (MDC) have willingly fallen for such claims and used specious rationale to make quasi-legal and legal decisions under planning and licensing law.

MDC have also allowed conflicts of interest and a criminal offence to be committed in relation to failures by a councillor to register interests on the councillor's declaration of interest. We have the evidence. But do MDC investigate? No.

These conflicts of interest relate directly to the income of at least one councillor (Cllr Hayden, the councillor who didn't pay his council tax or update his register of interests), and probably more Mendip councillors involved in the organising of events in Somerset.

Local residents have told MDC that the "supine" Council "bent over backwards" to cater for GFEL. Any reasonable person would conclude that Mendip does not make decisions in the interests of residents, but for the benefit of councillors instead. Anybody who stands in the way is ignored, threatened or persecuted by Mendip. This includes local residents in Pilton.

It looks like the local residents' allegations are correct, because we have obtained a Statement from MDC Planning. Please see below. MDC issued the Statement just three days prior to the disastrous LiveStream event.

We know that the Statement was prepared with the knowledge of the Chair of Planning, Councillor Damon Hooton plus the Vice-Chair Councillor Nigel Hewitt-Cooper, who is also the ward member for Pilton. Residents of Pilton have been affected by GFEL at Worthy Farm for decades. The incidents they report are very worrying.

The Statement below by MDC makes it clear that MDC had no intention of enforcing planning. Planning Enforcement officers also knew of the Statement.

In the Statement, MDC says that the:

"virtual event would require planning permission."

but that:

"we will not be taking planning enforcement action in this case."

So MDC knew that GFEL would breach planning, but chose to do nothing about it. They wrongly assumed that residents would support their selective application of planning rules. 

It is the "wellbeing" of the residents that should be their consideration, not of a "global audience". As we have said, they are using specious rationale for their planning and licensing decisions. MDC put the wrong interests at the heart of decisions that affect local people.

The lack of enforcement by MDC on GFEL, is in stark contrast to the threats of enforcement handed out to small businesses and residents who have broken planning rules in the Mendip area.  MDC come down like a tonne of bricks on the little guys and girls, but not on GFEL.

Somerset Independents was formed to stand up for local residents, and to challenge local authorities who put themselves and narrow self-interest ahead of the needs of the local population.

Mendip District Council have now been shown to have conspired to break their own planning rules, and used specious licensing rationale in their decisions.

Mendip District Council have not managed conflicts of interest by councillors making key decisions.

Mendip District Council have conspired to rip-off the "global audience" of people who paid their money and who believed that they were supporting charities.

Instead, the "global audience" were inadvertently helping MDC to breach planning rules and impact on local residents once again.

If MDC had done its job as a local authority, perhaps GFEL would have organised an event that worked, instead of the total disaster that unfolded.

Somerset Independents will be making further enquiries on how this disaster was allowed to occur.

Mendip District Council's Statement on the Glastonbury LiveStream

STATEMENT

19.05.21

 

COVID-19 Recovery: Supporting our communities and the local economy

The global pandemic has touched all our lives, provoking a world-class response from our key workers, communities and industries.

 

As we edge from emergency response to recovery, Mendip District Council is ensuring measures are in place to support the safety of our residents and businesses, whilst also working hard to drive the local economy.

 

It’s a balancing act, and always guided by Government advice.

 

In a recent statement* by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, he made clear that local planning authorities are to take a ‘positive and flexible approach to planning enforcement action to support economic recovery and support social distancing, while it remains in place.’

 

The Council is applying this positive and flexible approach to the Live At Worthy Farm event in Glastonbury this weekend.

 

Although we are mindful of our legal obligations and the concerns of residents living close to the festival site, we, like the Government, also recognise the absolute need to support the entertainment industry – one of the hardest-hit sectors of this pandemic.

 

On examination, the Council believes the contained, virtual event would require planning permission. However, for transparency, to help manage expectations, and in line with Government guidelines, it is important to communicate that we will not be taking planning enforcement action in this case – for all the reasons explained above.

 

We understand this event could have a temporary impact on local residents, and that some will be disappointed. But this needs to be balanced by the significant public interest in ensuring the entertainment sector recovers, and the impact on wellbeing the arts event will have on the organisers, entertainers and its mass, global audience.

 

The Council trusts that residents will understand and support our approach in this instance.

