📜 THE GLASTONBURY ULTIMATUM

⚖️ TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY — ADDRESSED TO SOMERSET COUNCIL

Issued: 29 July 2026 — Version 2.1
Supersedes all prior drafts
SUBMISSION

This Ultimatum sets out formal, evidence‑based demands for Transparency AND Accountability, rooted in constitutional principle, statute, and the public record. It is supported by a petition of residents.

It will be formally delivered to the proper officers of Somerset Council — the sole authority holding 100% of decision‑making power, public funds, contracts, and full legal accountability for all matters set out below. Glastonbury Town Council holds no such powers, controls no relevant funds, and was excluded from all key determinations. This document is addressed only to Somerset Council as the accountable body.

This Ultimatum aligns with the National Residents for Civic Accountability (NRCA) Formal Notice of Continuing Governmental Knowledge, Preservation of Evidence and Reservation of Rights, formally served upon Ministers on 22 July 2026. It confirms:
• No change of Minister, department or administrative structure erases prior duties, evidence or obligations
• No irreversible action, approval, commitment or expenditure may proceed until all outstanding legal and evidential questions are fully resolved
• All records, communications, decisions and evidence must be preserved intact — nothing may be destroyed, altered, redacted or concealed

⚖️ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — LEGAL & EVIDENCE OVERVIEW

• Constitutional & statutory foundation
• Magna Carta 1215: Principles of fair process, public trust, and denial of justice — Bride’s Mound (SM 1006147), St Dunstan’s Cottage
• Petition of Right 1628 / Bill of Rights 1689: No retention of funds or diversion of resources without consent; no suspension of law — audited reserves and restricted funds; unlawful use of asset disposals for revenue costs — Local Government Act 1972 s.120
• Habeas Corpus 1679: Authority must prove lawful right to withhold information or deviate from approved plans — excavation works differing from approved specification; records withheld — Ref RF26030174067C
• Statute of Westminster 1275/85: Public officers are servants of the public, not owners of public resources — senior remuneration; deletion of conflict‑of‑interest entries
• Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1898: Misuse of public office or resources is criminal — Audit SR3 finding “Governance not robust”; SFO Ref C42DDCB05AADBE8

• Verified financial position
• Audited accounts confirm £63.2 M General Fund balance plus £53.6 M designated risk reserve, with £117 M total restricted or committed funds.
• The Council is relying on one‑off asset sales and capital receipts to fund ongoing revenue expenditure — including staffing and operational costs — which is unlawful without specific legal authority.
• Local Government Act 1972 s.120 governs disposal of assets; capital receipts may not lawfully be used to subsidise day‑to‑day running costs.
• Source: Grant Thornton Auditor’s Annual Report 2024‑25: “Significant weakness — reliance on one‑off resources to balance budget; asset portfolio disposed of at a loss to fund revenue pressures.”

• Core procedural & governance concerns
• Governance failure: Auditors found internal control “not robust”, delayed responses to complaints and FOI requests, and incomplete record‑keeping.
• Project failure: The Life Factory grant scheme was managed with “wholly inadequate processes”; funding halted; project incomplete — statutory recommendation issued.
• Transparency failures: Rule 17 changes, restricted access to council portals, and withholding of key data.
• Heritage & asset protection: Bride’s Mound, St Dunstan’s Cottage, and other public assets at risk of unconsulted disposal or alteration.
• Equal application of the law: Rules are enforced rigorously for ordinary residents, but waived, delayed or ignored for connected parties, preferred developers and council‑controlled bodies — creating a system of double standards.

📌 PREAMBLE: THE COMMUNITY MANDATE

This Mandate is issued by the residents of Glastonbury in response to a systemic failure of governance, financial oversight, and public trust by Somerset Council.

Following the Statutory Recommendation (SR3) by external auditors and the collapse of the £2.29M Life Factory project, our community has suffered not only financial loss but profound human tragedy and the debt‑ridden collapse of 26 local businesses.

We represent a unified body of 177+ verified signatories and the hundreds of residents of the Non‑Bricks and Mortar (NBM) community who have been systematically marginalized. We no longer accept “closed door” explanations or attempts to downplay a £1.46M Enabling Project while people suffer on the roadside.

