Is Mendip Council Corrupt? District Councillor and Land Owner Philip Ham Lobbied Councillors On Large Development Involving His Land

 

On 24th July 2020, the Mendip District Council Planning Board approved a planning application titled "Land North and South of Sandys Hill Lane" in Frome.

 

It was approved as a mixed use development incorporating up to 235 dwellings, employment floorspace and retail.

 

Somerset Independent listened to residents, and their objections, and has campaigned against this development.

 

Residents did not want the development, but the MDC Planning Board of councillors approved it anyway.

 

Land involved in it was owned by Philip Ham, who is a Conservative Councillor on Mendip District Council and Somerset County Council.

 

We documented the failure by Councillor Ham, other councillors and officers of Mendip, to manage the conflicts of interest by Ham.

 

Our work attracted a lot of interest from residents of Frome, as well as investigative paper Private Eye. Our articles are elsewhere on this website. The Private Eye article is here. Private Eye noted:

"While backing his own Frome plan, Ham was busy opposing - and winning the fight against - a proposal for 63 houses outside the village of Coleford. Why the sudden aversion to development?"

Now we present the evidence of how things are done at Mendip District Council.

 

Somerset Independents has submitted Freedom of Information (FoI) requests to Mendip District Council and Somerset County Council.

The responses show in black and white that Councillor Ham used and abused his position as a councillor to lobby other councillors, and that councillors assisted him in defending the application, and tempering any objections or concerns about the application.

There is no doubt that Councillor Ham was acting in his capacity as a Councillor. Because Councillor Ham used his councillor email to perform these dodgy acts. Other councillors even corresponded with him using their councillor email address, so their correspondence was "caught" by our FoI requests. 

The councillors included:

1. The Chair of the Planning Board and Frome ward councillor for land relating to and adjacent to the development, Liberal Democrat Councillor Damon Hooton who also works at the Sainsbury's nearby. Hooton appeared to collude with Ham to defend works on Ham's land when queried by an unnamed member of the public. Hooton later wrote, on a later application, and we quote directly:
   

   "Due to who I work for (Sainsburys) who are immediate neighbours tothis site, Im conflicted out of commenting on this application. My Ward Cllr, Richard Pinnock is nottherefore will comment separately." We ask why was Hooton "conflicted" at one time, but not at another time?

2. Another ward councillor for land relating to the development, Beckington and Selwood ward Conservative councillor Shannon Brooke. Worse than this, Brooke allowed herself to be lobbied by a representative of Ham's developer (Silverwood). This even occurs at the Selwood Parish Council. The Parish Council objected. Councillor Brooke did not. We asked her why. Cllr Brooke provided no comment on the conflicts of interest. And she confirmed that she did not object. More on this below.
   
3. Another Frome ward councillor, Green councillor Michael Dunk, who gave up writing to Ham by email elsewhere and wrote to Ham at his Mendip council email address, when Ham then replied using his councillor email address. We ask why this is normal at Mendip?
   

Somerset Independents will be presenting further evidence and screenshots from the FoI requests. Here is an example of how Councillor Brooke, Councillor Ham and Ham's "developer" (Ham's words) Silverwood colluded, using transcripts performed by supporters of Somerset Independents from the FoI responses.

Example

On p.11 of the FoI response from Mendip District Council, Councillor Ham writes to Councillor Brooke. Ham wrote:

"Hi Shannon,

My developer (redacted) (Silverwood) is attending Selwood Parish Council tonight, he hopes to arrive early and would like to introduce his self to you. If you are not going  don't worry as I will fix another meeting .for you both."

This shows that not only was Ham conspiring with the Chair of Planning Damon Hooton and other ward councillors, he was also having his developer Silverwood liaise with a ward councillor directly AT THE PARISH COUNCIL meeting! Note that he wrote that if Cllr Brooke would not be there, he would "fix another meeting".

 

The Parish Council objected. Councillor Brooke did not. Further, Councillor Brooke wrote to Councillor Ham on several occasions about the application. 

 

The correspondence between Councillor Brooke, Silverwood and Councillor Ham confirms the collusion when "Keith" at Silverwood tells Ham that "Keith" had spoken with Cllr Brooke at Selwood Parish Council. And then in another email, "Keith" tells Ham that it would be better that Ham spoke to Brooke rather than him.

 

Do you think this looks like corruption?

We do not suggest the word corruption lightly.

 

We define corruption as when an individual uses a position of power, such as being a councillor, to accumulate money. 

 

Transparency International define corruption as:

 

"the abuse of entrusted power for private gain."

 

Do you think that a large development such as Sandys Hill Lane meets these definitions, when you see what happens at Mendip District Council?

 

We will be adding more examples of what happens at Mendip District Council. Why?

Because residents deserve to know about Mendip District Council and what is allowed to happen there.

 

These practises appear to be so endemic at Mendip District Council that it is common to converse using council email addresses over land that is a prejudicial and financial interest for a councillor.

Planning decisions affect residents and in many terrible ways. And when large sums of money and property is involved, that involves councillors abusing their position, we report our work to those residents in the public interest.