Minutes of the Parish Council Meeting Held in Barham Church Hall

MINUTES OF THE PARISH COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN BARHAM CHURCH HALL, ON MONDAY
27th JULY 2026, 7.00pm

Present: Chairman Casey Wooltorton, Cllr Brenda Mitchell, Cllr Marilyn Lesley, Cllr Julie Gregory & Cllrs Bonnie Head and Graham Head
Also present: BMSDC Cllrs David Penny and John Whitehead, Mark Emms Director of Operations BMSDC, Kate Sell Licensing Manager BMSDC, the Clerk and 3 members of the public.

Open Forum

The Chairman welcomed all to the meeting, he explained that the Emergency Planning officer was unable to attend this evening but will come to the next PC meeting.

UK Ljtima Event at Shrubland Hall. Mark Emms – Director of Operations & Kate Sell Licensing Manager BMSDC informed that they have come along to the PC meeting to listen to concerns. A number of issues had been raised but only a small number of complaints received.

Member of the public present asked what is the process for raising legitimate concerns regarding the UK Ljtima which was posted to take place 10, 11 & 12 July 2026 and has since taken place at Shrubland Hall? Many issues arose and the event obviously didn’t go smoothly, so how to resolve the situation?

The Chairman advised that the Parish Council happened to find out that the event was planned, by a post on social media, but had not been formerly told. Therefore the PC had no answers for the residents as had not been involved in the planning. When a meeting was planned with BMSDC for the PC, only 48 hours notice was given! No residents were advised of the meeting. No one in the village was happy about the event and were not in favour of it. The PC should have been involved in planning and must be in the future if such an event ever takes place again.

Mark advised that the district council would have liked more time prior to the event to discuss with the organisers. Stakeholders held a meeting with the organisers, which included police, fire and highways. A road traffic plan and event plan were formed. Reports of attendees defecating in the front gardens of properties have been reported and this should not have been allowed to happen, he apologises for this and will contact the residents if addresses are given. Portable toilets had been erected at Shrubland Hall, he is also aware of excrement in the bushes around the site!

Kate Sell informed that the event was exempt from needing a license as it was a religious event. Therefore the district council could advise the organisers on event guidelines but could not stop the event taking place. The organisers did attend an advisory meeting with the district council ahead of the event.

Cllr B Head emphasised the disturbance which the traffic had caused arriving at the event to neighbouring properties, particularly the night of 8th / 9th July (lasting well into the early hours of the morning). Long queues of coaches, cars & taxis forming and idling in front of the houses at the entrance of Shrubland Hall.

A terrorist threat was taken against the event which police were made aware of and therefore decided to end the event earlier than anticipated. Counter Terrorism was put in place.

Cllr B Head informed that the sudden ending of the event meant lots of traffic all leaving the event at the same time, but this was managed very well by the police who were brought in to control the situation. However, some residents did feel very unsafe due to the terrorist threat.

Mark admitted that there should have been better communication with the public and that Highways should have looked more significantly at possible traffic issues in advance. Will be following up and reviewing guidelines for such events should they take place in the future. This will be reported to the Parish Council for circulation to residents.

The Chairman asked that the Clerk adds an appendix to the minutes, addendum to the public record, raised by parish councillors and also the Cross Boundary Impact & Evidence Submission received from Coddenham Parish Council.

BMSDC John Whitehead and David Penny left the meeting to attend another PC meeting. Cllr Penny's report has been circulated to all ahead of the meeting.

1.07 Apologies

Cllr Tim Carr & Cllr Paul Fenn, both on holiday. SCC Asa Downing and also Nicki Morgan Emergency Planning Officer BMSDC.
Consent/non consent to absence. Approved.

2.07 Councillors Declaration of Interests

Declaration of interests with regards to any item on the agenda – None.

3.07 To Approve the Minutes of the Parish Council Meeting Held on 18th May 2025

The minutes were approved correct, proposed Cllr Lesley, seconded Cllr Mitchell and signed by the Chairman.

4.07 Matters Arising from the Minutes of the Last Meeting to Include Workplan

Work Plan
- The safety barrier leading down the steps to Barham Lakes still to be repaired.
- 2 directional signs still to be installed. Chairman to chase this up with the PROW officer again.
- 30mph speed sign at Barham Green has been knocked down. Chairman to chase this up with the County Councillor.
- New “Welcome to Barham Village” signs have been erected by the County Council.
- Chairman will keep chasing Taylor Whimpey regarding tidying up and returfing the area at the bottom of Church Lane.
- Hedges have been cut back around the Barham village sign.
- Chairman to check out if the ditch at The Slade has been cut back.
- The Barham Village Sign has still not been repainted. It is the opinion of the PC that it does not even look like it needs to be refreshed, Therefore the Clerk was asked to instruct the painter not to go ahead.

5.07 Review of Parish Council Planning List Discuss New Planning Applications Received

DC/25/05610 Full Planning Application - Construction of 1 self build dwellinghouse Striggers Barn, Bells Cross Road, Barham, IP6 0QW. No objection from the Parish Council.
DC/26/03023 Application for Works to Trees subject to Tree Preservation Order ES61/W2 – Reduce 1 Beech (T1) by 30% and remove deadwood. 4 Middleton Road, Barham, IP6 0BA. No objection from the Parish Council.