SOMERSET COUNCIL holds, controls, and spends £23.6 MILLION of public money allocated exclusively for Glastonbury. We demand the unredacted truth to protect our town’s future. This document calls for full disclosure on spending, clarity on outstanding payments, and urgent accountability following the Statutory Auditor’s warning of governance failures within Somerset Council’s own structures.

This is not an isolated set of concerns. The same pattern repeats across Somerset:
• Baily’s Buildings: £6.95 million public investment diverted from legally agreed community café and media studio to private commercial use, with proposed unapproved change of use and unresolved dual‑role conflicts
• Bride’s Mound: Works carried out on a Scheduled Monument without full consent
• Proposed Bridgwater Data Centre: Premature approvals, unassessed flood and water risks, and potential use of NSIP powers to bypass local democratic control entirely

In every case: decisions are taken first; consultation and assessment follow later or never; and public interest is set aside for private gain.

✅ PROVEN FACTS RECORDED:
• Land Ownership Statement: Somerset Council publicly claimed they only held land for “18 months — not long enough”. Official records prove ownership was 20 months 10 days — 2 months LONGER than stated.
→ IMPORTANT: This discrepancy was identified and referred to Police BY SOMERSET COUNCIL / THEIR OWN AUDITORS in late 2024 — Reference RF26030174067C. We did not report it — they referred themselves.
• Deliberate Secrecy: Official Council contact emails listed publicly bounce back as non‑existent or locked. External auditors confirmed: “Significant weaknesses — failing to respond to public or Ombudsman requests”. Legal rights to information have been blocked by Somerset Council.
• Exclusion of Local Voice: Glastonbury Town Council formally requested the return of unspent funds in Nov 2025 — REFUSED BY SOMERSET COUNCIL Dec 2025. Local representatives were side‑lined, ignored, and denied any control.

📂 SECTION 1: GOVERNANCE & STATUTORY SAFEGUARDS

1.1 Statutory Audit Compliance (SR3):
The External Auditor has issued a Statutory Recommendation (SR3), identifying that Somerset Council’s management and governance arrangements were “not sufficiently robust” — weaknesses existed throughout the programme, no proper checks, failures compounded over time.

✅ PROVEN FACT:
Following SR3, Somerset Council published a plan of 147 required corrective actions. As of today:
• 91 actions are OVERDUE
• 0% completed or delivered in 6 weeks
• No updates, no evidence of work, no transparency — promises only, no action.

1.2 Financial Protections Inquiry:
We request clarification on what financial protections (including performance bonds or insurance) were in place for Project 1 (Life Factory), and whether these remain valid — controlled and administered entirely by Somerset Council.

1.3 Board Accountability Inquiry:
Red Brick Building Centre Ltd / Town Deal Board — members appointed and controlled by Somerset Council:
• ALL 7 DIRECTORS resigned between Nov 2024 – June 2025
• Dr Lynne Sedgmore CBE (Chair) resigned 3 June 2025 — explicitly citing “audit findings and public pressure”
• The meeting at which this decision was taken was CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC — NO minutes published
• Fact: Mass resignation never occurs unless internal reports confirm serious failure, liability, or breach of duty.

We demand full disclosure of all board papers, internal reports, and legal advice — all held by Somerset Council.

💰 SECTION 2: CORPORATE EXPENDITURE VS. LOCAL LIABILITIES

2.1 Consultancy Spend & The £77M "Transformation" Context:
While declaring a “Financial Emergency” and a £77,000,000 budget gap of their own making, Somerset Council approved a contract with Newton Europe with a potential value of up to £20,000,000.

✅ PROVEN OFFICIAL SPENDING:
Official budget records confirm, while claiming “NO MONEY” for Glastonbury’s needs, funds were allocated/spent by Somerset Council on:
• £45,000,000 — Innovation Fund
• £1,560,000 — Digital Transformation Programme (+15 new staff posts)
• £5,000,000 — Highways Programme
• £700,000 — Commercial development (Costa Drive‑Thru, Wirral Park)
• £52,000 — External consultants / “Reflections” reports

Total: Over £80,000,000 allocated elsewhere. Claim of “no funds available” for Glastonbury is mathematically impossible.

2.2 Asset Disposals & Support Arrangements:
We request clarity on recent asset disposals and the financial support/management fee arrangements for the private operator at Tor Leisure — all approved and managed by Somerset Council.

