Exclusive - further letter to Ian Fytche

Withgill Farm trip

A local resident has kindly provided me with a copy of a further letter to Ian Fytche (Chief Executive of North Kesteven District Council) seeking to clarify issues surrounding a trip to Withgill Farm in Clitheroe.

The original correspondence between the writer and NKDC can be viewed in this blog - 20th October and 8th November.

"Ian Fytche, Esq., BA
Chief Executive
North Kesteven District Council
District Council Offices
Kesteven Street
Sleaford
Lincolnshire NG34 7EF


9 November 2010


Dear Mr Fytche,

Visit of Members to Withgill Farm

Thank you for your letter of 3 November 2010. I am, however, extremely disappointed that despite having had to wait some three weeks for a response to my original letter of 15 October, your reply has failed to address adequately my three key concerns.

Involvement of Mr Graeme Surtees

You state that the purpose of the visit to Withgill Farm was to enable Members to familiarise themselves with the workings of an “intensive” dairy unit. Presumably, and as part of their “education” in this regard, Members would wish to be informed not only about those aspects of such a dairy which work well but also to learn about the potential problems which may occur with such operations. I am sure you would agree that this would need to be a key feature of any balanced, unbiased and accurate presentation. I assume this is why it is claimed that such a presentation was given by “an independent consultant” i.e. someone who has no vested interest in the matter. As previously explained, however, by no stretch of the imagination, can Mr Surtees be considered to be “independent”. I am well aware that he is not an employee of Nocton Dairies. However, he has been/is employed by them as a Consultant and, frankly, it is rather disingenuous to suggest that there is a distinction between his involvement either as an “employee” or “paid Consultant”. It is a matter of very serious concern that, by your own admission, it appears your Council only became aware of Mr Surtees’ links with Nocton Dairies after the visit by Members.

I would draw your attention to the attached list of comments and websites which clearly demonstrates Mr Surtees’ close connection with Nocton Dairies from the early days of the original submission through to the time of the Members’ visit. I would also point out that Mr Surtees accompanied Mr Peter Willes (a Director of Nocton Diaries) and Mr Robert Howard (a local farmer who is also part of the development consortium) to their “public consultation” meetings held on Dunston Fen on 6 and 7 August 2010. I attended the first of these meetings and it was quite clear from Mr Surtees’ comments, etc that he was there to support Messrs Howard and Willes in promoting the positive and beneficial aspects of the proposed dairy. I understand from other people who attended on the following day that he behaved similarly on that occasion. Mr Surtees was also introduced as Mr Willes’ “Farm Manager” in a recent broadcast of the Channel 4 series “Food in your Basket”. Whilst this may have been a journalistic error, there can be no doubt on the part of anyone viewing the programme as to Mr Surtees’ clear and substantial links with Nocton Dairies.

Given that all of this information relating to Mr Surtees’ formal involvement with Nocton Dairies was in the public domain, I am astonished that your officers appeared not to have noticed and allowed Members to be addressed directly by him.

Please be aware that I am not casting any doubt whatsoever as to Mr Surtees’ competence or professional abilities as an agricultural consultant. I merely wish to draw attention to the fact that in the circumstances described above – and as exists in the relationship, for example, between a barrister and their client – Mr Surtees cannot be described as “independent” and, therefore, should not have been allowed to address Members.

Prejudicial Interests, etc

You will be aware that in my original letter I expressed frustration at the fact that Members of your Council were refusing to engage with their constituents in their belief that to do so could be seen as prejudicing their ability to participate in the final decision making process. I asked you to confirm whether or not this was a correct interpretation by them of the planning position.

Whilst you have provided me with a copy of the Planning Code of Conduct, you have not answered how the representational role of Members which enables them to engage with their constituents on matters of major concern can appear to be subverted on planning issues. I confirmed to you that if Members were prepared to meet with residents to hear their concerns and of the research they have undertaken into “intensive dairy farming”, they would not be expected to express any view – either in favour or against – about the dairy proposal. In these circumstances, the Code would not seem to prevent Members from meeting with residents in the way sought.

I do, of course, appreciate that, even so, Members are not obliged to meet with their constituents. However, residents would like their (the Members’) decision to be based on a correct understanding of their position under the Planning Code.

Finally, I note your comment that a representative of the residents may address the Planning Committee. I understand, however, that such an opportunity is strictly time-limited to only a few minutes. In no way, therefore, does such an opportunity equate to the apparent advantage which has been given to the applicants by allowing their paid Consultant to give a lengthy and detailed presentation to Members.

LKL Newsletter

My final question to you in my letter of 15 October referred to a (then) recent article in this Newsletter which stated that your Council “want this project to happen …….. and there is confidence that they [the applicants] will get the go-ahead.”

I did ask for your confirmation that this statement has no basis in fact whatsoever and that NKDC will be issuing a public rebuttal to that effect. I am most concerned that you have failed to respond to this point and earnestly hope that this is an oversight on your part and not evidence that the statement is in any way correct.

For ease of reference and the avoidance of any doubt, therefore, may I please have your response to the following questions:

(1) How can you and – more importantly, the public – be reassured that given Mr Surtees’ clear and substantial links with the applicants, the information he gave to Members was unbiased, independent and accurate and not geared towards the needs of the applicants?

(2) You state that the presence of senior Council Officers at the visit “ensured that there was no improper contact between Mr Surtees and Members”. Can you please explain why, since you had no reason to suspect that Mr Surtees had previously spoken on behalf of Nocton Dairies, you anticipated that this [improper contact] was a possibility?

(3) Please explain (i) who arranged for Mr Surtees to give the presentation to Members and (ii) who paid his fee for so doing?

(4) Please let me know whether your officers’ report to the Planning Committee on any revised planning application for the Dairy will confirm that Members, as part of their “educational” visit to Withgill Farm, were addressed at length by Mr Surtees, who is/was a paid consultant to Nocton Dairies and who has/had substantial and close links to the applicants?

(5) Please let me know whether or not you think that Members have misunderstood the advice contained in the Planning Code of Conduct and, if so, will you ensure that they are advised promptly of the correct position so that those people they were elected to represent may engage with them on this important issue?

(6) Please confirm that the statement appearing in the LKL Newsletter has no basis in fact whatsoever and that NKDC will be issuing a public rebuttal to that effect.

I look forward to your early response.

Yours sincerely,

encl.
c.c. Stephen Phillips, QC, MP"

Residents left confused by super-dairy planning number mix up

'CONFUSION has arisen over the planning reference number allocated to Nocton Dairies Ltd's proposal for a super-dairy in Lincolnshire.'

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/news/Confusion-dairy-plan-number/article-2919588-detail/article.html

Plans for 'super dairy' toned down but concerns remain about pollution and cruelty

'Plans for Britain’s biggest dairy farm have been toned down amid concerns about pollution and animal welfare.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8140324/Plans-for-super-dairy-toned-down-but-concerns-remain-about-pollution-and-cruelty.html

Nocton 'super-dairy' plans are just the start, say farmers

'Controversial dairy farm in Lincolnshire will now have fewer than 4,000 cows but farmers behind proposal say they plan to scale up soon, while another mega-dairy unit is proposed in Cambridgeshire'

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/685621/nocton_superdairy_plans_are_just_the_start_say_farmers.html

Cambridgeshire could get a super-dairy too

'Despite opposition from pressure groups, interest in super-dairies shows no signs of abating with news this week that a new large-scale operation is planned.'

http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/articles.aspx?page=articles&ID=213965