 

*questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2021-03-25/

DEMOCRACY REFERENDUM: On BBC Radio Somerset, Pope Calls For Every Vote To Count

 

Andrew Pope
Leader of Somerset Independents

 

You will be receiving a vote... But it isn't the right question.

On the Claire Carter Breakfast Programme on BBC Radio Somerset this morning (21st May 2021), they covered our campaign for a Referendum on whether and how Somerset residents are governed by councils. 

We believe that it is the people of Somerset who should decide how they are governed, not politicians in Westminster or local party councillors in the Tory, Lib Dem, Green or Labour parties.

On behalf of Somerset residents, Andrew Pope for Somerset Independents called for a "no change" option and "committee system" option in any Referendum, which we have consistently called for over the last year. There should be FOUR, not TWO options on the ballot.

Paul Barltrop, Political Editor for the BBC in Somerset reported on the programme at around 7.28am. Pope was interviewed and applauded a public vote but criticised having only two options on the ballot paper. Here is a transcript of the report:

Paul Barltrop: Andrew Pope is from the Somerset Independents pressure group. They have campaigned for a Referendum and they say (this - having just two options in the vote) isn't good enough.

Andrew Pope: It's good that there's a vote happening now. 

It's amazing that they've changed their minds, these district councils, because last year they were opposed to the Referendum.

Now suddenly they've changed their minds. The public need to know why?

So I question, and we have questioned all of the district councils, why they've gone ahead with just the two options.

There should be a "no change" option.

There should be a "committee system" on the ballot paper.

We've asked them that last year. We've asked them that, all district councils, over the last few weeks, at their full councils. 

They haven't changed the ballot, but it's good that there's a public vote yet it's a Hobson's Choice between two deeply flawed options."

Claire Carter: When will we know the outcome of all this Paul?

Paul Barltrop: Well, first of all the poll. People have been receiving voting papers through their letterboxes. That closes on the 4th June. You can either send it back via the post, that's postage paid, or you can go online and give your verdict there. And the result of that will be soon afterwards.

But of course the Government decision is entirely separate to that and it's interesting just to give you a quote from the Secretary of State's letter that he sent to the district councils.

Robert Jenrick, Minister for Communities, Housing and Local Government:

"... my decision won't be made on the basis of which proposal has the most popular support in a poll."

Barltrop: He also described holding this poll as:

"a fundamental misunderstanding of the process".

So it is a bit of a moot point whether the Secretary of State will pay any attention to the results of the poll. We'll get that at the start of June. We'll get his verdict a few weeks later."

Somerset Independents will continue to stand up for residents and work with Somerset's people  on its campaign for more democratic ways of running local councils, for the current councils and any future councils. 

It is the people of Somerset who should decide how they are governed, not politicians in Westminster or their party friends in the Tories, Lib Dems, Greens or Labour.

Contact us at the link here to get involved in a more democratic Somerset and to become a registered support of Somerset Independents.

 

Standing Up For Residents

UPDATED (21/5/21): Residents "Very Angry" As "Supine" Mendip Council "Bent Over Backwards" To Glastonbury Organisers On Pilton Event

 

Worthy Farm, Pilton

UPDATED (21/5/21): The Piltonians residents group have issued an updated Statement. It is in full below under "Second Version". The first version has been removed at the request of the residents group.

These are the views of the Piltonians residents group and not necessarily those of Somerset Independents. We respond below.

---

Mendip District Council has given the go-ahead for a huge 50,000 people event at Worthy Farm, Pilton - some time in September, perhaps...

This is despite local residents' anger and concern over it being a "super-spreader" event as a result of the Indian Covid-19 variant that is of increasing concern to public health. Now residents are considering whether to lodge an appeal.

Residents said that: 

"People are very angry. Mendip bent over backwards to give GFEL everything they wanted."

and

"The relationship between Mendip and GFEL is far too cosy."

The full Press Release from the Piltonians residents group is below. The views expressed are of the Piltonians residents group and not necessarily those of Somerset Independents. 

Responding for Somerset Independents, Andrew Pope says: 

"We want local residents to be heard, but as we have proved many times over, Mendip District Council prefers to ignore residents in favour of dodgy deals behind closed doors. 

Even Mendip's own External Auditor Ernst and Young has ordered them to be transparent in how Mendip operates and spends millions of pounds of public money.