✅ PROVEN LEGAL BREACH:
• £77.2M of public land/assets sold/transferred 2023–2025 by Somerset Council
• NO independent valuations on most sales
• NO public consultation before sale
• Audit confirms: “Procedures not followed — statutory requirements breached”

We demand full valuation reports, consultation records, and decision notes for every land transfer since 2023 — held by Somerset Council.

📑 SECTION 3: PROJECT DISCLOSURES & AUDIT TRAILS

3.1 Project 8 (Funding Allocation):
We request a full financial breakdown of the £1.46M allocation and an audit trail of any re‑profiling or reallocation decisions made by Somerset Council. Specifically, why funds earmarked for “Enabling Infrastructure” for the Non‑Bricks & Mortar community were diverted while residents remained displaced or without secure land access.

3.2 RBB Rental Income Transparency:
We request a clear accounting of rental income generated by Buildings A & B and how this revenue is being allocated — collected and controlled by Somerset Council.

3.3 Asset Register:
We request the official Asset Register for the “Green Initiative” portacabins and equipment purchased with public funds, their current location, and who holds control/ownership — held by Somerset Council.

3.4 Land Use & Asset Protection:
We demand full disclosure of leasehold restrictions on all Town Deal land — controlled by Somerset Council. The community requires a written guarantee that no public land will be re‑designated for private housing or commercial use in the event of project insolvency.
(b) Community Displacement Inquiry: We require an explanation for instances where land earmarked for community projects (including social housing) was declared 'surplus' and sold to private entities — decisions made by Somerset Council.

3.5 The "Ghost Build" & "Zombie Payment" Inquiry:
We demand an explanation for the payments totaling £2,295,512 under Project 5 — authorised and paid by Somerset Council:
• 70–90% paid BEFORE any work commenced or planning permission was granted
• NO formal contract found between Council and Beckery Construction Ltd
• £420,000+ continued to be paid AFTER the project was officially “PAUSED” Jan 2024 AND AFTER the company entered liquidation Nov 2025

We require the names of the Officers/Executive at Somerset Council who provided ‘positive project assurance’ while these red flags were ignored, and a full audit trail of every transaction.

3.6 Bride’s Mound / Project 6 Facts:
• £716,122 spent from the same £23.6M Town Deal fund — authorised by Somerset Council
• Site is a LEGALLY PROTECTED SCHEDULED MONUMENT
• 2012 Planning Inspector ruled: “NO DEVELOPMENT — outside development boundary”
• Promised: “Sanctuary, eco‑path, heritage preservation”
• Delivered: Industrial access road, drainage, metal fencing, commercial signage
• NO public consultation, NO proper heritage consent, NO community notification — all bypassed by Somerset Council
• Residents displaced; alternative sites promised not available until 2027

We demand all consent files, emails, heritage assessments, displacement records, and proof works were lawful — all held by Somerset Council.

3.7 Conflict of Interest — PROVEN DOCUMENTED:
• Dr Lynne Sedgmore CBE = Chair of Town Deal Board + Chair of Red Brick Building Centre Ltd — appointed by Somerset Council
• Her husband — JOHN CAPPER = Sole Owner / Director of Beckery Construction Ltd — the company paid £2,295,512 of public money
• Conflict of interest WAS declared in early 2024 documents → DELETED / REMOVED from all later published versions by Somerset Council
• Beckery Construction Ltd is 100% subsidiary of Red Brick Building Centre Ltd — same board controlled both sides of the contract.

We demand full list of all familial/business links between Board, officers, and paid companies, and explanation of why this declaration was removed — held by Somerset Council.

3.8 Project 11 / Food Hub Facts:
• Sold to public as: “Community asset, community owned”
• Transferred to: PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY — Glastonbury Food & Regenerative Farming Centre Ltd — transfer approved by Somerset Council
• Directors include former Council officers and family members
• No community shareholding, no community control, no public benefit guarantee.

We demand full ownership records, declarations, and proof of actual community benefit — or admit misrepresentation.