6.07 To Co-opt a New Member onto Barham Parish Council

No applications received.

7.07 The Recent Event at Shrubland Hall – Cross Boundary Impact & Evidence Submission, Received from Coddenham Parish Council

Dealt with in the Open Forum

8.07 Finance

Monthly Payments – to agree the payments for May & June 2026.
- May, payments £3512.72, receipts £581.39, approved by all, signed off by Cllr Mitchell.
- June, payments £2624.62, receipts £0.00, approved by all, signed off by Cllr Mitchell.
Monthly reconciliation – June bank reconciliation.
- As at 30/06/26 the Current Account £40,609.75. Business Account £46,195.62. The accounts are holding reserves of £15,549.18 CIL money & £13,019.34 for grass cutting (Brett Aggregates). Signed off by Cllr Mitchell.
Bank Accounts Quarterly Summary April – June Q1
- The Clerk had circulated to all ahead of the meeting. No queries raised.
To consider a grant request received from KIER to carry out an Air Quality Assessment, IP6 0PB Re: Sandy Lane Quarry.
- Katie Allen, Senior Design Manager Kier Construction has contacted the PC asking for consideration to grant funding towards an air quality test in advance of the outcome of the recent planning application for the quarry works. Due to the level of concern that the dust, noise and vibration from quarry activity has been causing the local residents, it is felt that this assessment would provide clearly defined analysis of the true impact.
- She has given one quote for the PC to consider, £4,250.00, however 2 further quotes are needed before the PC can decide.
The Chairman informed that the district council do not require an air quality survey to be carried out as a requirement for the Quarry planning application to be determined. PC to discuss further at the next meeting once all 3 quotes have been received.
New Mileage Rates, 55p a mile allowance- SLCC
- The Clerk reported that HMRC mileage rates have increased up from 45p per mile to 55p per mile.

9.07 Annual Inspection of Kirby Rise Play Area Carried Out by Sovereign

Chairman reported he attended the play area when the new safety matting was recently installed by Sovereign. He questioned them regarding the issues ROSPA had raised on their previous inspection regarding safety issues with the slide, due to the steps being too close to the slide. Sovereign advised that when the equipment had been installed 6 years ago, it would have been signed off and issued with a safety report granting it certified and safe. When ROSPA carry out their next inspection the Chairman will point this out and ask if maybe legislation has changed since installation.

Sovereign have just completed their annual check of the play equipment and have highlighted no issues with all the equipment, Low Risk.

10.07 Reports – Councillors to Report on Any Meetings That They Have Attended Since the Last Meeting

The Chairman has attended a recent meeting with Bretts regarding the plans for the expansion of the quarry.

Residents have asked for the trees and overgrowth to be cut back on the blind corner along Sandy Lane by the quarry, as visibility is poor. The Chairman asked NSK to take a look at the work needed. NSK have done so and have said that it is too dangerous for them to carry out cutting back the overgrowth on the blind corner. He will ask SCC Highways to come out and take a look at the area and for them to deal with the removal of overgrowth. Add to work plan for next meeting.

11.07 Date of Next Meeting

21st September, followed by, 16th November 2026

The meeting ended at 8.25pm.

Appendix 1

Re Event at Shrubland Hall

Dear Arther Chavonia (BMSDC)

I am writing to express my deep disappointment and frustration regarding the recent large-scale event that was permitted to take place in our village.

Residents were assured that traffic disruption would be minimal and that noise would not be a significant issue. Unfortunately, the reality was very different.

The traffic throughout the day was extremely disruptive. Many attendees appeared to ignore the designated road signs and traffic management measures, instead travelling through the village itself. This caused congestion, delays, and considerable disruption for those of us who live here. It raises serious questions about how the traffic management plan was monitored and enforced.

In addition, residents were assured that noise would not be a problem. However, the amplified prayers could be heard across much of the village, affecting many people who were simply trying to enjoy a peaceful day in their own homes. Regardless of the nature of the event, residents have the right to expect that conditions attached to any permission granted are properly considered and enforced.

I fully support people’s right to gather and practise their faith. However, that right should not come at the expense of the local community, particularly when the impacts appear to have been underestimated or the agreed measures were not adequately enforced.

It is extremely disappointing that the concerns raised by residents before the event appear to have been dismissed, only for many of those concerns to prove justified. Once again, it feels as though the interests of local residents have not been given sufficient weight in the decision-making process.

I would appreciate a response addressing the following points:

Why were residents assured that traffic and noise would not be significant when the actual impact was so substantial?
What monitoring took place during the event to ensure that traffic management plans and any conditions were being followed?
Were any breaches of the agreed event management plan recorded?
What lessons will be learned before any future event of this scale is considered?
Will the Council review whether this location is suitable for events involving approximately 10,000 attendees?