There is a lot of merit to what residents are saying and have been saying - we saw and heard what happened at the Licensing Sub-Committee. It was shameful.

Where was the local Pilton Mendip councillor Tory Nigel Hewitt-Cooper? Was he representing local residents.? No, as usual, he was nowhere to be seen.

Events must be safe and impact on local residents must be managed. But Mendip have not done that on this site. If they had, residents would not be so angry.

As they say in their statement, now residents are considering whether to take the matter further by lodging an appeal."

(Second Version) Updated Press Release From Piltonians Residents Group

 

Anger as Council gives Glastonbury Festival new event licence

Mendip District Council has approved a new two-day event for 50,000 people on the Worthy Farm site which will be held this September and in subsequent years. The decision comes just days after Glastonbury Festival Events Limited (GFEL) received a £900,000 government handout [1] to compensate for the cancellation of the Festival owing to Covid -19. Nevertheless GFEL point blank refused to limit the license to one or two years.

The event decision came despite Mendip’s failure to re-determine its licensing policy [2] by 6 January 2021. Mendip’s principal lawyer, Lesley Dolan, described the situation as “somewhat regrettable”.

Opponents of the proposed event say Mendip’s decision is not legitimate and is the result of an unfair process from the start. Official notices were not posted in prominent locations such as village notice boards and Mendip failed to provide crucial information. Most local people knew nothing about the proposed concert, giving them little chance to reach their own opinions. Unbelievably Mendip have increased the noise limit to 70db which is 5db higher than for the Festival itself.

At the hearing some proposals were not on the published agenda, others arriving out of the blue at the last minute. Parts appeared briefly on a screen at the online meeting or were read out by Mendip Officers. Despite knowing this would be the case, Mendip went ahead with the hearing without any consideration of the critical issues of non-compliance.

GFEL hasn’t explained how it will get 50,000 people, and potentially over 1,000 vehicles, on and off the site on two successive days. Nor how long the expected 10,000 workers will be on site, and where they will stay. GFEL says it will not be erecting the usual anti-climb fence - this will bring back bad memories for locals of ticketless people hunting around the village for ways to gain access. In future years they will only receive 120 days notice of this major invasion of their village.

The potential risk from Covid-19 was not adequately addressed at the hearing. There are fears that this concert will turn into a super-spreader event. This all comes as a growing number of events are planned at the Worthy Farm site including live streaming and camping.

Any protections for the community are being left for the event management plan and planning decisions [3] sometime closer to the event. Pressure to give the go-ahead will then mean that villagers’ voices will be heard even less.

Mendip has bent over backwards to give everything GFEL wanted. The relationship between Mendip and GFEL is far too cosy. Mendip may well be worried about the legal costs of standing up to this multi-million pound commercial organisation. People are very angry.

The only surprise is that it took Mendip four days to reach this utterly predictable decision.

For further information please contact piltonians@aol.com

Editor’s Notes:
[1] On 2 April GFEL was awarded £900,000 grant as part of the second tranche of UK government’s Culture Recovery Fund.
[2] Mendip District Council has breached its statutory requirement, under Section 5 of Licensing Act 2003, to determine and publish its Licensing Policy every five years. Its previous Policy lapsed on 6 Jan 2021.
[3] GFEL has planning permission for its usual Festival but only during the period 1 May to 31 Aug. Outside this period Worthy Farm must be used for agricultural purposes. It is now widely accepted that this two day concert will require planning permission before it can go ahead.

Mendip Council In "Rush to Please" Glastonbury Organisers On New September Concert

Pilton (Glastonbury) Festival
In A Year That Was NOT During a Global Pandemic

As reported by Somerset Independents yesterday, local residents have written formal objections and raised a large number of concerns at a public meeting about the hastily-planned proposal by Glastonbury Festival Events Limited (GFEL) to put on a two-day concert, possibly in September (date TBA), at Worthy Farm in Pilton. 

We say hastily-planned, because more papers were being presented "on-the-fly" at the Mendip District Council (MDC) Licensing Sub-Committee where the application was being considered. They were not on the published agenda. They were not even on the "Updating" of the agenda. 

Members of the public and local residents had not seen those papers prior to the meeting. For MDC, just reading parts out, or putting them briefly up on screen in the virtual meeting, was deemed to be adequate. It isn't right. It isn't legal. But then this is Mendip District Council. It is quite clear in the relevant legislation that such "ambushing" is not allowed.

