10/06/2026
Councillor Liz Leyshon — this is your final warning. Liz Leyshon Somerset Councillor for Street and everyone in Somerset and the UK 🇬🇧 please sign ✍️ https://c.org/GPzky8hXhZ Help stop the deception, the breaches of trust, the misleading of the public, and the outright greed happening in Somerset — and use The Ultimatum as a proven blueprint to hold your own councils accountable in every county!
Liz Leyshon
You are the elected Somerset Councillor for Street and this area. You hold public office. You are supposed to protect the community and its heritage, not ignore it. For months you have been contacted. For months you have had the chance to respond. Instead, you have stayed silent while this project moves closer to damaging a nationally protected, sacred site.
Do not say “I didn’t know.” On 23 March 2026, we formally served you, Somerset Council, and the National Audit Office with a Notice of Statutory Breach and Material Misrepresentation. You were told. You were put on notice. You cannot now pretend otherwise.
Last year you publicly said:
“Following feedback on the path surface, all parties are working together to remove the path on the top of the mound and restore a more sympathetic surface, one that is in greater harmony with the landscape… supporting inclusive access while preserving its natural beauty and sacred landscape.”
That was the promise.
⚠️ CLEAR DISTINCTION & BROKEN PROMISE:
The project was presented as two separate, sensitive elements — but both were misrepresented, with clear involvement from the official partners:
1. The access path
Originally sold to the community by Friends of Bride’s Mound (FOBM) as a gentle, low‑impact disability pathway — for pedestrians and mobility aids only, described as built “without digging” and no hard engineering. FOBM are official partners in the Glastonbury Town Deal project, applied for and delivered the grant funding, and acted as the local custodian — meaning they were fully aware of all design changes from the outset.
After public support was secured, and just one month before construction began (May 2025), it was formally redefined and approved as a multi‑use cycle and utility road — robust enough for bicycles and maintenance vehicles. This change was made without clear public notice. It was explicitly intended to run around the perimeter and avoid the sensitive chapel and burial zone entirely.
Internal project records show “fresh impetus” to meet strict funding deadlines, with the Conservation Officer recorded as deferring full archaeological oversight to keep the project moving — creating a rushed approval process that bypassed proper checks.
Community outrage over earlier breaches forced the removal of unsuitable hard capping at the top of the mound — yet now the same approach is being repeated.
Further, the project has been marred by serious financial concerns: the original contractor Beckery Construction collapsed owing £686,000, with records also showing £420,000 in unexplained “shadow payments” — raising critical questions about financial management and value for public money, which are being escalated to the National Audit Office.
2. The chapel footprint markers
Approved only for shallow scrapes (max 100mm / 4 inches) to outline the walls — strictly limited to protect what lies beneath.
What is now being proposed is completely different: not a sympathetic restoration, but a HEAVILY engineered intervention — excavation to 175mm (nearly 7 inches) deep, with DTp Type 1 road stone, lean concrete, and an impermeable plastic membrane laid directly beneath the surface.
The geotextile membrane is definitive proof this is not low‑impact work. You cannot claim “no digging” while installing a synthetic barrier requiring ground preparation, nor claim plants will “soften the look” while laying a barrier that prevents natural vegetation growth.
This is a Scheduled Monument (SM 1006147) — the highest level of heritage protection in England. Official records confirm this is the site of an early medieval chapel and cemetery containing at least 63 individuals. After excavation, all remains were carefully recorded and reburied in situ — they were not taken to a museum. They lie just 100–300mm (4–12 inches) below the surface — extremely shallow.
Even regular footfall from visitors causes slow, permanent damage: soil compaction crushes fragile bones, alters drainage, and speeds decay. Mass tourism will only accelerate this. That is why the original consent strictly limited works to max 100mm (4 inches) — to preserve the protective soil blanket. Laying concrete, road stone, and an impermeable membrane makes this far worse: it traps water, prevents natural drainage, and transfers the full weight of every visitor directly onto the graves beneath. This is not “making history accessible” — it is putting the final resting place of our ancestors at risk of being crushed, washed away, or lost forever.
Under Scheduled Monument Consent (Ref S00244685 — 21 Sept 2023), Historic England agreed only because the works were presented as having “only minor impact, limited to shallow disturbance”. Condition (v) is legally binding: all works must strictly follow the Written Scheme of Investigation (May 2025), which explicitly restricts excavation to no more than 100mm to avoid disturbing the remains. We have seen no formal amended consent from Historic England approving these deeper, more damaging methods.
On 17 February 2026 Somerset Council confirmed in response to FOI Ref: 21348941, stating in its own words:
“Information not held — we do not have any legal advice that confirms a ‘Utility Route’ overrules the Core Policy 7 protections of a Protected Landscape.”