3.9 Baily’s Buildings — Unfulfilled Obligations:
• £6.95 million total public investment approved for restoration and agreed community uses
• Legally binding planning permission 2022/1981/FUL and Section 106 Deed require public café and dedicated community media studio
• Instead, majority of space allocated to a private regional headquarters; proposed change to unapproved use class C2
• Community facilities deferred to an unfunded, unapproved future phase with no guarantee of delivery
• Overlapping roles exist between the Town Deal Board and delivery body Beckery Island Regeneration Trust, with no confirmed record of full recusal from all relevant discussions and decisions

We demand full disclosure of all lease terms, use‑change proposals, DLUHC approvals, and complete record of declarations and recusals.

3.10 Bridgwater Data Centre — Emerging Systemic Risk:
• Proposed 130‑hectare facility up to 500MW capacity, located in Flood Zone 3
• Scoping opinion approved ahead of full flood, water and biodiversity assessments
• Proposals may be reclassified as NSIP — bypassing local planning entirely for ministerial decision
• Reservoir levels across Somerset are officially “exceptionally low” — demand for water and energy remains unassessed

We demand confirmation that no irreversible step will be taken, no NSIP route pursued, and no approval granted until full independent assessments and genuine public consultation are complete.

⚖️ SECTION 4: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST & RESTITUTION

4.1 Disclosure of Connections:
We demand full disclosure of all familial and business connections between the Town Deal Board, Somerset Council officers, and the directors of companies receiving funds (specifically Beckery Construction, Red Brick subsidiaries and Beckery Island Regeneration Trust).

4.2 Restitution Strategy:
We demand a formal ‘Restitution Strategy’ from Somerset Council for the 26 local tradespeople left unpaid following the liquidation of Beckery Construction Ltd, who are owed £686,000 with only £4,800 in assets recovered.

🛡️ SECTION 5: ACCOUNTABILITY & WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION

5.1 Whistleblower Safeguards:
We demand a formal ‘Whistleblower Amnesty’ and the waiving of all Non‑Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) for staff and contractors — imposed or enforced by Somerset Council — to ensure they can speak freely for the purpose of this audit.

5.2 The 'Proper Officer' Responsibility:
We request the ‘Professional Advice’ records provided by the Town Clerk / Proper Officer to Somerset Council Executive regarding the approval of payments to Beckery Construction, to ensure their statutory duty to warn of financial risks was fulfilled.

5.3 Witness Evidence:
The residents' group has received credible testimony regarding the deliberate de‑prioritization of community land and housing projects in favour of commercial or council‑preferred schemes by Somerset Council. The identity of witnesses will remain confidential until an independent disclosure platform is established.

📜 SECTION 6: FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE NOLAN PRINCIPLES & EQUAL STANDARDS

6.1 Duty of Care:
We remind the Somerset Council Executive that they hold a fiduciary duty of care — personal legal responsibility for every decision, every payment, every assurance given to government or public.

We request confirmation of whether ‘Director’s and Officer’s’ (D&O) insurance has been reviewed following the SR3 Recommendation, and whether personal liability has been assessed given the proven governance failures within their authority.

6.2 The Nolan Principles:
We demand Somerset Council demonstrate adherence to the Seven Principles of Public Life:
• Selflessness — Private interest must not influence public decisions
• Integrity — No outside influence or obligation
• Objectivity — Decisions based on merit and evidence
• Accountability — Answerable to public for decisions
• Openness — Transparency unless lawful exemption applies
• Honesty — Truthful statements and conduct
• Leadership — Uphold standards by example

We request formal explanation of how these were applied in relation to Projects 5, 6, 8, 11, Baily’s Buildings, asset sales and the proposed Bridgwater Data Centre.

6.3 One Law, One Standard:
We demand an end to double standards. The same planning rules, enforcement procedures, consultation requirements and disclosure duties that apply to every resident must apply equally to council‑funded projects, connected parties and large‑scale commercial developments. No exemptions, no delays, no special treatment.

📎 ADDENDA

ADDENDUM A: THE "GHOST BUILD" & GRANT FRAUD NOTICE
We formally put SOMERSET COUNCIL on notice regarding the £2.29M expenditure on Project 5 (The Life Factory) and the £1.46M failure of Project 8.
• Violation: Drawing down central government funds (DLUHC) for projects identified as “undeliverable” or “unviable” in internal reports, while failing to deliver promised infrastructure, raises serious questions of misrepresentation and breach of grant conditions — by Somerset Council.
• Demand: We demand an immediate stay on all further Town Deal payments to external “Consultancy Firms” until the National Audit Office (NAO) has verified the “Value for Money” of all funds spent to date.