I hope the Council will take these concerns seriously and ensure that the experiences of local residents are properly considered in future decisions. Our village should not be expected to endure this level of disruption based on assurances that ultimately proved inaccurate.

I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,

Barham Councillor

Appendix 2

Re Barham Councillor at Shrubland Hall

As someone living not as close to the event as a few, but as close as many Barham residents, I could not find much to complain about.

There appears to be three main areas of complaint.

Traffic
There was obviously increased traffic due to the event but also due to the football being shown at the Sorrel Horse pub. The problem was compounded by poor signage. The problems with coaches getting in I agree should not have happened, but this was for a few hours in a very local area. Generally, the increased traffic did not cause congestion in the village.
Noise
Prayers were loudly broadcast from time to time but only for a short time, the noise from the football event was also loud, long into the night. I fail to see any problem with either.
We don’t want that type of people in our area complaint
Having walked the Shrubland footpaths as we regularly do, my wife often on her own. We spoke to several of those setting up and those attending or walking about the village and found them very polite and friendly. Where were these evil Muslims we should have encountered? No problem with them.

Many of the comments on social media were either racist or un-thought-out comments which should be discouraged. The Parish Council should distance themselves from them.

If the event had been a Scouts International Jamboree or Steam Rally few would have complained.

After the event my wife was contacted by one of the lead people asking if we knew of charities that would accept food and if we knew who could distribute it. I went and had about five and a half thousand (5500) eggs loaded into my van which I delivered to various food banks followed by another van load of other foods. In total about a ton of food.

The only problem I can see is not of their making, it was those that threatened violence resulting in the early event finish and the necessary safety measures introduced by police.

No, I’m not of or supporter of their religion but we need to accept that things will on occasions disrupt our usual life, if we can’t do that for just a few days in a year of 365 days it's rather poor.

We all at times attend events i.e. sporting, music, boot sales etc in areas that may affect others tolerance is needed.

Barham Councillor

Appendix 3

Re Event at Shrubland Hall - Cross-Boundary Impact and Evidence Submission

Part 1: Executive Summary

The emerging evidence suggests that the Safety Advisory Group (SAG) process for the recent event at Shrubland Hall operated merely as an advisory body, rather than as a robust regulatory challenger.

This Council were provided with substantial reassurances on 7 July 2026 regarding traffic, security, and safety. However, the reality that unfolded suggests those assurances were based on a generous interpretation of the facts, and it is increasingly apparent that this Council, like the wider community, was misled.

While I acknowledge the SAG holds no statutory power to 'stop' an event, national guidance is clear: a SAG’s core function is to provide professional scrutiny and challenge.

I have identified what appears to be three critical failures:

Capacity Discrepancy: The organiser assured the Council of 10,000 attendees, yet claimed the plan was 'tested' for 15,000. The Assistant Chief Constable’s reported evacuation of 15,000 confirms this planning was based on conjecture.
Infrastructure: Emergency physical alterations to site entrances were required after arrivals began, proving the traffic plans were not stress-tested.
Safety & Oversight: Public footpaths remained open through a 15,000-person site, and commercial CCTV was installed on public highways without mandatory signage—a clear failure of regulatory oversight.

I am handing a Full Evidence Dossier to the Clerk today, that I would like attached to the minutes of this meeting. This contains the complete technical evidence and details of the formal FOI and regulatory inquiries I have initiated with the County Council, District Council, Police, the ICO, and our MP. I ask that this Council join me in requesting an immediate, independent audit of the SAG’s approach to this event to ensure accountability.

Part 2: Full Evidence Dossier (For the Formal Record)

The Discrepancy of Assurances The meeting notes from 7 July 2026 recorded that the organiser advised the Council that the event was planned for 10,000 guests, with capacity for 5,000 more if necessary. The organiser asserted that the plans had been "tested" for 15,000 visitors. Despite these assurances, no methodology for this testing was provided to the Council. The subsequent evacuation of 15,000 individuals, as stated by the Assistant Chief Constable, validates the concern that these planning figures were based on unsubstantiated conjecture.
Failure of Regulatory Scrutiny National guidance from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) mandates that a SAG must act as a 'regulatory challenger.' The documentation from 7 July 2026 shows the Council accepted assurances regarding public rights of way and CCTV deployment at face value, despite the significant inherent risks of a 15,000-person festival occupying a site with active public footpaths and proximity to public highways.
Administrative Audit Trail
To ensure transparency, I have initiated formal inquiries into the governance of this event:
- Freedom of Information: Requests have been lodged with Suffolk County Council (Ref: 27632), Suffolk Constabulary (Ref: FOI-17264-26-3700-000), and Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council (Ref: FOI2498).
- Regulatory Reporting: I have reported the commercial security provider (Bauwatch) to the Information Commissioner’s Office (Ref: IC-537408-T3G7) regarding the deployment of CCTV on public land and have issued a Subject Access Request (SAR) for their Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA).
- Parliamentary Engagement: I have written to our MP, Patrick Spencer, to request an investigation into the cost of the emergency police operation and the mechanism for recouping these costs from the event organisers.

Coddenham Resident