The Council also claimed “The land at Brides Mound is not identified as a protected landscape on its Policies Map” — yet this is directly contradicted by FOI Ref: 19940713, which confirms the site was classed as an Area of High Archaeological Potential and kept outside development boundaries from 2012 onwards.
Planning permission (Ref: 2023/1440/FUL) explicitly authorises only: “marking out stone footprint of former Chapel, excavation of 3no shallow scrapes & associated ‘wilding’” — deep engineering was never approved. These admissions, combined with the visible geotextile membrane and engineered sub‑base on site, demonstrate a clear contradiction between what was promised and what is being delivered.
It is sometimes argued that these works are only over the line of the chapel walls and not over graves. But archaeological records confirm: the chapel walls, their foundations, and the earliest burials are located in exactly the same narrow zone — they cannot be separated. Digging deeper than permitted and placing a hard, waterproof barrier directly over that zone still alters the site permanently, affects natural drainage, and creates a permanent covering over the ancient remains — even if no bones are dug up.
In any normal cemetery, you cannot dig and lay concrete or waterproof sheeting over graves without specific legal permission — here the protection is even stronger because it is a nationally designated monument.
When works affect a protected monument, the council and heritage bodies must be able to show:
• The exact consent they are relying on
• The exact depth and method that were approved
• Why digging 175mm deep and using these materials were considered acceptable directly over the chapel and burials
We ask clearly:
“Please confirm whether Historic England formally approved the full current specification — including excavation to 175mm depth, Type 1 road stone, lean concrete, and impermeable membrane — specifically for the sensitive chapel footprint area where human remains are known to lie. If not, please explain why these works are being allowed to proceed.”
We demand an immediate Stop Notice, full disclosure of any amended consents, and an independent review of the works against the original approved scheme — including full scrutiny of project finances and grant spending.
Let that sink in: this is a sacred site, not a construction yard.
Bride’s Mound is not replaceable. If this plan goes ahead, the damage will be permanent. Worse still, the community is unlikely to accept a permanent engineered covering. In time, there may be pressure to remove it — but doing so later would require digging up the site all over again, causing further damage and destroying whatever fragile remains may have survived the first works. This double impact could erase almost all trace of the past, and there will likely be strong public outrage once the full story is understood.
I intend to make sure every visitor who comes here in future understands the truth: that what was once a sacred, ancient place was compromised by works that went far beyond what was agreed, rushed through to meet deadlines, and marred by financial mismanagement — all while those responsible claimed to be protecting it.
The public was told one thing. The current specifications show another. If this change has been formally approved, produce the written amended consent immediately. If it has not, stop this work now.
Do not insult the community by pretending this is normal. Do not hide behind process. Do not wait until the site is damaged beyond repair and then claim there was nothing you could do. There is still time to act — but only if you choose to.
We have already raised this through formal channels and received no satisfactory response — including providing this evidence to the Council as early as February 2026. This matter is now being escalated further: to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman, the National Audit Office, Historic England, the Planning Inspectorate, and, if necessary, Judicial Review.
You have now been warned publicly, clearly and directly. If you continue to ignore this, the responsibility rests entirely with you.
This is our last chance to stop irreversible harm to a sacred and protected site. Do the right thing now: Stop the works. Reveal the documents. Explain the change. Disclose the full financial records.
📄 Evidence & official records:
📄 Written Scheme of Investigation (May 2025): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OuzyqwzWVYbA4tMzgWM1oDyFvYV8kA5J/view
📄 Scheduled Monument Consent S00244685: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JsTQL9z0ueVu00aXKldAnFVPiHU6GKad/view
📄 Contractor specifications: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eygMdZqHW8rQ1yXyAYy9MykZAZPf2Q2T/view
📄 Historic England Record SM 1006147: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1006147
📄 FOI Ref: 21348941 (17 Feb 2026): No legal advice for “Utility Route”
📄 FOI Ref: 19940713: Area of High Archaeological Potential status
📄 Internal project records: Funding deadlines & Conservation Officer oversight
📄 Financial records: Beckery Construction collapse (£686k owed) & shadow payments (£420k)
Planning Ref: 2023/1440/FUL | Notice served 23 March 2026
Somerset Council
Historic England
Glastonbury Town Council
BBC Somerset
Normal For Glastonbury
People of Glastonbury Heritage
Please sign the ultimatum here: ✍️ Sign here: https://c.org/GPzky8hXhZ
This covers all the multitude of issues within Somerset Council not just this one.
This petition and ultimatum will be formally delivered directly to Somerset Council Headquarters once sufficient signatures are gathered,
to ensure it is received by the decision‑makers with full legal standing.
📜 THE GLASTONBURY ULTIMATUM ⚖️ TRANSPARENCY OR ACCOUNTABILITY — ADDRESSED TO SOMERSET COUNCIL