ADDENDUM B: THE "HUMAN RIGHTS SHIELD" (ARTICLE 8 & EQUALITY ACT)
Somerset Council’s history of using PSPOs (Public Space Protection Orders) and evictions without offering a viable alternative is a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR (The right to a home and private life) and the Equality Act 2010 duty of care.
• Legal Warning: Any attempt to use an Injunction or Police force to obstruct the community use of Bride’s Mound will be met with an immediate High Court Challenge for Judicial Review — against Somerset Council.

ADDENDUM C: THE "PERSONAL LIABILITY" CLAUSE (LIFTING THE VEIL)
We are moving away from “Corporate Complaints” to Personal Accountability of Somerset Council decision‑makers.
• This Ultimatum is served to the individuals within Somerset Council who held ultimate authority, sat on boards, and authorised payments.
• Under the Nolan Principles of “Openness” and “Honesty”, you are personally responsible for the “Positive Project Assurances” sent to Government.
• If evidence confirms decisions were taken knowing risks were concealed, funds were misdirected, or people would suffer as a result, we reserve the right to pursue all legal remedies including complaints for Misfeasance in Public Office.

ADDENDUM D: GOVERNMENT BEST VALUE NOTICE — 15 JUL 2026
Update added: 29 July 2026
On 15 July 2026, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) issued a formal Best Value Notice to Somerset Council under the Local Government Act 1999. This confirms independent, external recognition that the Council’s financial and governance position is sufficiently serious to warrant formal government oversight — directly supporting the systemic case set out in this document.

What the Notice confirms:
• Ministers “remain concerned as to Somerset’s capacity to meet its Best Value duty”
• The authority “remains in a fragile financial position” requiring urgent governance and transformation action
• Despite Exceptional Financial Support, “transformation has not been sufficient… significant further intervention is required”

What the Notice does NOT confirm:
• It does not validate specific projects or concerns raised here — those remain independently evidenced by this campaign
• Reference to “constructive engagement” describes procedural cooperation only, not an endorsement of compliance or conduct

Why this matters:
This intervention reinforces the urgency of our demands. It applies equally to emerging concerns across Somerset — including Baily’s Buildings and the proposed Bridgwater Data Centre — which follow the same pattern of premature decision‑making, unassessed risk and sidelined local voice. An authority now subject to mandatory government scrutiny has no justification for delaying answers or withholding evidence.

We intend to write to DLUHC requesting that all matters raised in this Ultimatum be formally included in ongoing monitoring.

Source: DLUHC Best Value Notice, 15 July 2026; NRCA Formal Notice, 22 July 2026.

🎯 THE DEMANDS & OUTCOMES

TO: SOMERSET COUNCIL — ULTIMATUM:

1. Full Disclosure: Complete unredacted release of all financial decisions, audit trails, board papers, contracts and conflict‑of‑interest records for all Town Deal and related projects.

2. Restitution Strategy: Clear recovery plan and compensation framework for the 26 affected local contractors and creditors.

3. Independent Review: External, independent inquiry into financial oversight, governance and conflict‑of‑interest management.

4. Equal Standards: Confirmation that all planning, enforcement and disclosure rules will be applied consistently and equally to all parties.

5. Stewardship: Formal recognition of Avalon Community Land Trust as the management body for Bride’s Mound and future community assets.

6. Standstill: No irreversible decisions, approvals or expenditure until all matters are lawfully resolved — consistent with the NRCA Notice served 22 July 2026.

📩 RESPONSE REQUEST

We request a formal written response to these forensic inquiries within 14 days of receipt of this Ultimatum.

Failure to respond will be treated as a “Willful Default” on your Statutory Duties and will result in immediate escalation to the National Audit Office (NAO), Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities, the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman, and the National Residents for Civic Accountability network.
Document reference: GTU‑2026‑07‑29
Version: 2.1 — Issued 29 July 2026
Prepared by: Glastonbury Transparency Project
In alliance with: National Residents for Civic Accountability
Circulation: Somerset Council, NAO, DLUHC, LGSCO, External Auditor
Classification: Public / For formal response
Confidentiality note: Contains protected personal & witness evidence in annexes not published online