And still more details were not set. Even GFEL's own legal representative, Mr Phipps, apologised for the lateness of papers.

Residents deserve better than Mendip District Council and its councillors.

Another Concert In A Field In Somerset

If you didn't know, Glastonbury Festival is not in Glastonbury. It is at Worthy Farm in Pilton, a village on the A361 between Glastonbury and Shepton Mallet. The road is not a dual carriageway. 

Large sections of this road are at low speed limits, including a 30mph through Pilton that is sometimes enforced by Police speed check vans. 

Pilton is not Wembley Stadium. It is not in an urban area. The "in a field" location in Somerset is part of the charm of the Glastonbury Festival. 

As we have said before and made clear to the organisers when we have queried them, Glastonbury Festival is a great global event.

Mendip's Cosy and Inappropriate Relationship

But the Festival impacts on local residents over a wide area, and in a negative and sustained way if not managed. There appears to be a growing trend of organising "spin-off" events. That's fine, if it is managed correctly and with the impact on local residents minimised.

But it isn't minimised. If it was, we wouldn't be hearing about so many complaints from residents. Not just for this new event, but all events at this venue.

It is reasonable to conclude then that local authorities including Mendip have given the Festival too much of the "light touch" of regulation over the years. Mendip District Council boasts on its website of a "good relationship" with the organisers. 

Perhaps that is why local residents complaints have not been addressed, because Mendip has the wrong priorities?

Covid-19 Global Pandemic

During Covid-19, there are very grave and substantial reasons for the Festival to have been cancelled two years in a row. Those reasons involve protecting the health of the public - not just for the visitors to Somerset, but also for the local residents and residents across Somerset.

Somerset Independents was formed to protect Somerset residents. 

We have written again to another of the local authorities - Somerset County Council's Director of Public Health, Trudi Grant - to ask her why she had not objected to the plans. It could turn out that she has, but when we checked the representations there were none directly from her. Perhaps she had delegated authority to Mendip public health staff. We await her reply.

But in the light of the growing concern over new Covid-19 variants, an event for 50,000 people when Covid-19 is still a Global Pandemic should not happen after partial planning, late planning or bad planning. And it would be wrong if approvals were rushed by Mendip District Council in an effort to please GFEL, as alleged by members of the public.

It appears from what we have heard from residents and Mendip Council itself, that the relationship between the licensee and licensor is far too cosy.

The two-day "September" event was described as "to compensate" for the loss of Pilton (Glastonbury) Festival, according to a report involving Daniel Mumby (Somerset Local Democracy Reporter) on BBC Radio Somerset this evening, Thursday 13th May 2021. Here is a transcript of the interview. It appears that Mr Mumby was using a press release as the basis for this compensatory claim.

Any compensation for loss is not a valid reason for Mendip District Council to make approvals of any event where the public have grave doubts about Covid-19 and public health, traffic, noise, lack of due legal process and other issues. Public health trumps profit.

Mendip Approving or Disapproving of What, Exactly?

It is also clear that partial information is known about the event, and partial plans have been submitted to Mendip District Council. Despite this, MDC are due to make a decision on it over the next few days. Not in public, but behind closed doors after a protracted seven hours, plus another session, in public. But then, residents are used to MDC making important decisions in private, behind closed doors, as Somerset Independents proved to the External Auditor Ernst and Young, who agreed to make MDC revise minutes of meetings involving millions of pounds to make them more open and transparent (but still not revealing the full detail).

What Have Residents Said and When?

Residents said that the event threatens noise, traffic and public health due to the deadly Covid-19. Testing for the disease is not certain until close to the event, according to Marietta Gill, Mendip District Council (MDC) Public Health Officer at the virtual meeting.

The new event was not being planned properly, said residents. MDC had not advertised the application properly, they said. And the event did not even have a proposed date, something else that is causing great worry for local residents and how they plan their lives.  

Those residents that have complained were relatively lucky to have heard. Why do we say this?

Residents from outside Pilton were not consulted or notified about the event, as confirmed by Somerset Independents in direct contact with the Licensing Officer at MDC, Jack Godley. Mendip did not consult residents outside Pilton despite the fact that events at this site have upset local residents from a wide area in the locality for many years. Complaints have not gone away, as is documented in MDC documents obtained by Somerset Independents.

What Was This Meeting?

As we reported yesterday, the comments came at the Licensing Sub-Committee of Mendip District Council on Wednesday 12th May 2021 AND also adjourned to Thursday 14th May 2021, residents spoke with their outrage, upset and worry about the proposal. The meeting went on for SEVEN hours, and then adjourned to the next day.

Members of Somerset Independents watched and live-tweeted from the virtual meeting.

MDC officers were in a "rush to please" the organisers GFEL, said one resident, who also challenged the legitimacy of the Licensing Sub-Committee.

Another local resident spoke very eloquently despite being very upset about how GFEL events had affected her and her family's life and other Pilton residents too, over many years. What she described was truly horrific, including riots, intimidation and criminal activity.

When asked by a councillor whether the impact on local residents improved recently, the resident said that they "don't give a monkeys" about local residents and that they had not improved.

And another Pilton resident, claimed that Mendip District Council did not provide her with a map of the proposal until after the closing date for comments and that Mendip did not display the "blue notices" properly. 

She also showed the big difference between how residents near Heaton Park in Manchester were consulted and involved in decisions about events near them, and contrasted this with how Mendip and GFEL were failing to do so.

You would think that councillors would speak up to support residents. No, not Mendip councillors. Instead of supporting the residents, Mendip Councillor and Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Lib Dem Simon Carswell, attacked them by mis-quoting the resident as saying that MDC officers were "placating" the organisers, GFEL. The resident corrected him on what he actually said (above). 

Conflicts of Interest By Councillors Sitting in Judgement

It is a huge conflict of interest for Cllr Carswell in his role, to be sitting in judgement over this Licensing decision. During the meeting, when asked if he wanted to adjourn the meeting, Cllr Carswell said: 

"I just want to get this finished", and also in the meeting:

"I might have missed it, I've got a migraine."

We do not think that Cllr Carswell was taking to the meeting with an open mind or giving due consideration to the decision. We think that he had made up his mind already.

And another Lib Dem councillor on the Committee, Helen Sprawson-White, appeared to question the veracity of residents' claims about the impact on their lives, when she asked whether the Festival had improved in terms of its impact on residents. She was told, in no uncertain terms, that the Festival organisers "do not give a monkeys" about local residents.

Cllr Sprawson-White did not declare an interest at the beginning of the meeting. She is very close to Green Cllr Francis Hayden, having defended him when we asked him why he had not paid his council tax. Cllr Hayden was not embarrassed, as the Stoke-on-Trent councillors who did not pay were. Cllr Hayden did not apologise for not paying his council tax. He did not tell us whether he had now paid or not. He did not resign. Instead, Cllr Hayden told us:

"My own income depends on catering for weddings, parties and music festivals (including Glastonbury) all of which have been cancelled for the last year."

In which case, why didn't Cllr Sprawson-White declare an interest?

This also begs the question, why didn't Cllr Hayden declare this on his Declaration of Interest, which has not been updated since he was elected in May 2019?

Excerpt From Cllr Hayden's Declaration of Interest

It is a criminal offence for a councillor to not keep their interests updated within 28 days of a change. Nothing is mentioned about his employment at Glastonbury Festival.

But then, as we have documented elsewhere on this website, this dodgy councillor did not pay his council tax, either - not just for a couple of months, but from April 2020 to February 2021.

And there is another councillor who did not pay their council tax. MDC have tried to cover it up and refused to tell us which councillor it was.

Par For The Course for Mendip

Sadly this lack of democracy from the councillors is not unusual for Mendip District Council. It is par for the course. It is a Council in disarray, as Somerset Independents has proved in its successful challenges to MDC's failures in governance, such an unlawful minutes of meetings conducted behind closed doors, despite the Lib Dem Council Leader Ros Wyke claiming them to be "open".

Unlawful Minutes of the
Mendip District Council
Phoenix Sponsorship Board

Mendip councillors do not stand up for residents and they do not stand up for due process. It seems that MDC always seem to have other priorities than representing the public and standing up for the public interest, despite being a public body and paid for by public money.

Somerset Independents will keep standing up for residents, especially when those paid to do so - the elected councillors and Mendip officers - still fail to do the jobs that they are paid public money to do.